Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

EDIT: IR - Timex WS4 watch - R Caffin

Expand Messages
  • Mark McLauchlin
    Hi Roger, Very comprehensive IR on the watch, lots of new info in there for me, which made it more enjoyable to read. Only two edits for you and you are good
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Roger,

      Very comprehensive IR on the watch, lots of new info in there for me, which
      made it more enjoyable to read.

      Only two edits for you and you are good to go.

      Cheers
      Mark

      EDIT: and i will return to this point shortly.
      >> and I will....


      EDIT: which i found a little strange
      >>Which I found a little strange.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Roger Caffin [mailto:r.caffin@...]
      Sent: Saturday, 2 January 2010 5:45 AM
      To: backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: mark@...
      Subject: IR - Timex WS4 watch - R Caffin

      Hi Mark

      Herewith, for your amusement. HTML at
      http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/test/TESTS/IR%20-%20Timex%20WS4%20-%
      20Caffin/
      I'll wait and see what the mods say about the strap, but that problem does
      not interfere with the IR.

      Cheers
      Roger
      ---------------------
      Test Report - Timex Expedition WS4 Watch
      Report Contents

      Initial Report
      8-July-2009
      Reviewer Details
      Product Information & Description
      First Impressions

      Field Report
      expected early March 2010

      Long Term Report
      expected early May 2010

      Initial Report 8-July-2009

      Reviewer Details
      Reviewer: Roger Caffin
      Age: 64
      Gender: M
      Weight: 63 kg (139 lb)
      Height: 167 cm (67")
      Email address: r dot [surname] at acm dot org
      Home: Sydney, Australia

      Backpacking Background

      I started bushwalking at 14 and took up rock climbing at University with the

      girl who became my wife and my permanent walking partner. Ski touring and
      canyoning followed. Winter and summer, we prefer long hard trips by
      ourselves: about a week in Australia, up to three months in Europe/UK. We
      prefer fast and light in unfrequented trackless country. We would be out
      walking, skiing or snowshoeing for at least three months a year. We have now

      moved to lightweight gear, much to our backs' relief. I designed and made
      much of our lightweight gear myself.

      I am also the maintainer of the Australian aus.bushwalking FAQ web site
      www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/.


      My watch says Morning Tea Time
      mountain hut, near Grindelwald, Switzerland

      Product Information

      Manufacturer: Timex (www.timex.com)
      Year of manufacture: 2009 (assumed)
      Country of manufacture: China
      Watch supplied: Black
      Strap supplied: Elastic
      Weights (measured) Watch: 63 g (1.80 oz)
      Strap: 25 g (0.80 oz)
      Neck cord: 9 g (0.32 oz)
      Dimensions Width: 53 mm (2.09")
      Length: 68 mm (2.68")
      Thickness (body): 17 mm (0.67")
      Height above deck: 28 mm 1.10")
      Water Resistance: Claimed 50 m, but see below for what little this means
      MSRP: US$200

      Product Description

      This is a digital watch with the standard Barometer/Altimeter and Compass
      features, along with the common extra features such as dual time zones,
      chronometer, data logging, etc. (With the current state of the art in
      integrated circuits, these extra functions are excessively easy to add to a
      watch, whether they are needed or not.) It has the usual four control
      buttons plus an 'Indiglo' button for the back illumination. Where it starts
      to deviate from a 'standard' watch is the size of the unit, and i will
      return to this point shortly. The model number 'WS4' apparently means 'Wide
      Screen with 4 functions' - all true.

      The unit comes with a glossy (laminated) fold-out quick reference guide with

      brief instructions in English, French and Spanish, and a compact (and thick)

      instruction guide in the same languages. The latter fits into the box base
      on the watch stand. All the glossy fold-out guide covers is some esoteric
      features of the altimeter - mainly how to use the altitude alarm feature. It

      seems that whoever wrote the main manual forgot to mention these features -
      or they were added to the software after the manual was printed

      The Timex web site is rather confused when it comes to describing the strap.

      It variously describes the strap as 'Durable Resin Strap', 'Black Resin
      strap' and 'Buckle/Clasp Type: Buckle', and reading the other Test Reports
      for this watch will show that this is roughly correct. However, the unit I
      received has a strap made of heavy elastic some 30 mm (1.2") wide, held at
      one end with about 40 mm (1.8") of hook&loop fastening and at the other end
      by a moderately complex stainless steel adjustable buckle. This strap does
      not appear on the obvious WS4 web page, but delving deeper into the web site

      I found an FAQ page which said this: 'Comfortable and durable rubber strap
      or XL Elastic Fast Wrap to fit outside of performance gear'. Unfortunately
      it also said 'Unless you have the WS4 with an XL elastic strap (which can be

      removed completely), the strap on the WS4 was not designed to be removed and

      replaced. If your strap breaks, you can contact Timex Customer Service at
      800-448-4639 or custserv@...', so for the present I am stuck with an
      XL wrist strap which is unusable for ordinary walking.

      The web site shows the black version as having jungle green buttons. My unit

      has bright orange buttons. I suspect that the change in colour may be
      associated with the change in the wrist strap.

      The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this is
      another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant to
      actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do not
      recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant, and
      the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely splashed;

      50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
      meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition for
      '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.

      First Impressions

      Physical
      Did I mention that this thing is huge? The dimensions are in the table
      above, but it is not until I held the watch in my hand that I realised that
      plasma TV screens are not the only thing which come in an super-size
      category. Once again, I have to say that (in my opinion so far) the watch
      seems more designed for street machismo wearing than for real use when out
      bushwalking. I say this because a thing this size really would get in my way

      when fighting my way through thick scrub. But we will wait and see for the
      Field Report to see.

      There seem to be four small hex head bolts on the front of the watch. These
      are clearly visible in the lead photo. However, despite my best efforts,
      these don't seem to do anything and don't seem to rotate. One is left to
      wonder whether they are anything more than pseudo-macho ornamentation.

      Display
      The 'wide screen' display is certainly large. It has a small analog clock
      face at the top left hand corner which does double duty as the analog
      compass display, although the resolution is low. It has a dot matrix digital

      display at the top right hand corner: this is arguably the 'main' display,
      and very readable. In compass mode it is limited to displaying the cardinal
      points rather than degrees, which i found a little strange. At the bottom
      left hand corner there is a temperature display and a set of weather symbols

      of the usual format - clouds, sun, rain etc. In compass mode the actual
      bearing in degrees is shown here. At the bottom right hand corner there is a

      set of seven-segment number which are used for secondary displays such as
      Altitude in Time mode, date in Altitude mode and setting the altitude
      reference points. Great care must be taken when reading these numbers as
      they are very narrow and some characters are hard to interpret. In
      particular, the plus and minus signs in altitude reference mode are almost
      incomprehensible at first. One gets used to them after a while, but I did
      have one of my altitude references set to -188 m (rather than +188 m) for a
      while.

      Finally, at the bottom right hand corner on the metal surround there are
      four little black embossed logos. They do occupy space which could have been

      used by the LCD display. As far as I can see at this stage, they serve no
      useful or functional purpose. They seem to be just fancy trim.

      Wrist Strap
      I tried to adjust the elastic strap to fit my wrist, but this was not
      possible. Even at the tightest setting it slid up my arm. Then I found the
      bit in the FAQ about the strap being for use with 'performance clothing',
      but my 'performance clothing' is never that bulky. (Think single-layer
      Taslan or single-layer Lycra.) The strap just manages to hold at my wrist
      when I am wearing a wet-suit (albeit rather loosely), but I can't use the
      watch in the water as the '50 m water resistant' specification does not mean

      the watch can actually be used in water. With the strap fully extended I can

      get both wrists into the strap quite easily - see photo to the right. (No,
      this is not a bondage item!) 'XL' is certainly correct; 'usable' is less
      certain.

      The unit came with a fairly robust neck loop which can replace the wrist
      strap. It is secured to the watch with a short bit of hook&loop fastening. I

      did notice that the stuff tended to peel open rather easily (a Chinese
      brand?), and how reliable the attachment might be in the field is definitely

      open to question.

      Set-Up and Manual
      I spent some time setting the watch up to my requirements - metric units,
      local altitude, etc. This required reading the small instruction manual. The

      first problem was that the font was so small I had to take all my glasses
      off before I could read it (I am short-sighted). However, the printing was
      of good quality. The second problem was that the instructions are not always

      easy to follow, and do seem to leave a few steps out in places.

      The instructions for setting Time and Date are on page 14 (and page 11) of
      the little manual. Technically the instructions are correct, but they are a
      bit confusing. Before reaching the actual time and date display the user
      must select 'Time1' or 'Time2' and press 'Mode'. This is not obvious at
      first, and I found it rather puzzling. Careful reading of the fine print
      shows that the manual does cover this, but the casual reader is likely to
      miss it.

      The instructions for setting the altitude to match the local environment
      (page 15) are even more confusing. On most watches the Start (Up, + or
      whatever) button increases the displayed number; on this watch it does do
      this but only for one digit at a time. It is necessary to advance from the
      hundreds to the tens and to the units (etc) by pressing the Mode button.
      Further, unless the STOP button is pressed at the end the whole process will

      be largely ignored. I got very confused here for a while. There is a note
      about this in the FAQ page at the web site.

      Calibrating the compass is essential before use, and this uses the 'normal'
      two rotations of the watch. After this the declination can be set. All this
      went very smoothly, but the result was not good. In the end it turned out
      that my steel filing cabinets were distorting the local magnetic field! I
      moved into a clear space and redid the calibration successfully. The manual
      does not explain anywhere that the resulting display is for 'True North',
      not 'Magnetic North'. This might confuse a novice. However, this does not
      cover the effect of tilting the watch, which has been found to cause major
      errors in other watches. This aspect will be covered in the Field Report.

      Sundry
      The alarm works: it beeps (at a high pitch) and flashes the blue display
      back-light a number of times. It is a pity I can barely hear the alarm,
      although my wife says she can. She says I have lost the high end of my
      hearing spectrum. That happens with age, but it does make the choice of a
      very high pitch questionable. However, given the size of the piezo disk
      inside the watch, the high pitch may be unavoidable.

      The manual contains several quotes from a well-known mountaineer, but such
      things are just common commercial testimonials for which the vendor pays the

      'name' money. In my experience such paid 'testimonials' mean absolutely
      nothing. Even Tiger Woods sells (or did sell) his name to all sorts of
      companies for testimonials.

      Field Report - expected early March 2010

      Long Term Report - expected early May 2010
    • Thomas Vickers
      ... Roger, I am going to take issue with the statement of being deliberately fraudulent Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has 50 m water
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this is
        > another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant to
        > actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do not
        > recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant, and
        > the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely splashed;
        > 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
        > meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition for
        > '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.
        >
        >
        Roger,
        I am going to take issue with the statement of being "deliberately
        fraudulent"

        Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has '50 m water
        resistance' and the website for the particular watch actually defines
        what this means, how is that fraudulent?
        Now if you felt mislead by the documentation that came with the watch
        and the fact that you had to dig for the definition on the website added
        to this feeling of being mislead, I would feel fine with you stating
        this, but "deliberately fraudulent" is not a proper choice of words in
        my view.

        So maybe some clarification and rewording would make this work much better.

        Tvickers
        Timex WS4 Mod
      • Roger Caffin
        Hi Thomas and Mods ... I refer you to the web site and the page for the WS4 watch. Clicking on Product Details produces a bullet list of specifications,
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Thomas and Mods

          RNC:
          > > The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this
          > > is
          > > another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant to
          > > actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do not
          > > recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant,
          > > and
          > > the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely
          > > splashed;
          > > 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
          > > meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition
          > > for
          > '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.
          TV:
          > Roger,
          > I am going to take issue with the statement of being "deliberately
          > fraudulent"
          > Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has '50 m water
          > resistance' and the website for the particular watch actually defines
          > what this means, how is that fraudulent?

