The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I noticed that my B01 chronomat LE says Etanche 200m on that back, and so do the other B01 chronomat's with a display back however, the non display back models have a 500m water resistance. Does the display back really reduce the water resistance by 60%??

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

Sapphire crystal may be very hard but it is relatively brittle.
The display back would have to be quite thick to withstand 500 meters of water pressure which equates to 50 ATM or about 700 lb per square inch and the sapphire display back is roughly around 1 square inch.
Metal case back is considerably stronger.
The watch would have to be a lot thicker if they wanted to retain the same rating with display back.

_________________
"It is just a matter of time!"

I don't agree with that. The planet ocean has a display back and a 2000 ft WR and the thickness isn't much different at all.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

There are many DBs from other brands that have much higher WR ratings (PO is a perfect example as Sergio points outO, but clearly the Breitling design doesn't allow it - I assume that they have tested and that's what they came up with as a 'safe' rating.

The POC chrono display back version is 19mm thick. That's 2mm thicker than the Chronomat B01, right? I'm sure Breitling could do it too by just making the sapphire back thicker, but what for?...who's gonna use the Chronomat as a diver watch anyway. 660ft water rating is good enough for swimming/snorkeling.

_________________
18k Rolex Datejust / Breitling Crosswind Special / Patek SS Nautilus / Bvlgari Diagono Chrono / Bvlgari Scuba / Omega Speedmaster Professional / 60s Omega Constellation

I'm not taking about the POC. The POC movement in itself is much thicker than the B01 movement. The question wasn't whether or not to use a chronomat as a diver, the question was why has Breitling reduced their WR on a DB model vs a steel back model when omega was able to keep the same WR on both with a negligible thickness increase.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

Economy of scale might have something to do with it.
Omega PO volumes are much higher than the initial Chronomat 01 LE of 2000.
Much easier for Omega to dilute the cost of developing a better solution.
It's all down to $$$. Breitling probably assumed that they will easily sell most of the 2000 pieces, being the first model with the inhouse movement and the only one with display back at the time.
Govberg LE was too small volume to try and improve it.
That would be my guess.

_________________
"It is just a matter of time!"

Omega's technically superiority, having more resources, simply using a slightly thicker sapphire back, or Breitling just not thinking it would make much difference to the avg buyer to bother with it. Whatever the reason, I personally don't think it really matters.

_________________
18k Rolex Datejust / Breitling Crosswind Special / Patek SS Nautilus / Bvlgari Diagono Chrono / Bvlgari Scuba / Omega Speedmaster Professional / 60s Omega Constellation

Great, thanks for your input. Frankly, I don't really care whether it matters to you or not, my question was posed to people with actual knowledge of DB's and WR; not whether it matters to you or any other Breitling consumer.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

You're very welcome. Please up your dosage.

_________________
18k Rolex Datejust / Breitling Crosswind Special / Patek SS Nautilus / Bvlgari Diagono Chrono / Bvlgari Scuba / Omega Speedmaster Professional / 60s Omega Constellation