32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by GMT Aviator

I can do that for sure on the timegrapher when I return home.
I’m overseas until mid Feb but will do it when I get back. I’m not planning on wearing the watch until late March however.

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Holy smoly Peter ... I think that might be a record here

I bet not....what has struck me is how similarly they perform. Rolex do make consistent products, in my opinion. I do greatly enjoy the SD43, but have become disloyal and bought a Yachtmaster 42. The shame of it....

[Michael N Q8]

I took mine into the local service center this morning. They put it on their machine and told me it needs a “complete service”. So now I have a 35 day wait. Let’s hope they incorporate all the latest upgrades/oiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I took mine into the local service center this morning. They put it on their machine and told me it needs a “complete service”. So now I have a 35 day wait. Let’s hope they incorporate all the latest upgrades/oiling.

Many thanks for your update!

A "complete service" of a GMT-Master II 126710 (3185) after 2 year + 7 months. Purchase date (26.06.2018) to today (30.01.2021)

Did you ask them what is wrong?
Do they know what to do?
Do they have instructions from Geneva?
Is this the first 3285 they receive back early after purchase?

"Local service center" is a Rolex one?

Will be very interesting if you can do Amplitude/Rate/Beat Errors vs. Time measurements after the service.
Please share the data here.
Cheers

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I have a 2018 BLRO and have noticed this problem. I have taken it to the local service center twice to be regulated. This is about 3-6 months ago.

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I took mine into the local service center this morning. They put it on their machine and told me it needs a “complete service”. So now I have a 35 day wait. Let’s hope they incorporate all the latest upgrades/oiling.

Third servicing .2018 Rolex

The oil isnt the problem.

Hope its gets fixed for good !

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Third servicing .2018 Rolex

The oil isnt the problem.

Hope its gets fixed for good !

Thanks, well observed, I missed that….

A question of terminology?
The first two interventions were regulations
The third one is a full service, which is different for me because they will completely dismantle the caliber, which is not done if you only regulate.

But Michael N Q8 should know better.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks, well observed, I missed that….
A question of terminology?

The first two intervention were regulations
The third is a full service, which is different for me because they completely dismantle the caliber, which is not done if you only regulate.

Well,its the third visit because its not running superlatively .
Also,consider the lack of joy for the owner going to and fro to the service centre and the waiting periods' inconveniences .
..AND this on one of the most sought after Rolex references .

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Well,its the third visit because its not running superlatively .
Also,consider the lack of joy for the owner going to and fro to the service centre and the waiting periods' inconveniences .
..AND this on one of the most sought after Rolex references .

I fully agree with you.
Have the same "of the most sought after Rolex references" which is unworn but already a bit sick (see graph in post #317)

[lennywilkins]

So there are allegedly 83 people on the forum who both own, and understand how a timing machine works? Remarkable.

[Michael N Q8]

I asked the customer service guy what was wrong but he didn’t expand. He did mumble something about new movements but no indication that this was a common problem.

This is the official service centre for kuwait.

As noted before, I have had it regulated twice before and now this is the first time that it’s clear that there is a problem.

I got the following receipt from them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I took mine into the local service center this morning. They put it on their machine and told me it needs a “complete service”. So now I have a 35 day wait. Let’s hope they incorporate all the latest upgrades/oiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I asked the customer service guy what was wrong but he didn’t expand. He did mumble something about new movements but no indication that this was a common problem.

This is the official service centre for kuwait.

As noted before, I have had it regulated twice before and now this is the first time that it’s clear that there is a problem.

I got the following receipt from them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's crazy. Third time's a charm, they say.

Thanks for sharing your experience and good luck.

[mike_right]

Hi. I have a 126610Lv since two weeks ago.

+5 or +6sg delay every 24h (dial up inside the box).

If I am wearing the watch the performance is much better -1sg in 12 hours.

Any suggestions?
Should I bring it back to Rolex?

Thanks!!

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by mike_right

Hi. I have a 126610Lv since two weeks ago.

+5 or +6sg delay every 24h (dial up inside the box).

If I am wearing the watch the performance is much better -1sg in 12 hours.

Any suggestions?
Should I bring it back to Rolex?

Thanks!!

Leave it dial up overnight .

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for your reply. I am not sure that I understand your message correctly.

The misunderstanding of the -2/+2 sec/day saga created (and still creates) wrong expectations for the 3200 series calibers, see my post # 360.

Many posts show that authors could not appreciate yet the difference between accuracy and precision, but Rolex knows for sure.

Claiming (in post # 382) that "-6 s/d is "WAY out of spec, 3 times slower than it's supposed to be", just demonstrates that the -2/+2 sec/day precision (numbers published by Rolex) is taken for accuracy and that there is little to no knowledge about data analysis and statistics.

Agreed, that's exactly my point in reference to the 3 times slower post. As an engineer myself I see a lot of misinterpreted specs.

