Reply With QuoteIs it me, or is that a 'Flieger' winding crown on this piece, just looks a little incongorous on a dive watch IMHO. Nice case shape though.
Ocean Crawler watch .......hammer test and 6000g ??
Hello all, I came across this review on WUS.
http://www.watchuseek.com/review-oce...edition-diver/
Have a look, shock test claims seem like a load of cobblers to me, after all testing a watch to 6000g (what is this 6000g, to my mind it is gravity times 6000).....how and why and????
Just seems like cobblers...and a hammer test? Maybe I am missing something, if so jump in.
Any way it surprised me.
Is it me, or is that a 'Flieger' winding crown on this piece, just looks a little incongorous on a dive watch IMHO. Nice case shape though.
6000g does sound ridiculous, and it kind of is. But if you consider a watch as a hard object hitting another hard object and there's almost instantaneous deceleration to zero, then crazy G forces can be generated by an object falling even a short distance onto a hard surface. If something like an orange was to fall the same distance it would distort and absorb the impact, taking longer to get to a velocity of zero, but a watch case doesn't do that.
Of course, there are mechanisms within the watch to absorb the impact and while still pretty rigid I'd reckon the G forces going on inside don't equal the headline 6000g going on outside... but then that wouldn't sound so cool and impressive.
The bit about "high impact hammer test...submits the watch to an impact equivalent to 6,000 G" is best ignored. However, there is an 'impact' test for watches in ISO 1413:2016 Shock-resistant wrist watches and it's also in ISO 6425:1996 Divers' watches according to this article, Diving watches and ISO 6425:
Shock resistance. The watch is subjected to a shock on the side at 9 o’clock, and a shock on the watchglass perpendicular to the face, delivered by a 3kg plastic hammer with a speed of 4.43 metres per second. The watch has to continue functioning with a maximum change in rate of +/- 60 seconds per day.
I wondered if there a US standard for such matters, but I could only find those two on the ANSI website, plus MIL standards for Watch, Wrist: General Purpose and Watches, Wrist (Watertight). There may be something in the latter, but I'm not buying it to find out.
I quite like the way it looks, but could do without the date window.
The reason for this is that although the front end hits the solid object and comes to zero speed, at that moment the back end is still travelling at it's original speed until it is slowed down by whatever is in front of it, the rest of the orange and then the solid object.If something like an orange was to fall the same distance it would distort and absorb the impact, taking longer to get to a velocity of zero,
This can be applied to everything that hits an immovable object. A glass dropping to the floor or a car hitting a tree.
In the case of a car hitting a tree crumple zones are sacrificial(sometimes meaning a write off) and allow a 'gradual' decceleration of the main body of the car to keep it intact and the occupants safe.
I think the name is a bit silly...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bit like Sea Dweller......when i last mentioned that watch to my wife she gave me an od look and said 'That sounds disgusting'.Originally Posted by Derivative
quick question - which one is hour hand?
Looks like they got the thickness wrong "Case Thickness: 150mm, Lug-To-Lug: 51.8mm, Lug Width: 22mm" maybe they got the 6000 wrong as well.
Now that you mention it...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's totally unreadable to me! Not very attractive either.quick question - which one is hour hand?
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Nowt so queer as folk.
In good company with regard to those tests: Ball Watches and Omega both use (or have used) 5,000G and 7,500G as a reflection of the hammer test.
Also in good company re the design: Sarpaneva pulls off that dial brilliantly.
Sarpaneva K0
Ah good, so what actually is a 6000g test?
The test described above, simulating a 1m fall onto the floor, by hitting the side of the watch with a hammer attached to a pendulum (and then sending it flying into a foam wall to be safely caught), has been calculated by Ball Watch as having a force of 5,000Gs (sic) (or possibly instantaneous jolt. Who knows?). If you simulate a fall from 1.5m, then the force must be 7,500Gs. Probably.
https://www.ballwatch.com/global/1/t...ance---53.html
Assuming a linear relationship, then 6,000G = 1.2m fall?
Last edited by Broussard; 1st February 2018 at 10:08.
The watch aside, anyone an idea what WUS charge for publishing an advertorial like this? I have always wondered where the business model for companies like Verticalscope lies.
Suppose we dodged a bullet when Eddie cancelled the sale of TZ.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Thank you Broussard, i wish manufacturers would state it in an understandable format though as the whole 6000g 7500g thing is meaningless for any not dealing directly with these measurements, and very confusing to boot.
I understand knocking it to the floor but am still stunned that they manufacturers state that is 6000g...seems a bit made up to me.
I did look on the internet for an explanation for this measurement but found nothing, made up measurement for the watch manufacturers to use? A bit like the whole lumen issue by lighting companies. Oh well.
And back to the ocean crawler.......what a creepy name. :)
Posting Permissions
