Cyclops Lens...

[RichF]

Why do you think Rolex does NOT have their cyclops lens on the Deep Sea line of watches? Since this model is a 'serious' dive watch, would it compromise the integrity of the crystal, itself, in standing up to those high pressures? Would that extra thickness in the date spot actually cause unequal pressure distribution across the crystal? Anyone with theories out there about this? As a newbie here, I apologize if this subject has previously been raised. If so, can someone point me to that relative thread?

Thank you.

Rich

[FTX I]

The original SD did not have the cyclops.

[alixg]

The crystal is domed, so a cyclop wont fit on it. That's it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KINGROLESAR]

So from a distance the fish cannot easily identify the watch as a rolex.

[jujin]

Originally Posted by KINGROLESAR

So from a distance the fish cannot easily identify the watch as a rolex.

[RichF]

Originally Posted by alixg

The crystal is domed, so a cyclop wont fit on it. That's it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now, THAT makes total sense! Even with the domed crystal, I would think there would be a way to integrate the cyclops into the curvature. Of course, Rolex would obviously have to break with tradition to do that, I guess.

Thanks.

[RichF]

Originally Posted by KINGROLESAR

So from a distance the fish cannot easily identify the watch as a rolex.

Gee, I never thought of that, especially with their very own fish-eye lens.

Thanks for the 'groaner' and 'head-slapper'.

I guess Rolex forum folks actually DO have a sense of humor.

[iazrollie]

Originally Posted by RichF

'.



I guess Rolex forum folks actually DO have a sense of humor.

Just don't ask if the DSSD would be more "flashy" with a cyclops. ROFL.

[timely]

If You want to go that deep the cyclops may not stand up to high pressures.

[vitalsignsrn]

Originally Posted by KINGROLESAR

So from a distance the fish cannot easily identify the watch as a rolex.

Ive had a very challenging shift and I thank you for this bit of laughter. Very funny!

[drifter01]

I really don't think the cyclops is affected by depth pressures. The cyclops shouls actually be able to stand greater pressure than the rest of the crystal since it would be thicker and have a domed design. I think the actual reason is that the deep sea watches are not calenders. They are for seeing time and elapsed (dive) time. A date is only on there for the time you are on land and since they are work watches, the cyclops would be a disadvantage. It sticks out above the crystal and would be more prone to being chipped or knocked off due to some impact. Even when diving, this is a potential problem, and even more so, since that kind of impact would weaken the crystal and possibly cause water intrusion.

Dave

[phils]

I think the problem is that in a heliox atmosphere the helium atoms are small enough to get under the cyclops and pop it off.

[brokenchains]

They could have broke ground and placed it under the crystal similiar to Panerai??

[samsmart]

Originally Posted by brokenchains

They could have broke ground and placed it under the crystal similiar to Panerai??

you stole my thunder

[Cc1966]

Originally Posted by brokenchains

They could have broke ground and placed it under the crystal similiar to Panerai??

Interesting...didn't know that guys. Thanks for the lesson...

[drifter01]

The magnifier on the underside of the crystal belongs to more than Panerai. Many watches have used it. Bulova, Zodiac, evern Timex has used it.

Dave

[Mystro]

Yes and the inverted cyclops wonderful. Clean crystal with all the function of the cyclops. I love it.

Originally Posted by brokenchains

They could have broke ground and placed it under the crystal similiar to Panerai??

300meter WR on a diver gets the job done in my world.

[bondtoys]

It's simply physics.

The distribution of force on the Crystal in these depths must be absolutele homogene, otherwise the glass will crack at the point of the highest force.

A domed crystal offers the best distribution of forces and an added Cyclope would destroy the perfect distribution of forces - the crystal yould crack - alternatively the watch would require a much thicker crystal.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by alixg

The crystal is domed, so a cyclop wont fit on it. That's it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not it, I though the same thing but a member here that needed a magnifier to help see the date went ahead and added one, it fit perfectly fine. I didn't like the look but he needed it as a function mod so it was a necessity for him. It seemed a tiny bit distorted but otherwise it was ok, contrary to the old belief on the SD which was believe to lack the magnifier because the crystal was so thick the date would be distorted. The Deepsea's is almost twice as thick.
I thought I saved a picture but I didn't he posted it in the official Deepsea owners thread a few months back.

I believe the ultimate answer is really aesthetics with a percentage for the pressure variance on the crystal surface. Rolex has been paying a lot of attention to how there watches look as much as function. I don't think they wanted to ruin the beautiful lines of the gorgeous domed crystal, on the only watch in there line up that has it.

[77T]

'bondtoys' makes the point best. In addition, as the crystal deforms ever so slightly under the pressure, the cyclops cement will also be weakened but cracking. It has no compliance really. Eventually the cyclops would come off.

[RichF]

Originally Posted by 77T

'bondtoys' makes the point best. In addition, as the crystal deforms ever so slightly under the pressure, the cyclops cement will also be weakened but cracking. It has no compliance really. Eventually the cyclops would come off.

Your comment surprises me. I never would have suspected that the cyclops lens is a separate and distinct piece. All along, I thought that it was actually fused together with the rest of the crystal during its manufacturing process and not simply "glued on". As a Rolex, my expectations of their ingenuity with this 'fused' process would be more believable than a tacky add-on to the rest of the crystal. I would NEVER expect them to take any shortcuts, especially in quality and engineering design.

Just my humble opinion.

[R.J.]

Originally Posted by RichF

Your comment surprises me. I never would have suspected that the cyclops lens is a separate and distinct piece. All along, I thought that it was actually fused together with the rest of the crystal during its manufacturing process and not simply "glued on". As a Rolex, my expectations of their ingenuity with this 'fused' process would be more believable than a tacky add-on to the rest of the crystal. I would NEVER expect them to take any shortcuts, especially in quality and engineering design.

Just my humble opinion.

Just glued on. Nothing remarkable.

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by RichF

Your comment surprises me. I never would have suspected that the cyclops lens is a separate and distinct piece. All along, I thought that it was actually fused together with the rest of the crystal during its manufacturing process and not simply "glued on". As a Rolex, my expectations of their ingenuity with this 'fused' process would be more believable than a tacky add-on to the rest of the crystal. I would NEVER expect them to take any shortcuts, especially in quality and engineering design.

Just my humble opinion.

They've done it ever since with the sapphire crystals (would not be surprised, if even the plexi cyclops are clued on).

To carve out that thing from a solid sapphire block sounds incredibly complicated and expensive to me - the competitiors glue theirs as well.

[SC11]

And pointless as the magnification effect of the cyclops is none under water!

[mailman]

Originally Posted by alixg

The crystal is domed, so a cyclop wont fit on it. That's it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

36mm Day Date models have a domed crystal. Not sure about the DDII.

[77T]

Originally Posted by RichF

Your comment surprises me. I never would have suspected that the cyclops lens is a separate and distinct piece. All along, I thought that it was actually fused together with the rest of the crystal during its manufacturing process and not simply "glued on". As a Rolex, my expectations of their ingenuity with this 'fused' process would be more believable than a tacky add-on to the rest of the crystal. I would NEVER expect them to take any shortcuts, especially in quality and engineering design.

Just my humble opinion.

Nope - glued on. Sorry to burst your bubble, er... cyclops...

Do some searching and you'll learn a lot more about how one removes them fairly easily