32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

The next time I visit my AD I‘ll ask them to throw my new Air-King on their timegrapher.
Good idea.

Does low amplitude always presage poor timekeeping?
No.

What‘s the explanation for a watch keeping good time yet having low amplitude?

The explanation is called Isochronism, which is the property of an oscillating system, for example a pendulum or a mechanical watch, to perform either small or large oscillations always in the same period, independent of the amplitude. This property guarantees a constant rate and therefore the accuracy of a watch.

https://timetransformed.com/2016/10/22/isochronism/

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

Does low amplitude always presage poor timekeeping?

I would argue yes. But let me explain. If we say normal horizontal amplitude is 270 and 250 is low, then will 250 always produce poor timekeeping? No. I've proven that. Nor will 230. Or even 210. BUT, what I would suggest is that once your movement reads low, it will continue to trend even lower. We have no evidence of a watch persisting at a given low amplitude indefinitely. Whatever problem caused 250 instead of 270 seems likely over time to produce 230 and so on...

The 32xx seems remarkably able to maintain good timekeeping with low amplitude, but at some point it simply cannot. I've seen in my data that the results become more erratic as the amplitude drops. The average timekeeping may still be ok, but it's jumping around like -6, +2, -13, +5, one sample after another. At higher amplitudes the timing is locked in and very solid.

[WatchSmith]

This was a power reserve test I did a year ago on a genuine Rolex 3230 movement. The last photo was made at 63 hours and the movement finally ran out @ 71.5 hours. Very impressive timekeeping all the way to the end.

I have since converted the movement to a 3235 and it still runs similarly.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Triplock

This was a power reserve test I did a year ago

I am just wondering about the Lift angle being set to 54 degrees.

Should it not have been set to 53 degrees which would give different results.

[WatchSmith]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

I am just wondering about the Lift angle being set to 54 degrees.

Should it not have been set to 53 degrees which would give different results.

There was some confusion about lift angle awhile back and I believe 53° is correct. My test would indicate a slightly lower amplitude had I set it to 53° but it would be pretty slight.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Yes, I did a DJ36 with 3235 from June this year just last week. But the problem is that we don't know exactly when that watch was produced, we can only see when the warranty card was activated.

But the other 4 I did were all close to 5 years old, 3 DJ41 and a SD43.


Worst thing is that not all have the wear on the pivot, many don't even show signs of internal wear & tear yet won't reach 180 degrees of amplitude fully wound... I wish I could pinpoint the issue, but I'm stumped, it just doesn't make sense why they run so badly and some are not affected at all.

Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Triplock

I have since converted the movement to a 3235 and it still runs similarly.

Do you mean that you have changed your watch or that you have converted your 3230 movement into a 3235 ?

If you have converted it what have you done for parts, a dial and so on ?

What oils did you use as they may differ especially for the purposes of non-migration etc. ?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

I don't think this is necessarily stupid, but in my theory it potentially plays a part in concert with a number of factors.

I have found that in cases like this, it's often a combination of factors that have knock on effects and compound to create a bad outcome.
Each factor in of itself may not necessarily be problematic and viewed as inconsequential in isolation but when working in unison cause problems.

Magnetism is a fairly remote possibility all things considered unless there is historical evidence to suggest that near on 25% of watches that present with a problem are magnetised to some degree
In all my years, I have only ever magnetised one watch and that was from moving rather large loud speakers when doing a spring clean.
The watch was freshly serviced 2 weeks prior and running to perfection. After that day of spring cleaning it was off the scale running fast but RSC de-magged it FOC and confirmed it was magnetised. Afterward, it was back to being perfect

[WatchSmith]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Do you mean that you have changed your watch or that you have converted your 3230 movement into a 3235 ?

If you have converted it what have you done for parts, a dial and so on ?

What oils did you use as they may differ especially for the purposes of non-migration etc. ?

I converted the 3230 to 3235 using new genuine Rolex parts. I also used a genuine dial, bezel, crown, etc. It was properly lubricated per Rolex service manual.

The train bridge still says 3230 though. I'll change that at some point.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Triplock

There was some confusion about lift angle awhile back and I believe 53° is correct. My test would indicate a slightly lower amplitude had I set it to 53° but it would be pretty slight.

This

Typically one would be simply looking for amplitiudes down in the danger zone for this movement.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I don't think this is necessarily stupid, but in my theory it potentially plays a part in concert with a number of factors.

I have found that in cases like this, it's often a combination of factors that have knock on effects and compound to create a bad outcome.
Each factor in of itself may not necessarily be problematic and viewed as inconsequential in isolation but when working in unison cause problems.

Magnetism is a fairly remote possibility all things considered unless there is historical evidence to suggest that near on 25% of watches that present with a problem are magnetised to some degree
In all my years, I have only ever magnetised one watch and that was from moving rather large loud speakers when doing a spring clean.
The watch was freshly serviced 2 weeks prior and running to perfection. After that day of spring cleaning it was off the scale running fast but RSC de-magged it FOC and confirmed it was magnetised. Afterward, it was back to being perfect

Well, I'd even go so far as to say that if the hand weight had an impact, it could even be that the worn seconds pivot is independent of "the" problem. Would be interesting to know the breakdown of watches with worn pivots vs those without them in terms of model/size.

Regarding magnetism... my thinking had been that if only minor components were magnetized, the effect wouldn't be noticed day to day (what the watchmaker told me was that this can produce minor slowing). Therefore, it may never be discovered, and it will not be fixed, or at least not for a while. The thing with magnetism and older watches is that the effects are profound, immediately noticeable, and have few if any differential diagnoses.

And, if Rolex never did extensive magnetism testing during R&D, then this is one potential condition that wouldn't have been replicated in the lab.

[sski]

any resolution or fix in sight at all...? <fingers crossed for a good outcome>

[ExplorerI]

Does this affect the gmts as well?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by ExplorerI

Does this affect the gmts as well?

Yes, GMT's with 3285.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Well, I'd even go so far as to say that if the hand weight had an impact, it could even be that the worn seconds pivot is independent of "the" problem. Would be interesting to know the breakdown of watches with worn pivots vs those without them in terms of model/size.

Regarding magnetism... my thinking had been that if only minor components were magnetized, the effect wouldn't be noticed day to day (what the watchmaker told me was that this can produce minor slowing). Therefore, it may never be discovered, and it will not be fixed, or at least not for a while. The thing with magnetism and older watches is that the effects are profound, immediately noticeable, and have few if any differential diagnoses.

And, if Rolex never did extensive magnetism testing during R&D, then this is one potential condition that wouldn't have been replicated in the lab.

Hand weight is something that hasn't been full explored.
If one rests their watch on it's side and allows it to run down to a stop. The seconds hand almost always stops at the peak leverage on the upward swing of the rotation with a central seconds arrangement of a 3 hander.
I usually rest my watches on the 9 o'clock side when on thier side and it will come to a stop within about 5 seconds either side of 12 o'clock.
I simply take this as a demonstration of the fine nature of the physics involved also a broader appreciation.
I understand that a mechanical watch movement has more torque available to run the hands when compared with a quartz movement which is often factored into the design parameters of a watch, so weight of the hands are indeed an important factor as is the design of the hands when it comes to leverage.

[CedCraig]

Is it technically possible to have a 31xx movement put into a 2022 Air-King?

If so, if my new Air-King develops „the plague“ can the RSC hot swap in a 31xx movement?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Ok, I was reminded of two things I meant to ask back when you made this post (you know, a whole week ago...). I'd had two hypotheses about contributing factors during your absence, I was told both were stupid, and while I'm willing to believe that, nobody could explain to me why in terms I understood... Was hoping to ask you:

1. Magnetism. Had a watchmaker (Rolex AD/plaque service center) tell me that minor components of modern Rolex movements are still subject to magnetism, but that it could result in a slight slowdown (rather than the dramatic speed increase of older movements). This made me wonder if magnetized small components were creating unanticipated friction in areas with very tight tolerances for such and leading to issues? Essentially, something getting pulled ever so slightly out of alignment (where perhaps a greater tolerance existed on older movements)?

