I've got a friend who works over at Garmin (they're just a 15-30 minute drive from my office). I clipped and emailed him all of the posts about the E-Trex looking for a less "corporate" response. With his permission I'm posting his responses. The first is before he read any of the specific email when I asked him if he was interested in what was being said. The second is after I sent him everyones posts: (and these are not formal corporate positions) -------------------------- I'm not sure what the discussions center around. The Etrex is rated: Case: Waterproof to IEC 529 IPX7 standards The marketing blurb says: The eTrex is completely waterproof so it can take an accidental splash or dunk in the water and still continue to perform. Personally I dislike the term "waterproof". There is really (almost) nothing that is waterproof (look at the Grand Canyon). I prefer "water resistant". That is what the IPX7 rating is. It means the unit is designed to be immersed down to 1 meter for a time of 30 minutes. <snip name> bought a new watch last year. It said "Water Resistant 20M" (20 Meters). We figured, "no problem, the pool is only 10 ft deep at the deep end". The watch leaked when he splashed around in the shallow end. After the replacement watch also failed the same test, the sales person said that for immersion, you had to buy one that was WR 30M. Figure that one out. As I said before, I don't read paddlewise regularly, so I don't know what the hashing is about. Is it about the rating? The IPX7 is an international standard that defines the water resistancy. If the problems are that their unit failed after getting wet (within IPX7 limits), then they have a valid reason to return their unit. I wouldn't mind hearing what is going on in paddlewise, (may take a look there), I don't get offended or upset easily, especially if someone is making a valid point. ----------------------------- His second response: Thanks for the information. I've seen the same kind of conversations in the sat-nav newsgroup. A lot of what I read below is people's (mis?) interpretation of waterproof and water resistant. One person wrote "Good grief, they sell something based on a "submersible" standard and they tell you it's only water-resistant? A submarine is only "water resistant" Take them down too deep and you'll find out they are not water proof. The Minolta camera mentioned is not waterproof, but water resistant to 15 ft. And, yes, the Etrex is designed to be submersible. One meter. For 30 minutes. Unfortunately (IMHO), marketing likes to use the word "Waterproof", when, in fact, the correct term should be "Water Resistant". As I mentioned in an earlier email, nothing is actually waterPROOF (at least nothing in the context of this discussion). The person who quoted the IPX7 spec left out the first part: Protected against the effects of temporary immersion in water Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible when the enclosure is continuously immersed in water under standardized conditions of pressure and time The standardized conditions of pressure and time are 1M, 30 minutes. All that being said, I'd always use a drybag with mine on the water. If for no other reason than if it falls in, it doesn't float. Doesn't make much difference if it's water proof/resistant if it's unrecoverable! Please keep in mind this is my opinion only, I am not speaking for Garmin. --------------------------- Mel --- There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mel, Good post. Your friend defends Garmin reasonably well. He misses the point, though -- we paddlers need (and might pay for) a much more waterproof GPS which floats and does not need protection from the sea and which is durable for real-life use. A pretty good alternative is to buy a cheap ($60) GPS and count on tossing it out in a couple of years. My GPS-38 lasted 3 years before saltwater intrusion ended its short life; that is pretty good. My Magellan ColorTrak is in for service after a very minor drop onto the dock -- not so good considering the price of the thing. jerry. At 01:38 PM 05/23/2000 -0700, Mel Grindol wrote: >I've got a friend who works over at Garmin (they're just a 15-30 minute drive from my office). I clipped and emailed him all of the posts about the E-Trex looking for a less "corporate" response. With his permission I'm posting his responses. The first is before he read any of the specific email when I asked him if he was interested in what was being said. The second is after I sent him everyones posts: (and these are not formal corporate positions) > >-------------------------- >I'm not sure what the discussions center around. The Etrex is rated: > Case: Waterproof to IEC 529 IPX7 standards > >The marketing blurb says: > The eTrex is completely waterproof so it can take an accidental > splash or dunk in the water and still continue to perform. > >Personally I dislike the term "waterproof". There is really (almost) >nothing that is waterproof (look at the Grand Canyon). I prefer "water >resistant". That is what the IPX7 rating is. It means the unit is designed >to be immersed down to 1 meter for a time of 30 minutes. > ><snip name> bought a new watch last year. It said "Water Resistant 20M" (20 >Meters). We figured, "no problem, the pool is only 10 ft deep at the deep >end". The watch leaked when he splashed around in the shallow end. After >the replacement watch also failed the same test, the sales person said that >for immersion, you had to buy one that was WR 30M. Figure that one out. > >As I said before, I don't read paddlewise regularly, so I don't know what >the hashing is about. Is it about the rating? The IPX7 is an international >standard that defines the water resistancy. If the problems are that their >unit failed after getting wet (within IPX7 limits), then they have a valid >reason to return their unit. > >I wouldn't mind hearing what is going on in paddlewise, (may take a look >there), I don't get offended or upset easily, especially if someone is >making a valid point. > >----------------------------- >His second response: > >Thanks for the information. I've seen the same kind of conversations in the sat-nav newsgroup. A lot of what I read below is people's (mis?) interpretation of waterproof and water resistant. One person wrote "Good grief, they sell something based on a "submersible" standard and they tell you it's only water-resistant? A submarine is only "water resistant" Take them down too deep and you'll find out they are not water proof. The Minolta camera mentioned is not waterproof, but water resistant to 15 ft. And, yes, the Etrex is designed to be submersible. One meter. For 30 minutes. Unfortunately (IMHO), marketing likes to use the word "Waterproof", when, in fact, the correct term should be "Water Resistant". As I mentioned in an earlier email, nothing is actually waterPROOF (at least nothing in the context of this discussion). > >The person who quoted the IPX7 spec left out the first part: > > Protected against the > effects of temporary > immersion in water > Ingress of water in > quantities causing > harmful effects shall not > be possible when the > enclosure is > continuously immersed > in water under > standardized conditions > of pressure and time > >The standardized conditions of pressure and time are 1M, 30 minutes. > >All that being said, I'd always use a drybag with mine on the water. If for no other reason than if it falls in, it doesn't float. Doesn't make much difference if it's water proof/resistant if it's unrecoverable! > >Please keep in mind this is my opinion only, I am not speaking for Garmin. >--------------------------- > >Mel >--- >There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't. > > >--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- >Before you buy. >*************************************************************************** >PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not >to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission >Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net >Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net >Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ >*************************************************************************** > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I have been using a Lowrance GlobalNav 300 for about 3 years without any problems. Although Lowrance says that the unit is submersible, they point out that the battery compartment is not completely sealed. The solution for me was to use a drybag. The unit now floats, and I use the cord on the drybag as a mini-tether to tie the unit to my boat. IMHO, anything that needs to be dry on a kayak, should be in a drybag. I operate my VHF while it's in one as well as my GPS. Steve Holtzman *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:14 PDT