Co-ax movement issues?

[Gobbledygook]

Hi all, i've been keen on the PO / SMP for quite some time but have read about issues on the 2500 coax movement, like how some reported the watch suddenly stopping, being problemmatic to start up, how the 2500 movement has needed updating in a,b and c versions and is soon to be completely replaced in future models. I've also read about the PO chrono movement not being sturdy but such instances are fewer (maybe because there are less chronos due to the higher price?)

Now thinking if it'll be better to get a pre-coax model SMP instead but those seem to rarely come up for sale...

anyone care to share their similar experience or thoughts on the matter, especially given Omega's pending price increase. Thanks!

[sportee]

personally never experienced anything like what you mentioned on my PO. I found the watch to be value-for-money. Considering the in-house movement and also the quality of the watch. All these are strictly my opinions....

[Gobbledygook]

thanks for sharing, i was 100% sold on the value-for-money part until i stumbled across the alleged problems posted. Real bang for the buck given the fit, finishing and specs - my bro owns 3 omegas and was a fan from the start but i took a longer time to getting around...guess it'll be hard to know for sure whether the problems are created by Omega-bashers

[sportee]

thanks for sharing, i was 100% sold on the value-for-money part until i stumbled across the alleged problems posted. Real bang for the buck given the fit, finishing and specs - my bro owns 3 omegas and was a fan from the start but i took a longer time to getting around...guess it'll be hard to know for sure whether the problems are created by Omega-bashers

Think sometimes buying watches also depends on luck. Just like buying a motor vehicle. Did you check with your bro since he owned 3 omegas?

[feilong108]

so far not too much issue with the 2500....3133 movement is the more problematic movement i tink..the chrono planet ocean...

[Gobbledygook]

my bro no problem with his PO while the other 2 he has are non co-ax models.

care to share what are the problems with the 3133? the PO ceramic is damn nice...

[feilong108]

3133 had teething problems in the USA...got quite a few owners reported that the movement suddenly stop moving apparently....u can read more at WUS...just use the search function there....

[batamboy]

Co-Axial is definTELY value for $$$ in terms of time accuracy n servicing. So far my speedmaster n Double Eagle constellation no problem.Highly meets up to my expectations, even Rolex needs to be service every 2-3yrs. Co-Axial escapement, its servicing is only required once in every 6-8 or even 10years n above. Omega with their Co-Axial movement, I dun think other high end brands can be compared to this level of accuracy n durabilty. Correct me if i wrong..

[epigram]

I've had a 2500c for years and it still keeps perfect time.

[iJeff]

I have no issues with my Aqua Terra Co-Axial (4 years old) and PO (1 year+). Both are keeping good time.

[Cutesperm]

too bad my omega PO got some prob initially.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1j2zl22OUM/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1j2zl22OUM

[taxico]

Hi all, i've been keen on the PO / SMP for quite some time but have read about issues on the 2500 coax movement, like how some reported the watch suddenly stopping, being problemmatic to start up, how the 2500 movement has needed updating in a,b and c versions and is soon to be completely replaced in future models. I've also read about the PO chrono movement not being sturdy but such instances are fewer (maybe because there are less chronos due to the higher price?)

IIRC, the problematic chrono were those with a piguet movement. can't remember if it was co-ax, but i don't think so.

the others are built from on ETA ebauches. there were issues with running it at a 28.8k beat rate, thus omega tuned down the rate.

i've not followed omega in a long time, but any movement from any brand can have some problems.

buy whichever watch calls out to you. i personally would go for the older ETA-based (non co-ax) SMPs if i was on the market for one.

