G-Shock Toughness & Models
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: G-Shock Toughness & Models

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1
    Member civic98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Langkawi, Malaysia
    Posts
    396

    G-Shock Toughness & Models

    I have seen these discussions on various topics but can't seem to find one that says it all, apologies for starting one if there are already others. Anyway..

    Having just received my Rangeman makes me wonder, the different models, namely Riseman, Gulfman, Mudman, Frogman, even the Aviation series and now Rangeman, what are the differences in "toughness", ie Mudman claims to be "mud-resistant", does that mean other are not resistant to mud? Frogman is clearly differentiated with "Diver's 200m" rating. Riseman doesn't seem to be more "altitude resistant" than any other (are the Aviation series more resistant to altitude other than G-force?), Gulfman is not more "water resistant" than others, and the latest Rangeman is.. Geez I don't know where it stands?

    I just wonder if all these are more marketing than functionality.

  2. #2
    Member Chrisek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Brentwood, TN
    Posts
    6,184

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Civic98, the Aviators were designed to withstand acrobatic aviation if I remember correctly, something like 12 G's. I'd imagine pretty difficult for an analog.

    Gulfman is corrosion resistant due to titanium backplate and screws.

    Mudman has mud resist buttons and sleeve over edge of backplate to make it tougher for mud to get inside the module. Both ideas have been incorporated into other watches.

    Riseman. Well,this one hasn't exactly been recognized as tough, but a few people love the size of it and it is still a G-Shock.

    Hope this helps, not an end all of an answer but hopefully gives some insight.

    sent with aloha
    civic98 and xevious like this.
    Yes, I am OCD. What gave it away?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    528

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Quote Originally Posted by civic98 View Post
    I just wonder if all these are more marketing than functionality.
    You answered your own question there.

    In my opinion, in 99.99% of the situations normal people find themselves in, any G-Shock would survive just fine including those designed as far back as in 1983. What minor variations there are in terms of functionality and design are just there to attract a wider audience of tastes and to exploit the collector streak in some of us. Shock resistance and 20BAR WR are what attracted most of us to G-Shocks back in the day, and if a certain model happens to be marketed with an extra level of resistance, it doesn't mean that it is unique it this quality. "Resistance" is overrated, but as most of us on WUS would testify, it is also "futile" (yes, that was a Star Trek reference -- admittedly too nerdy even for a watch forum).
    civic98 likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Member civic98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Langkawi, Malaysia
    Posts
    396

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Thanks Chrisek & alexs12. I guess it's safe to say that any G-Shock is just as water, mud, corrosion, shock etc resistant as any other G-Shocks, FOR our ordinary use/exposure. Apart from the Frogman which is Divers' dedicated, and the Aviators G-force specific.

    I'm more inclined to think G-Shocks are more of a "fashion" statement & collectibles. Even so, is there a reason not to own them all? LOL..

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    528

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Quote Originally Posted by civic98 View Post
    Thanks Chrisek & alexs12. I guess it's safe to say that any G-Shock is just as water, mud, corrosion, shock etc resistant as any other G-Shocks, FOR our ordinary use/exposure. Apart from the Frogman which is Divers' dedicated, and the Aviators G-force specific.

    I'm more inclined to think G-Shocks are more of a "fashion" statement & collectibles. Even so, is there a reason not to own them all? LOL..
    My main reason is I am not made of money
    For many years, I frequented blade forums and collected folding knives, Eastern swords, even big and heavy Khukuri knives. That's all over now and it's on to other addictions for me. Watches are more practical than two-pound choppers and far less scary to normal people. I am not cured, but I am feeling better and my symptoms are less troublesome
    I wonder what toys I will fancy next... I hope they are cheap whatever they are.

  7. #6
    Member cal..45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CMOWE (Central Madhouse Of Western Europe)
    Posts
    8,512

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    All G's are plenty tough, as already wrote by alexs12, probably more than enough for 99.99% of all people and situations. However in my opinion some are still tougher than others.

    First - I would rule out all analogs, 'cause no matter what marketing and all kind of experts say, it is simply a physical fact, that no analog watch with hands and gear-wheels can have the same toughness as a pure digital with no moving parts at all (except for the quartz itself of course).

    Second - the button design might be an factor. As much as I like models with a dedicated fifth light button right under the display at 6 o'clock, it is my understanding that less is more and a four buttons models simply decreases the chance of water leakage by 20%.

    Third - all G's with sensors of some kind are more likely to fail than those without any. Same goes for all G's with atomic and solar, the more technique is crowded in such a small housing, the more they are likely to fail.

    Fourth - the illumination. I hate to say this, since I absolutely love a good el-backlight and I'm not a fan of the newer LED illumination at all but say what you will, a LED is very rugged and extremely unlikely to fail while an el-foil is not. Additionally the LED's require next to nothing power while an el-foil requires a lot.

    Fifth - Only a G made of resin can have maximum shock protection due to the softness of the material and reduced weight. No metal G - be it steel or titanium - can have the same shock absorbing abilities as one made of plastic.



