F.P. Journe

skyeriding
900

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Many thanks Magnus,

A quick remark - I wrote this purely off mechanical logic and some math, so I could be entirely wrong on the precision part. A watchmaker would be way more credible to verify that!
In the case of the Piguet 1185, since it comes in both variants of monopusher or standard, the column wheel first has to be the same size in either configuration. Additionally, the operating lever/pusher will rotate the column wheel the same amount in both cases. Hence indeed, is why the monopusher would require 2/3 the pillars of the standard given the design constraints.
In theory, monopushers could be designed with equal force requirements with a regular chronograph, however will require more force than specifically, flybacks. This is because when starting the chrono, the column wheel also has the additional task of moving the (spring-loaded) reset hammers out of the way - thus, requiring more force. In a regular chronograph this happens too; the column will will cock the reset hammers into the "armed" position - only to be released later during reset by a latch. However, a flyback chronograph's column wheel does not interact with the reset hammers at all - only the force of the reset pusher will do that. Thus, I'm led to believe that the chronographs with the softest force requirements are all flyback chronographs...
Regards,
skyeriding

Site Info.