GMT II should have the Glidelock clasp bracelet as an option?

[Brew]

I usually find that a properly sized bracelet and the occasional trip to the salad bar sufficient for any Rolex; no need for Easylink or glidelock.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Vamp

The GMT does not have the same depth rating. It does have a triplock crown though, but only rated at 100ft.

100 meters. Sub is 300 meters.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by mobster600

GMT- Travelers/ time zone watch
Sub-Divers watch

What purpose would a glidelock be for traveling?

Oddly enough I find my Subs with glidelock much more useful for travelling than my GMT without it. I can remember time zones but can't stand a watch too tight or too loose, and that happens a lot with me while travelling.

[tbjerm]

The glidelock is unnecessary if it isn't intended to fit over a dive glove. Proper adjustment even renders easylink superfluous, but it's nice to know it's there. That being said, while some may think that glidelock would be a nice addition in theory, there is no need to add it and I don't see Rolex doing so. It would be like having the unidirectional rotating bezel on dive watches on the GMT to ensure that divers who are trying to use the GMT bezel to time dives don't accidentally gain time... a dive feature that is unwarranted on anything other than a dive watch.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

The glidelock is unnecessary if it isn't intended to fit over a dive glove. Proper adjustment even renders easylink superfluous, but it's nice to know it's there. That being said, while some may think that glidelock would be a nice addition in theory, there is no need to add it and I don't see Rolex doing so. It would be like having the unidirectional rotating bezel on dive watches on the GMT to ensure that divers who are trying to use the GMT bezel to time dives don't accidentally gain time... a dive feature that is unwarranted on anything other than a dive watch.

First off, I think you're giving too much credit to the notion that these watches are typically used for the purpose which they were originally designed.

A bidirectional rotating bezel on a dive watch doesn't make sense, because that becomes an actual safety issue. The argument towards having a Glidelock on a non-dive watch is simply about comfort, not safety.

As far as the easylink being rendered superfluous if the bracelet is 'properly adjusted', I think you'll find a fair number of people who will tell you that simply isn't true. Your wrist size may not fluctuate, but I know mine does- my Datejust becomes rather tight later on after a high-sodium meal coupled with fluid intake. Different people retain fluids differently, and this is especially problematic for sufferers of edema.

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

A bidirectional rotating bezel on a dive watch doesn't make sense, because that becomes an actual safety issue. The argument towards having a Glidelock on a non-dive watch is simply about comfort, not safety.

The early dive watches had bidirectional bezels and even the unis are largely about convenience, rather than safety, as even without a dive computer, you wouldn't use your watch to tell you how much air you have left (it's more for distances).

[Vamp]

Originally Posted by MTBer

For the type of “diving” the majority of people do who own these watches, the difference in depth rating is probably academic.

I’ve tried both a Sub and a GMT on, and though I think the Glidelock is a far better solution in terms of granular adjustability and ease of use, that clasp is just a monster for someone with a 7 inch wrist or smaller.

Indeed, as most people who own a sub don't dive. But depth ratings are based off static pressure. Kind of like jumping off a diving board, and activity's similar could potentially cause the watch to go over its static rating.. The higher the rating the safer I feel

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

The early dive watches had bidirectional bezels and even the unis are largely about convenience, rather than safety, as even without a dive computer, you wouldn't use your watch to tell you how much air you have left (it's more for distances).

Right, 'early', implying there's a reason they're no longer bidirectional:

The unidirectional bezel on the other hand, as its name implies, only turns one way. This technical constraint prevents any danger when measuring a diving time for example, since even if the bezel is knocked and moved it will simply indicate the diver has less air or decompression time rather than more.

https://www.fhs.swiss/eng/bezel.html

Originally Posted by Vamp

Indeed, as most people who own a sub don't dive. But depth ratings are based off static pressure. Kind of like jumping off a diving board, and activity's similar could potentially cause the watch to go over its static rating.. The higher the rating the safer I feel

I guess if I were diving to 250 meters and wanted to wear a mechanical dive watch for the novelty of it, I'd probably opt for a Sea Dweller rated at 1220m rather than toe the line at the Sub's 300m rating. Either way though, for recreational swimming or even jumping off a diving board, the 100m water resistance provided by a standard oyster/twinlock is probably more than sufficient. Just for fun, I'll have to dig out my physics textbook and try to figure the instantaneous pressure upon impact with the water. I see springboard are typically mounted at either 1 or 3 meters.

[ahlee00023]

More people find the easy link more comfortable than the glidelock mainly due to the size of the clasp.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Right, 'early', implying there's a reason they're no longer bidirectional:

The unidirectional bezel on the other hand, as its name implies, only turns one way. This technical constraint prevents any danger when measuring a diving time for example, since even if the bezel is knocked and moved it will simply indicate the diver has less air or decompression time rather than more.

https://www.fhs.swiss/eng/bezel.html




I guess if I were diving to 250 meters and wanted to wear a mechanical dive watch for the novelty of it, I'd probably opt for a Sea Dweller rated at 1220m rather than toe the line at the Sub's 300m rating. Either way though, for recreational swimming or even jumping off a diving board, the 100m water resistance provided by a standard oyster/twinlock is probably more than sufficient. Just for fun, I'll have to dig out my physics textbook and try to figure the instantaneous pressure upon impact with the water. I see springboard are typically mounted at either 1 or 3 meters.

You don't use a dive watch to measure how much air you have left and static v dynamic water pressure doesn't matter.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

You don't use a dive watch to measure how much air you have left and static v dynamic water pressure doesn't matter.

