Horological Meandering

aaronm
2923

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Elegance of implementation and expandiblity

I was hoping to find exact part counts for this, but it seems that the yearbooks don't quite have the numbers I need.  That in mind, we'll compare jewel counts instead. 

It appears that both AP and ETA use about 16 jewels in a chronograph module implementation (I don't know if this is entirely in the module itself, or modifications to the movement base as well).  In any case a modular chronograph seems to have a far higher jewel count then an equivalent non-module. This implies to me an increased amount of mechanical complexity to achieve the same ends, or more clearly that when you build a movement as a chrono, you know it is going to be a chrono but when you add a module you have to take what you've been given and work around it. I don't think this is inherent in modular design, look at the Lange and Heyne below

It is clearly not an integrated design, but a chronograph train grafted on the back of their usual movement, but no more complex then the average chrono. Rather I think the added complexity in a result of the usual chronograph module being put on the front of a movement, when it really wants to be on the back (where the bulk of the chronograph works are in an integrated design. Therefore it appears, at least to me, that the current popular modular chronographs (AP, ETA, RM/Vaucher) are solving a problem from an imperfect starting point, forcing them to add complexity, at least as reflected in jewel counts to their modules...


A possible cause of this is the center second hand. In a chronograph the second hand, part of the chrono mechanism, runs from the back through a bored-out pinion of the center-wheel, it is the innermost pinion in the center so it is the top hand. When you start with a base movement, you are starting with a regular center-wheel, and thus have to graft onto it something to restack the pinions.


A