Independents

Despite winning at the Prix Gaïa for “Entrepreneurship” in 2009 and the Aiguille d’Or for best overall watch at the Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève in 2010, winning at the newly established Chronometry Competition (http://www.concourschronometrie.org/2013/FR/index.php) meant more to Robert and Stephen than any other. These days, something of an anachronistic event, the Chronometry Competition harked back a half-century or more, when watches were racing machines in an endurance duel against the heavens. The earth’s rotation on its celestial path was the only known immovable timing device that kept time to the minute and second. Observatory timing contests were the horology equivalents of Grand Prix auto racing and the major watch firms of the day spent considerable resources on developing a winning watch. When Greubel Forsey had started off their fledgling enterprise, one of the first units they established was the EWT (Experimental Watch Technology). The EWT was designed to bring experimental conditions to the implementation of new inventions so the watchmakers could know the difference an invention made and if it improved chronometric performance. (http://general.watchprosite.com/show-nblog.post/ti-506881/fi-662/). As part of the EWT process, Robert and Stephen developed their own series of timing tests for the watches containing their inventions.

This message has been edited by 219 on 2013-03-28 12:50:27 This message has been edited by 219 on 2013-03-28 12:50:48 This message has been edited by MTF on 2013-04-03 00:50:46

Observatory competitions, before the quartz crisis had been the endurance car-racing equivalent for the watch industry. An often drawn analogy with the automotive world would be to think of the Observatory tests as being akin to the Le Mans 24 Hours. Only the difference here is that you cannot work on the watch during the racing. You can only pre-test as much as possible, but as the Observatory tests are being conducted, you can only hope that the watch both survives, and does not drop too many points. The observatories were the keepers of the time of day. They knew when the sun would rise and the heavens would disappear and then re-appear. At a certain longitude and latitude, given the earth’s distance and rotational speed, sunrise, sunset, and the pattern of the heavens would be computable to an exact hour, minute, and second.



The idea for Observatory timing contests was initially instigated through a competition held at the observatory at Greenwich, London, England, in 1766. The reasons were fairly straightforward: if you had an accurate chronometer you could navigate across the world with greater precision. The determination of longitude (and where you were on the planet) required exact timing. Both the Royal Navy in England and the Navy in France offered substantial cash prizes to the timing competitions to encourage the development of marine chronometers and to find and acquire the most accurate versions on the market! The first chronometer competitions began in Geneva around 1790, but it was not until about 80 years later (in 1873) that the annual timing competitions were instigated for pocket chronometers. The international acceptance of the competitions was seen with the annual competitions being held at the Kew Observatory from 1884, and then subsequently in the following years at Besançon, Neuchâtel, Hamburg and Washington. In all instances a points system was adopted, computed via a weighted sum, although unfortunately there was no standardized system between the observatories. Unlike current timing tests organised by MIH (Musée International d'Horlogerie) and COSC (Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres), in cooperation with the Swiss Society of Chronometry, the Observatory of Besançon, and the Haute-Ecole ARC Ingénierie, the past timing competitions would last for anywhere between 30 and 50 days! Points were deducted according to a weighted sum that was based on a variety of factors such heat, position, and shocks.
This message has been edited by 219 on 2013-03-28 12:46:07

Despite being a late entrant into the 2009 Chronometry Competition, the Greubel Forsey Quadruple Tourbillon still acquitted itself with honours. Where as some entrants had spent time and resources preparing watches for the competition, the Greubel Forsey watch had simply been pulled out of the finished watches and sent to the competition to be entered. No special work, no consideration of the difference in tests between the EWT and the Chronometry Competition test description, and no testing before the watch was sent. Stephen Forsey admitted that this was perhaps not the best way to have entered, but their entry had been decided on at the last moment, and at least that way Greubel Forsey would have an understanding of how the watch would perform under a different set of tests.



