The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I will say it again - do NOT rely on the tables available to tell you what is "safe" water usage for stated W/R ratings. It has nothing to do with Breitling - I would never wear any brand's watch rated at a measly 50 meters in any body of water for any activity. I can create more than the pressure of 50m of water depth by placing a watch under a fully opened sink faucet and if I orient the watch just right (wrong??) for a certain amount of time, I may breach the piece.

It depends what you do "surface swimming." There are many activities I would include in surface swimming in a pool, lake, ocean that can exceed the rated ability to withstand pressure. And we are taking about pressure here - not really water "depth." You can create more than than the allowable amount of pressure on that case in TWO FEET of water or the kitchen sink. It is up to the watch owner to discern what the rating means and what risk is worth taking. That isn't babying a watch - it is just being fully educated on the watches intended uses and limitations and what W/R ratings really mean.

_________________
SHARKMAN

It sounds like the industry needs to revisit the whole water resistance branding. Most of us know that 30m water resistance really doesn't mean the watch is capable of withstanding anything near the pressure at such depth. Perhaps doing this would eliminate the confusion on what the watch is capable of doing. I think it sucks that I would have to be concerned about swimming with a watch "marked" as 50m. Aside from my NaviWorld I try to stick with watches with at least a 200m rating. The last thing I want to be concerned with is having to remove my watch to do anything aside from exposing it to extreme temperatures changes ie. bath or sauna.

We pay good money for these watches I want to be able to subject them to within the limits it was marketed for. The idea of buying a inexpensive watch as substitute for my Breitling makes no sense to me. Perhaps the likes of Seiko and Casio should use lines from the like of this forum as marketing material. "Afraid to damage your precious watch, buy a Seiko or casio" everyone else does. Seiko, there when your not sure if your XXXX can handle it.

_________________
Jerome

“Most of us know that 30m water resistance really doesn't mean the watch is capable of withstanding anything near the pressure at such depth.”

Yes it is! It will withstand the equivalent pressure produced at 30 meters water depth. It will fail at more pressure or at the same pressure for extended durations or over repeated exposures. Watches are exposed to a static test of pressure. Whether you refer to atmospheres, bars, or meters, what it means is how many pounds per square inch (in my non-metric Nation)of pressure the watch withstands over a short period of time without failure of the seals leading to leakage – in the test that would be both air and water.

A watch rated at 50m is RESISTANT to failure of the seals/water incursion IF exposed to no more than the equivalent pressure for a fairly short duration – about 10 minutes. That is why they use the term “Resistance” rather than “Proof” after the word “Water.” And that applies to any properly produced watch – be it a $50 Timex or $5,000 Breitling.

IF you enter the water quickly – say a dive off a meter spring board – you may only go 5 feet under water, but the movement of the watch through the water increases the pressure to which the watch is exposed. Keep doing that wearing a 50m W/R rated watch and it will fail ultimately.

What amazes me is that anyone would spend thousands on a time piece and not spend a few minutes online before using in any activity that may destroy it.

Not my intent to butt hurt anyone, but repsecting and avoiding watch W/R ratings aren’t akin to driving a boat slow out of fear it will break. It’s akin to ALWAYS operating the boat at the maximum allowable RPM so sooner or later it will break.

_________________
SHARKMAN

This is exactly my point, regardless of how much research we believe they should or should not do. "10, 20, 30, 40 or 50m" and its equivalent in feet to most people sounds like it's more than they'll need for their lifestyle. Perhaps we fail to remember that our community is a small percentage of watch owners and If splashing around in a pool with a watch labeled "30m" can potentially cause damage then maybe they shouldn't be labeled at all. Especially knowing the rating is referring to static condition, duration of time and proper maintenance of seals only makes matters worse.

_________________
Jerome

@Jerome - playing devils advocate here, how else can watchmakers designate the water resistance rating? Sure it can be confusing that WR ratings relate to STATIC WATER pressure, but what other choice is there? They'd need pretty small engraving on the caseback if they had to write, "Water Resistent to 50m Static Water Pressure For 10 Minutes, But Only 5m Water Resistent For 10 Minutes When Diving Off a 1m Board, And 1m Water Resistent For 10 Minutes When Jumping Off a 5m Board. Also Water Resistent To 5m When Moving Your Arm At 2m Per Second Through The Water, But Only 1m When Moving Your Arm At 5m Per Second Through The Water".