          I refer you to the web site and the page for the WS4 watch. Clicking on
          'Product Details' produces a bullet list of specifications, which include
          the statement 'Water Resistant 50 M'.

          NOWHERE on this page does it define what that means, and I challenge you to
          ask 100 people (not privy to this discussion) what they think it means. I am
          betting that at least 90% of them would say that it means that the watch can
          be taken to 50 m depth. Ask a jury what they would think it means. Even ask
          a lawyer!

          Yes, if you delve into the FAQ page you can find the statement that it just
          means that the watch is safe in the shower. But that is weaselling out of
          the situation. Try to find the FAQ page yourself. There are NO references to
          it on the WS4 page, NO references to it on the Home page, and NO suggestions
          anywhere else (that I could find) that the company has redefined what 'Water
          Resistant 50 M' actually means. Thew redefinition is very well hidden.

          As a matter of fact, it is so well hidden that I can't even find the FAQ
          page myself now! So how would a random customer find it? A random customer
          would buy the watch expecting it to take 50 m of water.

          OK, I am a little hard-line on this. But I thought BGT was about real
          reviews by real people, not about smooging up to companies and flattering
          them? I will happily praise companies when they deserve it (and some do),
          but I will equally condemn them when they deserve it. Yes, I say that the
          way this has been worded on the Timex web site IS 'misleading to the point
          of being deliberately fraudulent', even if that is not your choice of words.

          > So maybe some clarification and rewording would make this work much
          > better.
          I'm listening, but I am not retracting yet.

          Cheers
          Roger Caffin
        • Coy Boy
          just an observation. I understand your frustration but I dont think it is Timex specific, especaially after reading after reading this info (see link) I m am
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            just an observation. I understand your frustration but I dont think it is Timex specific, especaially after reading after reading this info (see link) I'm am under the impression that water resistant claims of such and such are common practice and they have to meet certin specs for said rating. So if it is misleading it is industry wide. So...The watch probably stood up to the test required for said rating. A comment along the lines that the water resistan claims on any watch require the watch wearer to understand what exactly this means and the Timex site did not make this information easy to spot. That would be a fair critisizm IMHO. The link.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark

            Coy Boy

            --- In backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Caffin" <r.caffin@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Thomas and Mods
            >
            > RNC:
            > > > The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this
            > > > is
            > > > another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant to
            > > > actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do not
            > > > recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant,
            > > > and
            > > > the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely
            > > > splashed;
            > > > 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
            > > > meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition
            > > > for
            > > '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.
            > TV:
            > > Roger,
            > > I am going to take issue with the statement of being "deliberately
            > > fraudulent"
            > > Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has '50 m water
            > > resistance' and the website for the particular watch actually defines
            > > what this means, how is that fraudulent?
            >
            > I refer you to the web site and the page for the WS4 watch. Clicking on
            > 'Product Details' produces a bullet list of specifications, which include
            > the statement 'Water Resistant 50 M'.
            >
            > NOWHERE on this page does it define what that means, and I challenge you to
            > ask 100 people (not privy to this discussion) what they think it means. I am
            > betting that at least 90% of them would say that it means that the watch can
            > be taken to 50 m depth. Ask a jury what they would think it means. Even ask
            > a lawyer!
            >
            > Yes, if you delve into the FAQ page you can find the statement that it just
            > means that the watch is safe in the shower. But that is weaselling out of
            > the situation. Try to find the FAQ page yourself. There are NO references to
            > it on the WS4 page, NO references to it on the Home page, and NO suggestions
            > anywhere else (that I could find) that the company has redefined what 'Water
            > Resistant 50 M' actually means. Thew redefinition is very well hidden.
            >
            > As a matter of fact, it is so well hidden that I can't even find the FAQ
            > page myself now! So how would a random customer find it? A random customer
            > would buy the watch expecting it to take 50 m of water.
            >
            > OK, I am a little hard-line on this. But I thought BGT was about real
            > reviews by real people, not about smooging up to companies and flattering
            > them? I will happily praise companies when they deserve it (and some do),
            > but I will equally condemn them when they deserve it. Yes, I say that the
            > way this has been worded on the Timex web site IS 'misleading to the point
            > of being deliberately fraudulent', even if that is not your choice of words.
            >
            > > So maybe some clarification and rewording would make this work much
            > > better.
            > I'm listening, but I am not retracting yet.
            >
            > Cheers
            > Roger Caffin
            >
          • Hollis Easter
            I ve been reading this exchange with interest, and I have a couple of things to add. I think both Roger and TV make worthy points, and I hope we can find a way
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 5, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I've been reading this exchange with interest, and I have a couple of
              things to add. I think both Roger and TV make worthy points, and I hope
              we can find a way through this.

              Roger, I agree that Timex doesn't make it clear what "Water Resistant 50
              M" means--or at any rate, I couldn't find an explanation on their
              website either!

              I think it's reasonable and appropriate to point out that your
              expectation differed from the reality; as you say, that's what BGT is
              meant to be about. It's quite valuable to potential buyers to be
              reminded that specifications may lead to confusion.

              That said, I'm uncomfortable with your accusation of deliberate fraud.
              To my understanding, fraud requires the deliberate intention to mislead.
              Not merely to obfuscate, but to mislead. I don't see Timex's behavior as
              rising to this level, and here's why:

              A bit of Googling about water resistance led me to Wikipedia's page on
              "Water Resistant mark[s]" [1]. I'm skeptical of quoting Wikipedia as
              canon, but it mentions a pair of ISO standards:

              - ISO 2281 - Horology - Water-resistant Watches
              - ISO 6425 - Horology - Divers' Watches

              I don't have access to the text of ISO standards, and from reading your
              web site I would expect you to understand them far better than I would
              anyway. But, in any case, these standards are out there. I'm not sure
              exactly how the regulatory process works these days, but at least
              there's standards-based evidence for the idea that daily-use watches and
              diving watches should hew to different standards, and that daily-use
              watches are not required to survive routine submergence to their tested
              pressure limits.

              It would be fair to rebut this with "but Timex doesn't state that its
              watch adheres to either of those ISO standards". I can't refute that.
              However, I have two other outdoor altimeter watches sitting in front of me, made by other brands, to compare. One is "Water resistant 10 m", and the other lists no water resistance specification anywhere in its packaging, hardware, or manual.

              Whether individual manufacturers follow ISO 2281 exactly, it seems as
              though there's an industry convention to state water resistance in
              meters; the numbers commonly quoted parallel those in the ISO 2281
              document.

              I remember reading, but cannot quote, a discussion in an electronics
              journal about why real-world experience is so different from the posted
              water pressure limits on electronics. My recollection was this: the
              standard tests absolute pressure survival: the unit is exposed, very
              slowly, to rising pressure until it leaks. Evidently the impact forces
              of, e.g., a cell phone falling into a toilet can easily push the water
              pressure above spec even though the water was only 6cm deep. This makes
              sense to me.


              If, in following an industry convention, Timex has missed an opportunity
              to explain its product specifications in real-world terms, I think it's
              fair to point it out. It would be reasonable, too, to tell readers how
              you would prefer to see Timex specifying the watch's water resistance.
              But to call it deliberately fraudulent behavior seems wrong.

              I'll close by saying that I think it's good for our organization to have
              this sort of debate every once in a while. We serve two masters--gear
              buyers and the companies who serve them--and there are inevitable
              conflicts there. I'm always pleased when we can navigate through those shoals with the civil tone I've seen in this discussion. Thanks.


              Hollis

              [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark


              On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:09:11PM +1100, Roger Caffin wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi Thomas and Mods
              >
              > RNC:
              > > > The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this
              > > > is
              > > > another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant
              > to
              > > > actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do
              > not
              > > > recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant,
              > > > and
              > > > the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely
              > > > splashed;
              > > > 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
              > > > meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition
              > > > for
              > > '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.
              > TV:
              > > Roger,
              > > I am going to take issue with the statement of being "deliberately
              > > fraudulent"
              > > Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has '50 m water
              > > resistance' and the website for the particular watch actually defines
              > > what this means, how is that fraudulent?
              >
              > I refer you to the web site and the page for the WS4 watch. Clicking on
              > 'Product Details' produces a bullet list of specifications, which include
              > the statement 'Water Resistant 50 M'.
              >
              > NOWHERE on this page does it define what that means, and I challenge you
              > to
              > ask 100 people (not privy to this discussion) what they think it means. I
              > am
              > betting that at least 90% of them would say that it means that the watch
              > can
              > be taken to 50 m depth. Ask a jury what they would think it means. Even
              > ask
              > a lawyer!
              >
              > Yes, if you delve into the FAQ page you can find the statement that it
              > just
              > means that the watch is safe in the shower. But that is weaselling out of
              > the situation. Try to find the FAQ page yourself. There are NO references
              > to
              > it on the WS4 page, NO references to it on the Home page, and NO
              > suggestions
              > anywhere else (that I could find) that the company has redefined what
              > 'Water
              > Resistant 50 M' actually means. Thew redefinition is very well hidden.
              >
              > As a matter of fact, it is so well hidden that I can't even find the FAQ
              > page myself now! So how would a random customer find it? A random customer
              > would buy the watch expecting it to take 50 m of water.
              >
              > OK, I am a little hard-line on this. But I thought BGT was about real
              > reviews by real people, not about smooging up to companies and flattering
              > them? I will happily praise companies when they deserve it (and some do),
              > but I will equally condemn them when they deserve it. Yes, I say that the
              > way this has been worded on the Timex web site IS 'misleading to the point
              > of being deliberately fraudulent', even if that is not your choice of
              > words.
              >
              > > So maybe some clarification and rewording would make this work much
              > > better.
              > I'm listening, but I am not retracting yet.
              >
              > Cheers
              > Roger Caffin
              >
              >
            • Thomas Vickers
              Google - Timex WS4 select link: http://www.timex.com/Outdoor-Expedition-Products-Products/b/2223482011 Select link; http://www.timex.com/b/2224317011 FAQ is on
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Google - Timex WS4

                select link:
                http://www.timex.com/Outdoor-Expedition-Products-Products/b/2223482011

                Select link; http://www.timex.com/b/2224317011

                FAQ is on the left.

                Seems VERY easy to find.

                I am going to be very clear about this.
                They may be vague.
                They may be misleading.
                You do not have to like it.
                You can say they are vague and misleading
                You can say you are unhappy with the way they handled it.
                BE CLEAR and spell it out.

                FRAUD is not a word (nor is fraudulent) that I am willing to accept in
                this report.
                If it was in 5 point font hidden seven or eight pages deep on a secret
                website I might have a different view.
                Reporting the facts is one thing, but projecting or predicting that they
                purposely intended to be fraudulent is a different beast.

                We do not have to give good or even favorable reports, but report the
                facts.
                Spelling out the issue rather than tossing "Fraudulent" around accurate
                and honest way to do this.


                TV
              • Roger Ault
                Hello all, While I can sympathize with Mr. Caffin on this, I have to agree with Hollis and TV. Here is a link that explains the standard
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello all,

                  While I can sympathize with Mr. Caffin on this, I have to agree with Hollis and TV. Here is a link that explains the standard http://www.avionica-watches.com/ISO%202281.pdf It is not an official ISO page but I believe it accurately describes standards.

                  Many times advertising and/or specifications infuriate me because of the ambiguity involved. I can understand the frustration but yet "deliberate fraud" is a bit strong. Such a claim might even result in legal ramifications I would not want to get involved in.

                  Just my 2 cents
                  Roger


                  --- In backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com, Hollis Easter <easter@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I've been reading this exchange with interest, and I have a couple of
                  > things to add. I think both Roger and TV make worthy points, and I hope
                  > we can find a way through this.
                  >
                  > Roger, I agree that Timex doesn't make it clear what "Water Resistant 50
                  > M" means--or at any rate, I couldn't find an explanation on their
                  > website either!
                  >
                  > I think it's reasonable and appropriate to point out that your
                  > expectation differed from the reality; as you say, that's what BGT is
                  > meant to be about. It's quite valuable to potential buyers to be
                  > reminded that specifications may lead to confusion.
                  >
                  > That said, I'm uncomfortable with your accusation of deliberate fraud.
                  > To my understanding, fraud requires the deliberate intention to mislead.
                  > Not merely to obfuscate, but to mislead. I don't see Timex's behavior as
                  > rising to this level, and here's why:
                  >
                  > A bit of Googling about water resistance led me to Wikipedia's page on
                  > "Water Resistant mark[s]" [1]. I'm skeptical of quoting Wikipedia as
                  > canon, but it mentions a pair of ISO standards:
                  >
                  > - ISO 2281 - Horology - Water-resistant Watches
                  > - ISO 6425 - Horology - Divers' Watches
                  >
                  > I don't have access to the text of ISO standards, and from reading your
                  > web site I would expect you to understand them far better than I would
                  > anyway. But, in any case, these standards are out there. I'm not sure
                  > exactly how the regulatory process works these days, but at least
                  > there's standards-based evidence for the idea that daily-use watches and
                  > diving watches should hew to different standards, and that daily-use
                  > watches are not required to survive routine submergence to their tested
                  > pressure limits.
                  >
                  > It would be fair to rebut this with "but Timex doesn't state that its
                  > watch adheres to either of those ISO standards". I can't refute that.
                  > However, I have two other outdoor altimeter watches sitting in front of me, made by other brands, to compare. One is "Water resistant 10 m", and the other lists no water resistance specification anywhere in its packaging, hardware, or manual.
                  >
                  > Whether individual manufacturers follow ISO 2281 exactly, it seems as
                  > though there's an industry convention to state water resistance in
                  > meters; the numbers commonly quoted parallel those in the ISO 2281
                  > document.
                  >
                  > I remember reading, but cannot quote, a discussion in an electronics
                  > journal about why real-world experience is so different from the posted
                  > water pressure limits on electronics. My recollection was this: the
                  > standard tests absolute pressure survival: the unit is exposed, very
                  > slowly, to rising pressure until it leaks. Evidently the impact forces
                  > of, e.g., a cell phone falling into a toilet can easily push the water
                  > pressure above spec even though the water was only 6cm deep. This makes
                  > sense to me.
                  >
                  >
                  > If, in following an industry convention, Timex has missed an opportunity
                  > to explain its product specifications in real-world terms, I think it's
                  > fair to point it out. It would be reasonable, too, to tell readers how
                  > you would prefer to see Timex specifying the watch's water resistance.
                  > But to call it deliberately fraudulent behavior seems wrong.
                  >
                  > I'll close by saying that I think it's good for our organization to have
                  > this sort of debate every once in a while. We serve two masters--gear
                  > buyers and the companies who serve them--and there are inevitable
                  > conflicts there. I'm always pleased when we can navigate through those shoals with the civil tone I've seen in this discussion. Thanks.
                  >
                  >
                  > Hollis
                  >
                  > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
                  >
                  >
                  > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:09:11PM +1100, Roger Caffin wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi Thomas and Mods
                  > >
                  > > RNC:
                  > > > > The specifications claim '50 m water resistance', but apparently this
                  > > > > is
                  > > > > another one of those dubious marketing claims which you are not meant
                  > > to
                  > > > > actually believe or use. The FAQ page for the watch does say 'We do
                  > > not
                  > > > > recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water resistant,
                  > > > > and
                  > > > > the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be safely
                  > > > > splashed;
                  > > > > 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the pool; and 200
                  > > > > meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.' I find this definition
                  > > > > for
                  > > > '50 m' to be misleading to the point of being deliberately fraudulent.
                  > > TV:
                  > > > Roger,
                  > > > I am going to take issue with the statement of being "deliberately
                  > > > fraudulent"
                  > > > Unless I am missing something, the watch states it has '50 m water
                  > > > resistance' and the website for the particular watch actually defines
                  > > > what this means, how is that fraudulent?
                  > >
                  > > I refer you to the web site and the page for the WS4 watch. Clicking on
                  > > 'Product Details' produces a bullet list of specifications, which include
                  > > the statement 'Water Resistant 50 M'.
                  > >
                  > > NOWHERE on this page does it define what that means, and I challenge you
                  > > to
                  > > ask 100 people (not privy to this discussion) what they think it means. I
                  > > am
                  > > betting that at least 90% of them would say that it means that the watch
                  > > can
                  > > be taken to 50 m depth. Ask a jury what they would think it means. Even
                  > > ask
                  > > a lawyer!
                  > >
                  > > Yes, if you delve into the FAQ page you can find the statement that it
                  > > just
                  > > means that the watch is safe in the shower. But that is weaselling out of
                  > > the situation. Try to find the FAQ page yourself. There are NO references
                  > > to
                  > > it on the WS4 page, NO references to it on the Home page, and NO
                  > > suggestions
                  > > anywhere else (that I could find) that the company has redefined what
                  > > 'Water
                  > > Resistant 50 M' actually means. Thew redefinition is very well hidden.
                  > >
                  > > As a matter of fact, it is so well hidden that I can't even find the FAQ
                  > > page myself now! So how would a random customer find it? A random customer
                  > > would buy the watch expecting it to take 50 m of water.
                  > >
                  > > OK, I am a little hard-line on this. But I thought BGT was about real
                  > > reviews by real people, not about smooging up to companies and flattering
                  > > them? I will happily praise companies when they deserve it (and some do),
                  > > but I will equally condemn them when they deserve it. Yes, I say that the
                  > > way this has been worded on the Timex web site IS 'misleading to the point
                  > > of being deliberately fraudulent', even if that is not your choice of
                  > > words.
                  > >
                  > > > So maybe some clarification and rewording would make this work much
                  > > > better.
                  > > I'm listening, but I am not retracting yet.
                  > >
                  > > Cheers
                  > > Roger Caffin
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Roger Caffin
                  ... Thanks Coy. Yes, that puts a whole new light on it, and one which convinces me that I should change what I have written. I remain convinced that the whole
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > just an observation. I understand your frustration but I dont think it is
                    > Timex specific, especaially after reading
                    > this info (see link) I'm am under the impression that water resistant
                    > claims of such and such are common practice
                    > and they have to meet certin specs for said rating. So if it is
                    > misleading it is industry wide.
                    Thanks Coy.
                    Yes, that puts a whole new light on it, and one which convinces me that I
                    should change what I have written. I remain convinced that the whole
                    industry is taking the public for a bit of a ride, but clearly it is not
                    Timex-specific. Pity the poor public!

                    TV - the links you gave may work, but I could not find the FAQ that way. It
                    is not in fact on the Timex web site at all.
                    I found the FAQ link on the WS4 page at
                    http://en.timexexpedition.com/Products/WS4.htm

                    This raises a serious question of which website we should quote: Timex or
                    TimexExpedition?
                    The home page for the latter is http://en.timexexpedition.com/Home.htm
                    and this seems to me to be the one we should use as it has the far more
                    relevant info. But a ruling is needed.

                    Cheers
                    Roger
                  • Roger Caffin
                    Hi Mark and all My thanks to all who helped me understand what water resistant means ... (especially Coy). I still think the industry is pulling a swifty
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 6, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Mark and all

                      My thanks to all who helped me understand what 'water resistant' means ...
                      (especially Coy).

                      I still think the industry is pulling a swifty over the public, but my
                      previous comments aimed just at Timex were mostly wrong. So herewith a
                      modified version of the IR. I think it should go through the edit process
                      again. (Sorry Mark!)

                      Cheers
                      Roger Caffin
                      ------
                      Test Report - Timex Expedition WS4 Watch
                      Report Contents


                      Initial Report
                      8-July-2009

                      Reviewer Details

                      Product Information & Description

                      First Impressions
                      Field Report
                      expected early March 2010


                      Long Term Report
                      expected early May 2010



                      Initial Report 8-July-2009

                      Reviewer Details
                      Reviewer: Roger Caffin
                      Age: 64
                      Gender: M
                      Weight: 63 kg (139 lb)
                      Height: 167 cm (67")
                      Email address: r dot [surname] at acm dot org
                      Home: Sydney, Australia

                      Backpacking Background

                      I started bushwalking at 14 and took up rock climbing at University with the
                      girl who became my wife and my permanent walking partner. Ski touring and
                      canyoning followed. Winter and summer, we prefer long hard trips by
                      ourselves: about a week in Australia, up to three months in Europe/UK. We
                      prefer fast and light in unfrequented trackless country. We would be out
                      walking, skiing or snowshoeing for at least three months a year. We have now
                      moved to lightweight gear, much to our backs' relief. I designed and made
                      much of our lightweight gear myself.

                      I am also the maintainer of the Australian aus.bushwalking FAQ web site
                      www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/.


                      My watch says Morning Tea Time
                      mountain hut, near Grindelwald, Switzerland

                      Product Information

                      Manufacturer: Timex (www.timex.com)
                      Year of manufacture: 2009 (assumed)
                      Country of manufacture: China
                      Watch supplied: Black
                      Strap supplied: Elastic
                      Weights (measured) Watch: 63 g (1.80 oz)
                      Strap: 25 g (0.80 oz)
                      Neck cord: 9 g (0.32 oz)
                      Dimensions Width: 53 mm (2.09")
                      Length: 68 mm (2.68")
                      Thickness (body): 17 mm (0.67")
                      Height above deck: 28 mm 1.10")
                      Water Resistance: Claimed 50 m, but see below for what this means
                      MSRP: US$200
                      Product Description

                      This is a digital watch with the standard Barometer/Altimeter and Compass
                      features, along with the common extra features such as dual time zones,
                      chronometer, data logging, etc. (With the current state of the art in
                      integrated circuits, these extra functions are excessively easy to add to a
                      watch, whether they are needed or not.) It has the usual four control
                      buttons plus an 'Indiglo' button for the back illumination. Where it starts
                      to deviate from a 'standard' watch is the size of the unit, and I will
                      return to this point shortly. The model number 'WS4' apparently means 'Wide
                      Screen with 4 functions' - all true.

                      The unit comes with a glossy (laminated) fold-out quick reference guide with
                      brief instructions in English, French and Spanish, and a compact (and thick)
                      instruction guide in the same languages. The latter fits into the box base
                      on the watch stand. All the glossy fold-out guide covers is some esoteric
                      features of the altimeter - mainly how to use the altitude alarm feature. It
                      seems that whoever wrote the main manual forgot to mention these features -
                      or they were added to the software after the manual was printed

                      The Timex web site is rather confused when it comes to describing the strap.
                      It variously describes the strap as 'Durable Resin Strap', 'Black Resin
                      strap' and 'Buckle/Clasp Type: Buckle', and reading the other Test Reports
                      for this watch will show that this is roughly correct. However, the unit I
                      received has a strap made of heavy elastic some 30 mm (1.2") wide, held at
                      one end with about 40 mm (1.8") of hook&loop fastening and at the other end
                      by a moderately complex stainless steel adjustable buckle. This strap does
                      not appear on the obvious WS4 web page, but delving deeper into the web site
                      I found an FAQ page which said this: 'Comfortable and durable rubber strap
                      or XL Elastic Fast Wrap to fit outside of performance gear'. Unfortunately
                      it also said 'Unless you have the WS4 with an XL elastic strap (which can be
                      removed completely), the strap on the WS4 was not designed to be removed and
                      replaced. If your strap breaks, you can contact Timex Customer Service at
                      800-448-4639 or custserv@...', so for the present I am stuck with an
                      XL wrist strap which is unusable for ordinary walking.

