# The Water Resistance Myth Vs The Reality!



## Joakim Agren

The Water Resistance Myth VS The Reality!

Very long Post hope you have the strenght to read it all!:-d

First we need to conclude what is water resistance in the watch world?

In the watch world a watch need to get a IP code rating in order for the mark Water Resistant to appear anywhere on the watch body(notice though that the rating only apply to individual parts not to the whole watch so if a WR rating appears on the wrist band but not on the case it is not a valid mark for the watch case). So what is IP code rating? well IP stands for International Protection or Ingress Protection. There is different IP codes for different types of "Ingress" protection. In case of Water protection there is 2 certifications. The most common one is the IP code ISO 2281.

ISO 2281:

The International Organization for Standardization issued a standard for water resistant watches which also prohibits the term waterproof to be used with watches, which many countries have adopted. In order to pass for this certification it is not required for each and every individual watch to be subjected to tests, only lot sampling is required.This standard was only designed for watches intended for ordinary daily use during exercises under water for a short period under conditions where water pressure and temperature vary. The tests are:

Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water for 1 hour.

Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water with a force of 5 Newton perpendicular to the crown and pusher buttons (if any) for 10 minutes.

Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water at the following temperatures for 5 minutes each, 40°C(104F), 20°C (68F)and 40°C(104F) again, with the transition between temperatures not to exceed 5 minutes. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.

Immersion of the watch in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to the rated pressure for 1 hour. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.

Exposing the watch to an overpressure of 2 bar, no more than 50µg/min of air is allowed to get inside the case.

No magnetic or shock resistance properties are required.

No negative pressure test is required.

No strap attachment test is required.

No corrosion test is required.

So in short it means that the minimum requirement is that the watch will pass a 20 meter(66') test. However if the watch have a different rating then just plain Water resistant for instance a 30M, 50M,100M,200M etc rating then it needs to be tested in a a pressure chamber with a static overpressure equvivalent to the pressure at that depth.

*What about Divers watches?*

ISO also have a certificate for them to it is called:

ISO 6425

The difference from ISO 2281 is that here not only sampling is required but each and every watch must be tested to 125% to the rated depth so a 200M Divers watch must be tested down to 250M. And also the other tests are much more comprehensive. Here is the list for all the tests and requirements:

ISO 6425 water resistance testing of a diver's watch consists of:

Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water for 50 hours.

Immersion of the watch in water under 125% of the rated pressure with a force of 5 N perpendicular to the crown and pusher buttons (if any) for 10 minutes.

Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water at the following temperatures for 5 minutes each, 40°C (104F), 5°C(41F) and 40°C(104F) again, with the transition between temperatures not to exceed 1 minute. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.

Immersion of the watch in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 2 hours. The pressure must be applied within 1 minute. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to 0.3 bar(negative pressure) within 1 minute and maintained at this pressure for 1 hour. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.

For mixed gas diving the watch has to be immersed in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 15 days in a (helium enriched) breathing gas mix. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to normal pressure within 3 minutes. No evidence of water intrusion, condensation or problems caused by internal overpressure are allowed.

An optional test originating from the ISO 2281 tests (but not required for obtaining ISO 6425 approval) is exposing the watch to an overpressure of 2 bar, no more than 50µg/min of air is allowed to get inside the case.

Except the thermal shock resistance test all further ISO 6425 testing should be conducted at 18(64.4F) to 25°C(77F) temperature. The required 125% test pressure provides a safety margin against dynamic pressure increase events, water density variations (seawater is 2 to 5% denser than freshwater) and degradation of the seals.

Additional requirements for mechanical watches are:

Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 meter (330 ft) depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as:

The presence of a unidirectional bezel with at least at every 5 minutes elapsed minute markings and a pre-select marker to mark a specific minute marking.

The presence of clearly distinguishable minute markings on the watch face.

Adequate readability/visibility at 25 cm (9.84") in total darkness.

The presence of an indication that the watch is running in total darkness. This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.

Magnetic resistance. This is tested by 3 expositions to a direct current magnetic field of 4,800 A/m. The watch must keep its accuracy to +/- 30 seconds/day as measured before the test despite the magnetic field.

Shock resistance. This is tested by two shocks (one on the 9 o'clock side, and one to the crystal and perpendicular to the face). The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/sec. The change in rate allowed is +/- 60 seconds/day.

Chemical resistance. This is tested by immersion in a 30 g/l NaCl solution for 24 hours to test its rust or corrosion resistance. This test water solution has a salinity comparable to normal seawater.

Strap/band solidity. This is tested by applying a force of 200 N to each springbar (or attaching point) in opposite directions with no damage to the watch of attachment point.

The presence of an End Of Life (EOL) indicator on battery powered watches.

Watches conforming to ISO 6425 are marked with the word DIVER'S to distinguish diving watches from look a like watches that are not suitable for actual scuba diving.

Most manufacturers recommend diving watches have their seals changed and the watch pressure tested by an authorized service and repair facility every three years or so.

*So what do all of this means?*

For ISO 2281 watches there is a gigantic range of underwater performance. The ISO 2281 certification does not indicate that a manufacturer must test a watch to failing point and rate it below its failing point, however it must be rated to the maximum pressure test it passed. Its totally up to the manufacturer to descide for each individual watch model exactly what level they want to test it at. So this means that a specific rating is merely a market descision and a way for manufacturers to rate watches differently plainly to justify different price points in their line up of watches. The International Standard Organisation (ISO) have however created a recommendation table that is often found in watch manuals and brochures:

Water resistance rating	Suitability:

Water Resistant 30 m or 50 m Suitable for water related work and fishing.NOT suitable for swimming or diving.

Water Resistant 100 m Suitable for recreational surfing, swimming, snorkeling, sailing and water sports.	NOT suitable for diving.

Water Resistant 200 m Suitable for professional marine activity and serious surface water sports.	NOT suitable for diving.

Diver's 100 m Minimum ISO standard (ISO 6425) for scuba diving at depths NOT requiring helium gas.	Diver's 100 m and 150 m watches are generally old(er) watches.

Diver's 200 m or 300 m Suitable for scuba diving at depths NOT requiring helium gas. Typical ratings for contemporary diver's watches.

Diver's 300+ m helium safe Suitable for saturation diving (helium enriched environment). Watches designed for helium mixed-gas diving will have additional markings to point this out.

This table of recommendations helps manufacturers to descide what rating to choose and therefor what pressure test level to use depending on the intended use of a watch that they had in mind for a specific model. So this means that if a manufacturers design and development team comes up with a new design to the managment team it is then up to the marketing and managment department of the company to descide first if they will release it to the pucblic and if so to descide what position in their line up it should have. Depending on that descision it will be subjected to different pressure in the over pressure test.

Thats right people! :rodekaart the rating on the watch is merely a market descision and not an actual fact of the capacity of the watch in question. This means that the capacity between different watches with the same rating can be significant. one 30 meter watch can vary greatly in maximum capacity from another 30 meter watch(hence the low recommendation for 30-50 m watches in the table above), the same is true with 50 m and 100 m and even 200 m rated watches, infact sometimes the most extreme examples the difference is so great that one watch that is merely rated at 50 or even just 30 meters can compete in capacity with another watch from a different manufacturer that is rated to 100 meter. So the ratings actually don't mean much and is not neccessarly indicative of a watch performance underwater....

That's a shocker is it not? 

To use some examples I use Casio and Suunto. For instance the Suunto Vector does have a great track record of durability and many people have used it harshly in the field and even used it to make shallow and medium dives down to 15-30 meters(50-100') and yeat it was only tested by Suunto for a 30 meter rating and according to the recommendation table that means that it should not be submersed at all. An even more absurd example is the new Suunto Core that also have only a 30 meter rating and yeat is equiped with so called stinger buttons that is made to be used under water and also it comes equiped with a depth gauge so clearly the module and case designers had higher goals for it. Then the marketing department within the company that descided that it should not compete for customers with their more expensive diving computers or the Suunto Observer and therefor only tested it for a lower rating, a different marketing descision and it could most likely have a 100 meter rating.

This is one of the more extreme examples but it still holds true for all manufacturers. Rating is not an abosulte truth it is merely marketing descisions and the difference in performance between equally rated watches can be great. Other examples is Casio Pathfinder/ProTrek watches that seems very sturdily built and yeat most of them (PAW-1500 beeing the exception) is rated to 100M but would not surprise me if they would survive at 200 meters and therefor compete with many 200 meter watches when it comes to underwater performance.

Another example is Casio G-Shock watches that is rated to 200 meter which is usually the highest rating under ISO 2281. They are inexpensive massproduced watches so if Casio descided to give it a ISO 6425 Divers rating it would increase the cost of manufacturing since then each and every watch has to be subjected to tests, this would increase the cost and hence the consumer price. Therefor (with the exception of the Frogman which is considered a premium G with a higher price point and special dive functions in the module) all G-Shocks are only rated according to ISO 2281 despite the fact that most of them would most likely pass the Divers test with flying colors and several of them would rival the Frogman in under water performance.... once again market descisions descides the rating..... it would not surprise me one bit if many G-Shocks could survive just fine at 300-400 meters water depth its just that they have never been tested by the manufacturer for that level of performance......

The examples I have above are the positive ones where they are underated officially. But it ofcourse goes the other way around as well, most notably are the fragile jewellery and dress watches that probably just barely meet their ratings during the testing, but there is also some surprises for instance the Tissot T-Touch an advanced ana/digi ABC watch that orininally where rated at just 30 meter just like the Suunto's but that model even though it appears rather rugged looking seems to not be so strong considering the unsual high failure rates in water that model has had.

So the final conclusion regarding ratings is that you should not trust them very much, they don't mean much and is often a mere marketing tool and the difference between models can be great. Infact most of the time we as consumers nor the manufacturers them self knows a particular models maximum performance.

*What About Dynamic Pressure?*

This perhaps is the biggest myth and urban legend of all. It was mostly created by the watch industry and then spread trough watch retailers and watch brochures and manuals then also trough word of mouth of course. It was not so widespread in the 80's but by the late 90's and early 2000 it had spread alot.

Why they spread that myth to begin with probably have to do with weakening the warranty terms and the fact that they want to encourage people to be carefull with their watches.But also primarly due to marketing reasons that enables them to charge a extra premium for higher rated watches.

Anyway the myth is about movement in water. Apparently as you move around in the water especially your arms an extra pressure gets applied to the watch and the deeper in the water you go the higher this extra presssure will get due to the movement. I have read statements that these movements can add several Bars/ATM/PSI of pressure to a watch. Therefor it is not safe to take your watch anywhere near its stated deepth rating. I have read statements that you should not go any deeper then maximum 30 meter(100') with a 100 m rated watch or 60-70 meter (200-230') with a 200 m rated watch. 30-50 m rated watches should not be submersed at all.

Whats the major problem here?

First let me state that I was a firm believer of this "Dynamic Pressure" myth up untill just a few months ago. This whole journey into this topic for me was the presentation of the Suunto Core on Suuntos website prior to its actual release. I thought it looked fantastic and almost imediatly feel in love with it especially in combination with its seemingly superior feature set compared to the competion. Prior to the Core I pretty muched ruled out Suunto out of the realm of my interest frame when it came to ABC watches, not because of their active functions which in fact many times where even better then for instance the PathFinders/ProTrek of the Casio line up, but because I saw them as fragile crap due to their poor 30 M water resistance rating(the Observer with 100 m rating was an exception but did not appeal to me for other reasons). But when the Core was presented on Suuntos website it seem to have it all including a 100 meter rating.

But when it was closer to the Core's release I suddenly noticed that the specs had changed on Suuntos website now it was suddenly rated to 30 M just like its predeccesor the Vector so I was very dissapointed and descided to mail Suunto to get it clarified. Apparently they did a misstake before and that 30 m was the correct fact. But by that time I had already worked up enough interest for the model so that I contemplated buying it anyway, all that I demanded from it was that I could do some surface swimming with it then I would be happy. So I mailed Suunto and asked again if i could use it when swimming. And the answer was yes!

This confused me because what I knew prior to this told me that 30 m and 50 m watches should not be used for submersive water activitys such as swimming, what confused me even further was the fact that the Core came equipped with specially designed stinger buttons called UW(Under water buttons by Suunto) also the demo on the website showed it was also equipped with a cool depth gauge down to 10 meters which further suggested this was a watch that could be used under water.

