Reply With QuoteIt's the biggest difference that I notice between my Tudor HBBS and most other automatic watches I wear. I'm always surprised that it's still going when I pick it up on a Monday having worn it on a Friday.
I was looking at the specs for the new Rolex GMT 3285 movement, one of the things that stood out was the 70 hours power reserve. As impressive as this is I did wonder how many people would actually need/use such a long power reserve on an automatic watch. I suppose that if you only wear the watch every 3rd day it would save you resetting the time but I do wonder who would really need this?
This got me thinking about my JLC that has a reserve de marche complication. If I hand wind the watch the indicator will show full reserve but during normal wearing of the watch the indicator generally shows about 80% even if I shake my wrist it seems to make little difference. Is this usual and does anyone know on average how fully wound automatic watches generally get under normal use?
It's the biggest difference that I notice between my Tudor HBBS and most other automatic watches I wear. I'm always surprised that it's still going when I pick it up on a Monday having worn it on a Friday.
I seriously welcome the additional power reserve!!! i usually rotate around 2-4 watches and this really helps. From the indicator of my 5712 i see that a full day generally winds around 36-40 hours for me granted it’s a micro rotor so i expect winding efficiency to be lower and i have a desk job.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think the only watch I have with that sort of power reserve is an aqua terra 8500 (60 hours). I can only assume that's what these longer reserves were designed for. Take it off Friday night for the weekend. Put it back on Monday morning ready for work again. Mine does see it through provided it is fully wound.
Longer power reserve -> less time spent almost run down -> better time keeping
is a reason often given
This I imagine - it makes the watches more usable.Originally Posted by Broussard
As mentioned above, a longer power reserve is handy if you rotate watches day-to-day, or have one watch for work which you take-off Friday home-time and pick-up again on Monday morning.
Personally, I don’t wear my watches in that way, so the longer power reserve - whilst nice - isn’t really of great importance to me. Though, as Der Amf has stated, there is an argument that if you do leave your watches to sit for 24-48 hours between wearing, a longer power-reserve might also allow for better timing consistency through lessening of isochronism, but that can work both ways (depending upon how the longer power reserve itself is achieved).
Hand-winding is generally quicker to wind the mainspring, whereas auto-winding requires a longer period. Also, some watches/systems are more efficient than others at auto-winding, and it does also depend upon life-style – a brisk 20-minute walk to work will do more than just sitting on a bus. It’s for that reason you’ll often see a recommendation to hand-wind a watch 20-30 or so times when first worn from a ‘dead stop’, and then allow the auto-winding to top-off/maintain the reserve thereafter.
I LOVE a long power reserve. I use my Oris 111 mostly during the week but I can leave it for a whole week and it's still got three days left. It's also so accurate that I use it to set my other watches. My other two require daily winding which I do enjoy but can be a pain when going away, or if one forgets.
You are responding to yourself, fool.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I usually wear a mixture of 4 watches over the course of a week and find that having at least one in the mix with a 70 hour PR is useful.
Provided the torque from the mainspring is uniform over the majority of the 70hrs I don’t see a drawback with the longer power reserve. I don’t know the details of the designs where manufacturers are achieving longer power reserve, but my concern would arise if the watch is always running at below 50% power reserve. There has to be a point where the torque curve starts to curve rather than remain flat, and if the watch is running in this region I would expect the rate to deviate. One concern I have is how efficiently the watches wind, reaching full wind is bound to take longer if the power reserve is longer if all things are equal. Rotor winding systems have been pretty much optimised over the past 50 years and I can’t see an obvious way to improve this.
If the watch isn’t achieving full wind it won’t run for 70hrs when taken off, that’s stating the obvious but for many of us the increased power reserve doesn’t provide any benefits. I’m sure the marketing guys love stuff like this, one of the difficulties in justifying one watch over another is the lack of tangible points of comparison, we’ve seen big numbers for water resistance and now we’re seeing bigger numbers for power reserve. I question whether the majority choose mechanical watches based on these measurablete criteria, I certainly don’t but I apply that approach to other stuff such as cars and washing machines.
Watches becoming magnetised is a definite problem and improvements to counteract this are definitely welcome. Just had another one on the bench that’s been affected, running 40 secs/ day fast with reduced amplitude. Glass backs don’t help.
Paul
I have a BP FF and that has a great power reserve (120 hours/5 days) and it now surprises me when it has stopped - very handy when you don't wear a watch/the same watch all the time but it is in your regular rotation.
But what gappens to the timekeeping when it’s running in a low state of wind? When watches are running with very low amplitude the timekeeping can be poor; if the last 20 of power reserve leads to a 15 second gain or loss it somewhat defeats the object of the watch keeping running over that period.
Incredibly my Oris runs so accurately across the full range of reserve that I've given up checking it. I only have to adjust it when the date needs doing. It's that accurate... maybe I got lucky but I wasn't expecting it to be that good.
Yes, all good points.
For this reason, IWC's hand-wound Portofino 'eight days' has a power reserve actually capable of lasting nine days, but their power reserve indicator on the dial only goes to eight days - it seems counter-intuitive to deliberately shorten the reserve, but they do it precisely because if the watch were allowed to run to a natural stop, then during that last, ninth day torque would be reduced markedly and therefore accuracy would go unacceptably (to IWC) off-kilter. I think some of their watches are actually designed themselves to come to an early stop when the power reserve reaches too low a point. Better to warn the wearer when near expiry and offer the chance of winding, than to allow a watch to continue running at poor accuracy.
@walkerwek1958 makes some excellent points.
It was something that I spent some time discussing with Frodshams when I was looking at their new Double Impulse Chronometer - with two escapes and two barrels, the chances of one barrel running down before the other is pretty likely, and therefore a balance break was required. I'm pretty sure that there's a balance break on the IWO Portofino, as it "automatically stops" after eight days. I own the Manufacture Calibre MT5602, but don't recall ever seeing anything clear cut about the power reserve / performance over time.
I really like this approach
Clearly someone who knows what they're doing has put some thought into this! It's interesting that some manufacturers are still looking to improve the technical performance of their movements, I guess there's some logic behind making the power reserve longer and it probably benefits some owners.
Rule number 1 for me when choosing a watch, before considering any technical criteria, is do I like the look of it. If it doesn't look good then it's a non starter regardless of anything else.
F.T.F.A.
If I had to pick the world's greatest all-round movement I'd pick the ETA 2892, no hesitation, but this was designed when a power reserve of 38 hrs was deemed to be acceptable. The aim was to produce a high-beat movement, capable of excellent performance, but as slim as practicable. Ease of mass-production was obviously a criteria, it never ceases to amaze me how few screws these movements contain. Considered a 'workhorse' movement by many, it can almost match the thoroughbreads.
Nowadays the goalposts have moved, we're seeing 60-70hr power reserves, and slimness isn`t a key design criteria any longer because the watches have all been on steroids! I guess that's progress.
Paul
Posting Permissions