                      The web site shows the black version as having jungle green buttons. My unit
                      has bright orange buttons. I suspect that the change in colour may be
                      associated with the change in the wrist strap.

                      'Water Resistant 50 m'
                      In one place on the Timex web site the specifications claim 'Dependable
                      water resistance to 50m' and in another place 'Water Resistant 50 M'. On the
                      TimexExpedition web site (yes, there are two different Timex web sites)
                      there is very little in the way of specifications for the WS4 that I could
                      find, but there is an FAQ page with some interesting comments. My own
                      feeling is that many people would not discover the TimexExpedition web site
                      or the FAQ page for the WS4 when starting from the Timex web site.

                      Anyhow, I was quite enthused when I first read (on the Timex web site) that
                      the watch was water resistant to 50 m - it meant I could use it swimming
                      rivers and abseiling wet canyons - things we often do on some trips.
                      However, reading the FAQ page I discovered this:
                      'We do not recommend swimming with your WS4. The WS4 is 50 meter water
                      resistant, and the general rule of thumb for any watch is: 30 meter can be
                      safely splashed; 50 meters is safe in a shower; 100 meters is safe in the
                      pool; and 200 meters is safe for snorkeling or light diving.'

                      My reaction to this discovery was fairly severe and I was ready to accuse
                      the company of deceiving me. However, fellow BGT members pointed out that
                      the term 'water resistant' is an industry term and is actually defined by an
                      ISO Standard. (My thanks to these guys.) I don't have access to the text of
                      the ISO standard, so I will quote Wikipedia instead.

                      The international standard 'ISO 2281 Horology -- Water-resistant watches'
                      defines the water resistance of watches. This standard was only designed for
                      watches intended for ordinary daily use and are resistant to water during
                      exercises such as swimming for a short period. They may be used under
                      conditions where water pressure and temperature vary. However, whether they
                      bear an additional indication of overpressure or not, they are not intended
                      for submarine diving.
                      The Wikipedia page goes on the explain that testing for 'water resistant' is
                      done by immersing the watch to a depth of 10 cm (about 4 inches) for 1 hour.
                      Where a depth is quoted, the watch is also tested once at that water
                      pressure for 10 minutes.

                      In addition, the ISO standard says that a watch rated as 'water resistant 50
                      m' should be
                      Suitable for swimming, white water rafting, no snorkeling water related
                      work, and fishing. Wikipedia also says ISO 2281 compliant watches are
                      designed for everyday life and must be water resistant during exercises such
                      as swimming for a short period..
                      As far as I can see, the ISO standards do not use the common term
                      'waterproof' at all.

                      So I am willing to accept that Timex are simply following 'industry
                      standards' here, but ...
                      * I think the industry as a whole is playing cutesy with the public here,
                      as most casual buyers would not realise the difference between 'water
                      resistant' and the more common word 'waterproof'.
                      * I think Timex ought to make it very clear on the Timex web site exactly
                      what the claim 'water resistant 50 m' means, as it does not mean what the
                      average member of the public (eg me) might expect. In this regard, I note
                      that it is quite hard to find the FAQ page from the Timex web site.
                      * I am concerned that while the ISO Standard says such a watch should be
                      suitable for swimming for a short period, the Timex FAQ suggests I should
                      not take the watch swimming. Does this mean that Timex do not think the WS4
                      meets the ISO standard? I don't know.
                      First Impressions

                      Physical
                      Did I mention that this thing is huge? The dimensions are in the table
                      above, but it is not until I held the watch in my hand that I realised that
                      plasma TV screens are not the only thing which come in an super-size
                      category. Once again, I have to say that (in my opinion so far) the watch
                      seems more designed for street machismo wearing than for real use when out
                      bushwalking. I say this because a thing this size really would get in my way
                      when fighting my way through thick scrub. But we will wait and see for the
                      Field Report to see.

                      There seem to be four small hex head bolts on the front of the watch. These
                      are clearly visible in the lead photo. However, despite my best efforts,
                      these don't seem to do anything and don't seem to rotate. One is left to
                      wonder whether they are anything more than pseudo-macho ornamentation.

                      Display
                      The 'wide screen' display is certainly large. It has a small analog clock
                      face at the top left hand corner which does double duty as the analog
                      compass display, although the resolution is low. It has a dot matrix digital
                      display at the top right hand corner: this is arguably the 'main' display,
                      and very readable. In compass mode it is limited to displaying the cardinal
                      points rather than degrees, which I found a little strange. At the bottom
                      left hand corner there is a temperature display and a set of weather symbols
                      of the usual format - clouds, sun, rain etc. In compass mode the actual
                      bearing in degrees is shown here. At the bottom right hand corner there is a
                      set of seven-segment number which are used for secondary displays such as
                      Altitude in Time mode, date in Altitude mode and setting the altitude
                      reference points. Great care must be taken when reading these numbers as
                      they are very narrow and some characters are hard to interpret. In
                      particular, the plus and minus signs in altitude reference mode are almost
                      incomprehensible at first. One gets used to them after a while, but I did
                      have one of my altitude references set to -188 m (rather than +188 m) for a
                      while.

                      Finally, at the bottom right hand corner on the metal surround there are
                      four little black embossed logos. They do occupy space which could have been
                      used by the LCD display. As far as I can see at this stage, they serve no
                      useful or functional purpose. They seem to be just fancy trim.

