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 954 71.19%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine 55 4.10%
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) 331 24.70%
Voters: 1340. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2 March 2021, 06:21 AM   #691
JoseR
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Philly.
Watch: Air King, Omega AT
Posts: 2,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andad View Post
Best post so far......
__________________
Air King 116900
Omega AT41 Gray Dial/Leather
JoseR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 08:08 AM   #692
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by WastedYears View Post
I did some measurements over a couple days to compare the Rolex watches in my collection.

I think it's pretty obvious that there's an issue with my BLRO. The question I now ask myself is, do I bring it in to the AD (which re-opened again today after being in lockdown) have them re-adjust/repair it, only to have the same issue possibly pop up again somewhere down the line? Or do I wait until Rolex maybe present a more long-term solution to this.
Oooo yeah that BLRO is showing the exact symptoms =(...
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 08:20 AM   #693
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
In my opinion, all forms of written communication completely suck at conveying tone. I try to avoid emojis since they always seem to have an alternative interpretation. "Is this guy really giving me a thumbs up or is that a sarcastic 'nice job loser' jab?!" I don't think we need this thread to become hostile. I am genuinely happy to hear you (or anybody) have had such good luck with multiple 32xx watches.
It's really weird how some people take this as an attack on them, their watches and or Rolex as opposed to us trying to work out what's going on.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 12:14 PM   #694
francis
"TRF" Member
 
francis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: a few places
Watch: Datejust
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Great news and best post
True dat
francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 12:15 PM   #695
francis
"TRF" Member
 
francis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: a few places
Watch: Datejust
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by amanbra View Post
It's really weird how some people take this as an attack on them, their watches and or Rolex as opposed to us trying to work out what's going on.
Itís stunning actually. If they had a watch that had the issue they would be singing a different tune.
francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 12:47 PM   #696
Fuzzyme
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24
It takes 37.2 turns of the crown until fully wound.
I saw many people trying to guess what full wind for this watch actually is.

Every watch has a crown logo on the crown.

Start with the logo facing the dial side and make sure it goes around once, and count the turns as you go.

Pretty simple????
Fuzzyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 March 2021, 06:29 PM   #697
Andad
2023 ROLEX EXPLORER 40 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,271
This has been done.

Read some posts.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 12:01 AM   #698
Fuzzyme
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24
People were still guessing at how many turns it takes.
Fuzzyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 01:28 AM   #699
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,445
Hello WastedTimes,

in your post #684 I saw that your Submariner 124060 and Sea-Dweller 116600 timegrapher amplitudes are identical for 0, 12, 24, 36 hours.

You confirm that the correct amplitude values for the SD4k are 296, 285, 269, 230 degrees?

Cheers.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 01:45 AM   #700
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzyme View Post
It takes 37.2 turns of the crown until fully wound.
I saw many people trying to guess what full wind for this watch actually is.

Every watch has a crown logo on the crown.

Start with the logo facing the dial side and make sure it goes around once, and count the turns as you go.

Pretty simple????
The ".2" aspect still makes this feel like trolling. Not 37 turns, not 37 and a quarter, but 37.2 specifically. Of course, I normally prefer to discuss crown windings in units of radians, but I suppose for "internet purposes" we can get by with mere revolutions. Thank you for the contribution.
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 01:58 AM   #701
ofelas
"TRF" Member
 
ofelas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: On the Edge
Watch: Dinged & Gouged
Posts: 204
saxo3 & HiBoost - some fine investigative reporting going on here - keep up the data inflow
ofelas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 02:14 AM   #702
Fuzzyme
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
The ".2" aspect still makes this feel like trolling. Not 37 turns, not 37 and a quarter, but 37.2 specifically. Of course, I normally prefer to discuss crown windings in units of radians, but I suppose for "internet purposes" we can get by with mere revolutions. Thank you for the contribution.
Glad I made you happy?
Radians of the crown............have never ever heard that.
Fuzzyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 02:37 AM   #703
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,445
Caliber data comparison 3132, 3135, 3230, 3235, 3285

