Low Beat V High Beat Movements.

[padi56]

The high-beat vs low-beat argument has been running as long as I've taken an interest in movements around now 55 years (I am talking about watches here) and opinions are still divided.

One of the more highly regarded chronograph movements is still the Zenith "El Primero" running at 36000 bph. So highly regarded as we all know it was used by Rolex in the Daytona.Now the Zenith calibre 3019 was first introduced in 1969 and I'm pretty sure if there were any problems with hi-beat movements, 47 years is long enough for them to manifest themselves.

Ulysse Nardin marine chronometers have always been highly regarded but it is a little known fact that for years, they were fitted with a high-beat (36000bph) version of the ETA 2824-2, UN calibre NB11QU. Zodiac produced at least four high-beat movements from 1971-73, all with Albert/Shine ebauche, and fitted to the "SST" models. Longines experimented with calibres 430 to 433 from 1967 but when they introduced twin-barrel movements in 1975, chose to revert back to 28800 bph,and in these days Longines made some excellent in-house made movements to equal or better most.

Changing the subject slightly, the Longines twin-barrel movements were something I wish had survived in current production,a brilliant movement,but very expensive to make. Calibre 890, 892 & 893 had stacked twin barrels whereas calibres 990 to 994 had side-by-side barrels in a movement only 2.95mm thick. The power reserve of around 44-50 hours was respectable but not particularly impressive for a twin-barrel movement, although I'm sure that if R & D had continued on this movement this would have been substantially improved.And would have put many a modern movements to shame,from any manufacturer or brand even Rolex.

Now the main advantages of slower beat rates (18,000 , 19,800 and 21,600 ) are less immediate. Lower power needs allow for softer mainsprings, limiting stress and friction throughout the wheel train, winding train, and the escapement. Service intervals are longer and more flexible, and part wear replacements are negligible.But in general low beat movements will generally not perform as well as a fast-beat one, and while slow beat movements can perform very well it requires more skill and effort from the watchmaker to achieve and Rolex achieved that though the many years, through laborious positional adjustments and high quality movement parts . Now slow-beat is used primarily by manufactures of high-craft movements, most of whom consider today 21,600 BPH to the best.But most of these type of movements say Patek being quite delicate and can easily be put out of adjustment by the slightest Mal adjustment like say a small fall or big shocks.


Some of the advantages of fast-beat (28,800 v/h and 36,000 v/h) are obvious, better isochronism, and better performance in both vertical and horizontal positions even with minimal adjustment or no adjustment at all.This is one of the reasons fast-beat has been almost universally adopted by mass-producers.If you think of a how fast a quartz movement beats,while Mechanical watch usually have 28000 to 36000 beats per hour, which is 480 to 600 beats per minute (Hz), and therefore cannot compete with quartz watches that have around 4000 to 8000 beats per second (10 times faster).So in theory the mechanical High beat movement should be more accurate,with very little difference in over all power reserve, because they use a much stronger main spring.Now some say there is the possible extra wear factor in the Hi beat movement,but IMO as long as the recommend services are done,there is little or no difference,service is very important with any mechanical movement.

Now when Rolex's did the modification to the Zenith chronograph, where in addition to reducing the beat rate, they discarded the regulator and installed there own vastly larger Microstella balance wheel,and regulator.And when Zenith would not,or could not, supply the vast quantities Rolex needed, they was forced to design there first ever chrono movement the cal 4130 in 2000. Which although now quite old is still going strong today and basically unchanged.

This is short list of outstanding movements that should all easily achieve a daily consistency of five seconds or better on the wrist.All of the current Rolex calibers including the Cal 4130 this a outstanding chronograph movement with a excellent power reserve and one of the best around now. But there are many others in the same class accuracy wise but less power reserve.

The ETA 2892-A2, ETA 2824/2T chronometer grade, ETA Valjoux 7750,Unitas 6497/8,Omega 2500, JLC 889/2 , JLC 960, Longines 990 (Lemania 8815), PP 215, PP 240,now IMHO the Grand Seiko 430 is one of best movements ever made .Others like the Zenith 400,Zenith 670, GP 3100 all excellent movements, plus there are many more.Would not call any modern movement made today best,whats best in one persons eyes is better in another's.But most movements today even from Alpha to every day Seiko, Miyota and all the high end brands all have there place in today's horological world.

[Smobews]

What is your opinion of Stellita's movements?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Smobews

What is your opinion of Stellita's movements?

They seem to be good accurate movements but today there are no real bad purely mechanical watch movements today.Yes some might be better time keepers but most all will keep time within 10-30 seconds out of 86400 seconds in a day.Take the Seagull Chinese made ST 19 movement after careful regulation can run well inside the COSC SPEC cost of movement under $100.

[Jack T]

Great post, a return to sensible watch discussion. I’ve had a few watches with the movements listed, the 2500 in my Planet Ocean being among my favorites.

