The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 23 March 2017, 01:24 PM   #1
albmich
"TRF" Member
 
albmich's Avatar
 
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
albmich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 02:03 PM   #2
kangajack
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by albmich View Post
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
kangajack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 02:11 PM   #3
GB-man
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GB-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by kangajack View Post
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
GB-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 02:43 PM   #4
subtona
"TRF" Member
 
subtona's Avatar
 
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?
__________________
subtona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 03:37 PM   #5
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by subtona View Post
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.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 March 2017, 02:35 AM   #6
kangajack
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
You never know. Someone could fall off a cruise ship drunk wearing one
Touché
kangajack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 03:57 PM   #7
Chewbacca
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Real Name: CJ
Location: Kashyyyk
Watch: Kessel Run Chrono
Posts: 21,112
Padi!!
Chewbacca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 March 2017, 04:00 PM   #8
BNZ
"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
BNZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

OCWatches

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.