Anyone else not so enthusiastic about the new Omega 8500 and 8900 calibers?

Posts
886
Likes
471
Great information as always Al. There is so much BS out there on this matter. In your opinion did Omega meet their goal with co-axil movements and significantly improving the length of time required between servicing? Just looking for an unequivocal answer here.

With regard to Omega's goal.
We will never be privy to it.

It would seem to be that Omega needed an edge on the opposition.
The Daniel's escapement offered them that opportunity.
After George Daniel's had hawked it around the industry for quite a long time, it was only Omega that took it on.
They spent a lot of time and resources developing it to a point where they thought they could actually commercialize it.
Initially they got it wrong on a number of fronts and made some necessarily rapid changes.

I think they saw a marketing opportunity to be seen as being capable of making a technological leap forward and tried to balance it with the need to see a return on investment.
Initially it didn't work out so good for them and they quickly had some egg on their face.

Well will see if these new movements which are specifically designed around the Co-axial escapement are indeed all we hope they are for Omega.
Edited:
 
Posts
886
Likes
471
Moebius is owned by Swatch group by the way...

Cheers, Al
Ah yes,
I had overlooked that completely.

In light of this, I shall indeed re-evaluate my decision to send it to an indie although it was always considered to be a roll of the dice based on the best information and research I could gather at the time.
In ways, it was the lesser of the two evils as well.
 
Posts
29,208
Likes
75,479
Ah yes,
I had overlooked that completely.

In light of this, I shall indeed re-evaluate my decision to send it to an indie although it was always considered to be a roll of the dice based on the best information and research I could gather at the time.
In ways, it was the lesser of the two evils as well.

Using and independent watchmaker is fine (that's what I am), as long as they have been trained and have access to parts/tools.
 
Posts
107
Likes
128
Thanks for explaining your point of view. Really adds another dimension to the discussion.
I did previously and you came back with the same points. Doesn't sound like you want to be convinced, sounds like you want to rant.
 
Posts
29,208
Likes
75,479
This is an older video, but informative


Lots of incorrect information being stated in that video by the way. I couldn't make it all the way through it though because it was just too annoying to watch it all...
 
Posts
257
Likes
273
I thought the main thing the new co-axial did was offer very stable positional timekeeping? I mean I've had a 1120 Omega plus a 1861 one and both of these watch would vary greatly when laid down in different dial positions, like +2 up, +8 sideways, -2 down etc.

I thought co-axial would just be +0.5 in every single position you wear it/rest it and that's what it offered.
 
Posts
275
Likes
471
If practicality was the goal, we’d all be wearing Casio F91Ws. Mechanical watches themselves are a wholly unnecessary curiosity, so it’s fun to have some variety. A Porsche 911 could have an equally performing Corvette engine in it that would be much less expensive to service or replace, too.
 
Posts
29,208
Likes
75,479
I thought the main thing the new co-axial did was offer very stable positional timekeeping? I mean I've had a 1120 Omega plus a 1861 one and both of these watch would vary greatly when laid down in different dial positions, like +2 up, +8 sideways, -2 down etc.

I thought co-axial would just be +0.5 in every single position you wear it/rest it and that's what it offered.

The positional variation tolerances for all COSC rated watches made by Omega are exactly the same. Certainly an 1861 is different because it's not a chronometer movement, but for example the Cal. 1120 Swiss lever escapement movement has the following timing tolerances:

All measurement taken over 5 positions as per COSC standards:

Average daily rate: -1 to +6 s/d
Positional variation (Delta) at full wind: 12 seconds
Positional variation (Delta) at 24 hours after full wind: 15 seconds

The timing tolerances for the Cal. 2500 movement, which is the same movement with co-axial escapement and free spring balance (so a pretty close comparison) are:

All measurement taken over 5 positions as per COSC standards:

Average daily rate: -1 to +6 s/d
Positional variation (Delta) at full wind: 12 seconds
Positional variation (Delta) at 24 hours after full wind: 15 seconds

The tolerances above are also for the Cal. 3303 F. Piguet based chronograph and are the same for the 3313 co-axial version. No difference at all.

Same for the 8500 and 9300 series COSC watches - these are all the same tolerances.