This isn't meant to be a flippant response, and I agree that the current rating system isn't perfect, but I just don't see an alternative given all the variables. Sure we could just do away with WR ratings altogether, but that'd make it impossible to buy a dive watch. As it is, the current system works just fine as long as people read up on the definitions that support the headline 30/50/100m WR rating.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Let's be clear here, these water resistance ratings have got nothing to do with watch companies. They were set by the ISO back in 1990 with ISO 2281. All the watch companies do is comply with that standard rating.

That said, the ISO has been thinking what we all know - 30M doesn't really mean 30M, so they are introducing a revision - ISO 22810. That makes the major change that says that a 30M WR watch is capable of performing all activities at that depth - a major change, and from this year things will become even more confusing when we get 30M watches under 2281 and 30M watches under 22810. The changes are going to kick in this July.

@driver8 - First off its been awhile, I hope all is well.

I think if its less than adequate to wear while swimming it shouldn't be labeled, and in that case only rate it at say 5M or something realistic. This is still abidding by the requirements of regular maintenance, seals etc. but 5M is 5M all others should be good for light splashes ie washing hands or face.

I guess according to Roff's post there is a light at the end of the tunnel even though we might encounter some challenges with the two different standards but at least there is a light.

_________________
Jerome

Yes the make up of the ISO is quite independant and all watch manufacturers do is adhere to these international standards. Most of the country designees are public sector people.

Very much unlike the infamous "UL" - Underwriters Labratories. That organization is rife with conflict of interest as the standards are developed by each effected industry and the companies own employee/representatives. So much for the notion that the UL tag means the product is truly safe.

Funny, before Driver's last comment I was picturing a big red tag affixed to each watch with a detailed explanation of the meaning of the water resistance rating and a note in bold font - "Removal of this tag is a Federal Offense" But alas I fell asleep watching The Masters before I could post.

Maybe TVs should have big red tags warning us not to drive or operate heavy machinery while watching golf tournaments.

_________________
SHARKMAN

Again many are missing the point. Take aviation for instance. Aircraft limits are tested & proven, then they add a measure of fat, so even if performance is at its limit it is safe for its listed operation no matter what. Then the regulatory body adds its requirements on top of that if required. True the WR ratings are independent & possibly dated. Even on Breitlings care & warrantee cards following servicing it specifically has a table indicating 50m is swimming approved. If I was the CEO for this company I would ensure more 'fat' than say a lesser price brand to avoid problems & debates like this. I understand where sharkman etc is coming from but I do not see swimming as a limit. If it were, than the average Joe would ruin everywatch they own within a year or two. For instance, what WR would you purchase for a decent watch for everyday activities like swimming. 50m, 100m, 500, 1000m etc. The average Joe will trust published material in the hope reputable watch makers will make watches to perform the advertised/published material. He simply won't think he needs a 200-500m 'divers watch to go swimming with. Whats more the average jeweller will advise its only a resistant not water proof! However its highly unlikely that water damage will occur if you don't abuse or exceed the maximum activity. Its up to the brands to decipher the ratings, label their pieces to give owners confidence in their products.
Off the soap box.

I have to say that I have never had any problem with my Steelfish, Colt auto, my no longer Skyland, and now my Blackbird. I take them in the shower with me, wash with anti-bacterial soap and a soft brush. I rinse under the running water from the shower head, pool in my hands, and dry with a soft towel. I swim with the Steelfish and submerse it at work everyday.
I may be just lucky but I feel I paid for this WR so I am not going to worry about it. I do recognize that regular maintenance is required to maintain the watch and will keep that up. As a side bar, I try not to wear my Nav in a hard rain. I will protect it from water of any kind. That watch gets wiped off with a damp soft cloth and then dried with a soft towel. Now watch, tonight I will rinse my Steelfish off and when I look at the face I will have fish swimming around in the watch.
Best health, Frank