zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: Are chrono movements inherently less shock
: resistant than simpler movements by virtue
: of their greater complexity? Or are there
: too many variables involved to make a
: sweeping statement like that?

The following is only a semi-educated guess, but... the most fragile component of the movement is the balance. Due to shock protection technologies like Kif and Incabloc developed in the 1930's, that part of most modern watches is sufficiently robust to handle the 'normal' range of shock a watch is expected to handle.

Since the balance of a mechanical movement is no different between a chronograph versus a standard movement, I would believe there is no inherent difference in shock resistance.

The added complications of a chronograph may add some additional risk simply on the "more parts to go wrong" principle.

But overall, I am not aware of any basis for thinking chronographs are inherently any less shock resistant than a comparable standard movement.