Dropped Rolex President 279138 Datejust 28mm on Tile Floor

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Marcela

0.5 kg = 500g



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eventually someone had to spoil this thread with facts.

[CorradoBrit]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

In my opinion, no reasonable person should expect to drop a fine watch on a tile floor and have it come away unharmed. The (alleged) fact the Cartier survived should be viewed as a dodged bullet, rather than a benchmark for evaluating other watches under the same circumstances.

That said, how do we square common sense with Rolex's claim that their watches must withstand a 5,000G-equivalent shock and remain "unharmed"? Rolex's wording, as well as footage of the test, suggest the watch can take a direct hit, and they say the watch, not just the movement, must remain unharmed. Are we supposed to take the claim seriously? Dismiss it as puffery? Or is there a way to rationalize it, such that the claim holds up, despite the real-life results of a drop to a tile floor?

The bélier test is at 17 seconds:

Does that also apply to PM models. Whole different ball game

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by CorradoBrit

Does that also apply to PM models. Whole different ball game

Rolex issues no disclaimer that the claim does not apply to PM models. Besides, would you expect a stainless model to emerge unharmed from a drop to a tile floor? I wouldn't.

[DuchessofWinward]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

In my opinion, no reasonable person should expect to drop a fine watch on a tile floor and have it come away unharmed. The (alleged) fact the Cartier survived should be viewed as a dodged bullet, rather than a benchmark for evaluating other watches under the same circumstances.

That said, how do we square common sense with Rolex's claim that their watches must withstand a 5,000G-equivalent shock and remain "unharmed"? Rolex's wording, as well as footage of the test, suggest the watch can take a direct hit, and they say the watch, not just the movement, must remain unharmed. Are we supposed to take the claim seriously? Dismiss it as puffery? Or is there a way to rationalize it, such that the claim holds up, despite the real-life results of a drop to a tile floor?

The bélier test is at 17 seconds:

Thank you for your sanity here. That is my question posed differently. I get the tile floor (Godzilla) vs Rolex (Bambi) issue....Tile floor won, I have to deal with the consequences. But they say exactly that in their ad, and my experience shows the watch did not hold up per Rolex's claims

FYI...I am in the food industry, so I regularly convert into oz and fl oz.

[CorradoBrit]

Unharmed no, but certainly less affected. Gold is much softer and heavier.

[DuchessofWinward]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

In my opinion, no reasonable person should expect to drop a fine watch on a tile floor and have it come away unharmed. The (alleged) fact the Cartier survived should be viewed as a dodged bullet, rather than a benchmark for evaluating other watches under the same circumstances.

That said, how do we square common sense with Rolex's claim that their watches must withstand a 5,000G-equivalent shock and remain "unharmed"? Rolex's wording, as well as footage of the test, suggest the watch can take a direct hit, and they say the watch, not just the movement, must remain unharmed. Are we supposed to take the claim seriously? Dismiss it as puffery? Or is there a way to rationalize it, such that the claim holds up, despite the real-life results of a drop to a tile floor?

The bélier test is at 17 seconds:

Ahhh....they show that test with a Stainless watch...

[037]

Originally Posted by DuchessofWinward

FYI...I am in the food industry, so I regularly convert into oz and fl oz.

Yeah! I called it!

Not sure what prize I win though. I'm just gloating.

Wait, what scientific field is used in the food industry and how do you apply it? I'd think even a chemical engineer would use metric almost exclusively.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by CorradoBrit

Unharmed no, but certainly less affected. Gold is much softer and heavier.

Let me ask a different way: do you consider Rolex's claim that one of their watches (stainless or otherwise) should remain unharmed by a 5,000G impact to be false? If not, why not?

The questions are open to anyone who wants to answer them.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Let me ask a different way: do you consider Rolex's claim that one of their watches (stainless or otherwise) should remain unharmed by a 5,000G impact to be false? If not, why not?

The questions are open to anyone who wants to answer them.

this doesnt pass the common sense test in by book.

You see a car in a commercial driving in conditions you know would be dangerous and stupid to attempt. I dont think i would be able to do that in real life, without getting into a high speed crash.