Timekeeping is important, all these listed and the watches I’ve owned have performed generally within specs; I will, from time to time, true it up vs my iPhone. But it’s nice to find the watch you’ve been wearing for a week running within a few seconds overall.

As for power reserve, it’s never been an important feature to me; beyond 40-46 hours, there are undesirable compromises when you get up to 70 hours or more. If you wear your watch five or six days a week, it’s not an issue; if you change your watch every week, it’s not an issue. Anything in between, occasionally setting the time and date is not a chore for me.

[thenewrick]

For me timing something means to a tenth of a second. I don’t think I’m a Daytona buyer until they make it a high beat rate again.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by thenewrick

For me timing something means to a tenth of a second. I don’t think I’m a Daytona buyer until they make it a high beat rate again.

You are totally right, time measuring is in tenth of a second.
I think the latest Daytona is a beautiful watch, form over function, as a chronograph not so much.

GS tentagraph is the ultimate mechanical chrono to have (If it wasn’t so big)

[Gearjockey]

Are the lugs smaller in hi-beat? That’s very important.

[DJ2020]

Thank you Peter for yet another informative post. Always a pleasure to read.

[S52]

So is a high beat movement the better investment?












Jk great post

[Rolexken]

Is it safe to wear a high beat movement in xxxxxx

[fsprow]

Great post Peter. Much useful information here. You did miss a few things however.

Which is the better investment and might make me rich?

Can I wear the high beat movement in a hot tub?

Should I trade my current watch for a high beat one?

Do the high beat movement watches still scratch easily?

Obviously (I hope so) I’m kidding.

[Little machines]

Thank you Peter! MY watch IQ just gets better with every read!

[Sandwich]

Thanks for the informative post PADI!

I hope I’m not derailing the thread by asking a movement related question so here it goes.

I own:
1. Rolex Yachtmaster 40 126622 (3235 caliber)
2. Rolex GMT MASTER II 126710BLOR (3285 caliber)

Both are essentially movements that share more similarities than differences asides from the added GMT complication in the latter.

Behaviour:
3235: regardless storage position, this movement has been consistently running at -3s/day. It is consistently slow in all positions.

3285: it speeds up when stored dial up and slows when stored vertically or when worn. As such, the losses and gains cancels one another and this watch has been almost bang on running at +/- 1s since the 5th of October.

I’m not pedantic over minor time gains/losses but it seems that the:
1. YM is Precise but not Accurate
2. GMT is Accurate but not Precise

Is this precision a function of the torque (thereby amplitude) of the movement? Is the GMT less precise due to the added 24-hour hand that has to be driven?

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by padi56

The high-beat vs low-beat argument has been running as long as I've taken an interest in movements around now 55 years (I am talking about watches here) and opinions are still divided.

One of the more highly regarded chronograph movements is still the Zenith "El Primero" running at 36000 bph. So highly regarded as we all know it was used by Rolex in the Daytona.Now the Zenith calibre 3019 was first introduced in 1969 and I'm pretty sure if there were any problems with hi-beat movements, 47 years is long enough for them to manifest themselves.

Ulysse Nardin marine chronometers have always been highly regarded but it is a little known fact that for years, they were fitted with a high-beat (36000bph) version of the ETA 2824-2, UN calibre NB11QU. Zodiac produced at least four high-beat movements from 1971-73, all with Albert/Shine ebauche, and fitted to the "SST" models. Longines experimented with calibres 430 to 433 from 1967 but when they introduced twin-barrel movements in 1975, chose to revert back to 28800 bph,and in these days Longines made some excellent in-house made movements to equal or better most.

Changing the subject slightly, the Longines twin-barrel movements were something I wish had survived in current production,a brilliant movement,but very expensive to make. Calibre 890, 892 & 893 had stacked twin barrels whereas calibres 990 to 994 had side-by-side barrels in a movement only 2.95mm thick. The power reserve of around 44-50 hours was respectable but not particularly impressive for a twin-barrel movement, although I'm sure that if R & D had continued on this movement this would have been substantially improved.And would have put many a modern movements to shame,from any manufacturer or brand even Rolex.

Now the main advantages of slower beat rates (18,000 , 19,800 and 21,600 ) are less immediate. Lower power needs allow for softer mainsprings, limiting stress and friction throughout the wheel train, winding train, and the escapement. Service intervals are longer and more flexible, and part wear replacements are negligible.But in general low beat movements will generally not perform as well as a fast-beat one, and while slow beat movements can perform very well it requires more skill and effort from the watchmaker to achieve and Rolex achieved that though the many years, through laborious positional adjustments and high quality movement parts . Now slow-beat is used primarily by manufactures of high-craft movements, most of whom consider today 21,600 BPH to the best.But most of these type of movements say Patek being quite delicate and can easily be put out of adjustment by the slightest Mal adjustment like say a small fall or big shocks.


Some of the advantages of fast-beat (28,800 v/h and 36,000 v/h) are obvious, better isochronism, and better performance in both vertical and horizontal positions even with minimal adjustment or no adjustment at all.This is one of the reasons fast-beat has been almost universally adopted by mass-producers.If you think of a how fast a quartz movement beats,while Mechanical watch usually have 28000 to 36000 beats per hour, which is 480 to 600 beats per minute (Hz), and therefore cannot compete with quartz watches that have around 4000 to 8000 beats per second (10 times faster).So in theory the mechanical High beat movement should be more accurate,with very little difference in over all power reserve, because they use a much stronger main spring.Now some say there is the possible extra wear factor in the Hi beat movement,but IMO as long as the recommend services are done,there is little or no difference,service is very important with any mechanical movement.

Now when Rolex's did the modification to the Zenith chronograph, where in addition to reducing the beat rate, they discarded the regulator and installed there own vastly larger Microstella balance wheel,and regulator.And when Zenith would not,or could not, supply the vast quantities Rolex needed, they was forced to design there first ever chrono movement the cal 4130 in 2000. Which although now quite old is still going strong today and basically unchanged.

This is short list of outstanding movements that should all easily achieve a daily consistency of five seconds or better on the wrist.All of the current Rolex calibers including the Cal 4130 this a outstanding chronograph movement with a excellent power reserve and one of the best around now. But there are many others in the same class accuracy wise but less power reserve.

The ETA 2892-A2, ETA 2824/2T chronometer grade, ETA Valjoux 7750,Unitas 6497/8,Omega 2500, JLC 889/2 , JLC 960, Longines 990 (Lemania 8815), PP 215, PP 240,now IMHO the Grand Seiko 430 is one of best movements ever made .Others like the Zenith 400,Zenith 670, GP 3100 all excellent movements, plus there are many more.Would not call any modern movement made today best,whats best in one persons eyes is better in another's.But most movements today even from Alpha to every day Seiko, Miyota and all the high end brands all have there place in today's horological world.

Thanks for sharing Peter! Love the 36,000 bph movement (cal 405Z) on my Zenith Flyback !








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enjoythemusic]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's Not a Time Piece, It's a Conversation Piece.

266550928_2321893894613645_256140126105445725_n.jpg

[Stan Cooper]

Originally Posted by padi56

If you think of a how fast a quartz movement beats,while Mechanical watch usually have 28000 to 36000 beats per hour, which is 480 to 600 beats per minute (Hz), and therefore cannot compete with quartz watches that have around 4000 to 8000 beats per second (10 times faster).

Peter, I love the article, but I think there's some confusion when comparing beat rates of mechanical movements to the oscillator frequency of typical quartz movements. While mechanical beat rates are expressed in beats (oscillations) per hour, the "beat rate" of quartz oscillators in quartz movements is expressed in cycles per second which is typically 32,768 Hz, or 32.768 kHz. The 28000 beats per hour is 7.8 beats per second, or Hz. So, the "beat rate" of a quartz movement is about 4200 times the beat rate of a 28000 bph mechanical movement.

[Golden Palomino]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

Peter, I love the article, but I think there's some confusion when comparing beat rates of mechanical movements to the oscillator frequency of typical quartz movements. While mechanical beat rates are expressed in beats (oscillations) per hour, the "beat rate" of quartz oscillators in quartz movements is expressed in cycles per second which is typically 32,768 Hz, or 32.768 kHz. The 28000 beats per hour is 7.8 beats per second, or Hz. So, the "beat rate" of a quartz movement is about 4200 times the beat rate of a 28000 bph mechanical movement.

Electronics designer here and builder of precision digital clocks. I would argue that the beat rate isn’t what determines the accuracy here. A balance wheel / escapement mechanism can be tuned (theoretically) to oscillate at exactly 2.5 Hz or 3 Hz or 4 or whatever. So timing down to that minimal precision will be equally accurate if perfectly tuned. (You tune a quartz crystal too, just by cutting it and then by loading it with capacitors). Beat rate directly affects precision but not accuracy, which is a meaningful distinction in timing (or any) measurement

Accuracy measured in ppm (a convenient universal metric for any beat rate) may be affected by noise or instability due to spring force or slop in the mechanism or temperature or impact etc. if different beat rates yield different noise impacts because of different construction, beat rate could indirectly affect accuracy that way, but on its own it doesn’t tell you about accuracy.

Quartz clocks tend to be more accurate because they don’t have moving parts, which contributes a lot to timing noise. Their timing isn’t affected by gravity (because propagating fields have no mass). Quartz crystals maintain stability over a wider temperature range, and there are signal feedback tricks that minimize that error further.

FWIW I do appreciate a slow beating mechanical timepiece. Mainly because I think the cadence at which the balance wheel beats and the spring pulses looks more visually appealing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[geoach]

Thank you Peter great info as always.