2. Same caliber, different hand lengths/weights. Historically, I don't recall Rolex using the exact same caliber on watches with such large dial diameter differences (and therefore hand lengths, and therefore hand weights). I know that it was always versions of the same calibers, but assumed that each variant was calibrated specifically to the amount of force needed to move the hands. If calibration is the same for all 32xx, but the lengths/weights of the hands aren't, I'd wondered if this could at least have something to do with the worn pivots?

Again, probably stupid, but never quite understood why...

No stupid questions at all.

A movement contains a lot of steel parts that can be magnetised. When you don't demagnetise the movement before disassembly you'll often find that screws and springs will cling to the steek tweezers, larger objects like gears (of which the pivots and pinions are steel) are too heavy and are never magnetised strongly enough to stick.

The biggest problem will always be the hairspring and these parachrom hairsprings just cannot be magnetised, so the effect of magnetism from daily life is negligible.

As for the second question, these forces are negligible too.

[SearChart]

Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.

Love this insight Bas. Gotta read more on it now

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.

Yes.
I note you have mentioned this aspect of current material standards and processes before which has stuck in my mind.
If I recall correctly you also mentioned that all manufacturers are adopting this manufacturing principal.
Who knows, we may have hit the nail right on the head with this and if so, then the fix is simple enough.
It only takes the will of the mothership to put it right.
Perhaps this is what the new facility they are building will be dedicated to?
And then they could claim superiority over the competition by applying a proprietary name to it and by extention charge more.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...

You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.
I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.
Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.

Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.

Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.
Just food for thought.

Also seems like more parts/modules are intended to be disposable these days. Isn't the whole mainspring barrel meant to just be replaced at service? Perhaps the 32xx issue is less a design flaw, but rather accelerated wearing out of components never meant to last a lifetime... Also sounds like some parts are utilizing other materials, like ceramic (the clicks you mentioned earlier).

I hear some, like Tissot, even intend for their automatic movements to be disposable. Was talking watches with a salesman in a watch shop who was wearing a PRX. Complimented him on it and he started talking about the tech behind developing it, how many parts were now plastic, and how at service the whole thing would be thrown out and replaced with a new one.

This is one reason I long for the five-digit (and earlier) days. Back then, scale was achieved with modular exterior/visible components. Thinking back, all Professional models (save for the small YMs and Daytonas) shared a virtually identical mid case with one another, or in the case of the Explorer, with the DJ. All 36/40mm pieces used same size dial/hands. Bracelets were also shared, with only clasps differing (which in turn were shared across other models).

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Over the years (and this can be verified by other watchmakers throughout the industry) watch brands have made production processes more efficient and ultimately cheaped out on some things as cost cutting measures. This is also why TVs and washing machines don't last 25 years anymore...



You'll find that movements from the early to mid 20th century have used burnished steel for pivots, making them incredibly hardened and resistant to wear and tear.

I've serviced old 15×× movements that were worn 30+ years since the last service and none of the gear train pivots or even the rotor axle had a mark on it, after running dry. Do that with a newer 3135 and you'll have a rotor grinding your bridges down within a year.

Even early 31 series movements had stronger steel than you find nowadays.



Old school burnishing is a time consuming method and cannot be done efficiently in mass production, so it's done faster with a different method called electrolytic burnishing, which is just not as good.



Rolex could have used a different steel alloy and burnishing technique for the production of 32×× parts. Making parts that were already susceptible to wear even weaker.

Just food for thought.

Great food, indeed. This makes me wonder... could a modern 31xx or 32xx be handed to an independent, highly skilled watchmaker and that person perform the old school burnishing? The goal being to provide "old school longevity" to the new generation parts. Or would that process change tolerances and cause other issues?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Great food, indeed. This makes me wonder... could a modern 31xx or 32xx be handed to an independent, highly skilled watchmaker and that person perform the old school burnishing? The goal being to provide "old school longevity" to the new generation parts. Or would that process change tolerances and cause other issues?

