Community Stories

Who really invented the Co-ax escapement?

S
Posts
80
Likes
16
Annapolis Annapolis
The thread got hijacked a bit by people opining about the escapement (I’m partly to blame for that). But there was indeed a clear answer:

Fasoldt invented an escapement that was technically “co-axial,” yes, but quite different from what we and Omega mean by “co-axial escapement”; Daniels invented and patented the Omega device—it’s not ambiguous.

however, I have heard that nowadays Omega is using the co-axial that looks like Fasoldt escapement

To me it looks like Daniels patented the new escapement but this escapement was more about theoretical use and in real use Omega changed it seriously actually to the level of Fasoldt. It sounds that technology is not unique and is not patented recently. Sorry, I did hear that from one of my local watchmakers and I couldn’t argue with him enough, because he is more experienced person. He means Omega escapement is different and no benefit vs other escapement + escapement modified closer to Fasoldt and patent was a joke, because no real use “patent” in Omega.
That’s the question
 
Dan S
Posts
20,206
Likes
46,866
S Speedy13
so, it’s actually the sane as for 1861 Moonwatch with normal escapement
No real difference
I did not immediately find anything online that distinguishes between service intervals for different watches/movements. Maybe that information is buried in service manuals somewhere.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
469
Dan S Dan S
I did not immediately find anything online that distinguishes between service intervals for different watches/movements. Maybe that information is buried in service manuals somewhere.
S Speedy13
so, it’s actually the sane as for 1861 Moonwatch with normal escapement
No real difference

No.
I think my 1861 Speedy Pro manual clearly states 3-5 years. Or i've seen it elsewhere from Omega.
And Co-axials are stated as being longer as one has come to expect.
Edited:
 
Dan S
Posts
20,206
Likes
46,866
D Duckie
That seems like the current blurb.

I was actually refering to the recommendation back in the day when they were grafting the Co-axial into ETA movements.
It also seemed to be in line with what dealers were pitching at the time.
Yes, that is the current recommendation. You have mentioned 7-8 years at one point, 3-5 years at another point, but with no documentation. I'm simply giving the information currently on the website.
 
Scarecrow Boat
Posts
6,184
Likes
25,824
I think it comes down to the age of the user manual. Here are two manuals to share as examples.

Here is the current user manual, which lists varying Co-Ax movements as well as the 1861 movement the other member was discussing above. This manual suggests intervals between 5-8 years, which coincides with what Omega shares on the website. This manual can be found on Omega’s website, though maybe a little buried.

IMG_5754.jpeg IMG_5755.jpeg





And here is, what I believe to be, an older user manual, which suggests service intervals between 4-5 years. *This manual is not published on Omega’s website but I found it on a website that archives user manuals.

IMG_5756.jpeg IMG_5757.jpeg
 
padders
Posts
9,527
Likes
15,023
The service recommendation interval shown in the instruction book is the same across all calibres and has been like that since circa 2005, at first they quoted 4-5 years. I've just checked a few different instruction books, there is no interval at all listed in edition 1 but by edition 10 from circa 2009 the 4-5 years is there. It remained the same up until very recently when it changed with edition 23 of the book (circa 2020/2021) when, as noted above they stretched the guidance to 5-8 years and coincidentally doubled the price of factory servicing and introduced a 5 year warranty. There has to my knowledge never been any differential service guidance for co-ax models. I guess it may have jarred somewhat to have a 4 year lower interval recommendation when the product is warrantied for 5 years. Nothing else fundamental has really changed since 2020 to make the interval longer so read into that what you will.
Edited:
 
S
Posts
80
Likes
16
Such a shame that we live in a world where lying is a normal thing
Service intervals (next they could write 8 to 10 years + 15% increase in service), escapement (that far from patented)

it’s all about marketing and bla-bla-bla
Look at Rolex and their escapement (clear an experiment where you shouldn’t do when you don’t how to do)
New calibers that are made by computer modelling and no real watchmakers like in the past…

please correct me if I am wrong
I couldn’t understand how you couldn’t write in manual about co-axial , if you are saying longer intervals and etc
Complete fail
Once you get it into it deeper, you understand it’s just marketing
 
