Seiko "Fifty Fathoms" SNZH Watch Discussions | Drop

Nov 2, 2017

solardiverThis is simply incorrect unless Seiko is lying about the watch's waterproofing. As a scuba diver using compressed air, you start to get nitrogen narcosis (drunk on the nitrogen gas in your breathing air) at around 30m (100ft), with very serious effects (e.g. starting to offer your mouthpiece to surrounding fish, with subsequent drowning...) at 42m (140ft). In addition, hypoxic breathing gas (mixed gas diving) is required below 60m (200ft) to lessen the risk of oxygen toxicity (oxygen poisoning, causing muscle spasms so strong that they can break your bones), so this watch absolutely can be used as a divers watch unless Seiko is wrong about it's depth rating (or you are using a professional diving suit and your watch is strapped to the outside of it... in which case you might want to look at their 1000m watches). There are videos on YouTube where Seiko tests its diving watches to well beyond their ratings, to such an extent that they stop working because the pressure on the case causes it to bend and stop the mechanism, so I very much doubt that they are lying about their depth ratings here...

Nov 2, 2017

solardiver

Nov 2, 2017

MarkSAI don't know why Seiko and other manufactures use these numbers. If your watch says it's water resistant up to 30 meters, that means you can dive with it down to 30 meters, right? Wrong. You can destroy your watch that way. Though the dial or back of the case may give you a number, that number probably doesn't refer to in-use scenarios, or is a reflection of a standardized water resistance classification. When in doubt, always err towards the dry side Water Resistant 100 Meter watches. This is snorkeling territory. A watch with 100 meters of water resistance has no problem hanging out in the water for a while, and will even be fine on an extended snorkeling excursion. Diving, however, should still be out of the question. As diver, I have had good 200 meter watches flood at 100 feet.

Nov 2, 2017

Nov 2, 2017

solardiverIf you had 200m watches fail at 100ft you were either wearing a fake Rolex, you didn't screw in the crown properly, or you hadn't serviced the watch for years.
You will see in this article that two Seiko 1000m divers watches failed at 3200m+ and 4200m+ (quite unbelievable performance!). https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/what-dive-watch-depth-ratings-really-mean-and-whether-you-can-trust-them
"The Internet being what it is, someone got curious about this issue and ran the actual numbers. As it turns out, movement does indeed increase actual pressure, but to a trivial degree. The relevant forum post on Watchuseek includes this remark: "Without repeating all the calculations here (they involve denominators and the Greek alphabet and are PITA to type out), at a depth of 330ft(100 m) and moving your arm at 3 ft/sec, the dynamic pressure is in the order of magnitude of 0.14 feet of head or 0.04% of the depth. Even assuming you could move your arm at 20 ft/sec (14 mph!) the dynamic pressure is only about 6.2 feet of additional depth (<2%)."

Nov 2, 2017

solardiver

Nov 3, 2017

MarkSA The figures I gave are standard acceptable ranges for water resistance (Google it). And no, I don't wear fake or cheap watches.

Nov 3, 2017

Nov 3, 2017

solardiver"I don't wear fake or cheap watches" So that leaves the other two options...
The figures you quote are just nonsense.

Nov 3, 2017

Nov 5, 2017

MarkSAIf you had a rope rated for 500 lbs you would think you should feel comfortable hanging 500 pounds from it. How ever if you have ever done any rigging you know to never hang more than 250 lbs from a 500 lb line.
I wonder if the same is true of depth ratings.
As to your googling of the math, it does not seem to take into account impacts (watch against rocks, dive equipment), or the effects of the watch being worn by a sad and bitter troll.

Nov 5, 2017

Nov 6, 2017

arp415We are talking about diving with a watch rated for 100m to 200m. That is 300ft to 600ft. If you are scuba diving below 150ft you are starting to get into pretty dangerous territory, so normal scuba diving with a 100m rated watch IS like hanging 250lbs from a 500lb line. If you knock a watch rated at 1000m against a rock or dive equipment at 5 ft deep, you run the distinct danger of shattering the crystal and flooding the watch, so that is no argument. As also pointed out, moving the watch against water at a speed of 14mph gives a dynamic pressure of 6.2ft. Water skiing at 45 mph and falling and hitting the water at that speed is: 1) likely to be seriously painful or result in bodily injury and 2) gives a dynamic pressure on the watch of roughly 20ft deep, which it should easily handle. Increasing that speed to 90mph (40ft dynamic presssure on your watch) is very likely to kill you but leave your 100m rated watch ticking away merrily as you sink to the bottom. When you reach 300ft deep it might stop working...
So, once again, the figures quoted are nonsense.

Nov 6, 2017

Nov 6, 2017

MarkSAAs long as a watch is accurate enough to let you know when the sun is coming up you should be fine.
Also congrats on your our success in the class action suit against Lowes and Home Depot over the ever deceptive “2x4”.
Please write your congressman/congresswoman to help bring about change in the watch water resistance ratings racket. Bringing it to their attention will be even more effective than complaining about it on massdrop.

Nov 6, 2017

Nov 7, 2017

arp415Who is complaining? I‘m just pointing out the obvious i.e. that Seiko, as a reputable watchmaking company that has been in business for decades, makes a quality product and that you can believe what it says about the depth ratings it gives its watches. Also pointing out that the original poster doesn’t have a clue when he states that you need a watch rated to 200m to do high impact water sports(!) or that you can only swim and do snorkeling with a Seiko watch rated at 100m. Quoting opinion like that just shows that he has not done his research and is just believing anything he reads on the Internet as being truthful. In reality, incorrect information like he posted is probably being put out there by watch retailers trying to sell you more watch than you need in order to boost their profits (and who should be avoided unless they can show you actual tests that support their viewpoint!).

Nov 7, 2017

solardiver

Nov 7, 2017

MarkSAYou would think that a watch that is marked as water-resistant to 100m would mean that you could safely swim to depths of 100m while wearing it. You can't.This is because the watch has only been tested once using static pressure on a newly manufactured model, without taking into consideration rapid changes in water pressure and temperature in seawater over a period of time along with the resulting aging of the seals. So be careful.

Nov 7, 2017

Nov 7, 2017

solardiverIf you don't service your watch regularly, you can absolutely not expect it to remain waterproof, so that takes care of your 'aging of the seals' point. With regards to rapid changes of water pressure (that presumably will exceed the 100m rating of a watch...), please explain how this can occur when scuba diving...

Nov 7, 2017

Nov 7, 2017

solardiverLol MarkSA lives in a perfect world where everything makes sense and is logical. That is why he chooses to come to the Massdrop discussion to air his grievances and belittle people who try to provide useful information lol.

Nov 7, 2017

Nov 7, 2017

MarkSAHave you ever considered that a 100m rating just doesn't mean what you want it to mean?

Nov 7, 2017

Nov 7, 2017

arp415Ok, this has gone on long enough. I ask you simple questions and you don’t respond to them but come back with insults. No further response will be given to your last word, which I am sure you will send.

Nov 7, 2017