Co-axial escapement.

[Huertecilla]

Save for the doing away with it altogether by spring drive, the co-axial escapement is the only constructional improvement to the escapement mechanism in centuries.

Omega has been the one to acquire the right to it and is producing movements with it.
They are thus the only Swiss watch brand with this improvement.
Why is there a predominantly negative attitude towards the watches with this movement and Omega about that?
It ís a constructional improvement. When engineered right is will be either more reliable or give better performance. Not a revolutionary but nevertheless very real.
What is wrong? Is it resentment about the pricing?
Or is it me getting the wrong picture?

[andrew]

Save for the doing away with it altogether by spring drive, the co-axial escapement is the only constructional improvement to the escapement mechanism in centuries.

Omega has been the one to acquire the right to it and is producing movements with it.
They are thus the only Swiss watch brand with this improvement.
Why is there a predominantly negative attitude?

I don't think it's predominantly negative but a watch with a regular escapement could already be tuned to be very accurate, so the improvements are pretty marginal. Omega's saturation marketing and gentle bending of the facts stuck in my craw.

It was a Brit who invented the lever escapement and another Brit who came up with the co-axial escapement. But apparently, it was actually the Swiss

[gentlemenpreferhats]

I don't think it's predominantly negative but a watch with a regular escapement could already be tuned to be very accurate, so the improvements are pretty marginal.

I thought the main point was the potential improvement in durability and service intervals rather than the accuracy alone? You seem to know more about the innards so tell me if this is marketing guff as well.

I also wasn't aware that there was a negative attitude toward the co-axial; quite the opposite, if anything.

[Huertecilla]

It was a Brit who invented the lever escapement and another Brit who came up with the co-axial escapement. But apparently, it was actually the Swiss

..and a dutchman who came up with the infinite first move; the escapement thing itself :wink:

I get the gist of what you write; you write that it is over the top marketing that works adverse for you?

[Bernard]

I don't think it's predominantly negative but a watch with a regular escapement could already be tuned to be very accurate, so the improvements are pretty marginal.

I thought the main point was the potential improvement in durability and service intervals rather than the accuracy alone? You seem to know more about the innards so tell me if this is marketing guff as well.

I also wasn't aware that there was a negative attitude toward the co-axial; quite the opposite, if anything.

Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, you'll gain nothing as long as the rest of the movement still needs regular servicing.

Further: the gain in precision is nearly nothing. Regular movements can be fine tuned to the same accuracy. Remember that there were lots of problems with the first coaxials and that Omega had to improve the precision of the parts: tighter tolerances!

If you use the same tolerances on regular movements you would as a result gain some accuracy as well.

On the other hand, the price difference between the Omega's with and without Co-axial movement is simply huge. Such a price-difference cannot be explained by changing the used escapement. It's mostly about making more profit.

Co-axial is a nice thing to use in commercials etc. That's all that it is in my opinion.

[petespendthrift]

I would be the first to admit - I am no expert. However, I believe that those who are not fans have opinions along the following lines.

Marketing guff aside the Co-axial escapement claims to do two things that give it the edge over more traditional designs but it is debatable whether it really achieves either.

The two are increases accuracy (in the long term) and a longer service life. It only really achieves the first when compared to a worn out lever escapement - the assumption being that over a prolonged period without service the traditional escapement becomes more worn and looses accuracy whilst the Co-axial remains true. But there is really no appreciable improvement in accuracy in the short term (despite having slightly less friction). Also, because of other components in the Co-axial movement the service interval could not actually be made much longer and therefore with normal, like for like servicing it is obvious that worn components on a standard lever escapement can just be replaced, meaning there is no need to suffer the lost accuracy anyway. Worse, in an attempt to prolong the service interval (or because of some other problem that Omega are being cagey about) the beat frequency of the co-axial movements has been slowed down - actually meaning slightly less accuracy in both the short and long term. This defies logic and appears to defeat the whole point of an escapement with less friction. In my opinion using a free sprung balance wheel used by Rolex and many others - but not Omega, rather than one regulated by a friction based mechanism is a genuine improvement and allows more precise adjustment but the Co-axial has turned out to be just a marketing gimmick.

As a marketing gesture Omega sell the Co-axial movements with a longer warranty (implying that they are less likely to go wrong). But for some reason reports seem to indicate that the modified ETAs seem to actually now be far less reliable than they were previously.

[gentlemenpreferhats]

@Petespendthrift &Bernard: excellent responses, many thanks. Like many semi-WIS I have an interest in the durability of mechanical movements.

The view I'ld picked up from browsing a while back on "another" forum was that the 3-year warranty was proof that the co-axial was more durable.

Does anyone hold a view opposite to Pete & Bernard?

EDIT:Thank you Search function:very good thread here

[thenikjones]

It ís a constructional improvement. When engineered right is will be either more reliable or give better performance. Not a revolutionary but nevertheless very real.
What is wrong? Is it resentment about the pricing?
Or is it me getting the wrong picture?

My 2 thoughts:

The price differences between non-coaxial and coaxial SeMPs and Aqua Terras seem unwarranted to me.

3 year vs 2 year warranty period doesn't seem that much of an increase. If better performance is to be expected, then guaranteeing the watch to meet a "tighteneed COSC" standard would be nice [I know COSC performance is the movement not the finished watch, but Omega make the movement and then assemble the watch so not unreasonable]

[andrew]

The view I'ld picked up from browsing a while back on "another" forum was that the 3-year warranty was proof that the co-axial was more durable.

