zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

: I'm givin that obviously unbiased article my "Jesus fish"
: stamp of approval. ......David

M4tt happens to be a friend of mine and is also friends with many here.
I spoke with M4tt this morning about posting his answer from another forum and Matt said it was just fine.
This is one answer I wish I was capable of making.:

Here it is:
Default Re: movements
To say that I am frothing at the mouth right now would be a dramatic understatement. Where to start? To try to address the whole thing at ten to ten on a Sunday evening is asking too much, so I will not go the whole hog. *edit* apparently I will

I agree with him about the 1120. The 3135 is marginally better. However, the 1120 isn't really his target. He's out to demonstrate the 2500 and the 8500 are inferior movements to the 3135 and he's got an uphill struggle, for the simple reason that they are not.

so, here we go:
Quote:

With regard to the Daniel's Co-Axial Escapement equipped calibers, I'll go on record by saying that I think Omega went in the wrong direction here. From a marketing perspective, it was a brilliant move by Omega - they needed something which could differentiate themselves from their chief competitor - Rolex. Something they have, and the other guys don't. But the problem is, true innovation in centuries old mechanical watch technology is hard to come by. Then along comes Daniels peddling his escapement (which Rolex, among several other watch manufacturers did not buy). Now they can market their watches as having this gee-wiz new technology (which the average consumer, just doesn't understand) which promises a longer-lasting, less maintenance required watch, that's more accurate to boot. And to help the average Joe watch buyer understand, Omega raises their warranty coverage on Co-Axial watches from two to three years. All sounds good, right? Well, not exactly.

Yes, actually, it does.

The point about Rolex not buying it is not precisely true. Daniels was clear, he had a technology which he could make into one off movements but he needed someone to develop the mass production techniques to make a viable mass market movement. Patek were the only other company who really tried to make it work. They failed. Rolex never tried.

Moving on:

Quote:
Omega and their Daniels Co-Axial escapement promise that almost no lubrication is needed compared to a traditional escapement design.

True, note the key word there is escapement, not the whole watch.

Quote:
If Omega's watches ran at the same balance wheel beat speed (as seen in the Omega 1120, Rolex 3135, and dozens of other calibers) of 28,800 BPH, I'd believe it.

Now, I have to admit that I am not precisely clear what the connection is between reducing the beat speed by one a second and not being able to run without lubrication. Either this is non sequitur or there are some hidden premises here. More to the point, I have a suspicion that Mr Holbrook has not fully grasped the principles and advantages of the Daniels' escapement, so as a vade mecum for any readers, 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://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:L...lnk&cd=3&gl=uk

I think that the key words here are:

Quote:
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!

Quote:
But every watch movement that I've seen Omega equip with the Co-Axial escapement runs at a significantly lower beat speed than 28,800.

Oops, simple factual inaccuracy. On my wrist as I type there is an Aqua Terra with a 2500B movement which beats at 28,800. You obviously missed the A and B revision of the 2500.

Quote:
So why is this a big deal? There are two problems with lowering the beat speed to 25,200 from 28,800.

Really?

Quote:
The first problem with the lower beat speed is that it's inherently less accurate.

Really?

Quote:
I could launch in a great explanation as to why, but Walt Arnstein has already written a great article explaining why faster beat speeds mean more accuracy, which you can click on the underlined portion and read. The article is a tad dry, so for the uninitiated, let me summarize by quoting his conclusion: "But given everything equal, the properly designed fast-beat watch does have a leg up on its slower cousin."

But hang on there, it seems to me that the key words here are: "But given everything equal" surely? If we were talking about two identical escapements in identical watches, I would agree. But we are not. We are talking about a traditional lever escapement and a coaxial escapement. Everything is not equal, not equal at all.

Quote:
Now, one can debate the actual impact of losing 3,600 beats per hour has on accuracy. To me, that's not even the point - the point is, we're going the wrong direction.
Quote:
I want a more accurate movement, not a less accurate movement.

Well, we are if we are talking about a traditional lever escapement, but we are not, we are talking about a coaxial escapement which George Daniels, having spent thirty odd years working on the Coaxial escapement, thought it had an optimum operating range between 21,600 and 28,800 and that the mid point between them was the sweet spot. it is also worth mentioning the 36,000 fastbeats. Why do no Swiss companies (apart from Zenith, who thus must make better watches than Rolex...) use them any more? Surely, that too is a move in the wrong direction.

Quote:
Many will argue that my above issues with the accuracy lost due to the reduced beat speed is irrelevant because all Omega Co-Axial escapement equipped watches meet COSC accuracy standards for accuracy, and are COSC certified Chronometers.
Why would they? it's irrelevent. This is just a straw man.

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

Quote:
To this, I would reply that the only thing irrelevant is the COSC Chronometer standard itself. Without going too far off on a tangent, suffice to say that Rolex, Omega, and the entire luxury mechanical watch making industry have for too long allowed the COSC accuracy standard of -4 to +6 seconds per day be their defining benchmark for success.
I agree utterly, however, what has this to do with the 2500?

