- Posts
- 29,672
- Likes
- 76,830
Archer
ยทยทOmega Qualified WatchmakerI'm not going to argue with Roger Smith, because hey he's Roger Smith, and I'm just a guy who services watches! ๐ But I'm a skeptical person by nature, and some of what is being said doesn't sit right with me in the Omega context anyway.
Here are the benefits as noted there by Roger:
"So what are the benefits? Well it means that the vibrations per hour can be dropped down to a reasonable 21,600 or preferably 18,000 vibs per hour, and because this escapement is no longer reliant upon the use of a lubricant it does not have to hide the inefficiencies of the escapement and failure of the oil behind a high beat mechanism. We can go further and reduce the mainspring strength which will be required to drive the watch. This reduced power will reduce the effort that it takes in winding the watch and also the effort that the mechanism has to endure in restraining all this power and releasing it through its train of wheels etcโฆโฆ..The real gain here is that the watchmaker can then extend the service intervals of their watches and reduce the running costs to the owner."
On the subject of beat rate (the favourite subject of debate at WUS, and thankfully not here), a simple observation is that there are already watches out there currently being produced that run at 18,000 and 21,600 that don't use co-axial escapements, so clearly having a co-axial escapement is not needed to run a movement at those beat rates. As a maker if you want to lower the beat rate to reduce wear, then lower the beat rate. Co-axial watches run at either 25,200 or 28,800 depending on the specific movement.
Regarding the mainspring strength, fortunately there is a direct comparison between a co-axial movement that was derived from a Swiss lever escapement movement - the Cal. 2500 and 1120. There are 4 versions of the 2500, and they use different mainsprings depending on the version:
2500A - uses the Cal. 1120 mainspring
2500B - uses a 2500B mainspring
2500C - uses the 1120 mainspring
2500D - uses a 2500D mainspring
So for 2 versions of the 2500, there is no change at all in the mainspring from the corresponding Swiss lever escapement movement. They literally use the exact same spring. I dug out my notebook from when I was at Omega training on co-axials a few years ago, and I wrote this note regarding the 2500B mainspring:
"B uses a specific spring that is 1 inch longer than the A &C spring. This is to increase power reserve on the B model. No other changes were made to the B spring so strength is the same."
No information was provided on what is different about the D spring, so I don't know what they changed there, but based on the other three springs all being the exact same strength as the Cal. 1120. I checked and I don't have any 2500D springs in stock, but I am going to add some to my next order and check the size to see if any significant changes were made.
I would say the idea that the springs are made weaker to extend life is pretty much a busted idea, at least on these movements.
Cheers, Al
Here are the benefits as noted there by Roger:
"So what are the benefits? Well it means that the vibrations per hour can be dropped down to a reasonable 21,600 or preferably 18,000 vibs per hour, and because this escapement is no longer reliant upon the use of a lubricant it does not have to hide the inefficiencies of the escapement and failure of the oil behind a high beat mechanism. We can go further and reduce the mainspring strength which will be required to drive the watch. This reduced power will reduce the effort that it takes in winding the watch and also the effort that the mechanism has to endure in restraining all this power and releasing it through its train of wheels etcโฆโฆ..The real gain here is that the watchmaker can then extend the service intervals of their watches and reduce the running costs to the owner."
On the subject of beat rate (the favourite subject of debate at WUS, and thankfully not here), a simple observation is that there are already watches out there currently being produced that run at 18,000 and 21,600 that don't use co-axial escapements, so clearly having a co-axial escapement is not needed to run a movement at those beat rates. As a maker if you want to lower the beat rate to reduce wear, then lower the beat rate. Co-axial watches run at either 25,200 or 28,800 depending on the specific movement.
Regarding the mainspring strength, fortunately there is a direct comparison between a co-axial movement that was derived from a Swiss lever escapement movement - the Cal. 2500 and 1120. There are 4 versions of the 2500, and they use different mainsprings depending on the version:
2500A - uses the Cal. 1120 mainspring
2500B - uses a 2500B mainspring
2500C - uses the 1120 mainspring
2500D - uses a 2500D mainspring
So for 2 versions of the 2500, there is no change at all in the mainspring from the corresponding Swiss lever escapement movement. They literally use the exact same spring. I dug out my notebook from when I was at Omega training on co-axials a few years ago, and I wrote this note regarding the 2500B mainspring:
"B uses a specific spring that is 1 inch longer than the A &C spring. This is to increase power reserve on the B model. No other changes were made to the B spring so strength is the same."
No information was provided on what is different about the D spring, so I don't know what they changed there, but based on the other three springs all being the exact same strength as the Cal. 1120. I checked and I don't have any 2500D springs in stock, but I am going to add some to my next order and check the size to see if any significant changes were made.
I would say the idea that the springs are made weaker to extend life is pretty much a busted idea, at least on these movements.
Cheers, Al
