To co-axial or not to co-axial or is it a case of back to the future?

blubarb · Aug 2, 2015

Jensop
I was thinking about Archer's and got to pondering what the practical (or impractical) implications are for the co-axial future. Ok, so it is more diffucult to oil correctly and failure will cause wear.
I hope I do not oversimplify, but this is what I gather it boils down to.
Are the worn parts replacable?
If replaced will this be an expensive part? Will it be a labourious and expensive task to do as part of a service? Will other parts of the watch movement be negatively affected by the wear? Will the watch's overall performance suffer in the long run?

Or is it really more a case of being left with a feeling that at the end of the day the co-axial movement has some horological, mechanical, etc shortcomings? -That it will never know the praises that fx the 5xx movements enjoy.

I remember Archer mentioning in another post, that it also comes down to which type of movement the watchmaker is used to working on.
I suppose one major flaw of the co-axial approach is that it has not stood the test of time ie 40plus years of use.
Another flaw may be - and I am not sure where I get this from - is that the co-axial design (in its evolvement) is a series of compromises and corrections.
But then what development isn't?
But I wonder if this darling should have been killed, so to speak.
I have a 8400 and so far love it.
But I am not a fanatical person and only ask these questions out of wonder and curiosity.
Happy sunday all,
jens

Much of what you raise has crossed my mind at some point. I struggle most strongly with trying to understand the core motivations behind the change by Omega. Was the co-ax so good that Omega had to have it, or was it about trying to find a unique marketing position at any cost? If its that good why aren't competitors responding more aggressively - it seems like though don't care. Is that because the Swiss escape the lever is one of those items that does exactly what it's suppose to do? The Co-axisl's beginnings seem a bit chequered, but then what innovation is without problems. I read somewhere that Omega had to lower the BPM to stop the 2500 co-ax from stopping. Why shouldn't that be seen as a backwards move as I thought higher beats meant better accuracy.

My question is also to Omega, will they be providing training and certification to all watchmakers who want it?

Cheers

sailingchamp · Aug 2, 2015

100% agree.

Archer · Aug 2, 2015

While at the training, Omega stated clearly the reason behind the co-axial (from a technical point of view of course) was for longer service intervals, and not for accuracy. They of course did not get into brand strategy at a technical course, so I can't answer the questions about the core reasoning for Omega adopting this, after so many others had turned it down. As we also know, watches can run longer than their recommended service intervals (no matter what escapement design is used) so does the co-axial lead to longer service intervals? I'm sure Omega knows this, but I can't give an answer one way or another to be honest. The problems with the early 2500 models (and the other 2 level co-axial escapements) has sort of tainted the pool of data from the first number of years, because the sticky residue building up would cause watches to stop long before 5 years were up. To me the long term benefits have yet to be established, but maybe Omega has the answer already...

In terms of training, I can't speak for all markets, but in North America if you meet Omegas requirements for an account (education, experience, equipment in the shop) you can get an account and get the co-axial training. You have to meet the requirements for getting an account before you can get the training, so in that sense no, they won't let just anyone take the training.

Again how they determine your status and give you an account can vary from country to country. After forcing all US based watchmakers to take the training a few years ago to keep their Omega accounts, they are now rolling out another program.

I'm not sure what the status is in Australia specifically for parts accounts.

Cheers, Al

Df13 · Aug 2, 2015

blubarb
Much of what you raise has crossed my mind at some point. I struggle most strongly with trying to understand the core motivations behind the change by Omega. Was the co-ax so good that Omega had to have it, or was it about trying to find a unique marketing position at any cost? If its that good why aren't competitors responding more aggressively - it seems like though don't care. Is that because the Swiss escape the lever is one of those items that does exactly what it's suppose to do? The Co-axisl's beginnings seem a bit chequered, but then what innovation is without problems. I read somewhere that Omega had to lower the BPM to stop the 2500 co-ax from stopping. Why shouldn't that be seen as a backwards move as I thought higher beats meant better accuracy.

My question is also to Omega, will they be providing training and certification to all watchmakers who want it?

Cheers

I think it's important to remember that automatic wristwatches, in general, are an anachronistic interest for us, and it's essentially all about marketing and fun. It's not as if it costs anywhere near $5K-$10K to build a steel Omega or Rolex watch. These are Veblen goods from companies who create desirability though marketing, whether it's Co-axial, METAS, "in house" movements, Parachrom, Bond's watch, Cerachrom, celebrity endorsers, etc.

Rolex has been a master of the above for decades. Omega got in the game with the Bond endorsement and the risky Co-axial, and I think it is working for them in the marketing wars, as Omega is nearly seen in the same light as Rolex, these days, and their prices are creeping closer and closer (a Veblen strategy.)