A laboratory test is a test in a controlled environment to illustrate a best case outcome. Real world is not a lab and cant be held to that same standard as you are not replicating a lab test.

If i drop my watch its going to get damaged... simple... common sense.... no advanced degree required.

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

Originally Posted by 037

Yeah! I called it!

Not sure what prize I win though.

In this thread, we all lose.

[DuchessofWinward]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Let me ask a different way: do you consider Rolex's claim that one of their watches (stainless or otherwise) should remain unharmed by a 5,000G impact to be false? If not, why not?

The questions are open to anyone who wants to answer them.

Can you start a new thread on this question? I really think this is the crux of the issue. It says the WHOLE WATCH not just the movement.

[mangoseed]

Originally Posted by CorradoBrit

Sorry I only use metric. I'm 77.1kg

Wow then you better hit the gym, that is a lot even for some who is 178cm

[037]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Let me ask a different way: do you consider Rolex's claim that one of their watches (stainless or otherwise) should remain unharmed by a 5,000G impact to be false? If not, why not?

The questions are open to anyone who wants to answer them.

I'd say no because of a few reasons:

1) The impact shown in the video is controlled. It's a flat hit on the caseback and linear to the strongest direction of most internal components. It's not impacting an irregular surface at an irregular angle and irregular trajectory.

2) No claims were made (unless I've overlooked them) on the exterior case, bezel, insert (or gem settings) or bracelet being impervious to damage. Survival isn't without damage. Something has to disburse or transfer energy.

3) I've seen what 5000Gs mean in real-world impacts. I wouldn't expect any mechanical watch to survive such a force.

I would, however, expect to call my insurance company if I ever dropped mine on the floor and it found itself in a yard sale across my kitchen floor.

[Dimaxxxl]

Originally Posted by ~JJ

My understanding is they give you a credit for your old parts (cases and bracelets) towards new parts. For example, the cost for a replacement bracelet is less if you trade your old band in for a new one.

Wonder how they determine credit value on diamonds and precious metal parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DuchessofWinward]

Originally Posted by 037

Yeah! I called it!

Not sure what prize I win though. I'm just gloating.

Wait, what scientific field is used in the food industry and how do you apply it? I'd think even a chemical engineer would use metric almost exclusively.

Food Science. You apply all sciences to foods....Chem E; ME; Food Engineering; Microbiology...and because we are in US, routinely go back and forth between Metric and English. (Hence ounces, Fl oz). Check your ice cream, its sold in Fl oz. So all calculations are done in that :)

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

In my opinion, no reasonable person should expect to drop a fine watch on a tile floor and have it come away unharmed. The (alleged) fact the Cartier survived should be viewed as a dodged bullet, rather than a benchmark for evaluating other watches under the same circumstances.

That said, how do we square common sense with Rolex's claim that their watches must withstand a 5,000G-equivalent shock and remain "unharmed"? Rolex's wording, as well as footage of the test, suggest the watch can take a direct hit, and they say the watch, not just the movement, must remain unharmed. Are we supposed to take the claim seriously? Dismiss it as puffery? Or is there a way to rationalize it, such that the claim holds up, despite the real-life results of a drop to a tile floor?

The bélier test is at 17 seconds:

I dismiss the absurd claims expected of this thread.
The test is valid and not made to simulate the watch's survival against a crash to the floor or wall.
So I dug a little...just in the time you posted and if you search bélier test on watches, mostly a bunch of french stuff pops up.
But looking at the video carefully and understanding Rolex's explanation and seeing exactly what the bélier is(the name of the small ram)....
Rolex;
"This exclusive shock-testing equipment submits the watch to an impact equivalent to 5,000 G ..."

"Shock" testing equipment. It's a test. One that measures shock resistance of the watch and that the watch should remain unharmed and fully functional.
Well if you have a bélier ram embedded in the tile floor and it caused this damage then ok, let's go to court.

Otherwise looking at the video in slow motion it shows the watch is subjected to a very specific strike flat against the back, in a controlled environment and one that is just supposed to measure the shock resistance of the cased watch.
I believe in the test.

For one, I have dropped my Deepsea(like an idiot) on a wooden floor and it was fine, not one scratch and it functioned like a champ. The floor however had a nice dent. But that wasn't it, since I didn't learn from the first time, I also fumbled it out of my hand unto a well carpeted floor. Cursed myself but the watch continued unharmed, fully functional. I have since then been much more careful when taking the watch on and off.
This test isn't supposed to simulate the crash proofness of the case or crystal...I don't remember reading through the thread but the movement didn't need replacing did it.
It's plain common sense, no material is impervious to getting dropped and if one assumes based on that test, that it means your watch's metal(whatever type), crystal, and movement can be dropped on hard tile, concrete, marble or granite without a scratch, you are not understanding the point. All these years and cell phone makers boast more harder and indestructible glass and every year they all shatter on contact.

I can with full confidence and the same belief displayed in this absurd thread that the only place you can find this material and a watch that can survive being thrown across the room is in Wakanda.
And in Captain America's shield, which also comes from Wakanda. Vibranium.

Rolex just modified the name 904L to Oystersteel, give it a couple more Basels, you'll notice it'll be something like Vibralasor or Rolbranium....then we can all breath sighs of relief as we walk around dropping watches with glee.
#nomorepeacockrolex

[Reddy_Kilowatt]

Originally Posted by DuchessofWinward

Food Science. You apply all sciences to foods....Chem E; ME; Food Engineering; Microbiology...and because we are in US, routinely go back and forth between Metric and English. (Hence ounces, Fl oz). Check your ice cream, its sold in Fl oz. So all calculations are done in that :)

In Food Science, does one do a lot of calculations that are irrelevant, use shoddy assumptions, perform incorrect units conversion, and fail to check one's work?

[037]

Originally Posted by DuchessofWinward

Food Science. You apply all sciences to foods....Chem E; ME; Food Engineering; Microbiology...and because we are in US, routinely go back and forth between Metric and English. (Hence ounces, Fl oz). Check your ice cream, its sold in Fl oz. So all calculations are done in that :)

Fair enough. Chem E and biology make sense. I'm surprised ME is used much. Unlike most of my colleagues I don't eat ice cream, but I get your point.

Originally Posted by Reddy_Kilowatt

In Food Science, does one do a lot of calculations that are irrelevant, use shoddy assumptions, perform incorrect units conversion, and fail to check one's work?

They get more leeway than aerospace and defense. A pinch of this... a dash of that. That's how my grandma cooked and it was always great.

[CorradoBrit]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Wow then you better hit the gym, that is a lot even for some who is 178cm

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by mangoseed

Wow then you better hit the gym, that is a lot even for some who is 178cm

77kg is 169 pounds. For someone who is 178 cm tall (5' 8"), that's a BMI of 25.7, or only slightly overweight. That might not even be overfat if the person is muscular.

[CorradoBrit]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

I dismiss the absurd claims expected of this thread.
The test is valid and not made to simulate the watch's survival against a crash to the floor or wall.
So I dug a little...just in the time you posted and if you search bélier test on watches, mostly a bunch of french stuff pops up.
But looking at the video carefully and understanding Rolex's explanation and seeing exactly what the bélier is(the name of the small ram)....
Rolex;
"This exclusive shock-testing equipment submits the watch to an impact equivalent to 5,000 G ..."

"Shock" testing equipment. It's a test. One that measures shock resistance of the watch and that the watch should remain unharmed and fully functional.
Well if you have a bélier ram embedded in the tile floor and it caused this damage then ok, let's go to court.

Otherwise looking at the video in slow motion it shows the watch is subjected to a very specific strike flat against the back, in a controlled environment and one that is just supposed to measure the shock resistance of the cased watch.
I believe in the test.

For one, I have dropped my Deepsea(like an idiot) on a wooden floor and it was fine, not one scratch and it functioned like a champ. The floor however had a nice dent. But that wasn't it, since I didn't learn from the first time, I also fumbled it out of my hand unto a well carpeted floor. Cursed myself but the watch continued unharmed, fully functional. I have since then been much more careful when taking the watch on and off.
This test isn't supposed to simulate the crash proofness of the case or crystal...I don't remember reading through the thread but the movement didn't need replacing did it.
It's plain common sense, no material is impervious to getting dropped and if one assumes based on that test, that it means your watch's metal(whatever type), crystal, and movement can be dropped on hard tile, concrete, marble or granite without a scratch, you are not understanding the point. All these years and cell phone makers boast more harder and indestructible glass and every year they all shatter on contact.

