ΘΕΩΡΙΤΙΚΑ λενε ότι καλυτεροι χρονογραφοι (αξιοπιστια αντοχή κλπ) είναι οι από αρχη χρονογραφοι και όχι αυτοι με module από πανω
και για αλλους λογους
πες μας
το κοστος κατασκευης για ενα χρονογραφο ειναι μεγαλυτερο και τεχνικα ειναι ανωτερος.
και
Integrated chronographs are designed from the start to be chronographs, which means their mainsprings and escapements are optimized for the power requirements of driving extra hands and keeping accurate time despite shocks from starting and stopping timing and maintaining good power reserve. Early modular chronographs were not designed or implemented with changes to the mainspring and escapement, which meant they were not as stable time keepers as integrated chronographs and were less reliable. I would expect movements like the 2894 to have properly addressed these design issues, but when a maker buys base movements (ETA 2824 or 2892) from one supplier and modules from DD, and puts them together, it is less clear that the mainspring and escapement changes that should be done are always done. To get a better idea of what I'm referring to, read the article here about problems with early versions of the Heuer Cal. 11.
The net for me is that integrated chronographs are designed from the ground up to be chronographs and have all the benefits associated with singularly focused design, while modular chronographs are amalgams of designs coupled together to make a chronograph with the inherent compromises of trying to piece two things together to make something.
