ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
18 June 2011, 07:32 AM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
Re: Submariner O-Rings in a YM?
Hi,
Is it possible to make a YM more water resistant by putting Submariner O-Rings in it? The Submariner (16610) and YM (16622) have roughly the same casing and I was wondering if it would be possible to do this? I am told the waterproof seals are very different between the two. Also if possible would Rolex be likely to agree to it, or would tell you to go take a jump? I guess the simplest answer is to get a Submariner or just make do with the 100m YM. But the thing is*I really like the YM and would like to have the added water proofing on it. With Thanks, Tim |
18 June 2011, 07:35 AM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: North Wales UK
Watch: 16600,16570,6098
Posts: 706
|
If your not a mixed gas diver then Ive gotta ask.....
Why?
__________________
Prick club member # 6 P 16600 M Polar EXP II 1951 Waffle dial 6098 https://www.facebook.com/LlwynFfynnon |
18 June 2011, 07:42 AM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
@britincall I'm told long term exposure to water of average depths can eat away at the seals. And might be too much for a 100m water resistant watch? I guess it would just be great to have the added security of snorkelling, swimming, whatever water related without having to think twice about the waterproofness of the watch.
|
18 June 2011, 07:43 AM | #4 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
Is 100m fine and am i over thinking it?
|
18 June 2011, 07:48 AM | #5 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Real Name: Brian
Location: Kansas
Watch: 16610, Omega PO
Posts: 1,898
|
I don't know if such a thing is even possible, but I'm sure that Rolex wouldn't perform the task if asked. If you want a watch that is 300m water resistant then you've got the wrong watch. And has been asked above, why?
__________________
Things got out of control and I had to stab a clown... |
18 June 2011, 08:06 AM | #6 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,150
|
The seals on any waterproof watch need to be checked periodically, whether it's 30m, 300m, or 3000m waterproof. With regards to the construction of the Submariner, although it looks similar to the Yacht-Master (indeed, the Yacht-Master was originally intended to be the next Submariner, but was overruled in favour of the more conservative 16610), the difference will be in the case back. The Submariner has quite a thick case back compared to non-diver's watches, and that's where the difference is made, not the O-rings. 100m is more than adequate for recreational diving, and, realistically, anything over 200m is overkill in real terms. As per Padi's post, there have been fewer people to dive below 300m with regular scuba equipment than there have been on the Moon. Your Yacht-Master is more than capable of taking anything you throw at it - just ensure you rinse it if you have been swimming in salt water, and get the water-proofing checked regularly
|
18 June 2011, 08:09 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
The 100m and 300m is a static depth test. The actual physical guidelines for water depth an exposure is much, much less.
I'm not planning on diving 300m, but I just want to be more secure that prolonged water exposure will be fine. As long as I get the watch checked out every year. And if not to look for alternatives. Maybe I'll buy a sub or an iwc aquatimer. |
18 June 2011, 08:12 AM | #8 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
@the_gmt_master thanks for your detailed response, very good in answering my concerns and question! thank you!
|
18 June 2011, 08:16 AM | #9 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: England
Posts: 8,150
|
|
18 June 2011, 08:34 AM | #10 | |
TRF Moderator & 2024 SubLV41 Patron
Join Date: May 2007
Real Name: Larry
Location: Mojave Desert
Watch: GMT's
Posts: 43,514
|
Quote:
It is the thickness of the caseback on the Sub that makes it more depth worthy; not more "waterproof". It is also the unidirectonal bezel that makes the Sub a "Diver" per ISO criteria, which the YM does not have. Your YM is capable of diving deeper than you can safely go, so there is no need to worry about any additional waterproofness....
__________________
(Chill ... It's just a watch Forum.....) NAWCC Member |
|
18 June 2011, 11:16 AM | #11 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: Mike
Location: Oregon
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
Maybe tools or another mod can enlighten us but I'm under the impression that most (rolex also?) watch depth ratings are static under best case scenario, meaning no movement from wearer or water. Once you introduce non static, real world, environments; a cheap 100m watch will not survive even 50 feet of scuba diving. Not sure if rolex (max) ratings are real use ratings or just static? Most experts refer new divers to min 200m rated watches due to this fact. |
|
22 June 2011, 07:37 AM | #12 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, UK
Watch: YM 2001 Steel/Plat
Posts: 31
|
@lortap I'm guessing from ISO standard 2281 of "water resistance" it's 10m for a 100m watch, 20m for a 200m watch, 30m for a 300m watch & 50m for a 500m watch.
http://www.zeno-watch.ch/en/ServiceO...esistance.html |
22 June 2011, 07:43 AM | #13 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Real Name: Mike
Location: Oregon
Watch: Sea Dweller
Posts: 147
|
Thanks timo12345,
From that article even though 200m sounds like a long way down, the real world use puts it out of scuba use for the average watch.....my Frogman I would still trust though |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.