always have the hand running on my speedmaster when i wear it...just because it looks more interesting with a second hand sweeping round..never use it to time eggs though!
always have the hand running on my speedmaster when i wear it...just because it looks more interesting with a second hand sweeping round..never use it to time eggs though!
I use the bezel far more than the chrono, and I only have one watch without an elapsed timing function (bezel or chrono).Quote:
Originally Posted by demonloop
I guess that'll reduce the power reserve?Quote:
Originally Posted by sceneshifter
I use my chronos occasionally to time the rounds of the silly party games we play at Christmas and after dinner parties with our group of friends - I've sort of become the designated watch-guy for this (and it got Omega a sale after a friend noticed and liked my SMP).
I'd like to use them for timing long camera exposures, but you need to be able to see the watch in sometimes almost pitch blackness so I tend to use my Suunto with its own faint illumination for this.
If bored in meetings I will use the chrono fly back to entertain myself - will it go clockwise or anti-clockwise when the second hand is at "6".
Probably not very good for the watch ....
Swisstony
I'll often come up with ways to use one when I'm wearing it, but I really don't miss it if I'm not. Definitely a form first, function second for me.
I need a chrono to time some specific things but use the bezel far more often.
I use my speedy pro occasionally to time my espresso shots. I do play with it every now and then.
I have to say that most of the speedys I see have the chrono hand running. I'd feel stupid having it running for no actual reason.
I've always had watches with a bezel, but I never ever use the bezel for timing anything.
I have quite a few but to be honest I don't use the function all that much. I've also a few divers but I don't go deep sea diving either. I guess it's mostly down to aesthetics.
If I never used them, I probably wouldn't be able to persuade myself to buy them. Looks alone wouldn't be enough.
If I needed a chronograph for anything critical, I'd use a digital watch.
I prefer clean look of non-chrono watches (there are rare exceptions of course)
As for timing, if I need to time something then I use my rotating bezel, it is enough 99% of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swisstony
Yes, same here
I have a Fortis chrono and use the chrono feature to time how long the children have been on time out, when they race their friends or how long some journeys take. I use the bezel occasionally to time less precise things like cooking times etc.. Generally, I like the look of a chrono more than a non chrono watch although their are exceptions.
I use mine regularly, be it journey times, employees journey times, cooking, employees production rate, the list is endless.
Don't use mine, but that's just me.
Had a few chrono watches over the years, purchased primarily because I liked the look of them. I can't think that I've ever really made use of the functionality they offer.
I reckon a decent analogue centre minute hand (Lemania 5100 or 251.262) chrono is much easier to read quickly and accurately at a glance than a digital watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by tribe125
I prefer chronos and use mine all the time. Bought the Speedy Pro as a business/dress/classic acrylic, and wore it last week for an interview, in the course of which we were given a timed essay (30 minutes) and a team discussion/negotiation task. Came in very handy for both.
I wear the Fortis a lot for more active sports - flying, sailing, walking, swimming - 6 x 50m laps take 5 minutes, so at all times I can keep an eye on how many laps I've swum.
And, as others have said, either comes in handy for cooking, or parking meters. With the Fortis, I have the chrono for timing one pot and the bezel for another. The digital timer on the oven doesn't work!
Still no clarification on this question. I guess people are just starting the stopwatch and checking to see when their time is up.Quote:
Originally Posted by scarto
I'd use a digital watch for this personally...the countdown function.
Chronos are purely aesthetic for me. Would that we used the numerous complications out there for thrir designed purpose but most people wouldn't (moonphase, tide height etc.)
Unless the chronograph has an alarm I suspect it makes no difference whether it counts up or down, you still have to look at the watch to see when time has elapsed.Quote:
Originally Posted by scarto
When I dived it did strike me as odd that the majority of diver bezels count up rather than down. A count down bezel would show the time remaining for the dive which is easier than trying to remember the maximum dive time and subtracting time elapsed, particularly if you have something more pressing on one's mind.
Having said that I find that I find the chronograph most useful to measure elapsed time, using it more as a mission timer than a countdown facility. If I had a need to time things precisely (when I used to develop film for example) then I would use a bespoke digital timer, but then that wasn't a watch. I would suspect that rather like most things you use a specific tool to do a specific job, just like I use a specific lens to create a specific image. I can remember endless debates between rangefinder and SLR users. I used both, a rangefinder for subjects where peripheral vision was most useful, an SLR when it was useful to see an accurate rendition of the image that the camera was taking (such as taking a macro or telephoto shot). But for all its limitations a rangefinder was a more pleasurable and immediate tool to use than an SLR and I miss mine keenly. It seems to me that chronographs are a bit like this. I don't expect them to be able to do everything, but what they do they do with aesthetic appeal which is what I want from them, and for some tasks they are better than digital timers, but not all.
I just had to a have a Chronograph, first one was quartz, then kinetic then automatic, i do like the way they look for sure.
With my Avanta Spring Drive chrono I have the thing running all the time to that I can watch the smooth seconds hand moving around the dial...other than that...just for looks
I use mine a fair bit, cooking, exercise, but I guess I like using them so that probably makes me use them more.
I've never used my chronos for anything practical so it's just looks for me. Won't stop me buying another one though.
It was aesthetics that drew me to the watch...
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...f/IMG_3329.jpg
But I do use the chrono function fairly regularly, 'bout once a week I would estimate, mostly cooking related.
Cheers,
Effortless.
For me its all about aesthetics, just prefer the look of chronos and have never really used it
I prefer clean uncluttered watch faces, chronos look a bit messy to me.
The timer and stopwatch with laptimer on my phone is far better to use thou I do appreciate the mechanical complexity of a chrono.
The seconds hand is perfectly adequate for timing my espresso shots.
call you back in ten minutes!
click!
set off the irrigation
click!
have a poo break
click!
(hey, that would be.... aaahhh.... 300 poos an hour... hummm interesting)
be right there in a moment!
click!
I love chronos, I time everything to anything.
the best is when you are watching a movie with a bomb timer countdowning.....
anyway, one of the reasons I hate my tudor big block is the pushers crew doen, so I have to unscrew then and booom! I have lost the moment.
And then I cannot live with the pushers unscrewed if I am not timing....
having said this, I find chronos more delicate, I broke one twice with pushers falling off.
was a long long time ago when i used to fall down the stairs, but, you know....
I'm not the only one who times taking a dump then!
There's some people who probably shouldn't be allowed to wear a chronograph... :omg:
:icon_biggrin:
i am sure there is a joke to be made here about "precision movements", but i just cant think of it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave+63
I use my diver bezel everyday as a timer - works brilliantQuote:
Originally Posted by demonloop
I stopped buying chronos when I realised how much dearer they are to service plus my tastes have changed to less cluttered dials
It's handy to have a chronograph when you want to time french press coffee brewing, but do the esthetics of it mean anything to me? Oh, yeah.
http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a2...D720/ry%3D480/http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47a2...D550/ry%3D400/
...and it adds a whole new dimension to the phrase used by our American friends 'dumpster watch'!
Mainly aesthetics for me, underpinned by a sense of marvel at the design and engineering skills that goes into making one. Confession time - I do get a very guilty but not unpleasant frisson of pleasure using one too, even for trivial tasks (yes, I am also guilty of the timing the dinner application too .... )
i find that i do use the bezel on my divers watch a lot as it is a very quick way of remembering simple timing elapsed time tasks - the loud clicking when you rotate it can be a little embarrasing, however.
i do also have a chrono, but find i have to lift up the watch and squint at the chrono dial a bit if i want to see precisely how many minutes have elapsed - in that respect the divers bezel wins hands down for easily seeing at a glance that it is, for instance, 3 minutes or 7 minutes since you started / parked the car / put the egg in the pan.
TBH - if you do a lot of timing tasks , then the only way is Casio (heresy, i know, but its the truth innit ?)
Ditto when I don't have a chronograph on ..... looks like I don't need any more watches after all then ..... note to self - stop scanning SC immediately (yeah right) ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Mcr
I mainly use mine for messing around when I’m bored, like the majority it seems. If anything needs 'proper' timing I use my phone or G-Shock.
So for me, it's probably more the aesthetics that appeal.
I should add that my HTC phone has a standard "clock" app which gives big screen options for Desk clock / multiple world clock / multiple day, multiple occurance alarm clock / precision stopwatch with lap timer / countdown programmable HMS timer with customisable alarm sound..........
.......... so i dont "really" need anything other than a basic watch.
.......... but chronos and divers do look good.
The difference for me is that I wear a chronograph, it's always there fixed to me. If I use a phone then its got to put somewhere where I can see it. If I'm doing something that needs timing (even if it's only cooking) then a phone is going to be irritatingly out of sight. if I'm climbing a mountain it's really difficult to whip my phone out and look at the time, I tend to be hands busy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Mcr
The other difference is that the phone is a consumable - it's around for a couple of years before its replaced. My chronograph is something that becomes part of my apparel for years. I have a dive watch that has been to the bottom of the sea with me. I look at the watch and I remember the experience. I'm probably not going to get a phone that I have that sort of relationship with.
Yep, and fairly regularly.
I write a lot of scripts for Tv commercials and radio, and a 30 second script means exactly 30 seconds. It's easier to use a chronograph (Speedmaster in my case) rather than an iPhone because it's easy to start and stop without talking your eyes off the page. In fact, somewhere underneath all the paper is an elderly Russian made stopwatch that I use as a back up. Also, it's fun to time friends in other cars on trackdays.
I'm guessing it also comes in handy during emergency heating repairs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Tuttle
Same here, tend to find myself setting it away and counting to 60 to see how close I am, but I have to be really bored at the time 😳, mainly for appearance for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddw78
I've got 2 chronos and rarely use them for timing anything, but they're nice to look at :)
Cheers,
Plug
I use mine all the time. Cooking, cycling, running you name it, I time it.
Looks.
I've tried to use them in anger and have no problem starting them, but almost always forget, only to find them ticking merrily away hours later.
For cooking, I find a count down alarm such as on my phone much more suitable.
I use mine a lot, although its probably fair to say that I bought them for aesthetic reasons.
I think the most I ever done with a chrono is just test that it works :chuncky:
Hardly ever use them, which is probably why I usually end up selling them. (Will no doubt buy another though.)
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyJack
An anologue chrno watch is a multi dial puzzle needing recconing with ample room for reading error added.
The digital elapsed time will tell you the interval in inequivocable format.
This again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huertecilla
The modern digital watch is a complex device requiring the user to switch modes in order to access all functions offered. The requirement to mode switch leads to error setting up and using the watch. Donald Norman refers to the difficulties users face using digital watches in his book "The Design of Everyday Things" where he points out that many digital watches are less than usable when they have fewer controls than functions. In this eventuality the user is often required to remember sequences of control interactions which often leads to error, particularly when the user is engaged in other resource intensive tasks or is distracted.
Other writers such as Dr Asef Degani (NASA Ames) who is an interface specialist points out in his book "Taming HAL" that the use of digital interfaces akin to those used in digital watches (see chapter 3) lead to the sort of mode error that lead to the downing of South Korean Flight 007.
Dr Christopher Wicken's work on multi-modes and the development of situation displays for the American Light Helicopter Project may also be useful, as would a reading of Defence Standard 00-25, which the UK military use to select equipment. All of these sources point out that ergonomically simple, single modal devices are preferable, particularly where the device is used with other devices (consistency) or where it is part of a task sequence (imposition of workload). Modern cockpit design has returned to analogue style displays incorporating dials, maps, situation displays etc.
It seems clear from research that a digital display, whilst useful when precise time/quantity reading is required as part of a task sequence these types of display, imposes higher workload that an analogue display. Analogue displays can be particularly useful in high workload environments, particularly if indication of time elapsed is of importance or information is required in a format which imposes low workload (i.e. at a glance).
Mechanical/analogue devices and displays have the advantage of offering fewer functions in a less complex format. An analogue chronograph seeks to offer perhaps two or three functions (depending upon the number of complications) and does them in a readily understandable function. It is interesting to compare the instruction manual for an analogue chronograph (2-3 pages) with a Casio G-Shock (considerably more than 3-4 pages). This indicates the degree of effort a user is obliged to expend in obtaining full use of their watch.
It is literally horses for courses - you pick the type of display to suite your need (which is what ana-digital watches attempt to do). However, it is clear that for the general population there has been a move away from digital watches and displays. Vauxhall/Opel attempted to introduce digital speedometers in their cars in the 80's. I would argue (although you will no doubt disagree) that the indication of speed in this context is similar to the indication of time. However, these types of displays quickly fell out of fashion. I would suggest that they did so because they imposed extra workload (i.e. effort) that took the drivers attention away from the road. In a car the change of speed and its rate of change provide are important and analogue displays do this more clearly than digital displays, they are also easier to use.
So chose the device to suit your task or purpose. But to consistently argue that digital watches and displays are superior to analogue watches seems obsessive in this context. It's a choice, and over the past 20 years an awful lot of people have chosen to move away from overly complex, multi-modal digital watches. If you choose to use one that is your prerogative, but to consistently chide those that don't is a little wearing.
Well, I simply observed that analogue chronographs are a mental puzzle to read and offers quite a bit of room for human error in contrast to simple numbers of a digital readout, which is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Tuttle
In response to a claim that an anaologue chrono is easier and quicker to read which is wrong.
For some relativating lightness have a look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e50qn0Roc4
and add some subdials...
p.s. I think just HH:MM is quite enough for a digital watch too :-)