ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

le_baroudeur · 5 January 2011, 07:20 AM

Hello!!
My 16610LV has got a 37mm dive extension.... On the new sub, the maximum extension allowed by the glidelock is apparently 21mm... (if you kept those 21mm intact by correctly adjusting the bracelet with the links and not by adjusting the glidelock system) Why? Isn't it a dive watch anymore? It seems to be difficult to put it on a +5mm dive suit, as some people said here on french fora... Have you tried to use this dive extension

?
Thank you!

cjnesher · 5 January 2011, 07:55 AM

Wait a second, you can dive with this watch too!! Man it just keeps getting better!!!!

steubi1 · 5 January 2011, 08:22 AM

I am not a diver, I have not tried it on a dive suit.

But I agree with your statement: If the thickness of the dive suit is 5mm, it means 10mm in diameter or 31mm extension for the bracelet: Then the new glidelock will not be sufficient anymore.

But finally: Who cares? 99% of Sub owners never dive deeper than 3 meters in a pool....

And I guess that professional divers today will use a dive computer...

Regards
Tom

esm · 5 January 2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le_baroudeur

Hello!!
My 16610LV has got a 37mm dive extension.... On the new sub, the maximum extension allowed by the glidelock is apparently 21mm... (if you kept those 21mm intact by correctly adjusting the bracelet with the links and not by adjusting the glidelock system) Why? Isn't it a dive watch anymore? It seems to be difficult to put it on a +5mm dive suit, as some people said here on french fora... Have you tried to use this dive extension

?
Thank you!

has anyone actually tried it on a divers suit to conclude the above?

tgoose1 · 5 January 2011, 08:57 AM

I thought everyone already knew the C-subs were designed to fit under a diver's wet suit not over, in order to protect the C-bezel insert.

mike · 5 January 2011, 09:24 AM

I don't have a Sub C to compare, but it could be the longer clasp with glidelock mitigates the difference.

esm · 5 January 2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike

I don't have a Sub C to compare, but it could be the longer clasp with glidelock mitigates the difference.

good point Mike

Richard. · 5 January 2011, 10:19 AM

I've not used a new Sub for what it's meant for and am unlikely to now (doctor's orders) but I always found the extension link on the old model to be too long.

MURRAY · 5 January 2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjnesher

Wait a second, you can dive with this watch too!! Man it just keeps getting better!!!!

NICE Chris!!!!!!

jnkay · 5 January 2011, 12:13 PM

I wondered the same thing when I tried to use the glidelock to put my watch over some light winter clothing and the extension was not sufficient.

rolexsubdate · 5 January 2011, 01:06 PM

It is evolution in works folks ... the organ least used, becomes smaller and smaller until it finally disappears .....

Andad · 5 January 2011, 01:12 PM

The DSSD has the 21mm glidelock + an extension.

Is that not enough to go over wet suit?

le_baroudeur · 5 January 2011, 09:56 PM

The dssd can be worn over this type of suit... But not the submariner anymore. There is here another point: the dssd can only be worn with a wet suit, not with a classic suit: it is a bigmac for me! (16cm wrist)

jonboy · 5 January 2011, 10:02 PM

does this mean that the new sub c is no longer true a divers watch.

Sub'erman · 5 January 2011, 10:14 PM

My Sub C can be worn on a 5 and 7 mm suit. I have a 7,25" wrist (18,5 cm)
Anything thicker requires that I put on the link that I took of the 6-o'clock side. Or a NATO strap.

mascot · 5 January 2011, 11:12 PM

with extension here my lady says

Mirx · 6 January 2011, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjnesher

Wait a second, you can dive with this watch too!! Man it just keeps getting better!!!!

Mirx · 9 January 2011, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esm

has anyone actually tried it on a divers suit to conclude the above?

Keep wondering the same. Any divers out there that can confirm the bracelet can be worn/easily adjusted over a divers suit?

