Warning - Newbie posting Greetings. This is my first post here and it comes as a question of methods and suitability. I am a newbie to the world of watch making and clock making. I have it in my head to manufacture my own pocket watch and was directed here by others more familiar with the processes after asking for some direction. I've been reading and researching, but have the same question that most newbies seem to have - Why are Cycloidals so much more preferable to Involutes? If this was 50 years ago ( and earlier ) and I a bit more ignorant I would understand and not bother with the thought. But it isn't and I'm just slightly better than completely ignorant about toothed wheels and their creation and use ... The two common reasons I have found for mandating Cycloidal tooth forms is friction and strength. This got me to considering the issue, the applications of the pinions and wheels, the way they are manufactured, as well as the materials they are manufactured from. Given today's available methods and materials, just exactly why can't Involutes be used in the train? The issue of friction seems to come from two points - The first is that clocks and watches are able to supply relatively very little power and the Cycloidal form leaves ( no pun intended ) less engagement ( most notably during the approach action ), thus reducing friction. The second deals specifically with the considerations of the specific method of manufacture and that "leaves" are oft left needing polishing to remove the marks and imperfections of manufacture. I have to admit to being left shaking my head at the concept that this is so blithely accepted without questioning... The issue of strength seems to typically refer to that of small pinions and the fact that in such small number of tooth count pinions there is noticeable undercutting, leading to loss of strength and possible breakage. So, in considering these issues I have to admit to not being completely convinced. As regards friction, we have ( in general ) much more sophisticated methods of manufacture available to us these days and these give much better results with regard to surface finish ( and accuracy ). This doesn't even need to touch upon the topic of being able to diverge from the mathematical "standards" of gear design and utilize modified tooth profiles to achieve very low frictions between pinions and wheels. Where it's a question strength one has many more choices of available suitable materials to take advantage of and thus render the consideration moot in my humble opinion. So, to the point - One has available to them all the tools and experience to easily make any tooth form they should have the whimsy to desire. And with today's methods and materials, one can easily surpass the strengths and end results desired of decades ago. ( and one might even argue - the power available to drive said trains increases with these same considerations ) EXAMPLE - It would be a trivial matter for me to create a pinion or wheel of Stainless Steel, .015" ( .381 mm ) thick, with any tooth form desired, and having a surface finish comparable to that of something polished with a stone. And contrary to days gone by, this could be done easily enough from drawing to finished product within the span of a few hours. So... Are Cycloidals really still so superior to Involutes with regard to watch and clock manufacture these days? Obviously, I have it in my head that Involutes might be used exclusively in the creation of a watch or clock movement, but as an obvious and admitted newbie I want to hear from others more knowledgeable and with more experience than I. Thanks.