# Questions about ETA C07 (Powermatic 80, H-10, etc.)



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

I've seen a lot of talk about these new movements and there seems to be a lot of opinion going around. I'm not wanting to make this a rant thread. I'm just hoping to get some facts from experts to hopefully make us more educated and help us draw our own conclusions about these things. I also want this to be specific to the C07 stuff and don't want to confuse things by talking about the SISTEM/Swissmatic movements, which to me are different products with a different philosophy and purpose.

A few questions...

What exactly was changed on the 2824 to make it into the C07?

What, if any, are the differences between the C07 movements (Powermatic 80 vs. H-10 vs. any others)?

How do the changes impact the serviceability and potential longevity of these movements?

What is a free-sprung balance and what is its benefit?

I know Tissot still has a few models (Visodate, Automatics III, Le Locle small seconds) that come with the old fashioned ETA movements. Is this because the Powermatic 80 is date only? Are there any other current models from Swatch Group that haven't been transitioned (yet)?

Does it look like the plan is to phase out the 2824/2825/2836/etc. entirely in favor of the C07? If so, what does this do to the serviceability of those movements long term?

That's probably enough for now. I'll probably think of more questions as we go.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

OK so I did some of my own digging and found some info.

The C07 is based on the 2824 with a few optimizations in common. They all have been slowed down from 4Hz to 3Hz. They also all have smaller barrel arbors to accommodate more mainspring, and the mainspring itself is different. And they all have free-sprung balances (not sure what this is) without standard regulators. However, beyond this, there are three different versions with more specific characteristics:

C07.1XX - This version has the above improvements plus a synthetic escapement for lower friction, thus requiring less energy from the mainspring. The "Powermatic 80" movements in the latest Tissot and Certina models are based on this. There's a few different versions based on complications, including day/dates. For some reason, though, those haven't replaced the 2836's in the Tissot line-up (yet).

C07.6XX - This version also has the same common improvements, but comes with a standard jeweled escapement. The Hamilton H-10 and H-40 movements are based on this version.

C07.8XX - This version adds a silicon hairspring. I'm not sure if it has the synthetic or standard escapement. I think the "Powermatic 80 Silicum" and some "Powermatic 80 Chronometer" movements are based on this, which would imply it has the same synthetic escapement, though I could be wrong.


By all means correct me if any of this is wrong.

The other questions still apply.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Gee, where do I start?

The C07 movement is based on the ETA 2824-2 with some changes. There are different models of C07 that have better or worse characteristics (or at least I've been led to conclude from other discussions).

I have two Tissot watches, a Seastar and a Luxury with C07 movements. I've had the Seastar for maybe five years now but I keep a handful of watches in rotation so it's seen maybe six months of actual running. I have had no trouble with either watch but they certainly aren't the most accurate in my watch box, maybe gaining 15 s/d in the Seastar's case, more like +5 s/d on the Luxury.

In the case of my C07's, the first difference is the mainspring arbor (and perhaps the mainspring). The arbor is smaller in diameter allowing for more turns on the barrel from unwound to full wind. I can't say how much as I haven't taken either apart yet.

The second is the regulator (balance wheel, hairspring, cock assy.). The rate is 21,600 bph as opposed to 28,800 for an ETA 2824-2. The noticeable difference is that the second hand steps six times per second as opposed to eight, so it's not quite as smooth. The balance is also free-sprung, meaning there are no regulator pins or regulator corrector, only a stud support to attach the outer end of the hairspring. This eliminates the regulator pins as a source of mischief and (potentially) makes the spring more linear, for less amplitude dependent rate variation, one of the causes for positional variation.

Regulation is accomplished via two screws that fit into slots in the balance wheel spokes. The heads have a flat on one side that makes for an imbalance that you can adjust by turning the screw. So a free-sprung balance means there is no regulator corrector to adjust the rate; it's adjusted as I'll describe below.

The third difference (and this is speculation) is the escape wheel is fabricated from silicon, which is supposed to lower the friction, allowing for a higher reduction between the barrel and escape wheel. I haven't verified that this is the case (different ratio) and ETA hasn't published any Tech Sheet so verification would involve disassembly and counting teeth. Some day I will service both but there's no need yet.

All of these changes result in an 80-hour power reserve. I haven't measured the reserve but I can confirm that you can put the watch on the dresser Friday night and it's still running Monday morning.

As I mentioned above, you can make a coarse adjustment by turning the screws. I've read on other posts that it only takes a tiny amount of turning to affect the rate; one poster said that he gave them a nudge and it gained 15 s/d. It appears that the screws sit in slots to allow an even greater range of adjustment but as I've never tried, I can't verify that they even move in the slots, or perhaps the poster was moving them in the slots, resulting in the sensitivity. Since there are only two spokes and two adjustment screws, you cannot use them to adjust poise errors in the perpendicular direction and you have to be careful to make identical adjustments or you will screw up the poise in the parallel direction.

The factory says they use a laser to both poise the wheel and adjust the rate. On my watches (both with display backs) you can see a small short groove on the rim of the balance wheel. I've also read a patent that alludes to calculating the poise and rate error by timing in positions an applying some math. I can't remember who took out the patent but my speculation is this is what they are doing and have established how much laser is needed for a given correction (wouldn't that be a b!+ch to keep in calibration).