I can remember not so long ago that any car that could do 0-60 in under 8 seconds was pretty impressive, and considered "high performance." Is that still true today? No. Today, many decidedly non-high performance family sedans and sport utility vehicles can easily reach 0-60 in 8 seconds. To be considered a "high performance" vehicle, the benchmark is much lower - perhaps the six second range. Maybe 5.

Yes? and so? I don't think many people are disagreeing with either point, but is the metaphor relevant?

Quote:
The point is, the standard of -4 to +6 seconds a day is a low hurdle for watch companies to have to clear to in order to get Chronometer certification.
I agree, but...

Quote:
The Seiko watch company doesn't submit their watches for COSC testing and certification, but they guarantee their Grand Seiko line of watches to perform at accuracy standards which exceed COSC
Yes, but the reason they don't submit for chronometer status is because they are disallowed, not because they cannot be bothered.
(-2 to +5 seconds per day).

Quote:
In short, don't let COSC certification of a Co-Axial equipped Omega unduly influence your opinion of its "accuracy."

I'll try not to, if you don't do the same with the 3135

Quote:

The second problem with a lower beat speed is more of a cosmetic one - the lower the beat speed, the less smooth the second hand "sweep" is. In a slower-beating movement, there are less beats per second, which translates to less "ticks" per second of the second hand - more staggered and less smooth. How much less? If a movement beats 28,800 times per hour, it beats 480 times per minute, and 8 times per second. Comparatively, if a movement beats at 25,200 beats per hour, it beats only 420 times per minute, and only 7 times per second. Perhaps it's the anal retentive watch enthusiast in me, but I can definitely see more stagger in the second hand of a Co-Axial Omega, than I can in one not so equipped. Again, sensitivity to this point might vary but again, we're going in the wrong direction here.

I quite agree, the lower beat speed does look lumpier, just like, say, the Rolex Cal.1570 which must be really inaccurate as it beats at a mere 19800 A/h making the classic movement in the Submariner a rather inferior one compared to, say, a Seiko five. Which is why both my partner and I have AT's with 2500B movements beating at 28,800.

Quote:
If I didn't want a smooth second hand, I'd have a quartz watch. I want a second hand that is more smooth, not less. Now, if you want a smooth hand you want one of these:

That's 720hz. Nothing before or since puts a higher beat rate through to the second hand. As I understand your argument, such as it is, this is the finest watch ever made. Jim Moose has my three now but I'm sure he would negotiate with you for one of them, he's a gentleman like that...

Mind you, the 2500b looks pretty damn smooth too:

C'mon, admit it, what's not to like!

Quote:
Of course both of the above points beg the question, if the Daniels escapement performed as advertised, why is there any need at all to lower the beat speed of the watch?
Just to keep up my reputation for irritating pedantry:

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

Yes, yes you are begging the question; without even realising it.

However, if you mean simply that you want to ask the question then the answer is simply because George Daniels and Omega disagreed about the optimum rate for the movement. Daniels was convinced that, while it operated perfectly well at 28,800, it was more accurate at 25,200, had a longer reserve and put all the parts under marginally less stress. However, the difference was so marginal that Omega produced the 2500B revision for a year or two before moving to the C as their final version. The argument between them is well documented.

Quote:
Watches with a traditional escapement design, traditional lubrication, and a 28,800 beat speed have been performing admirably for decades.
Well yes, but so have 36,000 movements in the Favre Leuba Harpoon II and Seiko 4502 for example. But Rolex don't use 36,000 do they? Surely they should if your argument is correct.

Quote:
If you have to lower the beat speed of the watch movement to accommodate the Co-Axial escapement, thereby lowering wear and tear on the movement,
Quote:
in my mind the Daniels Co-Axial escapement fails in the most fundamental function it was designed for, and should be abandoned.

Oops, that'll be the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

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

It simply does not follow that because lowering the beat rate reduces wear (if indeed it does) that reducing wear was the reason for reducing the beat rate. We already know that the reason is that Daniels felt that it was the optimum rate for the escapement. To use your car analogy, the 'sweet spot' in the power curve is lower in the rev range than for a lever escapement. Daniels just thought you should change up earlier to take advantage of the torque. After drag racing for a while Omega agreed.

Quote:
Either the Co-Axial escapement simply does not fully and entirely remove the need for traditional lubricants to be able to run at 28,800, or Omega is simply too afraid of the potential and unknown long term effects on the life of a movement to let a Co-Axial equipped movement run at 28,800.
Oops, another logical fallacy, now you are affirming the disjunct:

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

beyond that, it simply isn't the case that the escapement 'fully and entirely remove the need for traditional lubricants' No one ever claimed it did: the pivots, and extra wheel still need lubricating. The only parts that don't are those that are critical for accuracy, for example the pallet stones where, by virtue of a rolling rather than a scraping action they reduce friction by 97% while also removing any inaccuracy due to the changing condition and viscosity of oils and wear on the friction surfaces.

