water resistance overatings

fourmations

hi all

Just curious...

Having recently got into all this watch malarky
i see that WR ratings are grossly over-rated across the board
how are they allowed do this, is there no standards, its false info surely?
if i go swimming in a 50m WR watch for example and its destroyed
will the manufacturer repair/replace,

rgds

Eoin

Here's a good explanation, which seems to make sense.

The rating refers to the static pressure it can withstand. The pressure arises when it is moved under water when swimming, the pressure on the watch varies, and can cause seals to fail, and water to enter the watch.

So you could probably gently submerge a 50m watch and it'd be fine. I'd say some watches actually understate their actual rating, but it's the standards themselves that are misleading.

Anjobe

The standard is ISO-2281 for watches marked "water resistant". In this standard the depth (or pressure) rating means the watch can resist water ingress for 10 mins at the rated depth/pressure. Now this standard is only enforceable in countries that have adopted it as a national standard, Germany and Japan have but not Switzerland and I don't know about others.

As Eoin has said the rating refers to static pressure, but dynamic pressure only has a very small effect at low speeds - moving through water at 1 m/s only generates a dynamic pressure of 500 Pa, or 1/200th of an atm or about 5cm of depth. For swimming dynamic pressure is negligible, but for water sports where you might hit the water at greater speed, it could be a factor.

Also remember that the rating refers to the watch as it leaves the factory, the seals and gaskets deteriorate over time, so it will have a significantly lower water resistance after a couple of years. The usage guide linked to by Eoin probably takes this into account, and stays very much on the safe side.

There is an international testing standard for normal watches - ISO 22810:2010.

It's just a testing standard, it doesn't guarantee anything about the watch. It's purpose was to bring all manufacturers claims reasonably in line (so a Casio 50m WR was tested by the manufacturer in approx the same way as a Seiko 50m WR).

However the manufacturer can also state what the watch is suited for, and under what circumstances a warranty claim can be rejected. So 22810 doesn't really have any teeth, it's more just to reduce consumer confusion.

Here are some generalisations:


To be certified as a dive watch, there are different standard with much stricter testing requirements.

Thirdfox

Oh this is a bugbear of mine too - put it this way - if the watch company is reputable (and you've checked your seals to make sure the watch has maintained its water resistance) then once it has 3atm water resistance you can go swimming with it.

Here's the chart from Omega's mouth:


I swim with my 3atm Speedmaster and shower with it too. I also built my own 40 euro water resistance tester so I can perform pressure tests if I'm concerned about seals degrading etc.

If you can't expect your €3000+ watch to perform as specified I personally find it funny... on the other hand my wife takes her 20atm (200m wr) Omega off before showering :P - I haven't convinced her that the water (and yes soap, heat etc) won't affect the watch.

Here's my thread about building my own tester:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106431675 - it's built by the way and works well - under my bicycle pump I can get 10atm of pressure for testing purposes.

As for divers - some companies like Citizen/Seiko etc use ISO standards to "certify" their watches there is no central certifying authority on this. Many other companies Rolex, Omega etc. do not feel the need to need to comply/state compliance with the ISO standards and use their internal standards which may or may not be "better" than ISO 6425.

For example - a Vostok Amphibia wouldn't comply with ISO 6425 so it couldn't state that it complies ISO standards and put "diver" on the dial - no one would argue that it'd be any less of a diver than a Citizen NY0040 (which uses ISO 6425 and put Diver on the dial).

For those wondering - the Amphibia wouldn't pass ISO 6425 because its bezel isn't unidirectional - but hey it's good enough for the Soviet military divers...

I actually dive with some of my dive watches (there's a good reason why ISO 6425 only requires 100m WR for a dive watch - recreational divers rarely go beyond 30m - the deepest I've been so far is only 28m - inside a sunken aeroplane).

Here are some other diving myths debunked via bloomberg/hodinkee:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-11/seven-dive-watch-myths-debunked

Thirdfox

Oh and just to add - the reason some 3atm WR watches fail while swimming is generally either:
1) it was built by a factory that didn't actually seal the watch to 3atm standards or
2) it was correctly sealed but age has degraded the watch and the owner didn't check it or
3) operator error (using buttons while submerged etc).

Thirdfox

Pps - here's a thread where they test the Vostok Amphibia to destruction - 820m for destruction of the case (no movement inside) and at 500m it's ticking along fine.
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?402309-Vostok-Amphibia-Destruction-Fundraiser-Results-are-in!

Not bad for a 30-50 euro diving watch eh?

Cienciano

Lets be honest, they could print 1000m on it but the deepest it'll ever go is about 2m.

Eoin

100%. The problem is when people (understandably) think that they can swim with a watch, when they're really just OK to keep it on while washing the dishes.

Thirdfox

fourmations wrote: »

hi all

Just curious...