Misunderstanding of the Rolex +\- 2 is abound here.

[mike_right]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Leave it dial up overnight .

???

Sorry I don’t get it what you mean.
I am getting measures wearing the watch, leaving it overnight and even leaving it two days in the box.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by mike_right

???

Sorry I don’t get it what you mean.
I am getting measures wearing the watch, leaving it overnight and even leaving it two days in the box.

Sorry,my mistake ,thought you left it crown up .Misread

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Agreed, that's exactly my point in reference to the 3 times slower post. As an engineer myself I see a lot of misinterpreted specs.

Misunderstanding of the Rolex +\- 2 is abound here.

Let me see if I can state it as simply as possible. The +/- 2 spd spec relates to (average) precision. Thus if you had a watch which lost between 59 and 61 seconds a day, every single day for a year, it would actually have near perfect precision (+/- 1 spd) and be completely within the Rolex target standard, though the owner would likely be upset with the performance. The expectation is that because the precision is so good, a simple regulation can now achieve the accuracy (actual deviation from an atomic clock over time). But if precision is lacking, the accuracy will be much more of a crap shoot and likely needs to employ compensators (setting the watch in position X overnight to undo the deviation during the day, etc). Am I missing anything on that?

On the topic, I found this article quite interesting as it highlights some of the measures that manufacturers take to improve precision. They even mention how Rolex machines its springs (in batches of 3 to 4 million) from a single block of alloy to guarantee that they all have the same physical properties which allows for consistency in the adjustment process. This further confirms to me what some of us have been saying, that Rolex does take the precision aspect of time keeping seriously, and are not simply attempting to produce trendy jewelry.

https://watchesbysjx.com/2020/10/pre...materials.html

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Let me see if I can state it as simply as possible. The +/- 2 spd spec relates to (average) precision. Thus if you had a watch which lost between 59 and 61 seconds a day, every single day for a year, it would actually have near perfect precision (+/- 1 spd) and be completely within the Rolex target standard, though the owner would likely be upset with the performance. The expectation is that because the precision is so good, a simple regulation can now achieve the accuracy (actual deviation from an atomic clock over time). But if precision is lacking, the accuracy will be much more of a crap shoot and likely needs to employ compensators (setting the watch in position X overnight to undo the deviation during the day, etc). Am I missing anything on that?

On the topic, I found this article quite interesting as it highlights some of the measures that manufacturers take to improve precision. They even mention how Rolex machines its springs (in batches of 3 to 4 million) from a single block of alloy to guarantee that they all have the same physical properties which allows for consistency in the adjustment process. This further confirms to me what some of us have been saying, that Rolex does take the precision aspect of time keeping seriously, and are not simply attempting to produce trendy jewelry.

https://watchesbysjx.com/2020/10/pre...materials.html

That's correct

Precision is all arrows going through the same hole. Accuracy is all arrows going through the bullseye.

Many members seem to expect all 6 positions to be inside the 2 seconds box.

2, 4, -6, 4, 5, 3 is actually in spec to give an example

As is: -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, +3

In the case of my 114060 the latter was close and it was rather annoying and could be adjusted for wearing habits gratis at the AD.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

… The +/- 2 spd spec relates to (average) precision. Thus if you had a watch which lost between 59 and 61 seconds a day, every single day for a year, it would actually have near perfect precision (+/- 1 spd) and be completely within the Rolex target standard … The expectation is that because the precision is so good, a simple regulation can now achieve the accuracy (actual deviation from an atomic clock over time). But if precision is lacking, the accuracy will be much more of a crap shoot and likely needs to employ compensators (setting the watch in position X overnight to undo the deviation during the day, etc).

I am afraid this description is incorrect because of a wrong understanding of precision.
Accuracy refers to how close measurements are to the "true" value.
Precision refers to how close measurements are to each other.

Originally Posted by EEpro

Many members seem to expect all 6 positions to be inside the 2 seconds box.
2, 4, -6, 4, 5, 3 is actually in spec to give an example
As is: -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, +3

Yes, you are right, not each position needs to be in the range -2/+2 sec/day.
That is already a big misunderstanding.

Your listed number (or rate) sequence:
I understand your calculations, but both examples are incorrect.
The 12U position rate must not be taken into account; it is also not used by Rolex.
Instead, one has to add all rates of positions DU, 6U, 9U, 3U, DD, and then divide by 5.

The topic Accuracy and Precision merits another thread.
Please, let's not get lost in this data thread!

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I am afraid this description is incorrect because of a wrong understanding of precision.
Accuracy refers to how close measurements are to the "true" value.
Precision refers to how close measurements are to each other.


Yes, you are right, not each position needs to be in the range -2/+2 sec/day.
That is already a big misunderstanding.

Your listed number (or rate) sequence:
I understand your calculations, but both examples are incorrect.
The 12U position rate must not be taken into account; it is also not used by Rolex.
Instead, one has to add all rates of positions DU, 6U, 9U, 3U, DD, and then divide by 5.

