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

[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

[SS Oyster]

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[2loaded]

I'm sure it can go to 300m

[tifosi]

Cause you're supposed to stay ON the Yacht!!!

[AJMarcus]

It does seem odd but it is for Yachters not divers.

[shawn13ca]

They can't do anything right nowadays.
My Hamilton Auto Chrono Air Zermatt is a pilot watch and it's rated for 100 meters.

The Yacht-Master is supposed to be for marine sports. It's got less water resistance than the Grand Seiko titanium diver, and it cost double.

What a fail.

[tvandevelde]

Agreed. An Explorer II would have made a lot more sense.

[swexlin]

Originally Posted by tifosi

Cause you're supposed to stay ON the Yacht!!!

Ha! BEST answer! LOL

[HogwldFLTR]

Fer crisse sake; the watch was demo'd and pre-introd as a yacht watch. For those of us who have raced and know how to sail it's a home run. For those of us who can't get beyond a fictional spy wore a submariner than stick to the sub and leave those who have a skill enjoy their moment in the Sun without having to compare it to a freaking dive watch. If you're doing shallow diving it will be fine.

[clubrcr]

We all know the majority of the submariners never see depths more than swimming pool.

[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.

[Devildog]

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

Same reason other triplock crown Rolexes (GMT Master II, Daytona, Explorer 2, YM 40, YM42, YM2 are "only" rated to 100m

So as not to piss on the Sub's parade

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by shawn13ca

They can't do anything right nowadays.
My Hamilton Auto Chrono Air Zermatt is a pilot watch and it's rated for 100 meters.

The Yacht-Master is supposed to be for marine sports. It's got less water resistance than the Grand Seiko titanium diver, and it cost double.

What a fail.

A fail?

100m is more than deep enough for any marine sports activity

[Kevzep]

I like the new YM42, 100m is more than enough, certainly deeper than I'll ever go!!

[drrd]

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

When’s your next 100m+ dive?

For all but a very few people, it’s never.

[Kevzep]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Fer crisse sake; the watch was demo'd and pre-introd as a yacht watch. For those of us who have raced and know how to sail it's a home run. For those of us who can't get beyond a fictional spy wore a submariner than stick to the sub and leave those who have a skill enjoy their moment in the Sun without having to compare it to a freaking dive watch. If you're doing shallow diving it will be fine.

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

[Kyle3130]

Because titanium is more brittle than steel under compression.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Fer crisse sake; the watch was demo'd and pre-introd as a yacht watch. For those of us who have raced and know how to sail it's a home run. For those of us who can't get beyond a fictional spy wore a submariner than stick to the sub and leave those who have a skill enjoy their moment in the Sun without having to compare it to a freaking dive watch. If you're doing shallow diving it will be fine.

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

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

Because titanium is more brittle than steel under compression.

Right, that’s why Rolex made the DeepSea Challenge rated at 11,000m out if the same exact RLX grade 5 titanium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Right, that’s why Rolex made the DeepSea Challenge rated at 11,000m out if the same exact RLX grade 5 titanium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The case/crystal designs are totally different, not to mention sheer size.

[alphadweller]

I'm pretty sure the YM rated at 100m has been a marketing decision from day one, back in 1992. They don't want it to cannibalise the Sub.

[Kyle3130]

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

BTW, thanks for your service! I’m about to hit 18 years Air Force as a structural maintenance craftsman. I also agree with you about the Sub politics.

[douglasf13]

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

The answer is simple: the Yachmaster and other sport watches are only 100M WR in order to keep them thin. The Sub is a millimeter thicker than the 42mm Yachtmaster.

[bluestreak]

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

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.

[j-watch]

I've been diving a few times. Never got beyond 40 ft. So, if I ever wore the new YM42 diving recreationally again, I wouldn't even be taxing 15% of its capability.

Now that I'm thinking about it, if my A$$ ever gets deeper then 330 ft, I'll have a lot more to worry about then my watch.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

The case/crystal designs are totally different, not to mention sheer size.

I agree with your points, but unrelated to my point that grade 5 titanium has far superior strength characteristics than 904L stainless steel or any steel for that matter.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by Kyle3130

BTW, thanks for your service! I’m about to hit 18 years Air Force as a structural maintenance craftsman. I also agree with you about the Sub politics.

Thank you for your service as well!

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I agree with your points, but unrelated to my point that grade 5 titanium has far superior strength characteristics than 904L stainless steel or any steel for that matter.

Titanium isn't necessarily stronger than steel. It's about as strong as steel, but considerably lighter in weight.

[Kyle3130]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

I agree with your points, but unrelated to my point that grade 5 titanium has far superior strength characteristics than 904L stainless steel or any steel for that matter.

Strength of a metal is categorized in a multitude of ways. RLX is a proprietary alloy such that the exact makeup is kept close to the chest of Rolex. Alloying characteristics make a difference in it’s “strength” properties. Steel has twice the tensile strength of grade 5 titanium but that is only one measure of metal strength.

[Spoonage]

Easy answer is marketing, crystal, and case back. If you look at the Sub's case back it is taller than the other sport watches with less WR. Has to do with the amount of deflection under pressure. The taller the case back is the more it has to deflect to touch the movement.