                      Wrist Strap
                      I tried to adjust the elastic strap to fit my wrist, but this was not
                      possible. Even at the tightest setting it slid up my arm. Then I found the
                      bit in the FAQ about the strap being for use with 'performance clothing',
                      but my 'performance clothing' is never that bulky. (Think single-layer
                      Taslan or single-layer Lycra.) The strap just manages to hold at my wrist
                      when I am wearing a wet-suit (albeit rather loosely), but I can't use the
                      watch in the water as the '50 m water resistant' specification does not mean
                      the watch can actually be used in water. With the strap fully extended I can
                      get both wrists into the strap quite easily - see photo to the right. (No,
                      this is not a bondage item!) 'XL' is certainly correct; 'usable' is less
                      certain.

                      The unit came with a fairly robust neck loop which can replace the wrist
                      strap. It is secured to the watch with a short bit of hook&loop fastening. I
                      did notice that the stuff tended to peel open rather easily (a Chinese
                      brand?), and how reliable the attachment might be in the field is definitely
                      open to question.

                      Set-Up and Manual
                      I spent some time setting the watch up to my requirements - metric units,
                      local altitude, etc. This required reading the small instruction manual. The
                      first problem was that the font was so small I had to take all my glasses
                      off before I could read it (I am short-sighted). However, the printing was
                      of good quality. The second problem was that the instructions are not always
                      easy to follow, and do seem to leave a few steps out in places.

                      The instructions for setting Time and Date are on page 14 (and page 11) of
                      the little manual. Technically the instructions are correct, but they are a
                      bit confusing. Before reaching the actual time and date display the user
                      must select 'Time1' or 'Time2' and press 'Mode'. This is not obvious at
                      first, and I found it rather puzzling. Careful reading of the fine print
                      shows that the manual does cover this, but the casual reader is likely to
                      miss it.

                      The instructions for setting the altitude to match the local environment
                      (page 15) are even more confusing. On most watches the Start (Up, + or
                      whatever) button increases the displayed number; on this watch it does do
                      this but only for one digit at a time. It is necessary to advance from the
                      hundreds to the tens and to the units (etc) by pressing the Mode button.
                      Further, unless the STOP button is pressed at the end the whole process will
                      be largely ignored. I got very confused here for a while. There is a note
                      about this in the FAQ page at the web site.

                      Calibrating the compass is essential before use, and this uses the 'normal'
                      two rotations of the watch. After this the declination can be set. All this
                      went very smoothly, but the result was not good. In the end it turned out
                      that my steel filing cabinets were distorting the local magnetic field! I
                      moved into a clear space and redid the calibration successfully. The manual
                      does not explain anywhere that the resulting display is for 'True North',
                      not 'Magnetic North'. This might confuse a novice. However, this does not
                      cover the effect of tilting the watch, which has been found to cause major
                      errors in other watches. This aspect will be covered in the Field Report.

                      Sundry
                      The alarm works: it beeps (at a high pitch) and flashes the blue display
                      back-light a number of times. It is a pity I can barely hear the alarm,
                      although my wife says she can. She says I have lost the high end of my
                      hearing spectrum. That happens with age, but it does make the choice of a
                      very high pitch questionable. However, given the size of the piezo disk
                      inside the watch, the high pitch may be unavoidable.

                      The manual contains several quotes from a well-known mountaineer, but such
                      things are just common commercial testimonials for which the vendor pays the
                      'name' money. In my experience such paid 'testimonials' mean absolutely
                      nothing. Even Tiger Woods sells (or did sell) his name to all sorts of
                      companies for testimonials.




                      Field Report - expected early March 2010




                      Long Term Report - expected early May 2010
                    • Coy Boy
                      Roger, I think you handled the water resistant to 50m perfectly. Not sure I d use that last bit about commercial testimonials and Tiger Woods as that really
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 7, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Roger, I think you handled the "water resistant to 50m" perfectly. Not sure I'd use that last bit about commercial testimonials and Tiger Woods as that really has no bearing on the watch. Marketing is what it is....they gota sell watches to stay in business.

                        Coy Boy

                        --- In backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Caffin" <r.caffin@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Mark and all
                        >
                        > My thanks to all who helped me understand what 'water resistant' means ...
                        > (especially Coy).
                        >
                        > I still think the industry is pulling a swifty over the public, but my
                        > previous comments aimed just at Timex were mostly wrong. So herewith a
                        > modified version of the IR. I think it should go through the edit process
                        > again. (Sorry Mark!)
                        >
                        > Cheers
                        > Roger Caffin
                        > ------
                        > Test Report - Timex Expedition WS4 Watch
                        > Report Contents
                        >

                        > The manual contains several quotes from a well-known mountaineer, but such
                        > things are just common commercial testimonials for which the vendor pays the
                        > 'name' money. In my experience such paid 'testimonials' mean absolutely
                        > nothing. Even Tiger Woods sells (or did sell) his name to all sorts of
                        > companies for testimonials.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Field Report - expected early March 2010
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Long Term Report - expected early May 2010
                        >
                      • Roger Caffin
                        Hi Mark I forgot the URL! Sorry! http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/test/TESTS/IR%20-%20Timex%20WS4%20watch%20-%20R%20Caffin/ Cheers Roger
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 7, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                        • Mark McLauchlin
                          Thanks Roger, Good to go, there were no additional changes to be made in the sections you have re-worked and as you previously made other changes suggested
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 8, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks Roger,

                            Good to go, there were no additional changes to be made in the sections you
                            have re-worked and as you previously made other changes suggested there is
                            nothing further for you to do besides delete and upload at will.

                            Cheers
                            Mark

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Roger Caffin [mailto:r.caffin@...]
                            Sent: Friday, 8 January 2010 3:56 AM
                            To: backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com
                            Cc: redroach@...; mark@...
                            Subject: IR - Timex WS4 watch - R Caffin

                            Hi Mark

                            I forgot the URL! Sorry!
                            http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/test/TESTS/IR%20-%20Timex%20WS4%20wa
                            tch%20-%20R%20Caffin/

                            Cheers
                            Roger
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.