At first this lead me to believe that Suunto since it is a special company that has a very scientific image that pride themself with preciscion instruments for professionals was more honest with their rating and therefor took Dynamic pressure into account for their rating and gave their watches a more honest rating then the rest for the watch industry so therefor a 30 M Suunto was the equvivalent to a 100 Meter watch from other manufacturers.

But this turned out to be a wrong assumption, I later found out that they just test their watches according to the standard ISO 2281 just like the rest of them.

So because I was a believer of the dynamic pressure theory all I was left with was a big mystery, how come a 30 m rated watch was seemingly adapted for underwater use?o|

This mystery lead me to seek out the answer and learn more about water resistance and the effects of dynamic pressure specifically. I did found some important pieces to the puzzle here in this forum from older forum posts but also from Wikipedia and also some Swedish scientists that I had enquired about this mather.

What I did found out shattered the dynamic pressure theory to pieces. It simply was nothing more then a lie turned into an urban legend and myth.

Apparently pressure can only be applied to an object as the result of added mass/weight that is applied to the object(in this case added depth with an increased weight of the water pillar above you) in question, or as a result of expansion or due to electro magnetism, another possible source of pressure is some external forcing preventing expansion or inversion. Another source is gravitational pull due to accceleration or decceleration but that reason is somewhat tied in to reason number one the one about added mass.

So what kind of forces can a swimmer/diver apply to his/hers watch? first we have the depth ofcourse. If we use a watch similar in size to a Raysman. Lets say we are at 100 meter depth. The size of the watch is about 5cmX5cm thats 25cm2 in surface area. 1m is 100 cm so 100m is 10.000cm 10.000X25= 250.000 Cm2 of water above the watch that is pressuring against it. The weight of that water is 1000.000/250.000= 250Kg(550 ibs) of pressure against the watch at that deptht. This is known as the hydrostatic pressure.

The diver(staying at the same depth) can only change that pressure against his watch in 2 ways either by moving his arms up or down but the maximum reach of ones arms is very limited usually not more then perhaps 120cm(4') or so.... that is only a change in pressure of 0.12 bars or 3Kg(6.7ibs) of pressure, very little difference not much more then 1% compared to the rest of the pressure at that given depth.

Second way to increase pressure at the watch is trough speed/acceleration. Either by swimming or by moving our arms up and down. The maximum speed we can move our arms in free air is often not more then 3-6 feet per second and it moves even slower under water. And when it comes to Swim speed even an Olympic swimmer usually cant swim any faster then 6-7 feet per second. If we add the maximum output of that we get up to 10 feet or 3 meters of acceleration per second which is the equvivalant of about 10Km/h or 6.25 mph. That aint very much force/pressure in water. Someone smart here at the forum(CycloneFever) calculated this and I quote:

"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%)."

So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most.

So what can we conclude:

The Standardisation does not indicate a watch maximum capacity.
The rating is given by the manufacturer mostly due to marketing reasons and often the maximum capacity of a watch is seldom tested.
The difference between different watches with the same rating can be huge....
Dynamic Pressure is mostly just fear mongering and a myth

Sorry for this very lenghty post but hopefully I have thought you guys something new.....:-!


----------



## JackB

That was a complete course about water resistance, excellent info thanks and yes I had the strenght to read it all!:-x:-x


----------



## ultramanpat

Excellent! Thank you for this most informative post, I learned many things from reading it!

Regards,
Patrick


----------



## G-shock1968

I have been diveing with my G-9000 to 120 ft (wreck dive in lake michigan)and did not have any problems.I have also dove with my DW5600e Again no problems.


----------



## Bubblemunche

I had the strength to read it all too.... Thanks for this very comprehensive work of investigation Joakim! 

Will also read up more about the dynamic pressure myth....


----------



## watchnut44

Thank you for taking the time to explain this in an easily understandable fashion.
It is probably more than I ever wanted to know about the topic, but I am glad you posted it here rather than on a dive-watch forum, although you just might have generated some serious fireworks doing that.
I am glad that G-Shocks come out looking so good!


----------



## TTT

Very good article you've written b-)

I think what I was thinking of was more like the 'shock' factor, when you, say, slap your arm + watch down on the surface of the water, or spray a high-pressure hose directly at a button or the caseback. I think the watches rated for 200m+ would probably fare better in this scenario.
This is not my field of specialty, so I can't really say whether what I mentioned is in fact different from taking the watch to a greater depth or not.


----------



## sspartan

Excellent information, thanks :-!


----------



## maltschu

Interesting. The manual of the Swiss Army Watch, seems to contradict some of this, at least in part. They claim that a watch rated at 50M is "suitable for showering or swimming in shallow water." Keep in mind, that it will impact your warranty a lot more than what another organization says the ratings mean. As an express guarantee by the manufacturer, they can be held to this. Full ratings for SA watches below:



Water-resistant to 30 meters (100 feet/3 ATM). Will withstand rain or splashes of water but should not be worn while showering, swimming or diving.​
Water-tested to 50 meters (165 feet/5 ATM). Suitable for showering or swimming in shallow water.​
Water-tested to 100 meters (330 feet/10 ATM). Suitable for swimming or snorkeling.​
Water-tested to 200 meters (660 feet/20 ATM). Suitable for swimming, snorkeling or skin diving.​
Water-tested to 300 meters (990 feet/30 ATM). Suitable for swimming, snorkeling or scuba diving.​


----------



## Sili

Very informative. :-! Thank you for making the effort to do the research and sharing the information with us.


----------



## ecalzo

thanks a lot...
helpful...


----------



## natornate

....not .....strong ............en ......ough...o|


----------



## TTT

Another example of this 'branding' idea is with the Traser watches - apparently, the p6500 (which is only rated to 30m, I think) has two o-rings in the crown opening, exactly the same as the 200m-rated versions, although it doesn't screw down. Someone on one of the other forums said he'd actually had his pressure tested to 200m, and it passed.


----------



## Wah_Wah_Wah

I give you a salute.:-!

I only read the part of conclusions. I know it contains a lot valuable information and knowledge that I can't miss it. Will find a day to read it through.


----------



## natornate

Wah_Wah_Wah said:


> I give you a salute.:-!
> 
> I only read the part of conclusions. I know it contains a lot valuable information and knowledge that I can't miss it. Will find a day to read it through.


It might actually take a day, good stuff though I'm sure.


----------



## handieeeeee

I have the pow er. Excellent article!!! I now understand my watch better than I understand my wife ;-):-d:-d:-d


----------



## G'ed

can publish it in watch magazine, Joakim. nicely written. big salute to you, bro

but i only read halfway and i think i got the ideas what u trying to imply. i already know for long time that the WR rating cant be taken seriously :-d


----------



## Lexxorcist

TTT said:


> Another example of this 'branding' idea is with the Traser watches - apparently, the p6500 (which is only rated to 30m, I think) has two o-rings in the crown opening, exactly the same as the 200m-rated versions, although it doesn't screw down. Someone on one of the other forums said he'd actually had his pressure tested to 200m, and it passed.


I've heard this too. Apparently they didn't want it to compete too much with their more expensive models.


----------



## Funkywatch

Thank for your work providing all this info! Very usefull!


----------



## fonklover

there are many watches from casio rated "water resist" which means not suitable for swimming or showering from the iso tests. 

famous example f-91

but most people say they already used theses watches for swimming and showering or even forgot it in the washing machine.
so i guess this watch is at least 30 or even 50m WR. 

and the reason why they just put water resist" and not water resist 30m on it is MARKETING. i found out, when i showed my watch with 50m to a friend, and he had a f-91. what he thought and said was: your watch is only water resist up to 50m, mine is water resist completely! 

i understand that, because most watch buyers dont know about the gradings of water resist, 50m, 100m, etc.... they just see its water resist and thats fine for them. 

marketing


----------



## WhtShadow

Great post! Very informative. As others have said, there is reality, there is marketing hype, and there are the lawyers. Lawyers will always make them be conservative. Marketing will push for what gets them money in return. Reality is most 50m watches will be able to handle any swimming we mere mortals are likely to do. 

Now, there are those that chose to go to ridiculous depths, and for them, a proper dive watch, and probably dive computer is called for, not an el cheapo WR model, but a real depth rated time piece.

Me, I'll wear and enjoy em!

Thanks Joakim!:-!


----------



## Topher1556

Mods: I think this needs to be copied (not moved) to the 'articles' section.

Then, when people ask about water resistance, we can quickly find the link.

Excellent information Joakim. I found the static vs. dynamic very informative...oh heck, the whole post was great. Thanks for saying in the first few lines that it's a long post.

About ISO divers and how they test beyond the rating: I read a post where someone tested an empty SKX007 case beyond 400m...and it passed. The case was empty just in case of failure. Check this out. I firmly believe many 200m watches will go _far_ beyond their stated max depths. Heck, there was a Frogman on the world record deep dive (I think it was 300m plus).


----------



## Doug507

Great post and good info.

I have made several dives with 100M Timex Ironman (Ironmen) with no problems. I've seen guys dive with 50M Casios, too.


----------



## JERSTERCA

Doug507 said:


> Great post and good info.
> 
> I have made several dives with 100M Timex Ironman (Ironmen) with no problems. I've seen guys dive with 50M Casios, too.


Great post :-! thanks for taking the time to share


----------



## cal..45

fonklover said:


> there are many watches from casio rated "water resist" which means not suitable for swimming or showering from the iso tests.
> 
> famous example f-91
> 
> but most people say they already used theses watches for swimming and showering or even forgot it in the washing machine.
> so i guess this watch is at least 30 or even 50m WR.


you wanna have a good laugh? it even gets by far much better than that.

since a few weeks I own a casio sea-pathfinder SPf-60S-1VER. I wrote recently a review about this one:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=154845

this watch is a *sea*-pathfinder, which means it is specifically designed - well you guess it - for the water :-d

besides its altimeter, barometer and thermometer it also got a depthmeter, which will record dives down o 30 meters. the watch itself is tested by casio for over two minutes in 25° celcius water temperature and a depth of 26,9 meters, according to the dive log. this watch is rated for 100 meters/10bar and is considered a diver.

now get this, in the manual is written the following:

*"this watch is intended for use up to skin diving and snorkeling. never use this watch while scuba diving" 
*

wtf? does there a secret contest exist between manufacturers, about how to addle best their customers? does really anyone believe people dive down to 30meters (or deeper) without scuba gear? its certainly possible for a few very capable and highly trained divers but otherwise very, very unlikely.

this is just as ridiculous and absurd as it gets, imagine a manufacturer of umbrellas with the warning "don't use it when it's raining, otherwise it could get wet"....o|o|o|

@ joakim,

great post by the way and very enjoyable to read, good work :-!

regards, holger


----------



## Cabbai

It took me some minutes to complete my reading of your post.
Thanks a lot for taking much more time to do a research and writing it.


----------



## Funkywatch

So, is a Frogman equal to the other G-Shocks? (I think that its best practical feature that raise the price is the "ISO" water resistance...)


----------



## TacGuy

Darn, there goes my "A.D.D" again!! I tried to read it all, i swear i did. :-xAll kidding aside, that was very interesting non the less. Explains alot. Thanks for taking the time to post. :-!


----------



## lysanderxiii

One of the major uses of ISO standards is establishing what is, and what is not, open for a false advertising law suit.

ISO 2281 and ISO 6425, as well as ISO 764, ISO1413, ISO 3159, ISO 3160, parts 1, 2 and 3, ISO 14856, ISO 1112, ISO 10553, and a few others I cannot remember are solely maintained for that end. This explains the "This watch is not for use while scuba diving," disclaimer found in the instructions. So if you take your WR 1000 atm rated (ISO 2281) watch scuba diving and it floods or you cannot read it in the murky depths, you run out of air and drown, your family can't suit the watch company. Despite the 10,000 meter depth rating, it "was not suitable for diving," it said so in the instructions.

Other standards, like ISO 3643, Metric Screw Thread Standards, or ISO 60086, part 3, Watch Battery Sizes, are primarily for industry to ensure that any brand of SR927SW 1.5 Volt Silver Oxide watch battery will power their watch and not over current the chip.