For such a small firm, where the total annual production of watches lies in the eighties, and not thousands; and where the production on any watch line lies in the teens, the decision to pull one or two watches was (and is) a considerable one. The Greubel Forsey Quadruple Tourbillon did not win the 2009 competition; but then the watch did not fail either. It completed the course of tests and although it lost points on the way, time keeping remained excellent. Greubel Forsey learned from the experience: what was required for the watch to be timed to face a different set of tests, and the two watchmakers set about ensuring a more complete preparation for the next competition two years hence.



Back in 2009, when the Quadruple Tourbillon did not win, Robert and Stephen could have complained. They could have pointed out a number of differences between the measures used by the MIH and the Chronometry test organisers and their own EWT tests. But then, that would not be the Greubel Forsey way of going about a problem. If Greubel Forsey were to stand by their claim, that the double tourbillon really did improve the chronometric performance of a watch, then the knowledge that was part of the EWT process should be able to adapt to the different rules for the Chronometry Competition. And so after the results of the 2009 competition, with the task of winning upper most in their minds, Robert and Stephen decided to commit resources to both understand the Observatory tests from the past, as well as the Chronometry Competition today, and learn how to adapt their movement to stand a chance at winning the competition.

For the 2011 Chronometry Competition, and with some time to prepare, Greubel Forsey went about being rigorous in their preparation, understand the tests, and adjust a watch accordingly. As a precursor, and as a way to answer critics who had previously questioned their methods, the EWT tests and weighting were published (http://www.concourschronometrie.org/2013/FR/download/Reglement-EN.pdf) and Greubel Forsey went about understanding how the various elements for the MIH testing would affect the watch. This time, the watch selected from the Greubel Forsey line up was the Double Tourbillon a Technique. It was selected with a couple of criteria in mind. First, the 30-degree double tourbillon had been Greubel Forsey’s first invention, and as such they understood the dynamics and engineering of this escapement better than any other. Second, the power reserve for the Double Tourbillon Technique was 120 hours (although it is probably longer) given that there are four winding barrels linked in series. As the timing tests are only 24 hours before each successive winding of the watch, the rate of expansion in the main springs would be monotonic (consistent) and uniform across the 24 hour period. (This is one of the differences between the EWT and the MIH tests: the EWT tests accuracy across the complete unwinding of the power reserve and not the shorter 24 hour duration).



The whole process for the 2011 competition started with reserving one of two different Double Tourbillon Technique watches from the regular production. Once again, a considerable decision in that it represented a significant percentage of annual production. Competition preparation was a long and labour intensive process. The watch was adjusted, then tested, and results analysed; a new adjustment, and so on, and so on. Testing was undertaken in the newly assembled ‘Labo’ (with EWT equipment) and the adjusting and testing continued until the Greubel Forsey team felt the watch was ready for competition.

Greubel Forsey were putting their watches where their claims were! That they could show that the Double Tourbillon 30 degree (as described: one cage rotating at a four minute cycle; one cage rotating at a one-minute cycle; and the escapement inclined at 30 degrees to the vertical) improved the chronometric performance of the watch throughout the five measuring positions. Added into the mix would be the anti-magnetic and shock tests that previously had not been part of the Observatory tests, but now had to be accommodated in regulating a watch for the MIH Chronometry Competition.


[The winning team: left: Olivier Steiner – Project manager and Head of the ‘Labo’ (Laboratory); middle: Stephen Forsey (Robert Greubel and Emmanuel Vuille are missing); right: Frédéric Rüfenacht - Precision timing specialist].

The degree of difficulty in the tests gives weight to different aspects of watches performance under different conditions. First, there is the variation in location. The first test is held at Besancon, the second at Bienne (COSC), the watches are then delivered to an engineering school for the shock and magnetism tests, and given they are still running, they are delivered back to Bienne (COSC) for a final third set of (15 day) timing tests. The complete set of timing tests are in the five positions for the watch on the wrist over a total of 45 days.


