32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Thanks for going back to the data as it supports that the mainspring does not degrade over time, but what if the mainspring is manufactured too weak from the outset to overcome greater friction from 6+ months of usage (supporting the lubrication theory?)

It seems to me that the mainspring’s tension had to be reduced as to not overpower the downsized Chronergy escapement, as well as improving the power reserve over 31xx movements…

31xx movements with a stronger mainspring and larger balance run for years. Despite the number of new patents introduced in the 32xx movements, there is something (design flaw?) with the mainspring change and the Chronergy escapement that makes the 32xx movement unreliable.

-Sheldon

Keep in mind that the power reserve for the 31xx movement has been increased to about 50 hours since the new assembly has been fitted to the movement at service.
This suggests there's more to it all.
If there are still improvements to be made over and above the original specs for the 31xx movement(which suggests there's still life in the old girl yet).
Then perhaps Rolex can improve what they're doing with the 32xx, but they have their work cut out for them.

Who knows, perhaps the new 31xx Mainspring and barrel assembly has a Mainspring that's made of the same material as the one in the 32xx????
Now that's an example of great product developement

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I do NOT think that a deterioration of the main spring is the root cause of the 32xx issue(s).
Rolex SA would not need so many years (since 2015) to find this, but I have a more technical argument against it.

A degradation of the main spring would probably be visible with a reduction of the approx. 70 hours power reserve. All data I have seen, including my three 32xx watches, did show (very) low amplitudes, negative rates but not a reduced power reserve.

The power reserve for all my bad 32xx movements were still between 71 and 72 hours. If the main spring would be (very) weak and the main cause of the problem, then I would expect a significantly reduced power reserve, which is NOT the case.

Great observation

[Seo]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Don't get me wrong.
I just needed to construct a better framework around the proposition in my mind to apply some critical thinking

I accept your theory as having a good dose of plausibility however ther are a number of other factors we need to take into fuller consideration which I also believe contribute collectively to the 32xx conundrum.

Firstly the escapement is not running at the higher amplitudes which are traditionally a key feature of good performance. The Chronergy escapement naturally runs at lower amplitudes which gives less margin for any deficiencies that trigger low performance in timekeeping.
So that's one thing
Next, we have the understanding that as part of a standard service, the Mainspring and barrel are routinely replaced as a fresh assembly that is pre packaged, manufactured and lubed and assembled to Rolex levels of perfection.. Now either Rolex doesn't know as much about Mainsprings, metalurgy and machining as we would like and or their quality control is lacking.
After all, we need to keep in mind that other manufacturers are doing 72 hour power reserves with a single Mainspring seemingly without issue
On an automatic that's worn with reasonably sufficient activity levels it should be less of an issue regardless of power reserve capacity like the 31xx.
Perhaps the movement would've been better designed with twin Spring barrels?

We have been reliably informed that after all the routine elements of a service are performed at service, sometimes the 32xx movements are still not running to specs. So in order to chase down the problem before the RSC ships it out as satisfactory and running to specs, it has been reported that technicians have resorted to replacing parts prioritised by a judicious application of the principal of "balance of probability". Parts which would have normally been deemed fit for purpose are replaced out of desperation in order to try and get the movement running right

In my non professional opinion, it's a combination of any number of the factors above, but the common denominator is the escapement when the above(and more) is taken into the fullest consideration.
Perhaps the 33xx movement will have >80 or 90 hours of power reserve with twin Spring barrels assuming Rolex persists with the Chronergy escapement as it is.
Let's face it.
Omega had a few redesigs of the original Co-axial escapement movements before they were ready to go fully in-house with their movement designs.
We may need to consider the possibility that mechanical movement designs are truly reaching the limits of the law of diminishing returns and Rolex are the proverbial canary in the coal mine

If this is true then the 4131 and 9002 will tell us a lot…

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

If this is true then the 4131 and 9002 will tell us a lot…

That's the reason why I proposed you (4526) to measure the 4131 caliber.

[enjoythemusic]

update on chnr, timegrapher says from 240 to 280 (many positions tested) and on-wrist 24/7 accuracy is a solid +/-2 a day. Still looks incredible on the wrist

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

That's the reason why I proposed you (4526) to measure the 4131 caliber.

Yes this is why I posted here to let people know in this thread that I have one on hand. He sort of forces me to post here…

I don’t have a timegrapher my cousin does, we are in different countries and my first purpose for this watch is the wear and enjoy. I am not overly interested in throwing things on a timegrapher but my cousin will as soon as I cross paths with him. I will share if this happens, likely over the holiday period as there are family gatherings.

It’s good that you acknowledge PR and this issue are not related.

[jukeboxs]

Updating on my post of last week. My Sept 2018 BLRO (which was returned from warranty movement repair 3 weeks ago, but was still not right) has now gone back to Rolex Kings Hill in London. The amplitude reading for 6Up was 200/197/197 after 24hrs (measured 3 times), which was below what I was happy with (and should have also not passed Rolex QC when returned). Hopefully Rolex can fix it correctly this time. I was told it might not be back before Christmas, but that's fine for me.

On the power reserve talk above, my BLRO was comfortably below 70 hours (between 65-66 hours) when I checked this in August (before it went back to Rolex the 1st time). I didn't check PR last week.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by jukeboxs

Updating on my post of last week. My Sept 2018 BLRO (which was returned from warranty movement repair 3 weeks ago, but was still not right) has now gone back to Rolex Kings Hill in London. The amplitude reading for 6Up was 200/197/197 after 24hrs (measured 3 times), which was below what I was happy with (and should have also not passed Rolex QC when returned). Hopefully Rolex can fix it correctly this time. I was told it might not be back before Christmas, but that's fine for me.

On the power reserve talk above, my BLRO was comfortably below 70 hours (between 65-66 hours) when I checked this in August (before it went back to Rolex the 1st time). I didn't check PR last week.

Thanks for the update.

For your low power reserve of 65-66 hours, I would expect VERY low amplitude values after full winding. Was the 3285 movement fully wound at the beginning and in which watch position did you observe 65-66 hours? The Rolex specs for minimum 32xx power reserve is 69 hours.

[free.spring]

Hello everybody…

My first post on this forum :).
Been following this post for a while, as I have a 36mm explorer bought in 2020. The watch has always run around +0.5s/d .

3 weeks ago (so after 2.5 years), the drift started to get closer to -4s/d, with a drop in amplitude (225 on average). So I went back to Rolex to return the watch and have them check the drift. Result: the explorer went to Rolex for repair.

I don't have a rigorous report to post, but from memory, before returning to Rolex, the 2 extreme values were : DU -3s/d, 3U -11 s/d.

In the meantime, I acquired a DateJust 36mm (2023). Immediately after purchase, the measurements were well above +2s/d. In DU position, it's at +7.5s/d, while in 9U position it's at 0s/d. Could this exaggerated advance be a kind of parry to delay the problem we're experiencing? Or is it simply a coincidence?

I'll post the DateJust values later.

What doesn't really reassure me is that there's no indication that Rolex has found a solution. Confidence in the watch will always be in question.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by free.spring

Hello everybody…
My first post on this forum :).

Welcome!
Waiting for your DateJust timegrapher data.
Measure after full winding (t = 0) for 5 positions, wait 24 hours in DU position, then repeat for all 5 positions.
Don't hesitate to ask.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by free.spring

Hello everybody…

My first post on this forum :).
Been following this post for a while, as I have a 36mm explorer bought in 2020. The watch has always run around +0.5s/d .

3 weeks ago (so after 2.5 years), the drift started to get closer to -4s/d, with a drop in amplitude (225 on average). So I went back to Rolex to return the watch and have them check the drift. Result: the explorer went to Rolex for repair.

I don't have a rigorous report to post, but from memory, before returning to Rolex, the 2 extreme values were : DU -3s/d, 3U -11 s/d.

In the meantime, I acquired a DateJust 36mm (2023). Immediately after purchase, the measurements were well above +2s/d. In DU position, it's at +7.5s/d, while in 9U position it's at 0s/d. Could this exaggerated advance be a kind of parry to delay the problem we're experiencing? Or is it simply a coincidence?

I'll post the DateJust values later.

What doesn't really reassure me is that there's no indication that Rolex has found a solution. Confidence in the watch will always be in question.

I don't think it's a coincidence per se. All of my current 32xx watches have been purchased this year, and 2 of them biased towards being fast (+2-3s/24hrs) initially but within a month or two went to being slow (-2-3s/24hrs).

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Thanks for going back to the data as it supports that the mainspring does not degrade over time, but what if the mainspring is manufactured too weak from the outset to overcome greater friction from 6+ months of usage (supporting the lubrication theory?)

It seems to me that the mainspring’s tension had to be reduced as to not overpower the downsized Chronergy escapement, as well as improving the power reserve over 31xx movements…

31xx movements with a stronger mainspring and larger balance run for years. Despite the number of new patents introduced in the 32xx movements, there is something (design flaw?) with the mainspring change and the Chronergy escapement that makes the 32xx movement unreliable.

-Sheldon

What do you even base your post on? The 31 doesn't have a stronger mainspring or larger balance wheel...

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by SearChart

What do you even base your post on? The 31 doesn't have a stronger mainspring or larger balance wheel...

Yes, you’re right on my balance wheel reference; thank you for pointing it out. I meant to say the lighter, skeletonized escapement / pallet fork / escape wheel.

The basis of my comment is from the Rolex (and Rolex related) literature: “Its skeletonized structure, made from nickel-phosphorus, reduces inertia, improving energy efficiency and allowing for a longer power reserve.”

I connect the lighter (approx 15%) escapement along with the thinner balance spring with my anecdotal experiences of winding 32xx movements and 31xx movements whereby winding a 31xx movement just feels heavier to the point that one can feel the spring slip at full wind. I never could really feel whether a 32xx movement was ever fully wound.

It’s just my armchair theory from a longtime Rolex wearer. I still believe there is a design or production flaw not caught in testing and Rolex’s lack of transparency and oversight is not helping their cause.

-Sheldon

[free.spring]

So here are my measures :

DateJust 0H
Mean: 3.94 s/d, Delta: 6.1s

┌──────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────┬─────────────────┐
│ Position │ Deviation (s/d) │ Amplitude (°) │ Beat error (ms) │
├──────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ DU       │             6.1 │           275 │             0.1 │
│ DD       │             4.5 │           276 │             0.1 │
│ 3U       │             4.6 │           236 │             0.2 │
│ 9U       │             0.0 │           231 │             0.1 │
│ 6U       │             4.5 │           236 │             0.1 │
└──────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────────┘

DateJust 24H
Mean: 1.56 s/d, Delta: 6.9s

┌──────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────┬─────────────────┐
│ Position │ Deviation (s/d) │ Amplitude (°) │ Beat error (ms) │
├──────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ DU       │             3.4 │           248 │             0.1 │
│ DD       │             4.5 │           245 │             0.0 │
│ 3U       │             0.8 │           207 │             0.1 │
│ 9U       │            -1.5 │           216 │             0.2 │
│ 6U       │             0.6 │           219 │             0.1 │
└──────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────────┘

Explorer 0H (after repair)
Mean: 1.44 s/d, Delta: 4s

┌──────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────┬─────────────────┐
│ Position │ Deviation (s/d) │ Amplitude (°) │ Beat error (ms) │
├──────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ DU       │             2.0 │           280 │             0.0 │
│ DD       │             2.5 │           274 │             0.1 │
│ 3U       │             1.7 │           235 │             0.5 │
│ 9U       │            -1.5 │           244 │             0.0 │
│ 6U       │             2.5 │           242 │             0.3 │
└──────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────┴─────────────────┘

[htrap2294]

Well, my 126610LV went from losing 2 seconds a day to losing 3 seconds a day to now losing 8 seconds per day.

Sigh, kind of disappointing that after so many years with this movement - they still haven't fixed it. This was a 2022 watch - I thought the issues with the movement were over when I bought it.

This makes me want to go back to the older more reliable movement.

[Onequik135i]

Are you time graphing yours or is this just visually ? Reason I ask is my 22 BLRO is not gaining or loosing a second. But visually as I daily wear it lately it usually appears like it’s running -8-10 seconds from actual time. And I’m not setting the time either. It’s manually wound so it doesn’t stop running every morning. Here’s a pic when I last time graphed it 11/5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JMGoodnight369]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

Well, my 126610LV went from losing 2 seconds a day to losing 3 seconds a day to now losing 8 seconds per day.

Sigh, kind of disappointing that after so many years with this movement - they still haven't fixed it. This was a 2022 watch - I thought the issues with the movement were over when I bought it.

This makes me want to go back to the older more reliable movement.

I understand this frustration all too well. I had a 126610LV from 2022 and the EXACT same thing happened and I serviced it and traded it for a 116710BLNR and I couldn’t be happier that it runs the same every day and I don’t have to worry about it. I had a 114060 that I traded when I got the 124060 and I kinda regret that. Although the 12 series sub looks and wears great, I’d rather know the movement is gonna run right over looks

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

Are you time graphing yours or is this just visually ? Reason I ask is my 22 BLRO is not gaining or loosing a second. But visually as I daily wear it lately it usually appears like it’s running -8-10 seconds from actual time. And I’m not setting the time either. It’s manually wound so it doesn’t stop running every morning. Here’s a pic when I last time graphed it 11/5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m just doing it visually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

Are you time graphing yours or is this just visually ? Reason I ask is my 22 BLRO is not gaining or loosing a second. But visually as I daily wear it lately it usually appears like it’s running -8-10 seconds from actual time. And I’m not setting the time either. It’s manually wound so it doesn’t stop running every morning. Here’s a pic when I last time graphed it 11/5.

Do I understand correctly that your 126710BLRO (3285) is not gaining or losing a second according to your timegrapher but is losing 8-10 s (per day?) when you wear it?

A little tip: Use the correct lifting angle of 53°, remove the scotch from the timegrapher microphone, turn the watch 180° so that the crown touches the microphone.

Edit: the higher lift angle will not change the rates but will increase the amplitude readings. But the green scotch that you are using could significantly damp the characteristic sound from the movement.

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Do I understand correctly that your 126710BLRO (3285) is not gaining or losing a second according to your timegrapher but is losing 8-10 s (per day?) when you wear it?

A little tip: Use the correct lifting angle of 53°, remove the scotch from the timegrapher microphone, turn the watch 180° so that the crown touches the microphone.

Edit: the higher lift angle will not change the rates but will increase the amplitude readings. But the green scotch that you are using could significantly damp the characteristic sound from the movement.

Agree with these points, but I also must point out, as I have here before, that the Chinese Timegraphers are often not very accurate. The likely cause is that the quartz crystal is not precisely made, and is also not located in an oven to keep it at a constant temperature.

[Onequik135i]

I wasn’t aware of the tape, I just placed it there when I first purchased the grapher 4 years ago. As for the correct L/A yes I’m aware it’s 53 degrees but if I’m not mistaken you simply add 7 degrees to the actual reading shown above. The point I made while posting the pic is that visually the watch would show it’s running slower -9-10 seconds from actual atomic clock time but when placed on a time grapher it’s not loosing or gaining a second. And the watch is continuously running. And when I do set the time on any of my watches I always set it at the exact second to actual time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

I wasn’t aware of the tape, I just placed it there when I first purchased the grapher 4 years ago. As for the correct L/A yes I’m aware it’s 53 degrees but if I’m not mistaken you simply add 7 degrees to the actual reading shown above. The point I made while posting the pic is that visually the watch would show it’s running slower -9-10 seconds from actual atomic clock time but when placed on a time grapher it’s not loosing or gaining a second. And the watch is continuously running. And when I do set the time on any of my watches I always set it at the exact second to actual time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would expect that if you repeated your test using a Swiss Witschi (not Weishi) Timegrapher you would find the observed and
Timegrapher readings closely agree.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

I wasn’t aware of the tape, I just placed it there when I first purchased the grapher 4 years ago. As for the correct L/A yes I’m aware it’s 53 degrees but if I’m not mistaken you simply add 7 degrees to the actual reading shown above. The point I made while posting the pic is that visually the watch would show it’s running slower -9-10 seconds from actual atomic clock time but when placed on a time grapher it’s not loosing or gaining a second. And the watch is continuously running. And when I do set the time on any of my watches I always set it at the exact second to actual time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why you don't repeat the timegrapher measuremts without tape, in rotated watch position, and with 53 degrees lift angle? Very simple.

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by Onequik135i

Are you time graphing yours or is this just visually ? Reason I ask is my 22 BLRO is not gaining or loosing a second. But visually as I daily wear it lately it usually appears like it’s running -8-10 seconds from actual time. And I’m not setting the time either. It’s manually wound so it doesn’t stop running every morning. Here’s a pic when I last time graphed it 11/5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was doing it visually but I just ordered a timegrapher to reply to you. This is what it’s reading at different positions and 53 degrees.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[htrap2294]

In comparison to my 16613LB circa 2005/2006, which gets way better time and a very healthy amplitude.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbndylan]

Hello, I've already posted on this thread, I was globally around 260 in DU position. I've been wearing my OP for 3 months without it stopping. She generally loses between 1 and 1.5 a day. 5 days ago, I tested again in full wind and put her on the Weishi, I had DU 260 and 0s. And today, after reassembling it completely as it had emptied, I put it directly on the Weishi and observed DU -2.2 and 227. How is this possible? Should I leave the watch running for a while before putting it on the Weishi? Thanks for your feedback

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by rbndylan

How is this possible?

No idea, do the following:

- Full winding (40+ full crown turns)
- Place the watch in DU onto your timegrapher
- Crown in contact with the microphone
- No scotch between microphone and crown
- Wait 15 min
- Measure all 5 positions (DU, 6U, 9U, 3U, DD)
- 2 min/position data taking
- 2 min stabilisation after each position change
- Takes about 15 + 5x4 = 35 min
- Post the results

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No idea, do the following:

- Full winding (40+ full crown turns)
- Place the watch in DU onto your timegrapher
- Crown in contact with the microphone
- No scotch between microphone and crown
- Wait 15 min
- Measure all 5 positions (DU, 6U, 9U, 3U, DD)
- 2 min/position data taking
- 2 min stabilisation after each position change
- Takes about 15 + 5x4 = 35 min
- Post the results

Which side of the Weishi 1000 is the microphone? The metal side or the plastic spring loaded side?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by htrap2294

Which side of the Weishi 1000 is the microphone? The metal side or the plastic spring loaded side?

The metal side.

[htrap2294]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The metal side.

Hmm, it didn't really change the results for me. Still the same poor results on my 126610LV.