What makes a chronograph modular: Questions and Musings

[ifibrin]

This is a follow up post to https://www.watchrepairtalk.com/topic/20463-omega-9300-9900-watch-movement-construction/  where I was going into the movement architecture of the Omega 9300 chronograph.

I have been thinking about chronograph movements, and what makes a chronograph considered as integrated versus modular. In movements that are unambiguously considered as modular, such as the ETA 2894-2, the chronograph module has its own mainplate, and is directly attached on the dial side to the base movement.

More rarely, but done in the first automatic chronograph Caliber 11 by Heuer, the chronograph module (with its own mainplate) is attached on the balance cock side of the base movement.

In chronographs that are considered unambiguously integrated, such as the Omega 1861, the chronograph components are mounted on top of the barrel bridge, and further secured by a chronograph bridge.
This is the same in the ETA 7750. The Rolex 4130 has most of the chronograph components mounted on top of the train wheel bridge, but the column wheel and some other chronograph components are mounted on the mainplate; the chronograph components are secured by a chronograph bridge.

However, in the IWC monopusher 59360, this chronograph is generally described as modular, based on the IWC 59215.  In the IWC 59360, it appears to me that the chronograph components are directly mounted onto the barrel bridge and power reserve bridge (train wheel bridge appears to be directly under power reserve bridge), with a chronograph bridge to secure the components. The jewels/bearings common to both the 59360 and 59215 are circled in green, showing the relative positions of the underlying barrel bridge, power reserve bridge, and train wheel bridge.

In the 59360, coupling between the gear train and the chronograph train is achieved by an oscillating pinion, circled red. This seems quite similar to the 7750, in my opinion.

It appears to me, that the reason the IWC 59360 is considered modular is because it is based very much on a heavy modification of the existing 59215, with the movement architecture of the 59215 preserved almost entirely. The way the 59360 is built otherwise seems very much like other integrated chronographs, except that the 59360 has an underlying “core”  almost identical to the 59215.

What do you guys think? @nickelsilver @JohnR725 @watchweasol @Plato

Edited June 21, 2022 by ifibrin

[spectre6000]

I love these sorts of musings.

I wasn't tagged as, what I'm assuming are considered the experts here, and for good reason. It's an internet forum though, and what would it be without unrequested opinions?

Like most things, there's a spectrum of integration. On the "modular" side of the spectrum, you have plates that bolt onto existing movements with little to no modification whatsoever. On the "integrated" side, there are movements that may not even function without at least some parts of the chronograph section. For anything in between, the marketing department stumbles in shouting about page imprints, demographics, and product niches, spilling coffee all over everything, knocking piles of various schematics and correspondence into a shower of confusion, and generally making life miserable for everyone around them and all their loved ones and pets. Sorta like the "manufacture" movements where the spectrum runs the gamut of making everything from each wheel and spring all the way to "Hey! I made a stem!". Another good example would be "Swiss Made" meaning a spectrum from making everything from each wheel and spring all the way to "Hey! I got paid more than the cost of this whole movement to install this stem!".

TL;DR Marketing.

Edited June 21, 2022 by spectre6000

[grsnovi]

I thought @JohnR725 answered with his thoughts in your other thread:

"...in other words a company that makes modular chronograph movements independent of the watch company and then they're brought together..."

This would be my assumption as well. Company "A" buys the chronograph module from Company "B" (and like @spectre6000 I realize that I wasn't asked for an opinion but I've commented anyway so I'll watch the rest of the comments to see what other opinions emerge).

[ifibrin]

13 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

I love these sorts of musings.

I wasn't tagged as, what I'm assuming are considered the experts here, and for good reason. It's an internet forum though, and what would it be without unrequested opinions?

Like most things, there's a spectrum of integration. On the "modular" side of the spectrum, you have plates that bolt onto existing movements with little to no modification whatsoever. On the "integrated" side, there are movements that may not even function without at least some parts of the chronograph section. For anything in between, the marketing department stumbles in shouting about page imprints, demographics, and product niches, spilling coffee all over everything, knocking piles of various schematics and correspondence into a shower of confusion, and generally making life miserable for everyone around them and all their loved ones and pets. Sorta like the "manufacture" movements where the spectrum runs the gamut of making everything from each wheel and spring all the way to "Hey! I made a stem!". Another good example would be "Swiss Made" meaning a spectrum from making everything from each wheel and spring all the way to "Hey! I got paid more than the cost of this whole movement to install this stem!".

TL;DR Marketing.

Actually, I tagged those who were professional watchmakers, or who had posted or liked comments in my previous thread. You should take a look at it too, if you like these sort of musings! Thanks for your input!

I think whether a chronograph can be considered modular or not is how the chronograph components are attached to the entire movement, and not whether the movement can work without it. For example, Panerai made a 7750 without the chronograph components, but no one would consider a 7750 modular!

I think the easiest way to classify if a chronograph movement is integrated, is if the chronograph components are directly mounted onto either the  main plate, barrel bridge (most commonly), or train bridge, and further secured with a chronograph bridge.

A modular chronograph, in contrast, has the chronograph components mounted onto a chronograph module main plate, and this chronograph module main plate is bolted onto a base movement. The chronograph module main plate is also usually almost as large as the base movement. In a modular chronograph, the chronograph components are also secured to the chronograph module main plate by a chronograph bridge; in most cases, the chronograph module main plate is bolted dial side to the base movement.

What do you think?

 

11 hours ago, grsnovi said:

I thought @JohnR725 answered with his thoughts in your other thread:

"...in other words a company that makes modular chronograph movements independent of the watch company and then they're brought together..."

This would be my assumption as well. Company "A" buys the chronograph module from Company "B" (and like @spectre6000 I realize that I wasn't asked for an opinion but I've commented anyway so I'll watch the rest of the comments to see what other opinions emerge).

I agree that if Company A buys a chronograph module from Company B, and attaches it to another existing movement, it would be considered modular.

What made me think about this question was looking at reviews of the IWC 59360, which is a beautiful movement, and seeing that it’s called a modular chronograph.

When I went to read more about its construction and architecture, it appeared more like an integrated chronograph to me, so I went to investigate the movement architecture of chronographs that are considered as integrated. It appeared to me that the construction of a IWC 59360 is constructed/layered like an integrated chronograph, just that the underlying core movement had already been designed as the 59215.

See also the Panerai OP III.

Edited June 22, 2022 by ifibrin

[grsnovi]

1 hour ago, ifibrin said:

that the construction of a IWC 59360 is constructed/layered like an integrated chronograph, just that the underlying core movement had already been designed as the 59215

I haven't begun to consider working on a chronograph although I've watched others work on them. To me the fact that the 59215 had already been designed (and deployed?) suggests that the 59360 was/is modular. Since both were designed by IWC I would presume that they could have designed the 59215 with a later chronograph in mind making the final assembly appear much more closely integrated than the simple attachment of a fully modular chrono from another manufacturer.

I suspect at some point I'll begin my own ventures into chrono land however other than having a few, it's not like I have ever used one in real life...

[spectre6000]

Came up in my feed this morning, published yesterday. Pretty shallow, but excusably so since I imagine the audience are not watchmakers. Still, reminded me of this thread.

https://www.watchtime.com/featured/did-you-know-that-the-difference-between-a-modular-and-integrated-movement/