As I mentioned at the start, there are flavors of C07. I've heard of and seen drawings of plastic pallet forks that may have come from the System51 development and seen bad reviews of their longevity. Perhaps this is why my watches have traditional forks, because the plastic ones gave ETA a black eye. I've also seen speculation that the hairspring is silicon but I have my doubts due to the cost. Another question is what they lubricate the pallet stones with, see below.

Unless you have a plastic pallet fork, I don't see any dramatic difference in longevity. My weak spot would be the mainspring coiling more tightly, but modern alloy springs can take much more than they are put through in a standard design. Perhaps time will prove men wrong, but I haven't heard of a broken one to this point.

I don't see the C07 replacing the 2824-2, there's too much demand in the industry for it. I see it as a bit player to allow some Swatch companies to differentiate themselves. But both of my examples were very inexpensive (less than $500 GM) so they are certainly not selling it as a luxury item (despite the watches name). I do know that some Tissot models with the C07 are available as COSC, so it's a solid design. Also in the 2824-2, the COSC models have some different parts, glucydur balance wheels, Incabloc shock protectors and monocrystalline pallet stones. One would think that the COSC models of the C07 would have the same changes. My non-COSC C07's have novodiac shock protectors, that's pretty obvious; it's hard to say what the balance wheel is made from as it's dramatically different in design than the 2824-2. I'd have to look at my pallet stones under a microscope to determine if they are mono or poly and that requires uncasing, so no-go.

BTW, poking around the net, I found a good discussion on Watch Repair Talk that had some pictures. I have to qualify the above by stating that I think mine are standard style in the pallet fork and escapement but I'll have to take a hard look under the microscope tonight. Here are a couple of interesting snips from the discussion:

















So that answers the lube question, at least for the System51 components. Moebius TH7 can be found at the usual suspects for the usual price.

BTW, after posting I saw the post you put up while I was writing this diatribe. Interesting and I'll have a look at mine to see the reference and what light they shed on your data. From what you wrote, I probably have the plastic version.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Thanks for explaining the "free sprung" terminology. I knew they all lacked regulator pins, but I wasn't sure if maybe that was just one aspect or if it was just coincidental. It sounds like it pretty much just means no regulator pin, though.

I guess it's encouraging that you can still regulate a free sprung balance, but it sounds like it's far more complicated and risky than the familiar "+/-" lever on standard balances.

And yes, I can see how getting rid of the pin would help with positional variance, so that's a good thing. I guess that helps make up for the sacrifice in precision from the lower beat rate. Enough to earn a Chronometer rating anyway. Are there any other 3Hz Chronometers out there?

I'm an amateur tinkerer at best, so while I'm perfectly comfortable timegraphing and regulating my own watches, I admit the free sprung balance will probably scare me off from buying one. I'd go nuts if I got one of these and it ran at -4spd or something and I couldn't fix it.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

I took a look at both under the microscope and they are both C07.111 and both have plastic parts. Hard to tell without removing the band. Once the band was off it was pretty obvious even with my cheaters and a 10 plate OptiVisor.

Well, I'll keep that in mind regarding service intervals.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

MrDisco99 said:


> I'm an amateur tinkerer at best, so while I'm perfectly comfortable timegraphing and regulating my own watches, I admit the free sprung balance will probably scare me off from buying one. I'd go nuts if I got one of these and it ran at -4spd or something and I couldn't fix it.


Other watches have better solutions. Both my Milgauss and my 9300 Omegas have free sprung balances and are adjustable via small nuts on threaded shafts located on the inside of the rim and pointed inward. The major difficulty is affording the special tool, but adjusting them is a breeze. Since there are four, it also allows for adjusting the poise in either axis. BTW, if you were wondering, poise is the location of the CG with respect to the pivot axis. It is complicated by the fact that it needs to include the CG of the hairspring, which moves as the balance moves. Poise affects positional variation in the pendant positions (PU, PD, PR, PL).


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Thanks for the explanation of poise. I'm learning a lot in this thread!

Would poise also affect beat error?


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

MrDisco99 said:


> Would poise also affect beat error?


My understanding of poise is that it has an effect because of the swing or missing swing of a point on the balance wheel. If a wheel has an imbalance and travels through an arc of 180 degrees, then if the imbalance is on the uphill side it will have different effect than if it's on the downhill side. This would affect the beat error, making it swing farther towards the bottom than the top. Keep in mind that what we call amplitude is that from center to one extreme, so a 300 degree amplitude is actually 600 degrees of full travel.

According to the texts, there's an amplitude were poise cancels out, 225 degrees if I remember correctly. However, at this low amplitude, accelerations cause rate errors (looking straight at you, Seiko 7S26) so, at normal amplitudes you have to look at the shadow instead of the substance; the part of the sweep that's missing. If it's located on the top or bottom, it cancels itself but if it's on the upward or downward side, then it affects the beat error (as per my example above) and the rate. Note that this is only an issue in the pendant positions, DU or DD doesn't show any effect.

I know it's hard to grasp, I had to read up and think about it for a while before it hit, and I have a background as a mechanical engineer.

Here's an analogy, much earlier in my career as a manufacturing engineer, we had a vehicle that was spin stabilized and had a solid propellant booster attached to one end. It was centered so the thrust nominally went through the CG, but the mounting surface had to be very square to the spin axis. I asked our dynamics expert where the tolerance came from; wouldn't any error balance out because the spin would average the error? The answer was: the rocket would start burning at some spin theta and stop at another. Unless you could guarantee that the angle would be exactly the same at the beginning and end, there would be some missing or overlapped arc and the net result would be a torque on the vehicle (assuming an error in squareness).

It's that overlap or missing section, in the presence of gravity, that results in poise causing a beat error and an error in rate.


----------



## BenchGuy (Sep 23, 2012)

The 80 hour ETA movements have generally be a disappointment.
De-rating the frequency; lengthening and weakening the mainspring; use of composite fork/escape to reduce friction to compensate for reduced power...interesting ideas...but at least with earlier ETA PR80 versions, performance and longevity (as related to service) appear to be sacrificed.
Free-sprung balance is a proven technology...it does not make up for the short-comings of the other modifications.
Silicon hairsprings...are the properties of low-cost units consistent enough to be attractive in consumer grade movements....?....maybe or maybe not yet...
If one is not sufficiently active so that the movement is fully powered when removed from the wrist on Friday, it will not be running and reasonably "on-time" when strapped on your wrist on Monday...so what's the point?
I tend to be accuracy and precision motivated...the 80 hour PR ETAs are not there yet for my interests.
Regards, BG


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

I find that the rate error is no worse than many of my elabore ETA 2824-2 or Sellita 200-1 movements. The jury is still out on the plastic components. In the best case, I need to get some 9030 and TH7 before I service. Not sure about replacing the mainspring or barrel but my supplier is pretty crafty; I suspect it's only a matter of time and price.


----------



## Dogstown (Dec 16, 2018)

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding my Hamilton H-10 movement in the Khaki automatic ''Murph''. It makes a clicking sound everytime the rotor moves. It does even if the watch is fully drained of power, so I don't think it's the security over-winding protection mechanism. Is that normal behaviour form this movement? I've never owned one of these before. Thanks a lot in advance.

Stay safe and healthy. 

Milo


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

BenchGuy said:


> If one is not sufficiently active so that the movement is fully powered when removed from the wrist on Friday, it will not be running and reasonably "on-time" when strapped on your wrist on Monday...so what's the point?


So I took the opportunity to see how well one of my two Powermatic 80's did off the wrist over the weekend. The movement is a C07.111 in a Tissot Luxury. I wore it all week and saw a rate of about -7 spd for the entire time I was wearing it.

Returning from work Thursday night at eight, I hacked it against my iPhone, wound it fully and placed it PU for the weekend.

This noon (Sunday) I checked it. It was running and had lost 21 seconds. Right now at seven PM, it's still running and at -20 seconds.

Sure, a one-off observation, but I'd say that it's acceptable performance regarding rate when it gets low in it's reserve. I'll do some more observations and post the results.

Update: It stopped this morning at six-thirty for a total power reserve of 82 hours.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Dogstown said:


> I have a question regarding my Hamilton H-10 movement in the Khaki automatic ''Murph''. It makes a clicking sound everytime the rotor moves.


Just saw your post after an update on my end. It's possible that you are hearing the backwards reverser releasing, but unless you are using a stethoscope, I'm skeptical. More likely a broken tooth in the automatic or a loose automatic module. I'd have it looked at in either case.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Another curious observation. A workmate bought his first Swiss Automatic, a Hamilton Khaki with an H-40. I told him once he had it, that I would timegraph it and see how it's doing. 

Answer: Very well on rates. Going from memory, on the 1 hour test, it's +4 in DU, +2 in DD and zero in the pendant positions. Not bad at all. 

The only curious thing is the amplitude, I did see an occasional spike up to 280 or so, but a typical amplitude was about 240. I was wearing my Tissot Luxury and measured it; resulting in similar performance of about 240. These were DU/DD positions. I'm a little surprised I hadn't noticed this before as I've had the Luxury for several years and the timegrapher almost as long. Can't say I have a good answer for this; my Luxury may be several years old, but his Khaki should be brand new.


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

I had my Tissot Powermatic 80 PR100 regulated. The results weren't good.

Before: -8spd in all positions

After:
CH (dial up): +6
9H (crown down): -3
6H (crown left): +2

My watchmaker's comments:
1. Plastic escapement
2. Grime inside

I was a bit surprised at the grime. Although I got this Tissot as part of a product exchange with Swatch HK, I was told the exchanged watch was new and my paperwork has no indications to the contrary.

The watchmaker noted no suggestion this watch was a replacement unit in the watch itself, even though I noted the bracelet was stamped "RTO".

But the watchmaker had lots to say about plastic escapements. Essentially saying their were a POS in Cantonese. He claimed he was told reliably by insider that Swatch HK treats the movement as disposable.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Does anyone out there have an idea of the lift angle of a C07 with the plastic pallet fork? Calibre Corner says "Unknown". I'm wondering if that's the reason for the low amplitude.

OTOH, my friend with a H-40, which is supposed to have a normal pallet fork, also measured a 240 lift angle in DU/DD. Perhaps it's a side-effect of the longer battery.


----------



## BenchGuy (Sep 23, 2012)

ExpiredWatchdog said:


> ...OTOH, my friend with a H-40, which is supposed to have a normal pallet fork, also measured a 240 lift angle in DU/DD. Perhaps it's a side-effect of the longer battery.


Not quite fully awake and recalling a dream? Maybe you need another cup of coffee? 
Regards, BG


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Aww, come on, now you guys are just being mean.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

OK, now I get the joke. I have been using Roland Ranffts bidfun database and saw "mainspring / battery", thinking they were synonymous. I also thought that I had read the term battery referring to the power source for a mechanical in other archaic sources but googling and looking through my books, I realize I was mistaken (when has that ever happened?).

The funny thing is, I've never looked up a quartz movement in his database so I never saw that the "mainspring / battery" field contains and actual battery. Duh. 

See how well my signature matches? (You can thank me that you can read my signature).


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

^^^ OK, I'll bite.

My dreams rarely involve watchmaking but are often *much *nerdier. The coffee is an essential. The second or third cup, not so much.

Regarding the measurement, I was quite surprised it was so low (I followed the protocol about a full wind and running for an hour), so I checked it several times and also measured my own C07 I had been wearing at the time and got similar results (after following protocol).

I was just curious what the cause of the low amplitude is. I would expect it on my several-years old Tissot Seastar but not on his new H-40. One explanation would be that the mainspring isn't as strong (likely to be true, if not the cause, IMHO) or that the lift angle is something other than 50 degrees.

It would sure be nice if ETA put out some technical information on the movement; I know that those with a Swatch account have it because I've seen some screen snips.

I was hoping someone with access would just tell us the lift angle of the C07.111 based on ETA's documentation. Looking at the plastic pallet fork, I would be very surprised if it matched the 2824-2 lift angle.


----------



## BenchGuy (Sep 23, 2012)

Why don't you use your TG to determine an approximate lift angle?


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Because of:
LA = Life Angle
A = Amplitude
R = Reading
F = Scaling factor

R = f(LA,A) where the function is unknown (although pretty close to inverse, maybe completely)

Lets assume inverse, so.
R = F * (A / LA)

I need to know two of the values to solve for the third. I know the Reading. I can derive the Scaling Factor from measurements on watches of known lift angle. I don't know the Lift Angle for this particular watch. I cannot derive it from the knowns.

I've also considered measuring the actual amplitude on a TAG Link Chrono with a 2894-2 using a GoPro set to capture at 240 fps and examining the frames. Haven't done that yet, but that experiment would give me the missing variable above.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

BTW, I had a chance to identify the movement in the H-40 noted above. It's a C07.641 and has a standard escapement. 

The other oddity are the shock protectors. They have three "tee" shaped fingers sticking inward from a round rim. The cock has three notches around the perimeter of the hole it fits in so you would turn it to release it. I didn't see a split anywhere so I doubt you could pry it out. It's just odd to me because I haven't seen anything like it in a modern watch.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

ExpiredWatchdog said:


> I've also considered measuring the actual amplitude on a TAG Link Chrono with a 2894-2 using a GoPro set to capture at 240 fps and examining the frames. Haven't done that yet, but that experiment would give me the missing variable above.


That's how you do it. No need to make it more complicated than that. Wind the watch until you observe 180 degrees of amplitude (verified using phone camera in slow motion) then set lift angle so amplitude reads 180 and you are done...


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

^^^ Thanks for distilling it so well.

I had considered this regarding my Omega 9300's. Obviously, 38 degrees doesn't equate to a decent amplitude so is there a lift angle setting that does? I realize that the sound trace on a co-axial is different and I might be chasing my tail, but there might be some hope in this angle of study.

I am also familiar of non-linearities so it's important to capture it at least two different magnitudes and even then, it's possible to get lucky and get the two points where reality and theory cross.

You should see the nasty formula for thermistor temperature dependent resistance. We deal with it with a calibration table, easier than running the math.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

ExpiredWatchdog said:


> ^^^ Thanks for distilling it so well.
> 
> I had considered this regarding my Omega 9300's. Obviously, 38 degrees doesn't equate to a decent amplitude so is there a lift angle setting that does? I realize that the sound trace on a co-axial is different and I might be chasing my tail, but there might be some hope in this angle of study.
> 
> ...


You are really overcomplicating it...amplitude isn't a measure that requires a really high resolution to get an absolutely accurate number, so as long as you are reasonably close on the lift angle, you are fine. For example if the amplitude in horizontal positions is say 290 or 296, it makes no material difference to what I do next on the watch, as either of those numbers are good. Amplitude is not used in a way that requires a really high degree of absolute accuracy.

On the co-axial watches, unless the timing machine has a specific program that you set to measure co-axial amplitudes, it will not accurately measure them no matter what lift angle setting you use. I had a very long email conversation with the engineers at Witchsi regarding measuring co-axial amplitudes, because initially my timing machine was giving me very erratic readings on these watches. My machine was sent back for an update to the software and calibration (it was an early one of this specific model) and there are challenges with this due to the close proximity of some sounds. They described it as "not easy" and if you know the Swiss, that means it's very difficult...

Just so you know, co-axial watches in general do tend to have lower amplitudes than lever escapement watches do.

Cheers, Al


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Thank you so much for your in-depth reply. I'm not being a kiss-ass (well, maybe not) but the entire community owes you a great deal of gratitude for the trouble you take to respond to the "kids in the cheap seats" (quoting Maillchort).

I was going through my old emails and discovered this interesting missive. I actually didn't see it on OF when it was posted:

Thank you very much, keepitsimple, for posting the traces! My microphone (part of a headset) is not good enough to disentangle any details of the tic and toc of my Omega 9300.