5 January 2011, 07:20 AM	#1
le_baroudeur "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Rennes, FRANCE Posts: 802	New sub: why a smaller dive extension? Hello!! My 16610LV has got a 37mm dive extension.... On the new sub, the maximum extension allowed by the glidelock is apparently 21mm... (if you kept those 21mm intact by correctly adjusting the bracelet with the links and not by adjusting the glidelock system) Why? Isn't it a dive watch anymore? It seems to be difficult to put it on a +5mm dive suit, as some people said here on french fora... Have you tried to use this dive extension? Thank you! __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Assoc. of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons.

5 January 2011, 07:55 AM	#2
cjnesher "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Chris Location: Clearwater, FL Watch: 1675 Posts: 343	Wait a second, you can dive with this watch too!! Man it just keeps getting better!!!! __________________ "Alright, Alright, Alright"

5 January 2011, 10:19 AM	#8
Richard. "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: UK Posts: 969	I've not used a new Sub for what it's meant for and am unlikely to now (doctor's orders) but I always found the extension link on the old model to be too long. __________________ A father is someone who carries photographs in his wallet - where his money used to be.

5 January 2011, 01:12 PM	#12
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,533	The DSSD has the 21mm glidelock + an extension. Is that not enough to go over wet suit? __________________ E

5 January 2011, 09:56 PM	#13
le_baroudeur "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Rennes, FRANCE Posts: 802	The dssd can be worn over this type of suit... But not the submariner anymore. There is here another point: the dssd can only be worn with a wet suit, not with a classic suit: it is a bigmac for me! (16cm wrist) __________________ Card Carrying Member of the Global Assoc. of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons.

5 January 2011, 08:22 AM	#3
steubi1 "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Real Name: Tom Location: Switzerland Watch: too many Posts: 1,150	I am not a diver, I have not tried it on a dive suit. But I agree with your statement: If the thickness of the dive suit is 5mm, it means 10mm in diameter or 31mm extension for the bracelet: Then the new glidelock will not be sufficient anymore. But finally: Who cares? 99% of Sub owners never dive deeper than 3 meters in a pool.... And I guess that professional divers today will use a dive computer... Regards Tom

5 January 2011, 08:57 AM	#5
tgoose1 "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Louisiana Watch: Rolex Submariner Posts: 668	I thought everyone already knew the C-subs were designed to fit under a diver's wet suit not over, in order to protect the C-bezel insert.

5 January 2011, 09:24 AM	#6
mike "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 22,683	I don't have a Sub C to compare, but it could be the longer clasp with glidelock mitigates the difference.

5 January 2011, 12:13 PM	#10
jnkay "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: South Florida, US Watch: du jour Posts: 1,815	I wondered the same thing when I tried to use the glidelock to put my watch over some light winter clothing and the extension was not sufficient.

5 January 2011, 01:06 PM	#11
rolexsubdate Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Moon Posts: 1,238	It is evolution in works folks ... the organ least used, becomes smaller and smaller until it finally disappears .....

5 January 2011, 10:02 PM	#14
jonboy "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: uk Posts: 47	does this mean that the new sub c is no longer true a divers watch.

5 January 2011, 10:14 PM	#15
Sub'erman "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Real Name: SK Location: Greenland Watch: Various SUBs Posts: 473	My Sub C can be worn on a 5 and 7 mm suit. I have a 7,25" wrist (18,5 cm) Anything thicker requires that I put on the link that I took of the 6-o'clock side. Or a NATO strap. __________________ Founder and CEO of the "BLUME" Club Rolex ref: 14060 - 92', 16600- 06', 116610LN 11' In Da House!! He who only loves one woman and one watch, doesn't truly love women or watches!! "Not all that is countable, counts; and not all that counts, is countable"

5 January 2011, 11:12 PM	#16
mascot Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: UTC/GMT +1 Hours Watch: 16570 Posts: 250	no problem with extension here my lady says Attached Images

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