[taxico]

Co-Axial is definTELY value for $$$ in terms of time accuracy n servicing. So far my speedmaster n Double Eagle constellation no problem.Highly meets up to my expectations, even Rolex needs to be service every 2-3yrs. Co-Axial escapement, its servicing is only required once in every 6-8 or even 10years n above. Omega with their Co-Axial movement, I dun think other high end brands can be compared to this level of accuracy n durabilty. Correct me if i wrong..

speedmaster... co-ax??? hmmm...

i think you need to research more into the daniel's escapement.

the servicing interval is longer simply due to the slower beat rate.

this is akin to how older slow-beat rolex (or even seiko) watches that can go on for 15-20 years without a service - and rolex doesn't even use a bearing-based rotor, but a bushing! (ie, not good to leave unserviced due to resulting metal shavings)

i'm still waiting for omega/swatch/eta engineers to figure a way to increase the beat rate of a co-axial movement to 28.8k WITHOUT it breaking down prematurely.

that was a big reason why they had multiple revisions to the movement.

[sdchew]

IIRC, the problematic chrono were those with a piguet movement. can't remember if it was co-ax, but i don't think so.

the others are built from on ETA ebauches. there were issues with running it at a 28.8k beat rate, thus omega tuned down the rate.

i've not followed omega in a long time, but any movement from any brand can have some problems.

buy whichever watch calls out to you. i personally would go for the older ETA-based (non co-ax) SMPs if i was on the market for one.

speedmaster... co-ax??? hmmm...

i think you need to research more into the daniel's escapement.

the servicing interval is longer simply due to the slower beat rate.

this is akin to how older slow-beat rolex (or even seiko) watches that can go on for 15-20 years without a service - and rolex doesn't even use a bearing-based rotor, but a bushing! (ie, not good to leave unserviced due to resulting metal shavings)

i'm still waiting for omega/swatch/eta engineers to figure a way to increase the beat rate of a co-axial movement to 28.8k WITHOUT it breaking down prematurely.

that was a big reason why they had multiple revisions to the movement.

Well, I hope that I'm a little more familiar with Omega as I did some research before I bought mine. Let me share what my understanding is.

Omega initially had problems with the ETA modified 2500 (non-chronograph) and F.Piguet 33xx chronographs. In both movements, they were modified by Omega to have an co-axial escapement.

The 2500 series came out first. Analysis of the movement pointed that Omega thought that the movement could run with a 'coarse' finish. This is probably due to cost reduction reasons. Later revisions had more refined components and had the lower beat rate.

As for the 33xx series, Omega never lowered the beat rate but instead changed various components. The GMT version, 3603, still has a 28.8k (8 hz)beat rate and many of its components were 'backported' to the 33xx series (Rev B).

When you look at the 8500 series, which is the first movement Omega has which is designed from the ground up for the co-axial escapement, some co-relation to what Omega did for the 2500/33xx can be derived. The movement has dual barrels which is probably intended to deliver more uniform torque to the co-axial escapement. In addition, the movement is also highly finished to a high tolerance. The beatrate is also lowered (7 hz). So far there has not been any reported of problems with this movement.

Looking back at the 2500 series, it seems that Omega fixed it by improving the quality and tolerances of the movement. This reduced the number of movements which had problems of 'jamming'. Also, since it would have been difficult to change the main spring to increase the torque delivered to the escapement, Omega probably took the easy way out and reduced the beat rate. As you can see in the video above, tapping the watch to 'prod' the movement restarted the watch.

As for the 33xx series, Omega just reworked and improved on the quality of the components. I'm guessing that since Chronographs have stronger main springs (needed to drive the chrono), there was no need to reduce the beatrate.

In both situation, it seems that bad QC is the culprit thou a marginal design may have contributed to this.

As for whether the reduction of beatrate has any effect, to be honest, not much as the beat rate reduction is quite low. Timing accuracy is very high for all co-axial movement watches. In addition, some of Daniels' notes stated that he has a preference for lower beat rates.

The primary design purpose for the co-axial is actually reliability over time. For the typical watch with the swiss escapement, the issue is when the lubricant at the escapement starts to degrade, the watch becomes less accurate. Reducing the beat rate will definitely increase service interval but will do nothing about the deteriorating performance over time towards the service interval.

For the co-axial escapement, lubricant at the escapement is minimal and does not effect the time keeping ability. Thus, even at its service interval, a watch with co-axial escapement so suffer no degradation in performance.