Expiredwatchdog, I would expect the acoustic signals from the clockwise and counterclockwise half-oscillations ( 'tic' and 'toc', or left and right in your post) of the 8500 movement to be different since the impulse transfer is via different paths: I assume the left/first one with the four events/spikes is the indirect transfer via the lever, so (all guessing on my part, maybe your Witschi manual has specifics?) the first small pulse is the roller hitting the lever immediately followed by unlocking, the second is the tooth of the impulse wheel hitting the impulse pallet of the lever, the third right after is the lever hitting the roller (completing the impulse transfer to the balance), and the fourth is the locking and the lever hitting the bank (not sure about the order there, probably the lever hits the bank before the escape wheel tooth locks on the pallet).

*Regarding fooling the timing machine, Omega specifies that for version A of the 2403 you should set your older Witschi machine to 30 degree lift angle*, and for version B to 38 (according to http://www.phfactor.net/wtf/Omega/1831_Omega2403,2403A,2403B.doc.pdf), but for newer machines using 38 in both cases is correct.

Naively just taking the distance from the first to the last event (which agree for 'tic' and 'toc' in all three cases) in relation to the half-oscillation length, and using 51 degree lift angle for the Certina, and 38 for the Omegas, I obtain amplitudes of 216 (Certina), 290 (2403) and 207 (8500) degrees. Keepitsimple, would you happen to know the true amplitudes going with these traces?

In any case, seeing the traces is really great!

Yeah, I suspect that a relative test compared to some older tests would be all I really need; the SMPO is likely within it's warranty (though it was purchased GM for about half price) so it would probably be a good standard, with the lift angle set at either setting. Then it's just a matter of comparing today's results against those of the future and I do keep a log book.

Thanks again
Dave


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

percysmith said:


> I had my Tissot Powermatic 80 PR100 regulated. The results weren't good.
> 
> Before: -8spd in all positions
> 
> ...


The watchmaker regulation failed.
I had the following data points (daily rates):
9H: -39.1spd, -42.7spd
CH: -18.4spd, -20.3spd

My Timegrapher app had the watch go -35 spd and the plot scatter all over the place.

Since this exceeded Tissot's "average accuracy tolerance" of -10/+30 https://www.tissotwatches.com/assets/usermanuals/157-en.pdf , I made a warranty claim on Tissot (Swatch HK).

Swatch HK repair department informed me:

the warranty claim was accepted
per their assessment, the movement was in acceptable working order
therefore they carried out a "time rate service" to my watch.
All this done within three days.
They did not pick up my external regulation of the watch.

Watchcheck app now has the watch go -7.8spd over three days

I am not at all impressed by the C07 movement. It will be a see and avoid movement for me.

On the other hand I'm really impressed by my ETA 2893-2 Christopher Ward accuracy . It's still going at -0.6spd for a week. I'd go with those from now on....


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

percysmith said:


> I had my Tissot Powermatic 80 PR100 regulated. The results weren't good.
> 
> Before: -8spd in all positions
> 
> ...


After putting up with the up to -43spd performance, positional variance for just breathing, coarse hand winding and low beat movement, I thought it was worthwhile buying one of those Calvin Klein KS53414Xs 2824-2s and had my watchmaker carry out a movement replacement operation.

My CK cost USD 144 on Jomashop and unlike Grimwood Watch Modding, mine arrived completely intact and free of defects. Off it went that evening after work to the watchmaker who couldn't wait to tear out the plastic movement for the 2824.























































We started with +8 spd with the 2824-2 in the CK case.

I got it back next day. For replacing the movement, including changing date wheel, rotor and automatic winding module (so that it fit back into the Tissot case) + regulation when recased, I was charged US$100.

The dial up/6 up/9 up came back as -2/0/+4 spd on the watchmaker's timegrapher.

The only potential fly in the swap, if I can call it that, is that the Tissot weight might not be heavy enough to wind the 2824-2. But this may not be a real problem in practice Winding Weight not Spinning Freely :










I let the watchmaker keep the CK case and Powermatic case for his watchmaking class at polytechnic. Here's what he ended up:










Urgh. Good riddance. My watchmaker promised me he will turn it into a cautionary tale lesson.


----------



## Xilikon (Jun 8, 2020)

First time I see up close photos of the plastic escapement parts and I understand why it is a movement to avoid. It also lack a regulator arm ?

Nice idea of using that CK 2824 to remplace the movement as it seems finished very nicely for cheap (price seems the same as a 2824 movement by itself but include everything else).


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Xilikon said:


> It also lack a regulator arm ?


Yep

The first night performance is -4.7spd


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

ExpiredWatchdog said:


> The balance is also free-sprung, meaning there are no regulator pins or regulator corrector, only a stud support to attach the outer end of the hairspring. This eliminates the regulator pins as a source of mischief and (potentially) makes the spring more linear, for less amplitude dependent rate variation, one of the causes for positional variation.
> 
> Regulation is accomplished via two screws that fit into slots in the balance wheel spokes. The heads have a flat on one side that makes for an imbalance that you can adjust by turning the screw. So a free-sprung balance means there is no regulator corrector to adjust the rate; it's adjusted as I'll describe below.


That's the part that probably killed my Powermatic movement.

Just in case my first watchmaker made a mistake was incompetent, I asked a second watchmaker in Hong Kong to take it on. I did not tell him the movement has been to a competitor, only to Swatch HK who did not properly fix it.

