ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
23 March 2017, 01:24 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: WI
Watch: SD4k
Posts: 1,333
|
How has the technology changed?
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?
__________________
♛ SD4k 116600 ♛ SD43 126600 Ω PloProf 224.32.55.21.01.001 |
23 March 2017, 02:03 PM | #2 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 246
|
Quote:
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 |
|
23 March 2017, 02:11 PM | #3 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,355
|
|
23 March 2017, 02:43 PM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: gus
Location: East Coast
Watch: APK & sometimes Y
Posts: 26,601
|
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?
__________________
|
23 March 2017, 03:37 PM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,067
|
Quote:
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. |
|
24 March 2017, 02:35 AM | #6 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 246
|
|
23 March 2017, 03:57 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: CJ
Location: Kashyyyk
Watch: Kessel Run Chrono
Posts: 21,112
|
Padi!!
|
23 March 2017, 04:00 PM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Real Name: Mario
Location: HongKong
Posts: 42
|
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
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.