32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

This can definitely significantly impact amplitude at certain points.

Thanks for your answer.

I have measured my 3285 caliber several times (also a 3235) and alsways there is the same Amplitude stress at midnight and 6am. But for bot of these its a 10min 9ish) build up and then a release.

Wouldn't a spring that is coming uner tension stay there and cause a prolongues stress on amplitude Why the sudden release ?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Thanks for your answer.

I have measured my 3285 caliber several times (also a 3235) and alsways there is the same Amplitude stress at midnight and 6am. But for bot of these its a 10min 9ish) build up and then a release.

Wouldn't a spring that is coming uner tension stay there and cause a prolongues stress on amplitude Why the sudden release ?

I'd have to check the date driving wheel and it's position and the tension at those times.

The release at midnight is obvious of course, then when the snail shape starts to engage with the spring again a while after midnight the tension starts building. There's a point in the shape which might explain the release again, but I don't know to which time this corresponds exactly.
But this is very interesting stuff which requires further examination and research.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

It definitely badly affects a movement when that pivot is wearing down and the oil gets gummed up with metal shavings.
But there's definitely more going on.
The date wheel stud is also prone to wear and complete loss of lubrication in a short time.

Guess another question, purely out of curiosity: Any way to tell, absent opening the case back, to know if a watch has the old clicks/bearing count or the updated ones? I remember the old 3185 vs 3186 “tests” but curious if anyone has figured out similar here. Heard speculation of reduced rotor noise but that seems subjective.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I find that the spring is quite strong, definitely stronger than in the 3135, the lubricant giving issues is also a problem. This can definitely significantly impact amplitude at certain points.

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Wouldn't a spring that is coming uner tension stay there and cause a prolongues stress on amplitude Why the sudden release ?

Originally Posted by SearChart

There's a point in the shape which might explain the release again, but I don't know to which time this corresponds exactly.

Ok, pure, unadulterated, speculation here: Perhaps the second release is equivalent to an athlete getting past a sticking point? Think about an athlete deadlifting a barbell. Getting it off the floor from a dead stop is the hardest part. Once they pass a certain point it becomes much easier to lock out. Maybe that's what we're seeing? If the spring is so strong, then getting it to start engaging again will be the most difficult part, and once it's engaged enough, the work becomes easier, and there's a release of sorts as the movement is no longer struggling as much as when it first had to engage the spring?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Guess another question, purely out of curiosity: Any way to tell, absent opening the case back, to know if a watch has the old clicks/bearing count or the updated ones? I remember the old 3185 vs 3186 “tests” but curious if anyone has figured out similar here. Heard speculation of reduced rotor noise but that seems subjective.

I would not be able to tell without opening it up.

[saxo3]

Time for a summary what we know

Rolex 32xx movements:
- are a completely new design which reaches 70 hours power reserve
- are a new design of many (80-90 %) components
- contain new materials
- contain new/modified synthetic oils and greases, developed by the tribology department of Rolex

Observed and reported issues for 32xx watches that are:
- daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn (= full winding 3-4 times per year)

The key observables of the issues are:
- low amplitudes after full winding, followed by a significant deterioration of timekeeping

The root cause of the main 32xx problems must explain all observations summarized above.
It is:
- not a lack of lubrication during caliber assembly
- not wear on the seconds wheel pivot
- not wear on the date wheel pivot
- not wear anywhere else
- not misaligned jewels
- not assembly or maintenance errors
- not low amplitudes by design

What is common to all 32xx movements?
- the lubricants (oils, greases)

A possible mechanism?
- lubricants migrate away from their distinct locations to unwished places inside the caliber, then friction enhances, yielding to component wear, amplitudes decrease overtime, timekeeping becomes worse.

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

Originally Posted by SearChart

oil gets gummed up with metal shavings.

Originally Posted by SearChart

complete loss of lubrication in a short time.

