Rolex vs. ETA

[RobbieG]

This is a question for the ages. We all know that both Rolex and ETA make movements which can last a lifetime with proper service. I received a PM over on TZ as an extention of an earlier movement discussion asking me why I thought Rolex movements were known as such workhorses that can survive anything. There are a host of contributing factors that go into determining the overal robustness of a movement, but the answer to the toughness component can be found in a few very simple design elements which lend an edge to Rolex in the toughness department.

The attached images show the difference between a complete balance bridge and a single sided balance [censored] and what they look like visually. Obviously the full bridge is superior in terms of stiffness and some adjustablility factors as well to improve vertical position rates. I have also pointed out Rolex's use of the safety bridge on the outside of the balance which is absent on the ETA movements. This is what is responsible for all those incredible stories you have heard about with Rolex watches being able to be returned to perfect running condition after being run over by cars, etc.

This is by no means exhaustive, and I'm not saying that Rolex movements are superior to ETA either. I just wanted to point out some of the most obvious design characteristics that some may not be aware of which can contribute to the robustness of a watch movement.

For illustration I have used the venerable Rolex Caliber 3135 found in the Submariner, Datejust, and others and the ETA 2892, which is shown here in a reworked form as an Omega Caliber 2500. The layout is typical ETA and I only chose this instead of a stock 2892 because it was the best large photo I found of the movement that I could mark up. Enjoy...

[freddy333]

Nice post, but I think you left out the most salient aspect of Rolex movements - the amplitude of a Rolex movement tends to remain relatively stable for many years, which cannot be said of ETA & many other brands' movements. Rolex puts alot of effort into designing their gear trains with great precision, which is why their watches often continue to run very well for a long time, even if unserviced. More than anything else, I think this is what separates a Rolex movement from ETA & most others.

[RobbieG]

Thanks Freddy. I left that out on purpose though. The point of the post was to show noobs mostly some structural things which are visually very easy to understand and more on the shock side of things. The bridge/[censored] issues are more related to general toughness which is what the TZ conversation was centered around. There are many Rolex stories of watches getting really damged and the movement being preserved. This is of course attributed to the information in this post as opposed to amplitude and train precision which are more related to running accuracy as opposed to toughness. Thanks for adding that though...

Nice post, but I think you left out the most salient aspect of Rolex movements - the amplitude of a Rolex movement tends to remain relatively stable for many years, which cannot be said of ETA & many other brands' movements. Rolex puts alot of effort into designing their gear trains with great precision, which is why their watches often continue to run very well for a long time, even if unserviced. More than anything else, I think this is what separates a Rolex movement from ETA & most others.

[freddy333]

I think most newbs to reps or mechanical watches -- certainly speaking for myself when I began -- are concerned more with how well the movement performs than how it is constructed. In my experience, most of the mechanics & specifications tend to go over the heads of most watch buyers. But point taken.

[RobbieG]

Well I thought someone might appreciate the illustrations and and understanding of what contributes to stability in the most simple sense. The bottom line is that as a tool watch that is likely to be dropped, knocked or otherwise abused, Rolex has an edge over many movements due to the bridge construction as illustrated. All other things being equal, you would want to bet on a Rolex still running over almost anything else if the watch were thrown against a wall. It is wild how many great stroies there are to be heard from nearly every Rolex watchmaker.

Regardless of construction however, nearly every movement can be adjusted to perform to chronometer specs and kept there with regular service. Not that your points don't have merit. I also like how the pinions under the balance bridge on both sides contribute to vertical rate performance as illustrated. Such a novel idea.

Anyway, in this post I was just trying to focus on the toughness factor which is something to marvel at. They really are bullet proof. Again, not that ETA's aren't strong too of course. The only thing that would improve on that aspect would be if Rolex decided to take a nod from Saxony and use a 3/4 plate in addition to the full balance bridge and safety bridge system. 3/4's are inherently tough too - but not so much the balance of course.

I think most newbs to reps or mechanical watches -- certainly speaking for myself when I began -- are concerned more with how well the movement performs than how it is constructed. In my experience, most of the mechanics & specifications tend to go over the heads of most watch buyers. But point taken.

[pollux1]

Posts such as this, and Freddy's input on the subject, are an education to me and help me to fully appreciate the intricacies of each manufacturer. Thank you both.

[FxrAndy]

An interesting article i read a long time ago i think writen by John Holbrock about the 2892 and makes a lot of comparisons to the 3135, more to do with the running of the movement than its strenth but still very interesting have a look, the little engine that could and also another little engine that could the 2824

[RobbieG]

Oh yes, both those ETA's are closely related to the 3135. i have several watches with 2892's and 2824's as bases and they are great movements and also very strong. Again, the main thing I wanted to get at is those major impacts that we hear about. You know the ones our Rolex shop guys at the local AD's are telling of war stories of broken Rolex watches they have fixed over the years. The soccer player who gets mad and kicks it into a concrete wall. That kind of thing. So now you will have an better idea of why Rolex movements seem to make it out of the most incredible accidents alive more often than not without significant parts replacements. A big part of it is the safety bridge which protects the movement from both maker side impacts and bottom impacts that might dislodge the rotor and send it into part of the balance.

An interesting article i read a long time ago i think writen by John Holbrock about the 2892 and makes a lot of comparisons to the 3135, more to do with the running of the movement than its strenth but still very interesting have a look, the little engine that could and also another little engine that could the 2824

[iceberg1459]

thanks for this excellent post.

The soccer player who gets mad and kicks it into a concrete wall.

once i was also got mad and threw(very fast) my old mbw ETA sub to concrete house wall. after i calmed myself i went over the pick the watch in pieces but surprisingly only bracelet was loose because of broken pin and some dings in case, movt. was still ticking and keeping time as always...

just wanted to share my experience

[Guest watches724buy]

very good post know more about the watches

[ubiquitous]

The balance bridge is indeed a very nice feature of the Rolex, as is the microstella adjustment in the balance itself. However, the one real weakness of a Rolex caliber is that they use an axle for the winding rotor instead of ball bearings. Over time, this axle wears and allows the rotor to shift from side to side, thus damaging the bridges, plates, etc. The debris from this wear is then distributed throughout the movement- gear train, etc. which then requires a service as the performance of the watch is then compromised and at potential risk for further damage.

If Rolex went to ball bearings, I think their design would be significantly better, and more robust.

[RobbieG]

Yes, I forgot about this. Great point Ubi. I always wondered why they never updated that system. All the service guys are always complaining about that. There are some who say that the service business and income is so great for Rolex that they don't update certain things like that so as to continue to get more service income. Planned obselecence as it were. Who knows...

The balance bridge is indeed a very nice feature of the Rolex, as is the microstella adjustment in the balance itself. However, the one real weakness of a Rolex caliber is that they use an axle for the winding rotor instead of ball bearings. Over time, this axle wears and allows the rotor to shift from side to side, thus damaging the bridges, plates, etc. The debris from this wear is then distributed throughout the movement- gear train, etc. which then requires a service as the performance of the watch is then compromised and at potential risk for further damage.

If Rolex went to ball bearings, I think their design would be significantly better, and more robust.

[chrgod]

Great post. The well thought out details look so obvious when pointed out.

[siesta181]

Informative post. Thanks for this. Would never have known about this. Too big of a chicken to open up a gen.

@chrgod, you are right. So obvious when pointed out. Thanks Robbie

[RWG Technical]

I'll add my thoughts...

It may be possible for the rotor to strike the balance wheel on the Rolex movement, but on the ETA the rim of the balance wheel sits below the rotor, it is impossible for the rotor to damage the balance wheel.

Even if it was possible for the rotor on the ETA to strike the balance wheel, the force required to flex the rotor enough to bend down and touch the balance would have to be so great, that the pivots on the balance wheel would fail long before the balance bent down and struck it.

As for the single sided vs double ended balance holder assembly, as above, the amount of shock needed to bend this arm enough to cause any damage to the actual balance, would be far greater than the structural strength of the balance pivots. I don't think you could ever deflect the balance kock by wacking the movement around.

The Rolex design is "novel" and does allow for fine tuning of the end shake, but I think it's all for show and has little to do with actual practicallity. The parts quality is so good today, and the tolerances are so tight, that you can punch out balance staff's and assemble movements en mass without needing a fine tuning adjust for the end shake.

I actually see these fine adjust screws as being more of a problem than solution, all it takes is someone who doesn't know what these are for, or what they do, to move them, thereby throwing the whole movement out of wack, and requiring very specialized skills to get it back timed and adjusted correctly.

The Rolex rotor design, as already mentioned, is a huge problem and defect in my opinion...here's why... I see this type of unnecessary wear and damage on Rollie movements all the time...fillings everywhere in the movement, and damage to the bridges etc.

And for those who ascribe to the "my damn watch hasn't been serviced or looked at in XX years and is still working..." you can rest assured that when it stops working (which it will), it will be so worn out and damaged that it's unrepariable...

Don't misunderstand me, I love all movements, no matter their problems or issues, and I do appreciate the quality of the Rolex movements and fit and finish.

The ETA's have them beaten hands down when it comes to rotor design and toughness...

RG

[TwoTone]

The ETA's have them beaten hands down when it comes to rotor design and toughness...

RG

And the Master has spoken...

TT

.

[RobbieG]

That is why Rob is Rob and I am sort of like the "other" Rob. It is his world, I only live in it. Just when I think I learn something I have to go and unlearn it. Shucks...

And the Master has spoken...

TT

.

[RobbieG]

Hey Rob (The Zigmeister). Two more questions for the myself and the benefit of the members if you will. I am aware of the rotor design issue which cause the grinding but I just wanted you to clarify something. You stated that the watch will eventually be unrepairable and knowing that most of your work is on vintage Rollies I'm just curious what the timeline is as that is a pretty dire statement. I mean, I am aware that the metal shavings can get into the movement but those are removed with regular service no? Or are you saying that despite that, all Rolex movements will essentially quit working and be scrap no matter what you do? If so, what sort of time line are you speaking about?

The second question is related again to ruggedness. In my original post I was mostly trying to draw attention to the safety bridge which can obviously help with a major side impact. I am in the market for a Lange lately and very interested in the German tradition of the 3/4 plate. Can you lend any information to myself and the members how (or how not) the bridge construction of a movement contributes to robustness. That is to say, is a 3/4 plate really inherently stronger than a skeletonized movement ? Or even though that may seem an obvious answer does it just not matter as there are no real forces at work as you described refuting Rolex's strength claim for the full length balance bridge?

Thanks in advance for the expertise you lend us and your answers.

The Rolex rotor design, as already mentioned, is a huge problem and defect in my opinion...here's why... I see this type of unnecessary wear and damage on Rollie movements all the time...fillings everywhere in the movement, and damage to the bridges etc.

And for those who ascribe to the "my damn watch hasn't been serviced or looked at in XX years and is still working..." you can rest assured that when it stops working (which it will), it will be so worn out and damaged that it's unrepariable...

Don't misunderstand me, I love all movements, no matter their problems or issues, and I do appreciate the quality of the Rolex movements and fit and finish.

The ETA's have them beaten hands down when it comes to rotor design and toughness...

RG

[ubiquitous]

Robbie,

While I'm not Ziggy, I can say that neglected movements that exhibit excessive wear and requiring replacement parts may be difficult to service due to parts supply drying up; this would especially be the case on the older movement like the 15xx calibers that are essentially at the end of life for support and parts production.

While there are still NOS parts available on the secondary market, the supply of those parts is finite, or the mark up on those items may extend beyond reason due to supply and demand. Add to the fact that Rolex has tightened up their parts distribution network, and I can see where Rob may be coming from (though this is only conjecture on my part). There will likely be aftermarket support to fill that gap, but who knows about quality?

Anyways... Just my thoughts on the matter. Rob may have a differernt view or thoughts on the subject

[Fidestro]

Don't misunderstand me, I love all movements, no matter their problems or issues, and I do appreciate the quality of the Rolex movements and fit and finish.

RG

Even that crap hand wind Chinese movement you posted about that blew the gear and did a de-lume of your customer's Panerai? You love that one? You are too kind of a man!

[dluddy]

Even that crap hand wind Chinese movement you posted about that blew the gear and did a de-lume of your customer's Panerai? You love that one? You are too kind of a man!

This is a very informative thread Fidestro and the type that makes RWG the lead forum for technical information.

Was your sarcastic comment really necessary?

[Fidestro]

I apologize but I despise blanket statements. A man such as The Zigmeister as certainly run into a movement or two that he hates, be it the one I mentioned, the GMT CHS "Mods", the slow beat Asian Chrono, etc. Just as I like reps, I would not dare claim to love all reps.

[trailboss99]

Wow The Zigmeister, that wear is scary! I can only imagine the damage from the swarf off that can do inside a watch case. The damn thing rotates on a bare post? Sheesh, a roller bearing would do wonders for longevity for shure.

Col.

[RobbieG]

Interesting but I just talked to my Rolex service guy who is a master watchmaker and he refuted everything The Zigmeister said. His contention is that the grinding rotor issue only really shows up and causes damage on very old watches that have a history of not being serviced. He also said the the ladies movements are more prone to it because the reduced size makes proper lubrication of theses parts more challenging.

He said he never sees significant metal shavings on any watch that has been appropriately lubricated within the last few years as it should be though. He said the main culprit is that people wait 7 years or more for service and it should be done in 5 years or less. He also said many people go outside Rolex to do service to save money and the quality of aftermarket lubricants is suspect. This is one movement he says that must be serviced by Rolex. Further, the Rolex movements reversing wheels can be removed for better cleaning unlike the ETA ones which he said is a nice way to really get the watch clean.

He also said that he likes the full balance bridge because when adjusting it is easy to get it completely level due to the complete horizontal plane, whereas the balance c*ck is more difficult. Further, he said he likes the safety bridge not because of toughness but it makes it easier for him to do things in cleaning without risk of hitting the balance.

The one negative thing he did say though was that Rolex screws are very soft and ETA's are very hard and as such you can get them nice and tight. By contrast he said the Rolex screws are so soft that they can be broken quite easily. He says whatever steel they use in the screws is not very high quality. In sum, he said that there is just no contest between the quality and functionality of Rolex movements vs. ETA with Rolex movements being superior in toughness and overall quality in nearly every way.

I guess watchmaking is no different than any other mechanical trade. You will always get different opinions as to the pros and cons of different cars and engines from different mechanics.

I for one am a sponge for hearing this information from as many watchmakers as I can as I find it all extremely interesting, conflicting views and all.

Wow The Zigmeister, that wear is scary! I can only imagine the damage from the swarf off that can do inside a watch case. The damn thing rotates on a bare post? Sheesh, a roller bearing would do wonders for longevity for shure.

Col.

[ubiquitous]

Just food for thought; Rolex's latest in-house 4130 is designed with a ball bearing rotor. In my opinion, that design aspect would have to have been chosen for a reason