When you get to the Master Chronometer specs, things do change, so the timing tolerances for those are a little different, but not consistent across the board:

All measurements are taken over 6 positions instead of just 5:

Average daily rate: 0 to +5 s/d for most calibers
Positional variation (Delta) at full wind: 12 seconds for most calibers
Positional variation (Delta) at 24 hours after full wind: 15 seconds for most calibers

So for most calibers the average rate tolerance is a little tighter, and the positional tolerances stay the same, but are checked over one additional position.

But there are a few oddballs in there also, so some calibers have average rate tolerances of 0 to +6 seconds per day instead of 0 to +5, and a couple are even at 0 to +7 seconds per day average rate, so the spread on those are no different than -1 to +6, but are just shifted a bit faster.

In addition on some calibers the Delta tolerances are not 12 seconds at full wind and 15 seconds 24 hours after full wind, but 14 and 16, and some are 16 and 16 respectively.

Cheers, Al
 
Posts
2,406
Likes
6,949
Al,

My understanding to Daniel's goal for developing the coaxial escapement was to eliminate lubrication of the pallet stones and escape wheel teeth so the watch would maintain accuracy for a longer time over a conventional escapement. From your posts I'm interpreting that Omega saw this as a way of extending the service interval.

Ironically, the Omega co-axial does use lubrication in the escapement. My understanding, the lubricant is not used to reduce friction (like in a conventional escapement, because the sliding surfaces) but for a form mechanical damping of colliding parts.

Do I have this correct?
 
Posts
29,208
Likes
75,479
My understanding to Daniel's goal for developing the coaxial escapement was to eliminate lubrication of the pallet stones and escape wheel teeth so the watch would maintain accuracy for a longer time over a conventional escapement. From your posts I'm interpreting that Omega saw this as a way of extending the service interval.

I'm not sure there's a practical difference here. People will tend to get a watch serviced when it doesn't keep time well, so extending the period it keeps time well is therefore extending the service interval. Note that I don't necessarily agree that the co-axial does this, and this idea assumes that all sources of timing error are from the escapement lubrication failing.

Ironically, the Omega co-axial does use lubrication in the escapement. My understanding, the lubricant is not used to reduce friction (like in a conventional escapement, because the sliding surfaces) but for a form mechanical damping of colliding parts.

Yes and no. You are correct that the lubrication in the co-axial escapement (specifically referring to the lubrication of the co-axial wheel teeth) does nothing to reduce the inherent friction that is present in the design. The lubrication on the co-axial wheel teeth acts as a cushion against impact. The lubrication on the intermediate escape wheel teeth (where required) though is designed to reduce sliding friction.

In a Swiss lever escapement I place oil on one spot (exit stone) and typically have to apply 3 small drops of oil to fully lubricate the escapement.

By comparison in a 2 level co-axial escapement I have to individually oil all 20 teeth on the intermediate escape wheel, all 8 teeth on the lower portion of the co-axial wheel, and 2 teeth on the upper level of the co-axial wheel. That's is 30 individual oiling points.

In a 3 level co-axial escapement the intermediate escape wheel teeth are not oiled, but the same 10 teeth on the co-axial wheel are oiled.

There is far more oiling involved in a co-axial escapement than a Swiss lever...
 
Posts
1,616
Likes
3,857
I may be too cynical, but for Omega the biggest advantage of this escapement is that is is proprietary: to be properly serviced, it must be in the hands of an Omega-trained person. So they win because either they keep servicing fully in-house and make some nice bucks, or they have indies paying them for training and tools. I feel that all technical details may be secondary to this, but it is just my 2 cents.

A bit like in the car industry... you buy a car from brand X, you are stuck with brand X for servicing.
 
Posts
275
Likes
471
I may be too cynical, but for Omega the biggest advantage of this escapement is that is is proprietary: to be properly serviced, it must be in the hands of an Omega-trained person. So they win because either they keep servicing fully in-house and make some nice bucks, or they have indies paying them for training and tools. I feel that all technical details may be secondary to this, but it is just my 2 cents.

A bit like in the car industry... you buy a car from brand X, you are stuck with brand X for servicing.

Agreed that keeping it propriety is a major reason, but I think the biggest reason is simply to stand out in terms of marketing with something new and different, of which the entire luxury watch world is built on.

