Rotor differences in "new" 32xx caliber?

[formiga5514]

Does anyone know if the "new" 32xx caliber has a new rotor design/new decoration?

Did Rolex fix the 32xx problem?

Some images for comparison:

[padi56]

The bearings and rotor and slight rotor change plus any letter stamping has nothing whatsoever to do with the so called 32 series movement slow down problem that might or might not happen.

[wm82]

The old rotors get very noisy after a couple of years and some heavy handed owners cause it to scratch the bridges underneath. So rolex improved (hopefully) the bearing and the engraving is just an aesthetic change.

No word on how to fix the low amplitude problems as of yet, though...

[GGGMT]

Yep!! 32xx non-issues are fixed. Amazing movement even before the ‘issues’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Yep!! 32xx non-issues are fixed. Amazing movement even before the ‘issues’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Explain to me why I'm fixing 5 of them a week then.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Explain to me why I'm fixing 5 of them a week then.

Because you’re a watchmaker?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Because you’re a watchmaker?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't explain why I'm doing complete service on 1 year old or younger 32 series movements, all week long.

Because let me tell you, the other movements rarely come in for a warranty service at all.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Doesn't explain why I'm doing complete service on 1 year old or younger 32 series movements, all week long.

Because let me tell you, the other movements rarely come in for a warranty service at all.

Whoa. You work at RSC?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Doesn't explain why I'm doing complete service on 1 year old or younger 32 series movements, all week long.

Because let me tell you, the other movements rarely come in for a warranty service at all.

Are you able to describe what the fix is?

[Chewbacca]

They didn’t and they can’t ‘fix’ it. It has to be re-engineered as a fresh design with the upcoming 33xx. Essentially, they’re testing as they go until the new movement is qualified. Huge cost cutting screwup under the guise of extended service intervals. They stole the Audi Mercedes BMW service playbook and simply want to last until the warranty expires.

[EmpireCity]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

They didn’t and they can’t ‘fix’ it. It has to be re-engineered as a fresh design with the upcoming 33xx. Essentially, they’re testing as they go until the new movement is qualified. Huge cost cutting screwup under the guise of extended service intervals. They stole the Audi Mercedes BMW service playbook and simply want to last until the warranty expires.

I'm super interested in reading what we know about the 32xx movement issues. Do we know what the inherent problem is and what is done during a full service to help it run correctly again? Anyone, please direct me to a thread!

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by EmpireCity

I'm super interested in reading what we know about the 32xx movement issues. Do we know what the inherent problem is and what is done during a full service to help it run correctly again? Anyone, please direct me to a thread!

If one does a study of the large number Bas's posts that relate to the movement, it's possible to get a deeper insight.

In summary, working on these movements and trying to get them running in accordance with the Rolex specs can be be bit like trying to catch a greasy weasel while some are somewhat more straight forward.
It seems it can be problematic and multifaceted.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Bas has interestingly shared that some of the movements they have to repair have a combination of problems that need to be chased in order to get them running in accordance with specs.

Originally Posted by Dirt

In summary, working on these movements and trying to get them running in accordance with the Rolex specs can be be bit like trying to catch a greasy weasel while some are somewhat more straight forward.
It seems it can be problematic and multifaceted.

Wonder if this is why Bas says that comparatively fewer 3230s come across the bench compared to 3235 and 3285 movements: Fewer moving parts = fewer fault points.


Of course that could also be because it's a bit newer and in fewer models.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by EmpireCity

I'm super interested in reading what we know about the 32xx movement issues. Do we know what the inherent problem is and what is done during a full service to help it run correctly again? Anyone, please direct me to a thread!

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4122

[EmpireCity]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4122

This was a great read, thanks!

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by EmpireCity

I'm super interested in reading what we know about the 32xx movement issues. Do we know what the inherent problem is and what is done during a full service to help it run correctly again? Anyone, please direct me to a thread!

We’ll never know for certain. They don’t have to disclose anything. But this is an example why they want to control the brand more. From cradle to grave. All things in between. In the past independents would have access to service bulletins and share insight on issues and fixes. Now they can’t really. And it was I who tried to help non Wealthies (yous) see how servicing costs will rise. And you all thought it was a bargain! Well, now who’s laughing! When you have to spend $3500 - $5000 on a movement in five years.

Now I will watch!

[njlam]

is a 33xx movement in the works? Any ETA?

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by njlam

is a 33xx movement in the works? Any ETA?

Maybe next summer.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by njlam

is a 33xx movement in the works? Any ETA?

Yes, a friend of a friend who knows a guy who knows a guy said Rolex reached out to ETA for help with a fix to the 32xx problems and with design of the 33xx. Remember that Rolex SA had never designed a movement itself until the 32xx series and we know how that‘s turning out.

[Chewbacca]

The failure rate of that particular design component is a flaw. Simple as that. For every few you hear about here there’s thousands who aren’t on forums and sites griping. There’s a clear and defined issue and some here are just sharing the news. Others are too sensitive and equate ‘years of no problems’ to years of ownership in a sock drawer. Not on a wrist 365 for several years.

There’s a difference.

[KatGirl]

I think the problem may lie in Rolex wanting to extend the power reserve, while still maintaining the hi- beat rate. Perhaps that’s easier said than done. Other manufacturers have lowered the beat rate to 3 hz, to achieve a 70-80 hour power reserve. This is just my own theory, of course.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I think the problem may lie in Rolex wanting to extend the power reserve, while still maintaining the hi- beat rate. Perhaps that’s easier said than done. Other manufacturers have lowered the beat rate to 3 hz, to achieve a 70-80 hour power reserve. This is just my own theory, of course.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like most things a watch movement is typically a grab bag of compromises.

I suspect the nature of the Spring barrel assembly is only one of a number of those compromises that plagues these new movements.
The standout common denominator seems to be the escapement with it's inherent low amplitude to start with which doesn't allow much if any leeway in the long term service of the movement.
If so, it's a salutary lesson for everybody and gives new perspective that "if it ain't got that swing, it don't mean a thing"

Bas has interestingly shared that some of the movements they have to repair have a combination of problems that need to be chased in order to get them running in accordance with specs. Even to the extent of taking the time to change parts that would generally be deemed serviceable in the hope of getting it right until they hit a combination of components that work.

One can only wonder how frustrating this must be on every level when one is trying their very best to achieve an acceptable outcome. I hope that w/shop supervisors are sympathetic when it comes to the challenging movements that land on the Watchmaker's desks

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

I think the problem may lie in Rolex wanting to extend the power reserve, while still maintaining the hi- beat rate. Perhaps that’s easier said than done. Other manufacturers have lowered the beat rate to 3 hz, to achieve a 70-80 hour power reserve. This is just my own theory, of course.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What's so perplexing about the whole thing is comparing the 32xx specs to those of the Tudor MT5xxx. This line has managed to achieve every performance feat boasted of the 32xx (ok, -2/+4 on timekeeping tolerance...), it beats at 4hz, and it fits into smaller watches (BB36, BB54). And, though the series has had some minor issues, they're more akin to the 3186 click spring issues than the 32xx. Makes one wonder...

At least it makes me wonder if my next watch won't indeed be a Tudor.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by dannyp

What's so perplexing about the whole thing is comparing the 32xx specs to those of the Tudor MT5xxx. This line has managed to achieve every performance feat boasted of the 32xx (ok, -2/+4 on timekeeping tolerance...), it beats at 4hz, and it fits into smaller watches (BB36, BB54). And, though the series has had some minor issues, they're more akin to the 3186 click spring issues than the 32xx. Makes one wonder...

At least it makes me wonder if my next watch won't indeed be a Tudor.

My bb58 is an insanely accurate watch. And durable goes everywhere





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

My bb58 is an insanely accurate watch. And durable goes everywhere





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 2 year old BB58 is near perfect, in every metric, on my Timegrapher, as well.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by KatGirl

My 2 year old BB58 is near perfect, in every metric, on my Timegrapher, as well.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Such insane value for the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by dannyp

What's so perplexing about the whole thing is comparing the 32xx specs to those of the Tudor MT5xxx. This line has managed to achieve every performance feat boasted of the 32xx (ok, -2/+4 on timekeeping tolerance...), it beats at 4hz, and it fits into smaller watches (BB36, BB54). And, though the series has had some minor issues, they're more akin to the 3186 click spring issues than the 32xx. Makes one wonder...

At least it makes me wonder if my next watch won't indeed be a Tudor.

Both my ETA-powered Tudor BB and Heritage Ranger are still keeping COSC time and 300+ full-wind amplitude with zero beat error after a decade with no service.

[boring_sandwich]

Curious to know if the Calibre 2232 also has the same known issues as the Calibre 32xx?

[wm82]

Originally Posted by boring_sandwich

Curious to know if the Calibre 2232 also has the same known issues as the Calibre 32xx?

Nope. Completely different movements.

2236 n 2232 are evolutions on 2230 n 2235, with syloxi hairsprings and longer Mainspring.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by formiga5514

Does anyone know if the "new" 32xx caliber has a new rotor design/new decoration?

Did Rolex fix the 32xx problem?

Some images for comparison:

Welcome to the forum
Well spotted and while more ball bearings are certainly an improvement as it would seem that Rolex has established that they under specified it. Unfortunately it probably doesn't contribute anything to address the inherent issues with the movement.

Enjoy