Originally Posted by SearChart

the lubricant giving issues is also a problem

I keep hearing "lube lube lube". Rolex makes claims that they make their own lubrications. ref: https://www.rolex.com/en-us/about-ro...-friction.html

It has also been publicly suggested that they reformulated their lubes for the 32xx movement. ref: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a-...es-in-watchmak


Could it be that there is a problem with this particular lube and the 32xx movement is just its victim? Do you use a different lube if a 31xx comes in for service as compared to if a 32xx comes in? If all movements are being serviced with the same lube, then my theory may be dead. But if the 32xx is using lube unique to that one movement family, that seems a bit "suspicious" does it not?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Ok, pure, unadulterated, speculation here: Perhaps the second release is equivalent to an athlete getting past a sticking point? Think about an athlete deadlifting a barbell. Getting it off the floor from a dead stop is the hardest part. Once they pass a certain point it becomes much easier to lock out. Maybe that's what we're seeing? If the spring is so strong, then getting it to start engaging again will be the most difficult part, and once it's engaged enough, the work becomes easier, and there's a release of sorts as the movement is no longer struggling as much as when it first had to engage the spring?

That's not exactly how it works, but it's close.
The movement power comes through the cannon pinion which is attached directly to the great centre wheel, then the power goes through 3 more wheels and then the date driving wheel is pushed.
Even without the spring this date driving wheels turns 360 degrees in 24 hours. It's split into two parts stacked on top of each other, the wheel itself which needs teeth to get power and turn, and the snail shaped steel surface underneath.
The spring pushes against this snail but the contact surface is a loose ruby, to reduce friction.

Date has sprung, the spring pushes against the part of the snail that is the flattest and offers the least resistance, time moves on and pressure builds, there's indeed a sticking point which is the pointy bit on the snail, then you could in theory see a little release of pressure but then it starts building again towards the end to get maximum tension for the instantaneous date change.

You'd definitely see varying levels of amplitude loss during the cycle of the date driving wheel, what I'd like to figure out is if these dips in amplitude that Charles and Saxo have seen correspond with a certain position of the date driving wheel. And if this could be solved with the use of a different lubricant.

Rolex uses Epilame (a coating to make sure the lubricant sticks to its position) and RL5 (a thicker oil, used throughout most of the drivetrain) on these parts. Traditionally you would use a grease on those parts due to the slow moving nature, definitely not an oil if any kind.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Time for a summary what we know

Rolex 32xx movements:
- are a completely new design which reaches 70 hours power reserve
- are a new design of many (80-90 %) components
- contain new materials
- contain new/modified synthetic oils and greases, developed by the tribology department of Rolex

Observed and reported issues for 32xx watches that are:
- daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn (= full winding 3-4 times per year)

The key observables of the issues are:
- low amplitudes after full winding, followed by a significant deterioration of timekeeping

The root cause of the main 32xx problems must explain all observations summarized above.
It is:
- not a lack of lubrication during caliber assembly
- not wear on the seconds wheel pivot
- not wear on the date wheel pivot
- not wear anywhere else
- not misaligned jewels
- not assembly or maintenance errors
- not low amplitudes by design

What is common to all 32xx movements?
- the lubricants (oils, greases)

A possible mechanism?
- lubricants migrate away from their distinct locations to unwished places inside the caliber, then friction enhances, yielding to component wear, amplitudes decrease overtime, timekeeping becomes worse.

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames, which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

The current use of lubrication in the Rolex line up is the same. While some oils might not be used on the same parts in different movements, there is no new lubricant in use for this new movement.

Otherwise, great summary and spot-on.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I keep hearing "lube lube lube". Rolex makes claims that they make their own lubrications. ref: https://www.rolex.com/en-us/about-ro...-friction.html

It has also been publicly suggested that they reformulated their lubes for the 32xx movement. ref: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a-...es-in-watchmak


Could it be that there is a problem with this particular lube and the 32xx movement is just its victim? Do you use a different lube if a 31xx comes in for service as compared to if a 32xx comes in? If all movements are being serviced with the same lube, then my theory may be dead. But if the 32xx is using lube unique to that one movement family, that seems a bit "suspicious" does it not?

Rolex used to use a lot of lubricants from Moebius, they created their own formulations over the years. Currently only thin oil 9010 (used for the balance staff and escape wheel cap jewels) is made by Moebius still.

I use the same lubricants on a 1570, 4130, 2035, 3255, etc etc, as prescribed by Rolex.
There's only 4 of them in use if you don't take Tepa grease for the barrel wall (31 and 41 series no longer gets spare springs, following the 32 in forced complete barrel replacement)and Fomblin for gaskets in consideration.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Rolex used to use a lot of lubricants from Moebius, they created their own formulations over the years. Currently only thin oil 9010 (used for the balance staff and escape wheel cap jewels) is made by Moebius still.

I use the same lubricants on a 1570, 4130, 2035, 3255, etc etc, as prescribed by Rolex.
There's only 4 of them in use if you don't take Tepa grease for the barrel wall (31 and 41 series no longer gets spare springs, following the 32 in forced complete barrel replacement)and Fomblin for gaskets in consideration.

Thank you again for continuing to share info. Are you counting the substances (epilames?) which hold lubes in place as lubes themselves? I am only a hobbyist watchmaker but even still I have read up on the importance of using such a chemical to ensure that lube "stays put". I would assume the 32xx still uses such a concept? And if so are you saying that it too is the same formulation as what you'd put on a 31xx?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Thank you again for continuing to share info. Are you counting the substances (epilames?) which hold lubes in place as lubes themselves? I am only a hobbyist watchmaker but even still I have read up on the importance of using such a chemical to ensure that lube "stays put". I would assume the 32xx still uses such a concept? And if so are you saying that it too is the same formulation as what you'd put on a 31xx?

I did not count epilame as one of the 4 main lubricants. But yes, it is used in every Rolex movement. The most import parts to get epilame are escape wheel and pallet fork, to make sure that the pallet grease (RL2) does not migrate.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Could it be that there is a problem with this particular lube and the 32xx movement is just its victim? Do you use a different lube if a 31xx comes in for service as compared to if a 32xx comes in? If all movements are being serviced with the same lube, then my theory may be dead. But if the 32xx is using lube unique to that one movement family, that seems a bit "suspicious" does it not?

Or your theory is just backwards: 32xx takes same lube, whereas it should in fact use a different one for some reason?

“Right question, wrong direction” is always an interesting one to examine (and is indeed why the Challenger was allowed to launch that fateful day in 1986).

[Vince_76]

Just so I understand (particularly since I have movements that are affected and have documented as such):

1) There has been no conclusive proof of the root cause?

2) Is the commonly held explanation the notion that lubricants are “leaking” into other parts of the movement, thereby depriving the original lubricated parts?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by SearChart

You'd definitely see varying levels of amplitude loss during the cycle of the date driving wheel, what I'd like to figure out is if these dips in amplitude that Charles and Saxo have seen correspond with a certain position of the date driving wheel. And if this could be solved with the use of a different lubricant.

The "Dips" in Amplitude are totally repeatable.
The first dip starts a little before midnight (date Wheel engaged) and stops at about 5 mins after the date has changed. Thats all to be expected.

The next "Dip" is exactly 6 hours later. Monitoring on a chronoscope the dip shows to be identical with a visual inspection of the graph.

When we were doing power reserve tests the same effects happened every 24 hours during the test. Not just when the amplitude was high.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Perhaps the second release is equivalent to an athlete getting past a sticking point? T

From all the testing we have done (and trust me its a lot) we can say that the two "Dips" in the amplitude are fully repeatable and run throughout the power run of a 32xx movement.

These dips happened on every tested watch and the so called "Dip" is precisely 6 hours after midnight for the second dip. After the second dip it does not re-occur until the next midnight "Dip" and so on.

Several 32xx equipped watches have been tested. They were different models of watch with different 32xx movement references.

Because it is happening on several watches and different models it is unlikely to be a simple build up and release when it feels the pressure. there is something mechanical happening, the question is what ?

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Time for a summary what we know

Saxo3

GREAT post

Thank you.

You have even managed to de-fog my mind about all these tests , results and thoughts.

Thanks for the summary and conclusion that a root cause is migration of lubricants.

Thanks again for the excellent summary.

My mind is now available more more misting up

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Just so I understand (particularly since I have movements that are affected and have documented as such):

1) There has been no conclusive proof of the root cause?

2) Is the commonly held explanation the notion that lubricants are “leaking” into other parts of the movement, thereby depriving the original lubricated parts?

Your thoughts are basically correct but there are suspected other problems as well.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Time for a summary what we know

Rolex 32xx movements:
- are a completely new design which reaches 70 hours power reserve
- are a new design of many (80-90 %) components
- contain new materials
- contain new/modified synthetic oils and greases, developed by the tribology department of Rolex

Observed and reported issues for 32xx watches that are:
- daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn (= full winding 3-4 times per year)

The key observables of the issues are:
- low amplitudes after full winding, followed by a significant deterioration of timekeeping

The root cause of the main 32xx problems must explain all observations summarized above.
It is:
- not a lack of lubrication during caliber assembly
- not wear on the seconds wheel pivot
- not wear on the date wheel pivot
- not wear anywhere else
- not misaligned jewels
- not assembly or maintenance errors
- not low amplitudes by design

What is common to all 32xx movements?
- the lubricants (oils, greases)

A possible mechanism?
- lubricants migrate away from their distinct locations to unwished places inside the caliber, then friction enhances, yielding to component wear, amplitudes decrease overtime, timekeeping becomes worse.

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

From this do I unstand correctly that the root cause of the issues in a 32xx movement is basically the migration of lubricants?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

From all the testing we have done (and trust me its a lot) we can say that the two "Dips" in the amplitude are fully repeatable and run throughout the power run of a 32xx movement.

These dips happened on every tested watch and the so called "Dip" is precisely 6 hours after midnight for the second dip. After the second dip it does not re-occur until the next midnight "Dip" and so on.

Several 32xx equipped watches have been tested. They were different models of watch with different 32xx movement references.

Because it is happening on several watches and different models it is unlikely to be a simple build up and release when it feels the pressure. there is something mechanical happening, the question is what ?

I don't see anything there contradicting the analogy. Imagine doing a set of five deadlifts off the floor (each representing a day). There are two times you'll get a "release" so to speak:

1. The moment you pass the "sticking point" (once you've gotten the thing off the floor).
2. The moment you reach the top and drop it.

The analogy here, which if I understand Bas' post, I may be oversimplifying, is that releases would happen:

1. After the initial energy required to start the spring moving after midnight.
2. The moment the spring releases at midnight.

My whole point was that even throughout the process of the spring regaining tension, there are parts where the watch is working harder than others, such as getting it started in the first place, setting up for a "release" of sorts shortly thereafter.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Time for a summary what we know

Rolex 32xx movements:
- are a completely new design which reaches 70 hours power reserve
- are a new design of many (80-90 %) components
- contain new materials
- contain new/modified synthetic oils and greases, developed by the tribology department of Rolex

Observed and reported issues for 32xx watches that are:
- daily worn, frequently worn, rarely worn, unworn (= full winding 3-4 times per year)

The key observables of the issues are:
- low amplitudes after full winding, followed by a significant deterioration of timekeeping

The root cause of the main 32xx problems must explain all observations summarized above.
It is:
- not a lack of lubrication during caliber assembly
- not wear on the seconds wheel pivot
- not wear on the date wheel pivot
- not wear anywhere else
- not misaligned jewels
- not assembly or maintenance errors
- not low amplitudes by design

What is common to all 32xx movements?
- the lubricants (oils, greases)

A possible mechanism?
- lubricants migrate away from their distinct locations to unwished places inside the caliber, then friction enhances, yielding to component wear, amplitudes decrease overtime, timekeeping becomes worse.

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

Would it also be reasonable to add to this analysis that it's likely something that happens in the real world, but not in a laboratory test environment? My assumptions would be that a) Rolex tests new designs extensively and b) Rolex wouldn't knowingly begin production of a faulty design (even if it chooses to continue production after discovering the problem).

Also, as pointed out, perhaps a slight alteration of your theory would be the combination of new materials/design and existing lubricants? Rather than the problem being a new, untested lube (which isn't the case), maybe the problem is that the new design/materials required development of a new lube, which didn't happen?

[dannyp]

Also (since I can't seem to edit my post above):

If the root cause is migrating lubricants, is the problem that lubricants aren't where they need to be, or that they are where they need to not be?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Also (since I can't seem to edit my post above):

If the root cause is migrating lubricants, is the problem that lubricants aren't where they need to be, or that they are where they need to not be?

I would say if you have the one condition you will automatically have the other. If the lube designated for location A has moved elsewhere, then it must be somewhere it is not intended to be (even if that destination is intended to be lubed, it can now have too much). Not enough lube in one spot can cause friction and wear, too much lube in another spot can also cause drag. The amounts of lube to be applied are very precise and very tiny.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I would say if you have the one condition you will automatically have the other. If the lube designated for location A has moved elsewhere, then it must be somewhere it is not intended to be (even if that destination is intended to be lubed, it can now have too much). Not enough lube in one spot can cause friction and wear, too much lube in another spot can also cause drag. The amounts of lube to be applied are very precise and very tiny.

Sure, if you have one by definition you have the other here, but that doesn't mean each is an equal cause of the problem. My question really was which is actually causing the problem: not enough on component A or too much on component B? In other words, would a fix involve keeping it "in" or keeping it "out" (if for some reason you could only do one)?

This also brings me back to my previous question/speculation, too, about whether a new movement design/materials required a new lubrication formulation.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

but that doesn't mean each is an equal cause of the problem

I would say they are both equal. Both are 0% the cause of the problem. The problem is (per our best hypothesis at this point) migrating lubes. Everything else - too much lube here, too little lube there, parts wearing, amplitude dropping - is a downstream symptom.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I would say they are both equal. Both are 0% the cause of the problem. The problem is (per our best hypothesis at this point) migrating lubes. Everything else - too much lube here, too little lube there, parts wearing, amplitude dropping - is a downstream symptom.

I get that. The "too much vs too little" wasn't a reference to the absolute amounts applied, rather to migrations. Too little was a reference to it migrating away from a critically needed area, while too much was a reference to it migrating to an area where it wasn't needed. The question, then, was whether one of those phenomena, more than the other, was responsible.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

From this do I unstand correctly that the root cause of the issues in a 32xx movement is basically the migration of lubricants?

Yes, the root cause of migration can explain all my observations summarized before.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3161

What concerns the lubricants and epilames, I see the following possibilities for 32xx movements. Rolex uses either:

-        old lubricants with old epilames or
-        old lubricants with new epilames or
-        new lubricants with old epilames or
-        new lubricants with new epilames.

old: used before the 32xx movements
new: developed for the 32xx movements

Any of these tribology combinations could be either the problem or a potential solution for all the reported 32xx issues.

Tribology is a broad and very complex field in science, not only for watches, and a lot of fundamental research is done worldwide.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, the root cause of migration can explain all my observations summarized before.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=3161

What concerns the lubricants and epilames, I see the following possibilities for 32xx movements. Rolex uses either:

-        old lubricants with old epilames or
-        old lubricants with new epilames or
-        new lubricants with old epilames or
-        new lubricants with new epilames.

old: used before the 32xx movements
new: developed for the 32xx movements

Any of these tribology combinations could be either the problem or a potential solution for all the reported 32xx issues.

Tribology is a broad and very complex field in science, not only for watches, and a lot of fundamental research is done worldwide.

Sounds like current combination is "old/old" leaving the question of whether the solution should be "new/new," "old/new," or "new/old" to replace it. Might also explain why it tends to happen in a specific timeframe in which it shows up (i.e. takes a year, +/-, to start).

The good news, if true, is that undamaged 32xx watches would only need to be cleaned and re-lubricated when the problem presents, and the design itself is sound.

This also might help explain why a fix has taken so long:

1) Diagnosis. It's more difficult to diagnose a problem when you don't see the visible damage or failing at the problem's source. All of the abnormal wear and tear seems to represent distal symptoms, rather than causes.

2) Blame assignment. You can bet that there has been a lot of back-and-forth between mechanical and chemical engineers about whether this was a movement design flaw or a lubrication formulation flaw. Much like a plane crash, where it's always "pilot error" vs "design flaw" when attempting to find its cause.

3) Number of permutations. If it were truly a design flaw, there are, by definition, only a limited number of possible causes so playing detective a little bit easier. Now, however, you have many more possibilities for developing a fix based on all of the ways to formulate lubricants and you'll need to see how each behaves when introduced to the system as a whole.

[CedCraig]

[QUOTE=dannyp;12481282
The good news, if true, is that undamaged 32xx watches would only need to be cleaned and re-lubricated when the problem presents, and the design itself is sound. :
[/QUOTE]

But there are reports of watches sent in to service this problem that develop the same problem again.

If the same lubricants and epilames are used when servicing these movements, how would that fix the problem? It seems like some combination of new materials is needed, rather than using the existing combination.

Only if the application of the lubricants and epilames during the manufacturing process is faulty would a clean and lube fix the problem, assuming the actual design is sound.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

But there are reports of watches sent in to service this problem that develop the same problem again.

If the same lubricants and epilames are used when servicing these movements, how would that fix the problem? It seems like some combination of new materials is needed, rather than using the existing combination.

Only if the application of the lubricants and epilames during the manufacturing process is faulty would a clean and lube fix the problem, assuming the actual design is sound.

Sorry, I meant that once a new set of lubricants/epilames are developed they can be applied at service without having to replace whole systems of parts.