In rete ho trovato questo...che ne dite? Lo so è in inglese e non tutti conoscono l'inglese...si può sintetizzare così: Rolex produce movimenti con tre obiettivi in mente ovvero la durevolezza, la precisione e la manutenibilità. In altre parole i movimenti Rolex sono brutti da vedere ma progettati per essere estremamente robusti e semplici da regolare e manutenere. Sono costituiti da parti più grandi rispetto agli ETA che garantiscono maggiore robustezza. Insomma non sono necessariamente migliori degli eta, ma sono fatti per durare.
Il pezzo integrale cmq è questo che segue:
I'd have to say that the current lineup of Rolex automatic movements just might be the toughest, most durable mechanical movements produced today.....not the nicest, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most complicated, the most elegant, and certainly not the most interesting (fact is, they're boring and really,really ugly by most comparative standards), but they are 'purpose built' to be durable.
Rolex designs a movement with three things in mind: 1) Durability, 2) Accuracy,
And 3) Ease of service.
As such, they employ a minimum of parts in their movements....and their movements are comparatively large.
The 3135, for instance, is 28.5mm in diameter and 6mm high. Compare that with the ubiquitous ETA 2892-A2 which is 25.6mm in diameter and 3.6mm high. That makes the 3135 about 10% larger in diameter and 40% larger in height.
Does larger mean better? Not necessarily, but larger components will generally - in a well designed and executed movement - result in a more robust movement, a movement that'll take more 'punishment' than a smaller movement with
correspondingly smaller components.
Just a few points to consider, in no particular order of importance:
To account for the 'toughness' of the 3135 we can cite the balance bridge that supports the balance assembly.....it's secured in an arc by screws at two points on the top plate, where a cock is cantilevered and supported by (usually) a single screw (and pins) at one point on the top plate.
The 3135's balance bridge also has height adjustment screws to accommodate adjustment of the balance staff's end-shake, making the job of setting this tolerance much easier and precise
The balance is protected from inadvertent contact with the rotor during a severe shock by a curved curb that's mounted to the top plate adjacent to the balance.
The balance of 3135 is of course free-sprung....meaning that the timing of the watch, once properly regulated, won't change because of a severe shock, where a pin regulated escapement (like on a 2892) can have its index 'slip' during a severe shock, throwing its timing off by several seconds per day.
The anodized reverser gears perform perfectly for years with no lubrication.
lso, Rolex's design of the pivot shape for their balance pivots is tougher than the standard conical pivots....this does require tighter tolerances to function properly, hence the balance adjustment facility.
The above doesn't make Rolex movements necessarily 'Better', just a more durable
machine, that's all.
And, the above is specific ONLY to what I feel makes Rolex movements more durable, and dosen't address their propensity for accuracy.
Important note: This is not to imply that other movements by other makers are inferior or 'delicate' - quite the contrary; There are plenty of durable movements being made today by several houses, particularly ETA; that'll take abuse and, with proper periodic servicing, last for generations. This is just a comparative look at the current Rolex 31XX movements vis-a-vis other movements produced and used today.
S
21 Risposte
5428 Visite