The largest independent, non-commercial, consumer-oriented resource on the Internet for owners, collectors and enthusiasts of fine wristwatches. Online since 1998.
Informational Websites ChronoMaddox -- the legacy of Chuck Maddox OnTheDash -- vintage Heuer website Zowie -- Omega information
Discussion Forums ChronoMaddox Forum Heuer Forum Omega Forum
Counterfeit Watchers ChronoTools Forum ChronoTrader Forum

zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Opened July 1999, zOwie is the Internet's first and longest running discussion forum dedicated to Omega brand watches.

Feel free to discuss pricing and specific dealers. But 'for sale' postings, commercial solicitation and ads are not allowed. Full archive of all messages is accessible through options in the Search and Preferences features. Privacy, policies and administrivia are covered in the Terms of Use.

For the answer to the NUMBER #1 most frequently asked question here--for details or value of a specific older Omega watch you have--go to: Tell Me About My Omega. Learn more about How To Include Photos and HTML In Your Postings. To contact someone with a question not relevant to other readers of the forum, please click on their email address and contact them privately.

Re: Standards for shock resistance

Thank you, Derek for the information on Omega's standards.

Thanks to John for the detailed scientific analysis. I will not give the matter a second thought.

The AT should be arriving in a week!

: If my calculus and physics are correct, the
: watch would be falling at a rate of 4.41
: meters per second (about 14.55 feet per
: second) just before impact with the hardwood
: surface. Since I am not a golfer, I don't
: know exactly how quickly someone can swing a
: club. However, for argument's sake, let's
: say someone is wearing a loose watch that
: flies off as the club is swung. The watch
: would have to fly 14.55 feet in a straight
: line in one second and impact a hardwood
: surface to meet the ISO test criteria. Would
: this ever really happen during a round of
: golf? I cannot imagine such a scenario
: because the arm movement during a swing
: would cause the watch to fly off in a (most
: likely) upward trajectory which would lower
: its velocity substantially.

: Also, for argument's sake, let's say the watch
: stays on the wrist throughout the golfer's
: powerful swing. If the watch is tightly
: secured to the golfer's wrist and he swings
: the club fast enough to theoretically launch
: the watch 14.55 feet per second, what
: exactly is the watch impacting? If it is
: tightly secured to the wrist, it isn't
: impacting anything, it is remaining
: stationary. It is the ARM that is moving,
: NOT the watch. If it is a loose fitting
: watch, it is impacting the golfer's wrist as
: it wiggles around during the swing.
: Obviously, the wrist is far more resilient
: than a hardwood surface (skin, tissue, blood
: and bone are far softer and would absorb
: more shock than a piece of hard wood).
: Essentially, the wood would transfer more of
: the energy at impact back to the watch since
: it is too hard to absorb this energy, thus
: causing more "shock" damage to the
: watch than an impact with one's wrist.

: So, just thinking about this in terms of simple
: physics, I can't see how a golf swing could
: do more damage to a watch than the ISO test.
: Then again, the first rule of science is
: that if an experiment works, something has
: gone wrong.

Current Position
Chronocentric and zOwie site design and contents (c) Copyright 1998-2005, Derek Ziglar; Copyright 2005-2008, Jeffrey M. Stein. All rights reserved. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the terms of use. CONTACT | TERMS OF USE | TRANSLATE