What is the lift angle for the Rolex 3235 movement?

[saxo3]

That's what I said: the lift angle discussion approaches a 'dead end' since it is also not so important.

Any 32xx movement, which has low amplitudes after full caliber winding and/or looses quickly in amplitude, does that independant of 55 or 53 lift angles. So I don't really care any longer and use 53.

I have shown that in many plots based on a bunch of data taken with my own watches. A wrong lift angle is only an offset for such curves.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by 77T

Have you considered that the lift angle answer can be settled another way? That is via an exercise conducted by a watchmaker (perhaps one here). One that uses 2 known values to find the lift angle. Simple but requires a donor.

I’m proposing this:
1. One can open a model with the 3235 movement that is out of warranty. (Why, you may ask?...because you want a movement that has stabilized in its routine operation plus not wanting to void a warranty)
2. Allow movement to run down.
3. Mark one balance arm with ink dot
4. Turn stem to gradually add mainspring power gently until balance is rotating at 180°
5. Observe to insure 180° is steady
6. Put movement on timing machine (like Witschi with adjustments).
7. Adjust lift angle setting until Witschi reads 180° (give or take 1°)
8. You now know if lift angle is 55° or 53° or some other answer.

I have read the other thread and the amplitude data is still anecdotal because some movements are being measured using 55° setting and others 53°. Also, each observer can randomly have affected their movement by lack of use or inadvertent abuse. Ergo, the “observer effect”.

None of my input is meant to criticize anyone contributing, nor those analyzing. It’s just not systematic as you mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks for the 8 steps you proposed, it's exactly what a watchmaker should do!

In fact there are even youtube tutorials how to measure lift angles as you describe.

Indeed I considered myself to try this with one of my watches but did not proceed because I don't want to open the caseback.

I appreciate all constructive feedbacks as yours.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Can you share anything else of interest from that documentation? Perhaps any specs on amplitude minimums at various levels of PR? Is this coming from a full technical service manual? I see these for sale on eBay for the 31xx but never the 32xx. How does one go about getting these documents "officially"?

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Yes this is from a full technical service manual. The modern manuals are online, some are PDF and some are baked in to the site so they cannot be lifted. There is no way to obtain access to these 'officially' outside of working for Rolex or having been accredited by them.

Amplitude minimum is 200° after 24h in vertical positions
Amplitude maximum is 310° at 0h (full wind) in horizontal positions

Hope that's useful

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by Liga

Explain why the lift angel was originally 55 and now it's 53.
What changed?

Short answer is, Rolex have not issued an explanation.

Longer answer is, all brands make mistakes in product development. A lift angle of 55° vs 53° is not a substantial difference so an error like that could have gone unchecked for a few years. Rolex, like all companies, are not infallible.

It's conceivable that this was as simple as an error by the person who typed the original document.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Again, this is just my opinion but I do not believe there has been an escapement design change. The reason I say this is because we have now had 2 watchmakers indicate that they have seen 53 degrees listed in the updated documentation. But let's think about it, if it was a matter of version 1 versus version 2, they wouldn't have changed the documentation from 55 to 53, instead they would have amended it to say something like:

Production dates Jan 2015 - Aug 2019: 55 degrees
Production dates Sept 2019 and later: 53 degrees

NOTE THE ABOVE IS JUST A MADE UP EXAMPLE!!

Furthermore, if there are actually two versions in the field now, then having the docs say only "53" is just as wrong as it was before when it said only "55". This is why I believe there is only 1 design, and this was a calculation update not a part charge.

I concur. There's no indication of an escapement update, just a blanket lift angle correction for the 32xx

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

Hope that's useful

Very useful, thank you Scott. Since Bas was abducted by aliens your contributions represent a much appreciated serving of facts in the midst of our buffet of conjecture :)

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Very useful, thank you Scott. Since Bas was abducted by aliens your contributions represent a much appreciated serving of facts in the midst of our buffet of conjecture :)

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

Amplitude minimum is 200° after 24h in vertical positions
Amplitude maximum is 310° at 0h (full wind) in horizontal positions

Thanks, known.
D = 9?

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks, known.
D = 9?

Correct

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks, known.
D = 9?

Yes, but keep in mind that the Delta is taken as a total maximum difference, meaning that you need the data of 0hrs and after 24hrs, and then see what the Delta is.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Only speculations and guesses, also impossible to trace back the caliber evolution, different versions 1,2,3...?

The difference in measured amplitudes is 12 degrees, see post #8.

It would be interesting to find and analyze two watches, with either 3235 or 3285 movements, built in different years, then measure different (55,53) lift angles, followed by a comparison of the individual movement components.

To measure lift angles one needs to open the caseback and use an optical device (WisioScope).

But who wants and is able to do this here where many not even believe in 32xx issues and also doubt again and again the usefulness and validity of timegrapher in general. Hopeless.

As far as I know there are no differences in 3230, 3235, 3255, 3285 escapement / gear train except for seconds pivot, cannon pinion and hour wheel length.

So the 53° is for all 32×× movements.

If any changes were made to the escapement we would have a different part number for the escape wheel and pallet fork.
Then a pallet fork would change from 3230-421 to 3230-421-1. They always add a '-1' to an existing part number when it gets updated, then the 'old' part will no longer be available in sav.myrolexnetwork.com.

[noellly]

It could be that rolex changed the lift angle in document just to see that watchmakers make it run above 200 amp after 24h with the disadvantage of -12 amp.
= work harder to raise amp

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by noellly

It could be that rolex changed the lift angle in document just to see that watchmakers make it run above 200 amp after 24h with the disadvantage of -12 amp.
= work harder to raise amp

Very very unlikely