[The ‘Labo’ room at Greubel Forsey]

The nature of the tests are such that a variation of +/- 2 seconds a day would be sufficient to see the watch finish so far down the list that it would never win. Alternatively, another way of gauging just how accurate the watches need to be, a single variation of 5 seconds a day (at any point over the course of the tests) would be sufficient to knock the score down to an unrecoverable position. Out of 1000 points that you start with, it is the watch that loses the least points, that is the winner. The time variation of +/- 2 seconds a day (throughout the course of the tests) would be sufficient to see the watch lose approximately 700 points and be placed far down the list. The winning score for the Greubel Forsey Double Tourbillon Technique in 2011 was 915. What does that translate into the variation in seconds (on average) across the 45 days of the testing? It translates into a variation of +/- 0.3 to +/– 0.8 seconds a day. To put that number in perspective, it is the kind of variation quoted in the more accurate of the quartz chronometers when worn normally on the wrist (with no abnormal or adverse shocks or other treatments). An astounding degree of accuracy!

This message has been edited by 219 on 2013-03-28 14:32:29

Given all the research that Greubel Forsey undertook on Observatory timing competitions from the past, in understanding the factors that were important to escapement timing adjusters, would the Double Tourbillon Technique beat all comers if it was possible to assemble all the great watches and calibres over time? It is difficult to compare timing competition tests over time, however, from the formulas that Greubel Forsey found in the archives, if the timing data is entered and a score computed, the Double Tourbillon Technique would out score all! It is only a hypothetical, as there is always a degree of uncertainty in competition, but the results are illustrative of how escapement design and time keeping have moved forward.



Technology may have caught up with the tourbillon. The need for precision in the manufactured parts, that makes the tourbillon a more precise chronometric device, has only become possible in recent years through dedicated research by a number of firms. Although in the earlier Observatory competitions, the regular balance wheel would stand the same chance as the tourbillon, recent results suggest that the tourbillon now stands as a more precise escapement. I have heard this, not just from Robert and Stephen, but other watchmakers at other firms with complex tourbillon escapement designs. Correctly adjusted, the multi-axis tourbillon is the superior escapement.



As the latest MIH Chronometry Competition rolls around again, there is still resistance from the watch industry. Where are some of the ‘big guns’ of the haute horologerie world who make claims and yet are unwilling to enter an independent competition, where all rules are known, and where all the watches are on an equal footing? For all their concentration on decoration and technique, Greubel Forsey watches are also shown, against all the other watches entered, to be the reigning champions. Past glories are just that: yesterday’s news.



The competition is being held again this year and Greubel Forsey will submit a watch. They will take their chances against the other watches that are entered. This time around, and perhaps because of “unfinished business”, Greubel Forsey will enter the Quadruple tourbillon again. Only this time, it will be in the form of the Invention Piece 2 (http://ahci.watchprosite.com/show-forumpost/fi-16/pi-4839378/ti-734788/s-0/). When I interviewed Stephen about the watch, and from the initial tests at the EWT, he wondered if (with the second double tourbillon inverted), the IP2 watch would be slightly more accurate that the original Quadruple tourbillon. I guess Robert and Stephen have decided to put this to the test!



I have to confess that I believe that this is what haute horologerie should be about. Designing, inventing, and manufacturing watches that improve chronometric performance: not just on a one-off as the Observatory competition pieces once were, but in the general production of watches that are sold to collectors. In preparing for the 2009 competition, Jaeger LeCoultre learned in testing that the balance wheel in their watches had to be altered. This alteration then became part of their regular production. There was learning that was translated into regular production watches that improve chronometric performance. Watches do not have to be dull in design, the Greubel Forsey Double Tourbillon Technique is arguably one of the most impressive watch designs of the last decade, and yet for all the innovative design, this is still a watch that tells the time accurately. There is still innovation, but there is improved time keeping. Surely this must be the best of all worlds.