ChronoB
Posts
50
Likes
98
As to the usefulness of the co-axial escapement, taken from more than one source:

The Co-Axial escapement functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse, with the pushing, as opposed to the sliding friction of the lever escapement, resulting in greater mechanical efficiency. The critical virtue of this escapement is the virtual elimination of all sliding friction, theoretically resulting in greater accuracy over time and longer service intervals. The direct impulse to the roller of the balance by the teeth of the escapement wheel means greater mechanical efficiency, hence more stable precision.

The lever escapement works great. The only problem is the scraping of the escape wheel tooth on the pallet. The scraping creates friction, and to keep the friction down (both to prevent wear, and to prevent energy loss) you need oil. And oil breaks down over time – and therefore, so does precision. The co-axial escapement does it all – it locks securely; you have impulse in both directions; it's self-starting; and there is no sliding friction, so you (theoretically) don't need any oil on the impulse surfaces. The only disadvantage, if you can call it that, is that it's a complicated escapement and that, in its original incarnation, it had an escape wheel necessarily more massive than that used by either the detent or lever escapements.

The co-axial functions with a system of three pallets that separate the locking function from the impulse. And, instead of sliding friction, it uses radial friction at the impulse surfaces. Because this significantly reduces the sliding friction of the pallet stones over the teeth of the escape wheel, it eliminates the need to lubricate the pallets. The result is greater accuracy over time as well as a reduced need to have the watch serviced as frequently.

Also:

One interesting point about the co-axial escapement is that the impulse surfaces are oiled (hence "theoretically no longer necessary.") However, it's not to reduce friction. Instead, the oil is there to minimize impact oxidation. By email, Roger Smith told HODINKEE, "We apply lubrication to our single wheel teeth, as did George [Daniels]. This prevents a build up of oxide where the tooth impacts the jewel. Interestingly, this impact effect was common in the detent escapement and lubricants were applied to combat the effects. The key thing to remember though is that the rate of timekeeping will not be affected as the condition of the lubricant deteriorates and this is due to the impulse being delivered through a simple pushing action as opposed to the highly inefficient sliding action found in the lever escapement."
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,511
Likes
4,706
S Speedy13
however, I have heard that nowadays Omega is using the co-axial that looks like Fasoldt escapement

To me it looks like Daniels patented the new escapement but this escapement was more about theoretical use and in real use Omega changed it seriously actually to the level of Fasoldt. It sounds that technology is not unique and is not patented recently. Sorry, I did hear that from one of my local watchmakers and I couldn’t argue with him enough, because he is more experienced person. He means Omega escapement is different and no benefit vs other escapement + escapement modified closer to Fasoldt and patent was a joke, because no real use “patent” in Omega.
That’s the question

As mentioned, you did get a definitive and concise answer which you don't seem happy with. Daniel's co-axial escapement was different enough than the Fasoldt escapement that it was able to receive its own patent. If you are now additionally asserting that Omega is not using that escapement and that the current escapement is not patented, you should be able to add supporting evidence for that assertion.
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,511
Likes
4,706
Regarding this other stuff how it's "all about marketing"---- When you get right down into it, ALL luxury brands are almost entirely about branding, exclusivity, and marketing, with very, very, very little that truly separates them for non-luxury brands that fill the same role. I have zero illusions about this and if you can, I recommend that you make the same peace with this reality.
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,511
Likes
4,706
Annapolis Annapolis
https://omegaforums.net/threads/on-...ry-watches-what-brand-is-most-aligned.164389/

Had an eerie feeling that some brilliant and handsome forum member had initiated a thread on this very tropic not long ago. (I was at least partly right.)

We are dupes of branding, all of us, and we don’t even mind.

