WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

G-Shock Automatic: a great idea or a sellout of their core values?

  • Yes, I’d seriously consider buying a G automatic

    Votes: 23 24.7%
  • No, I’d never want such an absurd thing on my wrist.

    Votes: 48 51.6%
  • Why even ask?

    Votes: 22 23.7%
61 - 74 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Regarding Magnetic Resistance, here's what I know: Casio uses ISO 764 for their watches. At least it does for the MR-G (G-SHOCK Technology Mrgg2000ha (gshock.com) )

I don't see why it would use a different standard for other models listed as "magnetic resistant" (like MTG etc.).

According to ISO 764 the watch must resist to 4800A/m which is roughly 60 gauss. Not huge compared to some watches, but it actually turns out to be (more than) decent.

Below are the NIH guidelines I found for people working in magnetic environments (EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power (nih.gov) ).

As you can see, the maximum treshold is set at 10 Gauss (ACGIH)... And prudence dictates to use protective clothing above 6 Gauss.

So I'd say that a watch resistant to +60 Gauss is good enough for me :)

Font Screenshot Parallel Number Rectangle


The ISO 764 standard will work for the vast vast majority of use cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tetsu Tekubi

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
id say its pretty UNcommon ...

seriously tho, i just wanted to throw in that matrix line, im excited for the new movie 😃👍
But then what's "common" depends on the person, right?

Are ignition coils common? Like if a mechanic works on ignition coils, then small EMPs that can knock out his watch (or phone!) are pretty fecking common ...​
Is static electricity is common? Cause that can do it too.​
How about switching circuits, are they common? They generate high frequency signals that can knock out all manner of electronics.​
Are physics teachers / professors common? Cause they're always fecking around with those Van de graaff generators just to give that last kid - literally - a shock!​

So, yeah, if you're not someone who works (or plays) around electricity or industrial equipment then you'd probably say it's not common - if you are then the first thing you hear is "take off your watch"

Anyway, on the Matrix movie, I had kinda lost interest after the 2nd one, but I just watched the trailer for the new one and I gotta agree - it's looks pretty cool!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
According to ISO 764 the watch must resist to 4800A/m which is roughly 60 gauss. Not huge compared to some watches, but it actually turns out to be (more than) decent.

So I'd say that a watch resistant to +60 Gauss is good enough for me :)

The ISO 764 standard will work for the vast vast majority of use cases.
The point of the thread is, should there be an automatic g-shock .... well ...

So, what's good depends on who you are & what you do right? And, isn't the whole entire G-shock brand foundation special use-cases? 🤔

Not to get too nerdy (too late?) but there's really two specialty use-cases to worry about with EMI:

(1.) Your watch is compromised or killed by EMI

For electronics - like a g-shock - that's a death sentence, but for automatics it's either irrelevant, it compromises the long term accuracy until corrected, or ...

(2.) Your watch becomes magnetized, generates it's own field, and compromises other stuff
For example, a magnetized watch could deflect an aircraft's emergency compass. For example, if I'm a bush pilot in the pacific northwest, I probably want to be careful about that ...

Watches that are protected against magnetism typically use an iron backplate or protective cage, but these will then emit a field so for people like pilots the better choice is titanium.

Anyway, many automatics are protected to at least 1,000 gauss (e.g., any Sinn with the logo below, or, say, a Rolex Milgauss which has 1,000 gauss right in the name.)
Grey Wood Font Twig Electric blue

"This Sinn trademark identifies watches featuring magnetic field protection of up to 80,000 A/m. It portrays stylised magnetic field lines and a magnetic core."

Milgauss
Watch Analog watch Photograph White Light



The whole entire point of all of this is to say:

An automatic G-shock is 100% in keeping with G-Shock's brand foundation & philosophy: special use-case, tough watches ... and, arguable I guess, a missing part of the G-Shock product portfolio.

"G-Shock" isn't about a single movement or feature, it's about durability under stress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,846 Posts
But then what's "common" depends on the person, right?

Are ignition coils common? Like if a mechanic works on ignition coils, then small EMPs that can knock out his watch (or phone!) are pretty fecking common ...​
Is static electricity is common? Cause that can do it too.​
How about switching circuits, are they common? They generate high frequency signals that can knock out all manner of electronics.​
Are physics teachers / professors common? Cause they're always fecking around with those Van de graaff generators just to give that last kid - literally - a shock!​

So, yeah, if you're not someone who works (or plays) around electricity or industrial equipment then you'd probably say it's not common - if you are then the first thing you hear is "take off your watch"

Anyway, on the Matrix movie, I had kinda lost interest after the 2nd one, but I just watched the trailer for the new one and I gotta agree - it's looks pretty cool!
if youre talking about personal experience, then yes but common in this generalised sense re: what the average G wearer may encounter, then no, not common at all.
but lets not forget how we got on this tangent, it was your (re)defining of the word "shock" to include all types of shocks (yet excluded surprises 🤷‍♂️ 😅 ) simply cos it has "shock" in the name. as someone mentioned, you missed the definitive "G" prefix which in casio sense refers to drops/knocks, vibration and centrifugal force.

isn't the whole entire G-shock brand foundation special use-cases?
id say quite the opposite, its a broad use tough watch, some may have task specific features and marketing but in general theyre trying to cover as much ground as possible while keeping the tough watch ethos.
tho they did make a gaussman, so maybe there was a japanese version of you that was having nightmares about another hiroshima and what it might do to his G? 🤔
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
An automatic G-shock is 100% in keeping with G-Shock's brand foundation & philosophy: special use-case, tough watches ... and, arguable I guess, a missing part of the G-Shock product portfolio.
You make very valid points in your previous post, however the conclusion can't be that the G-SHOCK line needs an automatic watch.

