-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
gen rolex steel
- Thread starter colt45gto
- Start date
916L if I'm not mistaken.
Actually, it might be 904L.
Someone please conform.
One last edit (lol): Just search, the search button is your friend.
Actually, it might be 904L.
Someone please conform.
One last edit (lol): Just search, the search button is your friend.
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
Rolex use 904L for sure.
While most high-end watch companies utilize 1.4435 (or 316L) Stainless Steel, Rolex uses 1.4439 (or 904L) Stainless Steel. While they both have the same grade of hardness, 904L has a slighytly higher nickel discharge, and thus a slightly higher resistance to corrosion. 904L is mainly used in industry applications handling chlorides, sulfer dioxide gas or other toxic materials. While this may sound like overkill for use with wristwatches, it's just another exaple of over'engineering on the part of Rolex where only the best will do.
While most high-end watch companies utilize 1.4435 (or 316L) Stainless Steel, Rolex uses 1.4439 (or 904L) Stainless Steel. While they both have the same grade of hardness, 904L has a slighytly higher nickel discharge, and thus a slightly higher resistance to corrosion. 904L is mainly used in industry applications handling chlorides, sulfer dioxide gas or other toxic materials. While this may sound like overkill for use with wristwatches, it's just another exaple of over'engineering on the part of Rolex where only the best will do.
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
Forgot to say mostly the reason Rolex are significantly more expensive is because they use 904L grade commercial stainless steel. This unfortunately is 3 times expensive to buy!
- 30/3/08
- 43,896
- 20,078
- 113
Huh? Significantly more expensive than whom, exactly?
Oke, it's 3x more expensive, the current price of 316L 1" plate is US$2.66 a pound (bulk, Asia). Triple that for a realistic factory gate price and you get about 33 cents an ounce. Figuring 10oz per watch that's US$5 and triple that is the grand price of US$15 per watch for the raw 904L steel. Yeah, massive effect on the price of a watch, really. I'm sorry, your above statement makes no sense.
Col.
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
- 30/3/08
- 43,896
- 20,078
- 113
No, you said that, and I quote, "mostly the reason Rolex are significantly more expensive is because they use 904L grade commercial stainless steel" which is patently nonsense.
EDIT: BTW, I forgot to mention that while 904L has better resistance to acids than 316L it's resistance to salt water corrosion (the most likely corrosion you will come across) is lower than that of 316L. Add to which you are far less resistant to acids than either of them and the whole thing is a moot point anyway. Nice gimmick however, all it does is sell watches to folk who have NFI.
Col.
EDIT: BTW, I forgot to mention that while 904L has better resistance to acids than 316L it's resistance to salt water corrosion (the most likely corrosion you will come across) is lower than that of 316L. Add to which you are far less resistant to acids than either of them and the whole thing is a moot point anyway. Nice gimmick however, all it does is sell watches to folk who have NFI.
Col.
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
I know what you mean yes. I mean thats another thing that they can play as being reason to charge more.
Typical case for comparison
Omega Seamaster Chrono 300m Diver is cheaper than RLX Submariner Date.
I can only assume that its the steel and other factors like movement?
Apologies for making the assumption. But i have always been told (of course incorrectly) that its the steel that RLX use which makes them more expensive. This is a broad statement of course to make, because of the amount of watch manufacturers. But most average people only know really know Rolex, Omega, TAG and maybe a few others.
I did not mean for this to sound as if i'm an expert because im not!
It is their in-house movements, large advertising and promotion budgets, and knowing that most of their customers have no idea the value of the parts in their watches, that makes them more expensive
- 30/3/08
- 43,896
- 20,078
- 113
Richard mille also uses 316L in most of their models and are more expensive than Rolex and many other .. that does not mean they overcharge you or Rolex shud be expoensive than those brands...
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
904L is only slightly above 316L in corrosion resistance, and its yield strength is comparable to ordinary construction steel (220MPa). If Rolex wanted to use 'precious' steel, why not go for Super Duplex, or even skip the steel entirely and try Inconel?
- 30/3/08
- 43,896
- 20,078
- 113
Simple my friend, because it's all a PR stunt and the effect on the average buyer is exactly the same. 904 is different and Rolex make a big fuss over it therefore it must be da bomb. So why spend more on a steel that actually is special if it costs them appreciably more? I havn't checked but from memory Inconel would add quite a few more dollars to their cost of production, not just in material cost but tooling as well, that stuff is murder on cutting edges. The added impact on the mind of "Joe the watch buyer" (and thus to their bottom line) would not out weigh the added expense.
Col.
Col.
[I know sfa about metallurgy]
Oh for sure, materials (besides precious metals), have little to do with the cost of a watch. Rolex can charge what they do, even though they sell 1kk a year, because of marketing. Panerai can charge similar amounts for a manual wind eta based watch because of low production numbers and crazy assed Apple-like followers. But that is just simplifying things.
904L vs 316L
1] 316L has hardness of 95(max) Rockwells
904L has hardness 70-90 (typical)
So 904L is slightly less scratch resistant
2] Addition of copper improves resistance of 904L to strong reducing acids like sulphuric acid (afaik this is what the steel was designed to for), but the acids that will affect 316L will have long ago melted your flesh.
3] 316L has 10-14% Ni content vs 23-28% for 904l. More irritating for those whom suffer from an allergy to Nickel.
4] The Pitting Resistance Equiavlent Number (PREN) is calculated as PREN = Cr% + 3.3Mo% + 16N%. 316L has a PREN of 23.1-28.5 and 904L has a PREN of 32.2-39.9.
Hence, 904L is more resistance to pitting corrosion than 316L. This would be the main advantage of 904L over 316L imho.
I can not agree that 316L is superior to 904L in salt corrosion resistance. I can find no emperical evidence however, here is a pump manufacture stating that 316L pump/impeller would be suitable for 5000ppm Cl@ 10 desgree Celsius, and 904L grade components would be suitable for equatorial seawater, >20000ppm @ 40 degrees Celsius.
Azom just states that 904L is highly resistant to chloride attack,
So it is my opinion that 904L is more resistant than 316L to corrosion. 904L has better pitting, crevice and stress corrosion resistance than 316L
I would say Rolex went with 904L over 316L for it's increased corrosion resistance (especially high chloride concetrations); so this is pretty much applicable to just swimming. No one is going to leave their watch in seawater to long priods of time (years) so its just over-engineering on Rolex's part to differentiate themselves from other manufacturers. And kinda makes sense with the overkill that the DSSD is.
Inconel, that rings a bell somewhere... Robotic Fire Assaying. Difficult to work with I remember. That stuff was expensive too, probaby because it was Trademarked.
I think 904L was good enough over 316L for Rolex to use and make the distinction. And I am sure 904 sounds good for marketing because its a higher number. I seriously doubt that a Rolex buyer bases their sole decision on the 904L vs 316L debate. They bought it becasue of the name and now trying to justify their purchase when they should have just said "Rolex makes nice watches". And that they do.
Oh for sure, materials (besides precious metals), have little to do with the cost of a watch. Rolex can charge what they do, even though they sell 1kk a year, because of marketing. Panerai can charge similar amounts for a manual wind eta based watch because of low production numbers and crazy assed Apple-like followers. But that is just simplifying things.
904L vs 316L
1] 316L has hardness of 95(max) Rockwells
904L has hardness 70-90 (typical)
So 904L is slightly less scratch resistant
2] Addition of copper improves resistance of 904L to strong reducing acids like sulphuric acid (afaik this is what the steel was designed to for), but the acids that will affect 316L will have long ago melted your flesh.
3] 316L has 10-14% Ni content vs 23-28% for 904l. More irritating for those whom suffer from an allergy to Nickel.
4] The Pitting Resistance Equiavlent Number (PREN) is calculated as PREN = Cr% + 3.3Mo% + 16N%. 316L has a PREN of 23.1-28.5 and 904L has a PREN of 32.2-39.9.
Hence, 904L is more resistance to pitting corrosion than 316L. This would be the main advantage of 904L over 316L imho.
I can not agree that 316L is superior to 904L in salt corrosion resistance. I can find no emperical evidence however, here is a pump manufacture stating that 316L pump/impeller would be suitable for 5000ppm Cl@ 10 desgree Celsius, and 904L grade components would be suitable for equatorial seawater, >20000ppm @ 40 degrees Celsius.
Azom just states that 904L is highly resistant to chloride attack,
So it is my opinion that 904L is more resistant than 316L to corrosion. 904L has better pitting, crevice and stress corrosion resistance than 316L
I would say Rolex went with 904L over 316L for it's increased corrosion resistance (especially high chloride concetrations); so this is pretty much applicable to just swimming. No one is going to leave their watch in seawater to long priods of time (years) so its just over-engineering on Rolex's part to differentiate themselves from other manufacturers. And kinda makes sense with the overkill that the DSSD is.
Inconel, that rings a bell somewhere... Robotic Fire Assaying. Difficult to work with I remember. That stuff was expensive too, probaby because it was Trademarked.
I think 904L was good enough over 316L for Rolex to use and make the distinction. And I am sure 904 sounds good for marketing because its a higher number. I seriously doubt that a Rolex buyer bases their sole decision on the 904L vs 316L debate. They bought it becasue of the name and now trying to justify their purchase when they should have just said "Rolex makes nice watches". And that they do.
tigerwoods
I'm Pretty Popular
is that video right? are they stamped out? if so thats freakin amazin
Yep thats right! Its called cold forging!
That video is pretty funny- they say how difficult the steel is to use, but then they show these machines stamping em out like it's a Twinkie factory.
[AME]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zefZQogTyNM[/AME]
[AME]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5MUhs5j_vA[/AME]
[AME]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpShZA2Wk4[/AME]
[AME]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5MUhs5j_vA[/AME]
[AME]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLpShZA2Wk4[/AME]