Girard Perregaux

SuitbertW
2411

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Hi, Philippe,....

....I believe GP opted for this design for beeing flexible and vesatile. Of course one could use the classical small seconds design and use the fourth wheel directly to display the second. But, than you're also bound to design the train around it - i.e. other considerations must go one step back in the list. They obviously wanted to have the options they now have   the double third wheel is just a well tried and elegant solution to drive an indirect second (be it in the center or elsewhere. Plus, the you have  a good "access point" for a module - if necessary even with the option of a connection without any backlash - something which can help a lot for a good working chrono odule for example. That's thanks to the double third wheel.

If one wants to have a staright forward structure in base movement and  iterations of it  -  one and the same going train is something very logical, IMO. So, one base for small seconds without the double third wheel and another base for all others wouldn't make much sense to a manufacturer .
 
I even don't know at what precise position the fourth wheel is in the new movement - perhaps it's just a tiny bit off 9 position and would also look awkward......as said, to design a movement one has to take into account many, many points.  And I'm sure I don't know only a fraction of them

Best regards
Suitbert