-
May 18, 2015, 01:18 PM
#21
It sounds like the process used by Tudor is responsible for the high failure rate. Using an injection molding process can lead to tiny discontinuities in the structure of the final product which causes fault lines that lead to cracks and ultimate failure.
The ceramic matrix needs to be just about perfect to afford the strength that can be achieved with the material.
-
May 18, 2015, 01:29 PM
#22
Originally Posted by
mikeylacroix
not a single clue..maybe C might have some inkling??
here's something I lifted from tudor
Here is a little from Tudor on the case:
The TUDOR Fastrider Black Shield’s monobloc case in matte black ceramic is an archetype in its genre. What makes it so special? Not only is it fashioned using nothing but high-tech injected ceramic – not ceramic applied to another material as a coating – but it is also made entirely in one process. The whole case is produced as a single piece – a unique operation for watches in this segment. In addition to the noble aesthetics of this chronograph, the extremely complex procedure adopted for its manufacture – a result of technological expertise acquired in perfecting the bezel for the Pelagos line – ensures that both the middle case and bezel are exceptionally reliable and resistant.
TUDOR develops for the first time a case completely fashioned in high-tech injected ceramic. The whole case of the Fastrider Black Shield is produced as a single piece – a unique operation for watches in this segment. The ceramic is virtually impervious to scratches, and its color is unaffected by ultraviolet rays. The result is, naturally, quite out of the ordinary, powerful and unique. The manufacture of the bezel and the case is carried out in-house. The brand has installed the exclusive equipment required to perfectly master the quality of the final product in conformity with its stringent specifications. The basic ceramic material is a very fine zirconium dioxide powder, whose particles are less than one micron (one-thousandth of a millimeter) in diameter. The powder, white at the outset, is mixed with both a binding agent that allows it to be moulded and pigments that will give the final desired color. The raw material is shaped by high-pressure moulding. At this point, it has very low resistance. The components are then heat treated in furnaces. The first stage eliminates the binding agent. From the second firing at 1,500 °C (2,700 °F), or sintering, the ceramic
acquires its definitive hardness and mechanical resistance. Its resistance after the sintering is akin to that of steel, but its hardness is much greater. During firing and sintering, the piece contracts by approximately 25 percent and acquires its final color. Final precision machining gives each piece its definitive shape and size for assembly. As the material has now acquired its characteristic hardness, this operation requires the use of diamond tools. Throughout the production process, the ceramic undergo numerous quality controls to check the precision of their geometry, their mechanical properties and their color. In addition to the noble aesthetics of this chronograph, the extremely complex procedure adopted for its manufacture ensures that both the middle case and bezel are exceptionally reliable and resistant.
It sounds quite similar to Rado's process, but I have read that the Rado case shrinks by more than 30%. Maybe it has something to do with the final density of the ceramic or it could even be the ceramic Tudor has chosen. Rado uses around a half a dozen different ceramic compounds for different purposes. Slightly off topic, I am quite interested in the newer ultra light Si3N4 TiN cases.
-
May 18, 2015, 01:35 PM
#23
Originally Posted by
Henry Krinkle
It sounds quite similar to Rado's process, but I have read that the Rado case shrinks by more than 30%. Maybe it has something to do with the final density of the ceramic or it could even be the ceramic Tudor has chosen. Rado uses around a half a dozen different ceramic compounds for different purposes. Slightly off topic, I am quite interested in the newer ultra light Si3N4 TiN cases.
One other thing that could contribute to the failure rate is the case shape itself. The more complex the case shape, the more difficult it is to form.
-
May 18, 2015, 01:59 PM
#24
Originally Posted by
FuzzyB
One other thing that could contribute to the failure rate is the case shape itself. The more complex the case shape, the more difficult it is to form.
Yes, I agree. I was sort of getting at that with regard to the chunkiness of the Tudor. The range of thick and thin portions on the Tudor seem to cover a wider scale than on the Rado cases, though I am not sure things like the number of holes makes that much difference. Rado makes a lot of monobloc chronographs. I think varying thickness of the different parts of the case may have a big impact on failure rates. In line with your comment about discontinuities, I think it would take some serious math to figure out how to compensate for shrinkage across all the density changes.
Last edited by Henry Krinkle; May 18, 2015 at 03:24 PM.
-
May 18, 2015, 03:00 PM
#25
i am digging the direction of this thread so far. thanks fellas
-
May 18, 2015, 03:28 PM
#26
Tudor is like a fake Rolex, right?
Originally Posted by
mikeylacroix
i am digging the direction of this thread so far. thanks fellas
How about now?
-
May 18, 2015, 03:51 PM
#27
I should have been more specific, regarding the rejection rations I mentioned before. The complexity of the case shape may have contributed, to some extent, to the difficulties experienced during the R&D process and pre-production stages. I do not know enough details to support any other explanation.
Now, what I want to emphasize is this: the final product, the pieces that are currently available, do not and I repeat - do not - show any inconsistencies or defects that could compromise in any way, the structure/ hardness/shape/color of the case, as far as I can tell.
Sorry if my previous post would let you think otherwise. If it did, please accept my appologies, because its purpose was to highlight the investement Tudor has done, to be sure its products would be completely reliable and flawless, based on a very rigorous QC. Hope this helps to clarify things a bit.
In conclusion: I would buy any of these Tudors with total confidence.
Last edited by CFR; May 18, 2015 at 03:56 PM.
-
May 18, 2015, 03:54 PM
#28
Originally Posted by
geoffbot
Tudor is like a fake Rolex, right?
How about now?
fake rolex > omega?
-
May 18, 2015, 04:00 PM
#29
Originally Posted by
geoffbot
Tudor is like a fake Rolex, right?
How about now?
-
May 18, 2015, 04:15 PM
#30
Originally Posted by
geoffbot
Tudor is like a fake Rolex, right?
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Likes
CFR liked this post