----------



## Joakim Agren

lysanderxiii said:


> One of the major uses of ISO standards is establishing what is, and what is not, open for a false advertising law suit.
> 
> ISO 2281 and ISO 6425, as well as ISO 764, ISO1413, ISO 3159, ISO 3160, parts 1, 2 and 3, ISO 14856, ISO 1112, ISO 10553, and a few others I cannot remember are solely maintained for that end. This explains the "This watch is not for use while scuba diving," disclaimer found in the instructions. So if you take your WR 1000 atm rated (ISO 2281) watch scuba diving and it floods or you cannot read it in the murky depths, you run out of air and drown, your family can't suit the watch company. Despite the 10,000 meter depth rating, it "was not suitable for diving," it said so in the instructions.
> 
> Other standards, like ISO 3643, Metric Screw Thread Standards, or ISO 60086, part 3, Watch Battery Sizes, are primarily for industry to ensure that any brand of SR927SW 1.5 Volt Silver Oxide watch battery will power their watch and not over current the chip.


Interesting facts!:-!

How come you know so much about ISO?:-!


----------



## stinkypete

Nuno Gomes wore his Frogman down to over 271m in the Red Sea, so there you go.


----------



## ausroamer

Excellent Points Enjoyed Your Comments Cheers:-!:-!:-!


----------



## Frogger

Good sum up! |>
But this passage is making me wonder:


Joakim Agren said:


> The difference from ISO 2281 is that here not only sampling is required but each and every watch must be tested


Are you sure EVERY single watch is tested to these requirements? That would mean every DIVER's watch was hit by a hammer.. and also that the manufacturer would need at least 50 hours more for one watch to produce.
Helium suited watches even 14 days more! Could explain the price difference, though.


----------



## MountainMike

Thanks for the info Joakim.:-!

I have read in TAG Heuer catalogue that they do 100% water resist check on their watches. Certain models like the 2000 series (aka Aquaracer was even tested beyond the rated depth). Over pressured by 5 bar (50m) at least...

Those who have the newest G-Shock Bible will see that Casio do conduct water-resist test on the Gs. It was shown in the bible that a tray of GW-M5600s wat put through the test.:-!

I would say that watch manufacturers are erring on the safe side. The fact that Nuno Gomes wore his Frogman beyond the rated 200m further proof this point. Think of the stated rating as water resistance (factored with safety factor):-!


Cheers,
MountainMike


----------



## henxing

Thanks for putting all that information together, it was a good read. I knew that the dynamic pressure from arm movement added a non-trivial pressure to the depth pressure, but I didn't think it was a significant amount. Now I don't have to go and research all that!


----------



## cdude

If it says "water resistant" it's goin' in the pool! Most watch buyers don't bother understanding the differences between the different depths. I was like that as a kid. People told me not to take my water resistant watch in the pool, and they tried to explain it to me that my watch would be ruined AFTER it had already survived many years of swimming. With some people they'll get it wet even if it doesn't say water resistant on it. Two examples are numerous databank calculators and the remote control watch, both Casios.

I wonder if all these ratings WERE true a long time ago when water resistance was a big deal on watches. My dad WAS a SCUBA diver a long time ago, so he can't be clueless on watches' water resistance. 

One thing about 200M vs. 50M water resistance is that the gaskets for 200M models are usually thicker. I'm guessing a 200M watch will stay water resistant well enough to swim in the pool long after the gaskets have rotted away on the 50M model. I have no proof of this, it just makes sense.


----------



## Lexxorcist

cdude said:


> One thing about 200M vs. 50M water resistance is that the gaskets for 200M models are usually thicker. I'm guessing a 200M watch will stay water resistant well enough to swim in the pool long after the gaskets have rotted away on the 50M model. I have no proof of this, it just makes sense.


I'm sure there's something to that. I was amazed when I saw the gasket on a 200m Vostok Amphibia, it's like a tractor tyre! (Photo from marc_wl on the Russian watch forum).


----------



## Seamaster73

Joakim, thanks for a truly brilliant post, which has been both fascinating and enjoyable to read. I really appreciate the hard work you obviously put into it. :-!


----------



## azziman

Very interesting read, thanks


----------



## Joakim Agren

Like my initial post was not longe enough I have investigated in some other standards to and here they are::-d

In addition to the ISO standards there exists other water protection standards as well. The most common one is the IPX specification also known as IEC 529 which is a European (ECC) specification for water resistance or moist protection but used worldwide hence the name (International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC). This standard is used to class all sorts of equipment(not just watches) in a specific class of water resistance level. There exists 9 classes ranging from IPX 0-8. Here are their demands:

IPX: 
#0=No water protection at all

#1= Protection against dripping water the equvivalent of 3-5mm of rain during a 10 minute period. The condition is that the equipment in question is placed in normal working position.

#2=Same as above but the protection should be maintained when the equipment is tilted 15 degrees and also placed in 4 other positions other then the normal working position.

#3=Protected against water with applied pressure from a spraying hose. The protection must whitstand 10 liter/minute with a pressure of 80-100kN/m^2 for 3 minutes at a distance of 3 meters(10').

#4=Same as #3 but must also handle that pressure from all angles

#5=Protected against water beams, water that is projected trough a 6.3mm nozzle witha a flow of 12.5 liter/minute witha pressure the equvivalant of 30kN/m^2 for 3 minutes at a distance of 3 meters(10')

#6= Proteced against heavy lake, water that is projected trough a 12.5mm nozzle with a flow of 100 liter/minute by a pressure the equvivalant of 100kN/m^2 for 3 minutes at distance of 3 meters(10')

#7 Proteced against intrusion of water, the equipment must whitstand beeing descended to a depth of 1 meter(3.3') for 30 minutes

#8= Proteced from water intrusion under the conditions that the manufacturer descides.

There is also a Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS C 0920:2003 : Degrees of protection provided by enclosures) known as JIS and it is also graded in classes and very similar to the IPX standard. Here are the JIS classes:

JIS #0	No special protection

JIS #1	Vertically dripping water shall have no harmful effect (Drip resistant 1)

JIS #2	Dripping water at an angle up to 15 degrees from vertical shall have no harmful effect (Drip resistant 2)

JIS #3	Falling rain at an angle up to 60 degrees from vertical shall have no harmful effect (Rain resistant)

JIS #4	Splashing water from any direction shall have no harmful effect (Splash resistant)

JIS #5	Direct jetting water from any direction shall have no harmful effect (Jet resistant)

JIS #6	Direct jetting water from any direction shall not enter the enclosure (Water tight)

JIS #7	Water shall not enter the enclosure when it is immersed in water under defined conditions (Immersion resistant)

JIS #8	The equipment is usable for continuous submersion in water under specified pressure (Submersible)


----------



## jpatricks1

Hmm... I've had a couple of sea-pathfinders before and always thought it was silly that Casio made a watch with a depth gauge that was only WR to 100M. 


Great read, very informative! Thanks!


----------



## Joakim Agren

Someone just posted an interesting field test of his Suunto Core:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?p=1151534#post1151534

Dive was succesfull down to 15 meter or 50'. So I get more and more convinced that the 30 meter Core is indeed comparable to a 100 meter or 330' PathFinder when it comes to water resistance!:rodekaart


----------



## James Haury

Great information ,that explains why a 8 dollar watch from wal mart rated to 30m was able to be used by a commercial diver who took it down to 98 feet.I have that watch now because he quit. He left it behind and his boss gave it to me.


----------



## Lexxorcist

Joakim Agren said:


> Dive was succesfull down to 15 meter or 50'. So I get more and more convinced that the 30 meter Core is indeed comparable to a 100 meter or 330' PathFinder when it comes to water resistance!:rodekaart


Remember Casio's ratings also tend to be conservative. A G-Shock survived a 318m scuba dive, which is well over it's 200m rating, rather than just half of it. It would be nice to see a Pathfinder and a Core go head to head in a depth test though. My money would be on the Casio. ;-)


----------



## Joakim Agren

Lexxorcist said:


> Remember Casio's ratings also tend to be conservative. A G-Shock survived a 318m scuba dive, which is well over it's 200m rating, rather than just half of it. It would be nice to see a Pathfinder and a Core go head to head in a depth test though. My money would be on the Casio. ;-)


Yes I know casios are also conservative rated, but not as bad as the Core. Normally a 30 m watch that follows the normal standard would be utterly useless even for swimming. And yeat people are diving with it down to 100 feet and it survives and it has a depth meter and special stinger buttons that enables button pushes under water which makes it even more suitable for diving use then a PAW-1300 that is rated to 100 m. Its just stupid!:-s

I think that the PAW-1300 and the Core would perform very evenly when it comes to maximum depth...


----------



## Lexxorcist

Joakim Agren said:


> Yes I know casios are also conservative rated, but not as bad as the Core. Normally a 30 m watch that follows the normal standard would be utterly useless even for swimming. And yeat people are diving with it down to 100 feet and it survives and it has a depth meter and special stinger buttons that enables button pushes under water which makes it even more suitable for diving use then a PAW-1300 that is rated to 100 m. Its just stupid!:-s
> 
> I think that the PAW-1300 and the Core would perform very evenly when it comes to maximum depth...


Well, 100 feet is about 30 metres, which is what it's rated at, so although it's impressive, a Casio survived a dive much deeper than it's rating. I'm just struggling to see how they out-strip Casio in this area. It would take a head to head contest to convince me which can survive at the greatest depth really.

Another thing that's crossed my mind is the huge, plastic crystals on Suunto watches, and how they'd hold up to pressure. How much pressure before they begin to bend? :think:

Anyway, I'm not knocking Suuntos, and a 30m rated watch that survives 30m is excellent. It's just that I've not seen evidence of what Protreks can withstand in order to make a comparison. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a Protrek survived a 100m dive. I'm not volunteering mine though... just in case. :-d

Your point about buttons is valid, although I'd never thought of Protreks/Pathfinders as diving watches.


----------



## danpass

G-Shock. Depth test toward the end.






.


----------



## alembic1981

Have to agree with many of the colleagues here...an excellent and informative post. It is nice to see the science behind the facts that many of us know...don't believe the hype and do your research. Here are a couple of things I know...

A job needs a specific tool. If I were a serious diver, I would get a serious diving watch (I had a Luminox once. Are they a great diving watch?) that would overly compensate for the gravity (pun...yuck:-x) of the task.

For the things I do (which at my age are becoming much tamer), a GShock is actually overkill. I work out with weights, boat, fish, bicycle, shoot pictures, hike, swim, body surf, and any other number of more mundane around the house tasks. The list used to include many other things from working on cars to manual labor and a GS has always come through with flying colors. Hats off to Casio for this little slice of Heaven on earth.

Regards...
Steve


----------



## digitalxni

regardless of whether my watch is 200m or more, I'm still worried about dropping it in the sink :S


----------



## JohnnyBlazE

Very interesting article methinks!
Anyone know how good Rotary's Dolphin Standard is?


----------



## Torque

Sorry to revive this thread; for someone wondering how are Tissot rating their watches regarding water resistance, I found this from a warranty document on the web :

1. 3atm / 30m / 100ft
Watches water resistant to 30 meters/100 feet.
2. 10atm / 100m / 330ft5atm / 50m / 165ft20atm / 200m / 660ft
Watches water resistant to 50, 100 or 200 meters/165, 330 or 660 feet.
3. 10atm / 100m / 330ft20atm / 200m / 660ft30atm / 300m / 1000ft
Watches water resistant from 100 to 300 meters/330 to 1000 feet or more with screw down crown and diving bezel.

According to the water resistance 1, 2 or 3 listed above, watches are protected against:
1-2-3 Water splashes / Rain 
1-2-3 Surface swimming
2-3 Shower 
2-3 Free diving / Water sports 
3 Scuba diving

Cheers


----------



## Joakim Agren

Torque said:


> Sorry to revive this thread; for someone wondering how are Tissot rating their watches regarding water resistance, I found this from a warranty document on the web :
> 
> 1. 3atm / 30m / 100ft
> Watches water resistant to 30 meters/100 feet.
> 2. 10atm / 100m / 330ft5atm / 50m / 165ft20atm / 200m / 660ft
> Watches water resistant to 50, 100 or 200 meters/165, 330 or 660 feet.
> 3. 10atm / 100m / 330ft20atm / 200m / 660ft30atm / 300m / 1000ft
> Watches water resistant from 100 to 300 meters/330 to 1000 feet or more with screw down crown and diving bezel.
> 
> According to the water resistance 1, 2 or 3 listed above, watches are protected against:
> 1-2-3 Water splashes / Rain
> 1-2-3 Surface swimming
> 2-3 Shower
> 2-3 Free diving / Water sports
> 3 Scuba diving
> 
> Cheers


No problem a resurrection of this thread is always appreciated hehe:-d

Tissot sure knows the art to make info troublesome to read!:-d


----------



## digitalxni

just got another G-shock today and I'd like to go swimming with it but I'm still so paranoid about it getting wet! Is there anything to do or should I just jump in at the deep end? (no pun intended of course...) Or should I take it apart and grease it up or something?


