Do watch winders wear out your timepiece?

[fsprow]

Lots of questions about this but only anecdotal comments to address -e.g.

"My watch ran 15 years without a service and kept great time"
"Of course running a watch continuously on a winder makes it wear down faster - would you leave your car running?"
"Have used a winder for many years with no problems"

Having a materials science and engineering (MIT, Berkeley) background with a PhD, I tried to make some calculations to evaluate the matter. To make the story short I took the properties of several watch lubricants (Moebius 9010 and 8200, HP1000), hard to find in the German literature. Also I found some drawings which allowed me to determine the size of critical parts - and knowing their function was able to calculate the velocities of several critical parts. Knowing the materials involved (looked at stainless steel, titanium, platinum, alloy gold, carbon fiber), I could calculate the stress and strain on individual components and expected materials loss (wear). I looked at lubricant layers from 1-10 microns.

Overall, the stresses on lubricated watch mechanisms are vanishingly small compared for example to those in bearings of reciprocating equipment (e.g. auto engines). Wear rates are calculated to be extremely minimal. As for breakdown of lubricants, these modern oils (and greases) are stable over several decades.

I conclude using a watch winder (or in fact the opposite, leaving a watch unused) is very unlikely to make a watch need service more frequently. I would point out that leaving a surface poorly or excessively lubricated is very likely to have adverse consequences however, as too little lubrication could leave some surfaces exposed and too much could accumulate in places you don't want lubricated and lead to problems. Therefore, service by a highly skilled watchmaker who begins with complete cleaning and then knows where and how to lubricate should have a much bigger impact on wear than how the watch is used (or not used).

Hope this is helpful - or perhaps I have missed something.

[Etschell]

Running a watch causes friction. Perhaps being on a winder is not a big deal. But it is hard for me to believe a watch on a winder wears less than one not on a winder. For a daily it makes no difference. For a non daily it most certainly has to.

[pickettt]

Inasmuch as wearing it does.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Inasmuch as wearing it does.

Exactly this ^^^

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by Etschell

Running a watch causes friction. Perhaps being on a winder is not a big deal. But it is hard for me to believe a watch on a winder wears less than one not on a winder. For a daily it makes no difference. For a non daily it most certainly has to.

I did not say it "wears less". I said wear in either case is negligible over very long periods.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I did not say it "wears less". I said wear in either case is negligible over very long periods.

If it were negligible then watches wouldnt need service. It is the same as dailying a watch.

Service is both wear and timing based. So you are right it probably isn't going to lead to faster service intervals.

[fsprow]

A very good point - why do watches need service? Three possibilities:

1. Oil deteriorates in say 10 years or less (in other words, I am wrong).
2. Metal failure occurs (mainspring, other). If a significant problem, keeping a watch on a winder could indeed lead to earlier failure.
3. Wear from dirt or corrosion products in the movement due to water or dirt incursion from deteriorated seals and gaskets. I'm going to ask a watchmaker friend of mine in Dallas to save a small sample of the oils he can physically remove from movements before cleaning and I will put some in a Mass Spec to analyze for dirt (non organic content).

[MrJKLFoams]

Yes it does wear out. Its like all engine if you keep it running it will wear out easily.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by fsprow

A very good point - why do watches need service? Three possibilities:

1. Oil deteriorates in say 10 years or less (in other words, I am wrong).
2. Metal failure occurs (mainspring, other). If a significant problem, keeping a watch on a winder could indeed lead to earlier failure.
3. Wear from dirt or corrosion products in the movement due to water or dirt incursion from deteriorated seals and gaskets. I'm going to ask a watchmaker friend of mine in Dallas to save a small sample of the oils he can physically remove from movements before cleaning and I will put some in a Mass Spec to analyze for dirt (non organic content).

You forgot #4. Rolex makes money on every service, therefore ensuring their watches run top notch (most of the time) which just helps their brands image.

Also, with the amount of “is it safe to wear my watch in the shower?” And the like threads running around I believe most of those on this forum don’t want to hear their watch can be on a winder.

Normally I’m not one to put too much faith in engineers (no offense but I deal with them often and they always make major mistakes). That being said I think you’ve gone above and beyond in your experiment and as controversial as it is to many on this forum (we should both probably prepare to be flamed) I believe you are on the right side of the equation. Lots of people put these watches we wear on a pedestal, some have archaic thinking like comparing a watch movement to a car motor. Common sense says ones an internal combustion engine and the other is not so different wear patterns all together.

Ballsy post OP, I appreciate your style and am jealous of the spare time you had to analyze all of that data!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rebel]

I just wear my old vintage Tudor Submariner (black face/bezel) and service it when the timekeeping gets out of whack. It's been there and done that. My winder is my wrist and it hasn't worn it out yet.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by fsprow

Having a materials science and engineering (MIT, Berkeley) background with a PhD... or perhaps I have missed something?

I’m guessing you didn’t miss anything. At least nothing I’m going to find.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by Rebel

I just wear my old vintage Tudor Submariner (black face/bezel) and service it when the timekeeping gets out of whack. It's been there and done that. My winder is my wrist and it hasn't worn it out yet.

I often wonder when I should service mine. You hear different intervals mentioned. I’ve been wearing the same watch everyday since August 2016. In that time I’ve taken it off for over 8 hours maybe half a dozen times but it was still worn on those day for over half the day. The rest of the time it’s 24/7. It has never needed to be wound since the day I bought it and averages -.5 seconds a day. I guess I’ll use your method to know when to service it since I don’t see a reason to send it in if it running properly.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by fsprow

. . .
I conclude using a watch winder (or in fact the opposite, leaving a watch unused) is very unlikely to make a watch need service more frequently.. . .

Hope this is helpful - or perhaps I have missed something.

A watch that is running is incurring wear, a watch that is not running is incurring zero wear.

I conclude that a watch on a winder will wear out, and need service more frequently, than a watch left alone.

[bmb15]

A general principle in mechanics: more movement, more friction, more wear ... question answered.

[fsprow]

At the risk of being repetitive, the question I have tried to address is not - does running a watch create more wear - but rather, considering the quality of lubricants and the extremely low load a watch imposes on its components is the wear difference significant? I conclude likely not.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by fsprow

At the risk of being repetitive, the question I have tried to address is not - does running a watch create more wear - but rather, considering the quality of lubricants and the extremely low load a watch imposes on its components is the wear difference significant? I conclude likely not.

Makes sense

[Blansky]

Using watch winders definitely cause more wear on the watch winder. They wear out/break/die.

As for the watch, for me it's a non issue. I don't need one because I don't have any perpetual calendars that would be a pain to restart. If I did I'd use a winder.

Everything else is pretty speculative. Some watches need repair pretty often and some last forever without service.

Kind of a crap shoot.

Besides, my watches are only probably worn for less than 5 days a month each.

I think the question more people debate is do I send my watch in for service every X number of years, or do I wait and send it in when it's misbehaving? I'm in the misbehaving camp.

I get that engineers minds work in this type of scientific testing but lets say you were billionaire and bought 6 Rolex Subs. 2 were worn every day in a non abusive manner. 2 were worn only 5 days a month and allowed to run down, and 2 were left on winders the entire time. What would you expect the breakdown, need service rate to be??

I'm guessing it would be all over the map.

[padi56]

The only winder I have ever needed in over 50 years of Rolex wearing is the two attached to my arms called wrists.

[fsprow]

And wrists have many attributes other than watch winding:
- Writing
- Reading
- Holding chin while thinking
- Eating
- Drinking
- Fistfights

Clearly multi-functional

[bmb15]

Originally Posted by fsprow

Lots of questions about this but only anecdotal comments to address -e.g.

"My watch ran 15 years without a service and kept great time"
"Of course running a watch continuously on a winder makes it wear down faster - would you leave your car running?"
"Have used a winder for many years with no problems"

Having a materials science and engineering (MIT, Berkeley) background with a PhD, I tried to make some calculations to evaluate the matter. To make the story short I took the properties of several watch lubricants (Moebius 9010 and 8200, HP1000), hard to find in the German literature. Also I found some drawings which allowed me to determine the size of critical parts - and knowing their function was able to calculate the velocities of several critical parts. Knowing the materials involved (looked at stainless steel, titanium, platinum, alloy gold, carbon fiber), I could calculate the stress and strain on individual components and expected materials loss (wear). I looked at lubricant layers from 1-10 microns.

Overall, the stresses on lubricated watch mechanisms are vanishingly small compared for example to those in bearings of reciprocating equipment (e.g. auto engines). Wear rates are calculated to be extremely minimal. As for breakdown of lubricants, these modern oils (and greases) are stable over several decades.

I conclude using a watch winder (or in fact the opposite, leaving a watch unused) is very unlikely to make a watch need service more frequently. I would point out that leaving a surface poorly or excessively lubricated is very likely to have adverse consequences however, as too little lubrication could leave some surfaces exposed and too much could accumulate in places you don't want lubricated and lead to problems. Therefore, service by a highly skilled watchmaker who begins with complete cleaning and then knows where and how to lubricate should have a much bigger impact on wear than how the watch is used (or not used).

Hope this is helpful - or perhaps I have missed something.

First one I see here who approaches this topic scientifically, I like that. Show us some of your calculations or, even better, some summarizing plots of your analysis, please.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by joli160

Makes sense

X2!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Tools

A watch that is running is incurring wear, a watch that is not running is incurring zero wear.

I conclude that a watch on a winder will wear out, and need service more frequently, than a watch left alone.

Seems obvious to me as well.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by padi56

The only winder I have ever needed in over 50 years of Rolex wearing is the two attached to my arms called wrists.

Agree. Reason why I wear 2 at home.

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by bmb15

First one I see here who approaches this topic scientifically, I like that. Show us some of your calculations or, even better, some summarizing plots of your analysis, please.

Will do. Now in Zimbabwe, and on return to Dallas will work it up as its on my big computer there.

Best, Frank

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Inasmuch as wearing it does.

Originally Posted by brandrea

Exactly this ^^^

This- I mean, these

[tritium8]

Originally Posted by fsprow

A very good point - why do watches need service? Three possibilities.

Four.

You smash your watch cleaning out your sewer line.

[Rock]

Well Done, Frank.
Nice to see a different (science-based) approach to this perennial topic.

The 'elephant in the room' here is the wear & tear on the Crown due to constant re-setting of watches after they run down. I would have said that there is much higher load/strain on the Crown components during this process than on a constantly running mechanism serviced at the appropriate points.

[mrricks]

Originally Posted by Rock

Well Done, Frank.
Nice to see a different (science-based) approach to this perennial topic.

The 'elephant in the room' here is the wear & tear on the Crown due to constant re-setting of watches after they run down. I would have said that there is much higher load/strain on the Crown components during this process than on a constantly running mechanism serviced at the appropriate points.

Agree.
Just my own personal speculation, but I’d say a Rolex with some “magical” lube could run hundreds of years with very little noticeable wear.
The parts are made of superior materials and there probably isn’t much stress on them.
Bas, what’s your professional observation?

[fsprow]

Indeed. Also, extensive use of the crown may wear the gaskets around the crown and allow contaminants, especially moisture, to enter. A good reason to test water tightness during or between routine services.

[Burlington]

I await the data & evidence which shall be provided.

Without experimental data, or proof to the contrary this remains a hypothesis in my book of science.

One other important factor which must be considered and also touched upon by the OP is the affect of non mechanical deterioration such as oxidation - this can cause serious damage to objects without any other ‘physical’ forces.