Rolex 3130/3135 Automatic winding issue

[dibs1]

Hi,

I finished up servicing this Rolex 3130 and it is running beautifully when wound, losing less than a second a day. However there are two issues that are plaguing this movement that I cannot seem to pin.

1. Winding is smooth, however once I installed the automatic module winding became very difficult and almost felt like I am forcing it to wind. Remove the automatic module and back to normal smooth winding. 

2. The rotor does not sound like its winding smoothly. Now when I received the watch the rotor axle was completely worn (as with most un-serviced 31xx) so I replaced that using the proper staking punch and it seems to spin freely when I observed, but now on the third day of wear the watch is net losing power and amplitude dropped from 290 to 195, as the watch loses wind, and if place the watch up to my ear and shake a bit I can hear the rotor grinding a bit. Wind it up manually and the amplitude jumps up, so not a problem with the train of wheels. 

If anyone has any direction or insight into this that would be great. I honestly do not believe I oiled the automatic works properly first time servicing a 31xx movement, however I believe I over oiled and not under oiled. I plan on stripping and cleaning module and restarting, but I'm concerned I'm doing something incorrect as manual winding faces extreme resistance. 

[nickelsilver]

The reversers on these must be treated with epilame, like Fixodrop, to function correctly. Super clean, epilame, then oil only the bearing points, not the ratchet parts of the reverser.

[dibs1]

1 hour ago, nickelsilver said:

The reversers on these must be treated with epilame, like Fixodrop, to function correctly. Super clean, epilame, then oil only the bearing points, not the ratchet parts of the reverser.

i did epilame them, but i did not oil them properly, im going to to disassemble and reoil  

[clockboy]

As already stated it’s essential to treat the auto side with Epilame. This is a mistake I made with my own Rolex 3135. It ran great for a while but the auto wind just was problematic. After the treatment it has worked faultlessly..  There is an issue with the Rolex rotor axles than can wear if it has not been lubricated and forced to run for a long period.

Edited March 12, 2023 by clockboy

[dibs1]

On 3/12/2023 at 10:52 AM, nickelsilver said:

The reversers on these must be treated with epilame, like Fixodrop, to function correctly. Super clean, epilame, then oil only the bearing points, not the ratchet parts of the reverser.

so I stripped down the automatic works and reoiled it according to some technical data sheets I found on the 31xx movement, and it is a lot smoother. Not as smooth as I think it should be, I have never worked on a 31xx movement so I'm not sure exactly how smooth it should feel. As for the rotor,  I ordered a thicker spring clip to try and reduce the endshake of the rotor, per the technical sheet as well. will update once that arrives. 

[Knebo]

Hi @dibs1,

How did the new spring clip perform? Did it change anything?

I just finished working on a 3135. There is clearly a difference in the winding resistance/sound when you compare with and without the automatic module. But that's totally normal and logical. With the automatic module, when winding manually, you turn additional wheels (reversers and driving wheel). Still, I find that mine now feels rather smooth with the automatic module on. But you can feel/hear the additional wheels moving. When winding manually, the reversers have to turn much faster than when being turned by the rotor. I think they are primarily designed for the rotor-driven (slow) turning speed. Consequently, I think, one should only use the manual winding to get the watch going (just 2-3 turns of the crown) and then let the rotor do the rest. I think that will reduce wear over time.

One other thing that you could check, if you feel too much resistance, is the endshake/sideshake of the reversers. It should be minimal. See screenshot from the Rolex manual that you may also have.

[Roll1ex]

@dibs1 Hopefully you see this and post an update.

@Knebo Would you happen to know what is the end-shake tolerance for a cal 15xx rotor or is there such a metric?

Also, is there a specified height of the rotor?

 

I got the watch serviced which addressed the rotor grinding against the base plate and case back (i have checked by moving the watch in a circular motion to spin the rotor and have tested it dial up and down) however whenever the watch is shaken lightly the rotor touches the caseback and makes a ding.

What is unusual is that is only happens when the rotor is resting at the 9'o clock position.

The axle was replaced and reading around it seems that  spring clip, jewel and axel are the three parts that individually or together are causing this issue.

Edited May 13, 2024 by Roll1ex
added another question to consilidate in one message

[Knebo]

Hi @Roll1ex,

welcome to the forum.

It's considered good practice to introduce yourself to the forum in this thread: https://www.watchrepairtalk.com/forum/23-introduce-yourself-here/
But no worries.

7 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

Would you happen to know what is the end-shake tolerance for a cal 15xx rotor or is there such a metric?

I don't have the spec sheet for the 15xx movements, but when I look at the 31xx information, it stands out that the endshake of the rotor should be between 0.01 and 0.03mm. That is LESS than the pallet fork and the lowest of all endshakes in the movement.

7 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

Also, is there a specified height of the rotor?

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. The rotor itself is a unique part which doesn't have different heights. If you mean the height at which it is installed vis-a-vis the automatic bridge, then yes, that can be adjusted a bit via the two jewels that hold the rotor axle. Height differences vis-a-vis the bridge can also be caused by the strength with which the new axle is hammered/riveted into the rotor. And yes, that can be compensated a bit via the jewels.

 

7 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

What is unusual is that is only happens when the rotor is resting at the 9'o clock position.

This would probably indicate that the axle isn't perfectly perpendicular to the rotor. That could explain why the weight is closer to the rest of the movement at 9 o'clock -- it would then be furthest at 3 o'clock. That would be bad news. A new axle should then be installed... and properly this time.

 

7 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

The axle was replaced and reading around it seems that  spring clip, jewel and axel are the three parts that individually or together are causing this issue.

As I wrote already, there is margin for adjustment via the jewels.

As for the spring clip, the 15xx movements only seems to have one spring clip thickness (part 7911 - https://www.cousinsuk.com/PDF/categories/2878_Rolex 1530 Pages 6-10.pdf). The later 31xx movments have several versions with different thicknesses. But there is a good chance that the clip is worn (=thinner than it should) and should then be replaced.

 

But, in conclusion, if the rotor hits the caseback in one particular postion, then my first suspicion is that the axle wasn't punched in at a perfect 90° angle. That must first be re-done correctly. No other fixes will be solving that problem.

Furthermore, if the rotor "dings" against the caseback when the watch is shaken (but not in other situations), then there is likely also an issue of endshake (more an issue of the jewels) or lateral play (more likely the sping clip). 

 

 

7 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

got the watch serviced

PS: by whom? Independent or RSC? 

[clockboy]

There is a known fault with the 3135 which is if the watch has not been serviced the Auto rotor can wear. See attached pic.

 

 

Edited May 13, 2024 by clockboy

[Knebo]

52 minutes ago, clockboy said:

There is a known fault with the 3135 which is if the watch has not been serviced the Auto rotor can wear. See attached pic.

 

 

In his post, @Roll1ex wrote that a new axle has been installed by his watchmaker. Thus, we can rule out wear of the axle.

 

[Roll1ex]

@Knebo

Thank you for the detailed response and reminding me. I went back and introduced myself.

14 hours ago, Knebo said:

I don't have the spec sheet for the 15xx movements, but when I look at the 31xx information, it stands out that the endshake of the rotor should be between 0.01 and 0.03mm. That is LESS than the pallet fork and the lowest of all endshakes in the movement.

That's really good information, for 15xx it should be similar. Will dig deeper into that.

 

14 hours ago, Knebo said:

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. The rotor itself is a unique part which doesn't have different heights. If you mean the height at which it is installed vis-a-vis the automatic bridge, then yes, that can be adjusted a bit via the two jewels that hold the rotor axle. Height differences vis-a-vis the bridge can also be caused by the strength with which the new axle is hammered/riveted into the rotor. And yes, that can be compensated a bit via the jewels.

Yes I mean that. Attaching some pictures. New to shooting through a loupe so pardon the quality.

I don't quite get the strength point, could you elaborate?

Seeing the punch used for the job, it should limit the highest point of the metal being pushed, Maybe a worn out punch?

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Knebo said:

This would probably indicate that the axle isn't perfectly perpendicular to the rotor. That could explain why the weight is closer to the rest of the movement at 9 o'clock -- it would then be furthest at 3 o'clock. That would be bad news. A new axle should then be installed... and properly this time.

I haven't checked the axle will do that, but thee watchmaker told me that the 9'o clock side has been over-polished and the caseback is sinking on that side which is causing the issue. Armed with this knowledge, I will investigate both.

The Picture would certainly suggest that plus the Intense pitting (wrist perfuming habit of my family) might be contributing to how the caseback fits. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Knebo said:

But, in conclusion, if the rotor hits the caseback in one particular postion, then my first suspicion is that the axle wasn't punched in at a perfect 90° angle. That must first be re-done correctly. No other fixes will be solving that problem.

Furthermore, if the rotor "dings" against the caseback when the watch is shaken (but not in other situations), then there is likely also an issue of endshake (more an issue of the jewels) or lateral play (more likely the sping clip). 

Thank you again, I have made a checklist and will be investigating all the points you mentioned.
 

Rolex told me that they will replace the dial and bracelet so I didn't go that route.

Its an independent watchmaker, and a very well reputed one in online and offline collector circles. I have seen his work and got work done from him before, this is the first time something like this is coming up. Maybe he is getting lazy in sourcing good parts. lol.

[Roll1ex]

@clockboy
Thank you for the response.

[clockboy]

Do I detect a worn/scuff ring on the inside of the case back. If so then at some stage in its life the rotor have been rubbing on the inside of the case.  

[Knebo]

Good morning,

 

9 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

don't quite get the strength point, could you elaborate

To be honest, I'm not sure I trust my own logic anymore . But here's a picture of my own (failed!) attempt to install a new rotor axle. I punched way to hard and even split the metal of the rotor. My thinking was that, in my case, the axle sits "deeper" in the rotor and hence the rotor would be closer to the movement plates. Vice versa, I was thinking that a very light punch could cause the rotor to sit rather high. But not sure that makes sense because in both cases, the flat part of the axle and the rotor align equally.

