6R15...happy or not?

[mirda]

Hi guys!
On my local watch forum there are realy many 6R15 Seiko owners. And many of them are not happy with how their 6R15 works.
Accuracy problems, amplitude problems, beat-error problems....I owned only one 6R15, it was Alpinist SARB059 and it didn't work properly. My watchmaker didn't menage to regulate it so he change some parts (balance complete I think). But at the end results are not much better...otherwise I realy loved the watch.
Also I had very similar problems with my Ananta 8R28....this watch was purchaseed brand new. It has been loosing 20-30sec/day all the time. So I went to the local Seiko watchmaker to put it on the vibrograph. Measured deviations in vibrograph were up to 60sec/day, and uncorrect work of the movement was established. Ater service in Seiko Netherlands it was not much better...
Few days ago my colleague on local forum posted the video from S.Klein about C-type balance issues in new Seiko 6R, 4R movemets.....
So, what do you say guys, is there some general problem with new Seiko movements or just bad luck???
Sorry if similar topic is active somewhere on the forum, but I didn't find one....
Regards,
Damir

[HiBeat]

Don't own any 6R movements myself, but on a related note, my 4R36 SRP777 is hard for my TimeGrapher to "hear". It returns horrible traces when mounted like normal. When I pulled the movement out of the case and checked it uncased, it showed to be running like a champ - really good.

So maybe that's a part of the problem ?

[stevenjohn]

"my 4R36 SRP777 is hard for my TimeGrapher to "hear". It returns horrible traces when mounted like normal."

My SKX007 is like that too.  I think it's just too insulated by the heavy case and plastic movement ring.  If you want to see a really funny trace, start an ultrasonic cleaner while you have one on the timegrapher. 

[Deleted]

Poor time keeping that is not adjustable has little to do with Timegrapher displays.

Watchmakers know that the Timegrapher is just an aid to their own skills. If they can't trust the machine they typically go back to manual regulating. When that still doesn't produce good time keeping, it means the mentioned movements have inherent design issues that Seiko has introduced through it's cost reduction and inventory rationalization programs.

There have not been any improvements or advancements since the last 7s26A came off the line

[mirda]

youtu.be/uH-gq2T5Bxo

[Mr.Jones]

Not satisfied with my first and only 6R15 - a SBDC027 Sumo LE . . . 

Almost 30s slow and high beat error . 

[HiBeat]

Oct 31, 2016 14:46:16 GMT -8 Mr.Jones said:

Not satisfied with my first and only 6R15 - a SBDC027 Sumo LE . . . 

Almost 30s slow and high beat error . 

"and high beat error" says the Man with the WristSushi Contest Grand Prize Timegrapher

[Myles]

FWIW, the 6R15A in my "Spirit" runs great. I had an early "Sumo" that ran well, too. I'm not sure what revision on the 6R15 the "Sumo" housed, but I'm almost certain it wasn't a "C".

[Myles]

Oct 31, 2016 11:36:39 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

There have not been any improvements or advancements since the last 7s26A came off the line

I think the adjustable regulator pin on the "B" and "C" revisions is an improvement.

[Myles]

Oct 31, 2016 14:46:16 GMT -8 Mr.Jones said:

Not satisfied with my first and only 6R15 - a SBDC027 Sumo LE . . . 

Almost 30s slow and high beat error . 

It's probably way out of beat from being subject to shock during shipping. Try moving the stud support away from the regulator pin. This might simultaneously put the escapement in beat and correct the rate.

Oh, and before you touch the escapement, demagnetize. Always go for the least invasive fix, first.

[Mr.Jones]

Since it is still under warranty, I don't want to open it. Demagnetize, yeah - but wouldn't it run fast if it was magnetized? I think that shock is the probable explanation...

[Myles]

Oct 31, 2016 19:28:10 GMT -8 Mr.Jones said:

Since it is still under warranty, I don't want to open it. Demagnetize, yeah - but wouldn't it run fast if it was magnetized? I think that shock is the probable explanation...

Magnetized movement parts usually result in a faster rate, but I think it's best to remove magnetism from the equation before adjusting the rate.

I agree that shock is probably to blame. The last two 7S26C-powered watches I bought arrived running slow and way out of beat. After putting them in beat, the rate was acceptable (a bit on the fast side, which I prefer to slow). This leads me to believe that a shock forced the stud support to move toward the regulator pin, which simultaneously puts the escapement out of beat and reduces the rate.

[Adrian-VTA]

I've found SEIKO's robots aren't great at regulating or oiling.

I have a bunch of 7S and 4R movements and the factory regulation is within the stated spec, but sucks. Also the beat error is often 0.5-0.7 which is outside of best practice.

I can always regulate them here to within 5 sec/day approx.

I haven't run into the balance issues a lot of people report but I'm sure they exist, except on my SKX007 which I bought as a non-runner. Taking off the balance and putting back on solved the problem and it's been fine since.

As for oiling, puddles in the keyless works and over oiled pivots are common.

When I've rebuilt them totally they behave MUCH better than the stock build.

[doc]

My SARB033 behaves quite well it runs within 4 sec/day.  

Haven't had a problem with it since I bought it from Seiya (2014). BTW it's a C balance staff.


My SUMO runs a little fast but also really good +8 sec/day, also C balance staff.

[lordflagpolecrabtree]

Just the one for me. SARB035, which I'm wearing this evening.

I set it accurately and gave it a 2 minute shake a little under 23hrs ago. It's gained 2 seconds (TG reading +5s dial up), it has good amplitude (240) and beat error of 0.5ms. That'll do me nicely thank you.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2016 18:44:42 GMT -8 Myles said:

Oct 31, 2016 11:36:39 GMT -8 @penguinbce said:

There have not been any improvements or advancements since the last 7s26A came off the line

I think the adjustable regulator pin on the "B" and "C" revisions is an improvement.

Under ideal circumstances it might have been but Seiko's implementation is flawed to the point that the hairspring can be easily knocked out of alignment and end up hoked over the regulator pins. Definitely not an improvement to my way of thinking.

Part of the idea with the B and C balance assemblies was to make it easier for the robots to adjust and regulate the movements which does not seem to have happened.

If the experiences of folks like Spencer and Adrian are indicative, then Seiko missed the mark with the 'improvements'.
Spencer has done an excellent bit of detective work to find out what has happened and also to provide a solution

[bb]

Would be nice if Seiko did a 9015 Miyota comparable peer movement with the 28,800 beat rate along with Seiko's Spron feature, robuestness and the like.  The lower beat rate is always a bit bothersome visually in my opinion.  I have heard that the beat rate dues not determine accuracy, but in my very "not and expert at all" opinion, the higher beat rate movements stay more accurate.  All my ETA 2824 and Miyota 9015 watches have come in with a tighter tolerance from my watchmaker than any of my 6r15 movement watches.  I know there is that Seiko 28,800 bph movement but it has some funky complications not needed or wanted in a dive watch or practically any clean good looking watch in my opinion.