Just my thoughts on this.

[taxico]

Omega initially had problems with the ETA modified 2500 (non-chronograph) and F.Piguet 33xx chronographs. In both movements, they were modified by Omega to have an co-axial escapement.

The 2500 series came out first. Analysis of the movement pointed that Omega thought that the movement could run with a 'coarse' finish. This is probably due to cost reduction reasons. Later revisions had more refined components and had the lower beat rate.

As for the 33xx series, Omega never lowered the beat rate but instead changed various components. The GMT version, 3603, still has a 28.8k (8 hz)beat rate and many of its components were 'backported' to the 33xx series (Rev B).

When you look at the 8500 series, which is the first movement Omega has which is designed from the ground up for the co-axial escapement, some co-relation to what Omega did for the 2500/33xx can be derived. The movement has dual barrels which is probably intended to deliver more uniform torque to the co-axial escapement. In addition, the movement is also highly finished to a high tolerance. The beatrate is also lowered (7 hz). So far there has not been any reported of problems with this movement.

Looking back at the 2500 series, it seems that Omega fixed it by improving the quality and tolerances of the movement. This reduced the number of movements which had problems of 'jamming'. Also, since it would have been difficult to change the main spring to increase the torque delivered to the escapement, Omega probably took the easy way out and reduced the beat rate. As you can see in the video above, tapping the watch to 'prod' the movement restarted the watch.

As for the 33xx series, Omega just reworked and improved on the quality of the components. I'm guessing that since Chronographs have stronger main springs (needed to drive the chrono), there was no need to reduce the beatrate.

In both situation, it seems that bad QC is the culprit thou a marginal design may have contributed to this.

As for whether the reduction of beatrate has any effect, to be honest, not much as the beat rate reduction is quite low. Timing accuracy is very high for all co-axial movement watches. In addition, some of Daniels' notes stated that he has a preference for lower beat rates.

The primary design purpose for the co-axial is actually reliability over time. For the typical watch with the swiss escapement, the issue is when the lubricant at the escapement starts to degrade, the watch becomes less accurate. Reducing the beat rate will definitely increase service interval but will do nothing about the deteriorating performance over time towards the service interval.

For the co-axial escapement, lubricant at the escapement is minimal and does not effect the time keeping ability. Thus, even at its service interval, a watch with co-axial escapement so suffer no degradation in performance.

Just my thoughts on this.

1. the 2500 had the co-ax escapement fitted into an ETA movement (sort of). the newer 8500 was built around the co-ax escapement. the 3606 is based on the 33xx/FP 3000 calibre, which is known to be problematic.

2. slow beat is as slow beat does, but high beat is not without its disadvantages.

yet according to omega, we cannot compare a 28.8k bpm movement with conventional swiss lever escapment vs a 25.2k bpm movement with the daniel's co-ax escapement.

then why should the service interval of the co-ax movement be compared to that of a non co-ax movement? (auto seikos almost never need any servicing, yes?)

if one movement cannot be compared to another, then just don't. period.

3. although developed many decades ago, the co-axial movement has yet stood the test of time. i think it's a wonderful concept, but omega should not have gone about their task of keeping up with its competitors in such a manner.

i felt that omega had been irresponsible in releasing "incomplete" or at the very least, "unreliable" watches between 1999-2007 (prior to 8500, which i know little of).

to be fair, most of those kinks have been ironed out now. sure, they can all easily be attributed to a QC problem, but if so, why revise the movement? why not release it only when they've got it right?

and... if they have done it before... they can do it again. thanks, but no thanks!

4. i still eagerly await a watchmaker's tear down of a never serviced 7/10 year old omega watch with a 28.8k 2500/25.2k 8500 movement. only then can one know if it's as reliable as advertised.

5. this is not a "my movement is better than yours" argument, and i know you won't construe it that way. i also happen to love my slow beat vintage omegas. however i shall keep waiting for their engineers to revise the beat rate upwards.