YM42 RLX Grade 5 Titanium … only 100m water resistance?

[dannyboy123]

Originally Posted by Kevzep

Rounding North Head on the Waitemata Harbour in Auckland New Zealand, Rangitoto in the background, and a Yacht Master on the wrist...Nice!!

Yeah, cool shot. Youre on to it. Wearing my slate YM today in the chch drizzle. The 100m water resistance should cope

[dannyboy123]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I attended the US Naval Academy and served 22+ years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. I ended my career with 7 straight sea tours, including over 14 years without shore duty. I’ve spent more time on the shi##er while underway than you have total time at sea, so don’t tell me about knowing how to sail.

You missed my point. I know no one takes watches down to rated depth, but Rolex comes out with a DeepSea Challenge made of the same material rated at 11,000 meters, yet the YM42 RLX can only manage 100m? Just seems odd. I think it’s Submariner politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because its plenty id say?

[Tools]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Anyone know why a watch made of grade 5 titanium with a triplock crown is only rated to 100m water resistance?

First, the Triplock crown is not the indicator of depth. The Twinlock has been demonstrated to not fail as deep as 2000 feet. (See Rolex Crushed Oyster advertisements)

Titanium may be stronger per thickness, but it may not have the same thickness as needed to keep from bending into the movement at depth.

Also, it's not a Diver so Rolex likely has no real desire to pressure test every watch to Diver depths.

[Bill2e]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

And why cheap out with easy-link extension instead of Glidelock?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boom. This. Hate that clasp

[Mrhenish]

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. It’s these threads where I learn a lot: deflection of pressure, tensile strength, etc, so thanks everyone. These threads are way better than what new model will sell for the most over retail. I am hoping some good natured joking between the Air Force and Navy starts soon.

[Gasguzlr]

Yet if they brought out the same watch with 50m wr people (including me) would complain that why didn't they at least make it 100m since it has the triplock crown?

I would have no problems whatsoever diving with this watch, other than the lack of a real pip and bezel being a little harder to read. Most I've ever dove is 130 feet, so 100m is plenty good for 99.9% of the people who wear this watch. Hell, I've even dove while wearing my Batman, just for fun, while wearing my diving computer on the other wrist. These watches can easily take your average "advanced" diver down and back without breaking a sweat.

100m is fine in my book.

r

[SilverKast]

Only 100m waaaaahhhhh.

How many of us will ever see that depth? I'd wager a handsome sum almost none of us, unless we accidentally drop it in the ocean.

[Reikolexguy]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Anyone know why a watch made of grade 5 titanium with a triplock crown is only rated to 100m water resistance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What would be an acceptable WR rating, in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rollieo]

I’ll go against the grain here and agree with OP.

Every Rolex has 100m WR (except the new 1908 at 50m which is fine since it’s on leather).

From a marketing standpoint, it’d be nice for a “water focused” watch to have something more than 100m. It doesn’t need dive level WR, but something more than your everyday datejust.

As far as the technical reasons, too many details to know one way or another. Case design, material thickness, machining methods, sealing, etc. not to mention testing requirements.

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

What does the case material have to do with it? The GMT master is made of the same case material as the Submariner, why is it only rated to 100m.
Because it’s not and I’ve watch.

The YM has a bidirectional bezel. They shouldn’t put it forth as being a diver. I bet you could probably take it to 300m and it would be fine. But that doesn’t mean Rolex has to certify it to that depth. Especially if you don’t want people diving in it.

*not a dive watch. Ugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fishingbear]

Could it be to keep the case thickness down, it’s sits as thin as the Daytona.
I’m in the camp that 100 m is just fine anyway for a non-diver.

[Devildog]

Sub politics aside, its probably not strong enough at the thickness Rolex uses for the YM to keep its overall weight so low

Shamelessly cut and pasted:


The first striking difference between titanium and steel is their densities; as previously discussed, titanium is about half as dense as steel, making it substantially lighter. This suits titanium to applications that need the strength of steel in a lighter package and lends titanium to be used in aircraft parts and other weight-dependent applications. The density of steel can be an advantage in certain applications such as in a vehicle chassis, but most of the time, weight reduction is often a concern.

The modulus of elasticity, sometimes referred to as Young’s modulus, is a measure of the flexibility of a material. It describes how easy it is to bend or warp a material without plastic deformation and is often a good measure of a material’s overall elastic response. Titanium’s elastic modulus is quite low, which suggests it flexes and deforms easily. This is partly why titanium is difficult to machine, as it gums up mills and prefers to return to its original shape. Steel, on the other hand, has a much higher elastic modulus, which allows it to be readily machined and lends it to be used in applications such as knife edges, as it will break and not bend under stress.

When comparing the tensile yield strengths of titanium and steel, an interesting fact occurs; steel is by-and-large stronger than titanium. This goes against the popular misconception that titanium is stronger than most other metals and shows the utility of steel over titanium. While titanium is only on par with steel in terms of strength, it does so at half the weight, which makes it one of the strongest metals per unit mass. However, steel is the go-to material when overall strength is the concern, as some of its alloys surpass all other metals in terms of yield strengths. Designers looking solely for strength should choose steel, but designers concerned with strength per unit mass should choose titanium.

Elongation at break is the measure of a test specimen’s initial length divided by its length right before fracturing in a tensile test, multiplied by 100 to give a percentage. A large elongation at break suggests the material “stretches” more; in other words, it is more prone to increased ductile behavior before fracturing. Titanium is such a material, where it stretches almost half its length before fracturing. This is yet another reason why titanium is so difficult to machine, as it pulls and deforms instead of chips off. Steel comes in many varieties but generally has a low elongation at break, making it harder and more prone to brittle fracture under tension.

Hardness is a comparative value that describes a material’s response to scratching, etching, denting, or deformation along its surface. It is measured using indenter machines, which come in many varieties depending upon the material. For high-strength metals, the Brinell hardness test is often specified and is what is provided in Table 1. Even though the Brinell hardness of steel varies greatly with heat treatment and alloy composition, it is most of the time always harder than titanium. This is not to say that titanium deforms easily when scratched or indented; on the contrary, the titanium dioxide layer that forms on the surface is exceptionally hard and resists most penetration forces. They are both resistant materials that work great when exposed to rough environments, barring any additional chemical effects.

[SwissWatchCraze]

Originally Posted by AmgAslLolBrb

It is a Yachmaster, last I checked not taking the yacht 300meters below surface, exclusions do exist to this rule I.e Titanic, but at that point I don’t think telling the time is main concern.

Nice one lol

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I attended the US Naval Academy and served 22+ years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. I ended my career with 7 straight sea tours, including over 14 years without shore duty. I’ve spent more time on the shi##er while underway than you have total time at sea, so don’t tell me about knowing how to sail.

You missed my point. I know no one takes watches down to rated depth, but Rolex comes out with a DeepSea Challenge made of the same material rated at 11,000 meters, yet the YM42 RLX can only manage 100m? Just seems odd. I think it’s Submariner politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great thread & an even better post…

[JRell]

If I had a sub or a YM42, stranded in the sea, I choose the YM as it is so light, I would use it as a flotation device.

[Chewbacca]

.

[amh]

Rolex knows "deep end of pool" is enough ;-)

[SS Oyster]

None of us here will take a YM42 even in titanium down below 100m ... not my point.

Why would Rolex not take advantage of the material advancement to showcase even the same thin profile can now be rated higher, say to 200m. I think that would just up their game and make people think they are getting an even better (more robust) watch.

I think the YM42 RLX is a cool looking watch, but being so light and scratching so easy (thanks for the details Devildog!), I wonder if everyone will start wondering why the heck did Rolex make it out of titanium in the first place?
- monochrome
- dull
- scratchs easy
- not rated any deeper
- no GL clasp
- $4k more than a sub

Why would anyone want one?

[Joearch]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

None of us here will take a YM42 even in titanium down below 100m ... not my point.

Why would Rolex not take advantage of the material advancement to showcase even the same thin profile can now be rated higher, say to 200m. I think that would just up their game and make people think they are getting an even better (more robust) watch.

I think the YM42 RLX is a cool looking watch, but being so light and scratching so easy (thanks for the details Devildog!), I wonder if everyone will start wondering why the heck did Rolex make it out of titanium in the first place?
- monochrome
- dull
- scratchs easy
- not rated any deeper
- no GL clasp
- $4k more than a sub

Why would anyone want one?

Can’t wait to get mine. Great add for a diverse collection.
Love the understated “monochrome” as a counterpoint to the GMT’, Subs and SkyD in my collection.

I wouldn’t use the word dull and look forward to unpolished surfaces and that non flashy bezel.

My experience is Ti does not scratch easily and gets a beautiful charcoal finish that can be easily touched up.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I attended the US Naval Academy and served 22+ years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. I ended my career with 7 straight sea tours, including over 14 years without shore duty. I’ve spent more time on the shi##er while underway than you have total time at sea, so don’t tell me about knowing how to sail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice flex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[diracpoint]

Grade 5 Ti (not elemental Ti) has a Brinell hardness of 379, much higher than that of 904L steel (150).

Tensile yield strength of grade 5 Ti is 1100 MPa >> 220 MPa for 904L steel.

Compressive yield strength of grade 5 Ti is 155 kpsi >> 25 kpsi for steel. This is specifically important for high depth rating watches such as DSC (or even DSSD, which has a grade 5 Ti caseback) because at that pressure the watch case will deform/compress (as does the submersible!), but due to high yield strength the deformation won't be permanent, and will recover its original shape when it comes up.

Just for comparison, the pressure at the bottom of Mariana Trench is approx. 16kpsi, so technically both grade 5 Ti and Steel will work, but the margin of error is much larger for grade 5 Ti.

Sources: https://parts-badger.com/properties-...e-5-titanium/; https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1022; https://www.matweb.com/search/datash...75f5120&ckck=1

[SS Oyster]

Diracpoint makes my point more vividly. Why waste that precious grade 5 titanium (um I mean RLX titanium) without improving a single spec, not even another 50m of water resistance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[subtona]

100m is All that is necessary.
The watch as designed can be bolted onto your wrist and would not need to be taken off.

Though it has a rotating bezel, It’s not a dive watch as indicated by the two way rotation of the bezel.

After years of questioning similar Rolex decisions, I have come to believe they make considered and correct choices.

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

None of us here will take a YM42 even in titanium down below 100m ... not my point.

Why would Rolex not take advantage of the material advancement to showcase even the same thin profile can now be rated higher, say to 200m. I think that would just up their game and make people think they are getting an even better (more robust) watch.

I think the YM42 RLX is a cool looking watch, but being so light and scratching so easy (thanks for the details Devildog!), I wonder if everyone will start wondering why the heck did Rolex make it out of titanium in the first place?
- monochrome
- dull
- scratchs easy
- not rated any deeper
- no GL clasp
- $4k more than a sub

Why would anyone want one?

Again, what does the metal have to do with depth rating. I don’t think titanium has any more potential for water resistance than stainless steel.
It has more to do with thickness and seals etc. titanium isn’t a more water resistant metal.

Also who said grade 5 titanium scratches easy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[George58]

My only 8mm thick PP 5066 clear case back made 316l ss rated to 120m is cool. Little know fact is the case is only made of 2 parts. Mid case the case back. Makes for stronger case I would think. PP really did R and D on the Aqua line.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I attended the US Naval Academy and served 22+ years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. I ended my career with 7 straight sea tours, including over 14 years without shore duty. I’ve spent more time on the shi##er while underway than you have total time at sea, so don’t tell me about knowing how to sail.

You missed my point. I know no one takes watches down to rated depth, but Rolex comes out with a DeepSea Challenge made of the same material rated at 11,000 meters, yet the YM42 RLX can only manage 100m? Just seems odd. I think it’s Submariner politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then, what the folks the problem? It's a surface watch and not a dive watch. It's a Yacht-Master not a Submariner. and never the twain shall meet. I agree it's a marketing decision and not a political one. Words have meaning.

[Driver8]

The choice of using titanium has no bearing whatsoever on WR. As noted above, WR has more to do with the thickness of the exterior case components (including the sapphire) and the seals/gaskets, than it ever does with the choice of ti or SS.

Yes titanium is highly corrosion resistant, but then so is 904L. The reason Rolex made the YM out of titanium is simply because they can and because they wanted to. It's no more mysterious than that. Why does Rolex make a Daytona in platinum? Because they wanted to and because they could.

And it's got a 100WR rating because it's marketed towards yachting not diving. The YM is not a dive watch. Asking why it's not more water resistant is like asking why the Submariner doesn't have a chronograph. And imagine if Rolex DID give it a 300m WR - you'd get people moaning how it's too thick as a result of the undoubtedly thicker caseback. Or you'd get people moaning about it having a 300m WR rating, but no lume pip on the bezel. People will always find something wrong with everything.

Lastly G5 actually is more scratch resistant than SS. It's G2 that's generally less scratch resistant than SS.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

Again, what does the metal have to do with depth rating. I don’t think titanium has any more potential for water resistance than stainless steel.
It has more to do with thickness and seals etc. titanium isn’t a more water resistant metal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you think Rolex made the DSC go to 11,000 meters out of RLX Grade 5 titanium for the heck of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoeJoeBobo]

Maybe it was decimal point error or maybe Rolex just make watches for some people to bitch about them.

[SS Oyster]

Let’s try another angle.

Would Porsche ever release a fully carbon fiber 911 and list it’s 0-60mph time as 12.3 seconds?

That’s what Rolex did with the YM42 RLX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk