Rolex 3135 Beat Error Adjustment

[Geo]

Here's another couple of thoughts. The grain on the balance bridge is different from the grain on the stud holder.

I think that the top plate is either a clamp to hold the stud holder from rotating, or the top plate is the adjuster. In the first scenario you would slacken the screw and move the adjuster by tapping it slightly.

In the second scenario, if it's an adjuster, it will have a locating pin underneath approximately half way along its length, and a shorter pin underneath at the jewel end that would locate in the stud holder that would rotate the holder when the screw (that would have to be an eccentric) is turned,

[Endeavor]

I just had a look and the screw is right in the centre. The picture is, I guess, from the latest 3135 and by the looks there is more space around the head of the screw. My 3135 (1992), has hardly any space between the screw and the "clamp" or "cock" recess. The screw fits nice and snug in the centre.

I would cautionary say that this rules eccentricity out.

[clockboy]

OK I am convinced the jdm has identified exactly how it works. I just knew that a quality movement such as a Rolex would have an adjustment. The adjustment is  much the same as an ETA but being rolex they have incorporated a clamp system so once adjusted it will not move. I am hoping next week to service the auto side of my Rolex. I also have a genuine Rolex barrel & spring to fit and I will have a play with the beat.

 

Watch this space   :mp3:

[omgiv]

Hi clockboy,

Sounds like you have it almost sorted. The screw on top of the bridge holding that plate is indeed what you loosen to adjust the beat error. It is essentially a clamp and keeps tension on the stud so that it doesn't move around. Once loosened, you can move the stud holder where you need and retighten the clamp screw. The screw that holds the "stud" in place is not eccentric and simply tightens to clamp the stud in place. Hope that helps a little.

[Endeavor]

Just like the ETA2540, and probably many more examples, but Rolex went a step further and secured the stud holder with a nice clamp. Rolex alike; elegant and very KISSy ;)

Since I hadn't any thumbs down on my question, I also go ahead next week and adjust the Beat Error.

[JohnR725]

It would be nice if the parts list drawings were 3-D but even without that I think the image helps to clarify what everyone's already figured out. As you can see the stud holder looks like your standard movable version except it has the other part to hold it in place so it doesn't move all by itself.

[JohnR725]

It's amazing what I can find on my computer accumulated over time. So I've attached a PDF for servicing the 3135 and a separate parts list. For adjusting the beat look at section 4.1. The comment about loosening the screw before rotating the stud holder.

3135tech rolex.pdf

Rolex 3135 parts.pdf

[clockboy]

It's amazing what I can find on my computer accumulated over time. So I've attached a PDF for servicing the 3135 and a separate parts list. For adjusting the beat look at section 4.1. The comment about loosening the screw before rotating the stud holder.

Thanks John, Confirms where the adjustments are.

[Endeavor]

Exclusive material JohnR725 ! Thank you very much indeed for sharing !

Wish I had it before servicing, but following Mark's video's I'm not far of with the oiling to what's written in the manual.

I guess the balance endshake is something not to touch, unless you really know what you are doing..... ;)

[JohnR725]

Exclusive material JohnR725 ! Thank you very much indeed for sharing !

Wish I had it before servicing, but following Mark's video's I'm not far of with the oiling to what's written in the manual.

I guess the balance endshake is something not to touch, unless you really know what you are doing..... ;)

As to the balance end shake I know someone who works on Rolex and I'll see if I can get the end shake specifications. I'm also curious as to whether they have a specification for timekeeping and beat so you know what you're aiming for.

[Endeavor]

That would be fantastic JohnR725 ! Just now I'm replacing the movement back in its case / housing. At least it will be more safe than standing under a glass jar in the window sill ;)

Looking forward to the info......highly appreciated !

 

Roland.

[Endeavor]

Today I went ahead and played with the beat error. As suspected and discussed here, all what needed to be done is to slack off the screw (one turn) on top of the bridge to loosen the clamp / plate. To turn the stud-holder, you still need quite some "force". It seems that the clamp is for securing the stud-holder in case of a drop.

Before adjustment I had (average from 3 measurements):

 

DD +3.8 s/d, Amp 311, BE 1.8 ms

DU +5.9 s/d, Amp 308, BE 0.3 ms

CU +8.4 s/d, Amp 257, BE 0.8 ms

CD +2.9 s/d, Amp 239, BE 1.7 ms.

 

In reality, the watch ran +8.5 sec / day, wearing it day and night.

 

Now after fiddling with the BE, the readings are:

 

DD +8.9 s/d, Amp 312, BE 0.5 ms

DU +8.9 s/d, Amp 305, BE 0.9 ms

CU +11 s/d, Amp 270, BE 1.2 ms

CD +7.3 s/d, Amp 238, BE 0.6 ms

 

The stud-holder in this position seem to yield the most "constant" BE, but the daily rate has increased even more !? Is that what you get if the watch gets more in-beat? It seemed this was the "best" I could get out of a 24 year old movement. In any other position the "spread" in the BE numbers would increase. Curious if JohnR725 finds out what kind of BE Rolex recommends / thinks is achievable?

If in reality the daily rate increases even more (which seems likely from the new figures), I may have to adjust the microstella-screws. Has somebody any first hand experience in adjusting the microstella-screws?

Which microstella-tool would be the best / safest? The one with the "hook" or the one with the straight leg?

 

 

If adjusting the balance-screws in the movement is so risky, would taking the balance out not be a better / safer option?

 

Hope to hear.....

Edited February 21, 2016 by Endeavor

[omgiv]

Hi Endeavor,

It is interesting that the rate seemed to change when the beat error was adjusted. In theory, the rate should not change at all when the beat is adjusted because the length of the hairspring is not being changed at all. Was the mainspring in the same state of wind as the initial readings? Also, did you give the movement ample time to stabilize once the error was corrected? If not, both of these could show a change in the rate.

I would want to see the error as close to zero as possible.

I have only used the first tool you pictured with the curved end and would think that it is easier to use. You can hold the tool from the side and still have a good view from the top. I have an aftermarket and a Rolex branded tool and they are pretty much the same. The only difference is that the Rolex tool fits the shape of the screw head perfectly. The aftermarket tool sometimes needs some manipulating.

If you do adjust the rate, be sure to change opposite screws the exact same amount or else the balance will be thrown out of poise. I also use a pair of curved tweezers to hold the balance rim to help support the pivots when adjusting it.

[jdm]

It is interesting that the rate seemed to change when the beat error was adjusted. In theory, the rate should not change at all when the beat is adjusted because the length of the hairspring is not being changed at all. 

 

From my experience (not on Rolex) rate always change when HS end rotated. I leave an explanation why to those more knowledgeable than me. Your experience is different?

[Endeavor]

Hello omglv;

 

Yes, I was a bit surprised to see the daily rate change as well. I guess wearing the watch will tell reality. As for the mainspring, I would say no, not in the exact identical state of wind. The watch was in the microphone and I have been playing for more then 2 hours, maybe 3 hours (Time flies :) ). However, what I noticed is that the daily rate dropped as soon as the BE number increased, not sure why either.....in theory there should be no connection between the two.....or is there?

 

Since the stud-holder was so "stiff" to operate, before you knew, you went past the optimal point and the BE numbers started to deviate and climb. I went many times past this point, and every time when you get low BE numbers, you think, shall I try to get it a bit better...... oops........ passed it !

When I managed to get these numbers, I called it the day. Of course, tomorrow is another day and another chance if it is deemed necessary to adjust the BE again. From all the numbers I have seem today, this is fairly close to the lowest. Yes, I have seen 0.2ms with DD, but then with CU it was 2.1ms etc.

 

As for the adjustment; I look for a way so I can hold the microstella-tool with both hands for stability. One hand on tweezers to stabilize the balance, the other hand to manipulate the tool......Hmmmm, not so much confidence in that yet....

Edited February 21, 2016 by Endeavor

[omgiv]

jdm:

The reason the Rolex 3135 is different is because it has a free sprung balance. It uses screws on the balance rim to change the moment of inertia, which causes a change in the rate. A movement like an ETA 2824 uses index pins to change the rate, which changes the effective length of the hairspring also changing the rate. On a movement that uses index pins, moving the stud will cause a rate change because the placement of the index pins will be in a different place in relation to the hairspring once the stud is moved. That is unless the index pins also happen to move with the stud. On a Rolex, or any movement with a free sprung balance, the movement of the stud should not change the length of the hairspring and, therefore, not change the rate. But as we can see, this isn't always the case. I am by no means an expert so anyone please feel free to chime in. I hope that helps answer your question. If not, ask again :)

Endeavor:

I feel your pain with a stiff stud, or regulator, adjustment. I think that is just takes persistence to get it right. You will get there is you keep trying. When I am adjusting beat error, I have always adjusted it to 0 in a dd position and called it a day. The other positions will have a slightly different beat error just as they have a different amplitude. Gravity and friction will be the most likely cause of that. Just remember that a watch with 0 beat error will have the roller jewel perfectly centered in the pallet fork slot when the balance is at rest. I have had a lot of watches where the beat is adjust on the balance itself and it isn't always practical to get a perfect beat error. And they have been great timepieces.

Here are a couple of links to the way Rolex recommends to approach adjust the microstella screws:

http://www.fourtane.com/images/Blog%20Images/2014_11_23/manual1.jpg

http://www.watchwallpapers.com/ms.htm

[jdm]

jdm:

The reason the Rolex 3135 is different is because it has a free sprung balance. It uses screws on the balance rim to change the moment of inertia, which causes a change in the rate. A movement like an ETA 2824 uses index pins to change the rate, which changes the effective length of the hairspring also changing the rate. On a movement that uses index pins, moving the stud will cause a rate change because the placement of the index pins will be in a different place in relation to the hairspring once the stud is moved. That is unless the index pins also happen to move with the stud. On a Rolex, or any movement with a free sprung balance, the movement of the stud should not change the length of the hairspring and, therefore, not change the rate.

Of course. Thanks.

[clockboy]

As I commented at the very beginning a Rolex is not like a standard watch. However it is all adjustable it just needs careful manipulation my Rolex reads zero gain dial up but 1.4ms beat error so when I adjust I will also have to adjust the microstella screws.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[omgiv]

Hi clockboy,

If your movement isn't reading any gain or loss, I wouldn't touch the microstella screws. I would simply adjust the stud and see where that puts you. Unless I am misunderstanding.

[JohnR725]

As a reminder timekeeping is not purely the length of the hairspring and the physical characteristics of the balance wheel there's something else that screws timekeeping up that's the escapement. The escapement supplies the energy to run the balance wheel but in doing so it influences the rate of the oscillation. Then there is the other things like external influences physically moving the watch temperature changes vibrations. But the biggest one is the escapement. So your word for the day is Isochronism. So a balance wheel is considered to be isochronous when the duration is independent of the amplitude.

 

So here's a thought on why beat at anything less than zero is bad. First what exactly is the hairspring for? We think about it as part of the oscillation system but it has another purpose which is it supplies the force for unlocking the escapement. So the strange way to think about this is by being out of beat it's almost like one side of the escapement is running at a different amplitude because it doesn't have as much energy to unlock the escapement. Everything we do with the escapement is bad for timekeeping if it's not adjusted correctly.

 

So I'm attaching timing requirements for the 2230-2235 Which are almost identical to the 3135. I don't actually have a beat error for the 3135 but it should be the same. So the first criteria for the 3135 is 15 seconds and the second criteria is -1 to +5 seconds. Then to understand how Rolex comes up with those numbers I have another image. 

[Geo]

Excellent information as usual John, thank you for posting.

[Endeavor]

Hello Omglv and JohnR725;

 

Thank you both for your valuable input. Obviously the documentation goes in my dedicated Rolex file.

 

I've seen, and written down so many figures yesterday, that I can't remember or figure out anymore where and when, but with DD I've been very close to zero, but then to find out that in some other positions it was "way off", perhaps1> BE < 2.

I can't recall that I've seen, as per Rolex 2230-2235 timing requirements, that in the other positions the BE didn't exceed the (maximum) 0.8ms bandwidth. If that would have been the case, I would have stopped.  I'll try again (time given) and adjust the BE, with DD, to "zero" and report what the BE in other positions will show.

I still have a few questions, and perhaps many more to come;

 

- Would the timing requirements still be valid for a 24 years old movement? If it would have been serviced correctly, maybe yes, but my 1992 watch had one service in 2003 and I just did one myself. With my experience, all I could do was to strip, clean, install a new mainspring, assemble and oil it. By no means I'm capable to judge if the pivots or jewel holes are slightly worn.......it all looked still very good to me, the untrained eye. And as reported before, to me the watch seemed to be "floating" in oil when I opened it (in 2003 the watch was handed in by an official Rolex dealer Schaap & Citroen, in the Netherlands).

 

- When I adjusted the BE, I went for the best "all-round" BE. Say, I manage to get, with DD, the BE to zero, would I call it the day, even though perhaps the BE with CU would be around 2ms?

 

- As for the Daily Rate given by the specifications; if my watch runs say +10 sec/day, wearing it day & night, wouldn't one adjust for that, regardless of what the specifications say?

 

As an interesting note; my watch ran +8.5 sec/day before the BE adjustment. Yesterday at 16:15 I started a new measurement and now, at 06:00, 14 hrs later, it seem to have gained a bit more then 4 seconds......interesting to see what it will be at 16:15. Also interesting to note is that the Watch-O-graph, with the current BE "arrangement", showed a more constant daily rate, around +8.9 sec/day......which it may turn out to be !?

 

I wait with a new BE adjustment until this afternoon and hopefully then there are some answers to my questions too !?

 

Hope to hear......

 

Roland.

 

 

 

[JohnR725]

You are message reminded me of something which may explain what's going on. Did you know when their servicing Rolex watches that if they run into in a timing issues at all its standard policy to replace the Balance staff?

[Endeavor]

Hello John; I knew some parts (may) get changed out. Obviously that hasn't been done in my situation. Question remains whether I have a timing issue?

The watch was "floating" in oil, the train-wheels were very dirty, a new spring is fitted, so I expected the watch would run faster. Before servicing it ran +3 sec/day, now + 8 - 9 s/d (?). For some reason I can't find the BE before servicing just now, but I remember in a certain position it was around 2.5ms

 

Another parameter I like to throw into the equation; How accurate is my Watch-O-graph? It's a computer based program (written by forum member Svorkoetter) and works on the sound-card crystal. The sound-card crystal isn't that accurate and all one can do is to fill in a correction number to adjust the daily-rate. I took a quartz watch, with a known daily rate, as benchmark.

 

Also, which I like to bounce around; I red somewhere the a BE of 0 - 0.5 ms was very good, from 0.5 - 1ms acceptable.

 

Given the fact that my balance staff wasn't changed out, the unknown accuracy of the Watch-O-graph, am I not "close enough"? Obviously I'll give it another try, but if this is the best I can get..........?

Edited February 22, 2016 by Endeavor

[clockboy]

Hi clockboy,

If your movement isn't reading any gain or loss, I wouldn't touch the microstella screws. I would simply adjust the stud and see where that puts you. Unless I am misunderstanding.

Omglv you do slightly misunderstand. I will adjust the beat first then I suspect I will have to adjust the microstella screws.