----------



## ShockMister

digitalxni said:


> just got another G-shock today and I'd like to go swimming with it but I'm still so paranoid about it getting wet! Is there anything to do or should I just jump in at the deep end? (no pun intended of course...) Or should I take it apart and grease it up or something?


Is it due to an irrational fear? I would just dive into the deep end. There is no chance of water getting in. In the (very) small likelihood that the watch is defective, you could just exchange it.


----------



## danpass

digitalxni said:


> just got another G-shock today and I'd like to go swimming with it but I'm still so paranoid about it getting wet! Is there anything to do or should I just jump in at the deep end? (no pun intended of course...) Or should I take it apart and grease it up or something?


It'll be fine, you can even push the buttons underwater. :-!


----------



## digitalxni

I'd say it was rational fear! Even if you gave me a watch that was completely water PROOF, I'd still be paranoid about getting it wet... Not bothered much about the buttons underwater, just want to know I can put it on in the morning, do whatever I want, take it off at night and know its still working


----------



## Tapped

Very informative piece, sounds like you did your homework. Thanx for the post, this should be a special on the discovery channel.


----------



## Percy

danpass said:


> It'll be fine, you can even push the buttons underwater. :-!


A drug trafficer's plane?


----------



## Geopro

Thanks very much for your work on that post! Very informative!


----------



## James Haury

I just bought a Timex expedition dive style watch with an elapsed time bezel a ss case and indiglo it is wr to 656 ft according to the manual and the manual also says it is not be used to dive with?In my opinion this is proof that there are too many lawyers.I also bought a cheap digital watch which is wr to 100 ft .The manual for it says you can swim with it and wash your car.


----------



## Queen6

Super informative post, really top class;
For me it just confirms what I have always believed, if a Swiss watch is built to be water resistant to 20 bar, that is the maximum, if a Japanese watch is built to water resistant to 20 bar that is the minimum. I know it`s wrong to lump them all together, however it does come to mind very easily, barring the ISO divers which must perform.

Q-6


----------



## Alathea

I LOVE this picture! What depth?

CAS



danpass said:


> It'll be fine, you can even push the buttons underwater. :-!


----------



## James Haury

I do not dive with my watches anyway.In my opinion if a watch is wr to 656 feet what else is it for but to dive?If it is not a dive watch then my nephew is a monkey.


----------



## BenL

Woah, cool picture. Glad you got the G in there! :-!


----------



## tasmatt

This may interest those of us with Suunto watches (I own a Vector).

Information taken from http://www.suunto.com/suunto/Worlds/outdoor/main/outdoor_article_normal.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673987288&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302757966&bmUID=i8maylv

"Water resistancy

Suunto wristop computers and transmitter belts are tested with ISO (International Organization for standardization) standard 2281 (www.iso.ch). This means that the products are water-resistant. In addition to the term 'water-resistant' Suunto wristop computers are marked with an indication of a test overpressure given as a depth in meters (30m/100ft) and transmitter belts (20m / 66 ft). This indication, however, does not correspond to a diving depth but refers to the pressure at which the water overpressure test was conducted.

This means that you cannot dive to a depth of 30m/100ft with your Suunto wristop computer or 20m / 66 ft with the transmitter belt. *Rain, shower, swimming and other normal exposure to water will not affect its operation but the buttons shall not be pressed if exposed to water in any circumstances. The only exception is Suunto Core, which buttons can be used under water as well.*

Diving instruments have more strict specifications and are water resistant to at least 100 meters. They are also operable under water. "

Emphasis added.


----------



## adgume

Excellent and informative.
Thanks a lot!


----------



## ecalzo

adgume said:


> excellent and informative.
> Thanks a lot!


+1 :-!


----------



## danpass

Alathea said:


> I LOVE this picture! What depth?
> 
> CAS


~30ft

nice delayed response right lol :rodekaart


----------



## iban_boy

very informative post... amen to that..


----------



## sgtslice

Joakim Agren said:


> The Water Resistance Myth VS The Reality!
> 
> Very long Post hope you have the strenght to read it all!:-d
> 
> First we need to conclude what is water resistance in the watch world?
> 
> In the watch world a watch need to get a IP code rating in order for the mark Water Resistant to appear anywhere on the watch body(notice though that the rating only apply to individual parts not to the whole watch so if a WR rating appears on the wrist band but not on the case it is not a valid mark for the watch case). So what is IP code rating? well IP stands for International Protection or Ingress Protection. There is different IP codes for different types of "Ingress" protection. In case of Water protection there is 2 certifications. The most common one is the IP code ISO 2281.
> 
> ISO 2281:
> 
> The International Organization for Standardization issued a standard for water resistant watches which also prohibits the term waterproof to be used with watches, which many countries have adopted. In order to pass for this certification it is not required for each and every individual watch to be subjected to tests, only lot sampling is required.This standard was only designed for watches intended for ordinary daily use during exercises under water for a short period under conditions where water pressure and temperature vary. The tests are:
> 
> Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water for 1 hour.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water with a force of 5 Newton perpendicular to the crown and pusher buttons (if any) for 10 minutes.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in 10 cm of water at the following temperatures for 5 minutes each, 40°C(104F), 20°C (68F)and 40°C(104F) again, with the transition between temperatures not to exceed 5 minutes. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to the rated pressure for 1 hour. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
> 
> Exposing the watch to an overpressure of 2 bar, no more than 50µg/min of air is allowed to get inside the case.
> 
> No magnetic or shock resistance properties are required.
> 
> No negative pressure test is required.
> 
> No strap attachment test is required.
> 
> No corrosion test is required.
> 
> So in short it means that the minimum requirement is that the watch will pass a 20 meter(66') test. However if the watch have a different rating then just plain Water resistant for instance a 30M, 50M,100M,200M etc rating then it needs to be tested in a a pressure chamber with a static overpressure equvivalent to the pressure at that depth.
> 
> *What about Divers watches?*
> 
> ISO also have a certificate for them to it is called:
> 
> ISO 6425
> 
> The difference from ISO 2281 is that here not only sampling is required but each and every watch must be tested to 125% to the rated depth so a 200M Divers watch must be tested down to 250M. And also the other tests are much more comprehensive. Here is the list for all the tests and requirements:
> 
> ISO 6425 water resistance testing of a diver's watch consists of:
> 
> Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water for 50 hours.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in water under 125% of the rated pressure with a force of 5 N perpendicular to the crown and pusher buttons (if any) for 10 minutes.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in 30 cm of water at the following temperatures for 5 minutes each, 40°C (104F), 5°C(41F) and 40°C(104F) again, with the transition between temperatures not to exceed 1 minute. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
> 
> Immersion of the watch in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 2 hours. The pressure must be applied within 1 minute. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to 0.3 bar(negative pressure) within 1 minute and maintained at this pressure for 1 hour. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed.
> 
> For mixed gas diving the watch has to be immersed in a suitable pressure vessel and subjecting it to 125% of the rated pressure for 15 days in a (helium enriched) breathing gas mix. Subsequently the overpressure shall be reduced to normal pressure within 3 minutes. No evidence of water intrusion, condensation or problems caused by internal overpressure are allowed.
> 
> An optional test originating from the ISO 2281 tests (but not required for obtaining ISO 6425 approval) is exposing the watch to an overpressure of 2 bar, no more than 50µg/min of air is allowed to get inside the case.
> 
> Except the thermal shock resistance test all further ISO 6425 testing should be conducted at 18(64.4F) to 25°C(77F) temperature. The required 125% test pressure provides a safety margin against dynamic pressure increase events, water density variations (seawater is 2 to 5% denser than freshwater) and degradation of the seals.
> 
> Additional requirements for mechanical watches are:
> 
> Besides water resistance standards to a minimum of 100 meter (330 ft) depth rating ISO 6425 also provides minimum requirements for mechanical diver's watches (quartz and digital watches have slightly differing readability requirements) such as:
> 
> The presence of a unidirectional bezel with at least at every 5 minutes elapsed minute markings and a pre-select marker to mark a specific minute marking.
> 
> The presence of clearly distinguishable minute markings on the watch face.
> 
> Adequate readability/visibility at 25 cm (9.84") in total darkness.
> 
> The presence of an indication that the watch is running in total darkness. This is usually indicated by a running second hand with a luminous tip or tail.
> 
> Magnetic resistance. This is tested by 3 expositions to a direct current magnetic field of 4,800 A/m. The watch must keep its accuracy to +/- 30 seconds/day as measured before the test despite the magnetic field.
> 
> Shock resistance. This is tested by two shocks (one on the 9 o'clock side, and one to the crystal and perpendicular to the face). The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/sec. The change in rate allowed is +/- 60 seconds/day.
> 
> Chemical resistance. This is tested by immersion in a 30 g/l NaCl solution for 24 hours to test its rust or corrosion resistance. This test water solution has a salinity comparable to normal seawater.
> 
> Strap/band solidity. This is tested by applying a force of 200 N to each springbar (or attaching point) in opposite directions with no damage to the watch of attachment point.
> 
> The presence of an End Of Life (EOL) indicator on battery powered watches.
> 
> Watches conforming to ISO 6425 are marked with the word DIVER'S to distinguish diving watches from look a like watches that are not suitable for actual scuba diving.
> 
> Most manufacturers recommend diving watches have their seals changed and the watch pressure tested by an authorized service and repair facility every three years or so.
> 
> *So what do all of this means?*
> 
> For ISO 2281 watches there is a gigantic range of underwater performance. The ISO 2281 certification does not indicate that a manufacturer must test a watch to failing point and rate it below its failing point, however it must be rated to the maximum pressure test it passed. Its totally up to the manufacturer to descide for each individual watch model exactly what level they want to test it at. So this means that a specific rating is merely a market descision and a way for manufacturers to rate watches differently plainly to justify different price points in their line up of watches. The International Standard Organisation (ISO) have however created a recommendation table that is often found in watch manuals and brochures:
> 
> Water resistance rating Suitability:
> 
> Water Resistant 30 m or 50 m Suitable for water related work and fishing.NOT suitable for swimming or diving.
> 
> Water Resistant 100 m Suitable for recreational surfing, swimming, snorkeling, sailing and water sports. NOT suitable for diving.
> 
> Water Resistant 200 m Suitable for professional marine activity and serious surface water sports. NOT suitable for diving.
> 
> Diver's 100 m Minimum ISO standard (ISO 6425) for scuba diving at depths NOT requiring helium gas. Diver's 100 m and 150 m watches are generally old(er) watches.
> 
> Diver's 200 m or 300 m Suitable for scuba diving at depths NOT requiring helium gas. Typical ratings for contemporary diver's watches.
> 
> Diver's 300+ m helium safe Suitable for saturation diving (helium enriched environment). Watches designed for helium mixed-gas diving will have additional markings to point this out.
> 
> This table of recommendations helps manufacturers to descide what rating to choose and therefor what pressure test level to use depending on the intended use of a watch that they had in mind for a specific model. So this means that if a manufacturers design and development team comes up with a new design to the managment team it is then up to the marketing and managment department of the company to descide first if they will release it to the pucblic and if so to descide what position in their line up it should have. Depending on that descision it will be subjected to different pressure in the over pressure test.
> 
> Thats right people! :rodekaart the rating on the watch is merely a market descision and not an actual fact of the capacity of the watch in question. This means that the capacity between different watches with the same rating can be significant. one 30 meter watch can vary greatly in maximum capacity from another 30 meter watch(hence the low recommendation for 30-50 m watches in the table above), the same is true with 50 m and 100 m and even 200 m rated watches, infact sometimes the most extreme examples the difference is so great that one watch that is merely rated at 50 or even just 30 meters can compete in capacity with another watch from a different manufacturer that is rated to 100 meter. So the ratings actually don't mean much and is not neccessarly indicative of a watch performance underwater....
> 
> That's a shocker is it not?
> 
> To use some examples I use Casio and Suunto. For instance the Suunto Vector does have a great track record of durability and many people have used it harshly in the field and even used it to make shallow and medium dives down to 15-30 meters(50-100') and yeat it was only tested by Suunto for a 30 meter rating and according to the recommendation table that means that it should not be submersed at all. An even more absurd example is the new Suunto Core that also have only a 30 meter rating and yeat is equiped with so called stinger buttons that is made to be used under water and also it comes equiped with a depth gauge so clearly the module and case designers had higher goals for it. Then the marketing department within the company that descided that it should not compete for customers with their more expensive diving computers or the Suunto Observer and therefor only tested it for a lower rating, a different marketing descision and it could most likely have a 100 meter rating.
> 
> This is one of the more extreme examples but it still holds true for all manufacturers. Rating is not an abosulte truth it is merely marketing descisions and the difference in performance between equally rated watches can be great. Other examples is Casio Pathfinder/ProTrek watches that seems very sturdily built and yeat most of them (PAW-1500 beeing the exception) is rated to 100M but would not surprise me if they would survive at 200 meters and therefor compete with many 200 meter watches when it comes to underwater performance.
> 
> Another example is Casio G-Shock watches that is rated to 200 meter which is usually the highest rating under ISO 2281. They are inexpensive massproduced watches so if Casio descided to give it a ISO 6425 Divers rating it would increase the cost of manufacturing since then each and every watch has to be subjected to tests, this would increase the cost and hence the consumer price. Therefor (with the exception of the Frogman which is considered a premium G with a higher price point and special dive functions in the module) all G-Shocks are only rated according to ISO 2281 despite the fact that most of them would most likely pass the Divers test with flying colors and several of them would rival the Frogman in under water performance.... once again market descisions descides the rating..... it would not surprise me one bit if many G-Shocks could survive just fine at 300-400 meters water depth its just that they have never been tested by the manufacturer for that level of performance......
> 
> The examples I have above are the positive ones where they are underated officially. But it ofcourse goes the other way around as well, most notably are the fragile jewellery and dress watches that probably just barely meet their ratings during the testing, but there is also some surprises for instance the Tissot T-Touch an advanced ana/digi ABC watch that orininally where rated at just 30 meter just like the Suunto's but that model even though it appears rather rugged looking seems to not be so strong considering the unsual high failure rates in water that model has had.
> 
> So the final conclusion regarding ratings is that you should not trust them very much, they don't mean much and is often a mere marketing tool and the difference between models can be great. Infact most of the time we as consumers nor the manufacturers them self knows a particular models maximum performance.
> 
> *What About Dynamic Pressure?*
> 
> This perhaps is the biggest myth and urban legend of all. It was mostly created by the watch industry and then spread trough watch retailers and watch brochures and manuals then also trough word of mouth of course. It was not so widespread in the 80's but by the late 90's and early 2000 it had spread alot.
> 
> Why they spread that myth to begin with probably have to do with weakening the warranty terms and the fact that they want to encourage people to be carefull with their watches.But also primarly due to marketing reasons that enables them to charge a extra premium for higher rated watches.
> 
> Anyway the myth is about movement in water. Apparently as you move around in the water especially your arms an extra pressure gets applied to the watch and the deeper in the water you go the higher this extra presssure will get due to the movement. I have read statements that these movements can add several Bars/ATM/PSI of pressure to a watch. Therefor it is not safe to take your watch anywhere near its stated deepth rating. I have read statements that you should not go any deeper then maximum 30 meter(100') with a 100 m rated watch or 60-70 meter (200-230') with a 200 m rated watch. 30-50 m rated watches should not be submersed at all.
> 
> Whats the major problem here?
> 
> First let me state that I was a firm believer of this "Dynamic Pressure" myth up untill just a few months ago. This whole journey into this topic for me was the presentation of the Suunto Core on Suuntos website prior to its actual release. I thought it looked fantastic and almost imediatly feel in love with it especially in combination with its seemingly superior feature set compared to the competion. Prior to the Core I pretty muched ruled out Suunto out of the realm of my interest frame when it came to ABC watches, not because of their active functions which in fact many times where even better then for instance the PathFinders/ProTrek of the Casio line up, but because I saw them as fragile crap due to their poor 30 M water resistance rating(the Observer with 100 m rating was an exception but did not appeal to me for other reasons). But when the Core was presented on Suuntos website it seem to have it all including a 100 meter rating.
> 
> But when it was closer to the Core's release I suddenly noticed that the specs had changed on Suuntos website now it was suddenly rated to 30 M just like its predeccesor the Vector so I was very dissapointed and descided to mail Suunto to get it clarified. Apparently they did a misstake before and that 30 m was the correct fact. But by that time I had already worked up enough interest for the model so that I contemplated buying it anyway, all that I demanded from it was that I could do some surface swimming with it then I would be happy. So I mailed Suunto and asked again if i could use it when swimming. And the answer was yes!
> 
> This confused me because what I knew prior to this told me that 30 m and 50 m watches should not be used for submersive water activitys such as swimming, what confused me even further was the fact that the Core came equipped with specially designed stinger buttons called UW(Under water buttons by Suunto) also the demo on the website showed it was also equipped with a cool depth gauge down to 10 meters which further suggested this was a watch that could be used under water.
> 
> At first this lead me to believe that Suunto since it is a special company that has a very scientific image that pride themself with preciscion instruments for professionals was more honest with their rating and therefor took Dynamic pressure into account for their rating and gave their watches a more honest rating then the rest for the watch industry so therefor a 30 M Suunto was the equvivalent to a 100 Meter watch from other manufacturers.
> 
> But this turned out to be a wrong assumption, I later found out that they just test their watches according to the standard ISO 2281 just like the rest of them.
> 
> So because I was a believer of the dynamic pressure theory all I was left with was a big mystery, how come a 30 m rated watch was seemingly adapted for underwater use?o|
> 
> This mystery lead me to seek out the answer and learn more about water resistance and the effects of dynamic pressure specifically. I did found some important pieces to the puzzle here in this forum from older forum posts but also from Wikipedia and also some Swedish scientists that I had enquired about this mather.
> 
> What I did found out shattered the dynamic pressure theory to pieces. It simply was nothing more then a lie turned into an urban legend and myth.
> 
> Apparently pressure can only be applied to an object as the result of added mass/weight that is applied to the object(in this case added depth with an increased weight of the water pillar above you) in question, or as a result of expansion or due to electro magnetism, another possible source of pressure is some external forcing preventing expansion or inversion. Another source is gravitational pull due to accceleration or decceleration but that reason is somewhat tied in to reason number one the one about added mass.
> 
> So what kind of forces can a swimmer/diver apply to his/hers watch? first we have the depth ofcourse. If we use a watch similar in size to a Raysman. Lets say we are at 100 meter depth. The size of the watch is about 5cmX5cm thats 25cm2 in surface area. 1m is 100 cm so 100m is 10.000cm 10.000X25= 250.000 Cm2 of water above the watch that is pressuring against it. The weight of that water is 1000.000/250.000= 250Kg(550 ibs) of pressure against the watch at that deptht. This is known as the hydrostatic pressure.
> 
> The diver(staying at the same depth) can only change that pressure against his watch in 2 ways either by moving his arms up or down but the maximum reach of ones arms is very limited usually not more then perhaps 120cm(4') or so.... that is only a change in pressure of 0.12 bars or 3Kg(6.7ibs) of pressure, very little difference not much more then 1% compared to the rest of the pressure at that given depth.
> 
> Second way to increase pressure at the watch is trough speed/acceleration. Either by swimming or by moving our arms up and down. The maximum speed we can move our arms in free air is often not more then 3-6 feet per second and it moves even slower under water. And when it comes to Swim speed even an Olympic swimmer usually cant swim any faster then 6-7 feet per second. If we add the maximum output of that we get up to 10 feet or 3 meters of acceleration per second which is the equvivalant of about 10Km/h or 6.25 mph. That aint very much force/pressure in water. Someone smart here at the forum(CycloneFever) calculated this and I quote:
> 
> "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%)."
> 
> So with this we can conclude that the Dynamic pressure is normaly a small force for a diver and do not limit your watch capacity very much. It only reduces it whit a couple of meters at most.
> 
> So what can we conclude:
> 
> The Standardisation does not indicate a watch maximum capacity.
> The rating is given by the manufacturer mostly due to marketing reasons and often the maximum capacity of a watch is seldom tested.
> The difference between different watches with the same rating can be huge....
> Dynamic Pressure is mostly just fear mongering and a myth
> 
> Sorry for this very lenghty post but hopefully I have thought you guys something new.....:-!


Good research job! Very informative!

Well, there is one particular watch that, I believe, would survive the dynamic pressure at any depth. ( I just don't remember what watch it is that I came across with in a magazine) -- The interior of the watch is filled with silicone oil. We know that the pressure is subjected against the watch case in all direction. So if the case is filled with liquid, the compressive force under water is not an issue.;-)

This is an interesting topic that you brought up. And yes, I had the strength to read it.


----------



## Cockpit

Hi, thanks for the very informative post. Especially the part on dynamic pressure, an eye-opener.

I have one (silly?) question though. In some of my watch manuals, it indicates that only those rated 50m and above water-resistant is suitable for showering/swimming, not WR30m.

Why is that the case? I could never understand why a WR30m watch can not be used in showers at sea level or in swimming pools where the max depth is commonly only 2 metres.

This has bugged me for the longest time. Is it for the same reasons above, 1) marketing, 2) liability/warranty issues and 3) playing it on the safe side? If so, then I think it's a bit ridiculous that a WR30m cannot be worn when showering...


----------



## 04jtb

Cockpit said:


> Hi, thanks for the very informative post. Especially the part on dynamic pressure, an eye-opener.
> 
> I have one (silly?) question though. In some of my watch manuals, it indicates that only those rated 50m and above water-resistant is suitable for showering/swimming, not WR30m.
> 
> Why is that the case? I could never understand why a WR30m watch can not be used in showers at sea level or in swimming pools where the max depth is commonly only 2 metres.
> 
> This has bugged me for the longest time. Is it for the same reasons above, 1) marketing, 2) liability/warranty issues and 3) playing it on the safe side? If so, then I think it's a bit ridiculous that a WR30m cannot be worn when showering...


I'm pretty sure it's just for marketing and warranty issues. I had a Casio F-91W that I wore for years stock, and it was only 30m WR and I jumped into pools, swam in the sea etc with it, and never had a problem. YMMV


----------



## Cockpit

Thanks for your reply 04jtb.

In the past, there was a period of time when I was quite paranoid about it and didn't really dared to have my watch come into contact with water. Now I just find it ridiculous.

Anyway, most watches I have are rated WR 100m so I don't have to worry about it. On the occasions where I do get a cheap or non-branded watch, I'll open up the caseback to make sure there is at least an o-ring present. Believe it or not there are some watches that doesn't come with an o-ring!


----------



## c.k.

Great piece of information, @Joakim Agren.
:thanks:thanks:thanks


----------



## eilertsen

Hello Sgtslice! You're thinking about a SINN UX HYDRO with silicon or Teflon oil in it. Very nice watch with a high spec. ETA Quartz. It's a heavy watch so I only have mine on when not active. My Casio 55 grams or so is much better when on my MTB.


----------



## Cockpit

Cockpit said:


> Hi, thanks for the very informative post. Especially the part on dynamic pressure, an eye-opener.
> 
> I have one (silly?) question though. In some of my watch manuals, it indicates that only those rated 50m and above water-resistant is suitable for showering/swimming, not WR30m.
> 
> Why is that the case? I could never understand why a WR30m watch can not be used in showers at sea level or in swimming pools where the max depth is commonly only 2 metres.
> 
> This has bugged me for the longest time. Is it for the same reasons above, 1) marketing, 2) liability/warranty issues and 3) playing it on the safe side? If so, then I think it's a bit ridiculous that a WR30m cannot be worn when showering...


I might have found the answer to my own question! Here it is, taken from Nike watches' repair faq:



> *What is the difference between 100 meter water resistance and 10 bar water resistance?*
> The word "Bar" refers the standard pressure of the weight of air when measured at sea level. Pressure increases underwater. A watch that is water-resistance-rated at 10 bar (10 times the pressure at sea level) is sometimes said to have 100-meter resistance. Five bar = 50 meters, and so on. But this is not completely accurate. If you take a 10-bar watch to a depth of 100 meters, then tap the face, it may implode. It's better to think of three bar as acceptable for bathing and swimming, five bar for water sports that involve diving and swimming underwater, and 10 bar and above acceptable for scuba diving in less than 30 meters of water. Remember also that you can't press buttons underwater without risking water damage.


 Credits: Nike

I'm not really convinced about the imploding part though... what I can intepret from it is that basically they are advising users not to bring the watches to its rated depth because of this simple rule - *better safe than sorry*!