 

 

9 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

I haven't checked the axle will do that, but thee watchmaker told me that the 9'o clock side has been over-polished and the caseback is sinking on that side which is causing the issue.

Sorry, but is he saying that the outside of the caseback has been polished to such an extent that the inside of the caseback has deformed/sunk??? That sounds crazy to me because those casebacks are thick!

Can you see any signs of that on the inside of the caseback?

Have you tried screwing in the caseback a litte bit more or less so that the supposedly "sunk" part of the caseback would move from 9 o'clock to e.g. 6/7 or 11/12 o'clock? 

If the caseback is truly deformed, maybe it could be punched/pressed back into shape (e.g. with glass/caseback closing press). 

 

 

9 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

Rolex told me that they will replace the dial and bracelet so I didn't go that route

I agree with your choice. But yea, Rolex makes it VERY hard for independent watchmakers to do a perfect job because we can't get (original) parts easily. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Roll1ex said:

Attaching some pictures

Your pictures aren't too bad. But still impossible to see if the rotor isn't perfectly flat. You'd have to look at it with your loupe, from the side (like the pictures), and turn the rotor to see if the gaps (with the automatic bridge plates) increase/decrease.

 

 

Finally... how is the up/down play of the rotor?

To test, take a toothpick/pegwood and press on the small triangular side of the rotor next to the axle (NOT the big side where the weight is. But the opposite side.). Does that lift up the weight-side of the rotor? There can be some play, but it should really be minimal.

If there's too much play, a new spring clip is the first thing to do. After that, one could play around with the jewels.

This is too much:

Edited May 14, 2024 by Knebo

[Roll1ex]

16 hours ago, clockboy said:

Do I detect a worn/scuff ring on the inside of the case back. If so then at some stage in its life the rotor have been rubbing on the inside of the case.  

@clockboy

The damage on the movement much worse.

The images against the green background are my watch the other 2 are from the internet.

The rotor has erased the perlage. I am surprised how is this watch still running.

[Roll1ex]

15 hours ago, Knebo said:

But not sure that makes sense because in both cases, the flat part of the axle and the rotor align equally.

@Knebo

It does make sense.

 

15 hours ago, Knebo said:

I agree with your choice. But yea, Rolex makes it VERY hard for independent watchmakers to do a perfect job because we can't get (original) parts easily. 

Most companies are trying to squeeze independents out.
 

 

15 hours ago, Knebo said:

Sorry, but is he saying that the outside of the caseback has been polished to such an extent that the inside of the caseback has deformed/sunk??? That sounds crazy to me because those casebacks are thick!

Maybe I wasn't clear and complete. He said, the mid-case has been polished, he says it was probably to remove pitting.

- It kind of makes sense to me, as the pitting on the caseback doesn't match the story of the mid-case.
- The case is clearly overpolished and the lugs nicely brushed without any marks, so watchmakers are clearly polishing that area the question is how and how much.

I am swarmed with work and will be visiting my watchmaker in a few days with the checklist and will post an update then. You have been really helpful.

PS. Refer to the pictures in my latest comment for reference to this and the case at 9'o clock is actually sunk. the drawing is a bit hyperbolic.

[Roll1ex]

@Knebo

The rotor barely has any play, and I suspect it is the case, although not an apple to apple comparison, I did the following.

Took the case-back off my watch, removed the gasket and closed it, not really tightly though. (it went 1/3 turn over compared to when there was a gasket)

• The rotor was touching against the case-back when shaken in the dial up position.
• No scratching sound while doing the same thing in dial down.
• Rotor hit the case-back in every position while testing from side to side.

Did the same thing with an AirKing with Cal. 3000 unknown service history and visually shaky rotor. (again around 1/3 turn over)

• No issues at all.

My hypothesis is that Rolex leaves enough space for an acceptably shaky rotor or a slightly thicker/thinner gasket.

I think, at a point of time, the areas marked A&B were tampered with, to remove pitting.  Pitting is present in the area marked D and the threads below it.

 

 

The side profile pictures show that the case in indeed sunk.

 

The thin white line seen over the black welded portion is the section marked A that is higher than B at that point.
It is visible at 9 in the photos but at 3 it is the similar but better.

 

 

 

[clockboy]

My experience with a Rolex 3135 was that the automatic system is delicate and does not work correctly unless in perfect condition.
Ie the mistake I made with my first service of a 3135 is I did not treat the auto parts with Epilame. Initially it worked fine but after a couple of weeks it did not self wind efficiently and the watch would stop on overnight.. The rotor should have no wear or play and the the rotor shaft on the 3135 is known to wear and must be replaced 

Edited August 6, 2024 by clockboy

[Roll1ex]

@clockboy

Agreed! The air king that was used to compare, was with my watchmaker for a full service including axle replacement.

I just did the non-scientific exercise to test a general principal.

I have a new case and case-back on the way along with other auto module parts discussed above.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this