What exactly is considered HAQ? - Page 4
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: What exactly is considered HAQ?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,535

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    That's the problem with all these manufacturer claims, regardless of how simple or detailed, they are all open to interpretation.

    Has anyone seen a manual that unambiguously guarantees HAQ performance?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    southern New Mexico
    Posts
    8,235

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PetWatch View Post
    That's the problem with all these manufacturer claims, regardless of how simple or detailed, they are all open to interpretation.

    Has anyone seen a manual that unambiguously guarantees HAQ performance?
    Most likely can't be done. If no conditions are specified, then it would have to maintain performance even being put into your freezer for a month. Guarantees are *dangerous* for the guarantor; barring something outright destructive, the user can be incredibly moronic but still get protection. My all-time favorite summation for the state of society today is the disclaimer line: "don't use Viagra if your heart is not healthy enough for sex." It says there's no "WELL DUH!!!" in product use/liability, and that's where performance guarantees lie.

    It also reflects that absolutely clear, unambiguous language is HARD!!!! to write; at best, it will be LONG. And if it's overly specific...the manufacturer will be accused of creating loopholes so he doesn't have to honor the guarantee. Think about these issues with an eye to the WORST CASE interpretation from ANY side. Because it will happen, it's the litigious culture we have.
    PetWatch and watchcrank like this.
    The truth is rarely pure and never simple.

    Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    86

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Interesting post! I've often wondered this myself... based on my personal experience, having had a lot of HEQ/HAQ over the years, the ONLY one that consistently keeps its superb accuracy year after year is the Seiko 9F movement, the rest all tend to gradually deviate with age...
    A wise man closes his mouth sooner that his doors!

  4. Remove Advertisements
    WatchUSeek.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Member ppaulusz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    3,534

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by dwalby View Post
    … Since I own the VHP I'm more familiar with that manual, and don't see any of the same caveats that Citizen imposes like time per day on wrist, temperature, etc. That was the point I was trying to make originally, and in the case of the VHP I think my original statement was in fact true.
    Again, your original statement was wrong just as well as your recent explanation (see above).
    You stated that the Grand Seiko and Longines both simply state the yearly accuracy of 10 and 5 SPY, respectively, with no caveats, conditions, or excuses... According to the respective manuals your statement is wrong so let's move on as there are caveats in both cases! The word typically is not accidentally got added in the VHP manual's specifications section. If it would not be a caveat, it would not have been added because it would be otherwise needless in the wording of the manual! End of story!
    Last edited by ppaulusz; 1 Week Ago at 13:18. Reason: spelling
    Referring to the specifications without being aware of the applied technologies is the telltale sign of incompetence!

  6. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,535

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by dwalby View Post
    I'll let Chasy confirm, but I think his statement is clearly phrased. His watch has lost accuracy at the consistent rate of 14.8SPY since it was presumably set to 0 offset accuracy at the start of the measurement period. Over three months that would be approx. 3.7 seconds off from the initial set point. It didn't jump, it progressed linearly at a rate of about 40ms per day (14.8SPY) from 0 offset to 3.7 seconds offset after 3 months.
    Not to keep beating this drum, but it seems that in this forum folks appreciate a high degree of accuracy. lol

    His statement doesn't asnswer my question. He clearly states the watch has been running at +14.8 SPY for the last three months, in other words month 1, +14.8, month 2, +14.8, month 3, +14.8. It is safe to assume that this was not the initial setting, +14.8, but rather closer to 0 set accuracy. Thus, did it gain +14.8 over the first month and stabilized, over a different period of time? After reading many discussions in this forum I would never assume that the incremental offset progression was steadily linear.

    This brings up another interesting point, I have noticed that some of my new automatic watches take some time to stabilize into more consistent timekeeping. I have never looked into this with my quartz. ?

  7. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,535

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by gangrel View Post
    Most likely can't be done. If no conditions are specified, then it would have to maintain performance even being put into your freezer for a month. Guarantees are *dangerous* for the guarantor; barring something outright destructive, the user can be incredibly moronic but still get protection. My all-time favorite summation for the state of society today is the disclaimer line: "don't use Viagra if your heart is not healthy enough for sex." It says there's no "WELL DUH!!!" in product use/liability, and that's where performance guarantees lie.

    It also reflects that absolutely clear, unambiguous language is HARD!!!! to write; at best, it will be LONG. And if it's overly specific...the manufacturer will be accused of creating loopholes so he doesn't have to honor the guarantee. Think about these issues with an eye to the WORST CASE interpretation from ANY side. Because it will happen, it's the litigious culture we have.
    You make some very good points. Nonetheless approaching this from a practical point it is not all that difficult and a certain expected level of performance is guaranteed by many product guarantees and contracts without stipulating every potential possibility affecting performance. I have seen other watch manuals from Citizen that state the major factors affecting accuracy, that the accuracy rating is an average, in other words don't expect the exact listed rate, that many other factors may affect a watch's accuracy. What I see in HAQ accuracy claims, in particular advertisements is what could be construed to be an attempt to (mis) lead the consumer into making a false assumption. This may be prevalent in overall accuracy claims, I just don't pay as much attention to non HAQ claims.

    They appear to be promising a little more than they can consistently deliver, simply based from the sampling posted here. They probably don't get enough accuracy complaints to force them to be more forthcoming in their claims. However I don't necessarily interpret this as sign of reliable performance since how much of the consumer at large cares or are going to notice that their watch is off by 25 seconds at the end of the year and was off 11 sec. last time they looked at it.

  8. #37
    Member gaijin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    GMT -7
    Posts
    7,335

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PetWatch View Post

    His statement doesn't asnswer my question. He clearly states the watch has been running at +14.8 SPY for the last three months, in other words month 1, +14.8, month 2, +14.8, month 3, +14.8. It is safe to assume that this was not the initial setting, +14.8, but rather closer to 0 set accuracy. Thus, did it gain +14.8 over the first month and stabilized, over a different period of time? After reading many discussions in this forum I would never assume that the incremental offset progression was steadily linear.
    Let's assume a high precision movement operating at a consistent +14.8 Seconds/Year and set to +0.0 Seconds Offset at the beginning of the observations.

    After one year, the offset would be +14.8 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year.

    Good so far?

    Let's further assume for the sake of discussion that all months have 30 days and one year is really only 360 days.

    Monthly observations of this watch would have shown the following:

    After 1 month, the offset would have been +1.2333 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (1.2333 x 12 = 14.8)
    After 2 months, the offset would have been +2.4666 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (2.4666 x 6 = 14.8)
    After 3 months, the offset would have been +3.6999 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (3.6999 x 4 = 14.8)
    After 4 months, the offset would have been +4.9333 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (4.9333 x 3 = 14.8)

    I think you get the idea. Each month the RATE was +14.8 Seconds/Year as the OFFSET steadily, predictably, and precisely increased by +1.2333 Seconds/Month.

    HTH
    ronalddheld and PetWatch like this.
    "So?"
    -Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,535

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaijin View Post
    Let's assume a high precision movement operating at a consistent +14.8 Seconds/Year and set to +0.0 Seconds Offset at the beginning of the observations.

    After one year, the offset would be +14.8 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year.

    Good so far?

    Let's further assume for the sake of discussion that all months have 30 days and one year is really only 360 days.

    Monthly observations of this watch would have shown the following:

    After 1 month, the offset would have been +1.2333 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (1.2333 x 12 = 14.8)
    After 2 months, the offset would have been +2.4666 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (2.4666 x 6 = 14.8)
    After 3 months, the offset would have been +3.6999 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (3.6999 x 4 = 14.8)
    After 4 months, the offset would have been +4.9333 Seconds or +14.8 Seconds/Year (4.9333 x 3 = 14.8)

    I think you get the idea. Each month the RATE was +14.8 Seconds/Year as the OFFSET steadily, predictably, and precisely increased by +1.2333 Seconds/Month.

    HTH
    Thanks, I was going to change my post after I realized my mistake but you beat me to it.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    gaijin likes this.

  10. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    74

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    This is how "simple and predictable" is my Citizen HAQ ;)


    Month 1,
    100% on wrist, 31 oC
    Error: +6.5SPY initially +7.8 SPY at the end

    Month 2
    Month 3
    Month 4
    95% at room temp (A/C room 23 oC), 5% on wrist
    Error: +12 +13 SPY on average initially, but leveling off at a line +14.8SPY

    Month 5
    100% on wrist
    Error: +9.2 SPY


    Precision = unremarkable.
    Accuracy = always outside 5SPY. Under no circumstances is the watch keeping the promised 5SPY.
    PetWatch likes this.

  11. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,535

    Re: What exactly is considered HAQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasy View Post
    This is how "simple and predictable" is my Citizen HAQ ;)


    Month 1,
    100% on wrist, 31 oC
    Error: +6.5SPY initially +7.8 SPY at the end

    Month 2
    Month 3
    Month 4
    95% at room temp (A/C room 23 oC), 5% on wrist
    Error: +12 +13 SPY on average initially, but leveling off at a line +14.8SPY

    Month 5
    100% on wrist
    Error: +9.2 SPY


    Precision = unremarkable.
    Accuracy = always outside 5SPY. Under no circumstances is the watch keeping the promised 5SPY.
    The 95% off wrist months can be discarded as not meeting specified usage conditions. The 100% on wrist months are within the specified 2 sec p/month. Would be interesting to see 12 months of on wrist results, at least a few more months.

    Hard to see how it will stabilize at 5 SPY or better, but I don't know enough about this to assess at this point.

    Hope it improves.


    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by PetWatch; 6 Days Ago at 04:21.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •