John's thread about Timbomb got me thinking... most of Oakley's watches are very nice in my opinion, but none of them seem too appropriate for people with smaller wrists or those that prefer a smaller/lighter watch.

The D.5 and D3 are smaller sized (geared toward women?), but digital watches aren't everyone's cup of tea, and the casings are still pretty thick. Crush 2.5 is smaller too, but the casing again is still rather thick, and many of the colors are only for women (or men that like pastels).

I think someone else mentioned a while ago that they wished Oakley would do a leather band watch. I totally agree. A simple leather strap (maybe put a skull emboss on it to jazz it up) with a lower profile casing would be nice.

Thoughts?

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 10/28/2004 12:45:51 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely would be cool. I've vowed to never buy a watch again, but had I not, I'd seriously look into it.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 10/28/2004 12:49:44 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I wanted the leather. I would love an Oakley watch with a GMT style face/casing on a fat leather band. Little skull rivet slike those on the rail shirt.

My wrists aren't that big and I have a Crush (1.0) and it doesn't look huge on me. I know the Crush 2.0 is even thinner than the 1.0, then the 2.5 is more for women like Eddy said.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 10/28/2004 1:17:30 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Phil, how thick is the casing on your Crush? I seriously thought about getting a Crush 2.0/2.5, but I haven't had time to look around for one and see if it fits me.

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 10/28/2004 2:02:15 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

The thickness of the Timex I am wearing right now is 3/8". The Crush is almost double, about 5/8". I have seen the Crush 2.0 and it's definitely thinner.

I will see if I can get some shots of it on my wrist tonight and post them for you.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 10/28/2004 2:29:49 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have big wrists, yet the Time Bomb and GMT fit pretty well after I had the band shortened.

Ob Session (obsession - 10/28/2004 3:01:45 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

i have both Crush and Crush 2.0, the first Crush is definitely thicker, and weightier in comparison. i thought it was quite heavy at first, but then i really got used to it. it feels substantial, like a well built piece of equipment. i'll try to take some comparison pics tonight, along with the Detonator just received today! ^_^



W.B. Ng (bong - 10/28/2004 4:24:45 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

pictures for you viewing pleasure, as promised... ^_^


Crush 2.0, Detonator, Crush


Detonator, Crush 2.0, Crush
notice how much thicker the Crush is compared to the other two


Crush, Detonator, Crush 2.0
all with cases

cheers!

W.B. Ng (bong - 10/28/2004 11:59:15 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Bong - what are the rubber clasps like on the Analog watches? It takes weeks to break in the rubber loop that holds down the strap on my D2s (anyone know the technical term for that part?) and I really have to force it, which is disconcerting - same thing with these models?

E C (EastCoast - 10/29/2004 7:11:46 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Its Called a Keeper.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 7:30:46 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Its not as stiff as the one on the D2 the analogue watches are made from advanced Unobtainium which is a little softer than that whats used on the D2 and it smells like vanilla too.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 7:32:32 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Just out of interest has anyone worked out what the HSF in HSF Unobtainium stands for on the Blade Watch?

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 7:33:30 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Bong, thanks for the shots because I didn't get to take one of mine and I had no other oakley watches to compare it to.

The rubber band is not rough at all. It's already rounded for your wrist and didn't take to long to get used too.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 10/29/2004 9:06:48 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Very nice pictures... and nice watch collection, too.

Why such a big difference between the Crush and Crush 2.0/2.5 without changing the name?

Ed Chiu (eddyc - 10/29/2004 9:20:03 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

its essentially the same watch but with a different case, internally its exactly the same. Also wanted to make it look significantly different to the Bullet.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 9:22:09 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted the Bullet originally, but price pushed me to the Crush instead. It is similar in appearance.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 10/29/2004 9:33:51 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Very similar to look at , buit very differnt inside the bullet has a 5 jewel swiss ETA movement, sapphire crystal and is encased in titanium, the crush is a one jewel japanese movement, hardex mineral glass crystal and stainless steel caseing.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 9:42:12 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

no one worked out HSF yet?

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 9:44:01 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

If some of you are wondering were it states the Blade features HSF Unobtainium, it appears outside of the oakley.com Blade page.




Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 10/29/2004 10:41:56 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Hydrophobic Something Formula?
Highly Stressed Formation?
Hydrogen Sulphur Free?

adam moore (adamjmoore - 10/29/2004 10:53:58 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

NOT EVEN CLOSE !

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 11:05:45 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

besides Unobtainium is hydrophillic not hydrophobic.

Roger Byrne (SCOOBY - 10/29/2004 11:08:50 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I deserve a smack for this one:

Heavy Set Female

E C (EastCoast - 10/29/2004 12:53:51 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness (well as serious as I get, anyway)

High Strength Flexibility

E C (EastCoast - 10/29/2004 12:54:49 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

something something factor

high security factor?

is there a prize for this? i'd try harder if there was a prize

John Heins (john - 10/29/2004 1:03:42 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------