Nonetheless, a WR30m watch capable only for bathing/swimming STILL sounds ridiculous to me! In my opinion, a "WR10m" or "WR 1 Bar" rating is more _appropriate_ for such a watch (and doesn't make the manufacturers look so incompetent - producing a WR30m watch unable to be used in swimming pools). Clearly, "appropriate" doesn't fit in with marketing and advertising, which brings us back to the topic and Joakim Agren's first post, that



Joakim Agren said:


> ...the rating on the watch is merely a market descision and not an actual fact of the capacity of the watch in question.


Well, I guess a "WR30m" does look more impressive to a "WR10m" on a dial after all. :roll:


----------



## AussieRog

Hi Joakim

As a recent arrival, I have a few questions and am sure we all did and still do. Your detailed research hasn't gone to waste at all. As I have just finished reading this post and haven't followed up with the other replies, perhaps this should be a 'sticky?"
Thanks
Roger


----------



## uktrailmonster

Joakim Agren said:


> So what can we conclude:
> 
> The Standardisation does not indicate a watch maximum capacity.
> The rating is given by the manufacturer mostly due to marketing reasons and often the maximum capacity of a watch is seldom tested.
> The difference between different watches with the same rating can be huge....
> Dynamic Pressure is mostly just fear mongering and a myth
> 
> Sorry for this very lenghty post but hopefully I have thought you guys something new.....:-!


Great post with some very useful and thoroughly researched information, particularly regarding dynamic pressure. But I do have some constructive comments regarding your conclusions:-

1/ There is clearly a huge difference between ISO 2281 (standard tests) and ISO 6425 (divers specific tests). If I was a professional diver I would certainly want a watch with an ISO 6425 rating, simply because the tests are far more stringent and, most importantly, the actual watch I was wearing would have been tested. So I could be confident the watch was fit for purpose with no quality control issues.

2/ Although ISO 2281 rating is partly a marketing decision, I think it does have more value than your conclusion suggests. A marketing department can't simply decide to rate a watch at 200 m unless it can actually pass the 200 m test in the first place. So it does at least give you an indication of the minimum water resistance to expect. I would be very confident using any 200 m rated watch for swimming and snorkeling. It's really the lower rated watches that are more of an unknown quantity, which I agree was an excellent point to make. But if you regularly intend to use a watch underwater, why would you take the risk? There are dozens of inexpensive 200 m rated watches to choose from.

A further point worth researching is the effect of regular showering in hot soapy water. It's often said that the combination of hot water, steam and soap can quickly degrade the seals. Without researching the subject I can easily believe this and as a precaution do not wear any of my watches in the shower. Probably not an easy point to verify either way, but it would be great to know if there is any truth in it.


----------



## tribe125

AussieRog said:


> perhaps this should be a 'sticky?"


It's in the 'Resources file' at the top of this page. Too many stickies and the forum starts halfway down the page. ;-)


----------



## satdiver

Just a note really as some of the info posted is very good indeed. I am a Gas Diver or Saturation Diver, I basically go to work offshore on a DSV Dive Support Vessel and along with two other guys take my turn in the chamber for 28days there are 12 men working 3 decompressing at all times. As Divers we like our bling and seadweller is very popular, known as the sockdweller, because guys pack the watch away and dont want to lose scratch whatever their pride and joy.
I know one diver who does who does not have some form of G shock the rest of us swear by them, we are averaging a storage depth of 140m often deeper in a Heliox gas enviroment , older G shock steam up, some newer ones also, but they will of been up and down many times.
I have had Rolex, IWC Bell&ROSS( these two VERY good) Breitling, god you name it, all with the helium valves. Casio is just Great a sealed unit care free and it works. Have to say love the frogman, have a 25th ann and want a 1000b, but that really is silly money for a rubber watch which cost no more to make than say a 7900 , thats life though.
Regards


----------



## tact

Very informative!:-!:thanksSo dynamic pressure is just a myth?


----------



## Onewatchhh

awesome!
I are now, expert ;-)
thanks!


----------



## over2land

Thanks for this.

I killed my DW-6100 years ago by diving off the 10M platform into a pool that was 16-20 ft deep. I never could figure out how it was possible to kill the watch with such shallow depths.

I'm no pro diver, I hit the water feet first, hands crossed over chest, and continued to the bottom. I looked at the watch right after I hit the water and it was still working, but by the time I got out, and looked at it again it was not.

After reading your article, I now suspect it was the speed of descent which did it. I'm still no where near certain, but that rating thing makes way more sense to me now.

When I called Casio to get it warrantied, I told them what happened, and they offered a discounted price for repair or replacement (I forget which). But I decided that if the watch couldn't survive that, I didn't want to spend money to fix it. So, I instead got a DW-6600 in blue (I liked the EL backlight over the light the 6100 had anyway).


----------



## schieper

Great post. Thanks for the briliant info.

3 things puzzle me and one remark on mij spf-40

1. Somebody asked Suunto why they make a core which has a dept gauge till 10 meters but is not for swimming? Makes nosence to me 
2. On liability. If I take my 200 m watch snorkling to 10 m and it brakes. I get a new one. If I take it scuba diving not. Funny
3. If I go diving i rarely go below 10-15 meters and never make a saturation dive. If my dive watch stops. Who cares. My buddy also has a watch and I am up in seconds. Just pul the cord in the jacket ;-) 

My SPF-40 is 100m. Used it many times for sailing. Even in winter, with heavy winds and lots of wather spraying over deck. Never a problem!


----------



## Kaiser T

*Suggested Water Resistance Codes*

It would be so much simpler to indicate water resistance as follows:

*WR-SPL* (Splashes only) in place of of WR
*WR-SWM* (Swimming) in place of WR50M
*WR-SNK* (Snorkeling) in place of WR100M
*WR-SKI* (Jet Skiing) in place of WR200M
*WR-SCB* (Scuba) in place of Diver's 200M

After all, if the indicated WR depth does not mean what it says, why confuse everyone?

PS: The instructions manual could explain other activities similar to the coded one (ie SPL=splash, rain etc; SWM=swimming, poolside diving etc...and so on)


----------



## Txemizo

Really good post, thanks! - I had no problems reading it in full.


----------



## cdude

"I killed my DW-6100 years ago by diving off the 10M platform into a pool that was 16-20 ft deep. I never could figure out how it was possible to kill the watch with such shallow depths."

YIKES!

Here's a few possibilities:
1. You had the battery replaced and the person whoever did it didn't make sure the back gasket was in place properly.
2. The gaskets just got old and wore out.
3. You exposed the watch to something nasty that rotted the gaskets
4. Manufacturing defect.

When I first got my f105w 8 years ago I took it out back and sprayed it with the garden hose and a squirt gun. I held it there for a few minutes until the water got cold and my fingers hurt. I sprayed the buttons, back, and crystal at various angles. It survived.

F105W-1A - Classic - Timepiece - Products - CASIO

I'm surprised dynamic pressure could kill a watch without killing the person wearing it.


----------



## captain kid

Wow I read almost all of it including the posts.

One question comes to mind:
Do ALL watches individually get tested?

If this is the case and EVERY 30m watch which leaves the factory gets tested, they should survive going underwater in 30 meters of water. Right?


----------



## tribe125

captain kid said:


> One question comes to mind:
> Do ALL watches individually get tested?


No. I imagine they're batch tested.


----------



## Txemizo

tribe125 said:


> No. I imagine they're batch tested.


Agree, otherwise costs would go right up.


----------



## over2land

cdude said:


> "I killed my DW-6100 years ago by diving off the 10M platform into a pool that was 16-20 ft deep. I never could figure out how it was possible to kill the watch with such shallow depths."
> 
> YIKES!
> 
> Here's a few possibilities:
> 1. You had the battery replaced and the person whoever did it didn't make sure the back gasket was in place properly.
> 2. The gaskets just got old and wore out.
> 3. You exposed the watch to something nasty that rotted the gaskets
> 4. Manufacturing defect.


I guess until I jump off the next 10M platform I really won't know. I have 2 DW-6100s now but really don't want to destroy them.

At the time I didn't have the battery replaced yet (tried that after the swim).

2-3-4 are very possible though... especially since I wore it every day, no matter what... that meant brake-clean, gasoline, oils, diesel, bug sprays (I had some great military-issue stuff at the time) and more would have seen that watch at various points.

The funny part is, it handled my diving to the bottom of that pool just fine... didn't handle the high platform though. Also wasn't that watch's first time in deeper water... had done scuba up to 50 feet with it a few times.


----------



## schieper

I think they test it in a small tank where they ad 3 bars of pressure. So no need to take them 30 m down


----------



## captain kid

tribe125 said:


> No. I imagine they're batch tested.


Perhaps this is the reason 30m watches are not recommended for swimming..
Although even if they would pass 0.5 bar (5 meters) instead of 3 bar they would still be good for swimming.

This for me is the biggest mystery. If a watch is tested ,even in batches, at 3 bar/30 meters (and even 5 bar/50 meters), why do they recommend not swimming with it.


----------



## tribe125

captain kid said:


> If a watch is tested ,even in batches, at 3 bar/30 meters (and even 5 bar/50 meters), why do they recommend not swimming with it.


Because they've been advised to be ultra-cautious by product liability lawyers.

All the answers should be in the five pages of this thread.


----------



## Alexeibc

great read!


----------



## BA1970

Very informative. Thank you for enriching my mind - and my watch.


----------



## Scottish Steve

Thank you very much for that post! This is exactly why I joined this forum....to get the info that's witheld by those whose job it is to sell us stuff. A G-Shock competent to 350m? Who's gonna test THAT one out?


----------



## ccm123

Great info, thanks !:-!


----------



## lysanderxiii

captain kid said:


> Wow I read almost all of it including the posts.
> 
> One question comes to mind:
> Do ALL watches individually get tested?
> 
> If this is the case and EVERY 30m watch which leaves the factory gets tested, they should survive going underwater in 30 meters of water. Right?


Under ISO 2281 batch testing is acceptable for all tests.

Under ISO 6425, 100% of the watches must be pressure tested to 125% rated pressure, all other tests can be done in accordance with ISO 2859-1 and -2, Sampling Procedures For Inspection By Attributes, ie batch testing.


----------



## Daunce

Just read this very informative thread,thanks Joakim


----------



## mooncameras

I just drank 5 cups of coffee to stay up and finish this Post,, LOL very informative thanks so much now it is clear on what WR means


----------



## stpete

That was fairly interesting. My reality check to all of it is my own experience. I was on the swim team through Jr High and High school and most water resistant watches from Casio at the time (IIRC 50m - 100m, just pre G-shock) would last me less than a year. The pounding from swimming hard would eventually cause them to leak. The Timex sport watches would last about 3 months. I suspect the weaker springs on the buttons allowed water in, but could not trace it. I got the DW-5000 when it came out and it lasted few years before I lost it. I replaced it with another (don't know what model, probably a 5600C) which lasted me about 12 years before the bezel rotted away. That watch also took me through scuba certification and probably 30 or so dives. A poor job by a "watch expert" at a jewelry store changing the battery actually had the watch flood on a 30 ft lake dive, but because it was clean fresh water, I was able to dry it out and save it. The "expert" had screwed the back on right through the o-ring. I learned how to change the battery myself and never had another problem.
The bottom line to me is that the watches made for immersion that have specs of 50m to 100m are perfectly capable of being used for occasional recreational swimming or even occasional scuba dives. But repeated pressure against the water, the type endured by training miles a day in the pool, is eventually going to get them. Since my watch flood, I've always used two watches while scuba diving. One on my wrist and one attached to my BC. Most have been 200m watches and I've never had a problem with any of them. I did wear a AMW320 for 5 years or so and never had a problem with that either (about 10 dives on it < 100ft each), but it probably wouldn't have survived daily swim training. That watch was not as durable as a G though, it died by mechanical failure.