I'm not a diver, but every single piece of information I can find on the topic states that the bezel is used to measure time... time of what, exactly, doesn't matter. The original argument was that there's a reason for dive bezels to be unidirectional, and that reason is if the bezel were to be accidentally moved/bumped, the countdown time can only be artificially shortened, never protracted.

[Vamp]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

100 meters. Sub is 300 meters.

thats what i meant!

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

I'm not a diver, but every single piece of information I can find on the topic states that the bezel is used to measure time... time of what, exactly, doesn't matter. The original argument was that there's a reason for dive bezels to be unidirectional, and that reason is if the bezel were to be accidentally moved/bumped, the countdown time can only be artificially shortened, never protracted.

The bezel is used to measure time. Your argument was that unidirectional bezels are for safety regarding air consumption. This is not true. It's for convenience.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by MTBer

A bidirectional rotating bezel on a dive watch doesn't make sense, because that becomes an actual safety issue. The argument towards having a Glidelock on a non-dive watch is simply about comfort, not safety.

Originally Posted by tbjerm

The bezel is used to measure time. Your argument was that unidirectional bezels are for safety regarding air consumption. This is not true. It's for convenience.

That was my original argument- safety issue. I said nothing about it being about air consumption.

[Vamp]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Just for fun, I'll have to dig out my physics textbook and try to figure the instantaneous pressure upon impact with the water. I see springboard are typically mounted at either 1 or 3 meters.

Please do! Would be cool to know.

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

That was my original argument- safety issue. I said nothing about it being about air consumption.

You did. "[I]t will simply indicate the diver has less air" is what you posted.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

You did. "[I]t will simply indicate the diver has less air" is what you posted.

Those weren't my words; that was a direct quote supplementing my point taken from the website I referenced. If you think you know more about the issue than the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, by all means shoot them an email.

[srleadjb]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

The glidelock is unnecessary if it isn't intended to fit over a dive glove. Proper adjustment even renders easylink superfluous, but it's nice to know it's there. That being said, while some may think that glidelock would be a nice addition in theory, there is no need to add it and I don't see Rolex doing so. It would be like having the unidirectional rotating bezel on dive watches on the GMT to ensure that divers who are trying to use the GMT bezel to time dives don't accidentally gain time... a dive feature that is unwarranted on anything other than a dive watch.

I would love to know more about this magical “proper adjustment”





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[srleadjb]

Originally Posted by MTBer

As far as the easylink being rendered superfluous if the bracelet is 'properly adjusted', I think you'll find a fair number of people who will tell you that simply isn't true. Your wrist size may not fluctuate, but I know mine does- my Datejust becomes rather tight later on after a high-sodium meal coupled with fluid intake. Different people retain fluids differently, and this is especially problematic for sufferers of edema.

Exactly ^

I have never dived and probably never will but I want my watch to fit the way I want it and only glidelock let’s me do that all day long.

“Superfluous” is spending $10K on a watch to begin with, but that’s not what we’re talking about....

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Those weren't my words; that was a direct quote supplementing my point taken from the website I referenced. If you think you know more about the issue than the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, by all means shoot them an email.

If you write something to make an argument without a disclaimer, I'll attribute the views to you. The bezel on a dive watch does not measure air, and if the Federation says that then I disagree with them. This is a common myth.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

If you write something to make an argument without a disclaimer, I'll respond to it as your views. The bezel on a dive watch does not measure air, and if the Federation says that then I disagree with them. This is a common myth.

First off, I had assumed that the bold and italics was enough to signify a quotation, which was followed immediately by the source from which I copied it. My mistake for not using quotations though- noted.

Second, I think we're in agreement here that the bezel 'does not measure air'. Frankly, how would that even work? What property of the air would you even be measuring? Its volume, pressure, temperature, constituent components? Seems like an awful lot to ask for a bezel. I think it just times stuff.

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

First off, I had assumed that the bold and italics was enough to signify a quotation, which was followed immediately by the source from which I copied it. My mistake for not using quotations though- noted.

Second, I think we're in agreement here that the bezel 'does not measure air'. Frankly, how would that even work? What property of the air would you even be measuring? Its volume, pressure, temperature, constituent components? Seems like an awful lot to ask for a bezel. I think it just times stuff.

Post something as your views and I'll respond to it as your views.

Divers don't use the bezel as a means of calculating how much air they have left.

Moving on.

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by srleadjb

Exactly ^

I have never dived and probably never will but I want my watch to fit the way I want it and only glidelock let’s me do that all day long.

“Superfluous” is spending $10K on a watch to begin with, but that’s not what we’re talking about....

Most get along fine without adjusting their watches throughout the day. Among those who do, easylink is enough. I'm surprised you need glidelock for daily adjustments.

[MTBer]

Well I feel like an idiot

[tbjerm]

I hope many readers are enjoying how amusing this is. Pic definitely made me laugh. Well done.

[MTBer]

Originally Posted by tbjerm

I hope many readers are enjoying how amusing this is. Definitely made me laugh. Well done

[tbjerm]

Originally Posted by MTBer

Cheers, mate

[904VT]

Easy solution for Rolex. Just add a Glidelock with half of the adjustment notches to the rest of the Professional line. Could easily keep the clasp sizing the same as it is now on those watches. Useful feature all around for any watch you may wear during activities beyond just diving.

[dkg1616]

Originally Posted by burnthesehills

Glidelock may have been intended for divers, but it works wonders in terms of finding the perfect fit and making small to large adjustments on the fly. Honestly I have never had a watch fit as perfectly as my Submariner.

But no, Rolex will likely never bring it to non dive models because they want to sell people more than one watch. Which is understandable.

The current submariner is just perfect and I think a lot is driven by the glidelock

[darkside7]

This an’t Burger King, you can’t have it your way...... hahaha