Sorry to give the contradiction, but I don’t agree with you concerning the “intricate horological complication”.

In a mechanical watch we should distinguish three zones:
- the energy generation / storage
–> Spring Drive watches are similar to automatic watches, they even use old 1959 Seiko invention of the “magic lever” (great design simplification and parts number reduction),

- the transmission of movement from a rotating wheel (escapement wheel) to hands
–> Izul Spring Drive chrono is similar to another mechanical chrono, for example Seiko Prospex Flightmaster (SBDS001); complications are limited in number (chrono sub dials) and simple, current ones (think to the number of mechanical chronos made by Seiko in the 80’s!).

- the time regulation! common design is the escapement wheel and anchor, “intricate horological complication” would be the “tourbillon”, where the escapement wheel is mounted in a rotating cage, in error to avoid gravity influence on watch accuracy.
–> Spring Drive avoids this mechanical complexity by using an electromagnetic brake piloted by quartz and IC.

So, in term of mechanical complexity, Izul is… simpler than SBDS001 , which is sold by Seiko with a 350000 yens MSRP, much less than Izul! Spring Drive Izul mechanics is probably nice, but not “that” complicated!

Best Regards,

Mikenovember

Admittedly SpringDrive does not generate enough power for higher-frequency quartz oscillators. But in terms of “intricate horological complication”, I think the watch still hits the mark. How big the market for a $6,000 Seiko is…apparently they think big enough

My comment about SpringDrive using a “standard” quartz is to be understood for the use in a chronograph: this kind of watch is the one for which we expect the best accuracy, even if we use it for everyday wear.

In SpringDrive a small amount only of rotor motion energy is transformed in electricity, allowing to power a 32 kHz quartz and simple integrated circuit, but not a high frequency quartz (more consuming) and complex electronics. That’s why SpringDrive is, intrinsically, a bad choice for a chronograph, in my opinion.

However, I agree that Seiko is very conservative on the performances it announces on its quartz technology (I have a Kinetic with GMT 5M65 caliber which runs on a basis of -5 s per year, and is announced at +/- 15 s per month). But Seiko has become also very conservative in its quartz technology: in the past it has produced high frequency quartz (4 MHz, I think) and temperature compensated ones. Seems difficult to find today in its product line! Nothing comparable to Breitling “Super Quartz” technology or to Citizen Chronomaster.

Technically speaking, I understand the real outstanding engineering performance that Seiko did in setting SpringDrive to work (this performance could even drive me to buy a SpringDrive!). But the result of this performance doesn’t really convince me: SpringDrive lacks the high performance of pure high-end quartz technology and the strong character of pure mechanical watches. And there is no much synergy between quartz and mechanics. I will try the humoristic way: there is a classic joke, “a camel is a race horse designed by a committee and adopted as a compromise”; for me, SpringDrive is more or less this camel.

I think Seiko really captured the advantages of mechanical technology and quartz one in Kinetic watches: they use mechanics (the rotor motion, the transmission of movement to hands), electromagnetism (generator, electro-magnetic bearing for the rotor), piezoelectricity (quartz, step motor), electronics. Synergy fullu runs: the precision of quartz, with long duration rechargeable batteries, without need to periodically clean and grease mechanical parts, amagnetic, good resistance to shocks…

Once more, customers will decide. For the moment, 8 years after its launch, SpringDrive has not yet really found a market (compare this to the immediate success of Kinetic watches, at least in Western world). One of SpringDrive slogans is “The silent revolution”. I have read comments on Swiss web pages laughing at this slogan and saying “Yes, very silencious” (never heard about…). Note, however, that Swiss answer to SpringDrive is ready, it is called “High Precision Mechanics”, is very similar to SpringDrive (mechanically powered / quartz regulated caliber, it is the electric generator itself which has its rotation speed regulated and not a glide wheel) and has been developed in Swatch Group laboratory, Asulab. It is not yet marketed, and will be probably only if SpringDrive finds a commercial success.

Best Regards,

MikeNovember

It’s always enlightening to read your comments. I think you and I look at Spring Drive like pessimists and optimists. Whenever I read literature about the advantages and disadvantages of quartz and mechanical movements I see common themes. For mechanical movements, there is the beauty of the moving parts, the intricacies of how all those parts in combination with very little user interaction can make those parts all work in synchronization through the simple act of a mainspring unwinding. The disadvantages to mechanical are obvious. Not the best timekeeping and as you point out, low power reserve.

For quartz, the advantages are obviously accuracy. Even the cheapest quartz movement can keep better long term time than expensive mechanical movements. The disadvantages usually attributed to quartz are the reliance on batteries and generally uninteresting movement design.

These are the pros and cons of mechanical and quartz that are most often cited.

When I see Springdrive movements, I see that for the first time ever, a watch company has successfully captured the advantages of mechanical and quartz movements. The Spring Drive movements are beautifully engineered and contain pretty much every part that a mechanical movement contains. Substitute a spinning glide wheel for a ratcheting escape wheel and a slick electro magnetic braking system and quartz controller for a balance spring and pallet fork and that’s the only real difference. There are more mechanical parts in some Spring Drive movements than there are in some mechanical movements. Add the tremendous real world (not Seiko specified) accuracy to the equation and you have what I think is a movement worthy of respect. Admittedly they haven’t been able to overcome the low power reserve of mechanical movements, but I would say that for the majority of mechanical watch lovers, long power reserve is not a significant issue.

I find it odd that Seiko is so conservative with their accuracy specifications of the Spring Drive movements. In the field, it is not uncommon for these movements to be extremely accurate; often within a second or two a month. There is no question that these movements are performing significantly better than the average quartz movement. With the exception of my quartz Grand Seiko, my Spring Drive is significantly more accurate than every quartz movement I have in my collection and my experiences echo that of others.

Thanks for reading MikeNovember and as always, thanks for making us all think hard in response to your always well thought out comments!

Oh yes I also wanted to mention that I like your idea of a high frequency temperature compensated kinetic movement. Sometimes I wonder if Seiko doesn’t think of it’s kinetic movements as worthy to use in their best watches. They have never used a Kinetic movement in a Grand Seiko yet. I wonder why?

10/10 for the design of this chrono! It is really a revival of sportwatches, though the inspiration from 1964 ones is not very close (OK, both are round and have pusbuttons, but the dial, the subdials, the hands and the markings differ considerably from 1964 chrono to 2007 Izul).

However, I have more criticism concerning the choice of SpringDrive technology:
- SpringDrive is an hybrid technology, and it seems to have inconveniences of mechanical one (servicing every four years, limited power reserve) without the advantages of quartz, since quartz used in SpringDrive is a “low-end” (sorry!) one, 32 kHz, without temperature compensation.
- Effectively, the quartz in SpringDrive compares very defavorably with other quartz movements in Seiko line of products (192 kHz quartz, +/- 20 s, for example) or with competitors (Breitling, for example, uses 121.5 MHz quartz with temperature compensation in its “Professional line”, where we find… yes, chronographs!).

So, technically speaking, this watch has low performance when we would expect, with its high price, it would “set the standard”.

With quartz technology I would have preferred it with Kinetic movement (6 months power reserve, longer servicing period) and high frequency, temperature compensated quartz! At the opposite, as an amateur of mechanical technology, I would have also liked it with an adjusted version of mechanical automatic movement 6S37 (found in SBDS001 chronograph). SpringDrive seems to me too much balanced between mechanical and quartz technology to be really appealing: between “compromise” and “compromised”, the difference is very tight…

Once more, SEIKO marketing seems to have done curious choice, without satisfying amateurs of extreme precision watches (did you say it is a chronograph?), nor the mechanical watches ones.

I don’t know what will be its success. I am torn between its wonderful design and its compromise technology. I am not sure I would buy it, though one part of me still wants it!

Best Regards,

MikeNovember.