I think it's part of the human social condition in many ways. as far as being dupes of branding, I would say that I am at least partly comfortable spending "large" amounts of money on an Omega watch because of the "mass illusion" others are choosing to engage in that it has that value.

A simple scale of value may examine the relationship between cost and usefulness, but as humans we add additional value on beauty. Not to mention, there is zero doubt that certain things, like jewelry, which has very very little practical usefulness, can have very high social utility, and there is a direct connection between exclusivity and social utility. It's completely constructed- but so is society itself and all social rules. Constructs are no less real once constructed, than anything else.

Sometimes deconstructing the value of things is useful, but we cannot just discard the hard-to-measure social aspects of something in favor of the solid physical portions just because it is convenient.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
469
ErichPryde ErichPryde
Regarding this other stuff how it's "all about marketing"---- When you get right down into it, ALL luxury brands are almost entirely about branding, exclusivity, and marketing, with very, very, very little that truly separates them for non-luxury brands that fill the same role. I have zero illusions about this and if you can, I recommend that you make the same peace with this reality.

This👍
It's all part of life.
Even the cheaper watch brands are into it, only the number$ are lower.
It could be a bottle of milk or tyres and fuel for our vehicles to power tools or condoms. Everything.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
469
ErichPryde ErichPryde
I think it's part of the human social condition in many ways. as far as being dupes of branding, I would say that I am at least partly comfortable spending "large" amounts of money on an Omega watch because of the "mass illusion" others are choosing to engage in that it has that value.

A simple scale of value may examine the relationship between cost and usefulness, but as humans we add additional value on beauty. Not to mention, there is zero doubt that certain things, like jewelry, which has very very little practical usefulness, can have very high social utility, and there is a direct connection between exclusivity and social utility. It's completely constructed- but so is society itself and all social rules. Constructs are no less real once constructed, than anything else.

Sometimes deconstructing the value of things is useful, but we cannot just discard the hard-to-measure social aspects of something in favor of the solid physical portions just because it is convenient.

The problem with deconstructing things or pulling something apart, is that when we do so it kills that which we love.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
469
Dan S Dan S
Yes, that is the current recommendation. You have mentioned 7-8 years at one point, 3-5 years at another point, but with no documentation. I'm simply giving the information currently on the website.

7-8 for Co-axial back in the formative years. At least according to those who were in the game of selling them.
3-5 in my manual that came with the Speedy pro.
My GS from 2017 is 3-5 years for every type of movement they make except maybe Quartz.
 
ErichPryde
Posts
2,511
Likes
4,706
D Duckie
The problem with deconstructing things or pulling something apart, is that when we do so it kills that which we love.

That can definitely happen, but I am of the (hopefully not unique) opinion that there are times when we can disassemble something in order to understand it better, and put it back together stronger (in a way) because of that gained understanding. Sometimes the magic isn't lost.
Edited:
 
sheepdoll
Posts
2,358
Likes
3,754
Everything in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:the modern Prometheus has pretty much come true.
And I think the above is a quote from that book.
 
2 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

SpeedyPhill

1974 - 2024 marks 50 years Co-axial escapement by George Daniels

SpeedyPhill Open Discussion
SpeedyPhill
SpeedyPhill
Posts
0
Views
931
Fritz

Co-axial chronometer escapement

Fritz Open Discussion
Gruesome
Gruesome
Posts
2
Views
944
J

What exctly are the advantages of Co-Axial Escapement over traditional escapement?

jxh57601206 Modern Omega Watches
Badhabit59
Badhabit59
Posts
21
Views
13K
Deafboy

AP Escapement - for tech geeks

Deafboy High-end Watches
V
vapvaldez
Posts
15
Views
4K
valkyrie_rider

Co-axial escapement: why omega puts lub on it?

valkyrie_rider Open Discussion
padders
padders
Posts
10
Views
7K
Archer

Basic watchmaking tips - Oiling part 4 (the escapement)

Archer Watchmaking
Jackzhang
Jackzhang
Posts
20
Views
25K