No one does this better than Rolex, and I've been a part of lots of discussions about whether things like ceramic bezels, 904L steel, etc., are worth it. Any real-world technical gains are dwarfed by the marketing advantages, since we're basically talking about who makes the best typewriter, despite the existence of laptops.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,626
Likes
6,219
I thought co-axial would just be +0.5 in every single position you wear it/rest it and that's what it offered.
If they could reliably regulate every single position to +0.5 they would just regulate it to 0.0.
 
Posts
7,104
Likes
23,064
We glorify these little objects but I'm afraid to a company like Omega, or any company for that matter, these changes are an attempted means to an end; whether they are successful is another matter. They are either looking to make more money, or spend less time or money on servicing. If, along the way, the end user gets more enjoyment, accuracy, or ease of ownership, then everybody wins.
 
Posts
886
Likes
471
Agreed that keeping it propriety is a major reason, but I think the biggest reason is simply to stand out in terms of marketing with something new and different, of which the entire luxury watch world is built on.

No one does this better than Rolex, and I've been a part of lots of discussions about whether things like ceramic bezels, 904L steel, etc., are worth it. Any real-world technical gains are dwarfed by the marketing advantages, since we're basically talking about who makes the best typewriter, despite the existence of laptops.

True enough.
But if one is only into typewriters?
 
Posts
2,152
Likes
3,810
Both Omega and Rolex marketing jostle for position as the industry "caliber performance benchmark".

Right now what really matters to me is that both companies offer 5 yr warranties on their watches.

Although the anti-magnetic properties of the Omega calibers are quite cool, they are completely OTT (+15000 Gauss) for the vast majority of our daily life use cases, but still it is nice to know that you can leave a modern Omega near tablet covers etc. and not worry about magnetizing the watch.

Over time I have observed that my exaggerated initial fanboy enthusiasm for Omega and Rolex mass produced watch calibers has diminished as I have learned not to be obsessed with "superlative" or "master" time keeping standards for my mechanical watches...these days I am perfectly OK with anything performing close to COSC standards...and a decently regulated ETA will also meet those standards.

My Rolex BLNR runs at a mean of -2.7s per day with practically no deviation in different positions...will I fret over the -0.7s outside of "superlative" -2/+2 spec? Nope, of course not. My Omegas all run within their stated spec range and my Explorer 2 is my most accurate watch from a daily rate perspective. Do I suspect that Omega and Rolex will probably offer more consistent performance from their calibers than IWC or entry-level automatic JLCs...yes, but I have no hard evidence to confirm that...my only JLC is a manual wound Reverso.😀


I do find the modern Omega caliber decoration quite pretty, even if it is machine finished, but it is quite repetitive across their co-axial product range.

One thing I do appreciate in the 8500 and 8400 calibers is the jumping hour hand as I frequently travel across time zones and this is a feature typically seen only on GMT watches.
Edited:
 
Posts
444
Likes
751
I see the introduction of new calibers by Omega as trying to innovate (i.e. co-axial escapment, silicon balance wheel, etc) while providing better value to the buyers (i.e. longer service interval, possibly more precision).

I would say both are good goals.
😀

At same time, they will still keep producing the Speedmasters Professional (hesalite and sapphire sandwich) for people who like the classics.

Seems like a win-win scenario.

I would only be concerned if they announced plans to terminate the cal 1861 and 1863.
Edited:
 
Posts
7,104
Likes
23,064
Over time I have observed that my exaggerated initial fanboy enthusiasm for Omega and Rolex mass produced watch calibers has diminished as I have learned not to be obsessed with "superlative" or "master" time keeping standards for my mechanical watches...these days I am perfectly OK with anything performing close to COSC standards...and a decently regulated ETA will also meet those standards.

To wit: in day to day life, when someone happens to ask for the time, don't we frequently just round to the nearest five minutes because for most people, that's close enough?
 
Posts
5,501
Likes
9,399
To wit: in day to day life, when someone happens to ask for the time, don't we frequently just round to the nearest five minutes because for most people, that's close enough?
no, not at all. I round to the next 5, even if it is not the nearest, as I do not want to be responsible for them being late...

😎