    Consider all that and I'm willing to bet that the GD-100 series (and similar models) is among the toughest G'shock's ever made.


    cheers
    Last edited by cal..45; October 19th, 2013 at 15:19.
    civic98, Morteza, xevious and 8 others like this.
    We are 12.6 %

  8. #7
    Member xevious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    near Manhattan... Status: Changing course, hard about
    Posts
    6,100

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Cal..45 and Chrisek make very salient points, so there's not much to add. All I can contribute is this:

    The 5600 series is extremely tough, the GX-56 even more so. These are models without any sensors. The basic 5600 does not have button covers, but the gap in the bezel surrounding the buttons is extremely minute. Note that ANY Mudman exposed to lots of mud will inevitably suffer "silt creep". It's going to get in between the bezel and the case. But then, any sensible user of said watch will pop off the bezel after those heavy duty activities are over and give their watch a good rinse.

    Frankly, if CASIO released another King (GX-56, GXW-56) but with a well light balanced LED instead of EL back light and made the digits a little larger, I would say that it is the King of G-Shock toughness over any other model, and I'd probably buy one just to have the "toughest" in my collection. Even over a Frogman, because without such thick resin covering the case it is more susceptible to damage.

    There is also something to be said of screw back all stainless steel cases. For a time CASIO made them available in some moderately priced standard models, but have since provided them only in the high priced Frogman line or special anniversary editions of the 5000 series. Vintage standard line models like the DW-9600, G-2000, and GL-110 are seriously tough and will hold up better to water ingress than a basic back plate 5600.


    But the marketing... yes. When considering your average G-Shock owner, I'd say the watch is likely over-engineered. For example, I've yet to see a screw back case with rust or pitting. Who really needs titanium, if only to just lighten the load a little? And the Frogman... well, I don't think it has anything over other screw back models in terms of water resistance. But the machining and button functions are top notch, qualities you'll see when you own one. That's part of what makes it command such a high price.
    Last edited by xevious; October 19th, 2013 at 16:16.
    In rotation: Citizen Attesa ATV53-2834, Eco Drives | Omega Seamaster | CASIO: TW-7000, MRG-220, RevMan, G-2000D, DW-5700ML, GW-9100 | Seiko SKA-413, SBPG001

  9. #8
    Member civic98's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Langkawi, Malaysia
    Posts
    396

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Very valid points cal..45 and I totally agree with xevious, I would do the same, get the toughest G-Shock ever for the collection. And at this point I'm looking at the Frogman.

  10. #9
    Member greg1491's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    WNC, USA
    Posts
    1,835

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Quote Originally Posted by xevious View Post

    Frankly, if CASIO released another King (GX-56, GXW-56) but with a well light balanced LED instead of EL back light and made the digits a little larger, I would say that it is the King of G-Shock toughness over any other model, and I'd probably buy one just to have the "toughest" in my collection. Even over a Frogman, because without such thick resin covering the case it is more susceptible to damage.
    +1 on buying that re-designed King. Put a vibe alarm in it for a total package. That would be awesome.
    xevious and starscream like this.
    Greg

  11. #10
    Member scuttle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,298

    Re: G-Shock Toughness & Models

    Quote Originally Posted by cal..45 View Post
    All G's are plenty tough, as already wrote by alexs12, probably more than enough for 99.99% of all people and situations. However in my opinion some are still tougher than others.

    First - I would rule out all analogs, 'cause no matter what marketing and all kind of experts say, it is simply a physical fact, that no analog watch with hands and gear-wheels can have the same toughness as a pure digital with no moving parts at all (except for the quartz itself of course).
    No, it is not a fact: it is simply something you have said. Engineering hands to be shock resistant costs more money - which is why analog G's cost more than all-digitals. It does not necessarily mean that once that engineering had been done and the cost paid that the analog will be weaker than any digital, especially given that the analog models can be very much more expensive, leaving budget to pay for more engineering in other weak areas.


    Third - all G's with sensors of some kind are more likely to fail than those without any.
    This is appalling logic. Yes, a sensor adds complexity. But you are assuming that all modules are otherwise the same! It's quite possible that other design variations wipe out this effect. You can say that one can suspect a tendency for sensor models to be more failure prone, but your much stronger claim is just silliness.

    Fourth - the illumination. I hate to say this, since I absolutely love a good el-backlight and I'm not a fan of the newer LED illumination at all but say what you will, a LED is very rugged and extremely unlikely to fail while an el-foil is not. Additionally the LED's require next to nothing power while an el-foil requires a lot.
    Do you have any prooof that EL is less rugged? It doesn't seem as if you do... anything at all?


    Fifth - Only a G made of resin can have maximum shock protection due to the softness of the material and reduced weight. No metal G - be it steel or titanium - can have the same shock absorbing abilities as one made of plastic.
    Completely wrong. Firstly the amount of cushioning that can be provided by a standard resin bezel (they're not really cases - take one off and have a look) is minute compared to the energy a G is designed to withstand. (Because 2as = vee squared - u squared, yes?) Secondly you are assuming that it is the ONLY cushioning or impact resistance method - which is not the case. For example, some upper range modules have internal alpha-GEL buffers around the module - and this stuff can absorb a lot more energy than a 1mm thick plastic bezel. Oh - and a lot of shock absorbing systems require a rigid outer shell for full effectiveness, which a metal shell will provide better than a standard resin bezel. (Hint: look at a motorcycling helmet - the shell is hard not soft for a reason!)

    Basically, a lot is going to depend on details of internal construction that we just don't know - eg the method of mounting the quartz crystal. It's certainly easier and cheaper to make a tough watch that's all digital, but more you spend, the more engineering you can do. Other than that, extra case size will give more room for cushioning - but this is possible toughness, not definite toughness - it depends how that room is used.
    Last edited by scuttle; October 19th, 2013 at 23:09.
    KillaSkill likes this.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •