vvvv 初級會員 
註冊時間: Mar 02, 2013
文章: 37
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 13:09
https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/fashion/lr9zzxg.html
https://kknews.cc/fashion/3oq2bea.html
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?437556-Rolex-3135-vs-3235-A-watchmaker-s-surprising-result
http://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/April-HJ-2018-Article-of-the-Month.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/awov5v/discussion_rolex_calibre_3135_vs_3235/
隨意節錄兩篇~
Overall I agree with his conclusions although there’s an element of subjective judgement at play! What troubles me about the new movement is the thin barrel wall and the non- replacable rotor bearing, I agree with the criticism he’s made of these items. I strongly favour ball- race rotor bearings over a plain bush, they generally last longer, but I don’t understand the logic in not making it a replaceable part!
Designing the escapement to have less inertia and potentially less friction is going to help the powr reserve by allowing a weaker (thinner) mainspring to be used, thus enabling a longer spring to be fitted and hence produce a longer power reserve, I get that, but what happens when the lubrication breaks down on the escape wheel teeth and pallet stones? Does the increase in drag/friction rise proportionally more than with the more conventional design? If that’s the case I’d expect the amplitude to fall and the watch to need servicing more frequently.
The writer is claiming that the new movement will be more reliant on replacement parts in the future than the 3135, which is not in the customer’s best interests. On the face of it I’m bound to agree, although I’m surprised at his claims regarding the longevity of mainspring barrels. in my experience they deteriorate sgnificantly over a 5-10 year period and should always be replaced if a replacement is cheap and readily available. I was taught this and my own experience bears it out, so maybe the new movement isn’t at such a disadvantage in having a mainspring/ barrel that’s essentially non- servicable.
The current trend towards developing longer power reserve is another case of solving a problem that didn’t really exist, I see the advantages as marginal. I’m sure many will disagree; there are very few quantifiable parameters in a watch and many people will look for some numbers to latch onto. Water Resistance is another one,bigger has to be better in many people’s eyes even if it’s not truly relevent to them.
**********
I found this link on some of the other watch forums but couldn't find a discussion here in r/watches so I wanted to get input. What do you think about this authors findings?
He concludes that the 3235 is a better movement technically, but how it achieves this may cause issues 10+ years when parts need to be replaced as certain pieces like the rotor assembly must undergo a complete overhaul. The 3135 on the other hand has been around for 30 years and its parts can be individually changed rather than having to completely replace whole assemblies.
I'm planning on getting a DateJust 36 this year and was going to wait until Baselworld to see if the 3235 gets introduced into the SS models. After reading this article though, I'm questioning whether or not I should just pull the trigger on the 3135 now, given that its a tried and tested movement in the Rolex line. The 70 hour power reserve isn't too big of a deal for me. I'm more concerned about being able to pass this watch along to my children in 30 years.
Thoughts??
總的來說，精準度差異不大，能肯定是3235上鍊摩擦聲大(無關緊要?)，但削薄發條盒動力儲存提升至70(IF每天戴沒差，收藏也是)；而3235因功能躍進的機構弱化?耐用度維修保養周期與費用都還需要時間來證明，畢竟2017發表至今才2年。還需要時間才能驗證新機芯機構耐用程度以及維修保養周期的差異。
實際上3135當下還是不敗的
3135也許停產後反而成為追求經典的標的？ 
|
|
|
super200 中級會員 
註冊時間: Oct 14, 2015
文章: 157
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 14:18
3235機芯真的有問題，手上的126600剛買時一天穩定慢約1秒，頭一年還算穩定
一年後退化非常快速，半年內從日慢1秒變成每天慢4~6秒，最誇張一次是日慢9秒，每天慢的不穩定
而手上的116660已經4年了，到現在都非常穩定日快1秒，3135穩定度完全甩3235 N條街
說難聽一點，2824機芯穩定都比3235強
要找個時間去勞服一趟了，不知道現在勞力士有沒有解決方案?
|
|
|
jason_kuo 進階會員 
註冊時間: Nov 26, 2008
文章: 268
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 15:10
| super200 寫到: | 3235機芯真的有問題，手上的126600剛買時一天穩定慢約1秒，頭一年還算穩定
一年後退化非常快速，半年內從日慢1秒變成每天慢4~6秒，最誇張一次是日慢9秒，每天慢的不穩定
而手上的116660已經4年了，到現在都非常穩定日快1秒，3135穩定度完全甩3235 N條街
說難聽一點，2824機芯穩定都比3235強
要找個時間去勞服一趟了，不知道現在勞力士有沒有解決方案? |
未曾擁有3235所以不敢狂妄評論, 但...真的聽了不少這類問題 
手上的3135錶齡也早已超過10年, 每日確實穩定快1秒或慢個0.5秒...準的跟鬼一樣 
神作啊神作...
|
|
|
linsecret2 新進會員 
註冊時間: Jan 14, 2010
文章: 6
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 21:49
小弟的是126300.
2018年初入手的,剛開始日差約1秒.
大概經過半年左右,日差來到8秒左右,更誇張的在後面,後來日差將近約20秒.
起初拿到AD檢查,也只幫小弟消磁,要我再觀察看看,看了約1周,依然日差在20秒左右.
最後還是請AD送RSC,詢問秒差原因,只給個須更換零件,需原廠訂貨待件修理.
整個治療過程約2個半月,目前回來後日秒差約2秒.
3235機芯的問題是在小弟入手之後才有所耳聞的,不過我的也差太多了吧!!!(暈)
但對勞服小弟頗有微詞,錶帶上有我未撕的膠帶,回來居然幫我撕掉了,而且整支錶的擦傷
大大小小誇張到一個讓我快暈倒的程度.
雖然送勞服前已有前輩警告過小弟諸如此類的鳥事,果然眼見為憑,不經一事不長一智呀!
希望這只是個案,大家心愛的勞都頭好壯壯的!!
祝各位順心! 
|
|
|
super200 中級會員
註冊時間: Oct 14, 2015
文章: 157
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 22:11
| linsecret2 寫到: | 小弟的是126300.
2018年初入手的,剛開始日差約1秒.
大概經過半年左右,日差來到8秒左右,更誇張的在後面,後來日差將近約20秒.
起初拿到AD檢查,也只幫小弟消磁,要我再觀察看看,看了約1周,依然日差在20秒左右.
最後還是請AD送RSC,詢問秒差原因,只給個須更換零件,需原廠訂貨待件修理.
整個治療過程約2個半月,目前回來後日秒差約2秒.
3235機芯的問題是在小弟入手之後才有所耳聞的,不過我的也差太多了吧!!!(暈)
但對勞服小弟頗有微詞,錶帶上有我未撕的膠帶,回來居然幫我撕掉了,而且整支錶的擦傷
大大小小誇張到一個讓我快暈倒的程度.
雖然送勞服前已有前輩警告過小弟諸如此類的鳥事,果然眼見為憑,不經一事不長一智呀!
希望這只是個案,大家心愛的勞都頭好壯壯的!!
祝各位順心! |
請問是送台北的勞服嗎?是的話那小弟考慮送高雄的勞服看看會不會比較好
|
|
|
linsecret2 新進會員
註冊時間: Jan 14, 2010
文章: 6
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 22:17
| super200 寫到: | | linsecret2 寫到: | 小弟的是126300.
2018年初入手的,剛開始日差約1秒.
大概經過半年左右,日差來到8秒左右,更誇張的在後面,後來日差將近約20秒.
起初拿到AD檢查,也只幫小弟消磁,要我再觀察看看,看了約1周,依然日差在20秒左右.
最後還是請AD送RSC,詢問秒差原因,只給個須更換零件,需原廠訂貨待件修理.
整個治療過程約2個半月,目前回來後日秒差約2秒.
3235機芯的問題是在小弟入手之後才有所耳聞的,不過我的也差太多了吧!!!(暈)
但對勞服小弟頗有微詞,錶帶上有我未撕的膠帶,回來居然幫我撕掉了,而且整支錶的擦傷
大大小小誇張到一個讓我快暈倒的程度.
雖然送勞服前已有前輩警告過小弟諸如此類的鳥事,果然眼見為憑,不經一事不長一智呀!
希望這只是個案,大家心愛的勞都頭好壯壯的!!
祝各位順心! |
請問是送台北的勞服嗎?是的話那小弟考慮送高雄的勞服看看會不會比較好 |
是台北勞服. (應該只是個案)
Super大大也是3235的問題嗎?
|
|
|
super200 中級會員
註冊時間: Oct 14, 2015
文章: 157
|
發表於: 星期三 2019-04-24 22:43
| linsecret2 寫到: | | super200 寫到: | | linsecret2 寫到: | 小弟的是126300.
2018年初入手的,剛開始日差約1秒.
大概經過半年左右,日差來到8秒左右,更誇張的在後面,後來日差將近約20秒.
起初拿到AD檢查,也只幫小弟消磁,要我再觀察看看,看了約1周,依然日差在20秒左右.
最後還是請AD送RSC,詢問秒差原因,只給個須更換零件,需原廠訂貨待件修理.
整個治療過程約2個半月,目前回來後日秒差約2秒.
3235機芯的問題是在小弟入手之後才有所耳聞的,不過我的也差太多了吧!!!(暈)
但對勞服小弟頗有微詞,錶帶上有我未撕的膠帶,回來居然幫我撕掉了,而且整支錶的擦傷
大大小小誇張到一個讓我快暈倒的程度.
雖然送勞服前已有前輩警告過小弟諸如此類的鳥事,果然眼見為憑,不經一事不長一智呀!
希望這只是個案,大家心愛的勞都頭好壯壯的!!
祝各位順心! |
請問是送台北的勞服嗎?是的話那小弟考慮送高雄的勞服看看會不會比較好 |
是台北勞服. (應該只是個案)
Super大大也是3235的問題嗎? |
是阿，可以看2樓我寫的
|
|
|
birdyliou 新進會員
註冊時間: Jan 29, 2014
文章: 13
|
發表於: 星期四 2019-04-25 09:59
| vvvv 寫到: | https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/fashion/lr9zzxg.html
https://kknews.cc/fashion/3oq2bea.html
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?437556-Rolex-3135-vs-3235-A-watchmaker-s-surprising-result
http://bhi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/April-HJ-2018-Article-of-the-Month.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/awov5v/discussion_rolex_calibre_3135_vs_3235/
隨意節錄兩篇~
Overall I agree with his conclusions although there’s an element of subjective judgement at play! What troubles me about the new movement is the thin barrel wall and the non- replacable rotor bearing, I agree with the criticism he’s made of these items. I strongly favour ball- race rotor bearings over a plain bush, they generally last longer, but I don’t understand the logic in not making it a replaceable part!
Designing the escapement to have less inertia and potentially less friction is going to help the powr reserve by allowing a weaker (thinner) mainspring to be used, thus enabling a longer spring to be fitted and hence produce a longer power reserve, I get that, but what happens when the lubrication breaks down on the escape wheel teeth and pallet stones? Does the increase in drag/friction rise proportionally more than with the more conventional design? If that’s the case I’d expect the amplitude to fall and the watch to need servicing more frequently.
The writer is claiming that the new movement will be more reliant on replacement parts in the future than the 3135, which is not in the customer’s best interests. On the face of it I’m bound to agree, although I’m surprised at his claims regarding the longevity of mainspring barrels. in my experience they deteriorate sgnificantly over a 5-10 year period and should always be replaced if a replacement is cheap and readily available. I was taught this and my own experience bears it out, so maybe the new movement isn’t at such a disadvantage in having a mainspring/ barrel that’s essentially non- servicable.
The current trend towards developing longer power reserve is another case of solving a problem that didn’t really exist, I see the advantages as marginal. I’m sure many will disagree; there are very few quantifiable parameters in a watch and many people will look for some numbers to latch onto. Water Resistance is another one,bigger has to be better in many people’s eyes even if it’s not truly relevent to them.
**********
I found this link on some of the other watch forums but couldn't find a discussion here in r/watches so I wanted to get input. What do you think about this authors findings?
He concludes that the 3235 is a better movement technically, but how it achieves this may cause issues 10+ years when parts need to be replaced as certain pieces like the rotor assembly must undergo a complete overhaul. The 3135 on the other hand has been around for 30 years and its parts can be individually changed rather than having to completely replace whole assemblies.
I'm planning on getting a DateJust 36 this year and was going to wait until Baselworld to see if the 3235 gets introduced into the SS models. After reading this article though, I'm questioning whether or not I should just pull the trigger on the 3135 now, given that its a tried and tested movement in the Rolex line. The 70 hour power reserve isn't too big of a deal for me. I'm more concerned about being able to pass this watch along to my children in 30 years.
Thoughts??
總的來說，精準度差異不大，能肯定是3235上鍊摩擦聲大(無關緊要?)，但削薄發條盒動力儲存提升至70(IF每天戴沒差，收藏也是)；而3235因功能躍進的機構弱化?耐用度維修保養周期與費用都還需要時間來證明，畢竟2017發表至今才2年。還需要時間才能驗證新機芯機構耐用程度以及維修保養周期的差異。
實際上3135當下還是不敗的
3135也許停產後反而成為追求經典的標的？ |
不對 3135因設計必須五年保養一次 3235十年保養一次
這是勞力士針對舊性3135問題改良的
|
|
|
jason_kuo 進階會員
註冊時間: Nov 26, 2008
文章: 268
|
發表於: 星期四 2019-04-25 10:53
就算是這樣, 我個人還是願意用五年保養一次的代價換取穩定與準確
|
|
|
vvvv 初級會員
註冊時間: Mar 02, 2013
文章: 37
|
發表於: 星期四 2019-04-25 12:09
| birdyliou 寫到: |
不對 3135因設計必須五年保養一次 3235十年保養一次
這是勞力士針對舊性3135問題改良的 |
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?p=5954475#post5954475
#25
Spoke with Rolex UK for clarification on the statement sent to the ADs.
The 10 year observation remark was just that, but it could still be construed as a veiled hint for the ADs to remind customers the service interval recommendation is every 5 years.
ROLEX仍暗示AD建議五年保養?
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=476123
#26
I spoke to a Rolex service centre watchmaker in St James Square London. He said the 10 year interval is correct. However, if you use the watch in water etc it is better to get it done sooner. Also if you purchase a watch in 2014 (red tag) or a watch in 2015 (green tag) on most models there have been no technical update. The new +2 or -2 is due to regulation only and Rolex have improved lubricants. He said most modern Rolex should be ok with longer service. He mentioned sometimes technical and marketing departments can cross over.
沒發現那邊
特別表示32XX系列可以10年
而31XX系列必須5年保養的說法
相信多數勞玩家，對每日用錶就算三年五年就保養也不會太在意。
反倒是比較好奇32XX系列實際上手的穩定表現如何？
持續觀察
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