That's not a completely ridiculous assertion (compare the warranties of different car brands and the correlation between these and real-world reliability), but it is a long way from proof of durability. My Oris came with a 2-year movement; merely by registering at myoris.com I get an extension to three years. No change in the product, simply market discrimination, like clipping out a coupon in a magazine to get two for one at Tesco's.

Petespendthrift and Bernard already said everything I could have. I tend to focus on utilitarian aspects and the dissonance between actual advantages in this area and the marketing claims presented. A little bit more stability in time-keeping is nice to have but it's gravy compared to the accuracy you can get in TC quartz, for example. The escapement itself may never need servicing in the life of the watch, but you still have to open the back every 5 years or so to service the rest of it.

[Huertecilla]

The object of the co-axial mechanism is to deminish the stress on the achilles heel of the mechanical movement.

By raising the frequency of a movement preformance can be improved. During the sixties movements with up to 50 beats per second were made and tested.
The problem was that the stresses increase with the power of the frequency (= speed and inertia).
8 beats per second has proven to be the optimum between performance and stress. 10 beats per second is already pushing reliability in favour of performance.

If one can modify the mechanism and reduce stress that means the optimum will shift to a higher frequency:
- 10 maybe 12 beats per second with the same stress thus reliability ór
- sticking to 8 and thus have the same performance with extended service interval.

The economic way out would be to use up the stress relief to reduce production cost through less tight tolerances and keep the performance and service interval at the same level.

Again; if engineered right, the co-axial escapement should ideally result in 12 beat performance with 8 beat service interval. Otherwise there seems little or no sense in it.
Looking at the maintaining of COSC level of performance and a 50% warranty period increase I thínk that Omega is compromising performance in favour of their own economy.

Personally I think Omega would score a bull´s eye if they would produce a commercially available Astronomical Observatory Chronometer with this evolution escapement mechanism.
With modern CAD-CAM and - improved materials it should be very possible to achieve with improved reliablity.

[andrew]

It was a Brit who invented the lever escapement and another Brit who came up with the co-axial escapement. But apparently, it was actually the Swiss

..and a dutchman who came up with the infinite first move; the escapement thing itself :wink:

He came up with the idea of using a pendulum to regulate timekeeping. It took a third Brit (not Mudge or Daniels) to integrate it into an escapement for use in clocks ;).

[Huertecilla]

It took a third Brit (not Mudge or Daniels) to integrate it into an escapement for use in clocks ;).

So ´you´ didn´t only mess up ´your´ car- and motorcycle industry but the clock industry too??!!

:wink:

Back to the co-axial thingamy which is good thinking wasted if it leads to nothing but price increase.

[RTH]

http://www.timezone.com/library/horolog ... 8207665706 is quite interseting.
A more in depth look at the rate stability is provided here (I just found it on the internet, and saved a copy):

Oops, to large to upload so here's the link http://www.bhi.co.uk/hj/August04AoM.PDF (171 kB).

If you want accuracy, quartz is the way to go. Of course, I'm holding out for CSACs :wink:

However, I think to deride it as a simple exercise in profiteering is overly cynical (and I myself am a dyed-in-the-wool cynic). I think investement in new technologies should be encouraged wherever possible - and the caliber 8500, for example, integrates several aspects that I find interesting and I hope will become available to me in cheaper watches. Without developing them first, what hope is there of that happening? You've got to remember that the costs of early quartz were astronomical (Seiko didn't call it the Astron for nothing :wink:).

[Bernard]

The object of the co-axial mechanism is to deminish the stress on the achilles heel of the mechanical movement.

By raising the frequency of a movement preformance can be improved. During the sixties movements with up to 50 beats per second were made and tested.
The problem was that the stresses increase with the power of the frequency (= speed and inertia).
8 beats per second has proven to be the optimum between performance and stress. 10 beats per second is already pushing reliability in favour of performance.

Not necesarilly, it all depends on the (expensive and high-tech) lubrication.
I have a Longines 431 chronometre, 36.000 bph which runs at + 0.5 per day. This watch is some 40 years old and the previous owner has worn it so much that the engraved back is nearly unreadable...

Another question is: are watchmakers capable to properly service and oil such a movement with (special coated parts and) molybdene-lubrication? The answer is: no, most watchmakers wil use improper oil, resulting in wear and tear.

If one can modify the mechanism and reduce stress that means the optimum will shift to a higher frequency:
- 10 maybe 12 beats per second with the same stress thus reliability ór
- sticking to 8 and thus have the same performance with extended service interval.

The economic way out would be to use up the stress relief to reduce production cost through less tight tolerances and keep the performance and service interval at the same level.

It just is not possible to use up the stress relief as you suggest and keep the same performance. Less tight tolerances in Omega's first series of 2500 Co-axials were dramatic, with many watches breaking down.

[Huertecilla]

It just is not possible to use up the stress relief as you suggest and keep the same performance. Less tight tolerances in Omega's first series of 2500 Co-axials were dramatic, with many watches breaking down.

The latter simply indicates that they may have overdone it and ended up penny wise pound foolish.

The lower stresses in the co-axial solution means that the escapement mechanism is slightly less of an achilles heel.
It gives room for lifting the optimum compromise between performance and reliability to just that little bit higher platform.
If it does not, it is a waste of good thinking degraded to a senseless selling point.

[lysanderxiii]

Others have touched on it here, but the co-axial escapement is not that much of an improvement over the traditional lever escapement (also known as the anchor escapement.) The lever is a relatively simple design, it is easy to make, and given the proper maintenance, will last a long, long long time.

In fact, with new advances in grease/oil technology, the service interval and wear of a lever escapement can be increased considerably. For example, Moebius 9415 is a grease that liquifies under pressure, so when it is placed on the face of the pallet stone, it will stay in place and not migrate off the face of the stone, but when it strikes the escapement tooth, it liquifies to the consistency of a very light, thin oil so the drag on the movement is minimal.

When engineered right is will be either more reliable or give better performance. Not a revolutionary but nevertheless very real.

The increased cost of and the need for a very high level of precision in the manufacture of its component parts and their assembly, are not compensated for by proportionally higher accuracy or increase in service life. Further, it the tolerances are relaxed to allow for mass production, the gains disappear.

The problem is Omega alludes that their co-axials are the equal of those hand-made co-axials by George Daniels. They aren't. They are simply a movement that provides approximately the same level of performance as a traditional lever escapement movement with a different design escapement.

Kind'a like the Mazda RX-series with the Wankel engine....

[Ventura]

Wasn't the problem George Daniels had was to convince the Swiss watchmakers that there was no need of lubrication or something along those lines? Because the Swiss insisted on lubrication the service intervals aren't as extended a they would've been.

[Daddelvirks]

Others have touched on it here, but the co-axial escapement is not that much of an improvement over the traditional lever escapement (also known as the anchor escapement.) The lever is a relatively simple design, it is easy to make, and given the proper maintenance, will last a long, long long time.

In fact, with new advances in grease/oil technology, the service interval and wear of a lever escapement can be increased considerably. For example, Moebius 9415 is a grease that liquifies under pressure, so when it is placed on the face of the pallet stone, it will stay in place and not migrate off the face of the stone, but when it strikes the escapement tooth, it liquifies to the consistency of a very light, thin oil so the drag on the movement is minimal.

When engineered right is will be either more reliable or give better performance. Not a revolutionary but nevertheless very real.

The increased cost of and the need for a very high level of precision in the manufacture of its component parts and their assembly, are not compensated for by proportionally higher accuracy or increase in service life. Further, it the tolerances are relaxed to allow for mass production, the gains disappear.

The problem is Omega alludes that their co-axials are the equal of those hand-made co-axials by George Daniels. They aren't. They are simply a movement that provides approximately the same level of performance as a traditional lever escapement movement with a different design escapement.

Kind'a like the Mazda RX-series with the Wankel engine....

Thank you very much for this clip and clear explenation :)
It makes very much sense.

Cheers,

Daddel.

[PekkaM]

I didn't know there was a general feeling against them. Some early movement had issues, I've understood. Maybe it's the hype and the fact that it really hasn't survived the test of the time yet? To me the biggest issue is the fact that it is printed on the dial of every damn watch having one. Technical feats should be printed on the marketing material, user manual or on the backside of the watch if they really need to be on it :bom:

[andrew]

It took a third Brit (not Mudge or Daniels) to integrate it into an escapement for use in clocks ;).

So ´you´ didn´t only mess up ´your´ car- and motorcycle industry but the clock industry too??!!

Ah, that was where you were going, was it?

[dream up your own winky smiley here if you like, putting one in myself would be hypocritical]

Funny who defensive people get...

[Neil.C]

Others have touched on it here, but the co-axial escapement is not that much of an improvement over the traditional lever escapement (also known as the anchor escapement.) The lever is a relatively simple design, it is easy to make, and given the proper maintenance, will last a long, long long time.

In fact, with new advances in grease/oil technology, the service interval and wear of a lever escapement can be increased considerably. For example, Moebius 9415 is a grease that liquifies under pressure, so when it is placed on the face of the pallet stone, it will stay in place and not migrate off the face of the stone, but when it strikes the escapement tooth, it liquifies to the consistency of a very light, thin oil so the drag on the movement is minimal.

When engineered right is will be either more reliable or give better performance. Not a revolutionary but nevertheless very real.

The increased cost of and the need for a very high level of precision in the manufacture of its component parts and their assembly, are not compensated for by proportionally higher accuracy or increase in service life. Further, it the tolerances are relaxed to allow for mass production, the gains disappear.

The problem is Omega alludes that their co-axials are the equal of those hand-made co-axials by George Daniels. They aren't. They are simply a movement that provides approximately the same level of performance as a traditional lever escapement movement with a different design escapement.

Kind'a like the Mazda RX-series with the Wankel engine....

Nice and concise, thanks.

When the co-axial came out I was demonised on some Omega forums because I couldn't believe any tiny gain in efficiency could be worth a price hike of 25%.

My basis for argument was that I have lever escapement pocket watches that are 100 years old that still work well and are a pretty good advert for the old anchor. :)

[Huertecilla]

The increased cost of and the need for a very high level of precision in the manufacture of its component parts and their assembly, are not compensated for by proportionally higher accuracy or increase in service life. Further, it the tolerances are relaxed to allow for mass production, the gains disappear.

Ok, I get it.

Meaning that is the case of mass production it adds up to a senseless complication needlessly adding (a bit) to cost which only serves as a unique selling point for marketing to justify a significant price uplift?

[Bernard]

I didn't know there was a general feeling against them. Some early movement had issues, I've understood. Maybe it's the hype and the fact that it really hasn't survived the test of the time yet? To me the biggest issue is the fact that it is printed on the dial of every damn watch having one. Technical feats should be printed on the marketing material, user manual or on the backside of the watch if they really need to be on it :bom:

I don't have anything against them, except for the sudden steep rise in prices.
I refuse to pay for marketing nonsense.

Nice and concise, thanks.

When the co-axial came out I was demonised on some Omega forums because I couldn't believe any tiny gain in efficiency could be worth a price hike of 25%.

My basis for argument was that I have lever escapement pocket watches that are 100 years old that still work well and are a pretty good advert for the old anchor. :)

First of all: I think we have the same view towards the co-axial.
I own several vintage wristwatches in the 32 mm size-range and dating back to the 20's/30's.
Even these watches are capable of keeping time well within chonometer-specs.
To me the effect of the co-axial just isn't so big that it should replace the older anchor-escapement at such a cost.

Ok, I get it.

Meaning that is the case of mass production it adds up to a senseless complication needlessly adding (a bit) to cost which only serves as a unique selling point for marketing to justify a significant price uplift?

Spot on, except that a 25% rise in price-level isn't a bit in my book ;)

[Huertecilla]

To me the biggest issue is the fact that it is printed on the dial of every damn watch having one. Technical feats should be printed on the marketing material, user manual or on the backside of the watch if they really need to be on it :bom:

Welll, printing a totally unsupported ´superlative´ in addition to the COSC blurp seems to work for Rolex véry well so you can hardly blame Omega for trying something like that too. At least it ís fact.

I heartily agree with you in this respect to marketing on the dial in general and think just the brand and/or a logo is quite enough.

[Huertecilla]

Meaning that is the case of mass production it adds up to a senseless complication needlessly adding (a bit) to cost which only serves as a unique selling point for marketing to justify a significant price uplift?

Spot on, except that a 25% rise in price-level isn't a bit in my book ;)

So we accord.
I write that a bít of extra cost gives marketing the argument to ´justify´ a SIGNIFICANT price uplift.

On the bright side of it is that they háve an argument. Their main competitor whom they are trying to follow and compete with doesn´t justify anything. Just yearly rises the prices for the same thing.

[PekkaM]

Welll, printing a totally unsupported ´superlative´ in addition to the COSC blurp seems to work for Rolex véry well so you can hardly blame Omega for trying something like that too. At least it ís fact.

I heartily agree with you in this respect to marketing on the dial in general and think just the brand and/or a logo is quite enough.

I'd rather not see this change to a brand debate that so easily starts on this forum.

I must add that I'd like my Chopard Pro One much more without the words "Automatic", "Certified Chronometer" and "300m / 1000Ft" on the dial. Automatic isn't ncessarily better thing than a manual and it doesn't say "Manual" on manual winding watches. I know which one it is so I don't waste my time mistakenly winding it every day but what do others care? Chronometer by definition is certified so no need for that either. I also expect watches of this price class run more accurately than the dumb COSC certification specifies. Depth rating is another of those irritations. "It looks like a diver aaaaaaand..., surprise!!! It actually IS a diver!!!" :roll:

[Huertecilla]

Btw, Lysanderxiii answered my OT question satisfactorily for me. Thanks.

[walkerwek1958]

I think the key points have been covered already in this thread.

My view is that the co-axial escapement doesn't offer the customer any significant benefit versus a high quality anchor escapement watch. The 25-30% price hike is clearly not in the customer's best interest and cannot be justified IMO.

Despite the technical niceties and the potential improvement the co-axial offers, in practice it hasn`t proved to be the case. Omega had problems with the early ones, that's well-documented.

To satisfy an aim to produce a better movement, a change to a free-sprung balance (Rolex-style) whilst retaining the anchor escapement would have been far more sensible. Obviously this wouldn`t have carried the marketing kudos that Omega sought to exploit to the full.

Omega prices have risen sharply since the introduction of the co-axial movement, which has been used to justify the higher cost. This fits with their ambition to become more prestigious (ie expensive) and re-align the brand. Personally I think this is a mistake and they'll end up with lower sales volumes, high depreciation on the watches and the inevitable discounts to keep sales moving.

Take the Seamaster Professional Bond watch as an example, with a new price approaching the £2K mark. Taking account of the price rises this would have equated to around £1500 if the 'old' 1120 movement had been retained. It`s hard to see how the watch is worth so much more with the co-ax.....deep down we all know it isn`t. Look at the latest Aqua Terra which is now over £2800; it's now far too close to the excellent Rolex Datejust 116200 (£3350) to make any sense to me.

I`ve owned 2 co-axials (both Aqua Terras, bought 2nd hand). The first was extremely accurate, gaining around 2 secs/week no matter how it was worn. The second isn`t as good, initially losing 12 secs/day and now gaining 1-2 secs/day after being regulated (a fiddly job requiring a special tool and a skilled hand).

At the end of the day, if customers want a more accurate watch they'll buy a quartz instead. The co-axial does NOT get the thumbs-up from me.

Paul

[Bernard]

To me the biggest issue is the fact that it is printed on the dial of every damn watch having one. Technical feats should be printed on the marketing material, user manual or on the backside of the watch if they really need to be on it :bom:

Welll, printing a totally unsupported ´superlative´ in addition to the COSC blurp seems to work for Rolex véry well so you can hardly blame Omega for trying something like that too. At least it ís fact.

I heartily agree with you in this respect to marketing on the dial in general and think just the brand and/or a logo is quite enough.

Same here: less is more when it comes to the blurp on the dial.

So we accord.
I write that a bít of extra cost gives marketing the argument to ´justify´ a SIGNIFICANT price uplift.

On the bright side of it is that they háve an argument. Their main competitor whom they are trying to follow and compete with doesn´t justify anything. Just yearly rises the prices for the same thing.

Aargh, that's what happens when I post something in a hurry.... Should've read your post better.

[xpatUSA]

As a retired old geezer, a few seconds a day is of no consequence to me. And, as an amateur watch-fixer, there's no moly in my collection of lubes either.

I've just put an old military SandY 490 together (new mainspring). It has the workhorse ETA 2801-2 movement 28,800 bph After splashing some lube here and there, it runs -5 secs a day without even having touched the regulator.

The co-axial movement seems to support the Law of Diminishing Returns.

My SandY will probably sell for around a 100 bucks. Or compare with the atomic clock in Colorado which cost a few dollars more.


For all those who mentioned specmanship printed on the dial . . . . not even an "H3" . . . lovely!

[RTH]

I think the key points have been covered already in this thread.

My view is that the co-axial escapement doesn't offer the customer any significant benefit versus a high quality anchor escapement watch. The 25-30% price hike is clearly not in the customer's best interest and cannot be justified IMO.

Despite the technical niceties and the potential improvement the co-axial offers, in practice it hasn`t proved to be the case. Omega had problems with the early ones, that's well-documented.

To satisfy an aim to produce a better movement, a change to a free-sprung balance (Rolex-style) whilst retaining the anchor escapement would have been far more sensible. Obviously this wouldn`t have carried the marketing kudos that Omega sought to exploit to the full.

Omega prices have risen sharply since the introduction of the co-axial movement, which has been used to justify the higher cost. This fits with their ambition to become more prestigious (ie expensive) and re-align the brand. Personally I think this is a mistake and they'll end up with lower sales volumes, high depreciation on the watches and the inevitable discounts to keep sales moving.

Take the Seamaster Professional Bond watch as an example, with a new price approaching the £2K mark. Taking account of the price rises this would have equated to around £1500 if the 'old' 1120 movement had been retained. It`s hard to see how the watch is worth so much more with the co-ax.....deep down we all know it isn`t. Look at the latest Aqua Terra which is now over £2800; it's now far too close to the excellent Rolex Datejust 116200 (£3350) to make any sense to me.

I`ve owned 2 co-axials (both Aqua Terras, bought 2nd hand). The first was extremely accurate, gaining around 2 secs/week no matter how it was worn. The second isn`t as good, initially losing 12 secs/day and now gaining 1-2 secs/day after being regulated (a fiddly job requiring a special tool and a skilled hand).

At the end of the day, if customers want a more accurate watch they'll buy a quartz instead. The co-axial does NOT get the thumbs-up from me.

Paul

I think it all depends on what you're looking for. Yes, if you want accuracy, go for a quartz. I don't think that's what it comes down to though. If I had the money I'd rather get an Aqua Terra than a Datejust. I don't particularly like either brand, but the idea of the Co-axial appeals to me. Caliber 8500, for example: silicon hairspring and balance, amagnetic and potentially capable of superior isochronism; and, obviously, the escapement.

Furthermore, how can people here bring "value" into the equation? Given your examples, how can the Rolex justify its price over the Omega? How can the 1120 justify its price over a well adjusted 2892-A2?

Whether it's just advertising bumpf (which it is for the main part), or whether it's something important, Omega are at the forefront of (implementing) advances in mechanical technology (along with Ulysse Nardin and PP). Shame the cases are so ugly :( (I don't much like Rolex, but the form of their cases is much nicer IMHO).

Just as an aside I can imagine all you lot whinging at Mudge for using his detached lever when your verge watches were just fine. Damn Philistines! :lol:

[Huertecilla]

Just as an aside I can imagine all you lot whinging at Mudge for using his detached lever when your verge watches were just fine. Damn Philistines! :lol:

So in ´order´ of technical generation we should either wear spring drive or heq :wink:

Anyway; I líke the co-axial for the thinking behind it and would have liked to have seen it lead to an improved performing mechanical movement.
As Lysanderxiii points out the co-axial thing appearantly gets lost in the mass production which it serves as a marketing argument.
A neat technical idea which essence gets lost in the commercialisation of it.

[andrew]

Whether it's just advertising bumpf (which it is for the main part), or whether it's something important, Omega are at the forefront of (implementing) advances in mechanical technology (along with Ulysse Nardin and PP).

They certainly are at the forefront of buying other people's technology in wholesale and presenting it as something they're not ;). I couldn't imagine the likes of UN or PP having to licence someone's else's ideas, anyway.

Just as an aside I can imagine all you lot whinging at Mudge for using his detached lever when your verge watches were just fine. Damn Philistines! :lol:

I'd say touché, but then the lever escapement was an improvement over the earlier kind...

[RTH]

Whether it's just advertising bumpf (which it is for the main part), or whether it's something important, Omega are at the forefront of (implementing) advances in mechanical technology (along with Ulysse Nardin and PP).

They certainly are at the forefront of buying other people's technology in wholesale and presenting it as something they're not ;). I couldn't imagine the likes of UN or PP having to licence someone's else's ideas, anyway.

Just as an aside I can imagine all you lot whinging at Mudge for using his detached lever when your verge watches were just fine. Damn Philistines! :lol:

I'd say touché, but then the lever escapement was an improvement over the earlier kind...

That's why I deliberately said "implementing". You're right about UN and PP though. The UN Freak is impressive, if ugly. I wonder if silicon components will make it into more mechanical watches. Low mass, low friction, ability to achieve low tolerances - it seems a delicious technology for timekeepers. With respect to Patek, they looked into the Co-axial escapement and decided not to license it. I don't think Daniels ever got it very reliable for them, and they didn't see the point.

More than anything, I was joking about Mudge's lever. You're right though, it was a large improvement - but like the Omega it was considerably more complex - and therfore harder to repair and more sensitive to tolerances. It was also more delicate. I personally think the Co-axial is an improvement; marginal, yes, unlike the paradigm shift of the detached lever, certainly, but an improvement none the less. So while it was spoken in jest, I think there is some validity to the comparison.

[Huertecilla]

[
More than anything, I was joking about Mudge's lever. You're right though, it was a large improvement - but like the Omega it was considerably more complex - and therfore harder to repair and more sensitive to tolerances. It was also more delicate. I personally think the Co-axial is an improvement; marginal, yes, unlike the paradigm shift of the detached lever, certainly, but an improvement none the less. So while it was spoken in jest, I think there is some validity to the comparison.

What miffed me was the advised service interval. Ten years after the intruction Omega still advise the same 4-5 years for the co-axial just as for the traditional lever.
I did not get why that would be so as the co-axial eliminated the sliding friction in the lever escapement ánd can work without lubrication. Two just about revolutionary changes. Quite an improvement, not at all marginal, so why no 10 year interval which was suggested in ´99 :? :?:

It took a time for me to find out through an article that ´nothing´ had changed since the 17th century: the lubrication is the problem. The lubricants oxidise and need refreshing after about 5 years. Allthough the co-axial escapement is conceived to go without, óther parts still need it.
Appearantly the critical lubrication for the slip bridle of the mainspring barrel and the balance pivots with Incabloc assemblies are now the limiting factor to the service interval.

The co-axial escapement is a considerable technical improvement that in the functionality of real life wristwatches gets held back by the limitations of mass production and lubricants.

[M4tt]

Ages ago I wrote an explanation of why the 2500 was such an improvement over the lever. The longevity is a red herring in my opinion, as is the beat rate. All things being equal, a higher beat rate will be more accurate. However, in this case, all is not equal. The reason that the beat rate was reduced was because Daniels made it quite clear that the 'sweet spot' for the escapement was between six and eight beats a second. Seven beats is smack in the middle. At this beat rate, more torque is applied to the escapement for the same torque at the barrel thus helping the watch to start from certain rest states without increasing lateral stresses. (The coaxial needs more torque than a lever to start and less to run once started).

So, here's my standard explanation:

Sometime before 1758 Thomas Mudge invented the lever escapement. While this has been gently refined and improved, and materials technology has come a long way, the fact is that virtually every watch on the planet uses a variation on this escapement. While the escapement is a good compromise in many ways, it is totally inferior to some of the escapements used in clocks and especially in Marine Chronometers.

Clocks, especially clocks from which movement can be eliminated either through gimbals or simply mounting on a solid surface, have a wider range of far more accurate escapements that they can use. However, the movement that matters here is the Detent Escapement, invented in 1783 by Thomas Earnshaw, the father of the chronometer. While this could be stuffed into a watch it was fragile, temperamental and difficult to make.

What Daniels has achieved in the Coaxial escapement is a movement with all the advantages of both the Lever and the Detent escapement with very few of the disadvantages of either. The pallet stones in the coaxial escapement have a rolling, rather than a sliding, action which almost entirely removes friction, and thus the need for local lubrication, while interfering with the balance far less, giving identical impulses in both directions and enhancing stability. The result, when properly tuned, has been described by one of the UK's greatest statisticians and horologists as 'comparable to a Marine Chronometer on gimbals'. Daniels himself is quoted as stating that he has tuned and timed a wristwatch with a coaxial escapement to an accuracy of five seconds a year. If you believe him, this is as good as the very best thermocompensated quartz watches.

Obviously, this is not the sort of accuracy to be expected from an off the shelf watch that has not been obsessively tuned by one of the greatest watchmakers of this, and any other, century. However, even off the shelf, the stability of the watch can be remarkable. Certainly, if one is prepared to pay for the chap who repairs their watches to spend a little more time on regulation to minimise the deviation and highlight the stability then the true excellence of the movement can be revealed.

Thus finally, and perhaps one hundred and fifty years too late, Daniels has offered us a watch escapement which could actually pass muster as a Marine Chronometer. While Daniels offered the escapement to many Swiss makers including Patak and Rolex, Omega were the manufacture who succeeded in converting it into the escapement for a mass market movement. Had this movement come significantly before quartz, Omega would have tuned the watch for maximum accuracy and sold it as the Marine Chronometer that it is. However, coming in a time when mechanical watches are not expected to better the pathetic criteria imposed by COSC they have not bothered either advertising or tuning the Coaxial's far higher stability.

In short, while there are better ebauches out there, there is no better escapement. As the escapement is the beating heart of a watch it elevates whichever movement it graces, whether this is the pocket watches and 10xx Omega movements used for the original development or the Rolex and Patak movements used to try to sell the movement to these manufactures. One day, all escapements will be like this.

The key advantages of the escapement in the 2500 are:

* Due to a rolling rather than a sliding action the pallet stones do not need lubrication and friction is reduced by about 95%. obviously this removes two major areas of instability in one: variations in the sliding surface due to bedding in and variations in the oil consistency due to age and temperature.

* The freesprung balance is far, far nearer to the mathematical ideal as it doesn't have a regulator interfering with the spring. This helps with all forms of stability, including, of course, positional stability.

* The impulse from the pallet stones is identical in both directions, unlike the 1120, oh, and every other watch on the planet. This gives a smoother more regular swing to the escapement and reduces the effects of position still further.

* The escapement is in contact with the balance for a far shorter period allowing more of the balance's swing to be free of interference, once again far closer to the mathematical ideal. (this, of course, can also reduce the effect of position)

* Wear on the contact surfaces of the escapement has been almost entirely eliminated.

The overall effect of these changes is reported here:

http://www.bhi.co.uk/hj/August04AoM.PDF.

I think that the key words here are:

comparable to that of a marine chronometer in gimbals.

and the credentials of the chap making this claim are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Woodward

I reckon he may know what he's talking about!


In short, if you want something more accurate but mechanical you don't want one of these:



you want one of these

[RTH]

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:L...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk

This link doesn't work... Also, I think I might have posted it earlier (or at least, where it attempts to link to). Your post is very interesting - any chance of comparing the 2500 and the 8500?

EDIT: This article? http://www.bhi.co.uk/hj/August04AoM.PDF

2nd EDIT: Also, not sure what difference it makes (I suspect rather a lot), but the movement Philip Woodward reviews is the 2627 not the 2500. Maybe greater effort is made to ensure accuracy - component selection etc.

[M4tt]

It does now.

The 8500 seems very nice, one day when I buy one I will find out all about it. Perhaps then! Sorry.

Maybe, but I see no reason why it would be and, as far as I am aware, the escapement is identical in the 2500B (but not C) and 2627.

[lysanderxiii]

The co-axial movement seems to support the Law of Diminishing Returns.

A bit more succinct that what I said but it sums it up, in my opinion.

And yes, everything M4tt wrote is correct, I just do not see Omega's mass produced co-axials approaching what the design is capable of.

And lastly, that 25% price hike, you would still see it even if the movements were just a free-sprung modified 2892A2 lever escapement movements. The price increase puts them in a higher class of luxury item, which is where the marketing people want it. Omega just doesn't make as much profit than if they went with a cheaper design, but they still make a healthy profit, mind you...

[M4tt]

And yes, everything M4tt wrote is correct, I just do not see Omega's mass produced co-axials approaching what the design is capable of.

In terms of accuracy from the box I quite agree, I suspect that the real advantage for Omega is that it allows them to reduce costs by having a movement that tends to pass COSC more reliably with no costly fettling and less rejected movements. However the bottom line is that all of the physics described above is as true of the 2500 as any other coaxial. The 2892 is a fine movement in its own right and the coaxial in it will still confer the advantages I describe. I agree that it will not be as good as one of Daniels' own, but it's still going to be better than the equivalent lever in the 2892. The physics simply will not change.

This is why, I think that stability out of the box is as good or better than the very best hand poised and regulated lever escapement movements. Certainly, those who understand the difference between stability and accuracy tend to comment on this stability. Thus, I would argue that with careful regulation even the 'commercial' 2500 is as good or better than the old observatory chronometers. However with careful poising and regulating even the humble 2500 can be better than a good quartz. The problem is finding people with the skill to achieve that.

In short, if you are going to buy a 2500 get it regulated and turn the amazing stability into accuracy. This is what Woodward did with a stock Omega ebauche.

[RTH]

It does now.

The 8500 seems very nice, one day when I buy one I will find out all about it. Perhaps then! Sorry.

Maybe, but I see no reason why it would be and, as far as I am aware, the escapement is identical in the 2500B (but not C) and 2627.

The escapement might be the same, but equality of power throughout matters - I felt there might be a difference in the performance of the mechanisms, as (IIRC) the 8500 was purposely designed for use with the Co-axial. Also higher prestige watches = better & newer tooling/tighter tolerances/component selection? Also, the silicon balance spring/balance assembly in the 8500 may also affect perfomance. Essentially, I was wondering how other factors that are not consistent between the movements impinge upon performance.

I'm waiting with baited breath - you'll get there before I do :lol:

[M4tt]

I don't think that the standard 8500 has a silicon balance spring and, from my experiences with Favre Leuba, I am quite cynical about the advantages of twin barrels outside of the press office. However, I think I wasn't clear. I don't think that the coaxial in the 2500 is the same as in the 8500, I was asserting that the 2500 and 2627 were basically the same with an identical escapement, not the 2500 and 8500. The coaxial in the 8500 is meant to be larger and, hopefully, includes lessons learned in the 2500...

However, the 2892 can run a wide range of complications, including a chronometer module. I suspect it produces enough torque to run the coaxial escapement. The bottom line is that a 2892 - without a balance in - can empty a full spring through the train in under half a minute. (Yes, I tried after a similar discussion) If this isn't enough equality in a watch with a 48 hour reserve I don't know what is! Even if this wasn't the case, it is less relevant in an automatic which keeps the mainspring(s) topped up.

I'm sure that the 8500 is a brilliant movement, but beating the 2892 is a challenge which very very few movements that don't require mortgages have achieved in the last twenty years: the 3035, 889 and 9S55 come to mind. I think that the real advantage is that it give the coaxial more room. Quite what this means beyond the bench, I am unsure. As I said, I really don't know much about the 8500. It is a beautiful looking movement and a welcome return to manufacture status for Omega, but I have yet to see solid evidence of its superiority. To be honest, what I'd really like to see is a new coaxial 55X Omega. But that's just romance!

[Huertecilla]

I agree that it will not be as good as one of Daniels' own but it's still going to be better than the equivalent lever in the 2500. The physics
simply will not change.

....

In short, if you are going to buy a 2500 get it regulated and turn the amazing stability into accuracy. This is what Woodward did with a stock Omega ebauche.

Now thát I can understand :!:
Mass production keeps it under wraps and lubricants limit the service interval but the potential is there because the escapement ís fundamentally a lot better.

That leaves us with the wry taste of Omega charging 25% extra without regulating the movement bút... with the assurance that it ít a watch with potential that we cán have regulated into the thing it is.
Good tip M4tt.

[M4tt]

Mass production keeps it under wraps and lubricants limit the service interval but the potential is there because the escapement ís fundamentally a lot better.

That leaves us with the wry taste of Omega charging 25% extra without regulating the movement bút... with the assurance that it ít a watch with potential that we cán have regulated into the thing it is.

That pretty well sums it up for me: the Omega 2500 and 1120 are similar enough that you can usefully compare them. The 1120 is a rock solid movement which underpinned Omega's renaissance. Out of the box the two appear quite similar because they are both set up to pass COSC. However the 2500 is far more stable. In my opinion, if COSC was halved, the 1120 would struggle to be stable enough. The 2500 would not.

In one way this strategy makes a lot of sense: the 2500 and 8500 are worth doing in the short term as they reduce manufacturing costs due to improved stability out of the box. In the long term they give Omega the ability to respond to any new advances from their competitors by bringing out an 'improved' (read regulated) movement in which accuracy improves from seconds a day to seconds a week or better. A useful trick to have under your hat!

As it stands, the only advertised advantage is that the escapement will tend to remain accurate even when it needs a service because, without oil, the pallets will not change behaviour as the oil fails. As far as I am concerned this is actually a hidden disadvantage, as it stops the movement from indicating that the oil has failed and it is in dire need of a service. Thus, in time I suspect the 2500 and 8500 will get a reputation for wearing itself out without any warning.

I have a theory that this a problem that already bedevils the Rolex 3135: simultaneously some people say it can run for generations unserviced while others say that it has a weakness with the winding mechanism. I don't think these two problems are unrelated... You can't blame a watch for wearing if you don't service it.

[Neil.C]

Some interesting posts there Matt.

I knew a co-ax debate would bring you out of the woodwork. :wink:

[M4tt]

I knew a co-ax debate would bring you out of the woodwork. :wink:

Cheers Neil, I likes the coaxial, it's interesting!

Although I am being rather excited about the older Certina movements at the moment: they cost nothing but they look and feel as good as anything else I can think of.

I hope Ford was decent this morning.

Matt

[markosgr28]

IMHO the problem with the co-axial so far is that it is not very reliable and many owners have stated that the support from Omega is poor and takes ages to complete.

Technically it is an improvement on the existing watch movements that actually actually makes a difference and improves significant areas such as accuracy and service intervals, but I don't think that it is something revolutionary for the watch making technology. Such improvements are always welcome and when the reliability problems are solved, the acceptance will be much higher.

[Huertecilla]

Technically it is an improvement on the existing watch movements that actually actually makes a difference and improves significant areas such as accuracy and service intervals, but I don't think that it is something revolutionary for the watch making technology.

Please read a bit more about it then Markos. It ís revolutionary from a technological point of view.

it is also pretty meaningless for everyday time pieces on the total scale. You can buy 20 sec./year accuracy for 250$ in a case which offers the same specs as the AT.
For the average watch owners it is totally meaningless; tótally and it will not change ánything.
That is different from the téchnical revolutionary qualities of this co-axial escapement mechanism. It is a huge step that unfortunately is taken 150 years too late and is miles short of where watch technology has moved too.

[markosgr28]

Technically it is an improvement on the existing watch movements that actually actually makes a difference and improves significant areas such as accuracy and service intervals, but I don't think that it is something revolutionary for the watch making technology.

Please read a bit more about it then Markos. It ís revolutionary from a technological point of view.

it is also pretty meaningless for everyday time pieces on the total scale. You can buy 20 sec./year accuracy for 250$ in a case which offers the same specs as the AT.
For the average watch owners it is totally meaningless; tótally and it will not change ánything.
That is different from the téchnical revolutionary qualities of this co-axial escapement mechanism. It is a huge step that unfortunately is taken 150 years too late and is miles short of where watch technology has moved too.

OK then, depends on how you define revolutionary. To me generally revolutionary is something totally new and different than the existing solutions. If watch technology has not changed the last 150 years, you have a point then, this is something revolutionary, but we should not be happy that we actually managed to change or improve something in watch making technology after all this time.

I like and respect improvements but generally revolutionary to me is something more than this. For example the Tag Heuer V4 is revolutionary (even though I not a great fan of the brand) since it replaces gears with belts, that is totally different to me. But this can not be compared with the co axial escapement mechanism, because it is still a concept and not a real product.

And of course I'm not comparing the quartz watches with the mechanical watches. These are totally different and can not be compared. I prefer and I own mechanical watches myself.

[Huertecilla]

And of course I'm not comparing the quartz watches with the mechanical watches. These are totally different and can not be compared. I prefer and I own mechanical watches myself.

That is however a crucial aspect of it.
Mechanical movements are outdated technology. Surpassed by accutron, quartz, atom-clock.

The appreciation of the craftsmanship involved, the fascination by the mechanics which we can grásp, are something different.
Within this anachronism as time keeping mechanism the co-axial escapement is just as big a step as the lever escapement was.
Logically seen, this ´development´ makes no sense as the whole technology has been surpassed but that does not alter the fact that withín the technology of mechanical movements is it a revolution.
Like I wrote it is a huge step forward in a technology that is in a world of it´s own that was left wáy behind by accutron already.
That accutron technology too deservedly has an appreciative following. It has fascinating aspects and deserves to still be híghly appreciated for the breath taking technology it was at the time. As technology for accurate time keeping however it is history, old news and a breakthrough in accutron taking it a step further stiil leaves it way behind quartz, let alone heq, let alone atom thingus.

The co-axial escapement is a briljant step 150 years late. It is every bit as briljant as it is but has no impact on state of the art time keeping.
I appreciate technology. Period. As such I am impressed to no end by it. Dissappointed that Omega is not offering a model which exploits the step forward it is within this technology. Happy to read that it cán be regulated to unlock the potential even as a mass produced product.