How real movement design starts from outside in.
There’s been a quietly corrosive problem at certain maisons in recent years: a growing mismatch between what designers want and what the movement team can deliver.
This disconnect has led to watches that are too thick, squinty sub-dials and odd date locations. And yes, legacy calibres are part of the excuse. But so is inertia. And so is profit.
Often, the movement team and design team aren’t in the same room early enough or apparently at all. The result ? A compromised product caught between the unstoppable force (design director) meeting the immoveable object (movement director).
It’s not dissimilar to the car world: body designers come in overweight, only for the powertrain team to underdeliver what will actually move the thing. The difference? In watchmaking, for the last few years the compromises could be buried under a shiny dial with the assumption that “the public will never notice.” But that is wearing thin—especially under the lens of social media critique and an increasingly fluent collector base.
When laying out a performance movement—not some artistic sandbox with negative space—the constraints become obvious:
Artistic demands: bridge architecture, thinness, subdials’ placement
Performance goals: high energy balance (uJ), power reserve, chronometry, cost
Packaging: diameter x thickness
Product roadmap: sub/centre seconds, complication modules, synergy with other movements, retrofit options
And above all: cost. The moment you need to change anything the cost alarm bells ring. Base plate machining? Manageable. New bridges? …ok.. New wheels? Preferably not. Escapement changes? Ooofff.
But every time that cost is avoided, something is undermined.
Some brands proliferate movements. It’s part of their ethos. Others wave around their “5 years in development” badge like it’s enough. Both can work. But neither absolves you from bad design choices.
Recently, I was asked to review the Patek Philippe 30-255 and allowed to share a small bit of that to give some insight into the issues. The 30-255 may be ugly with odd bridge layout and missed opportunities for classic finishes, but it is a technically impressive calibre with an unusually high HDF (Horological Density Factor). One of the questions was how to drop the seconds subdial? What are its layout alternatives?
Here’s the current train:
Twin barrels drive the centre pinion (red arrows)
Energy moves across two transfer gears to the second wheel (orange and yellow arrows)
Thence to the third wheel (green arrow)
Thence to the fourth (sub-seconds), mid-way between centre and edge (blue arrow)
Thence the escape wheel, (pink arrow)
Thence the lever—whose pivot radius is critical (purple arrow)
So, dropping the fourth wheel, it must stay along the grey dashed line lest it creates an offset (as seen in the old FP 71 / Breguet 502.3).
You can drop it a little without disturbing the third wheel. But to drop it fully, you’ll likely need to rotate the third a few degrees anti-clockwise. The escape wheel now sits towards the centre. That requires changing the centre cock (holding the intermediate pinion between the two mainspring barrels) and ensuring the base plate depth can still carry the motion works on the dial side as the escape wheel is the deepest cutting in the plate. Looking at the front of the movement (not shown), it looks doable to get a jewel there just below the motion works cover; although judging by its current shape, this route was not protected for.
This route requires:
New base plate machining
Revised bridge for 4th, and escape wheel,
Possibly revised bridge 3rd wheel
But retains the same wheels, lever, escapement geometry, hairspring, and balance
You could leave the third where it is to save the bridge. But then you can’t drop the subdial quite so far. And if you need to keep the escape wheel lower, you could move the lever pivot and balance. There’s room to move the balance over quite impactfully.
I’m not going to show you all the options, but hopefully this has given you some insight. A good holistic design team should have created these options during the product roadmap stage and be able to flex them depending on application, case size and dial aesthetics. Maybe Patek has already mapped these routes and decided not to take them - yet. But let’s not pretend they don’t exist—nor that they’re free.
Better decisions start with better dialogue. Between departments. Between intent and execution. Between ambition and engineering. Horology, not hype. That’s where the work still lies and never been more important.
Disclaimer: This post discusses technical layout scenarios using the Patek Philippe calibre 30-255 as a reference case. This is a speculative and independent design study. I am not affiliated with Patek Philippe, and this work was not commissioned by the company.
Share this post