With burnishing, isn’t there some loss of metal? Seems unlikely that you could do it without changing tolerances. Also, if other major components are intended to be replaced at service, what’s the point?

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Also seems like more parts/modules are intended to be disposable these days. Isn't the whole mainspring barrel meant to just be replaced at service? Perhaps the 32xx issue is less a design flaw, but rather accelerated wearing out of components never meant to last a lifetime... Also sounds like some parts are utilizing other materials, like ceramic (the clicks you mentioned earlier).

Porsche did that at the end of the ‘90s with the 996, and it led to major engine issues and a build quality not up to par vs. earlier 911s. Man, I don’t miss that creaky interior.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

With burnishing, isn’t there some loss of metal? Seems unlikely that you could do it without changing tolerances. Also, if other major components are intended to be replaced at service, what’s the point?

Burnishing is more of a surface treatment. If done properly it should reshape the surface, not remove it. You can burnish anything from leather to wood to metal. It's different from a process which removes material via abrasives.

What's the point? Having parts that last much longer. I thought Searchart gave a pretty compelling account of how much longer life you get out of properly burnished parts. It seems like a potential mod would be to have a watchmaker procure new factory parts (presuming yours have already trashed themselves), then process them in a way to extend their service life. Heat or cryo treatments could be explored as well, just as we do with tools and engine/trans parts. In my view, in a world where Rolex no longer knows how to make long-term reliable movements, we have to get creative.

[CedCraig]

Any brands in the $5k to $15k range that have quality like in the good ‚ol days? JLC, GO, Habring2, Moser?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Burnishing is more of a surface treatment. If done properly it should reshape the surface, not remove it. You can burnish anything from leather to wood to metal. It's different from a process which removes material via abrasives.

What's the point? Having parts that last much longer. I thought Searchart gave a pretty compelling account of how much longer life you get out of properly burnished parts. It seems like a potential mod would be to have a watchmaker procure new factory parts (presuming yours have already trashed themselves), then process them in a way to extend their service life. Heat or cryo treatments could be explored as well, just as we do with tools and engine/trans parts. In my view, in a world where Rolex no longer knows how to make long-term reliable movements, we have to get creative.

I totally get that. What seems pointless to me is bothering to do that, but still having to replace the whole mainspring barrel at service. If Whole movement could then go 30 years in between, I’d be all about it.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

Any brands in the $5k to $15k range that have quality like in the good ‚ol days? JLC, GO, Habring2, Moser?

Maybe Grand Seiko?
I believe they make everything in-house and I assume the Japanese have always been masters of metalurgy, so why not manufacture to true standards of excellence

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I totally get that. What seems pointless to me is bothering to do that, but still having to replace the whole mainspring barrel at service. If Whole movement could then go 30 years in between, I’d be all about it.

Thus far I don't recall hearing of any bad mainsprings in 32xx movements. True, it does not appear to be a serviceable part. But unless the springs prove to be regularly fatiguing to the point of breakage, I think this part of the movement stands to endure far longer than the train. If a new spring will deliver 70 hours of power reserve for 8-10 years, even if it degrades somewhat perhaps it will do 50-60 hours for the next 10? Power reserve, provided it is >= 40 hours, doesn't really matter to me. I just want a watch that is consistent in its timekeeping while it is being worn or wound.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Thus far I don't recall hearing of any bad mainsprings in 32xx movements. True, it does not appear to be a serviceable part. But unless the springs prove to be regularly fatiguing to the point of breakage, I think this part of the movement stands to endure far longer than the train. If a new spring will deliver 70 hours of power reserve for 8-10 years, even if it degrades somewhat perhaps it will do 50-60 hours for the next 10? Power reserve, provided it is >= 40 hours, doesn't really matter to me. I just want a watch that is consistent in its timekeeping while it is being worn or wound.

Ok, I’ll concede that; good point. However I’d still be wary of the fact that this only works if there isn’t some other weak link that’ll still necessitate more frequent service.

Once again, though, I miss the days when Omega didn’t set the standard for “attributes to beat on paper” and Rolex found itself playing catch-up. Used to be that “standards to beat” were discovered in the real world.