----------



## GatorJ

stpete said:


> That was fairly interesting. My reality check to all of it is my own experience. I was on the swim team through Jr High and High school and most water resistant watches from Casio at the time (IIRC 50m - 100m, just pre G-shock) would last me less than a year. The pounding from swimming hard would eventually cause them to leak. The Timex sport watches would last about 3 months. I suspect the weaker springs on the buttons allowed water in, but could not trace it. I got the DW-5000 when it came out and it lasted few years before I lost it. I replaced it with another (don't know what model, probably a 5600C) which lasted me about 12 years before the bezel rotted away. That watch also took me through scuba certification and probably 30 or so dives. A poor job by a "watch expert" at a jewelry store changing the battery actually had the watch flood on a 30 ft lake dive, but because it was clean fresh water, I was able to dry it out and save it. The "expert" had screwed the back on right through the o-ring. I learned how to change the battery myself and never had another problem.
> The bottom line to me is that the watches made for immersion that have specs of 50m to 100m are perfectly capable of being used for occasional recreational swimming or even occasional scuba dives. But repeated pressure against the water, the type endured by training miles a day in the pool, is eventually going to get them. Since my watch flood, I've always used two watches while scuba diving. One on my wrist and one attached to my BC. Most have been 200m watches and I've never had a problem with any of them. I did wear a AMW320 for 5 years or so and never had a problem with that either (about 10 dives on it < 100ft each), but it probably wouldn't have survived daily swim training. That watch was not as durable as a G though, it died by mechanical failure.


Your swim practice Casio failures were more likely the result of chlorine as opposed to any "pounding" from swimming.


----------



## petew

GatorJ said:


> Your swim practice Casio failures were more likely the result of chlorine as opposed to any "pounding" from swimming.


I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## user22foros

Great post. Also i can add that i have killed in two years two Riseman GW-9200 , only getting with it a daily shower and handswahing.


----------



## OceanView

Thanks for the info.
I'm fine with anything 50-100 feet as I don't imagine going even that deep.
The occasional swimming and hand washing is the most water my watches will see.


----------



## xevious

user22foros said:


> Great post. Also i can add that i have killed in two years two Riseman GW-9200 , only getting with it a daily shower and handswahing.


Oh yeah, RIGHT. A 200m Casio watch ends up leaking within a year or two from simple showering. Anyone here with Riseman watch experience would look at that and scoff. Your outrageous claim is further hole-punched by the fact that this is your first posting. My Spidey sense is tingling... you're likely a previously booted user.


----------



## gaijin

user22foros said:


> Great post. Also i can add that i have killed in two years two Riseman GW-9200 , only getting with it a daily shower and handswahing.


Any pics? I'm betting not ...


----------



## JwY

gaijin said:


> Any pics? I'm betting not ...


Same here. It's hard to believe that it's because of showering.


----------



## user22foros

xevious said:


> Oh yeah, RIGHT. A 200m Casio watch ends up leaking within a year or two from simple showering. Anyone here with Riseman watch experience would look at that and scoff. Your outrageous claim is further hole-punched by the fact that this is your first posting. My Spidey sense is tingling... you're likely a previously booted user.


Hey calm down because you don't know me to say all that.

I haven't made any pics when i been trying to repair it but i can make it now showing that one is working but not the alti/baro.
The other one went worse on the repair tentative just ended near killing it.

I am not very good casio repaireman, mainly because i also killed a Giez atomic with the same problem of water ingress.

I can't tell you why is the reason of water getting inside of this three watches but the case is that it happen.

But yesterday i bought in this forum a Frogman that hope will last better than those three.


----------



## JwY

user22foros said:


> Hey calm down because you don't know me to say all that.
> 
> I haven't made any pics when i been trying to repair it but i can make it now showing that one is working but not the alti/baro.
> The other one went worse on the repair tentative just ended near killing it.
> 
> I am not very good casio repaireman, mainly because i also killed a Giez atomic with the same problem of water ingress.
> 
> I can't tell you why is the reason of water getting inside of this three watches but the case is that it happen.
> 
> But yesterday i bought in this forum a Frogman that hope will last better than those three.


Did you open them up at anytime before or did they just stop working from being new?


----------



## Pete26

Geat academic discourse, thanks


----------



## satdiver

Hello everyone 
I have used a 7900 rescue for work( saturation diver ) this until last trip had served me well to a max depth of 205m time and again the watch decompressed and went back down. The strap finally broke and I lost the watch. For all you guys not working at depth like I do..... Guys G shock rocks trust me

I own DSSD BR02 ORIS PANERAI.....BUT WORK IN G

Enjoy


----------



## user22foros

JwY said:


> Did you open them up at anytime before or did they just stop working from being new?


No, no, i didn't open it before. Just waht i found on both Riseman was rust between the plastic cover and the metal lid, so there was the way where the water got in.

Then i just open the watch, try to clean the screen al then use a hair dryer to remove any wet/water. But at this point, when put back all togther, the springs got bended or the barometer sensor got loose or what ever you can imagine (including that my eyes are loosing acuracy).

About the Giez i couldn't find what was the reason to get water inside.

But going back to why they stop working, the answer is: if you try to repair watches, you must have a very good eyes.


----------



## steve6387

xevious said:


> Oh yeah, RIGHT. A 200m Casio watch ends up leaking within a year or two from simple showering. Anyone here with Riseman watch experience would look at that and scoff. Your outrageous claim is further hole-punched by the fact that this is your first posting. My Spidey sense is tingling... you're likely a previously booted user.


I had a brand new Riseman flood and die while pool swimming on vacation. I never opened it and it was maybe 8 weeks old. Casio tried to fix it once but a ton of condensation remained so they replaced the head. I wish I looked closely as I bet the caseback gasket was seated wrong or somethng.


----------



## xevious

^ I suspect that it was just bad luck, one slipped past quality control. I thought that all of the watch module and case assembly is done by machine, but perhaps not. Anytime I've bought a Casio watch, I take the case back off to examine it, then replace it carefully. If it looks like the O-ring grease is spartan or not very gooey, I apply a little more just for good measure.


----------



## Monocrom

Looks like if I want a real diver's watch, then "Diver's" is exactly what I have to look for on the dial.


----------



## steve6387

Monocrom said:


> Looks like if I want a real diver's watch, then "Diver's" is exactly what I have to look for on the dial.


I wouldn't go that far as it limits your options and necesarilly increases the cost. My original point was that a failure on a relatively new (and untampered with) watch is not impossible. There are tons of examples of G's and dive watches going to extremes without failure which don't carry the "divers" designation on the face (see SatDivers post above). I believe I simply had bad luck with QC on my original Riseman. It has not stopped me from using and abusing my G's or my dive watches. They all see water as often as possible and over the last 10 years and a dozen watches or so, that was my only failure.


----------



## xevious

A "Diver" qualified watch leaves no room for doubt that the watch should survive repeated submersion within rated depths. However, even with that there is always the recommendation to have the watch serviced annually. I do not believe such aggressive servicing is necessary for certain watch brands. My Citizen Aqualand has been used across 5 years without any issues whatsoever, and no servicing. I will either service it or sell it at the 8 year mark, though.

Surviving water resistance is the key with any non-diver watch. Casio has proven time and time again that their designs are rugged enough to withstand heavy water use without a hitch. Probably better than most other watches in the respective class. Several people on WUS have given testimony to taking DW-6900 and DW-5600 watches on repeated diving trips and not suffered any leakage.

HOWEVER, I would not take any ABC type watch on a diving trip. There's no telling how robust the seal is around the sensor... And the Riseman is a good example.


----------



## Errtito

Great info. Read it all and loved it. Problem? Now i want a Suunto.


----------



## Teya

Thank you for the very informative thread. About 25 years ago I got my mother a Casio that said 100 meters WR. She worked in a job that required to get her arms submerged in water quite often. It did not survive the first round. She is retired now, but there is a Baby-G 200m wr on the way, let's hope it can survive a summer's beach life.


----------



## caveatipse

I think I now have a PhD in Water Resistance!


----------



## LUW

This should be a sticky in the technical Articles & Tutorials.


----------



## Sedi

Errtito said:


> Great info. Read it all and loved it. Problem? Now i want a Suunto.


Hi and welcome to the forum Errtito!

cheers, Sedi


----------



## Sedi

LUW said:


> This should be a sticky in the technical Articles & Tutorials.


It's in the resources files:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f17/resources-file-179140.html

cheers, Sedi


----------



## LUW

Cool! I missed it there - I always only think of Articles & Tutorials when I think about resources |>.


----------



## robb5150

Wowww!! This is a great thread... and just in time.

This past weekend I went diving here in Puerto Rico, and I took two of my favorite Casio's with me, two GL-150's, Blue and Green, bought around 2004. I will post pictures of the watches soon. About a year ago, I changed the batteries on both for the second time, following the instructions on one of the posts on this site. I figured out, since I have been unable to obtain replacement straps for them, if they are going to die, they should die doing what they have done best: windsurfing and diving.
The first dive: 110 ft, 15 min, with security decompression stops and everything. Second dive, 60 feet, 25 min, security decompression stops and everything. I used ALL buttons under water, especially the chronometer and timer to monitor my diving time...

Guess what...

The watches are laughing at me!!!... not a scratch, no malfunction, NOTHING!!!! These are TOUGH watches. I use them to windsurf without problems, and now they survived a diving test. Boy, I thought they were going to die at 20 feet.
I never bought a Frogman because they looked way too big for me, but guess what will be my next watch...

Again, great post…


----------



## Joakim Agren

I just recently posted a video on YT highlighting the fact that the markings on the watch is of little relevance to the reality. In this video a GWF-1000 Frogman is torture tested to an amazing 1000 Meters or 3333 feet and it survived:






Sure the GWF-1000 Frogman is an astounding piece but I am sure that any G can survive atleast 600 Meters or 2000 feet just fine. So in the case of Casio G-Shock watches the markings are to moderate but in other brands it might be just the opposite and the marking on the watch is to high in relation to what it would survive in reality.


----------



## TedDotCom

Joakim Agren said:


> I just recently posted a video on YT highlighting the fact that the markings on the watch is of little relevance to the reality. In this video a GWF-1000 Frogman is torture tested to an amazing 1000 Meters or 3333 feet and it survived:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure the GWF-1000 Frogman is an astounding piece but I am sure that any G can survive atleast 600 Meters or 2000 feet just fine. So in the case of Casio G-Shock watches the markings are to moderate but in other brands it might be just the opposite and the marking on the watch is to high in relation to what it would survive in reality.


Great vid.

BTW, what's the watch beside the Frogman? Looked like a G-Shock but the branding has been whited out...


----------



## yosemitesamiam

Great thread! Only fell asleep twice reading all pages. . Anyway. I bought 6900 yesterday. Took it apart and salvaged it to rebuild my 18yo 6600. New strap new bezel, I also grabbed the gasket. I had replaced my battery before and didnt lube it before going back on. When I opened the back yesterday it was crushed and stretched. Hopefully this didnt happen again, but I did take an extra step, I filled her full of trumpet valve oil! If nothing else, if the oil isn't leaking out, that means nothing is going in either. 

I'd be willing to stick it in a testing aperatus made for real dive watches. Some hydro watches I've heard of making it to 1000M. Of course...you can't know how much it can take till it fails.


----------



## yosemitesamiam

Oh, here....
View attachment 1009878


----------



## foureye

Very good points raised. When I purchased my G Shock the manual for its care has an illustration on what sort of activity you can do for a watch that's rated as 100m water resist. For 100m water resist jetskiing and snorkeling is not recommended. But I've taken my Seiko 5 jetskiing way, way back in the 90' and it's still ticking after all these years.


----------



## Tick Toc

I always swim with my G-Shocks and Seiko diver's watches. They always get wet all the time.


----------



## Odie

Any 200m G-Shock watches buttons can be used underwater. I actually have an email from Casio stating this. 

I'm also a diver and anytime I get a new watch, I pressure test it at my store down to 230' for 10 minutes. G-Shocks are fine for any water activity.


----------



## fitsector

one of the most interesting threads I ever read. 
thanks to all contributors.


----------



## Lokifish

I know I'm resurrecting a two year old thread but seeing it's used as reference, the information is long outdated. ISO 2281 was rendered obsolete in 2010 and replaced by ISO 22810:2010. ISO 22810:2010 defines that a xx meters rating means that for all aquatic activities down to a depth of xx meters, the watch case should not leak. So if a watchmaker claims ISO compliance and their post 2010 30m rated watch leaks while swimming, the watch is faulty.

There are tons of these reference threads on WUS still using the invalid ISO 2281 definitions. Help fellow watch lovers out and spread the word.


----------



## Cobia

Odie said:


> Any 200m G-Shock watches buttons can be used underwater. I actually have an email from Casio stating this.
> 
> I'm also a diver and anytime I get a new watch, I pressure test it at my store down to 230' for 10 minutes. G-Shocks are fine for any water activity.


Awesome, i wasnt aware of this, is this confirmed all gshocks buttons can be used under water?


----------



## Alden

I admit I did not read all 14 pages in this thread. 

Does anyone have any first hand or second hand information about the Casio MDV 106 diver? It's rated at 200m.


