Waterproof up to 30m?

Doyler92

Hi, just a quick question that's been annoying me for quite a while.

When browsing for watches in the likes of the Argos catalogue I see something that says waterproof for up to 30m or something similar.

I've always wondered is the "30m" in relation to time as in after a half hour the watch is useless under water or is it in relation to depth as the watch can support up to 30 metres of pressure?

Thanks for your help.

peasant

It's supposed to be meters ...but it isn't really. Your 30m watch would surely flood before it reaches a depth of 30 meters while diving.

a rough guideline:

30m will withstand a bit of rain / condensation/ sweat
50m should survive a dunking while washing hands
100m you can take swimming
200m you can take snorkelling/ scuba diving
anything beyond that ...you can use for one-upmanship

Bruthal

Doyler92 wrote: »

Hi, just a quick question that's been annoying me for quite a while.

When browsing for watches in the likes of the Argos catalogue I see something that says waterproof for up to 30m or something similar.

I've always wondered is the "30m" in relation to time as in after a half hour the watch is useless under water or is it in relation to depth as the watch can support up to 30 metres of pressure?

Thanks for your help.

It is 30 meters depth.

Just on a side note, it is given as a static depth, meaning it will resist water ingress when sitting at 30 meters depth. If it was at 30 meters on a diver`s wrist however, the movement of the diver would mean it has greater pressure on it, so may not hold up under those conditions. This would be why a 100 meter waterproof rating would not be suitable for diving, even though standard scuba diving would not go near that depth

So in answer, it means 30 meters depth anyway.

Bruthal

peasant wrote: »

It's supposed to be meters ...but it isn't really. Your 30m watch would surely flood before it reaches a depth of 30 meters while diving.

a rough guideline:

30m will withstand a bit of rain / condensation/ sweat
50m should survive a dunking while washing hands
100m you can take swimming
200m you can take snorkelling/ scuba diving
anything beyond that ...you can use for one-upmanship

My typing is too slow:)

Monty Burnz

I quite like the idea though that your 30m watch will sit in water happily enough for 29 minutes, but when you get to thirty, the watch thinks to itself 'ah, f*ck it' and lets the water in.

Doyler92

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I quite like the idea though that your 30m watch will sit in water happily enough for 29 minutes, but when you get to thirty, the watch thinks to itself 'ah, f*ck it' and lets the water in.

I asked the question as a person who knows nothing about watches. I thought it could of been a rough idea of how long it could last under water.

As far as I'm concerned the guide to the depth is still a rough idea but that's for your input.

Doyler92

peasant wrote: »

It's supposed to be meters ...but it isn't really. Your 30m watch would surely flood before it reaches a depth of 30 meters while diving.

a rough guideline:

30m will withstand a bit of rain / condensation/ sweat
50m should survive a dunking while washing hands
100m you can take swimming
200m you can take snorkelling/ scuba diving
anything beyond that ...you can use for one-upmanship

robbie7730 wrote: »

It is 30 meters depth.

Just on a side note, it is given as a static depth, meaning it will resist water ingress when sitting at 30 meters depth. If it was at 30 meters on a diver`s wrist however, the movement of the diver would mean it has greater pressure on it, so may not hold up under those conditions. This would be why a 100 meter waterproof rating would not be suitable for diving, even though standard scuba diving would not go near that depth

So in answer, it means 30 meters depth anyway.

Thanks, now it makes more sense.

Reloc8

Good post on water resistance generally here :-

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f281/water-resistance-myth-vs-reality-239664.html

Debunks the dynamic pressure theory, amongst others.

Monty Burnz

Doyler92 wrote: »

I asked the question as a person who knows nothing about watches. I thought it could of been a rough idea of how long it could last under water.

As far a as I'm concerned the guide to the depth is still a rough idea but that's for your input.

Hey, that wasn't meant as poking fun at you!

m4r10

No mention from the OP of the make of the watch. Some companies will be more conservative with the WR rating to avoid complaints, while other will be more true towards the real WR. Casio is one of the few manufacturers which can be trusted with their WR ratings.

Anjobe

m4r10 wrote: »

No mention from the OP of the make of the watch. Some companies will be more conservative with the WR rating to avoid complaints, while other will be more true towards the real WR. Casio is one of the few manufacturers which can be trusted with their WR ratings.

If the watch has the words "Water Resistant XXm" on it must comply with ISO 2281 which involves, among other things, resisting water ingress at the rated depth/pressure for 10 mins.

m4r10

Anjobe wrote: »

If the watch has the words "Water Resistant XXm" on it must comply with ISO 2281 which involves, among other things, resisting water ingress at the rated depth/pressure for 10 mins.

From what I read on various forums, the better the WR, the tougher, lenghtier and more expensive the process of certifying will be. Casio are choosing to underrate their watches's WR in order to keep the costs to a minimum. This is only one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-xDKJSYH34&feature=player_embedded

I'm not saying that other manufacturers (eg. Seiko, Citizen :rolleyes:, etc - you see what I did there? ) are taking shortcuts regarding the WR, but if a Casio is rated 30m WR, than I wouldn't think twice it will withstand that pressure.

Anjobe

m4r10 wrote: »

From what I read on various forums, the better the WR, the tougher, lenghtier and more expensive the process of certifying will be. Casio are choosing to underrate their watches's WR in order to keep the costs to a minimum. This is only one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-xDKJSYH34&feature=player_embedded

I'm not saying that other manufacturers (eg. Seiko :rolleyes:, etc - you see what I did there? ) are taking shortcuts regarding the WR, but if a Casio is rated 30m WR, than I wouldn't think twice it will withstand that pressure.

That video is just marketing fluff.

Interesting that you mention Seiko and Citizen, who are among the few manufacturers who produce fully ISO 6425 compliant diver's watches (as indicated by the wording "Diver's XXXm" on the dial and/or caseback). ISO 6425 requires the watch be pressure tested for 2 hours at 125% of the rated depth. It also requires that every watch is tested rather than just a sample from each batch, as is the case with ISO 2281, which is why most manufacturers don't bother.

mathepac

Be careful about wearing the watch in the bath, sauna, hot-tub, lava-fields (if you're Indiana Jones), etc as heat can play holy hell with the gaskets and seals.

munsterleinster

robbie7730 wrote: »

If it was at 30 meters on a diver`s wrist however, the movement of the diver would mean it has greater pressure on it.

..Absolute rubbish..

m4r10

Anjobe wrote: »

That video is just marketing fluff.

Interesting that you mention Seiko and Citizen, who are among the few manufacturers who produce fully ISO 6425 compliant diver's watches (as indicated by the wording "Diver's XXXm" on the dial and/or caseback). ISO 6425 requires the watch be pressure tested for 2 hours at 125% of the rated depth. It also requires that every watch is tested rather than just a sample from each batch, as is the case with ISO 2281, which is why most manufacturers don't bother.

I don't doubt that the Seiko and Citizen's divers are true to the claimed WR, by mentioning them I was just trying to make a reference (and a lame joke) to the manufacturer you work for. As I said in my previous post, the cost of complying with more stringent ISOs is the reason Casio often underrate their watches regarding the WR, just as you say.

While that clip might be only marketing fluff, there are numerous instances where divers took regular G-Shocks way beyond their WR rating and I'm not talking about certified diver's watches.

Monty Burnz

munsterleinster wrote: »

..Absolute rubbish..

Um...I think not...

Anjobe

m4r10 wrote: »

...to the manufacturer you work for.

Eh...I work for a software company!!! I'm not trying to promote any manufacturer over another, just trying to explain things clearly for the benefit of others.

m4r10 wrote: »

While that clip might be only marketing fluff, there are numerous instances where divers took regular G-Shocks way beyond their WR rating and I'm not talking about certified diver's watches.

Highly unlikely if they are all water resistant 200m, as this is well beyond the safe limit for Scuba diving!

The ISO standards exist to make things clear for consumers. Casio G-Shocks may well be extremely robust watches but I think the ISO rating is a far more reliable guide than unverified rumours, anecdotes and advertisements!

munsterleinster

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...I think not...

Care to explain?

How fast can you move your arms at 30 meters to create any significant change in pressure on the watch?

I stand by my comment and raise it from absolute rubbish to total sh1te...

mikom

munsterleinster wrote: »

I stand by my comment and raise it from absolute rubbish to total sh1te...

Pressure building........

Anjobe

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...I think not...

Yes, it is. The dynamic pressure created by moving in water is very easily calculated (see here). Moving your hand at 10 m/s while under water, which is considerable faster than you possibly could do, creates a dynamic pressure equivalent to 5 m of depth - pretty insignificant.

Possibly falling off a surf board or something might create a significant dynamic pressure, but you would have to hit the water at about 45 m/s (i.e. 100 mph) to generate a pressure equivalent to 100m of depth, in which case you would not survive long enough to see whether or not your watch was OK!

Monty Burnz

Anjobe wrote: »

Yes, it is. The dynamic pressure created by moving in water is very easily calculated (see here). Moving your hand at 10 m/s while under water, which is considerable faster than you possibly could do, creates a dynamic pressure equivalent to 5 m of depth - pretty insignificant.

Possibly falling off a surf board or something might create a significant dynamic pressure, but you would have to hit the water at about 45 m/s (i.e. 100 mph) to generate a pressure equivalent to 100m of depth, in which case you would not survive long enough to see whether or not your watch was OK!

Hmm...I see what you are getting at. Every day is a school day.

m4r10

Anjobe wrote: »

I'm not trying to promote any manufacturer over another, just trying to explain things clearly for the benefit of others.

I only wanted to say that WR ratings from different manufacturers are not the same, like peasant said in a previous post 50m WR for one company means merely a splash resistant while for another one is really 50m, I'm not trying to advocate a brand over another.

Anjobe wrote: »

unverified rumours, anecdotes and advertisements!

I wouldn't say that.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f74/g-shock-frogman-used-nuno-gomes-scuba-record-attempt-1131.html
http://50-gs.blogspot.ie/2011/08/g-shock-33-first-solar-frogman.html

Bruthal

munsterleinster wrote: »

..Absolute rubbish..

O right Ted

Wibbs

OK folks lets dial it back we're all friends here. No pressure like.

Wibbs

Another aspect can be temperature effects. I've seen a couple of divers type watches let in moisture from people wearing them in a hot shower. Can screw the seals up.

Anjobe

m4r10 wrote: »

I only wanted to say that WR ratings from different manufacturers are not the same, like peasant said in a previous post 50m WR for one company means merely a splash resistant while for another one is really 50m, I'm not trying to advocate a brand over another.

I wouldn't say that.
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f74/g-shock-frogman-used-nuno-gomes-scuba-record-attempt-1131.html
http://50-gs.blogspot.ie/2011/08/g-shock-33-first-solar-frogman.html

I understand your argument, but my point is that the fact that water resistance ratings are governed by a defined standard means the opposite is, in fact, true.

As for the Nuno Gomes record scuba dive, the watch he wore was a G Shock Frogman which has an ISO 6425 compliant Diver's 200m rating. This means it was tested at 250m for 2 hours so it might be expected to survive at greater depths for a shorter time. While it is no doubt impressive that the watch survived at over 300 m it does not prove it's any better than other Diver's 200m watches.