Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
You need to post pictures of your Rolock here. I got the Rolock 90 directly from SF Tech. Another way of going about it - measure your ID and let us know the outcome. The OP and I clearly have the same Rolock setup and measurements.I am using a 96-2.5 and it work perfectly, I can find no info about the system changing and I’m considering ordering a new set from DGX to see if anything changed, I have Rolock 90 which came in a Rolock box.
I have heard of a Chinese knock off of the 90’s but haven’t seen them in person
I knew there was the 3 series that are a little smaller and made to fit glued in seals. I wish the would have some wiz kid come in and update the site so information was a bit easier to gather.Well. This explains it. Your Rolock diameter appears to be smaller, close to 94-95mm. I don't know why, but I was under an impression that all Rolock were the same size.
A follow up, my new set with arrows have arrived and it does look like the o ring size is differentI have these o-rings coming in soon:
![]()
Metric Buna O-rings 101.27 x 2.62mm Minimum 5 pcs
22.3 mm ID x 27.1 mm OD x 2.4 mm CS-Price for 25 pcsoringsandmore.com
I ordered 2.5mm x 105mm from McMaster Carr:
![]()
McMaster-Carr
McMaster-Carr is the complete source for your plant with over 595,000 products. 98% of products ordered ship from stock and deliver same or next day.www.mcmaster.com
Note, o-rings can handle 3% stretch with reasonable cross-section loss, so 101mm is okay for 2.62mm cross-section.
How hard were those to manipulate into the groove? The 96mm ones had over an inch left over that I had to massage back in, the cross section really seems to be more of an issue after the stretch.Yes, the “dimple” and the “chevron” glove side rings are interchangeable. You don’t want thinner, 2.5mm cross section o-rings, as they will twist and don off easily leading to accidents.
2.62 x 101 mm o-rings fit the best. Tested in the Great Lakes last week and the size worked well.
Not hard at all. I think the original o-rings are larger than 101mm in ID as I had to pack more of the extra slack into the grove. Also, the original orings are harder to don off. I ran a few tests in the Lakes and will post a more detailed response when I am back home.How hard were those to manipulate into the groove? The 96mm ones had over an inch left over that I had to massage back in, the cross section really seems to be more of an issue after the stretch.