closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Wire springs in new Rolex 32XX movements?

  1. #1
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    177

    Wire springs in new Rolex 32XX movements?

    I know this might be a little nerdy or niche but I was wondering the following. Rolex have released their new generation movements (3255 and 3235) in the past few years. In their promotional images they show the movement deconstructed. I noticed that there doesn't appear to be any wire springs in the movement. I'm not sure it makes any functional difference but if so it does seem to elevate the movements into higher level finesse than their predecessors.

    Has anybody taken one apart so far or know more certainly?

    As an aside it also seems like they've replaced the rotor post with ball-bearings, perhaps to address the issue of increased wear around the post. The other weakness of the 31XX movements that I've come across is the fragility of the setting wheel posts especially if service intervals are infrequent. Does anybody know if Rolex has addressed this in their new movements?




  2. #2
    Grand Master Wallasey Runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Wirral - North West England
    Posts
    15,264
    Paul, question for you

  3. #3
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Hi, I've taken two apart so far. There's a whole lot of improvements on the 31XX...

    Main ones are:

    - All three hands synced. On the 31 there's two power-trains, one for hour/minute hand, one gear-train for the timekeeping which contains the seconds wheel. Because of slack in the minute pinion the minute hand is slightly lagging behind the seconds hand. This is eliminated on the 32XX as all hands are under tension on the same gear-train, perfectly synced.

    - Longer power reserve, 70+ hours thanks to longer mainspring and a higher barrel with thinner walls. Mainspring is not removable, complete barrel and mainspring is always replaced at service.

    - Beautifully finished everywhere, as good as machine finishing allows. No wire springs anymore, as you noted.

    - Amagnetic, even more than the milgauss watch which makes that movement and model moot...

    - Chronergy escapement, uses less energy and components of nickel-phosphor.

    - The most efficient winding system of all Rolex movements.

    - Expected service intervals is now 10 years of normal use.

    - Ready for the future... There is a "ghost" jewel in the train bridge, the rightmost one on the picture. Its near the center wheel and would allow a wheel/pinion with lots of power to reach the dial side, to build functions on... In the current movements the jewel is empty and unused.

    - Dials don't use dial-feet anymore that can snap off. They are friction fitted, like the ladies movements always had.

    - Setting mechanism uses a vertical clutch, and it should now be impossible for it to "stick" like the 31XX can, when two wheel teeth hit eachother dead on.

    - The setting wheel post weakness on the 31 is eliminated completely too. The 31 can easily be repaired if you have the tool for it, so its not as big a deal as some have made out on the internet.

    - Setting the date by quickset can be done 24hrs a day without any risk of damage whatsoever.

    - Balance staff replacement without riveting, its now friction fitted.
    Last edited by 744ER; 26th April 2017 at 22:15.

  4. #4
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    697
    What do you mean by "wire spring" are you surely not missing the mainspring barrel in the top right of the photo....?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by xanx View Post
    What do you mean by "wire spring" are you surely not missing the mainspring barrel in the top right of the photo....?
    No, that's a type of flat spring.

    There are a few wire springs visible in this Lemania 5100 movement. Though they can work OK, they're not typically a sign of quality and are normally chosen for cost-cutting reasons:


    original image credit: watchguy.co.uk

  6. #6
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    12,336
    Blog Entries
    22
    I wish we had more posts like this!

    So for us watch nerds I am surprised these movement changes are not trumpeted more loudly. I would guess these movements will filter down to most new models over time.

    Is is there a chance the 'older' 31xx movement would be replaced at service on recent watch series?

    martyn

  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Between here, there and nowhere
    Posts
    3,442
    Wow, impressed so many improvements over the 31XX series. A perfect excuse to buy a new watch, not that its needed

  8. #8
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    2,829
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks for this 744ER and Belligero - it's really interesting to hear about these improvements. My knowledge of movements is pretty rudimentary to put it mildly, but I'm a bit better informed now!

    oh, and thanks for kicking it off Kallang :)

    ATB

    Jon

  9. #9
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    5,128
    The 31xx movements have been refined over many years; the 32xx is at the beginning of it's development cycle , and has already needed some modifications ( in the Day Date 40). So, having had both series, i wouldn't be in any rush. Still early days .....the 31xx remains tried and true. And, in my experience, it is just as precise. The 32xx will benefit from long-term development....and does have the usefully longer power reserve.
    All Rolex movements seem very rugged and precise.

  10. #10
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    486
    Lot of new information for me, all I knew so far was the new power reserve and the service intervals...
    That "ghost" jewel sounds really interesting.

  11. #11
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post

    - Expected service intervals is now 10 years of normal use.

    A very informative reply, thank you.

    What would you say is classed as 'normal' use?

  12. #12
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Sussex, UK
    Posts
    5,128
    This 'ten year service' thing needs clarification. Rolex simply said, in a letter to ADs, that, as a matter of fact, the average owner had their watch serviced every ten years. They did not , and do not, recommend ten years, or any other specific period.
    Also, I know of no statement from Rolex that the 32xx has longer servicing intervals. It can be very confusing...because Rolex are a bit evasive about such matters. Even ADs get confused. But then my car also doesn't have a fixed service period these days.
    Last edited by paskinner; 27th April 2017 at 11:26.

  13. #13
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Between here, there and nowhere
    Posts
    3,442
    Quote Originally Posted by DJL-73 View Post
    A very informative reply, thank you.

    What would you say is classed as 'normal' use?
    'All' day (approx. 18 hrs) every day, not like us, but normal folk with only one watch. Weird I know!!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,239
    The 32xx movemens are technically fantastic and I am almost certain they will easily require less intervention than older Rolex movements.

    If Rolex drop this movement into a 40mm Sub (probably never) then that would make me a happy man.

    Sent from my SM-G935F using TZ-UK mobile app

  15. #15
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    This 'ten year service' thing needs clarification. Rolex simply said, in a letter to ADs, that, as a matter of fact, the average owner had their watch serviced every ten years. They did not , and do not, recommend ten years, or any other specific period.
    Also, I know of no statement from Rolex that the 32xx has longer servicing intervals. It can be very confusing...because Rolex are a bit evasive about such matters. Even ADs get confused. But then my car also doesn't have a fixed service period these days.
    I agree it does warrant clarification.

    When I purchased my Daytona last year the sales assistant said then the service period was 10 years, I even asked her again and she stated 10 years??


    Quote Originally Posted by nunya View Post
    'All' day (approx. 18 hrs) every day, not like us, but normal folk with only one watch. Weird I know!!
    Ha, well that's great if it's true as that means it won;t need servicing for at least another 40 years

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Between here, there and nowhere
    Posts
    3,442
    Quote Originally Posted by DJL-73 View Post
    I agree it does warrant clarification.

    When I purchased my Daytona last year the sales assistant said then the service period was 10 years, I even asked her again and she stated 10 years??
    Well the sales desist-ant is talking out of her AR5E
    Quote Originally Posted by DJL-73 View Post
    Ha, well that's great if it's true as that means it won;t need servicing for at least another 40 years
    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah.......... because it works like that!

  17. #17
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    261
    [QUOTE=nunya;4330529
    Yeah.......... because it works like that![/QUOTE]


    You don't say!!

  18. #18
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    615
    I'm liking this new improvement and the increased power reserve. Can't wait to get hold of the new sea dweller.

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    This 'ten year service' thing needs clarification. Rolex simply said, in a letter to ADs, that, as a matter of fact, the average owner had their watch serviced every ten years. They did not , and do not, recommend ten years, or any other specific period.
    Also, I know of no statement from Rolex that the 32xx has longer servicing intervals. It can be very confusing...because Rolex are a bit evasive about such matters. Even ADs get confused. But then my car also doesn't have a fixed service period these days.
    No it's the information I was given at Rolex in Geneva when I was there for training on the 3255. Obviously mileage will vary for different users and wearers but 10 years plus minus is the norm now starting with 3255 and 2236 movements.

  20. #20
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Good post

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    7,384
    Blog Entries
    1
    10years is good. :)

  22. #22
    I was under the impression all modern Rolex's with date function can have the date set at anytime without concern.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by pitbull666 View Post
    I was under the impression all modern Rolex's with date function can have the date set at anytime without concern.
    Yes, that's right; I think they're just re-iterating the feature's presence. And it's not only the modern ones whose dates can be adjusted at any time. :)

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    Yes, that's right; I think they're just re-iterating the feature's presence. And it's not only the modern ones whose dates can be adjusted at any time. :)
    Cool, I know all the ones I've owned have been as such I just wasn't aware if there were any earlier or obscure models which didn't, I remember my first Breitling could only be set safely between set hours.

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    Yes, that's right; I think they're just re-iterating the feature's presence. And it's not only the modern ones whose dates can be adjusted at any time. :)
    Theres actually a small possibility of damaging the date mechanism on the 3135 around midnight. It's rare, I haven't seen it and never heard of it until I was at Rolex. It can also happen on the 2135 if it hasn't been upgraded.

  26. #26
    Huh, I'd never heard of that before, either. Good to know — thanks!

  27. #27
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    177
    Fantastic responses, thank you.

    I find the 10-year service interval confusion quite interesting. Why did Rolex state that average service intervals are 10 years when nobody was asking for this information? It felt almost deliberate. And to convey what exactly? Now there is a perception of superior quality among customers and AD's but without actual commitment by Rolex on this - thus avoiding any complaints if movements were to require servicing at less than 10 years? Only a guess from somebody with no inside information.

    Quote Originally Posted by paskinner View Post
    The 31xx movements have been refined over many years; the 32xx is at the beginning of it's development cycle , and has already needed some modifications ( in the Day Date 40). So, having had both series, i wouldn't be in any rush. Still early days .....the 31xx remains tried and true. And, in my experience, it is just as precise. The 32xx will benefit from long-term development....and does have the usefully longer power reserve.
    All Rolex movements seem very rugged and precise.
    I wasn't aware of this. What modifications did it need?

  28. #28
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Between here, there and nowhere
    Posts
    3,442
    There was an internal memo sent round Rolex USA (iirc) noting that most customers have their watch's first service on average at 10 years old.

    That's all, not every 10 years, not the service interval period, nothing official or on the qt, nothing for Rolex to 'hide' behind in case a movement need servicing sooner.

    It was simply an observation of their customers' behaviour.

    Then................. the internet happened.

  29. #29
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    West yorkshire, uk
    Posts
    382
    Interesting read on the new rolex movements. Thanks all on the technical input.

  30. #30
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    No, that's a type of flat spring.

    There are a few wire springs visible in this Lemania 5100 movement. Though they can work OK, they're not typically a sign of quality and are normally chosen for cost-cutting reasons:


    original image credit: watchguy.co.uk
    Nothing against the use of wire springs in the right place, but this Lemania 5100 is a movement I just don`t like. It was an attempt at cheaply mass producing a chrono movement that would still perform well. Plastic parts are never a pretty sight in a quality watch. I know they have their fans, and they were found in some nice watches, but the 5100 definitely wasn`t Lemania's finest hour......but maybe no-one envisaged them lasting 40 years.

    Back on topic, I hadn`t realised Rolex had made so many changes to the latest movement. I`m unlikely to own one of these and even less likely to take one apart, but it's interesting to see this. The longer power reserve will be welcome by many; theoretically it should provide more stable torque over a longer period which may help performance.

    Paul

  31. #31
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Part of the design process of the movement, was letting test subjects into a room, showing them pictures of watch movements on a big screen, and using laser to measure their pupils. Where they looked first, second, and for how long etc... Those areas of the movement were given the most attention. Hence the cool balance bridge design, the rotor screw, ratchet wheel finishing etc...

    And all this is done, for the watchmakers. The only ones who will ever see the movement for real. You really don't want to scratch or mark a movement this nice, helps you raise your game and take more pride in the work... Also works as a deterrent for amateurs to try and do any work on it.

    Clever folks, at Rolex :)

  32. #32
    Grand Master Daddelvirks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leiden- Netherlands
    Posts
    39,816
    Blog Entries
    1
    Very interesting stuff indeed.
    And clearly explained, so even a novice can understand the difference. (well, sort of) :)

    No need to shout about things, as usual, it's Rolex after all.

    Daddel.
    Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    Part of the design process of the movement, was letting test subjects into a room, showing them pictures of watch movements on a big screen, and using laser to measure their pupils. Where they looked first, second, and for how long etc... Those areas of the movement were given the most attention. Hence the cool balance bridge design, the rotor screw, ratchet wheel finishing etc...

    And all this is done, for the watchmakers. The only ones who will ever see the movement for real. You really don't want to scratch or mark a movement this nice, helps you raise your game and take more pride in the work... Also works as a deterrent for amateurs to try and do any work on it.

    Clever folks, at Rolex :)
    Great info as always. That's an excellent example of how simplicity is more difficult than complication in watchmaking, and why Rolex commands such respect among those who have actual hands-on experience with their movements.

    As you're apparently the only person on the forum who's worked with a 32XX at this point, you might be in a position to answer a question that I can't find a credible answer to yet. I'm curious about whether the 32XX series has the same 28.5 mm normal base diameter as the 31XX's.

    The reason I'm wondering is that the new calibres have so far only appeared in watches — the Day-Date 40, the Datejust 41 (though it's actually 39.52 mm), the 39 mm Pearlmaster, and the new Sea-Dweller (presumably) — with dials larger than Rolex's previous standard size, which was used on almost every 5-digit men's model. These newer oversized dials also use proportionally-larger date wheels to keep the display aligned, which is the type of attention to detail that off-brands such as IWC and Patek Philippe can't be bothered with when they increase case size. ;)

    So have they upscaled the entire movement, or are its guts the same size with larger base plates and date wheels fitted for bigger watches — as seen in the modifications to the Datejust II's 3136 and the 216570's 3187 calibres, for example?

  34. #34
    Grand Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,615
    Out of interest how does this movement compare to the latest generation Omega METAS movements? Seems like Rolex has caught up here but would welcome expert advice here.

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanb741 View Post
    Out of interest how does this movement compare to the latest generation Omega METAS movements? Seems like Rolex has caught up here but would welcome expert advice here.
    There's no catching up involved; they've been far ahead for quite a while now.

  36. #36
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    the Datejust 41 (though it's actually 39.52 mm)
    My reality has been shattered.

  37. #37
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Reading, Berks
    Posts
    3,542
    Great thread....so much better then "which Rolex", "best Rolex for GFV" and "how much more is my Rolex worth now.."

    Happy Bank Holiday Monday.... :)

  38. #38
    Grand Master ryanb741's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    There's no catching up involved; they've been far ahead for quite a while now.
    Hi.

    Thanks for the feedback, out of interest is this based on genuine knowledge and comparison or is it a hunch?



    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

  39. #39
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Belligero View Post
    Great info as always. That's an excellent example of how simplicity is more difficult than complication in watchmaking, and why Rolex commands such respect among those who have actual hands-on experience with their movements.

    As you're apparently the only person on the forum who's worked with a 32XX at this point, you might be in a position to answer a question that I can't find a credible answer to yet. I'm curious about whether the 32XX series has the same 28.5 mm normal base diameter as the 31XX's.

    The reason I'm wondering is that the new calibres have so far only appeared in watches — the Day-Date 40, the Datejust 41 (though it's actually 39.52 mm), the 39 mm Pearlmaster, and the new Sea-Dweller (presumably) — with dials larger than Rolex's previous standard size, which was used on almost every 5-digit men's model. These newer oversized dials also use proportionally-larger date wheels to keep the display aligned, which is the type of attention to detail that off-brands such as IWC and Patek Philippe can't be bothered with when they increase case size. ;)

    So have they upscaled the entire movement, or are its guts the same size with larger base plates and date wheels fitted for bigger watches — as seen in the modifications to the Datejust II's 3136 and the 216570's 3187 calibres, for example?
    The base movement side is the same diameter as 3135, but the dialside date seating comes in different sizes, with different size date-wheels etc. The calibres are listed as 3135-A 3135-B 3135-C etc depending on what reference they go in. The new sea-dweller for instance has a smaller diameter date-wheel than the datejust 41, and it's own movement reference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information