New data:
- Submariner 124060 (caliber 3230) - October 2020
- GMT Master II 126710BLRO (caliber 3285) - September 2018
- Explorer 214270 (caliber 3132) - July 2016
- Sea-Dweller 116600 (caliber 3135) - March 2017
Reference: Wasted Years

Comparison:
- Sea-Dweller 126600 (caliber 3235) - October 2017 (repaired in 2019)

saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 03:58 AM   #704
Annan
"TRF" Member
 
Annan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Real Name: Ron
Location: Arizona, USA
Watch: 116233
Posts: 3,169
Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 68548882_2523017557762294_731547507351355392_n.jpg (29.2 KB, 294 views)
__________________
so many Rolexes.....so little time
Annan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 04:49 AM   #705
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annan View Post
Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!
The last two posts cannot be more opposed in content!
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 05:13 AM   #706
francis
"TRF" Member
 
francis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: a few places
Watch: Datejust
Posts: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annan View Post
Some of just absolutely HAD to have a 32XX movement!

HAHAHAHAHA exactly!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
francis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 06:39 AM   #707
peterskinner
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: East Sussex U
Posts: 1,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolexgiants View Post
Anyone having trouble with the 32XX movement in the DD40? Iím not seeing any complaints...
The movement in the DD 40 had major issues with the date/day change over. New parts had to be added.
peterskinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 06:59 AM   #708
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzyme View Post
People were still guessing at how many turns it takes.
That's absolutely bizarre to me.

It's simple. Just turn until one can feel the end of the Mainspring slip when it disengages from the detent on the inside of the barrel.
It can be felt and heard.

Perhaps some are just not cut out for mechanical watch ownership. Especially when they question whether there's something wrong with their watch because they have to turn the Winding crown backward to advance the hands when setting the time
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 07:01 AM   #709
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
The last two posts cannot be more opposed in content!
But both equally relevant in the broadest context
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 07:06 AM   #710
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxo3 View Post
Caliber data comparison 3132, 3135, 3230, 3235, 3285

New data:
- Submariner 124060 (caliber 3230) - October 2020
- GMT Master II 126710BLRO (caliber 3285) - September 2018
- Explorer 214270 (caliber 3132) - July 2016
- Sea-Dweller 116600 (caliber 3135) - March 2017
Reference: Wasted Years

Comparison:
- Sea-Dweller 126600 (caliber 3235) - October 2017 (repaired in 2019)

A very informative graph

Unfortunately it doesn't reveal how well the watches represented in the graph actually performed as timekeepers on the wrist in a day to day scenario
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 08:13 AM   #711
saxo3
"TRF" Member
 
saxo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
A very informative graph

Unfortunately it doesn't reveal how well the watches represented in the graph actually performed as timekeepers on the wrist in a day to day scenario
Dirt, that is a very good remark, absolutely correct, but one can conclude a lot.

This graph "only" displays the amplitudes measured by 'WastedYears' in dial up (DU) position and compares these numbers with my 126600 SD43.

In post #684 the DU rates were also given for all his watches, have a look at his data tables.

There you see that the 126710 BLRO already has a rather bad rate of -7 s/d after full winding, which becomes worse with time, e.g. -11 s/d after only 24 hours.

The characteristic footprint is the very low amplitude measured for the BLRO already at t = 0 (226 degrees) and at t = 24 h (196 degrees), keeping in mind that the PR for 32xx calibers should approach 70 hours.

In comparison to these numbers, my SD43 has an excellent starting amplitude of 291 degrees and the curve is much better, i.e. the rates remain high for a longer time, e.g. 203 degrees after 62 hours!

I would say that the Sub41 movement is in a much better state than the BLRO movement.

Not a real surprise for me because the Sub41 is very new (Oct. 2020) and the BLRO (Sept. 2018) is about 2 years older.

Based on my experience, it will not take a very long time until the shown BLRO will not reach any longer 200 degrees amplitude after full winding, and then the rates will become soon much more negative than now.

Not to forget that dial up and dial down are the most favourable positions for such measurements.
In all other positions, amplitudes and rates are definitely less good.

In other words: low movement amplitudes are in general a good indicator that something has changed (degraded) with time. For the here discussed 32xx calibers the reason can be a weak mainspring (unlikely for new watches) or enhanced friction (with significant wear) somewhere, e.g. on the 3235-360 second hand wheel.

I hope that helps you for a better understanding of such graphs.
saxo3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 10:25 AM   #712
Ashton_Horologist
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: Ashton Tracy
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Watch: 1680
Posts: 287
I would like to clarify something. Itís no secret that I think the 31xx series of movements are more tried and tested than the 32xx series of movements. I truly love working on 31xx movements as they are a breeze to work on, and to be honest, Iíve only ever serviced one 32xx movement and that was in training when I worked at Rolex.

Do I think the 32xx movement will overtake the 31xx and become the new workhorse? Absolutely. Do I think the watch has a problem. Absolutely. But I am confident that the watch will be fixed.

I have no skin in the game. I donít own a 32xx movement, or a 31xx. Iím a 1570 guy. In fact, modern watches donít do much for me.

Now, to the matter at hand. Amplitude.

The graphs and numbers are interesting, but by no means surprising. Itís a bunch of information we already know. You are free to continue collecting information, but I donít believe it will tell you anything further. But hey, life is full of pointless things and sometimes we just find them interesting. So have at it.

Letís first take a 31xx movement. It is stated that after 24 hours the amplitude cannot be below 200 degrees in the vertical position. This is a watch with a 40ish hour power reserve. These numbers make sense. I will say, however, that if a 31xx movement is 201 degrees after 24 hours in the vertical there is problem something that has been overlooked. They are usually around 220. But that is why tolerances exist.

I must say, I never could wrap my head around the numbers for the 32xx movement. Or the 41xx for that matter. They have a 70 hour power reserve but also must have amplitude of 200 degree minimum in the vertical. The issue I have is that they are required to run for much longer with an accurate rate. This would have me think the amplitude needs to be at least 230 in the vertical. But, that isnít what Rolex states and maybe they no something I donít. I say that as amplitude is a fascinating subject. I fix many vintage Seikoís, and if we take the 6139 movement as an example - itís a low amplitude movement. It can be made to keep very accurate time, almost chronometer standard, but at full wind it runs at around 220 - 230 degrees in the horizontal! And has a power reserve of a around 40 hours. Itís engineered that way.

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. Iím not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, thatís not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? Thatís more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but Iíll be honest, I only skimmed through).

The one thing we know for sure though is this - Iím a bit of an idiot who doesnít know anything and FuzzyMe is a horological God. So perhaps we should get his take...
Ashton_Horologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 10:49 AM   #713
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist View Post
So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? Thatís more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but Iíll be honest, I only skimmed through).
All three watches of mine show about 70-72hrs PR

The two that are operating fine run a tad faster towards the end of the PR and then slow right down at the end of the PR.

my problem 3235 starts of slow and just gets slower and slower.

So i take it off friday after work and pick it up monday and it's like 2mins behind. When it was running in spec and with my other two they're basically +4+6 seconds over that period of time.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 10:56 AM   #714
Ashton_Horologist
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Real Name: Ashton Tracy
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Watch: 1680
Posts: 287
Whatís is the amplitude on Monday mornings?
Ashton_Horologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 11:11 AM   #715
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist View Post
Whatís is the amplitude on Monday mornings?
something woeful on the bad movement like 165ish? dail up.

the good ones I haven't ever measured 2 and a half days in.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 11:24 AM   #716
HiBoost
"TRF" Member
 
HiBoost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist View Post
So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? That’s more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but I’ll be honest, I only skimmed through).
Hi Ashton, thanks again for joining in the conversation. Your input will always be valued by those of us who started this thread in the first place. You'll have to forgive us for collecting more data but saxo and I just tend to think in that direction. Even if it's not an area where we are experts, it seems to give some way to find patterns, and I suppose there is some "comfort" in that.

So let's take my particular watch:

Full wind: dial up - 255 degrees, crown down - 212.
After 12 hours: dial up - 255, crown down - 203
After 24 hours: dial up - 243, crown down - 184
After 36 hours: dial up - 232, crown down - 184
After 48 hours: dial up - 208, crown down - 157

By "the spec" and your assessment my watch is definitely low on amplitude. I'm at the limit of the spec after only 12 hours, and well below from there on. Yet my power reserve was 71 hours and at hour 68 I was exactly at +/- 0 seconds as compared to the atomic clock (granted, it gradually went up to +4 in the first 48 hours, then drifted back down to +0 in the next 20 hours).

What does that mean? Amplitude seems "way low" yet timekeeping and PR are quite good. Granted the majority of that 71 hours was spent in the dial up position and we can clearly see my vertical positions have much lower amplitude. Therefore these timekeeping and PR results are likely optimistic as compared to real world wearing. But of course if it were being worn that whole time it would still be winding and PR isn't really a concern.

In my mind, all the curiosity in compiling "data" comes back to this - are these low amplitudes a warning, a precursor if you will, to an inevitable failure down the road? Or is it actually possible this thing will still be humming along keeping great time 5 years from now? Your comments suggest you are a bit skeptical about the claimed "correct" amplitude values. But what are the actual normal, average numbers these things are putting out? We know amplitude is low when there is a problem. But is there always a problem when amplitude is low? And how much variation is to be expected within the same model of movement? If I had 3 Subs would we expect all 3 to be within 5-10 degrees of each other at the same PR? Or would you say no, there could be a 20-30 degree difference just due to tolerances and everything is fine?

This is just one of those things where we don't have enough data to paint the full picture. The watches that ended up losing tons of time, did they start off with weak amplitudes and get even weaker? Not sure. As well, are there any examples of a watch having consistently low amplitude and never getting any worse? Again, not sure. So you still may be convinced we are wasting time, and I can't really say you are wrong, but hopefully that at least points to what we're trying to flesh out. At the end of the day it is still Rolex's problem to solve. Even if we had graphs from 10,000 units that isn't going to magically make a new part or procedure show up at the RSCs. But it would provide a little comfort/closure to those of us who are interested in such things.

An analogy would be a car failure. If your car breaks down and you have to get a tow truck, some might argue it doesn't really matter what the cause is, the result is the same - the car stopped and has to get fixed. But another person might feel that knowing whether it was a failed fuel pump or a broken crankshaft makes a big difference in how they perceive the overall reliability of the vehicle. And it also just satisfies a basic curiosity that many of us have. I like mechanical watches because I like mechanical things. And I like mechanical things because I'm fascinated by how they work. So here we are :)
HiBoost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 11:38 AM   #717
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist View Post
So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. I’m not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, that’s not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.
An excellent point and one I have made myself previously based upon the reports of another Watchmaker who has a lot of experience repairing them along side others in the Service centre.
He has previously intimated that the 32xx movements do not tend to be big on amplitude by nature.

So yes, it's entirely plausible the 32xx movement may well have always been intended to run to an acceptable standard with notably lower amplitudes across the power reserve in a similar fashion to the Seiko 6139 movement.

I suspect that in the short term the only ones who would be able to shed light on this aspect will be those good folk beavering away and securely cloistered within the belly of the mothership.

I think we also need to understand that the measurement of amplitude in the case of these 32xx movements presenting with problems in warranty, is simply used as a non-invasive method to establish whether a watch has a problem with timekeeping and needs to be serviced.
Amplitude is symptomatic of the movements decline.
The path to rectification is well trodden at the RSCs.
The root cause has yet to be uncovered and a permanent fix applied if possible.

To date, this poll looks like the only pathway for us mere mortals to reconcile whether a fix has been applied.
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 12:13 PM   #718
amanbra
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt View Post
An excellent point and one I have made myself previously based upon the reports of another Watchmaker who has a lot of experience repairing them along side others in the Service centre.
He has previously intimated that the 32xx movements do not tend to be big on amplitude by nature.

So yes, it's entirely plausible the 32xx movement may well have always been intended to run to an acceptable standard with notably lower amplitudes across the power reserve in a similar fashion to the Seiko 6139 movement.

I suspect that in the short term the only ones who would be able to shed light on this aspect will be those good folk beavering away and securely cloistered within the belly of the mothership.

I think we also need to understand that the measurement of amplitude in the case of these 32xx movements presenting with problems in warranty, is simply used as a non-invasive method to establish whether a watch has a problem with timekeeping and needs to be serviced.
Amplitude is symptomatic of the movements decline.
The path to rectification is well trodden at the RSCs.
The root cause has yet to be uncovered and a permanent fix applied if possible.

To date, this poll looks like the only pathway for us mere mortals to reconcile whether a fix has been applied.
Bas did say the 32XX were not amplitude monsters.
amanbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 07:37 PM   #719
Andad
2023 ROLEX EXPLORER 40 Pledge Member
 
Andad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBoost View Post
Hi Ashton, thanks again for joining in the conversation. Your input will always be valued by those of us who started this thread in the first place. You'll have to forgive us for collecting more data but saxo and I just tend to think in that direction. Even if it's not an area where we are experts, it seems to give some way to find patterns, and I suppose there is some "comfort" in that.

So let's take my particular watch:

Full wind: dial up - 255 degrees, crown down - 212.
After 12 hours: dial up - 255, crown down - 203
After 24 hours: dial up - 243, crown down - 184
After 36 hours: dial up - 232, crown down - 184
After 48 hours: dial up - 208, crown down - 157

By "the spec" and your assessment my watch is definitely low on amplitude. I'm at the limit of the spec after only 12 hours, and well below from there on. Yet my power reserve was 71 hours and at hour 68 I was exactly at +/- 0 seconds as compared to the atomic clock (granted, it gradually went up to +4 in the first 48 hours, then drifted back down to +0 in the next 20 hours).

What does that mean? Amplitude seems "way low" yet timekeeping and PR are quite good. Granted the majority of that 71 hours was spent in the dial up position and we can clearly see my vertical positions have much lower amplitude. Therefore these timekeeping and PR results are likely optimistic as compared to real world wearing. But of course if it were being worn that whole time it would still be winding and PR isn't really a concern.

In my mind, all the curiosity in compiling "data" comes back to this - are these low amplitudes a warning, a precursor if you will, to an inevitable failure down the road? Or is it actually possible this thing will still be humming along keeping great time 5 years from now? Your comments suggest you are a bit skeptical about the claimed "correct" amplitude values. But what are the actual normal, average numbers these things are putting out? We know amplitude is low when there is a problem. But is there always a problem when amplitude is low? And how much variation is to be expected within the same model of movement? If I had 3 Subs would we expect all 3 to be within 5-10 degrees of each other at the same PR? Or would you say no, there could be a 20-30 degree difference just due to tolerances and everything is fine?

This is just one of those things where we don't have enough data to paint the full picture. The watches that ended up losing tons of time, did they start off with weak amplitudes and get even weaker? Not sure. As well, are there any examples of a watch having consistently low amplitude and never getting any worse? Again, not sure. So you still may be convinced we are wasting time, and I can't really say you are wrong, but hopefully that at least points to what we're trying to flesh out. At the end of the day it is still Rolex's problem to solve. Even if we had graphs from 10,000 units that isn't going to magically make a new part or procedure show up at the RSCs. But it would provide a little comfort/closure to those of us who are interested in such things.

An analogy would be a car failure. If your car breaks down and you have to get a tow truck, some might argue it doesn't really matter what the cause is, the result is the same - the car stopped and has to get fixed. But another person might feel that knowing whether it was a failed fuel pump or a broken crankshaft makes a big difference in how they perceive the overall reliability of the vehicle. And it also just satisfies a basic curiosity that many of us have. I like mechanical watches because I like mechanical things. And I like mechanical things because I'm fascinated by how they work. So here we are :)
I noted you were +/-0 after 68 hours.

Was this dial up during this time?

My 3235 was also accurate towards the end of its power reserve dial up but my TimeG showed that other positions would not have given me anywhere near the same result.
__________________
E

Andad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 March 2021, 09:20 PM   #720
RFC
2023 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Puerto Rico
Watch: 1968 5513 Sub
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist View Post
I would like to clarify something. Itís no secret that I think the 31xx series of movements are more tried and tested than the 32xx series of movements. I truly love working on 31xx movements as they are a breeze to work on, and to be honest, Iíve only ever serviced one 32xx movement and that was in training when I worked at Rolex.

Do I think the 32xx movement will overtake the 31xx and become the new workhorse? Absolutely. Do I think the watch has a problem. Absolutely. But I am confident that the watch will be fixed.

I have no skin in the game. I donít own a 32xx movement, or a 31xx. Iím a 1570 guy. In fact, modern watches donít do much for me.

Now, to the matter at hand. Amplitude.

The graphs and numbers are interesting, but by no means surprising. Itís a bunch of information we already know. You are free to continue collecting information, but I donít believe it will tell you anything further. But hey, life is full of pointless things and sometimes we just find them interesting. So have at it.

Letís first take a 31xx movement. It is stated that after 24 hours the amplitude cannot be below 200 degrees in the vertical position. This is a watch with a 40ish hour power reserve. These numbers make sense. I will say, however, that if a 31xx movement is 201 degrees after 24 hours in the vertical there is problem something that has been overlooked. They are usually around 220. But that is why tolerances exist.

I must say, I never could wrap my head around the numbers for the 32xx movement. Or the 41xx for that matter. They have a 70 hour power reserve but also must have amplitude of 200 degree minimum in the vertical. The issue I have is that they are required to run for much longer with an accurate rate. This would have me think the amplitude needs to be at least 230 in the vertical. But, that isnít what Rolex states and maybe they no something I donít. I say that as amplitude is a fascinating subject. I fix many vintage Seikoís, and if we take the 6139 movement as an example - itís a low amplitude movement. It can be made to keep very accurate time, almost chronometer standard, but at full wind it runs at around 220 - 230 degrees in the horizontal! And has a power reserve of a around 40 hours. Itís engineered that way.

So, perhaps the 32xx has been designed to run at a lower amplitude and still maintain its rate, hence the minimum requirements. Iím not sure. But based on what I know and have seen, thatís not the case. So, a watch that is running at 185 degrees after 24 hours definitely has something wrong.

So, the more interesting question to me is - what are the power reserve like? Thatís more of an indicator of issue (this may have been discussed, but Iíll be honest, I only skimmed through).

The one thing we know for sure though is this - Iím a bit of an idiot who doesnít know anything and FuzzyMe is a horological God. So perhaps we should get his take...
Ashton I read your piece in a blog recently about the 3135-from your perspective as a watchmaker-being more reliable and easier to repair and service than the 3235 for a number of design and part-related issues that I confess not to understand well. You have more standing to give an opinion than any of us forum readers/writers that are not watchmakers or have never serviced a watch. Iíve owned a 3135 movement in a 96í datejust and a 3130 in a Sub and both work like a charm.

Ashton on a side note whatís your view of Omegaís 8800 master co axial used in the Seamaster? Iíve read comparisons that the 8800 is superior as a master chronometer to the Chronergy escapement.
RFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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.