6 ms·
Interestingly, hacking seconds have become so ubiquitous, that some watches will advertise the "lack" of hacking seconds. I.e. in the Rolex GMT, when you adjus
by matthewtse 3y ago
Interestingly, hacking seconds have become so ubiquitous, that some watches will advertise the "lack" of hacking seconds.
I.e. in the Rolex GMT, when you adjust the hour hand independently of the seconds hand, the seconds hand continues moving (non-hacking), which allows you to change the time zone when traveling without messing up the seconds hand that you previously already setup.
- ferongr 3y agoWhich is completely asinine, as mechanical watches, even expensive ones are inaccurate by many seconds every day.
- snitty 3y agoRolex are +/- 2 seconds per day.
- ferongr 3y agoThat's terrible. Hacking prevention would make sense if they were ±2 seconds a month.
- Raidion 3y ago1 minute a month (upper bound) is hardly a deal breaker. If you were adjusting the watch regularly without hacking (as a pilot) you'd have an error rate that's probably close to 10x higher. 10+ minutes a month WOULD make a difference.
- throw0101a 3y ago> 1 minute a month (upper bound) is hardly a deal breaker. For a relative measure: if you're off by one minute when using a sextant, then you could be off by (IIRC) about 15 nautical miles. So one should at least know the average drift of the time piece if it's being used for navigation, and it should be sync'd up with UTC/GMT regularly. For regular day-to-day stuff, one minute is probably less dire.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NhanH 3y ago+- 2 seconds per day is their worst case specifications (watches being stored in weird orientation, with high temperature etc.). It is common for standard usage watch to be within 10 secs monthly.
- theK 3y agoI agree it's not perfect but: 1. For cases where seconds matter in human interaction there are well know and efficient protocols to sync 2. Often 2-3 seconds turn out to not matter but being on the right time zone does. It is an evolutionary development after all so (at least at some point) there exists a large market for this feature
- CydeWeys 3y agoIt's useful while traveling across time zones. You'd lose a lot more time if you had to hack it while changing the local time setting.
- xmcqdpt2 3y agoIs it? You have a phone, you can just sync to it when you change timezone. Or is not looking at your phone part of the hobby?
- yonaguska 3y ago> Or is not looking at your phone part of the hobby? yes.
- CydeWeys 3y agoI mean, yes, if you're wearing a watch, it's obviously because you want to be able to tell the time with a simple glance at your wrist, rather than having to pull your phone out of your pocket. Plus watches are waterproof, and you can bring them with you while swimming/snorkeling/diving/saunaing/whatever, which you wouldn't do with a phone.
- xmcqdpt2 3y agoSure, but I feel you are rather unlikely to need to change time zone while snorkelling (unless you snorkel really far!). I understand the point of watches, just not why you would care about the lack of hack for changing the hour.
- CydeWeys 3y agoYou missed the point; you aren't changing time zones while snorkeling, but you are still wearing the watch. The point is you don't have your phone with you while snorkeling so you have to check the time on your watch, and because you're traveling, you had to change the time when you got there, which the independently adjustable hour hand made easier. An independently adjustable hour hand is a useful complication on a watch for traveling across time zones.
- thrawa8387336 3y agoIt's art
- Ancapistani 3y ago“Many” seconds per day strikes me as an overstatement. The Hamilton I’m wearing right now gains about 10 seconds per week. I set it about once every 3-4 months - that’s hardly an onerous task.
- silisili 3y agoI'd say you got a lucky one. From Hamilton's own site - > Most watches that do not have a chronometer certificate have an average course deviation of -10/+15 seconds per day. To be called a Chronometer, the mechanical watch mechanism must have an average course deviation of -4/+6 seconds per day.
- WrongAssumption 3y agoThat’s a min/max daily range that is influenced by factors such as movement, angle, temperature and magnetism. They generally do not hit the min max and average out quite a bit day to day.
- tedunangst 3y agoI don't know about seconds, but it's pretty nice to adjust the hour without having to reset the minute hand.
- halgir 3y agoThey're so perfectly imperfect, and that's why we love them.
- CydeWeys 3y agoNota bene, a GMT does hack in the second crown position, so you can set it accurately to the second. And independent jumping hours is super useful while traveling across time zones. It's a complication, in the same way that hacking itself is a complication. Both are harder to implement than a time-only watch without hacking.
- randomcarbloke 3y agoTravel time is such a beautiful complication but so rare, I know of PF and Patek...maybe Ball aswell, I can't remember.
- _fat_santa 3y agoIt's getting more common. Seiko recently released the Seiko 5 GMT which for the MSRP of $495 is a steal in the watch world, possibly the most affordable GMT on the market now. There are lots of "GMT Watches" you see on Amazon and other places for much cheaper but all of those use Quartz movements.
- randomcarbloke 3y agoI mean specifically the travel-time in Patek's parlance; a jumping hour advance for a second hidden hour hand, the best contemporary example would be the Parmigiani Fleurier Tonda PF GMT.
- throw0101a 3y ago> Interestingly, hacking seconds have become so ubiquitous, that some watches will advertise the "lack" of hacking seconds. > I.e. in the Rolex GMT, when you adjust the hour hand independently of the seconds hand, the seconds hand continues moving (non-hacking) Rolexes have a hacking mechanism, but it's usually only activated when you pull the crown out to the furthest/third stop, which is where you set minutes. The changing of the hour for timezones generally happens in full-hour increments (with exceptions, e.g., Newfoundland). The original Rolex GMTs did not have hacking, but it was added later; 1971, AFAICT: * https://www.analogshift.com/blogs/transmissions/guide-to-rolex-gmt-master https://www.analogshift.com/blogs/transmissions/guide-to-rol... This hacking/non-hacking functionality is fairly common on GMT/dual-timezone watches.
- otteromkram 3y ago[flagged]
- throw0101a 3y ago> Why did you feel the need to quote almost all of a parent comment before submitting your own? So I know more of the context when I get replies, since the original is not showing up in my 'inbox' (HN top-right > [username] > comments) when I see your message.
- capableweb 3y agoSide-note, this page is also the second menu item in the topbar, called "Threads" :)
- capableweb 3y ago> Why did you feel the need to quote almost all of a parent comment before submitting your own? In addition to what parent said, sometimes people sneakily edit their comments after your reply, and the part you answered to goes missing/changes substantially.
- rmccue 3y ago
- ksaj 3y agoNice. I was reading the comments because I knew someone would explain the purpose of it. I have both hacking and non-hacking watches. I know what they do, but I never knew why it was something people would even care about. Changing TZ when travelling is definitely a perfect use case for non-hacking movements. Also before and after DST.
- dave_universetf 3y agoThere is also a feeling by some horologists and watch fans that the hack interacting with the balance oscillator and suddenly halting its motion is detrimental to the movement's health and precision. I haven't found any data to substantiate this, but I'm told that some watch aficionados prefer non-hacking movements for that reason.
- ksaj 3y agoI can imagine this being the case, but the mechanics tend to be so accurate that I could see either being the case. I think the start/stop action is so quick that it likely is not damaging. But I'm clearly not an expert on this. Another thing - in the comments someone mentioned military folk using hacking watches to sync their watches together. This use case I do know about, although for civilian purposes. We used to do it as kids, and became well aware of just how inaccurate all of our kiddie watches were. We used to sort of race them if our day was long enough. But they were accurate enough for our various games.
- dave_universetf 3y agoIt does seem a bit silly to me as well, given the stresses that watch movements are subjected to day to day, and that the hack's mechanical design barely touches the balance at all. It doesn't take very much friction at all to halt these movements, so I struggle to see where the source of damage would lie. But, people have their opinions. And yeah, mechanical movements are technological marvels, and can keep incredible time for being a completely analog machine... But seconds per day is still about as good as it gets unless you take expensive measures (like the marine chronometers did) to get diminishing returns. And less expensive or well tuned movements can easily drift by a minute or two per day. In a way, we've been spoiled by quartz and electronic timekeeping. Now that GPS blankets the world and lets any timepiece continuously synchronize to within microseconds, "seconds per day" sounds ludicrous. And yet, it built empires and ran the world for a couple centuries! Especially for civilian use, it's rare to truly _need_ better precision, aside from the general desire for perfection.
- _fat_santa 3y agoOdd how various watch features are advertised. I'm in the Seiko collectors world and "hacking/handwind" movements are generally seen as more desirable. Since Seiko Modding is pretty common (compared to modding other watch brands at least), the "hacking/handwind movement replacement" mod is one of the most popular.