The second watchmaker won't even touch it:
_Me: I read the Powermatic can be adjusted by adjusting its weights, similar to some Rolex freesprung models (?!).
Me: But it shouldn't have 30 seconds of positional variance
Me: Their tolerance is 30
2nd watchmaker: Rolex has 2 pairs adjustable weights. 
Every 90 degrees on the balance wheel.
So they can adjust detail.
2nd watchmaker: But this seems only one pair (180 degree).
So, they can adjust the total fast or slow, but can't adjust the standing position like 3 o'clock up.
Me: Oh. I guess that's why they can fix dial up, but whenever I wear it, it goes haywire and they can't adjust for it
2nd watchmaker: Exactly_

I read lots of reports here that plenty of users got good performance out of the box. I don't dispute those.
Mine arrived -8 spd. My mistake was to try and make it better and my first watchmaker didn't know better by helping me try.
These watches are like recent model iPhones - you can't service them outside Apple (Swatch) service chain, and you certainly can't tweak them.

I feel my first watchmaker is a traditionalist Swiss movement snob.
I don't feel the plastic escapement was such a problem (given my Powermatic movement was <1 year old).
But the freesprung balance with only one pair of weights is the maintenance difficulty. So if you happen to have worse-than-expected performance out of the box, there's not much you can really do about it.

Did I mischaracterise where I went wrong with the Powermatic 80? Thoughts welcome.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> But the freesprung balance with only one pair of weights is the maintenance difficulty. So if you happen to have worse-than-expected performance out of the box, there's not much you can really do about it.


Well, I would disagree with that completely. Smooth balances with no weights can be poised, so you probably need to find a different watchmaker.


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> Well, I would disagree with that completely. Smooth balances with no weights can be poised, so you probably need to find a different watchmaker.


Is poising a substitute for regulation?


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> Is poising a substitute for regulation?


No, but let's look at what your 2nd watchmaker said:

"_2nd watchmaker: But this seems only one pair (180 degree).
So, they can adjust the total fast or slow, but can't adjust the standing position like 3 o'clock up._"

Adjusting the "total fast or slow" is the literal definition of regulation, so the movement can be regulated, and that was never in question for anyone who understands these terms as used in watchmaking.

"adjust the standing position like 3 o'clock up" is I assume an awkward way of saying that there is positional variation that need to be addressed. Additional "screws" on the balance would allow for poising, so this doesn't have those additional screws, which is why they concluded it can't be adjusted.

But this is false - poising is and can be done on balances that have zero screws, so if your watchmakers are not familiar with how to do that, it's quite surprising. My guess is that your watchmaker had not seen one of these before, and the fear of the unknown simply lead them to say "can't be done"...

So in the end, this watch can be adjusted just like any other if a watchmaker is interested in actually doing it.

Cheers, Al


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> "adjust the standing position like 3 o'clock up" is I assume an awkward way of saying that there is positional variation that need to be addressed. Additional "screws" on the balance would allow for poising, so this doesn't have those additional screws, which is why they concluded it can't be adjusted.
> 
> But this is false - poising is and can be done on balances that have zero screws, so if your watchmakers are not familiar with how to do that, it's quite surprising. My guess is that your watchmaker had not seen one of these before, and the fear of the unknown simply lead them to say "can't be done"...


Can poising correct positional variance?

Why I am still lost is - from what I know about poising - is that poising corrects deformed balance wheels - wheels that are out of balance or the pin holding the balance wheel is out of balance? That leads to beat errors. So I'm still not sure how poising can correct a positional error.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> Can poising correct positional variance?


Yes. Out of poise condition creates positional variation in vertical positions, so correcting it can reduce those variations.



percysmith said:


> Why I am still lost is - from what I know about poising - is that poising corrects deformed balance wheels - wheels that are out of balance or the pin holding the balance wheel is out of balance? That leads to beat errors. So I'm still not sure how poising can correct a positional error.


You should probably read up on some theory. Search for the term "dynamic poising" and you should find some reading materials to help you understand this.

This isn't some novel idea, it's something watchmakers do all the time...


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> This isn't some novel idea, it's something watchmakers do all the time...


Roughly how much should it cost, relative to a weight adjustment regulation please?


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> Roughly how much should it cost, relative to a weight adjustment regulation please?


There is no standard pricing, as it's up to each watchmaker to decide what they charge. This is something usually done as part of a full service, and it takes time to do properly.


----------



## rodia77 (Feb 3, 2011)

percysmith said:


> to the watchmaker who couldn't wait to tear out the plastic movement for the 2824


?


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> This is something usually done as part of a full service, and it takes time to do properly.


Well I was trying to cost your suggestion relative to the price of my watch, in my vicinity (I can avail myself of Sydney watchmakers when I get to visit next, but I have to be allowed back into my other country first). My (first) watchmaker here in HK charged me the following:

Miyota 9015 regulation with regulating pin, three positions only: US$40 (for comparison only)
ETA 2893-2 regulation with regulating pin, five positions: US$65
Powermatic 80 regulation by adjusting weights, with minor cleaning: US$90 (this failed)
Mother's Vacheron complete service (full service, but no parts replacement): US$390
Father's Vacheron complete service (full service with mainspring replacement): US$600

Say a Powermatic 80 full service is half of mother's Vacheron service on account of the age of the Powermatic watch compared to the 20y.o. Vacherons i.e. US$195.
But I impose a 40% premium similar to ETA 2893-2 over Powermatic 80 regulation so it is roughly US$273.
This is comparable to my cost of buying a 2824-2 CK for US$144 and then handing over US$100 to the watchmaker to swap the movements and regulate the resulting 2824-2.

