The issue with Speedys that no one seems to talk about

[Oat Willy]

I'm talking about the initial jump the seconds hand does one in every 5 or so times you engage the stopwatch, which is due to the movement being a cams chrono vs a vertical clutch/column wheel.

I've known that they do this but was reminded of it this weekend when I went into an Omega boutique and checked out the new 3861 Speedy for the first time, and it did the big skip on my first try of activating the stopwatch.

I just don't understand how Nasa certified it with this obvious flaw that makes the timing function so unreliable.

I guess it would be fine on a cheap/budget chronograph, although even then it would be debatable how acceptable it is. But on a high-end watch, that a lot of watch geeks claim is the 'greatest chronograph of all time'?? I cringe every time I see some watch youtuber proclaiming that in one of their vids LOL.

I just don't get it man. I don't get why Omega hasn't done a modern/updated/evolved version of the original 321 movement, or some other column wheel/vertical clutch type. They had the chance when they decided do an update from the 1861. All the hooplah about this brilliant new 3861 movement, and the stupid thing still skips! LOL. Breitling addressed the issue with their Navitimers and the B01 movement. Wonder why Omega is so slack on it, and how it's acceptable to Nasa!

[Jim M]

because it has never happened to me on the 60s and 70s models i have owned including MKII models.

[AEC]

Originally Posted by Oat Willy

...I guess it would be fine on a cheap/budget chronograph, although even then it would be debatable how acceptable it is. But on a high-end watch...

It's not a high-end watch. Its design and construction puts reliability and serviceability above sophistication and precision.

[sportsfan0704]

Originally Posted by AEC

It's not a high-end watch. Its design and construction puts reliability and serviceability above sophistication and precision.

Great point. Plus, the bottom line is that a watch is for telling the time above all else. My 3861 speedy was +1 seconds per day, if that, which is amazing. I think thats way more important than a stutter on the chrono hand that I never noticed in my time owning it. Plus, timing on a chrono really comes down to the hours/minutes for MOST people. I don’t think a lot of people are utilizing the tacymeter/know how to even use it. Perhaps those people could go for the 321 or another chrono without this problem, assuming they notice it.

[omar-rye]

“ Although it’s generally accepted that a movement with a column-wheel activation system and a vertical clutch is more accurate and sophisticated than one with cams and levers, in practice, this distinction is merely academic. They are different technical approaches to a common goal. That’s the heart of all chronographs: the idea is that they work well, reliably, and repeatedly, no matter how they achieve it. In real life, one approach is just as practical as the other. And therein lies another charm of chronographs.”

“ If the crew of the Apollo 13 were not quibbling about the mechanism that was inside Swigert’s Omega Speedmaster in a life-or-death situation, we should not be splitting hairs either…. Not too much, anyway.”

https://revolutionwatch.com/rules-ch...ph-engagement/

[Oat Willy]

Originally Posted by AEC

It's not a high-end watch. Its design and construction puts reliability and serviceability above sophistication and precision.

OK fine, but if it's not about precision how does it get a Nasa cert? And btw this new speedy is the first in awhile where the beat rate and millisecond markings match up. How did the previous iteration that had the inaccurate markings pass at Nasa??

[Oat Willy]

Originally Posted by AEC

It's not a high-end watch.

it's high-end enough

[sportsfan0704]

Originally Posted by Oat Willy

OK fine, but if it's not about precision how does it get a Nasa cert? And btw this new speedy is the first in awhile where the beat rate and millisecond markings match up. How did the previous iteration that had the inaccurate markings pass at Nasa??

I don’t think that was the main reason NASA was certifying it back in the 60s

[Oat Willy]

Originally Posted by sportsfan0704

I don’t think that was the main reason NASA was certifying it back in the 60s

back in the 60's the speedy had a column wheel/vertical clutch movement, so no skipping. The skipping happened with the cam movements that came later, but the cam movements were approved by Nasa also.

[logo]

Originally Posted by Oat Willy

back in the 60's the speedy had a column wheel/vertical clutch movement, so no skipping. The skipping happened with the cam movements that came later, but the cam movements were approved by Nasa also.

Don’t confuse NASA certification with chronometer/chronograph certification. The NASA criteria was finding a watch that could survive space, period. The Speedmaster 321 was the only one that passed. Later, the 861 movement also passed.

The chrono worked perfectly well for timing the 14 second Apollo 13 burn, and the 861 watches were used for decades and even currently still I believe part of standard equipment issue by the Russians. The watches are rock solid for what their intended use is in space.

