32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Thanks for going back to the data as it supports that the mainspring does not degrade over time, but what if the mainspring is manufactured too weak from the outset to overcome greater friction from 6+ months of usage (supporting the lubrication theory?)

It seems to me that the mainspring’s tension had to be reduced as to not overpower the downsized Chronergy escapement, as well as improving the power reserve over 31xx movements…

31xx movements with a stronger mainspring and larger balance run for years. Despite the number of new patents introduced in the 32xx movements, there is something (design flaw?) with the mainspring change and the Chronergy escapement that makes the 32xx movement unreliable.

-Sheldon

Keep in mind that the power reserve for the 31xx movement has been increased to about 50 hours since the new assembly has been fitted to the movement at service.
This suggests there's more to it all.
If there are still improvements to be made over and above the original specs for the 31xx movement(which suggests there's still life in the old girl yet).
Then perhaps Rolex can improve what they're doing with the 32xx, but they have their work cut out for them.

Who knows, perhaps the new 31xx Mainspring and barrel assembly has a Mainspring that's made of the same material as the one in the 32xx????
Now that's an example of great product developement