I can with full confidence and the same belief displayed in this absurd thread that the only place you can find this material and a watch that can survive being thrown across the room is in Wakanda.
And in Captain America's shield, which also comes from Wakanda. Vibranium.

Rolex just modified the name 904L to Oystersteel, give it a couple more Basels, you'll notice it'll be something like Vibralasor or Rolbranium....then we can all breath sighs of relief as we walk around dropping watches with glee.
#nomorepeacockrolex

Well said, thats how I take these lab tests. They are unique and don't replicate real world situations. Take the outcomes with a pinch (or should that be a fraction of an ounce) of salt

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

"Shock" testing equipment. It's a test. One that measures shock resistance of the watch and that the watch should remain unharmed and fully functional.

[snip]

Otherwise looking at the video in slow motion it shows the watch is subjected to a very specific strike flat against the back, in a controlled environment and one that is just supposed to measure the shock resistance of the cased watch.
I believe in the test.

[snip]

This test isn't supposed to simulate the crash proofness of the case or crystal...I don't remember reading through the thread but the movement didn't need replacing did it.

You're preaching to the choir, but I do think you're misrepresenting the nature of Rolex's claim by reducing its scope. For one, if you look at the Tested to Extremes page, you'll see the description of the bélier test is under the heading, "THE CRASH TEST," accompanied by the claim that the force employed in the test is "hundreds of times more than a car crash test." That seems to suggest a type of crash-proofness, wouldn't you say?

Also, as previously noted, Rolex claims that in order to pass the bélier test, "the watch has to remain unharmed and fully functional afterwards." They say "unharmed," which implies minimal or no damage, not mere survival. And they extend that descriptor to the whole watch, not just the movement.

I do agree it is a controlled test, but the point of a test is to simulate the kinds of situations the watch might encounter in the real world. Otherwise, why do the test? Rolex says the point of the test is "maintaining the highest real-life standards of accuracy and appearance befitting of a Rolex." (Emphasis added.)

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

It's plain common sense, no material is impervious to getting dropped and if one assumes based on that test, that it means your watch's metal(whatever type), crystal, and movement can be dropped on hard tile, concrete, marble or granite without a scratch, you are not understanding the point.

Then what is the point of the test, within the context of the worded claim?

Again, I don't for one second view Rolex's marketing and think that means I can go thrashing my watch. (I'm actually one of those oft-derided ponces who takes care not to subject his Rolex to situations for which it really was intended.) But that does beg the question, why is Rolex saying these things if the only way in which they have any meaning is within the context of a controlled-lab situation, and not in the real world?

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Let me ask a different way: do you consider Rolex's claim that one of their watches (stainless or otherwise) should remain unharmed by a 5,000G impact to be false? If not, why not?

The questions are open to anyone who wants to answer them.

You know, RM also boasts this same resistance for the Nadal watches, which cost over half a million dollars. RM designs and makes Nadal's (Yohan Blake's)watches to work in these G-force levels normally and requires that his ambassadors use the watch in their sport, which is why you see Nadal use his during matches.
The watch works and is tested. But by no means would I casually drop my half a million dollar watch on the floor.

What does this test mean. It means just that. If you can simulate 5000Gs of shock force on the watch then it will still work. We're digging in the weeds now.
The test even in the video does not demonstrate a watch smashing against, being thrown at, or landing at or in a variety of angles against a hardened surface.

Not directed at anyone person, but this feels like I'm having a conversation with a child who says,
....but Rolex says the watch is waterproof to such and such meters, then why is it wet when you get out of the pool..

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Then what is the point of the test, within the context of the worded claim?

Again, I don't for one second view Rolex's marketing and think that means I can go thrashing my watch. (I'm actually one of those oft-derided ponces who takes care not to subject his Rolex to situations for which it really was intended.) But that does beg the question, why is Rolex saying these things if the only way in which they have any meaning is within the context of a controlled lab situation, and not in the real world?