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by Oat Willy

back in the 60's the speedy had a column wheel/vertical clutch movement, so no skipping. The skipping happened with the cam movements that came later, but the cam movements were approved by Nasa also.

You might want to look up the difference between horizontal (321) and vertical clutch systems...

[Oat Willy]

Originally Posted by logo

The chrono worked perfectly well for timing the 14 second Apollo 13 burn

it's a good thing the watch didn't skip that one time, or who knows where they may have landed...antarctica? the middle of the amazon? bouncing down the side of a mountain? missing the earth entirely? There was a 1 in 5 chance of a skip happening. Luck was on their side at that particular instance

[Gebbeth]

Whenever someone says "certification" or "certified" the real question is what were the requirements in the certification.

If the certification has nothing to do with the chronograph functions, then that might be your answer. Or if there was a chronograph requirement, the certification may have been to be accurate within 1 second per 1 hour of use....or something like that.

Anyway, if a cam operated, horizontal clutch, seconds jumping issue causes concern, there are many many models that use this architecture. Also, Richard Mille uses Dubois Depraz chronograph modules there the minute hand apparently jumps, so there's that.

[bonovox]

Almost 20 years on now with my speedy. Never seen what the OP is referring to. Not saying it isn't there, but buy what you like.

[Dirt]

The suite of tests that NASA applied never addressed the chrono functionality. It was focused on the survivability of the watch as a whole.
I imagine they assumed that asong as the watch was running, the chrono would work. Drilling into the concept of testing the chrono for reliability would be an absolute rabbit hole.
It has to be seen against the backdrop that everything these military people were using for the whole of their professional lives was tested and approved through the application of military standards.
As Astronaughts they were using various watches from different brands and there was no uniformity or standard applied and they were puting their lives on the line and placing a high degree of trust in each other and the equip.ent they used.
The Astronaughts were seeking a degree of uniformity with regard to the watches they were using and drove the approval process.
The end result was the Speedy won out in a conclusive manner. It also happened to be the case that a number of the Astronaughts were already preferring the watch and using them personally.
After approval, it naturally became standard issue just as it is for every aspect of their profession even down to how a toilet roll is placed on the toilet roll holder.

As a result, Omega embraced the opportunity and improved the watch design to better accommodate the needs of Astronaughts in the programs that culminated in Apollo and the moon landings then on to MIR, the ISS and by extention the STS.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by bonovox

Almost 20 years on now with my speedy. Never seen what the OP is referring to. Not saying it isn't there, but buy what you like.

I've seen it, but regard it as totally immaterial.
After all who has the abilty or necessity to measure such a small time interval or have to factor in any imprecision over a number of seconds(for example 14 of them) or a greater number adding up to minutes or hours?
If one needs more precision, then go with digital or a computer.
To that, Armstrong's watch was used to replace the LM's clock after it failed. Even if they were using the chrono, it wouldn't have affected the functionality.
The watch wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of that tragic onboard fire during a test in an oxygen enriched environment, nor would it have made any difference to the outcomes of the tragic STS disasters.
My point being there are a countless other things to worry about, especially in that pursuit that are incalculable that can have more profound outcomes that don't involve a chrono hand micro jump

[AJMarcus]

Originally Posted by AEC

It's not a high-end watch. Its design and construction puts reliability and serviceability above sophistication and precision.

Precisely. And it literally is timeless. No pun intended.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by logo

Don’t confuse NASA certification with chronometer/chronograph certification. The NASA criteria was finding a watch that could survive space, period. The Speedmaster 321 was the only one that passed. Later, the 861 movement also passed.

The chrono worked perfectly well for timing the 14 second Apollo 13 burn, and the 861 watches were used for decades and even currently still I believe part of standard equipment issue by the Russians. The watches are rock solid for what their intended use is in space.

Originally Posted by Travelller

You might want to look up the difference between horizontal (321) and vertical clutch systems...

Originally Posted by Oat Willy

it's a good thing the watch didn't skip that one time, or who knows where they may have landed...antarctica? the middle of the amazon? bouncing down the side of a mountain? missing the earth entirely? There was a 1 in 5 chance of a skip happening. Luck was on their side at that particular instance

You still don’t get it

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

Precisely. And it literally is timeless. No pun intended.

Agreed.
It's a tool watch that has basically stayed true to its legacy.