Forums Latest Members
  1. Brent7928 Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    120
    Hello All,
    I have had several speedy pros over the years, I am especially fond of the early 861 movement models, but always end up letting them go. the reason, to me they are a sport watch and do not have enough waterproofing to meet my needs. I want my sport watch to be one where I can play golf, hunt, fish and swim without any concern. I had one speedy not survive a round of golf and would not even consider swimming with one. My question to you - do any of the speedmasters have a waterproof rating of 100m? I would consider that safe to swim in. I seem to recall that the more recent 41mm Schumacher models with black and white dials are 100m rated. Is that the case?
     
  2. ulackfocus Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Speedmaster = auto racing, space flight. Never saw water involved with either. :whistling:

    You are aware that Omega makes some pretty nice models with 150m and deeper ratings, right? :p For that matter, so do many brands. Keep your Speedies for other activities and get a G-shock or Seiko dive watch as a beater.
     
  3. Brent7928 Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    120
    forgot to mention - my current sport watch is a tudor heritage chronograph. I like it a lot but still like that old speedy style better.
     
  4. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    26,758
    Likes
    32,471
    How on earth did a round of golf cause any harm :\
     
  5. CanberraOmega Rabbitohs and Whisky Supporter Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    5,570
    Likes
    6,208
    Well, when you have to go swimming to retreive your balls (or clubs) from the water hazards.....
     
    longhornbba likes this.
  6. cicindela Steve @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    15,047
    Likes
    23,789
    The new Speedmaster First in Space (FOIS) is claimed by Omega water resistant to 50m. I don't know of any greater.
    For water sports I would go Seamaster
     
  7. Montrealer Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    19
    Likes
    7
    LOL!
     
  8. Brent7928 Mar 6, 2013

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    120
    Nice call on the water hazard! I am a scratch golfer and generate some reasonable clubhead speed. I messed up the chrono functions. What is the waterproof depth on the black and white dialed Schumacher? I have had several Seamasters, including the PO, and they just don't work for me. I have smaller wrists and the bracelets / case size and shape just don't fit well on my wrist.
     
  9. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Mar 7, 2013

    Posts
    26,343
    Likes
    65,053
    Hmmm....really?

    [​IMG]

    :D

    Anyway, yes I agree that if you want something for use in the water, the Speedmaster is not it.

    Cheers, Al
     
    RC03, capri, FilmDave and 2 others like this.
  10. ulackfocus Mar 7, 2013

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Touché.
     
  11. Steve Mar 7, 2013

    Posts
    899
    Likes
    133
    50m/100m waterproof watches are really only splash proof. Also if a Speedmaster Moon watch can resist the riggers of space flight i'm sure it could with stand a 300 yard drive !. :D
    As Dennis (ulackfocus) says get a G-shock or Seiko dive watch as a beater.
     
  12. rbird7282 Mar 7, 2013

    Posts
    281
    Likes
    139
    Regardless of clubhead speed or how hard your swing is, your Speedy shouldn't be having issues with a round of golf.
     
  13. CanberraOmega Rabbitohs and Whisky Supporter Mar 8, 2013

    Posts
    5,570
    Likes
    6,208
    Once again, it depends on how hard your swing is - if you are hitting your speedy with the golf club......
    You must be having a vEry bad round
     
  14. Littleroger Mar 8, 2013

    Posts
    384
    Likes
    258

    I find it strange that anyone would play golf with a watch on. First, the vibration at impact is huge. I would never put a mechanical watch through that. Also it impedes your left wrist. I see no point in it. Unless you are like Nadal and trying to prove a point that RM makes tough watches, though they aren't particularly cheap !
     
  15. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    26,758
    Likes
    32,471
    The golf swing thing gets brought up a lot but really watches are far more resilient to stuff like that than most people expect, NASA put the Speedmaster through 40G shocks and it was fine, while the impact on the golf ball is huge, your wrist doesn't experience that much of a shock.
     
    longhornbba likes this.
  16. Littleroger Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    384
    Likes
    258
  17. dsio Ash @ ΩF Staff Member Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    26,758
    Likes
    32,471
    Its not going to be 5000 at the wrist, or even a significant fraction of that though, for an impromptu test, grab a Shockwatch yellow label (25G) slap it on the face or underside of a cheap watch and practice your swing, it won't beak. Someone tried this some time ago with a red then went at it again with a yellow and the result was the same, whether on a watch or stuck to your wrist, you can't break one from a golf or baseball swing.
     
  18. NiklasARvid Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    143
    Likes
    99
  19. Littleroger Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    384
    Likes
    258
    You just need to make a cursory search on the net. The lowest number I have found is 150G. Still a lot. Even if the "results" vary greatly, people still forget that golfers frequently find themselves hitting into roots, through branches, against trees (a la Tiger!) and up against walls. None of which is even slightly good for watches, particularly crystals and straps, even if the movement is not damaged. I've been playing for nearly 40 years and can assure you this is true ;)
     
  20. NiklasARvid Mar 9, 2013

    Posts
    143
    Likes
    99
    im not an engineer, rather a lowly economist...;-) , but heres one guy calculating the G force at a point "6cm below the grip" which I assume i somwhere on the club.
    http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-170448.html

    A wristwatch would be located 15cm closer to the pivoting point? He reaches (or, his critics) a result in the neigborhood of 30G.
    But then we need to correct for
    1. Position of watch, which is 15 closer to pivoting point, i.e. 20% less =24G
    2. mistake on acceleration of arm, this site seems credible:
    http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-a-golf-swing.html
    and they use 15rad/s which shaves another (compared to 26) 30% off, leaving us with say 17G, iff the watch is bolted to the bone of the swing arm.
    Allowing for some flex in the attachement, maybe 15?
    Please indicate where the guys, and I went wrong? :)