It doesn't matter much to me if my Co-axial watch is a little better or worse than a lever escapement in terms or reliability. I think it's cool that Omega took the new escapement idea of a master watchmaker and ran with it, even if it turns out to be a case of diminishing returns. I even prefer my 2500b movement over the newer models, simply because there are a lot fewer co-axials that beat at 28.8K, which makes mine a little more unique. Who cares if I have to occasionally give it a little shake to start it from rest? If superior accuracy and durability were the goal, I'd dust off my G-shock that is solar and feeds from the atomic clock. Mechanical watches are more about the journey.

p.s. in terms of BPM, higher beats are potentially more accurate and resistant to positional change (and have a smoother second hand sweep,) while lower beats provide less wear and more power reserve. It's a trade off. There are plenty of very expensive watches out there that have slower BPMs than the Omega 8500.

vadimo · Aug 2, 2015

Very interesting to read this...

When i was buying my new seamaster 300m with 2500 movement, Omega sales told me that the watch can run for up to 8 years without servicing because there is less wear with co-axial escapement, they were very loud about this unique technology.

Does this mean that co-axial watch will be more durable but requires shorter servicing intervals?

But then sales told me it is more accurate escapement?! I am unsure now 😀

flw · Aug 9, 2015

vadimo
Very interesting to read this...

When i was buying my new seamaster 300m with 2500 movement, Omega sales told me that the watch can run for up to 8 years without servicing because there is less wear with co-axial escapement, they were very loud about this unique technology.

Does this mean that co-axial watch will be more durable but requires shorter servicing intervals?

But then sales told me it is more accurate escapement?! I am unsure now 😀

I was told exactly the same thing. Given Omega's faith (misplaced or otherwise) in the co-axial escapement, it's no surprise that the sales staff tell new customers that the technology, which no one else is using, is THE key advantage over other luxury watch brands. And it's had an effect, both with customers and competitors - witness Rolex's warranty extension that just went into effect last month. It's hard to imagine that the decision by Rolex wasn't made in part as a response to Omega's longevity claims.

4236 · Aug 10, 2015

Oh no, i wish i had newer see those pictures about the worn out co-axial escapement wheels. If and when these were not result of unprofessional service, i can not help myself thinking that all co-axial escapement wheels look same after 7 year of running.
Al, have you ever seen a traditional escapement wheel worn like those ?

Archer · Aug 10, 2015

4 4236
Oh no, i wish i had newer see those pictures about the worn out co-axial escapement wheels. If and when these were not result of unprofessional service, i can not help myself thinking that all co-axial escapement wheels look same after 7 year of running.
Al, have you ever seen a traditional escapement wheel worn like those ?

Not specifically escape wheels no, but the way the wheel contacts the pallet stones is quite different. But escape wheels do wear out yes - not as common as other parts though.

Cheers, Al

davidswiss · Aug 10, 2015

Archer thank you for the information you've put into this thread. It's been a real education. I'd been slowly coming around to considering one of the new calibre 8500 used in the master chronometer. I think I'll delay a bit.

4236 · Aug 10, 2015

One more question to Al, i believe you have serviced a lot of cal 2500 movements, how often do you see escape wheels with a significant wear ?

Archer · Aug 10, 2015

4 4236
One more question to Al, i believe you have serviced a lot of cal 2500 movements, how often do you see escape wheels with a significant wear ?

I don't really keep statistics on this sort of thing, but a SWAG would be maybe 10% or so require the co-axial wheel to be replaced.

Cheers, Al

Archer · Aug 10, 2015

davidswiss
Archer thank you for the information you've put into this thread. It's been a real education. I'd been slowly coming around to considering one of the new calibre 8500 used in the master chronometer. I think I'll delay a bit.

Please don't take my posts as some indication that you should not buy one of these if you want one. I'm just trying to answer the questions people have and show you what my experiences are servicing these.

The fact that I don't own a co-axial watch has more to do with the modern Omega line up than anything about the escapement...

ctpete · Aug 23, 2015

I learned more in this this thread about automatic watches than I could have imagined. Thanks to the OP for asking the question and to everyone who responded, especially Al.

Horlogerie · Aug 24, 2015

A very interesting read, thanks for the details and especially the photo's.

What I don't understand is this, Daniels intended and invented the coaxial escapement to avoid the need for lubrication, impact or otherwise. So why are Omega lubrication the escapement? Doesn't make a lot of sense. The reason it doesn't need lubrication is due to the fact that the coaxial design eliminates the sliding motion that exists on the lever escapement. In all the reading I have done on escapments and impact motions, only where a brass escape wheel was mentioned did impact action even get mentioned, and then it was ignored, basically there is no need to "pre-harden" the impact surface on a brass escape wheel, it will do so naturally when the movement is first put in motion.

If the "impact" is the issue, what is different on the impact between the pallet stone and the escape wheel teeth on a coaxial compaerd to the impact on a standard lever escapement. I have never seen any impact damage or wear on the escape wheel of a lever escapement, in fact other than worn teeth resulting from a chipped pallet stone, escape wheels on lever escapments almost never show signs of wear, certainly not wear like shown in the above photo's. The wear on those coaxial escape wheels causes me to try and understand what is going on with the coaxial escapment.

Since there is no sliding motion, what is causing the wear? The wear pattern looks very much like a worn away section, in other words not a section that was hammered and crushed from the impact motion, which the oiling is trying to prevent. Clearly whatever the reason that Omega decided to use to justify the oiling isn't working, otherwise there would not be any wear on the escape wheel teeth now would there?

