WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

41 - 60 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,535 Posts
I wondered if that MDV-106 would pull you in. ;-)


Sent from my VS996 using Tapatalk
Yeah I wrote about it somewhere else in here, about it creating a "value vortex" where it sucks the WIS into a singularity where you realize what you have and what you paid should not converge or exist in this universe, and you wind up hating the watch because it brings you too much value for too low of a price. I remember absolutely loathing my Casio Duro because it was such a good deal. If I had paid $100 for it I would think "meh," but I paid like $40 for mine and one should NOT experience what it can bring for so little.

Are there better divers out there? Absolutely. But you're not going to pay anywhere near the same, and by several orders of magnitude. Is it perfect? No way José. But for what you get, the price tag is all sorts of wrong.

So yeah, it's the watch that a WIS should hate to love, and love to hate.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
This is really about common sense. If a manufacturer labels a watch as 30m WR then it was sampled tested to withstand 30m. As Triton09 pointed out the manufacturing specs are designed in this case, to30m of WR. Granted any number of things could arise in the manufacturing process (including packaging and shipping) that could lessen the WR for a given watch. Since they are not dive watches manufacturers will want to limit their liability and warranty service by stating a watch can be worn while washing hands or in the rain, but not for swimming. They won't recommend more because they won't warranty more. Obviously the watch can withstand being under a running faucet or a downpour (please note that manufacturers say 'rain', they don't specify drizzle, light rain, downpour or monsoon so there must be some leeway in there right?) they have designed the watch (granted it's a minimum of WR) to survive whatever the average person is going to submit it to.

So a 3ATM watch = 30 meters = ~ 100 feet, that's a lot of water. And there is a built-in safety margin, which means the watch (or some fraction of a production run) has actually been tested to some percent greater than 30 meters (maybe tested to an additional 10 meters or so). You have to remember that every watch is already guaranteed to 1 ATM, which essentially is dust and atmospheric moisture resistant. Even a snap case back is going to give you essentially 1 ATM of WR. But wait, can a 3 ATM watch actually go down to 3 ATM? Or can it only go 2 ATM deep, the other 1 ATM being the atmospheric pressure on the watch at sea level. So does a 10ATM watch give you WR to 10 ATM, or only 9 ATM? My point here is that watches are over built, in the sense that there is a margin of error. Many people take their watch off when washing hands, but what happens when the atmospheric humidity is near 100%? Do those 1 ATM watches suddenly start sucking up moisture like a sponge, or is there some margin, some built in design that allows for a watch to function normally even when the humid and hot? If not those folks in the steamy tropics could only wear ISO dive watches. I have a Bulova that has 5 ATM WR, in the manual it states it is suitable for swimming, I swim with it all the time, runs great.

Who knows what the OP has decided by now but I will further second the Casio MVD-106, inexpensive, meets ISO6425 standard for dive watch. It is a good looking watch, can be had easily for <$50. Barring that practically and Casio G Shock will work fine and insofar as what the OP is looking for - every day beater, take abuse, go swimming with it - it's going to be hard to beat a Casio G Shock and they can be found for <$50, multiple alarms, light, honestly for the money you really can't beat a G Shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
This is really about common sense. If a manufacturer labels a watch as 30m WR then it was sampled tested to withstand 30m. As Triton09 pointed out the manufacturing specs are designed in this case, to30m of WR. Granted any number of things could arise in the manufacturing process (including packaging and shipping) that could lessen the WR for a given watch. Since they are not dive watches manufacturers will want to limit their liability and warranty service by stating a watch can be worn while washing hands or in the rain, but not for swimming. They won't recommend more because they won't warranty more. Obviously the watch can withstand being under a running faucet or a downpour (please note that manufacturers say 'rain', they don't specify drizzle, light rain, downpour or monsoon so there must be some leeway in there right?) they have designed the watch (granted it's a minimum of WR) to survive whatever the average person is going to submit it to.
Engineers don't build things using 'common sense'; they build things using minimum design tolerances.

A 3 atm rating means that a sample of watches was tested at 3 atm for ten minutes. To me, that means:

1. If the watches were manufactured with decent QA, the overwhelming majority of watches within that batch should be able to survive 10 minutes at 3 atm, more than 10 minutes at less than 3 atm, and t-minus-x at over 3 atm (where t is the mean time to failure at 3 atm, and x is a variable based on the given pressure).
2. What we do not have is the mean time to failure at 3 atm, or how that mean time changes along a curve at different pressures. While some manufacturers will likely have this data, it is not required under ISO 2281.
3. It is probably safe to submerge the watch for a duration over 10 minutes at shallow depths, but we have no basis to determine how long that safe duration is, or how it scales based on different variables such as depth and temperature, or how performance will degrade over time.
4. In the absence of that information, it makes more sense to treat any instance of exceeding the manufacturer's recommended limits as a bonus, and not something that can be relied upon. The risk-reward curve obviously changes with the price of the watch in question.

There's a reason we don't tell truckers, "well, you're carrying 25 tons and that bridge is only rated for 20... but they're being conservative for liability purposes. I'm sure it'll be fine if you go right on ahead.".
 

·
Registered
testing testing something pizza
Joined
·
23,024 Posts
This is rated 3 bar/30m and its instruction book says it’s okay for swimming around (think “hanging out at the resort pool” swimming). I can go find the book when I get home.

Ok, had this image uploaded already for another thread about water resistance:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,714 Posts
Engineers don't build things using 'common sense'; they build things using minimum design tolerances.

A 3 atm rating means that a sample of watches was tested at 3 atm for ten minutes. To me, that means:

1. If the watches were manufactured with decent QA, the overwhelming majority of watches within that batch should be able to survive 10 minutes at 3 atm, more than 10 minutes at less than 3 atm, and t-minus-x at over 3 atm (where t is the mean time to failure at 3 atm, and x is a variable based on the given pressure).
2. What we do not have is the mean time to failure at 3 atm, or how that mean time changes along a curve at different pressures. While some manufacturers will likely have this data, it is not required under ISO 2281.
3. It is probably safe to submerge the watch for a duration over 10 minutes at shallow depths, but we have no basis to determine how long that safe duration is, or how it scales based on different variables such as depth and temperature, or how performance will degrade over time.
4. In the absence of that information, it makes more sense to treat any instance of exceeding the manufacturer's recommended limits as a bonus, and not something that can be relied upon. The risk-reward curve obviously changes with the price of the watch in question.

There's a reason we don't tell truckers, "well, you're carrying 25 tons and that bridge is only rated for 20... but they're being conservative for liability purposes. I'm sure it'll be fine if you go right on ahead.".
I'm just stating that if a watch has a rating of 3 ATM then it is good enough to get it wet, walk in the rain and yes, splash around in a pool. 5 ATM worry free swimming.
So then you don't recommend wearing a 3 ATM watch out in the rain? or in a very humid environment? And is a 3 ATM WR actually 3 ATM underwater or only 2 ATM?
And yeah I can see the comparison between a watch's water resistance and a truck carrying 25 tons over a 20 ton bridge, perfect analogy. Good to know that a bridge rated at a certain weight limit cannot be exceeded, man that is building to tolerances, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,226 Posts
I don't know why people are arguing that the bare minimum of water resistance is OK for them when it comes to items worth 100's if not 1000's of dollars. What's wrong with a solid margin of error when it comes to your watches.

I'm gonna pose a hypothetical scenario that illustrates why I choose 10+ bar for watches I'll swim with. Remember this is a hypothetical.

Let's say that as a watch gasket ages it starts to lose elasticity and begins to dry out. Let's also say that it because of this aging process it loses 50% of it's water resistance each year. At year 2 the 3 bar watch will be leaking like a sieve. 3 -> 1.5 -> none. Now what about the 20 bar diver. 20 -> 10 -> 5 -> 2.5 -> 1.25 -> none. Now based on this example, tell me again how your 3 bar watch is perfectly safe for swimming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
I don't know why people are arguing that the bare minimum of water resistance is OK for them when it comes to items worth 100's if not 1000's of dollars. What's wrong with a solid margin of error when it comes to your watches.

I'm gonna pose a hypothetical scenario that illustrates why I choose 10+ bar for watches I'll swim with. Remember this is a hypothetical.

Let's say that as a watch gasket ages it starts to lose elasticity and begins to dry out. Let's also say that it because of this aging process it loses 50% of it's water resistance each year. At year 2 the 3 bar watch will be leaking like a sieve. 3 -> 1.5 -> none. Now what about the 20 bar diver. 20 -> 10 -> 5 -> 2.5 -> 1.25 -> none. Now based on this example, tell me again how your 3 bar watch is perfectly safe for swimming.
Agreed. 3bar as measured after production. Chemicals, salt water, moving the watch while submerged, staying in the water longer all affect the performance of a watch. I am shocked that people would actually be okay to take a luxury piece like the Calatrava out swimming. Guess some people have to much money...

