The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Watch Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex WatchTech

View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok?
Yes, no issues 867 72.61%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 47 3.94%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 280 23.45%
Voters: 1194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19 March 2023, 03:34 AM   #3631
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
I knew it was worse than we thought when 32xx's come in and have no wear at all, yet run terrible.
Understood, you wrote that (no visible wear) in your thread "Taking a look at the 3235" (post 256).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Or when you serviced one and it's perfectly lubricated, yet it cannot even reach 200 degrees fully wound dial up...
Very interesting, this I have never heard. You say that you had a freshly serviced (repaired) 3230 movement which cannot reach 200 degrees in DU position after full winding? The amplitudes in the three vertical positions then are only 160-180 degrees?

I am very surprised. What is your explanation? Did you also measure so low amplitudes for a 3235, 3285, or 3255 after a service?
saxo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 04:01 AM   #3632
JMGoodnight369
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Understood, you wrote that (no visible wear) in your thread "Taking a look at the 3235" (post 256).


Very interesting, this I have never heard. You say that you had a freshly serviced (repaired) 3230 movement which cannot reach 200 degrees in DU position after full winding? The amplitudes in the three vertical positions then are only 160-180 degrees?

I am very surprised. What is your explanation? Did you also measure so low amplitudes for a 3235, 3285, or 3255 after a service?
Yeah Iíll actually look at them to buy. I avoided back when I started collecting as Iím one of those people that get obsessive with keeping track of accuracy so I knew getting a timegrapher would be a black hole for me. It would be handy to have with two 32xx movements. Also I agree with you that they probably didnít fix it. Iím sure it was just a bandaid. I spoke with a watchmaker here in Ga last year. Charlie Shi is his name and he had a very long career (30+ years) and a watchmaker and then went out on his own. Anyway I had a long conversation with him about the 32xx and he absolutely hates them and said itíll never work. Apparently Patek gave the chronenergy escapement a shot back in the 70s and it only last one reference and then they abandoned it. I know a lot on here talk about it being lubricant based issues but he argued that it is the design of the pallet fork and jewels. He actually showed me a photo of one he had worked on and it looked to be there was chips on the escapement wheel. Iíll see if I can find that photo still
JMGoodnight369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 04:37 AM   #3633
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Understood, you wrote that (no visible wear) in your thread "Taking a look at the 3235" (post 256).


Very interesting, this I have never heard. You say that you had a freshly serviced (repaired) 3230 movement which cannot reach 200 degrees in DU position after full winding? The amplitudes in the three vertical positions then are only 160-180 degrees?

I am very surprised. What is your explanation? Did you also measure so low amplitudes for a 3235, 3285, or 3255 after a service?
Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled.

The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 05:04 AM   #3634
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,128
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...
OMG, so you first dismantle the entire movement, clean everything in an ultrasound bath, then re-assemble with 'perfect' lubrications, then measure too low amplitudes and afterwards you must change one piece/component after the other (although you do not see any signs of wear) until you get acceptable amplitudes? Is that what you have to do?

Barely reach tolerances? What are the amplitude tolerances (H- and V- positions) after a service? I am curious to know these numbers (for my 32xx watches, two need a repair).

Bas, many thanks for all these information and explications, very interesting and much appreciated.
saxo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 05:12 AM   #3635
EEpro
2023 Rolex DAYTONA Pledge Member
 
EEpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: B R A D
Location: USA
Posts: 7,351
Well if there was any doubt at all. Geez.
__________________
Ω
EEpro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 06:11 AM   #3636
csaltphoto
"TRF" Member
 
csaltphoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled.

The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...
Are these parts visibly worn or "off" in any way that you can see? Is there some inherent defect that takes awhile to manifest in a part but the tolerances are so small that they are invisible? Or is it more a problem of stacking tolerances across the parts where certain assemblies will be doomed from the start due to the individual tolerances adding up to something that will fail or never work quite right?

That could help explain why only some movements are affected.
csaltphoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 06:22 AM   #3637
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
OMG, so you first dismantle the entire movement, clean everything in an ultrasound bath, then re-assemble with 'perfect' lubrications, then measure too low amplitudes and afterwards you must change one piece/component after the other (although you do not see any signs of wear) until you get acceptable amplitudes? Is that what you have to do?

Barely reach tolerances? What are the amplitude tolerances (H- and V- positions) after a service? I am curious to know these numbers (for my 32xx watches, two need a repair).

Bas, many thanks for all these information and explications, very interesting and much appreciated.
Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 07:04 AM   #3638
sheldonsmith
2023 Pledge Member
 
sheldonsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.
Thatís where my head has been. The delicate escapement combined with the thinner (weaker?) mainspring to get to 72 hours of power reserve has a design flaw in the mix when produced serially.
__________________
sheldonsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 07:34 AM   #3639
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Correct, parts that did not show any sign of wear/deterioration at all that are replaced out of desperation to reach a minimum amplitude off 200 degrees after 24hrs.
A 24 hours test can be simulated by releasing a couple of ratchet wheel rotations.

This problem runs so much deeper than just migration of lubricants and a pivot that occasionally wear out prematurely.
That would mean a fundamental 32xx design problem! Not solvable since the introduction of the 3235 and 3255 in 2015?

Consequence: the movement failure rate (very low amplitudes after full winding) during the 5 years warranty period is extremely high for all 3235, 3255, 3285, 3230, and not only for watches sold in 2015,16,17,18…2022.
saxo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 09:40 AM   #3640
the dark knight
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 888
Man, I've been following this thread loosely, but some of the recent posts are really concerning. I've already limited my purchases of the 32xx watches due to this thread and others like it. I "only" have 2 32xx watches, but I'm tempted to sell one of them. I don't think I can bear selling both as I really like them and even selling one would hurt. But these issues are truly concerning. Really tempted to just hope for the best and ride this out with just the one watch and maybe buy more when the inevitable and hopefully improved 33xx emerges.
the dark knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 11:35 AM   #3641
JMGoodnight369
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dark knight View Post
Man, I've been following this thread loosely, but some of the recent posts are really concerning. I've already limited my purchases of the 32xx watches due to this thread and others like it. I "only" have 2 32xx watches, but I'm tempted to sell one of them. I don't think I can bear selling both as I really like them and even selling one would hurt. But these issues are truly concerning. Really tempted to just hope for the best and ride this out with just the one watch and maybe buy more when the inevitable and hopefully improved 33xx emerges.
Thatís where Iím at too. Iím really hoping this ends up being like KIA when all their motors started blowing up. They replaced all the engines and bumped up the warranty. Iíve got 3 and a half years on one watch and 4 and a half of warranty on another so Iím gonna ride it out and send them back until they either get it fixed or warranty runs out. I liquidated some of my older watches to update to the new submariner line because the fit and proportions are on point. But at what cost? Rolex screwed the pooch on the 32xx movements and itís been kept under the wraps this whole time. This is not the attitude a luxury brand should have if they are charging this much for a product. I wonít be buying another 32xx watch until itís widespread news they have either fixed it or gone back to the good ole Swiss lever escapement
JMGoodnight369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 02:15 PM   #3642
Seo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: Jeju
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
Not specific to the 3230, I've unfortunately seen this on all types. Amplitude is checked before the date mechanism is assembled.

The plan of action is to start with replacing the balance staff, then pallet fork, escape wheel, rest of the gear train.
Pallet fork and balance staff replacement usually get me enough amplitude to barely reach tolerance...
Wow thatís scaryÖ

To the doubters why donít you argue with Bas?
Seo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 03:17 PM   #3643
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
That would mean a fundamental 32xx design problem! Not solvable since the introduction of the 3235 and 3255 in 2015?

Consequence: the movement failure rate (very low amplitudes after full winding) during the 5 years warranty period is extremely high for all 3235, 3255, 3285, 3230, and not only for watches sold in 2015,16,17,18Ö2022.
I think every single 32◊◊ will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 03:22 PM   #3644
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seo View Post
Wow thatís scaryÖ

To the doubters why donít you argue with Bas?
The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 08:50 PM   #3645
JMGoodnight369
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.
WOW. I think this right here has been what a lot of us have been waiting to hear and thank you for coming out and saying it. It seems like HQ is more concerned with building another factory to lock out more watches rather than make sure they maintain the quality they have advertised for all this time. Itís a bummer because the quality and reliability is what drew me to the brand originally. The lack of transparency is frustrating for us owners as well but I canít imagine what itís like to have a passion for your work and to be left in the dark like that with no answers for yourself. I asked about the issue to the representative at RSC NYC when I was there and it was an expert level avoidance on the subject. They definitely know because it was a perfectly trained response of ďwe havenít seen any new watches come in with this issue before, but we will put the upmost care into getting yours working properlyĒ. What you posted sealed the deal for me. Iíll hold out for a while and send them in when needed but if I fix isnít there before the warranty is up Iíll be going back to the 31xx references.
JMGoodnight369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 08:53 PM   #3646
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,128
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
I think every single 32◊◊ will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.
Thanks Bas.

The content of this clear post, based on your daily hands-on experience as RSC watchmaker, is a bit like dynamite for Rolex HQ and a warning to all board members.

I fully share and confirm what you say with many timegrapher measurements of my 3235 and 3285 movements, as well as the analysis (and graphs) of data provided by others in this thread.

It also confirms what I posted before:

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

Bas, I found a parameter to distinguish between good and bad 32xx movements, based on their different isochronism. It is quite a new insight for me, which I did not post or see anywhere else.

What's your experience with the isochronism of the 32xx?

saxo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 10:54 PM   #3647
Easy E
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 2,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
I think every single 32◊◊ will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.
I appreciate you stating this to the point. Thank you.

My follow up question is do you believe that watches that are currently being sent in for service are actually getting fixed, or just resetting the problem? That is to say if a watch is sent in today for repair is the repair permanent or will the problem return? I realize that may be a difficult question to answer and really only time will tell.
Easy E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19 March 2023, 11:08 PM   #3648
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
I think every single 32◊◊ will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point. Some people might be very lucky and reach 5 years without noticing a severe loss of accuracy, most are completely oblivious, and the rest will have to deal with warranty claims.

There's new unsold watches, not even swiped the card yet that run out of spec and won't reach 200 degrees.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
The lack of transparency to customers, the incredible size of the problem and the fact that Rolex HQ does not even transparently communicate about the issue to RSC affiliates, AD's/Boutiques and only commands to service under warranty, this is what frustrates and worries me. It also completely takes the pleasure out of the job.
Bas, your additional insight is greatly appreciated even if it is frightening and depressing for 32xx owners and Rolex lovers such as myself.

I have two questions:

1) Do Rolex perform minimum amplitude tests as part of the original manufacturing and certification process? Or are these production qualifications purely based on timing performance? You mentioned "brand new, card never swiped" watches which can't hit proper amplitude. Presumably their timekeeping is ok or they wouldn't have passed the COSC tests. But if their amplitude is already out of spec that would seem to suggest amplitude checking is not part of the production QA process.

2) Have you ever seen a 32xx watch which is 3-5 years old which did not have this issue? Surely 32xx-powered watches have come across your bench for non-timing issues such as a crystal replacement or bracelet sizing. Have you ever taken one of these and checked its amplitude and found it to still be ok even though it had not been serviced since it was new?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
I think every single 32◊◊ will develop low amplitude in its current state at some point.

I'm sure it will eventually get fixed and slowly all watches will silently get updates during their services.
Regarding these statements, I would assert that if the first one is accurate, the second one is all but impossible. We are talking about millions and millions of 32xx watches over the last 8 years. And there is still no fix. So how many more millions will be produced before a solution is found? And at that point, how would there possibly be enough manpower to perform the repairs? As it stands today, there are multi-month waits to get a watch serviced by RSC. Can you imagine if the floodgates opened and "everyone" sent their watches in? At a bare minimum Rolex would have to perform entire movement swaps but even then they simply don't have enough watchmakers to do this in a reasonable timeframe. I would suggest that no watch company on the planet has the infrastructure to do a total product recall like we see in the automotive industry. This would be a catastrophic, and possibly existential, event for Rolex.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 12:55 AM   #3649
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Thanks Bas.

The content of this clear post, based on your daily hands-on experience as RSC watchmaker, is a bit like dynamite for Rolex HQ and a warning to all board members.

I fully share and confirm what you say with many timegrapher measurements of my 3235 and 3285 movements, as well as the analysis (and graphs) of data provided by others in this thread.

It also confirms what I posted before:

I have NOT even seen 1 (one) contribution on TRF where a member has shown (with data) that his 32xx watch keeps (or kept) high movement amplitudes (after full winding) together with good timekeeping over a period of several (4-5) years, i.e., starting from the date of purchase and without any RSC repair or regulation of the 32xx movement.

Bas, I found a parameter to distinguish between good and bad 32xx movements, based on their different isochronism. It is quite a new insight for me, which I did not post or see anywhere else.

What's your experience with the isochronism of the 32xx?

Funny that you say that about isochronism. Those who run at very low amplitude and give you the most trouble during a service are running with very high and inconsistent Delta values as well, thus poor isochronism.

The ones that get great amplitude after a service generally lose very little degrees in amplitude after 24hrs, and they have tight values as Delta. When running well these 32◊◊ movements are capable of incredible accuracy/timekeeping.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 12:57 AM   #3650
SearChart
TechXpert
 
SearChart's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 22,662
Fluctuating amplitudes at very low degrees (after 48+ hrs to empty), are normal because the mainspring is designed to givce its most consistent power in the first 24 hours.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
Rolex uses rare elves to polish the platinum. They have a union deal and make like $90 per hour and get time and half on weekends.
SearChart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 03:58 AM   #3651
Tridor
"TRF" Member
 
Tridor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Ozone
Watch: DD, DJ, SubC Date
Posts: 1,576
Look, folks ... Bas has said a few times now that the 32xx is problematic for a variety of reasons. I think everyone should take heed of his expertise and advice. As for me, I'm staying away from anything with a 32xx in it, and am seeking out 31xx series movements for watches to add to my collection. I again would like to thank Bas for educating us on the deficiencies of the 32xx and, perhaps, saving people a lot of time, aggravation, and money, by steering clear of what is plainly a defective design.
__________________
"Never complain about the air-conditioning on a private jet." - Michael Nesmith
Tridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 05:02 AM   #3652
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,128
32xx movement problem poll and data thread

Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements

The measurement of amplitudes and rates (5 positions) along the power reserve, i.e., from full winding until the movement stops, delivers an insight about the 32xx caliber, which has not been presented in this thread and nowhere else in a watch forum.

The key word is isochronism, which describes the correlation between the amplitude and rate of a mechanical device such as a pendulum or a watch movement.

The desired feature is that the rate (s/d) should change very little while the amplitude (degrees) decreases with time during a power reserve measurement. In analogy to a mechanical pendulum where the rate is independent (small angle approximation) of amplitude, see my post 3338 (page 112).

How can one measure this for a watch movement? Rather simple: Amplitudes and rates are measured (after full winding) every "few" hours with a timegrapher, as shown in many posts and graphs in this thread.

The new part is that we do not plot amplitudes and rates as a function of time but study how the movement average rates (Xrate) change with the average amplitudes (Xamplitude), the latter one naturally decreases during the power reserve measurement when the watch is not moved or wound.

For a theoretically perfect mechanical movement, the amplitudes decrease while the rates remain constant. I call this the perfect isochronism.

Of course, such an amplitude independent stable rate situation will only be possible down to a certain minimum amplitude, when amplitudes further decrease, the rates will strongly deviate to (very) negative values, i.e., -10, -15, -20 Ö seconds per day.

I have studied this effect (32xx isochronism behaviour) for about one year now.

The graph below compares the isochronism analysis results (Xamplitude vs. Xrate) for the following watches:

GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLRO, caliber 3285, owner: EasyE
GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLNR, caliber 3285: owner: EasyE
EXPLORER II, Ref. 226570, caliber 3285, owner: CharlesN
SEA-DWELLER, Ref. 126600, caliber 3235, owner: saxo3

The numbering (1,2,3,4,5,6) for the GMT BLNR indicates the sequence of timegrapher measurements, done (by EasyE) from full winding (1) towards the last data point (6) taken 60 hours after full winding.



One can see that for all 32xx watches (shown in this graph) the average rates decrease steadily while the average amplitudes decrease, as expected, during the power reserve measurement. It is amazing how linear this isochronism behaviour is, even to very low amplitudes. The blue shaded area indicates the -2/+2 sec/day zone.

The visible straight lines are linear fits to the data, which provide the slope values m. Compare these coloured lines with perfect isochronism case, which is sketched by the dotted green vertical line (no data) at Xrate = 0 s/d.

The best and most healthy 32xx calibers have the highest "m" value, which correspond to the best isochronism situation. Or, in simple words, for the steepest curves the movement rates are more stable while the amplitudes naturally decrease with time. This is the best isochronism as described above: rates are (more or less) independent of amplitude.

The graph also shows that, with respect to isochronism, the best watches are the SEA-DWELLER followed by the GMT BLNR and BLRO. The EXPLORER II contains the 'worst' caliber in this comparison, it has the lowest slope (m) and therefore rates change more quickly (to negative values) during the decrease of amplitudes.

I measured my Sea-Dweller very frequently (using an automized system) within the same PR scan, which explains the large quantity of data points.

I hope this post is understandable and triggers some discussion.
saxo3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 05:43 AM   #3653
Etschell
"TRF" Member
 
Etschell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: FL
Watch: platinum sub
Posts: 15,739
32xx is basically a lemon. It can be fixed I guess but damn I am glad I haven't bought a rolex with this movement.
__________________
If you wind it, they will run.

25 or 6 to 4.
Etschell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 05:43 AM   #3654
Omarion07
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Ireland
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Isochronism characterization of 32xx movements

The measurement of amplitudes and rates (5 positions) along the power reserve, i.e., from full winding until the movement stops, delivers an insight about the 32xx caliber, which has not been presented in this thread and nowhere else in a watch forum.

The key word is isochronism, which describes the correlation between the amplitude and rate of a mechanical device such as a pendulum or a watch movement.

The desired feature is that the rate (s/d) should change very little while the amplitude (degrees) decreases with time during a power reserve measurement. In analogy to a mechanical pendulum where the rate is independent (small angle approximation) of amplitude, see my post 3338 (page 112).

How can one measure this for a watch movement? Rather simple: Amplitudes and rates are measured (after full winding) every "few" hours with a timegrapher, as shown in many posts and graphs in this thread.

The new part is that we do not plot amplitudes and rates as a function of time but study how the movement average rates (Xrate) change with the average amplitudes (Xamplitude), the latter one naturally decreases during the power reserve measurement when the watch is not moved or wound.

For a theoretically perfect mechanical movement, the amplitudes decrease while the rates remain constant. I call this the perfect isochronism.

Of course, such an amplitude independent stable rate situation will only be possible down to a certain minimum amplitude, when amplitudes further decrease, the rates will strongly deviate to (very) negative values, i.e., -10, -15, -20 Ö seconds per day.

I have studied this effect (32xx isochronism behaviour) for about one year now.

The graph below compares the isochronism analysis results (Xamplitude vs. Xrate) for the following watches:

GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLRO, caliber 3285, owner: EasyE
GMT-Master II, Ref. 126710 BLNR, caliber 3285: owner: EasyE
EXPLORER II, Ref. 226570, caliber 3285, owner: CharlesN
SEA-DWELLER, Ref. 126600, caliber 3235, owner: saxo3

The numbering (1,2,3,4,5,6) for the GMT BLNR indicates the sequence of timegrapher measurements, done (by EasyE) from full winding (1) towards the last data point (6) taken 60 hours after full winding.



One can see that for all 32xx watches (shown in this graph) the average rates decrease steadily while the average amplitudes decrease, as expected, during the power reserve measurement. It is amazing how linear this isochronism behaviour is, even to very low amplitudes. The blue shaded area indicates the -2/+2 sec/day zone.

The visible straight lines are linear fits to the data, which provide the slope values m. Compare these coloured lines with perfect isochronism case, which is sketched by the dotted green vertical line (no data) at Xrate = 0 s/d.

The best and most healthy 32xx calibers have the highest "m" value, which correspond to the best isochronism situation. Or, in simple words, for the steepest curves the movement rates are more stable while the amplitudes naturally decrease with time. This is the best isochronism as described above: rates are (more or less) independent of amplitude.

The graph also shows that, with respect to isochronism, the best watches are the SEA-DWELLER followed by the GMT BLNR and BLRO. The EXPLORER II contains the 'worst' caliber in this comparison, it has the lowest slope (m) and therefore rates change more quickly (to negative values) during the decrease of amplitudes.

I measured my Sea-Dweller very frequently (using an automized system) within the same PR scan, which explains the large quantity of data points.

I hope this post is understandable and triggers some discussion.
Thank you Saxo for all the time and effort you've put into this thread so far. Your insight is very appreciated. Only time will tell if the precision of your serviced SeaDweller will remain within acceptable standards or deteriorates. What Bas mentioned earlier is scary, and puts many people, including myself, off any Rolex with 32xx movements. I'm due to receive my new DJ41 at end of this month and I don't feel one bit excited about it after the the things I've read today. But at the same time, I know for a fact Rolex will fix this issue sooner rather than later. Their reputation is on the line her and that's one thing they don't want to mess with. If LinkedIn job posts is anything to go by, they've posted over 20 advertisements for R&D watchmaker professions both in Geneva and Biel in the last few weeks. There has to be a silver lining to all of this.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
Omarion07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 06:24 AM   #3655
TheVTCGuy
2023 Rolex DAYTONA Pledge Member
 
TheVTCGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Paul
Location: San Diego
Watch: 126710 GMT
Posts: 20,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tridor View Post
Look, folks ... Bas has said a few times now that the 32xx is problematic for a variety of reasons. I think everyone should take heed of his expertise and advice. As for me, I'm staying away from anything with a 32xx in it, and am seeking out 31xx series movements for watches to add to my collection. I again would like to thank Bas for educating us on the deficiencies of the 32xx and, perhaps, saving people a lot of time, aggravation, and money, by steering clear of what is plainly a defective design.
Thatís your opinion and youíre entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say Iím lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just ďorderedĒ my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Basí statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.
__________________


You can't possibly be a Dorkelhead, Paul!!
Whoever heard of a "Dorkelhead Tosser"?
TheVTCGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 06:46 AM   #3656
JMGoodnight369
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy View Post
Thatís your opinion and youíre entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say Iím lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just ďorderedĒ my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Basí statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.
I think the part thatís different now is that the higher ups at Rolex are moving the brand into more of a luxury area. Yeah theyíve been classified as a luxury item for a very long time, but they still maintained the ďtoolĒ watch vibe that built the company. Personally I feel like that tradition has been watered down over the past couple decades and now with all the hype over brands like AP and PP they are wanting to get there. For me itís disappointing that we canít have the best of luxury with the reliability of a tool in one package made to the highest standard in both regards. I do agree with you that I think they will fix it. Itís just a little frustrating to find out theyíve know about it for a while now and they just keep it hush hush while we keep begging to spend tens of thousands of dollars
JMGoodnight369 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 06:57 AM   #3657
Tridor
"TRF" Member
 
Tridor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Ozone
Watch: DD, DJ, SubC Date
Posts: 1,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy View Post
Thatís your opinion and youíre entitled to it. Here is mine:

I have purchased two watches with the 32X movement and have had zero issues, you can say Iím lucky to be one of the 75% with no problems as identified in your poll. I do not claim there is not an issue, I trust Bas and completely believe him, however I just ďorderedĒ my grail this weekend and it has a 32X, I am not concerned. Why not? Rolex is the most successful watch company this world has ever known. They are not perfect, again I do not dispute Basí statement, but you do not achieve the superiority Rolex has by sustaining a bad product. I have ultimate confidence, that Rolex will solve this issue. Will my grail someday need to be sent to RSC for overhaul/repair because of this issue? It may very well be, but I trust Rolex, I trust the AD I am buying my grail from, and in the end, everything will be fine.

So, this will not stop me from buying an incredible watch I will enjoy.
You're opinion is equally valid, as is your desire to feel good about your 32xx purchases. As to the 32xx, Rolex' lack of transparency will result in a major reputational hit. Some folks currently have sent their watches back 3-4 times for warranty work and still no permanent fix appears to exist. What happens after expiration of the warranty when the problems persist? Will Rolex cover them or extend the warranty? By doing so, it will be a tacit admission of a design defect. If it refuses to cover or extend those pieces, then its reputation likely will be impacted adversely.
__________________
"Never complain about the air-conditioning on a private jet." - Michael Nesmith
Tridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 07:21 AM   #3658
Seo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: Jeju
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart View Post
The issue is known for years now, with plenty of evidence. People may choose to believe what they want, I'm not here to argue with anyone.
There are people in this thread, high up people in this forum, who pop in and keep dismissing these concerns. They donít ever respond directly to your posts though. ;)
Seo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 07:23 AM   #3659
EEpro
2023 Rolex DAYTONA Pledge Member
 
EEpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: B R A D
Location: USA
Posts: 7,351
The facts have been shown. Nothing left to argue over. If you "believe" anything at this point then it's a religion. The data has spoken. The experts have seen the top of the mountain and it's not worth worshiping.
__________________
Ω
EEpro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20 March 2023, 07:27 AM   #3660
the dark knight
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369 View Post
I think the part thatís different now is that the higher ups at Rolex are moving the brand into more of a luxury area. Yeah theyíve been classified as a luxury item for a very long time, but they still maintained the ďtoolĒ watch vibe that built the company. Personally I feel like that tradition has been watered down over the past couple decades and now with all the hype over brands like AP and PP they are wanting to get there. For me itís disappointing that we canít have the best of luxury with the reliability of a tool in one package made to the highest standard in both regards. I do agree with you that I think they will fix it. Itís just a little frustrating to find out theyíve know about it for a while now and they just keep it hush hush while we keep begging to spend tens of thousands of dollars
The concerning thing is, how will they fix it? Someone above made the point that there are millions of these watches already out there. Logistically almost seems impossible. And it appears this is a design issue with the movement and most of them will eventually develop problems. If Rolex doesn't permanently fix them and more and more of these break outside of warranty, they are going to face an epic class action lawsuit. The reputational hit would be immense.

I was a bit more sanguine about these issues because I was in the "Rolex will eventually make it right" camp, but even if they wanted to I don't know how they could. Seems like a mess.

But OTOH, considering our litigious society, it appears Rolex will have to make things right, whether voluntarily or by force. So that does give me slight pause about running out and selling my 32xx Rolexes. Kind of hard to figure out the right course of action TBH.
the dark knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

DavidSW Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2023, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.