How has the technology changed?

[albmich]

Seadweller 50th anniversary.

There has been a lot of effort made to describe why the previous seadwellers didn't have cyclops. At the depth it was rated for, it would cause failure of the crystal.

But the new seadweller obviously has cyclops and I can't find any explanation anywhere on how the technology has changed and why it's no longer an issue that would cause crystal failure at 4000ft. Does anyone know? Or is Rolex rolling the dice and betting the odds that 0.00001% of people with the seadweller will actually dive to that depth?

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by albmich

Seadweller 50th anniversary.



Or is Rolex rolling the dice and betting the odds that 0.00001% of people with the seadweller will actually dive to that depth?

I think you are erring on the high side with how many people will dive to 4000 ft. With this watch


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by kangajack

I think you are erring on the high side with how many people will dive to 4000 ft. With this watch


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You never know. Someone could fall off a cruise ship drunk wearing one

[subtona]

The cyclops theory I recall was that the increased thickness of the crystal on the sea dweller would throw off the focused magnification of the cyclops. I would think the explanation would have been that the cyclops would have to be larger for the same effect, until the now overall increased size of the watch that wasn't a consideration.



I don't understand the alternate theory of how a solid component (cyclops) would compromise the watch at pressure?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by subtona

The cyclops theory I recall was that the increased thickness of the crystal on the sea dweller would throw off the focused magnification of the cyclops. I would think the explanation would have been that the cyclops would have to be larger for the same effect, until the now overall increased size of the watch that wasn't a consideration.



I don't understand the alternate theory of how a solid component (cyclops) would compromise the watch at pressure?

It most likely wouldn't.
When it came down to the deflection of the crystal, I would just assume the glue holding the cyclops on would release unless there's enough flex in it.

Regardless, Rolex would've tested it and it would've passed down to the rated depth +20% so it's all just speculation from here on.

[kangajack]

Originally Posted by GB-man

You never know. Someone could fall off a cruise ship drunk wearing one

Touché

[Chewbacca]

Padi!!

[BNZ]

When the original SD came out they where using plexiglass and the cyclops would be a point of weakness. After the change to sapphire crystal that was no longer a problem