The cost of the watch, grey market new, is US$380 Tissot PR 100 Automatic Silver Dial Men's Watch T101.407.11.031.00

So if a Powermatic 80 buyer got a lemon, as in my case, the cost to repair is *64-72% of the purchase price*?! I'm not sure this is a correct comparison, but it would be akin to tearing a car down to its chassis to replace a suspension.


----------



## ExpiredWatchdog (Feb 13, 2019)

Owning two Powermatic 80s, I would consider being happy with your present performance. They are not precision instruments. 

Yes, they can be tuned to reasonable performance (I don't have the specs as ETA doesn't publish any data to us pedants) but I feel that it shouldn't be any worse than a 2824-2 elabore grade. Plus or Minus 20 per day is acceptable. Want worse, buy any Seiko with a 7S26 (or many other asian counterparts).


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Need to answer your comments out of order:



ExpiredWatchdog said:


> Yes, they can be tuned to reasonable performance (I don't have the specs as ETA doesn't publish any data to us pedants)


No, I disagree. Maybe I don't have access of sufficient knowledge of better watchmakers in this city - this city is so hardcoded to the authorised repair system - that one botched it and another won't touch it.

But then again, I wouldn't regard the watchmaker I'm using is a duffer given he's done all the other repairs I gave him listed above more than satisfactorily. If another WUS member reading this is contemplating tuning or regulating a Powermatic 80, I seriously suggest they ask the watchmaker have they any experience with this movement before.



ExpiredWatchdog said:


> Owning two Powermatic 80s, I would consider being happy with your present performance. They are not precision instruments.
> 
> ...I feel that it shouldn't be any worse than a 2824-2 elabore grade. Plus or Minus 20 per day is acceptable.


I'm a bit of a tweaker. I don't accept any watch outside chronometer standards lying down. If I had to leave the Powermatic 80 at -8spd it'd just gather dust. Or I'd sell it.
So I guess, on retrospect, the movement change had to happen. The only thing I shouldn't have done was to attempt to regulate it first.



ExpiredWatchdog said:


> Want worse, buy any Seiko with a 7S26 (or many other asian counterparts).


My SNKL23J1 was -3.3spd, my wife's SNKL19K1 was -6.8spd and Parnis DG3804 GMT +3.2spd out of the box. Just put them on the timegrapher, the SNKL23J1, SNKL19K1 and Parnis GMT are now +2spd, +4spd and +4spd respectively.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> So if a Powermatic 80 buyer got a lemon, as in my case, the cost to repair is *64-72% of the purchase price*?!


The cost of the watch has nothing to do with the cost of the labour of the watchmaker. Watchmakers charge what they charge based on what they need to run a business and make a living, and it's up to you to decide if you think the cost of doing whatever it is you need to have done is worth it in the context of the value (to you) of the watch.

I service and restore watches often that my bill at the end will far exceed the market value of the watch. Those are often family heirlooms, but not always.

Based on your initial posts, your watch was running within Tissot's specs for this movement, so I don't really think it was a lemon...at least until the first watchmaker messed it up.


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> Based on your initial posts, your watch was running within Tissot's specs for this movement, so I don't really think it was a lemon...at least until the first watchmaker messed it up.


Yes, within Tissot specs.

But it is not capable of being tuned after purchase (if I can borrow ExpiredWatchdog's phase). Not without excessive cost which should be reserved for a watch that *had* already performed well for years.
Its predecessor (I took ETA 2824 to be Powermatic 80's predecessor Tissot Caliber Powermatic 80) could.

Again, Tissot never explicitly promised I can do that.
But it is valid to expect a successor product to perform according to its predecessor unless knowledge is communicated to the contrary. Nothing Tissot/Swatch released about Powermatic 80 suggested this was no longer possible, and it was unfortunate that purchasers had to find out on their own.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> But it is valid to expect a successor product to perform according to its predecessor unless knowledge is communicated to the contrary. Nothing Tissot/Swatch released about Powermatic 80 suggested this was no longer possible, and it was unfortunate that purchasers had to find out on their own.


False premise. Because you have not yet taken this to a watchmaker who can (or will) make it right, that doesn't mean that it can't be done.

The fact is, you took a watch that was running in spec to someone who seriously messed it up (based on the numbers you have posted) and the next guy you took it to didn't want to clean up someone else's crappy work.

Now you are looking to blame the manufacturer, who delivered a watch running in spec., for not telling you something that isn't real. Amazing...


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> The fact is, you took a watch that was running in spec to someone who seriously messed it up (based on the numbers you have posted) and the next guy you took it to didn't want to clean up someone else's crappy work.


Swatch itself didn't see a problem after the regulation, and the other watchmaker was not told about the first watchmaker's work.



Archer said:


> False premise. Because you have not yet taken this to a watchmaker who can (or will) make it right, that doesn't mean that it can't be done.


Well has anybody done it?


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> Swatch itself didn't see a problem after the regulation, and the other watchmaker was not told about the first watchmaker's work.


But earlier in the thread, you indicated otherwise:

therefore they carried out a "time rate service" to my watch.
Why would they need to do that if they saw nothing wrong?

By the way, did you inform the service center that it was already regulated by a third party before you took it to them under warranty?



percysmith said:


> Well has anybody done it?


There is no technical reason why it couldn't be done. If someone has done it or not is irrelevant.


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> But earlier in the thread, you indicated otherwise:
> 
> therefore they carried out a "time rate service" to my watch.
> Why would they need to do that if they saw nothing wrong?


In response to my observations about the timekeeping when I took the watch into Swatch HK.



