What happened with hi-beat (36,000 bph / 5 Hz) watches?

The higher beat rate doesn’t significantly increase accuracy. In my opinion, it’s kind of a gimmick that increases wear and tear on the movement, which in turn reduces the time between service intervals.

It’s still cool.

The higher beat rate doesn’t significantly increase accuracy. In my opinion, it’s kind of a gimmick that increases wear and tear on the movement

I get this, but I doubt the impact on the movement is that significant. Otherwise we'd all be still on 2.5 and 3 Hz movements, which obviously reduce the wear and tear and can still be quite accurate.

Doesn't this effect power reserve?

It does, but GS hi-beats usually have 55 hour power reserve, which is fine for most people.

I’ve been looking into the Zenith Pilot. That’s a 5Hz movement

It's all about manufacturing tolerances. Back in the 60s the parts of a watch weren't as precisely crafted as they are today. So the best way to get more accuracy was to have a higher beat rate to smooth out the inconsistencies. The price paid was greater wear and tear on the parts and lower power reserve.

Modern manufacturing methods make parts with far higher precision and greater strength. Materials science has made springs that can store much more energy and parts that can take much more wear.

So great, you say, easier to have the higher beat rate. Yes, but the higher precision makes the need for the higher rate less. There's less inconsistency beat to beat to have to smooth out. The only reason left for higher beat rate is for the sweep of the hand.

Aldough I can agree the high beat movements are scarce nowadays but mentioning only GS/not mentioning El Primero?

Useful life and power reserve are the two most commonly cited criticisms of high frequency movements. Those don't seem to matter to you, but I think they are important. While luxury brands may find it worthwhile to invest in developing high frequency movements, I doubt the economics work for most mass market brands.

"I get this, but I doubt the impact on the movement is that significant. Otherwise we'd all be still on 2.5 and 3 Hz movements, which obviously reduce the wear and tear and can still be quite accurate." -- Many, if not most, mechanical watches produced today use 3 Hz movements (or 3.5 in brands like Omega and Longines). Seiko 4R and 6R, Miyota 8xxx, and most Swatch Group watches use 3 Hz movements. With a few notable exceptions (Powermatic 80, Seiko 6R), those movements have power reserves of approximately 40 hours.

I can see a use case for a chronograph where accuracy to 1/10 second is needed. But, wouldn't a quartz chronograph generally be better than a mechanical in such cases?

High frequency movements are a wonderful selling point for a luxury item. They do not make the product any better in terms of timekeeping, but they do increase cost of the product. And, since only a handful of luxury brands make watches with high frequency movements (like Zenith and Grand Seiko mentioned in the previous posts), they also provide the level of exclusivity needed for a product to be considered luxury.

There are actually quite a lot of watches manufactured today with 3 Hz movements, especially the affordable ones. Of course, hi beat movements can be accurate and have a high power reserve, but you can't use GS as an example if not everyone can afford it. Hi beat isn't a priority for a lot of people nowadays anyway, it's more about accuracy and power reserve, although I do wish Seiko still made a Lord Marvel type watch again.

There are still some hi-beat movements, but the primary purpose when they came out (at the expense of power reserve) was increased accuracy, and quartz came out shortly thereafter and kicked the hi-beat's butt.

I'd like to see a return to 18,000 vph movements with lower wear and service intervals (and increased power reserve)... not many people wear mechanical watches for their accuracy these days.

Id love to see more as well. Smoother sweep is just cooler…thats why i have a spring drive :)

I'm not that much into Zenith, so I forgot about them. My bad!

Useful life and power reserve are the two most commonly cited criticisms of high frequency movements. Those don't seem to matter to you, but I think they are important.

They do matter, of course. My point was that most movements today don't have long power reserve anyways (e.g. Seiko's 4R series, SW-200, Miyota 8k/9k), that's why I don't think this contributed much to the demise of the hi-beat movements. And for the "useful life" - I couldn't find anything definitive that was really a big issue with them.

I'm a huge Seiko fan, so I'm well aware one can get pretty far with a 3 Hz movement. :-)

Someone mentioned this earlier in the thread and I guess that's the answer I was looking for:

It's all about manufacturing tolerances. Back in the 60s the parts of a watch weren't as precisely crafted as they are today. So the best way to get more accuracy was to have a higher beat rate to smooth out the inconsistencies. The price paid was greater wear and tear on the parts and lower power reserve.

So likely it was quartz that rendered mass produced hi-beat movements obsolete. (and later when mechanical movements went back in fashion - modern manufacturing processes)

I think that's the explanation I was looking for. Thanks!

I forgot to mention here Longines with their Ultra-Chron: