The rotor ever so silent

[roadcarver]

One thing that amazes me about the Rolex movement specifically the 3135 is that the rotor on it is so silent. I don't even hear any whirling when I spin it around compared to other watches that has ETA based movements - specifically the rotor wobble found on my Breitling

I'm always amazed by Rolex engineering.

[Dan Pierce]

Yes, I have a Hamilton Pilots chrono w/ a Valjoux 7750 movement. It really wobbles.
But even my watchmaker marvels at the precision of the Rolex rotor. He's seen it all and thinks Rolex really does it right.
dP

[Nick Hacko]

.

[kipsy]

i have had my explorer 2 for 7 years, and it has been back to rolex 4 times, twice due to the rotor. i do wear it 24/7. most recent time was reported back to dealer that it was owner induced trama. i didnt know what to say. if running 3 times/week on a treadmill is abuse, ill start wearing a timex. they goodwilled it, and its running great.

1st time under the original warranty, winding sounded awful, dealer agreed, service watch thru rolex nyc
2nd time was 5 year service and rotor issue, got in before price increase, thru rolex nyc
3rd time was within 1 year warranty, gaining more that 40 seconds per day, service watch thru rolex nyc
4th time, rotor issue again, dealer agreed it shouldnt be happening, rolex goodwilled repair and service thru rolex nyc

[idoitsavant]

Originally Posted by Nick Hacko

7750 is unidirectional ball bearing rotor and it should wobble.

3135 auto rotor unit is bi-directional and rotor weight should not wobble.

But it is far away from being 'well engineered'.
It is actually quite opposite - pathetically under-engineered.

The Daytona 4135 is fitted with well made, bi-directional ball bearing rotor.

Nick,
what in your opinion is a well engineered movement? Is ETA movement 2824 better engineered than the 3135? What would be the criteria of a well engineered movement?

[roadcarver]

I'd be very interested to find this out as well, Nick. Are Patek's movement better engineered?

Originally Posted by idoitsavant

Nick,
what in your opinion is a well engineered movement? Is ETA movement 2824 better engineered than the 3135? What would be the criteria of a well engineered movement?

[Mort]

Originally Posted by roadcarver

I'd be very interested to find this out as well, Nick. Are Patek's movement better engineered?

I do not know if the movement is better engineered, but I was told the 315 SC movement in my Patek's rotor is unidirectional. I have been able to flip the watch around and it looks like the rotor does spin both in both directions. So it may not be the right information,It is very smooth and does not feel anything like the rotors in my watches with ETA. With the ETA's I can feel the rotor spin if I am holding the watch and turning it. Also I cant hear the watch tick at all. This thing is silent to the naked ear.

[roadcarver]

Same thing with Rolex, very silent.

As for Val 7750, why does it wobble if its unidirectional? What's the physics behind it?

[ohlins]

rotors will always rotate around its pivot in CW and CCW.....

but for unidirectional winding movements, it will only wind in a direction e.g. CW for the 7750......the 7750, on its free-spinning state (i.e. CCW), wobbles....

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Nick Hacko

7750 is unidirectional ball bearing rotor and it should wobble.

3135 auto rotor unit is bi-directional and rotor weight should not wobble.

But it is far away from being 'well engineered'.
It is actually quite opposite - pathetically under-engineered.

The Daytona 4135 is fitted with well made, bi-directional ball bearing rotor.

Well Nick got to agree with you 100% and a true Achilles heel in the 3135 and IMO its weakest point.The sleeve bearing needs proper lubrication and its very critical its done right,if it it drys out you get sever wear in the bearing jewel.Looks like to me Rolex has sacrificed engineering,for winding efficiency IMO the small diameter winding post dont offer enough support to the rotor weight.But myself believe the bearing winding rotor will be introduced in the all the Rolex movements in near future.

[Incurable]

Originally Posted by kipsy

...winding sounded awful...

What exactly do you mean by that... manual or automatic winding?

Originally Posted by roadcarver

...As for Val 7750, why does it wobble if its unidirectional? What's the physics behind it?

Ditto on that...

[oldman2005]

[QUOTE=Nick Hacko;242646]3135 auto rotor unit is bi-directional and rotor weight should not wobble.

But it is far away from being 'well engineered'.
It is actually quite opposite - pathetically under-engineered.

QUOTE]

Nick does knows what he is talking about. I remembered in a post in Timezone when a watchmaker serviced a worn out noisy rotor in a Submariner, he said something about 3135 movement belongs in that of cheaper watches.

I like Rolex but have to say that somehow many of us got catch by the Rolex marketing hype of Rolex being a great watch while they make mostly average but good looking watches with an incredible brand name...I love to have sport watch from Patek but I would take a Submariner over the Aquanaut just for the look anyday now.

That's my 2 cents worth of opinion yours may vary.

[ohlins]

the 7750 rotor does not wobble on a CW direction....it only wobbles when turning CCW......it's free spinning in CCW cos there's no resistance....no gears to turn.....

[Rubenonfire]

Originally Posted by Nick Hacko

7750 is unidirectional ball bearing rotor and it should wobble.

3135 auto rotor unit is bi-directional and rotor weight should not wobble.

But it is far away from being 'well engineered'.
It is actually quite opposite - pathetically under-engineered.

The Daytona 4135 is fitted with well made, bi-directional ball bearing rotor.

I agree and disagree with you on this one, Nick, but to some extent almost take exception. Not because of any Rolex loyalty, but more common sense than anything else.
Yes I agree that the 3135 is not the most innovative movement...that goes without saying, and I'm not singing the praises of its virtues or even defending it against other superior movements, but "pathetically under-engineered?" Do me a favor...
Nothing that runs for twenty years only with regular maintenance is either "pathetic" OR "under-engineered." Pathetically engineered are the bicycles from the 1800's with the one enormous wheel in the front and the little one in the back. Granted, it's not as advanced as some of the other movements you may find in say, a Patek or similar automatic watch, but give the movement its due credit. It's been put in literally hundreds of thousands of watches that run with better than acceptable accuracy and performance. Sure, a lot of Rolex owners might want an a better-engineered movement, but c'mon, the movement flat out works. Cut it some slack.