ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

High-Gear · 4 March 2007, 04:44 PM

I love my new SD, and really like the clean look without the cyclops, but I have a question. I have read the reason their is no cyclops is because of the very thick crystal would cause the magnification to be off. I just wonder why a cyclops with the proper magnification was not made?

A lady at the AD said it would pop off at depth, but I don't understand why, unless the pressure distorts the crystal somehow?

Whats the real reason?

Arturo · 4 March 2007, 04:54 PM

I heard that it had something to do with the pressure needed to go as deep as the SD does and that if such had a Cyclops, the watch would break.

padi56 · 4 March 2007, 07:33 PM

Yes its simply down to the pressure,the cyclops is just stuck on so a tiny air space.

Blue Bull · 4 March 2007, 11:29 PM

Yes,my Dweller has gone down to a depth of about 2 feet and has come away with flying colours !!

I have the Blue TT Sub with the cyclops and the Dweller without the cyclops.I like both.

Alex Stylianou · 5 March 2007, 12:53 AM

good point

puffnmo · 5 March 2007, 04:07 AM

Quite apart from the logistical reasons for not having the cyclops, I just love the look of the Seadweller's date window. In fact I want to get one just because of that. It's elegant and different from other Rollie's. JMO. Larry.

Blue Bull · 5 March 2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puffnmo

Quite apart from the logistical reasons for not having the cyclops, I just love the look of the Seadweller's date window. In fact I want to get one just because of that. It's elegant and different from other Rollie's. JMO. Larry.

One reason I went for the Dweller ,is that it does have the date,but not the cyclops.I need the date,but also wanted a clean dialed Rolex,since I already have the Blue TT Sub,with a cyclops.I also wanted a ss sport Rolex,so the Sub/No date was also an alternative,but no date.I also like the size and height of the Dweller.
Believe me, the Dweller grows on you like you cannot believe ..

Collection,complete.

Cyclops ? With or without ? No answer on that because I like a Rolex, with the cyclops AND without.

IQ Publishing · 5 March 2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by High-Gear

I love my new SD, and really like the clean look without the cyclops, but I have a question. I have read the reason their is no cyclops is because of the very thick crystal would cause the magnification to be off. I just wonder why a cyclops with the proper magnification was not made?

A lady at the AD said it would pop off at depth, but I don't understand why, unless the pressure distorts the crystal somehow?

Whats the real reason?

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

JJ Irani · 5 March 2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQ Publishing

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

Spot-on, John. Thanks!!

mansion · 5 March 2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IQ Publishing

It has nothing to do with the pressure... the crystal on the Sea-Dweller is thicker than that of the Submariner. Thus, the cyclops would be farther away from the date aperature, albeit only a couple mm's, resulting in improper magnification. The proper size cyclops would be MUCH bigger and would look out of balance on the crystal.

Trust the Swiss - I'm sure they could manufacture a cyclops with the right dimensions and curvature, etc., to cope with the increased distance.

Maybe the pressure exerted on the glue has something to do with it?

(Yes, I quite liked the sober look without the cyclops, but in the end the increased height made me go for the GMT.)

padi56 · 5 March 2007, 09:01 PM

Now there is not a problem with the cyclops as long as the diver remained in high pressure environments. But when divers started to go deeper and breathing gases with helium.And the chamber was decompressed, it was not possible for the helium to escape from the watch as rapidly as the chamber was decompressing . The air pressure now in the watch would blow the crystal or the cyclops straight out of the case hence the HRV.But because the cyclops is just glued to crystal,and because the helium molecules can get under the cyclops it would just blow off when the chamber was decompressed.Submariners are fine for atmospheric" dives,but for saturation dives SD must be used without cyclops.

JJ Irani · 6 March 2007, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mansion

Trust the Swiss - I'm sure they could manufacture a cyclops with the right dimensions and curvature, etc., to cope with the increased distance.

Maybe the pressure exerted on the glue has something to do with it?

(Yes, I quite liked the sober look without the cyclops, but in the end the increased height made me go for the GMT.)

The increased height you keep talking about is the extra thickness of the SD case....nothing to do with the crystal. The SD is a whopping 2.2 mm thicker (in height) than the GMT-II.

Here, take a look at this chart and you can see the difference in thickness between the SD and your GMT-II.

4 March 2007, 04:44 PM	#1
High-Gear Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kansas, USA Posts: 70	Seadweller Cyclops Question I love my new SD, and really like the clean look without the cyclops, but I have a question. I have read the reason their is no cyclops is because of the very thick crystal would cause the magnification to be off. I just wonder why a cyclops with the proper magnification was not made? A lady at the AD said it would pop off at depth, but I don't understand why, unless the pressure distorts the crystal somehow? Whats the real reason?

4 March 2007, 07:33 PM	#3
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 53,064	Yes its simply down to the pressure,the cyclops is just stuck on so a tiny air space. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

5 March 2007, 09:01 PM	#11
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 53,064	Now there is not a problem with the cyclops as long as the diver remained in high pressure environments. But when divers started to go deeper and breathing gases with helium.And the chamber was decompressed, it was not possible for the helium to escape from the watch as rapidly as the chamber was decompressing . The air pressure now in the watch would blow the crystal or the cyclops straight out of the case hence the HRV.But because the cyclops is just glued to crystal,and because the helium molecules can get under the cyclops it would just blow off when the chamber was decompressed.Submariners are fine for atmospheric" dives,but for saturation dives SD must be used without cyclops. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

4 March 2007, 04:54 PM	#2
Arturo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Arturo Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: Black GMT ll Posts: 1,271	I heard that it had something to do with the pressure needed to go as deep as the SD does and that if such had a Cyclops, the watch would break.

4 March 2007, 11:29 PM	#4
Blue Bull Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,887	Yes,my Dweller has gone down to a depth of about 2 feet and has come away with flying colours !! I have the Blue TT Sub with the cyclops and the Dweller without the cyclops.I like both.

5 March 2007, 12:53 AM	#5
Alex Stylianou "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,785	good point

5 March 2007, 04:07 AM	#6
puffnmo Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 848	Quite apart from the logistical reasons for not having the cyclops, I just love the look of the Seadweller's date window. In fact I want to get one just because of that. It's elegant and different from other Rollie's. JMO. Larry.

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