Archer said:


> By the way, did you inform the service center that it was already regulated by a third party before you took it to them under warranty?


No, and they didn't spot anything wrong when carrying out the service. While this is not a dedicated fault inspection, it is not apparent my watchmaker did anything manifestedly bad.



Archer said:


> There is no technical reason why it couldn't be done. If someone has done it or not is irrelevant.


I am not interested in engaging in further debate on a hypothetical capability. The movement was introduced in 2012, enough time for some servicing to have taken place.


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

percysmith said:


> In response to my observations about the timekeeping when I took the watch into Swatch HK.


So there was something wrong with it, or nothing would have been done - that was my point.



percysmith said:


> No, and they didn't spot anything wrong when carrying out the service. While this is not a dedicated fault inspection, it is not apparent my watchmaker did anything manifestedly bad.


Other than completely mess up the timekeeping.

So you brought a watch back under warranty that was originally within spec, and only out of warranty because the third party watchmaker made it out of spec, and you didn't inform them of that intervention. Not exactly ethical...



percysmith said:


> I am not interested in engaging in further debate on a hypothetical capability. The movement was introduced in 2012, enough time for some servicing to have taken place.


Earlier you said this:

"I'm a bit of a tweaker. I don't accept any watch outside chronometer standards lying down."

But did you research the tolerances of this watch before you obtained it?

You only seem interested in trying to blame people for why you had someone mess up the watch. In the end you have what you wanted I guess...a watch with the 2824-2 in it.

Cheers, Al


----------



## percysmith (Apr 25, 2020)

Archer said:


> You only seem interested in trying to blame people for why you had someone mess up the watch.


Incorrect. I only blame the manufacturer for removing the capability to tweak.

The Powermatic was within the wide tolerances the manufacturer allowed itself after regulation, up to the day I binned it.


----------



## diynor_77 (May 22, 2019)

percysmith said:


> Incorrect. I only blame the manufacturer for removing the capability to tweak.
> 
> The Powermatic was within the wide tolerances the manufacturer allowed itself after regulation, up to the day I binned it.


I was a bit thinking the same but I realized that what the powermatic 80 and its siblings are offering is unheard at that price point.

Think about it, who else is offering a free-sprung balance assembly at those prices?

I did a service on a Hamilton khaki field 80hrs last week and ended up appreciating them instead of hating them, these are the best advantages the design offers in my opinion:

Recentering hairspring when it is offset, it is a breeze. It just took a bit of correction on the departing end from the stud followed by final correction adjusting the rotation of the stud. Max a couple of minutes to complete.
Rate correction via the wheel weights: very easy and simple, once you have removed the balance assembly into a perforated block to prevent damaging the pivots. It is an iterative process though, this part takes a bit more time.
The positional variation ended up being only dependent on the amplitud decrease that occurrs whilst in vertical positions, i.e. the rate speed up by 3secs/day on vertical positions.

A negative - the finishing on all the parts was quite poor (standard ETA 2824's and derivatives have better finishing than powermatic derivatives) and they have changed the design of the barrel lid in an attempt to make it non-serviceable.

Nontheless, here a few pics taken after service, during regulation steps. Before regulation:










First pass on the balance weights:









Second and final pass:









I reckon that at the look of this results nobody can say the design does not provide a lot of advantages at that price point.

In use the owner is reporting 0-1 seg/day deviation... he is extremely happy considering the watch was a very bad an unstable performer when he bought second hand.

PS: note that the movement was fitted into a non-Hamilton test case until I finished with it and proceed with recasing into its case.


----------



## Kamburov (Feb 17, 2018)

Good job diynor_77!
Haven't regulated one yet as it seems to be a very time consuming process and the risk of causing a damage is still very high for a non professional like me. I have a question for the professionals here. How do you move the two balance weights exactly the same distance from center? My guess is their positions are originally fixed by laser beams, how is this done by visual measure? Is equal distance from the center that important for timing or it doesn't matter as long as timing is within desired sec/day?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, I have no experience with these.
Ivan


----------



## Archer (Apr 23, 2009)

Kamburov said:


> I have a question for the professionals here. How do you move the two balance weights exactly the same distance from center? My guess is their positions are originally fixed by laser beams, how is this done by visual measure? Is equal distance from the center that important for timing or it doesn't matter as long as timing is within desired sec/day?


The tool used for the adjustments that is available from Tissot has a graduated scale on it that aids in moving the screws the same amount. This is similar to what you would find on a Rolex style Microstella tool, or an Omega tool for moving their balance rim weights.

But in the end, if you see a poise error introduced that wasn't there before, you know you didn't move them the same amount. So yes it is important to move them the same. If you do a lot of this work it's not a big deal really.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Kamburov (Feb 17, 2018)

Archer said:


> The tool used for the adjustments that is available from Tissot has a graduated scale on it that aids in moving the screws the same amount. This is similar to what you would find on a Rolex style Microstella tool, or an Omega tool for moving their balance rim weights.
> 
> But in the end, if you see a poise error introduced that wasn't there before, you know you didn't move them the same amount. So yes it is important to move them the same. If you do a lot of this work it's not a big deal really.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Thanks for the reply, Archer! Are the mentioned tools available to independant watchmakers or only to authorised services/dealers? If I can get myself a good tool (without having to sell my house or my car) I might actually get more familiar with this balance type movements. At least with the newer ETA generation (in Tissot, Certina, Hamilton).


----------