----------



## Rocat

Alden said:


> I admit I did not read all 14 pages in this thread.
> 
> Does anyone have any first hand or second hand information about the Casio MDV 106 diver? It's rated at 200m.


The MDV-106 is a true divers watch and the best $40 bucks you will ever, gladly spend on a "cheap diver". Over here on the Casio forum I am not sure anyone has actually went diving with theirs, I could be wrong though. However, maybe in the Dive watch forum there may be some information. If not you can always post that question over there and get some responses.


----------



## Watch_Geekmaster

Alden said:


> I admit I did not read all 14 pages in this thread.
> 
> Does anyone have any first hand or second hand information about the Casio MDV 106 diver? It's rated at 200m.


Once upon a time in this forum, there was a modding fancy for the MDV-106. A lot of people modded them into the blue ring white dial version. You can find those threads with a simple search, plus many other threads talking about this watch. Its popularity probably contributed to its drastic price drop, at one point last year it's only $38! It's a bit higher now probably due to inflation and lower in quantity. Like Rocat said, not sure if anyone actually used it for diving, but for sure it's rated at 200m. Casio is usually pretty honest for their WR ratings, so if the watch's 200m WR it's almost guarantee it will perform as such. There was a thread showing someone dived with a 30m WR Casio down to 30m, and had no issue at all! https://www.watchuseek.com/f74/can-i-dive-30m-wr-watch-empirical-experience-1847322.html

For me however, though I saw the MDV-106 in person in a store last year, it just didn't click. It was too plain looking to me, and as usually for Casio analogs, lacking lume. Even the nice Marlin logo was not enough to motivate me to buy it.


----------



## Rocat

That is the beauty of the MDV-106. It has a clean face that makes it look great versus a very busy dial with too many sub dials and writing on the face. You know, like the natural beauty of pretty woman who looks stunning without makeup versus one that slaps makeup on like it's spackle and thinks she looks pretty.


----------



## shms59

Not the smart crowns though-



Cobia said:


> Awesome, i wasnt aware of this, is this confirmed all gshocks buttons can be used under water?


----------



## Alden

watch_geek2014 said:


> Once upon a time in this forum, there was a modding fancy for the MDV-106. A lot of people modded them into the blue ring white dial version. You can find those threads with a simple search, plus many other threads talking about this watch. Its popularity probably contributed to its drastic price drop, at one point last year it's only $38! It's a bit higher now probably due to inflation and lower in quantity. Like Rocat said, not sure if anyone actually used it for diving, but for sure it's rated at 200m. Casio is usually pretty honest for their WR ratings, so if the watch's 200m WR it's almost guarantee it will perform as such. There was a thread showing someone dived with a 30m WR Casio down to 30m, and had no issue at all! https://www.watchuseek.com/f74/can-i-dive-30m-wr-watch-empirical-experience-1847322.html
> 
> For me however, though I saw the MDV-106 in person in a store last year, it just didn't click. It was too plain looking to me, and as usually for Casio analogs, lacking lume. Even the nice Marlin logo was not enough to motivate me to buy it.


It may not have the luminescence of some divers, but it's the prettiest plain-jane diver I've ever seen.


----------



## Goo

Hi everyone,
I just stumbled upon this thread and I have read it thoroughly. It really shed a light about the mechanics of dynamic vs static water pressure and its doubtful marketing use.
However my concern is how about the WR meanings can relate directly to air pressure since I have to go through HBOT terhaphy (hyperbaric oxygen therapy).
So my question is: Might a Casio 50m WR withstand an AIR pressure of 2-2,8bar? I know it's a somewhat silly question and I guess that it might be too harmful, but I really don't know for sure.
thanx!


----------



## d2mac

Welcome to the forum!

2,5 Bar means 25m.

Since there is just air leaking in even if the watch sealings fail - I wouldnt worry! 



Goo said:


> Hi everyone,
> I just stumbled upon this thread and I have read it thoroughly. It really shed a light about the mechanics of dynamic vs static water pressure and its doubtful marketing use.
> However my concern is how about the WR meanings can relate directly to air pressure since I have to go through HBOT terhaphy (hyperbaric oxygen therapy).
> So my question is: Might a Casio 50m WR withstand an AIR pressure of 2-2,8bar? I know it's a somewhat silly question and I guess that it might be too harmful, but I really don't know for sure.
> thanx!


----------



## congo

Most automated pressure testing equipment for watches uses compressed air. There is no difference of water and air pressure from the viewpoint of the watch.


----------



## Joakim Agren

Goo said:


> Hi everyone,
> I just stumbled upon this thread and I have read it thoroughly. It really shed a light about the mechanics of dynamic vs static water pressure and its doubtful marketing use.
> However my concern is how about the WR meanings can relate directly to air pressure since I have to go through HBOT terhaphy (hyperbaric oxygen therapy).
> So my question is: Might a Casio 50m WR withstand an AIR pressure of 2-2,8bar? I know it's a somewhat silly question and I guess that it might be too harmful, but I really don't know for sure.
> thanx!


2.8 bar is the equivalent of 28 Meters of water so a 50M WR Casio with good seals should be fine in such pressure.


----------



## Blarpie

I still see people posting nonsense about dynamic vs static pressure all over the 'net. And saying that you should be careful walking in the fog and breathing heavily on watches unless they're rated down to 200m. Watching "Storm Stories" on The Weather Channel will destroy anything not rated to at least 100m. Stepping on a wet lawn or even thinking about going to the beach will render anything not rated to at least 30m useless.

Old myths die hard I guess.


----------



## G-Shocks Are Cool.

The way I look at it. If any of my G-Shocks failed. I will only buy the cheapest G-Shocks again and again. Their simple features are the best you can buy. Once you get the new out of your watch. You can then use and abuse it and see how tough it is.


----------



## G-Shocks Are Cool.

Want to know how tough your watch is. Take a really hot shower, then stick it in cold water as soon as you can. If it fogs up and then changes back to normal in a few seconds your watch is good to go.

I sweat a lot, and my arm can get moisture from having the watch inside my jacket arm sleeve. That is the same conditions like I just mentioned.


----------



## G-Shocks Are Cool.

I don't get the whole water resistant thing at all. I know being ISO rated is a diving standard like the Frogman has, but divers have been using the 6600 and the 6900 for diving for along time, and something that cheap has no ISO rating. The Frogman is probably based on preference more in my opinion.


----------



## Mike K

G-Shocks Are Cool. said:


> I don't get the whole water resistant thing at all. I know being ISO rated is a diving standard like the Frogman has, but divers have been using the 6600 and the 6900 for diving for along time, and something that cheap has no ISO rating. The Frogman is probably based on preference more in my opinion.


Watches stopped being "waterproof" in 1990 and became "water resistant" instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark

The biggest differences between a watch that's rated by the manufacturer for 200m of water resistance and a watch that's ISO rated for 200m of water resistance:

1) Every single ISO-6425 rated dive watch needs to be tested, as opposed to whatever standards they use for non-ISO watches, which is almost surely "batch testing." Nobody seems to know the actual percentage -- do they test one out of every ten watches? One out of every hundred, or thousand? It doesn't matter what the actual number is, because it's definitely more expensive to test every single watch.

2) The test for ISO-6425 rated dive watches involves many other tests than "just" the actual water resistance, and checks for additional features like whether the watch has a timing device like a rotating bezel or countdown timer, whether it can be read in the dark, and the strength of the strap.

While most G-Shocks could pass those tests without any problem, Casio doesn't want to go to the added trouble and expense of testing every single watch, which would probably double the cost of some of their less-expensive models.


----------



## Lokifish

G-Shocks Are Cool. said:


> I don't get the whole water resistant thing at all. I know being ISO rated is a diving standard like the Frogman has, but divers have been using the 6600 and the 6900 for diving for along time, and something that cheap has no ISO rating. The Frogman is probably based on preference more in my opinion.


ISO rating is not just a diver's watch standard;
" any watch on the market sold as water-resistant must satisfy ISO 22810 - regardless of the brand."
(source)

So a 30m "rated" no name watch is supposed to be water resistant for aquatic activities to a depth of 30m. Sad part is the ISO has no teeth, or most watches would have been pulled off the market by now.


----------



## weldor

Great read, I did read it all. My conclusion is when I swim either in a pool or in the ocean (never below 10') my 200m Seiko diver or Citizen 200m (not rated) dive watch will do just fine. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Nanook65

I didn't read the entire 11 pages here but it is interesting. I have never seen this calculation, but I would like to know both a) how to do it and b) the results:
Here is a scenario that is not so unreasonable. Lets say I am a slalom water skier and I ski in tournaments or practice for them with my watch on. The boat will be pulling me at 36 mph, but when I am cutting hard across the wake I am told that speeds can reach about 70mph. What if I wipe out at 70? what sort of pressure does this actually put on the watch?


----------



## WES51

Nanook65 said:


> Lets say I am a slalom water skier and I ski in tournaments or practice for them with my watch on. The boat will be pulling me at 36 mph, but when I am cutting hard across the wake I am told that speeds can reach about 70mph. What if I wipe out at 70? what sort of pressure does this actually put on the watch?


I'm not the OP, but I believe the issue that you are bringing up was already addressed. OP said what is important if you bring speed to the equation, that the pressure is able to be dissipated around the watch. In other words the watch is not in a closed environment where equal pressure acts on the watch from all sides. Having said that I also believe that your question may be a borderline case as in your given scenario there might be other issues that could damage your watch.


----------



## MainePorsche

WES51 said:


> I'm not the OP, but I believe the issue that you are bringing up was already addressed. OP said what is important if you bring speed to the equation, that the pressure is able to be dissipated around the watch. In other words the watch is not in a closed environment where equal pressure acts on the watch from all sides. Having said that I also believe that your question may be a borderline case as in your given scenario there might be other issues that could damage your watch.


+1
You may have a watertight watch lying on the lake bed at 35 ft. after the band breaks when you were skittled across the surface on a whip turn.


----------



## Watch_Geekmaster

In light of all the threads doubting the water resistance of G-Shocks, and this new scientific discovery in the news link below, I'm reviving this great thread. If a little insect can grow some hair and make a bubble to go underwater, we can too grow a pair and dive (or shower) with our G-Shocks. :-d Necessity is mother of invention, as they say. Unfortunately, by each generation, we are getting unnecessarily more doubtful about our own inventions or things we shouldn't _need_ to worry about. ;-)

Scientists Solve the Mystery of America's Scuba-Diving Fly








Here's my own photo of Mono Lake from 30,000 ft above.


----------



## xevious

Nanook65 said:


> I didn't read the entire 11 pages here but it is interesting. I have never seen this calculation, but I would like to know both a) how to do it and b) the results:
> Here is a scenario that is not so unreasonable. Lets say I am a slalom water skier and I ski in tournaments or practice for them with my watch on. The boat will be pulling me at 36 mph, but when I am cutting hard across the wake I am told that speeds can reach about 70mph. What if I wipe out at 70? what sort of pressure does this actually put on the watch?


I'd be more worried about your arm being broken if it struck something while going at 70mph. The watch will be just fine. Now if a polar bear got hold of your G-Shock found in the snow (the spring bars would have failed and the watch catapulted from your wrist), it might not survive the crushing jaws of that bear. But then, you'd probably be more concerned about getting away alive.


----------



## GShocksCoolness

Nobody gets why the Rolex Submariner is such a great watch? A watch isn't just about going diving. It is the things you do wearing your watch when you aren't diving that matters too. You can wear a Rolex Submariner with a suit and tie just as much as a diving suit. 

That being said. 

The harsh conditions on a boat in the middle of the ocean has to deal with chemicals, vibrations, temperature changes, and magnetic interference from high powered sources. Then, you have to go diving. lol.

My job is a maintenance/groundskeeper/janitor. You can easily deal with the same things. 

Wintertime has the most extreme environments like the harsh ocean. My job could entail in a day from throwing salt on the sidewalk in 32 F and below, to walking inside a building that is 68 F to 72 F or higher. Then maybe cleaning up a mess with chemicals, and etc.

Also, washing my hands with soap and hand sanitizer all day long because my job is dirty. You have no idea..

Frogman for me.


----------



## moka 1 cup

Joakim Agren said:


> Suunto Core


WoW! I have really to thank you. We have three of them in the family, one Ultimate Black and two Graphite Crush. I have never used mine for swimming because I was unsure about it. Reading your VERY informative post made my day. Thank you very much.


----------

