"It looked insanely complicated, and this was one of the reasons why the snug plastic cover it fitted into had the words ' Don't Panic' printed on it in large friendly letters."
Oh dear. I confess I rushed my assessment of the Dynapulse, being both drained from the week itself and more eager to a) make fun of the name and b) muse on the L-D’s place in Rolex brand strategy. Thanks for the very fair rebuke! I also fondly remember the IWC propeller and the possible threat it posed to the likes of Ewan McGregor.
I think I'm turning into a grouch as I age 😅 to be fair, it's not exactly an easy escapement to understand and there is certainly a superficial resemblance to the natural escapement. In the end I wonder how much the engineering details will matter to consumers – I think for most folks who are clients for the Land Dweller, the fact that Rolex has innovated on the most essential part of a watch will probably be enough.
Indeed - although it may be even more true to say that the fact Rolex has produced a new watch will be enough for most. Nevertheless as I said on Instagram and on TFW, that doesn't absolve them of the need to explain it properly, and while I'm also not giving journalists a pass because it's our job to figure things out and find them out, Rolex has done a pretty poor job of explaining what Dynapulse is and why it matters. And being Rolex, answers aren't exactly forthcoming when you want to go beyond the superficial press presentation.
That may actually be the more salient point, Chris; generally speaking, I don't think brands do such a hot job explaining the technical aspects of their own work. Marketing departments usually aren't oriented towards doing so and in many cases they may not have the necessary expertise to communicate, lucidly, what the engineers are up to either. I was talking to someone yesterday who designs for a major software company and she was talking about how the cultural divide between engineers and designers especially in terms of UI design; it reminds me of how much can get lost in translation between watchmakers and the press release. Sure, we should be in a position to offer an educated opinion on technical watchmaking but there's no reason to expect generalist luxury and watch writers to have to make educated guesses either.
A.J. Leibling musta been thinking about me when he wrote that--in some sense, if you have oceans of money, finding "the best" of anything and paying for it isn't all that hard. Even if you personally don't have any taste or knowledge, well, just pay someone who does. Or go out and buy the most expensive version of whatever it is you seek; even if it isn't THE very best, it's probably close to it. But at this point in my life I prefer a different approach, albeit one driven heavily by the fact that my finances are closer to puddles than oceans: I like to try to find the best things I can at much lower prices. Hondas and Toyotas--marvelous! Tissot PRX--fabulous! Oris--yeah! Citizen Attesa--love it!
Having just a month or so ago had a less-than-pleasant experience with a brand-new watch with a Hi-Beat movement, a movement that's been around for not quite five years, my personal reaction to the new Dynapulse movement would be--if I were in the market for a Rolex, any Rolex--wait and see. How thoroughly has Rolex been able to test it under real-world conditions? How well will it work after being worn for two or three years? It appears to be a marvel of ingenuity and creativity, to be sure--but, well, I wouldn't be an early adopter.
My guess is that Rolex went through a very extensive testing and homologation process, which is not to say that problems might not show up once series production begins and the new escapement starts to get out there in larger numbers. I'm very curious about whether or not the Crown will deploy it across a broader range of watches – it's hard to imagine that they developed it just to use in one model but at the same time, their production lines are so tightly integrated that switching over to the Dynapulse escapement from Chronergy seems a huge undertaking. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Thanks for this reply, as well as to Tony Traina's similar question. It does seem to me that there's a pattern whereby new movements have real-world teething problems, though I'm in no position to quantify their extent. Examples, based admittedly on nothing more than online commentary: the first run of UN's Freak; HYT's hydro watches; the first run of Omega watches featuring the Co-Axial escapement; Grand Seiko's new Hi-Beat movement (this one I can attest to personally, granting that I'm a sample of one); and I've even seen some commentary that Rolex's relatively new 32xx movement has had accuracy problems (mine did, but only after five years of irregular wear, which I don't find problematic; plus, they fixed it under warranty). Is this mostly just online bellyaching? Or does it suggest that, like lots of software these days, watchmakers feel compelled to rush things into production without fully testing them?
I, too, eventually came to the conclusion that if I wanted to know how Dynapulse works I would have to go to SJX. I'm glad that Jack has confirmed my action.
That is a very interesting question – silicon is extremely hard and bearing surfaces are glass-smooth, friction and hence wear at silicon-silicon bearing surfaces should be very low. It should be possible to run the wheels dry, although Rolex has said that it's oiling the escapement albeit in "nano-liter" amounts. Silicon and silicon dioxide (which is sometimes used a s coating for silicon components) are both harder than steels, and although everything wears eventually if you run it long enough, I would imagine the lifespan of the silicon escape wheels might be measurable in decades. The load forces by the time you get to escapements are usually pretty low compared to teeth and pinions further back in the going train. Silicon has about a third the mass of steel as well, so you lose less energy from inertial loads at the escapement. The big disadvantage with silicon is that it's very hard but also brittle (if a material has a brittle failure mode it fractures instead of deforming) so there may be a risk of breakage if the watch gets a hard enough whack. Given their resources I imagine Rolex spent a fair bit of time homologating the escapement.
"the first new escapement to be successfully industrialized, although what that term means is elastic." It's good that this term is elastic, as there is also Seiko's dual impulse escapement. Of which a certain very good watch writer commented, "There have been, despite thousands of experiments, only a few escapements to see really widespread use: The verge, the cylinder, the lever, and the co-axial, and that is over a period of five hundred years or so of watchmaking. To own this watch [SLGH002] is to own the physical manifestation of an event which happens in watchmaking approximately once per century – and to participate in a moment in time which not only looks to the past accomplishments of horology, but which will be remembered, I think, centuries from now as well."
Whoops, mea culpa, no slight to Grand Seiko intended 😅 sorry about that. Chalk it up to post show jet lag. Story updated to include the GS Dual Impulse escapement; thanks for the note.
Oh dear. I confess I rushed my assessment of the Dynapulse, being both drained from the week itself and more eager to a) make fun of the name and b) muse on the L-D’s place in Rolex brand strategy. Thanks for the very fair rebuke! I also fondly remember the IWC propeller and the possible threat it posed to the likes of Ewan McGregor.
I think I'm turning into a grouch as I age 😅 to be fair, it's not exactly an easy escapement to understand and there is certainly a superficial resemblance to the natural escapement. In the end I wonder how much the engineering details will matter to consumers – I think for most folks who are clients for the Land Dweller, the fact that Rolex has innovated on the most essential part of a watch will probably be enough.
Indeed - although it may be even more true to say that the fact Rolex has produced a new watch will be enough for most. Nevertheless as I said on Instagram and on TFW, that doesn't absolve them of the need to explain it properly, and while I'm also not giving journalists a pass because it's our job to figure things out and find them out, Rolex has done a pretty poor job of explaining what Dynapulse is and why it matters. And being Rolex, answers aren't exactly forthcoming when you want to go beyond the superficial press presentation.
That may actually be the more salient point, Chris; generally speaking, I don't think brands do such a hot job explaining the technical aspects of their own work. Marketing departments usually aren't oriented towards doing so and in many cases they may not have the necessary expertise to communicate, lucidly, what the engineers are up to either. I was talking to someone yesterday who designs for a major software company and she was talking about how the cultural divide between engineers and designers especially in terms of UI design; it reminds me of how much can get lost in translation between watchmakers and the press release. Sure, we should be in a position to offer an educated opinion on technical watchmaking but there's no reason to expect generalist luxury and watch writers to have to make educated guesses either.
A.J. Leibling musta been thinking about me when he wrote that--in some sense, if you have oceans of money, finding "the best" of anything and paying for it isn't all that hard. Even if you personally don't have any taste or knowledge, well, just pay someone who does. Or go out and buy the most expensive version of whatever it is you seek; even if it isn't THE very best, it's probably close to it. But at this point in my life I prefer a different approach, albeit one driven heavily by the fact that my finances are closer to puddles than oceans: I like to try to find the best things I can at much lower prices. Hondas and Toyotas--marvelous! Tissot PRX--fabulous! Oris--yeah! Citizen Attesa--love it!
Having just a month or so ago had a less-than-pleasant experience with a brand-new watch with a Hi-Beat movement, a movement that's been around for not quite five years, my personal reaction to the new Dynapulse movement would be--if I were in the market for a Rolex, any Rolex--wait and see. How thoroughly has Rolex been able to test it under real-world conditions? How well will it work after being worn for two or three years? It appears to be a marvel of ingenuity and creativity, to be sure--but, well, I wouldn't be an early adopter.
My guess is that Rolex went through a very extensive testing and homologation process, which is not to say that problems might not show up once series production begins and the new escapement starts to get out there in larger numbers. I'm very curious about whether or not the Crown will deploy it across a broader range of watches – it's hard to imagine that they developed it just to use in one model but at the same time, their production lines are so tightly integrated that switching over to the Dynapulse escapement from Chronergy seems a huge undertaking. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Thanks for this reply, as well as to Tony Traina's similar question. It does seem to me that there's a pattern whereby new movements have real-world teething problems, though I'm in no position to quantify their extent. Examples, based admittedly on nothing more than online commentary: the first run of UN's Freak; HYT's hydro watches; the first run of Omega watches featuring the Co-Axial escapement; Grand Seiko's new Hi-Beat movement (this one I can attest to personally, granting that I'm a sample of one); and I've even seen some commentary that Rolex's relatively new 32xx movement has had accuracy problems (mine did, but only after five years of irregular wear, which I don't find problematic; plus, they fixed it under warranty). Is this mostly just online bellyaching? Or does it suggest that, like lots of software these days, watchmakers feel compelled to rush things into production without fully testing them?
I, too, eventually came to the conclusion that if I wanted to know how Dynapulse works I would have to go to SJX. I'm glad that Jack has confirmed my action.
jack, since you alluded to it--any insight on what rolex is doing to ensure longevity of those big new silicon wheels?
That is a very interesting question – silicon is extremely hard and bearing surfaces are glass-smooth, friction and hence wear at silicon-silicon bearing surfaces should be very low. It should be possible to run the wheels dry, although Rolex has said that it's oiling the escapement albeit in "nano-liter" amounts. Silicon and silicon dioxide (which is sometimes used a s coating for silicon components) are both harder than steels, and although everything wears eventually if you run it long enough, I would imagine the lifespan of the silicon escape wheels might be measurable in decades. The load forces by the time you get to escapements are usually pretty low compared to teeth and pinions further back in the going train. Silicon has about a third the mass of steel as well, so you lose less energy from inertial loads at the escapement. The big disadvantage with silicon is that it's very hard but also brittle (if a material has a brittle failure mode it fractures instead of deforming) so there may be a risk of breakage if the watch gets a hard enough whack. Given their resources I imagine Rolex spent a fair bit of time homologating the escapement.
"the first new escapement to be successfully industrialized, although what that term means is elastic." It's good that this term is elastic, as there is also Seiko's dual impulse escapement. Of which a certain very good watch writer commented, "There have been, despite thousands of experiments, only a few escapements to see really widespread use: The verge, the cylinder, the lever, and the co-axial, and that is over a period of five hundred years or so of watchmaking. To own this watch [SLGH002] is to own the physical manifestation of an event which happens in watchmaking approximately once per century – and to participate in a moment in time which not only looks to the past accomplishments of horology, but which will be remembered, I think, centuries from now as well."
Whoops, mea culpa, no slight to Grand Seiko intended 😅 sorry about that. Chalk it up to post show jet lag. Story updated to include the GS Dual Impulse escapement; thanks for the note.
All good, Jack. Your knowledge still reigns supreme over the general masses of watch writers. I've learnt so much from you. Thank you.