You can totally make a quartz G-Shock resistant to 1000 Gauss (or much more).

Electronic movements are >>> to mechanical movements in all technical aspects: much lighter, much more robust, much more precise, endless "complications" available at a cheap price (chrono + timer + alarms + perpetual calendar + compass + altimeter + thermometer + MB6 + BT + GPS + whatever) and solar versions require almost no maintenance (except if you keep your watch for 10-15+ years, then a battery change is in order).

Honestly a mechanical G-Shock would be a nice/interesting exercise in style but nothing more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
id say quite the opposite, its a broad use tough watch,
Agreed! The current model's "broad use" architecture make them vulnerable to electrical shocks ... and automatic movement are less so.

So, I'm arguing Casio should expand their brand definition: and make G-shock be a brand about the toughest watches for MOST ALL use cases ... and they could do that by adding an automatic movement to their lineup. That's what this thead is about right? Should g-shock make an automatic movement watch? Me: yes, it's an obvious brand adjacency easily done with Miyota movements.

I completely get why some g-shock fans want to limit the g-shock brand (you?), but I'm a product guy and for me it's a no-brainer, especially right now in one of the hottest automatic watch / luxury watch markets in years ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I agree: from a marketing perspective it would make a lot of sense!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrussGott

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
You can totally make a quartz G-Shock resistant to 1000 Gauss (or much more).
Electronic movements are >>> to mechanical movements in all technical aspects:
Whether that's true or not is probably irrelevant to the profitability of Casio's product portfolio 😇

The automatic market is on fire right now, and Casio's G-shock (and Oceanus) brand are one the few (only?) that can pull off luxury badasss watches. With a little work, Casio could probably pump out some super cool super tough auto watches, and maybe more importantly, some hybrid models.

I'd for sure buy a MR-G Auto ... but first I gotta buy a MR-G that looks just like yours ;), though I"m gonna try to get the 1a bracelet ... but I'm thinking I'll wait until Jan/Feb as I think the market will calm down by then.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,516 Posts
Dude, think things through before going smartasss:

Electrical line workers,
Factory / heavy industrial equipment workers,
Engineers working around high voltage electrical stuff like, say, for electric cars - hey those are becoming popular these days!
Anybody who works around transformers ...

Just a few examples of people who work around electrical equip dumping out high flux and capable of pumping out low or high power EMPs - the lightning example was purely an example of a high power EMP.

And to answer your question, I've had G-shocks killed by EMPs 3 times: once by lightning, once by by a residential transformer that exploded, and once by aircraft powerplant test cell. I also had a Swatch get fried by a some hobbyist electrical stuff I was messing with. It's safer to have a plastic disposable watch like a g-shock than a hunk of metal, but the downside is, they can (and do) get fried.

As it turns out, electromagnetism is a pretty common phenomena! So basically you're a G-Shock guy who doesn't understand many of the use-cases of the watches you like.

Oh, I almost forgot: 🤣
Well, you better hope Casio never reads this thread if you really want this unicorn auto to become a reality considering you've had multiple Gs destroyed by 3 EMPs and you're still buying them. 😉
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,516 Posts
Whether that's true or not is probably irrelevant to the profitability of Casio's product portfolio 😇

The automatic market is on fire right now, and Casio's G-shock (and Oceanus) brand are one the few (only?) that can pull off luxury badasss watches. With a little work, Casio could probably pump out some super cool super tough auto watches, and maybe more importantly, some hybrid models.

I'd for sure buy a MR-G Auto ... but first I gotta buy a MR-G that looks just like yours ;), though I"m gonna try to get the 1a bracelet ... but I'm thinking I'll wait until Jan/Feb as I think the market will calm down by then.
Actually, I think I would prefer a HAQ. I know, I know GPS, BT, MB6 is just as capable and on and on, but I think it would be a more natural transition and something that Casio could market as a luxury movement (and yeah, I love HAQ haha)...but probably not :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: More than likely you'll just get a bunch of people saying, "But with GPS/BT/MB6 I never have to touch it again." HAQ is quite niche, but I can dream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,742 Posts
Actually, I think I would prefer a HAQ. I know, I know GPS, BT, MB6 is just as capable and on and on, but I think it would be a more natural transition and something that Casio could market as a luxury movement (and yeah, I love HAQ haha)...but probably not :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: More than likely you'll just get a bunch of people saying, "But with GPS/BT/MB6 I never have to touch it again." HAQ is quite niche, but I can dream.
Yeah, I totally agree, MrJ.
I'd love a Casio with a HAQ movement like used in Grand Seiko and Citizen Chronomaster range. To me, seems like a logical evolution? :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Jones82

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
Well, you better hope Casio never reads this thread if you really want this unicorn auto to become a reality considering you've had multiple Gs destroyed by 3 EMPs and you're still buying them. 😉
Well, the key there is, it's not JUST Casio watches I've ruined! I'd like to think I'm capably of ruining lots of things ...

