The Breitling Watch Source Forums
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

MAN VS WILD AND HIS BREITLING EMERGENCY DIVING IN IT....
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3193		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  RICK S [ Fri May 23, 2008 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:  MAN VS WILD AND HIS BREITLING EMERGENCY DIVING IN IT....
My wife and I are sitting here watching Bear Grylls lost at sea on an island wearing his blue dial Breitling emergency. Breitling states that it is only good for 30 meters of water resistance. During the show Bear several times is about 30 FEET under water looking for food. My question to your fellow Breitling collectors is has he now killed the Breitling emergency or could he or anyone else go that deep without killing it? I love the watch and would love to have it for use when I go on vacation when I go jet sking and swimming.........please give me your thoughts on this. Has Bear blown it up or could it withstand these kind of tests??????

Image

:fulllingclub: :threequartslingclub:
Author:  CSH [ Fri May 23, 2008 6:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Considering 30 meters is roughly equivalent to 96 feet, I think swimming 30 feet down should be ok... 8)
Author:  OsearyDrakoulias [ Fri May 23, 2008 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
CSH wrote:
Considering 30 meters is roughly equivalent to 96 feet, I think swimming 30 feet down should be ok... 8)


I dunno... my Datora says 30m and from what I've read it can hardly be rained on without dying a horrible death, let alone submersed while swimming or anything.
Author:  breitlingsource [ Fri May 23, 2008 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's a damn good question. I've only seen the show once but he was not diving...
Author:  RICK S [ Fri May 23, 2008 6:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
..............I also forgot to mention he first started the show by sky diving at 9,000 feet into the ocean and did a SAS style ((as Bear calls it) quick release of his chute before he hits the water. This also placed him well below the surface of the ocean. I must say the show does a great job of always showing his blue dial emergency. In earlier seasons he has on his orange dial one. He beats them up thats for sure!

:fulllingclub: :threequartslingclub:
Author:  alien13 [ Fri May 23, 2008 10:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
CSH wrote:
Considering 30 meters is roughly equivalent to 96 feet, I think swimming 30 feet down should be ok... 8)


30 meters is not suitable for swimming :shock:

as per breitling instructions in the user manual of my airwolf

30m ... only splashes of water
50m ... surface swiming
100m ... snorkling
300m ... diving
more than 500m ... deep diving

it is said that anything rated less than 100m should not be used for swiming regularly. however, i guess 50m is ok for swiming (please note that this is a personal opinion that i have not put to the test as yet :) )
Author:  ewen [ Sat May 24, 2008 5:08 am ]
Post subject: 
alien13 wrote:
CSH wrote:
Considering 30 meters is roughly equivalent to 96 feet, I think swimming 30 feet down should be ok... 8)


30 meters is not suitable for swimming :shock:

as per breitling instructions in the user manual of my airwolf

30m ... only splashes of water
50m ... surface swiming
100m ... snorkling
300m ... diving
more than 500m ... deep diving

it is said that anything rated less than 100m should not be used for swiming regularly. however, i guess 50m is ok for swiming (please note that this is a personal opinion that i have not put to the test as yet :) )


This has always bemused me, not just Breitlings either.
Why do they actually state the water resistant qualities of a watch in these terms if they arent actually that water resistant. In a similar vein to car speedos being actually over-reading (factor of safety), surely if say a watch was only splash proof, it should be described as 'not water proof', not 'water resistant to 30m' and so on. Doesnt make sense to me, most casual buyers would take '30m water resistant' as gospel, and probably assume the maker had built in a margin of safety, not the other way round.
Author:  RICK S [ Sat May 24, 2008 5:21 am ]
Post subject: 
30m ... only splashes of water
50m ... surface swiming
100m ... snorkling
300m ... diving
more than 500m ... deep diving

This has always bemused me, not just Breitlings either.
Why do they actually state the water resistant qualities of a watch in these terms if they arent actually that water resistant. In a similar vein to car speedos being actually over-reading (factor of safety), surely if say a watch was only splash proof, it should be described as 'not water proof', not 'water resistant to 30m' and so on. Doesnt make sense to me, most casual buyers would take '30m water resistant' as gospel, and probably assume the maker had built in a margin of safety, not the other way round.[/quote]

I agree with you on this. If the watch states 30 meters that is what it should be good to and a little more. :?: :?: :?: :?:

:fulllingclub: :threequartslingclub:
Author:  alien13 [ Sat May 24, 2008 5:32 am ]
Post subject: 
that is why (at least for Breitling) you will notice that up to 50 meters it is not mentioned 50 meters it is only mentioned 5 ATM (or bars), and we approximately take 1 ATM as equal to 10 meters of water. But this does not mean that the watch is designed to go under water.

But you will notice that starting from 10 ATM it will be explicitly mentioned 100 meters because only then you are allowed to use it for swimming.
Author:  RJRJRJ [ Sat May 24, 2008 6:21 am ]
Post subject: 
alien13 wrote:
that is why (at least for Breitling) you will notice that up to 50 meters it is not mentioned 50 meters it is only mentioned 5 ATM (or bars), and we approximately take 1 ATM as equal to 10 meters of water. But this does not mean that the watch is designed to go under water.

But you will notice that starting from 10 ATM it will be explicitly mentioned 100 meters because only then you are allowed to use it for swimming.


I never knew that . Good to know.

@Ewen
It is just because they need to have some type of exacting standard, I guess.
Author:  Roffensian [ Sat May 24, 2008 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 
The waterproofness of watches isn't tested by seeing how deep they can go before they leak (obviously), it's based on pressure - hence the atmosphere measure. The depth is provided as an equivalency to that pressure, but that assumes that there is absolutely no movement.

Obviously in the real world water is hitting the watch in motion and therefore causing higher pressure at the point of impact which is why the actual usage is less than the stated depth.
Author:  Sunnyman [ Sat May 24, 2008 8:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Any doubt don't do it :lol: Buy one of those ------G Sho---------cks :lol: :lol: Have fun anyway :D
Author:  Breitling-nutt [ Sat May 24, 2008 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Breitling tests their watches to at least double the indicated depth rating. E
Author:  laieboy [ Sat May 24, 2008 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sunnyman wrote:
Any doubt don't do it :lol: Buy one of those ------G Sho---------cks :lol: :lol: Have fun anyway :D


Good tip! :thumbsup:
Author:  davo [ Sun May 25, 2008 2:57 am ]
Post subject: 
I swim with my airwolf frequently, go kayaking(& tipping over off it too). Breitling wouldn't ruin its reputation on under quoting a water rating. Just my thoughts, my watch is 5 bars which should be fine for swimming, I'll have it serviced every 18mths approx(as recommended by B'ling if you swim with the watch-for gasket replacement). I love my watch to death, but if I had to be that careful with it by watching where I take it, I probably wouldn't want it. ie choose a lesser watch maybe. But in my mind a watch is to be worn & it should reflect who you are.
If B'ling states it can be used in swimming as long as its properly serviced, I'll take it along in my pursuits. 18mths & it hasn't missed a beat, I take it everywhere & I still get a kick out of using it & admiring it. cheers
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/