Anyone know what Roger Smith thinks of the Omega recommendation to oil, and more importantly if Roger oils his coaxial escapements, and also what his take is on the wear pattern experienced by Omega.

Something doesn't add up, all escapments have an impact action between the pallet and escape wheel, yet they don't show any appreciable wear after many many years of use, consider a marine chronometer with a detent escapement that is over a hundred years old...or a lever escapement also over 100 years old...no impact wear and almost never any sliding motion wear either.

The idea of the coaxial was to lenghten the service intervals required on the normal escapement due to the drying out of the lubricants. If you are oiling the escape wheel, then the oil is going to dry out and loose it's effectiveness in 5 or so years, so what's the point, or gain?

BHI Professionally Qualified Watchmaker
www.roberthoran.eu

GoldenHour · Aug 24, 2015

Al thanks for a such a thorough and informative article. Thanks for taking the time to share this.

Horlogerie · Aug 27, 2015

No further insight? Al? Anyone else?

I was hoping for some more techincal details and theories on why Coaxail Escape wheels are:

1 lubricated, when the escapement was designed to not be lubricated due to virtually no sliding friction

2 wear, explaination as to why a Coaxail escape wheel is showing wear when lever escapment wheels almost never show wear

3 how lubrication that looses it effectiveness after 5 years can work to 7 and beyond in a Coaxial

Thanks for any feedback.

BHI Professionally Qualified Watchmaker
www.roberthoran.eu

Archer · Aug 27, 2015

Horlogerie
The reason it doesn't need lubrication is due to the fact that the coaxial design eliminates the sliding motion that exists on the lever escapement.

Horlogerie
1 lubricated, when the escapement was designed to not be lubricated due to virtually no sliding friction

2 wear, explaination as to why a Coaxail escape wheel is showing wear when lever escapment wheels almost never show wear

3 how lubrication that looses it effectiveness after 5 years can work to 7 and beyond in a Coaxial

The idea that the co-axial eliminates sliding friction is simply false, because there is most certainly sliding friction.

So that takes care of question 1.

Question 2 is related to question 1, and also the specific geometry used on the co-axial wheel teeth - as my photos show they are very thin at the point where the impact (and sliding friction) occurs. Swiss lever escape wheel teeth are more robust in the areas where the friction occurs.

Questions 3 - it doesn't. In fact the lubrication in the rest of the watch remains unchanged...

Cheers, Al

Horlogerie · Aug 27, 2015

Thank you for the insight.

I struggle to wonder where the advantage is between a Coaxial and Swiss Lever escapement, and if the same problems exist on the Daniels Coaxial movements and those made by Roger Smith.

If having to replace escape wheels becomes part of the servicing routine due to wear, that cost has to be factored into the cost of ownership.

I guess a new material for the escape wheels would be in order to eliminate the wear issues, maybe silicone? or carbon?

In the end the service interval is still dependent on the qualities of the lubricants and their deteriation over time.

Archer · Aug 27, 2015

Horlogerie
In the end the service interval is still dependent on the qualities of the lubricants and their deteriation over time.

As I've said to others on forums for a long time, watches arrive on my bench for any number of reasons. The number that I can attribute to the escapement being dry (that reason only and no other part being dry, dirty, or worn out) is so small it is almost non-existent.

There is much more to a watch than just an escapement.

Cheers, Al

Horlogerie · Aug 28, 2015

Archer
The number that I can attribute to the escapement being dry (that reason only and no other part being dry, dirty, or worn out) is so small it is almost non-existent.

Without a doubt, it's always a combination of problems, never just one.

Having slept on the escapement wear issue, I am still struggling to figure it out. If I remember correctly a lever escapement has something around 14mm of sliding action per revolution of the escape wheel, whereas the coaxial has 1mm per revolution, yet the lever escape wheel shows little to no wear.

Granted the teeth of the lever escape wheel are larger, but I don't know why tooth thickness would influence wear, I would expect to see a similar wear pattern on the lever escape wheel, especially on movements that are 100+ years old.

And what about the marine chronometer - which in principle has a similar thin escape wheel tooth profile and similar impulse action to the coaxial. They have been around for a couple of centuries and I have never heard of escape wheel tooth wear, even in pocket watch detent chronometers.

I am still curious as to what wear pattern Daniels watches have shown and what Roger Smith has experienced with his new coaxial design.

To co-axial or not to co-axial or is it a case of back to the future?

blubarb

sailingchamp

Archer

Df13

vadimo

flw

4236

Archer

davidswiss

4236

Archer

Archer

ctpete

Horlogerie

GoldenHour

Horlogerie

Archer

Horlogerie

Archer

Horlogerie

Similar threads

Bracelet for Omega Deville Co-Axial

Omega Speedmaster '57 - 40.5mm Co-Axial - 332.10.41.51.01.001 ( excellent )

Omega 424.10.40.20.02.001 De Ville Prestige Co-Axial 39.5MM Silver Box & Papers

Omega Speedmaster '57 - 40.5mm Co-Axial - 332.10.41.51.01.001 ( excellent )

Omega Co Axial Speedmaster Racing winding

Omega Seamaster 300m Co-Axial SS 41mm