Andrew H

From a previous competition I know that the entries were kept secret, by agreement, for a certain period of time, but were free to reveal their own name and test results. before then. This message has been edited by amerix on 2013-03-29 10:07:44

for each individual firm to reveal their own results if they wish. Hence, I do not know the others involved and I do not know the test scores. I only know that GF came top with the score of 915.

It should be interesting this time around. Good to see the likes of GF and Chopard back in the fray once again.

Thanks

Andrew H

I think it is an excellent idea to organize them, like it was the case in the past. Indeed, when the last one was organized? in the mid Fifties?

The new Chronometry Contests brought another answer than yours, Andrew, about the superiority of multi axis tourbillons on the classic tourbillon.

If you remember well, in 2009, JLC won the 2 first places at the Chronometry Contest, but the first one was not the one we could have thought about...

It was the " simple " Master Tourbillon, while the Gyrotourbillon was a very close second.

It seems logical than a multi axis tourbillon may have superior results, when you compare them in a static way, I mean when the was is not worn on the wrist.

But if the watch is worn,  I wonder if  the movements of the wrist don't compensate the difference with a multi axis tourbillon.

And to go further, is the Tourbillon the best way to reach accuracy?

Hmmm....

Thanks for this superbly written and illustrated article, Andrew.

Best,

Nicolas

 

 

more senior watchmakers told me about the 2009 competition. Let me just say that the multi-axis tourbillon is rated as the more accurate and there are reasons!

I would love to see more publicity given to these competitions. They are the very nature of watchmaking as far as I am concerned, and any firm that pursues victory in this competition has my respect.

Hoping that the competition has a larger number of entrants this time around.

Thanks

Andrew H

But where I differ a bit from your point is that, from what I saw, the most important detail is the setting ( reglage / mise au point, in french ) of the movement.

A multi axis tourbillon, if you take the JLC one, was second to a better set Master Tourbillon.

And the scary thing is that I saw sveral Vintage Rolex amazingyl accurate. One gained 5 seconds in one month!

Ok, there are variations, one day it gains, the other day it runs slower, but at the end of the month, it gained 5 seconds!

There is a lot to say, learn and discuss here!

Best, my friend.

Nicolas.

in JLC that the Gyro2, correctly set, is more accurate watch. Although in competition, the single axis Master tourbillon won.

But true - would be great to see a more extensive discussion and number of entrants in the competition.

Cheers!

Andrew H

...and reporting from you, Andrew.  While their watches have not always been to my taste from a design standpoint, I have always been highly impressed by the thought processes and innovation that Greubel Forsey put forth in their timepieces. 

I wish them success in future competitions!

Cheers,
Daos

designs are to my taste either, but the chronometric performance, finishing, and ethos of the company put GF at the very highest level of watchmaking.

For my tastes the 24 second is THE GF watch, but that's my choice!

Thanks

Andrew H

And apparently it's not only got great looks, but great performance as well.  Beauty more than skin deep.  

. . . the tight ∆ between the derived high and low rates, but that those rates are measured over the span of the power reserve of the movement.  Since the barrels are connected in series, there must be a point in the transition between one barrel and another where the torque is not linear.  In other words, the level of accuracy is all the more impressive when taking into consideration the mechanical complexity of the power train.  It's one thing to create and regulate a movement to a high level of accuracy, and another to achieve that level of performance over an extended period.

Not impressive, more like under 5s/y. BTW do high scores at these competitions translate to better chronometric behavior on the wrist?

that the chronometric improvement would be realisable on an everyday watch. Using standard components, finished to the highest degree, and through innovation and invention, the performance of the "everyday" watch would be improved. Hardly everyday watches, admittedly, but the concept of testing so that the improvements do not need special materials or are only good for a short duration, is the ethos behind the EWT and the GF approach.

As far as I know the COSC average daily rate standard for officially certified COSC quartz chronometers is about ± 26 seconds per year. Hence, at the better end of the GF range. But still impressive for a mechanical movement against the quartz!

Andrew H

It is a very important win. After all, we hear very often that Tourbillons and complex systems are not really more efficient in terms of accuracy than  let's say  low frequency movements with large balances... Greubel Forsey gives here a proof that their approach can lead to impressive results.

That's the most fascinating side about watchmaking: different and sometimes opposite options to achieve the same goal.

Having said that, I have to confess that I love the Technique. It is a wonderful watch, the architecture of the movement is key part of the design.



I really think that Greubel Forsey should deliver a "bulletin de marche" for each watch they sell.

Thanks a lot Andrew!

Fx

to have a EWT Bulletin de Marche with the watches. However, all GF watches leave La Chaux de Fonds with same degree of testing and timekeeping ability because of the philosophy behind GF: that the innovations are practicable and repeatable.

But there is still something so tangible to that 'Bulletin de Marche' piece of paper!

Andrew H

Hi Andrew,

many thanks. Completely agree.

Andrew H

Andrew:

Thanks for the most comprehensive report on-line about this Greubel Forsey Chronometry Competition Story.

I was a sceptical person.  My profession as a medical researcher demands it.

With Greubel Forsey, I have come to realise that they put their reputation on the front line and have proven their technology. Like LeMans 24-hour racing, the endurance and reliability counts for as much as spurts of precision.

The same spirit prevails at Chopard (LUC) with Mr Karl-Friedrich Scheufele insisting they enter with their standard single-cage tourbillon. 

The standard LUC tourbillon could not beat Greubel Forsey multi-axis technology but came 2nd in 2011. 

The Chopard L.U.C “Tourbillon Tech Twist All Black”, Cal. L.U.C. 4TBSTSI was the best single tourbillon watch that survived. That was an improvement from the previous contest when Chopard finished 3rd by one point!

In the 2009 Contest, some famous names "crashed and burned" on the reliability front but we are not allowed to name them  

In 2011 Contest, some of those that entered in 2009 invoked "masterly inactivity" to avoid bad publicity  

 

I am a simple man, so my favourite Greubel Forsey watch is unobtainable...its a prototype and no  fancy multi-axis tourbillon.   EWT Prototype SF  

 

 

 

If I had to CHOOSE a multiple-tourbillon model, this Greubel Forsey Double Tourbillon 30 Degrees is a subtle colour combination....Nice symmetrical case shape too.

Regards,

MTF

This message has been edited by MTF on 2013-03-31 04:12:43

up under competitive conditions! I have seen the list.

By the same token, as I admire the approach and ethos of GF and JLC, I also admire both the competitive spirit and the design and aesthetics of the Chopard tourbillon watches. It speaks volumes for Mr Karl-Friedrich Scheufele and Chopard that they continue to take part with the single axis tourbillon and finish so high up the list.

And some more good news: that GF watch you admire, it was released in a special edition of 6 EWT watches. I know of one still available if you are interested!

Thanks

Andrew H

is just one more good reason to spend lots of time here at PuristS and maybe that´s why it is so addictive - the forum & the watches from GF.

I was not a fan from day one, but once you saw it in the metal and tried it on your wrist ... it gets really dangerous

















Hard to forget that experience and even harder to get one of these marvels, but at least I got something really nice to dream about




To stick with GF and the topic of the day: Happy Eastern, to all of you!




Andrew, thanks for sharing!

Oliver

but beyond my reach. So for me, dream machines, and that is where they will stay: out of reach and the stuff of fantasy!

Andrew H

Graphically the work achieveed looked impressive...At least GF was never afraid to show the results of their research.

It is great to see tem continue to improve and fine tune a concept to its max potential.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Andrew and GF team for giving us this background story.

Mike

has slowly been unravelled!

Andrew H

.. the brands that pursue utmost accuracy.  And GF seems to be one of them.  I would keep an eye on the brand.  Thank you for the report, Andrew!

Ken

.