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Samsung Gear Sport
Joined
·
8,158 Posts
I been on these discussions many times and point always been same.
For short i was using 50m WR Casio for swimming as much as i remember and Seiko (50m WR). No problem, good watches. Served well.
For what it worth any manufacturer paperwork i came in touch states 30m is not for swimming.
You can try and according to ISO it should be good but bottom line you doing it at your own risk and if it leaks it leaks.
I saw 50m WR Timex giving to enormous pressure of 1m. Why? Who knows. May be age may be production defect.... but never Casio.
Difference between 20-30m, 50m and 100m WR affordable watches is so slim it just don't make any sense not to opt for 50m/100m watch from reputable manufacturer.
There are plenty of models apart from Casio 106 ( really wanted to put 101 here).
Considering prices on entry level G-Shocks with 200m WR and very platable profile you can get analog digital or full digital and abuse to your heart content with absolutely no worries.
GUEST_6dff8096-f434-4844-b646-07c3c75beaab.jpg
This thing here comes with 10yr battery life and also could be yours with date. 100m WR is more than sufficient for anything and it yours at any Walmart.
MRWS300H.jpg
This one my personal and its 100m WR solar. 50$ MSRP and again no issues with snorkeling, swimming and i will assume recreational diving either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #49 ·
Thank you all for your input, I appreciated it
I have decided to get The Time Arrow explorer. I chose this because it has a screw down crown, so it is water resistant
 

·
Registered
Samsung Gear Sport
Joined
·
8,158 Posts
Screw down crown is not necessary for WR or gives better WR. Divers watch ISO do not require screw down crown. It just example to prove you don't really need it for WR.
This contraption is to ensure there is no sudden opening of the crown if your divers watch will catch on gear.
It also kinda old tech from times when ensuring WR with more fine engineering solutions was impossible or unreliable.
Although watches with screw down crown potentially more reliable if done right (second gasket under crown).
It's not critique of choice just addition to discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Love the Casio's being shown. Nice.
I own 3 Casio's and all of them are rated 100-200m.

But,,,,Any 100m WR watch will suffice for swimming.
Lets just say the list of 100m rated watches is endless.
Where do we start ? So many brands to choose from.
My favorite is a Seiko Solar 100m WR for swimming.

I did own a Pulsar 50m quartz that fogged up after a swim ??
The screw down back needed a new gasket after 3 battery changes.
Problem solved. Swim with it often now,,, and no issues.
But, just a note that any quartz battery change requires careful gasket inspection to make sure the WR is maintained.

mich
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocket1991

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
Screw down crown is not necessary for WR or gives better WR. Divers watch ISO do not require screw down crown. It just example to prove you don't really need it for WR.
This contraption is to ensure there is no sudden opening of the crown if your divers watch will catch on gear.
It also kinda old tech from times when ensuring WR with more fine engineering solutions was
impossible or unreliable.


Although watches with screw down crown potentially more reliable if done right (second gasket under crown).
It's not critique of choice just addition to discussion.
That is a very good point, thankyou. I may be wrong, but I usually am more reassured by a watch that has a screw down crown, as that feature adds extra protection to one of a watches most vulnerable spots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
100m of water resistance I think is not just fine for swimming, also for snorkeling, free diving and such.

No further suggestions needed. The Casio MDV106 is the answer. I have one and despite owning watches 10x it’s price...I always want to grab the Casio. It’s really quite astonishing. I’m obsessed with it.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would replace my G-Shock if it was solar powered...
 

·
Registered
Samsung Gear Sport
Joined
·
8,158 Posts
That is a very good point, thankyou. I may be wrong, but I usually am more reassured by a watch that has a screw down crown, as that feature adds extra protection to one of a watches most vulnerable spots.
Screw down has same set of gaskets as regular crown and in case it old design/extra protection additional one at crown itself.
Cheap watches have no additional gasket just regular set around the stem.
Panerai is example of dive watches without screw down crown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,226 Posts
I'm just stating that if a watch has a rating of 3 ATM then it is good enough to get it wet, walk in the rain and yes, splash around in a pool. 5 ATM worry free swimming.
So then you don't recommend wearing a 3 ATM watch out in the rain? or in a very humid environment? And is a 3 ATM WR actually 3 ATM underwater or only 2 ATM?
And yeah I can see the comparison between a watch's water resistance and a truck carrying 25 tons over a 20 ton bridge, perfect analogy. Good to know that a bridge rated at a certain weight limit cannot be exceeded, man that is building to tolerances, right?
The bridge example is a good one. The bridges are are over tolerance for many reasons. A bridge where I live is currently under going extensive maintenance and part of that is to clean up 400 tonnes of pigeon s**t. That's the equivalent of 230 cars piled on a 1/4 km span. There's a maximum load limit on bridges, not because they can't handle the vehicle loads, but because there are other forces that they must/may also handle at the same time. Wind, water, snow, bird poo... and the load of the truck. Add to that, wear and tear, aging and damage and I'm glad they're setting conservative (safe) weight limits on bridges.

Watches are no different. If you want to settle on the lowest WR, maybe go talk to a watch maker about how much water damage he's seen over the course of his career.
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
Top