At this point we aren't really discussing the test. We are discussing Rolex marketing language. Crash, smash, bang, Thanos snapped...
Common sense, it's plain ole common sense that no watch, nor is that test implying that your watch is supposed to survive being thrown against a wall with 5000Gs crashing, smashing or any other word and that the watch is to remain completely unharmed.
Your watch has the shock resistance of 5000Gs. An impact or Thanos snap that produces the force without the physical violent abrasive damage of falling from a third story window.
At 5001Gs(bélier test) the watch can and is then expected to sustain some sort of damage, like the spring hairspring, gets dislodge, a jewel cracks, the crystal pops off...

Here's my TRF Rolex math, free of charge
#1 - <5000G Bélier ram level shock = watch good
#2 - >5001G Bélier ram level shock = watch NO good
#3 - >2G butter finger dropped peacock Rolex on hard surface = catastrophic
#4 - Thanos snap = both 2 and 3 plus call Captain Marvel

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

At this point we aren't really discussing the test. We are discussing Rolex marketing language.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm discussing. The test is the test, but the claim (i.e., marketing language) accompanying the test is something else. We got here because OP was discussing the veracity of the claim with an eye toward suing Rolex for false advertising. Legally and (especially) practically, that's beyond absurd, but academically, I did start to question whether Rolex was dealing straight with their claims.

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Here's my TRF Rolex math, free of charge
#1 - <5000G Bélier ram level shock = watch good
#2 - >5001G Bélier ram level shock = watch NO good
#3 - >2G butter finger dropped peacock Rolex on hard surface = catastrophic
#4 - Thanos snap = both 2 and 3 plus call Captain Marvel

I can't argue with that.

[037]

Originally Posted by Rashid.bk

Here's my TRF Rolex math, free of charge
#1 - <5000G Bélier ram level shock = watch good
#2 - >5001G Bélier ram level shock = watch NO good
#3 - >2G butter finger dropped peacock Rolex on hard surface = catastrophic
#4 - Thanos snap = both 2 and 3 plus call Captain Marvel

This has me crying laughing. Well done.

[77T]

The Rolex marketing psycho-babble states, “impact equivalent to 5,000 G”.

Focus your attention on the word equivalent and pay attention to mass. There are so many ways to discuss the theoretical factors that I’d say there is no way to discuss this without the Rolex prevaricater in the room with me.

The movement weight perhaps 30 grams, therefore one could also say 5,000 G = the force of a 390 pound man falling to the floor wearing his Rolex.

I agree with Rashid’s rules - catastrophe is just a 3’ drop to the floor as your watch slips out of your hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[haven_seeker]

Rolex has been the most reliable watch brand I've ever owned. And I have a solid gold model in my collection.

My best advice for longevity: don't drop it, from any height!

I dropped my Piaget and had to send it for service. Does this make it like a delicate flower? No. I paid the service fee (got a new movement out of the ordeal) and life moved on.

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Yes, that's exactly what I'm discussing. The test is the test, but the claim (i.e., marketing language) accompanying the test is something else. We got here because OP was discussing the veracity of the claim with an eye toward suing Rolex for false advertising. Legally and (especially) practically, that's beyond absurd, but academically, I did start to question whether Rolex was dealing straight with their claims.



I can't argue with that.

Originally Posted by 037

This has me crying laughing. Well done.

I'm a simple man. Usually it takes crayons, papers and pictures to get me to understand something. None were ever needed to let me know dropping a watch is no bueno. As for Rolex marketing and word play...
Rolex has more complex lingo and word play than a Lil Wayne rap song.
I'm still deciphering "first waterproof watch"....good luck with that one.

[DuchessofWinward]

Actually - I think I am going through the 7 stages of grief on this post:
1. SHOCK & DENIAL- First post
2. PAIN & GUILT- page 4
3. ANGER & BARGAINING-about when I wrote the letter
4. DEPRESSION, REFLECTION, LONELINESS-I skipped this, generally a happy person
5. THE UPWARD TURN- this was finding out insurance covered it
6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- where I am now
7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-probably once I get the watch back