Quote:
Either way, the Co-Axial escapement simply does not offer a true engineering advantage over using a traditional escapement and traditional lubricants.
Even if your previous arguments were not hopelessly unsound (faulty logic) and invalid (one or more false premises) then this would still not follow. All of the above could be true and it could still offer an advantage, by, for example, being more accurate at a lower beat rate, which by happy coincidence, it is.

Quote:
But again, this goes back to a point I made earlier in the article - Omega didn't buy the Daniels Co-Axial escapement because it offered an engineering advantage. Omega bought the Daniels Co-Axial escapement because it offered because it offered a marketing advantage. A way for them to claim to have a competitive advantage - something the other guys don't have.
This may or may not be true, But the intentions of the marketing department and the design department could well have been different: Omega's decision to plough millions into developing the escapement might have been overdetermined with several departments agreeing that it was a winner. Ultimately, as with Patek, I really don't think the ad department would have convinced them if the R&D department hadn't thought it was a winner.

Quote:
If the Co-Axial escapement truly offered an engineering advantage over traditional escapements, then so many watch manufacturers before Omega would not have passed on it.

Because the retooling and R&D costs were immense and taking on a project like this takes daring. There are many positive words that can be used to describe Rolex as a company, daring is not one of them. They prefer evolution to revolution and it is a strategy that has served them well. As I have already pointed out, Patek tried and failed to make the escapement work as a 'mass market' movement.

Quote:
In short, I think Omega should have passed on it too.
I bet you do! I also have a shrewd idea about the opinion you would have if Rolex had snapped it up...

Quote:
Omega has come a long way in a short time from a movement manufacturing perspective - much of which you just don't hear enough about. For instance, in the winding system of the new caliber 8500, the system winds the mainspring in both directions of rotation by means of a newly designed reverser. The rotor’s axle turns in a sliding bearing equipped with zirconium-oxide jewels. This ensures that the wearer neither hears the rotor nor feels any vibrations.
I don't know, but generally where there is a single free swinging mass, there will be wobbles.

Quote:
Clearly this is another area where Omega was clearly targeting Rolex and their movements by trying to eliminate any competitive advantage a Rolex caliber has
Sorry, is that the sole reason? is there no possibility that Omega simply wanted to make a better winding mechanism? Does everything Omega has ever done ever have to be related to envy of Rolex's technical prowess?

Quote:
the Oyster Perpetual self-winding system is completely silent and is almost impossible to feel, and has been for decades.
Well, I'm happily twirling my freshly serviced Air King around on my wrist, (I changed) right now and I can both feel and hear it. Compared to my JLC Kryos with an 889 movement it's both loud and rather wobbly.

Quote:
Omega has also equipped the 8500 with two winding barrels, giving it a much longer power reserve than most other mechanical watches - 60 hours compared to about 50 hours in most Rolex calibers.
They have indeed, but this is hardly new, Favre Leuba were doing this sort of thing thirty years ago and Eberhard are way, way ahead here.

Quote:
And to offset the introduction of the Rolex Parachrom Bleu hairspring,
That was, I'm sure their only motivation, not to take advantage of a technology that is entirely metal free, unlike the Rolex hairspring. Whatever their motivation they have leapfrogged Rolex who are now stuck with an ecologically horrific and hugely expensive process which they will not be able to dump for the cheap and simple solution of silicon without admitting an error and binning all the research and development.

Quote:
Omega has countered with the "Si 14" silicon balance spring. Among the advantages possessed by a silicon balance spring include immunity from magnetism, excellent resistance to shocks, and isochronal consistency
Yes indeed! (did I mention they are infinitely cheaper to produce too?)

Quote:
- the exact same benefits Rolex advertises with their Parachrom Bleu hairspring.
I'm afraid that this simply isn't true: silicon is completely non magnetic while niobium and zirconium are both paramagnetic and thus will react with a strong enough magnetic field. One eliminates magnetism as an issue while the other merely massively reduces it.

Quote:
But as long as Omega continues to aggressively implement the Co-Axial escapement in their movements (and after this much time and investment, I don't see Omega saying "Oops! We made a mistake here!" anytime soon) I think their movements will take a back seat to their competitors. Particularly the one competitor Omega seems to covet the most - Rolex.
A bit like Rolex with their new yet already redundant hairspring then.

However, the bottom line is that, as this argument has roots as sound as Birnam Wood, the other possibility is that Omega have successfully brought the next big breakthrough in mechanical watches to market and have thus leapfrogged their competitors in several areas. Now the real question is, have they overcommitted themselves in doing so? It would be irritating if Omega falters for economic reasons Rolex goes on to produce a reverse engineered version of their own.

Quote:
In the meantime, snap up all the Omega 1120 caliber equipped Omega watches you can - it's the best movement Omega has ever produced in my honest opinion.
Really? I disagree entirely. if we are including conversions then the 1861 has to be better, not to mention the genuine Omega calibres: 5xx, the 7xx and even the 6xx. Which reminds me...

This is why I did this to an undeserving Omega Cal.601 isn't it:

Right, I'm off to bed.
__________________