Having recently got into all this watch malarky
i see that WR ratings are grossly over-rated across the board
how are they allowed do this, is there no standards, its false info surely?
if i go swimming in a 50m WR watch for example and its destroyed
will the manufacturer repair/replace,

rgds

To answer OP's questions directly:

1) I'm not sure where you got the information that WR is overrated - to my knowledge most watches from reputable companies and kept in good condition (two important provisos) are underrated when it comes to sealing - see the 200m wr Vostok example above.

2) Second question is much more nuanced - as you can see in the Omega chart above Omega themselves inform you that you need to keep your timepiece properly serviced and recommend an interval of 1 year to check your WR if you will actually use your watch in water. I'm not sure many people do this and as seals age water ingress becomes more likely - unfortunately it can often be a catastrophic failure i.e. the seals work until they suddenly don't. Water either doesn't leak into your timepiece or it can flood on your next dive.

Do watch companies cover WR in their warranty/guarantees? To my knowledge most do not - I believe it is similar to mobile phones with IPXX ratings - they won't cover it in their warranty as there can be too many variables (servicing, correct usage, operator error) that may have led to water ingress.

Can you still sue them in a court? Maybe - *puts on lawyer hat* (per my signature - nothing I say should be taken as legal advice ) *takes off hat* - if you performed your recommended WR testing and operated the timepiece correctly (how hard would it be be to prove this in a small claims court for example?) then I'd think one would have a case under the SOGSOS (sale of goods and supply of services act), say in a small claims court action - by arguing that the product did not perform to advertised specifications. A diving watch by its name, should be able to dive (again with the proviso that it has been cared for and operated properly). I'd have no hesitation taking Omega/Swatch to the small claims if their watch failed due to their own issue and not something related to me - it'd be pretty hard to prove in court though I think.



There's a variety of reasons why salespeople say "I wouldn't swim with anything less than 200m WR" or "3ATM isn't suitable for anything more than light splashes" etc.:
1.) Watch owners often don't perform WR tests or change seals at correct intervals - better to be safe than sorry and tell them it won't work when actually the 3ATM watch is perfectly happy to go into water (at least when fresh from the factory).

2.) Many 3ATM watches are on leather bands - leather and water don't play well - easier to just say don't get the watch wet then giving them careful instructions on how to maintain one's watch/bands.

3.) Operator error - it's easier to say don't swim with 3ATM watch than saying you can swim but each time make sure the crown is properly seated and you don't push any buttons while immersed in water etc. People's eyes cloud over when getting more detailed instructions/conditions so why not just give a general statement that a 3ATM watch can't be immersed? Ironically of course a 20ATM watch will flood even easier if operated incorrectly with bad seals etc.

4.) Misinformation - not every salesperson is a watch aficionado - nor should they be expected to be. They heard someone else say - can't swim with 3ATM and repeat it as fact because it's safer to do so. Imagine dealing with an irate customer who had water ingress after being told by the salesperson that it's fine to swim with - easier to just say you can't. Some of the things people say "hot showers (thermal expansion) are bad, soap/chemicals are bad on seals, static pressure vs movement in water" sound somewhat convincing until you actually do some research into it and a lot of salespeople don't care enough to do that and I don't particularly fault them for it.

5.) History - older watches may have used older specifications/labelling terms whereby "water resistant" meant very little sealing and actually shouldn't be immersed in water - this was back in the days when some watches would have "waterproof" on the case but nowadays no watch calls itself waterproof and most are given the correct labelling 3atm/30m; 5atm/50m; 10atm/100m wr etc. - see here for an example of a vintage era "waterproof" watch:
https://www.ebay.com.sg/itm/Vintage-Tissot-Automatic-Waterproof-33mm-SS-Case-Mens-Wrist-Watch-Runs-LOT-4-/163269633127




Put it this way - which watch would I take swimming? My 3ATM speedmaster which I've personally tested and gotten serviced or a random 25 year old 20ATM diver with its crown unscrewed? The 3ATM piece - every time.

Personally I would not consider a watch suitable for swimming if accidental pusher or crown manipulation could let water in.

Thirdfox

Then many chronograph dive watches with 200m WR wouldn't fit your definition of "suitable for swimming" - and that's fine - like I said, my wife wouldn't wear a dive watch in to a shower for fear of water getting in - irrational perhaps but it's up to her

For some watches like Omegas with the HEV, Rolex with triple lock etc. there is still WR of around 100m (...actually just checked - 50m for an unscrewed HEV per Omega's operating instructions manual) with the crown unscrewed meaning you're fine to swim and most likely scuba dive but hey once you start actively working to try and get water into the watch don't be surprised if it actually gets in

Screwing down the crown in a Rolex submariner for example would just be compressing the third seal in the "triple lock" system - meaning that the first two seals are independent of whether the first seal is compressed or not - though an unscrewed crown poses a potential diving hazard if the watch hands could be moved inadvertently or the stem damaged from knocks - neither of those issues should affect whether you can swim with the watch or not.