What's interesting about the ZOMG! A G-Shock Auto?!? :eek:notion is, if we're gonna be all purist about it, then shouldn't an analog G-shock be enthusiast-bane?

Here's what
Casio has to say about the brand:

Casio began selling G-SHOCK shock-resistant watches in April 1983.
The development of G-SHOCK began in 1981 with an engineer’s passion to create a rugged watch that would not break even if dropped. Two years and over 200 prototypes later, the first G-SHOCK model, the DW-5000C, featuring an all-new shock-resistant construction, was released in 1983. It overturned the accepted notion of the time that wristwatches are inherently fragile and susceptible to shocks, and established a new product category: the “tough watch." Since then, G-SHOCK has continued to evolve with improved functions and performance.

So basically the history of the brand is "the tough watch" that continues to "evolve with improved functions"

Why should G-shock square enthusiast care if there's an analog G-Shock? Just don't buy it.

Why should a G-shock analog enthusiast care if there's an G-Shock automatic? Just don't buy it.

Why limit "the tough watch"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Going back to the idea of an automatic G-Shock, let's assume for a moment, that the energy estimation in a mechanical watch mainspring is correct in this article:


In that, it assumes approximately 0.033 joules in a mainspring wound with 5 turns. Let's round that up to 0.050 joules, and estimate that this is in a Rolex 2385 with a 70 hour power reserve. 70 hours * 60 min/hour * 60 sec/hr = 252,000 seconds. Assuming the 0.050 joules is expended in the entire 70 hour power reserve period, and that the power delivery from the mainspring is linear (two big assumptions in this analysis) this means that the watch draws 198.4 nJ/second. (If it was indeed 0.033 joules, then the number would be 131 nJ/s.)

A G-shock DW-5600E runs on a CR0216 (https://data.energizer.com/pdfs/cr2016.pdf), which by that PDF is spec'd 122 milliwatt hr/g @ 0.036g = 4.392 mW-hr. Let's say that the battery life anecdotally is 4 years (this is just a guess). 4 years * 365 days/yr * 24 hours/day = 35,040 hrs. 0.004392 W-hr / 35,040 hr = 125nW constant draw or 125 nJ/s. If the battery actually lasts 2 years, that would be 250nJ/s, while if the life was 4 years and battery's capacity was half that spec'd in the datasheet, then the draw would be 62.5nJ/s, which would put the digital watch in roughly the same order of magnitude as an automatic mechanical watch.

Of course this is all just very rough estimates, but it does show that in some ways the power stored in a mainspring could, in theory, be used to power a digital watch. I think this has been demonstrated.

This sort of calculation kind of reminds me of Landauer's Principle, a key part of reversible computing. Perhaps an equivalent minimum energy value could be calculated for the representation of time itself.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,516 Posts
Going back to the idea of an automatic G-Shock, let's assume for a moment, that the energy estimation in a mechanical watch mainspring is correct in this article:


In that, it assumes approximately 0.033 joules in a mainspring wound with 5 turns. Let's round that up to 0.050 joules, and estimate that this is in a Rolex 2385 with a 70 hour power reserve. 70 hours * 60 min/hour * 60 sec/hr = 252,000 seconds. Assuming the 0.050 joules is expended in the entire 70 hour power reserve period, and that the power delivery from the mainspring is linear (two big assumptions in this analysis) this means that the watch draws 198.4 nJ/second. (If it was indeed 0.033 joules, then the number would be 131 nJ/s.)

A G-shock DW-5600E runs on a CR0216 (https://data.energizer.com/pdfs/cr2016.pdf), which by that PDF is spec'd 122 milliwatt hr/g @ 0.036g = 4.392 mW-hr. Let's say that the battery life anecdotally is 4 years (this is just a guess). 4 years * 365 days/yr * 24 hours/day = 35,040 hrs. 0.004392 W-hr / 35,040 hr = 125nW constant draw or 125 nJ/s. If the battery actually lasts 2 years, that would be 250nJ/s, while if the life was 4 years and battery's capacity was half that spec'd in the datasheet, then the draw would be 62.5nJ/s, which would put the digital watch in roughly the same order of magnitude as an automatic mechanical watch.

Of course this is all just very rough estimates, but it does show that in some ways the power stored in a mainspring could, in theory, be used to power a digital watch. I think this has been demonstrated.

This sort of calculation kind of reminds me of Landauer's Principle, a key part of reversible computing. Perhaps an equivalent minimum energy value could be calculated for the representation of time itself.
I am a little bit out of my element here, but I believe that all you speak of would require a flux capacitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novio and FROG
61 - 74 of 74 Posts
Top