The topic Accuracy and Precision merits another thread.
Please, let's not get lost in this data thread!

Oops, should have used a 5 number example that averaged to 2.

I'm not sure Hi Boost said anything wrong RE precision. He understands that precision is repeatability and accuracy is centering that precision at zero.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Oops, should have used a 5 number example that averaged to 2.

I'm not sure Hi Boost said anything wrong RE precision. He understands that precision is repeatability and accuracy is centering that precision at zero.

The +/- 2 spd spec relates to (average) precision.
I may have misunderstood this sentence, sorry no bad intention!

Let me explain it as follows:
If you perform many measurements (n= 50, 100, 200,...) in the same watch position, with the same instrument, under identical conditions, then one will find a distribution of measurement data (e.g. Gaussian), one calculates the average vale of these data (n = 50, 100, 200,...), which is the accuracy. The standard deviation of this distribution (1 sigma value) is the precision.

Hence your watch can be quite inaccurate but very precise, and all other possible combinations.

In all Rolex documents I know, they specify the precision and never the accuracy.

This misunderstanding results in the -2/+2 sec/day saga.

Rolex movement specifications are in this sense misleading for the "normal" buyer.
This creates a lot of frustration and leads to many threads here.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The +/- 2 spd spec relates to (average) precision.Rolex movement specifications are in this sense misleading for the "normal" buyer.
This creates a lot of frustration and leads to many threads here.

Quite right.
But Rolex represents it as simply as possible for marketing purposes in order to strike a chord with the average person.
Consumer education is handled here and on forums like this. Rolex won't touch anything else other than marketing.

[saxo3]

For clarification (accuracy, precision)

The description and example in post #407 (HiBoost) is correct and uses a simple example. Therefore, it is rather easy to understand.

My description in post #411 (saxo3) is scientifically correct and more global. Therefore, it is eventually not so easy to understand due to the used terminology such as Gaussian distribution, standard deviation, sigma value.

I hope that does not leave any confusion.

Let’s continue with the collection of measurement data and caliber comparisons.


PS: Anybody still interested to continue?
I will start with a comparison between 3130, 3187, 3235, 3285 calibers

[saxo3]

Amplitudes vs. Time comparison for 3130, 3187, 3235, 3285 calibers

Today I have finished amplitude measurements with my 2017 Explorer II Ref. 216570 (caliber 3187) in dial up position.

After one full wind, I could take data until 47:40 hours, at which the amplitude was 111 degrees and the rate -2 sec/day (starting from 308 degrees and + 3 sec/day).

The Explorer stopped running after 48:10 hours, hitting exactly the power reserve of "approximately 48 hours" (Rolex Specifications for Ref. 216570)

My data are displayed below, together with other results presented in this thread.



The graph above summarizes data delivered (until now) in this thread.
The time dependence of amplitudes for 3130, 3187, 3235, 3285 calibers is compared.
Each measurement after one full caliber winding and in DU (dial up) position.

References:
Andad: Submariner 14060 M
saxo3: Exlorer II 216570
saxo3: Sea-Dweller 126600
Smobews: Sea-Dweller 126600
Michael N Q8: GMT-Master II 126710

The curves for the Submariner 14060 M and the Explorer II are remarkably close.

[TswaneNguni]

In the above tests on the 31xx and 32xxs ,what was the time data s/day at 24h and 48h ? (static dial up position )

What did the wearers find on s/day on average when wearing the watches ? At 24h .(daily wear)

Now its not only the health of the movement (amplitudes) ,but how well it is regulated as well .

[Andad]

Hi Neef,

My 3130 was 0 secs/day at 24 hrs and 36 hours.

My DJ 41 was pretty well spot on at 60 hours dial up.

Other positions but dial up on the 41 after 50 hours were all over the place.

I expect Saxo will add my DJ41 results to the graph.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Andad

Hi Neef,

My 3130 was 0 secs/day at 24 hrs and 36 hours.

Now that is superlative !!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Andad

I expect Saxo will add my DJ41 results to the graph.

Ooooh!

Searching for data, I scanned through the entire thread, and also printed your pdf :-)

I focused on the 3187 vs. 3130 comparison and simply overlooked to integrate your DJ 41 data (4 points @ 0, 24, 48, 67 hrs) into the plot.

If you (and others) acknowledge and wish such graphs .... then I can continue.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Ooooh!

Searching for data, I scanned through the entire thread, and also printed your pdf :-)

I focused on the 3187 vs. 3130 comparison and simply overlooked to integrate your DJ 41 data (4 points @ 0, 24, 48, 67 hrs) into the plot.

If you (and others) acknowledge and wish such graphs .... then I can continue.

Please continue ,very interesting !

[saxo3]

Plot updated

Added data: Datejust Ref. 126300 (caliber 3235)
Reference: Andad
Comment: all dotted lines are only a guide to the eye.