Paul, question for you
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?
Paul, question for you
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.
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
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
Wow, impressed so many improvements over the 31XX series. A perfect excuse to buy a new watch, not that its needed
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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??
Ha, well that's great if it's true as that means it won;t need servicing for at least another 40 years
[QUOTE=nunya;4330529
Yeah.......... because it works like that![/QUOTE]
You don't say!!
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
Good post
10years is good. :)
I was under the impression all modern Rolex's with date function can have the date set at anytime without concern.
Huh, I'd never heard of that before, either. Good to know — thanks!
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.
I wasn't aware of this. What modifications did it need?
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.
Interesting read on the new rolex movements. Thanks all on the technical input.
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
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 :)
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!
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?
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
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.... :)
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.