32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[MikeyV]

Yeah, one time to RSC Dallas.

But it went bad again, then got better for 9-10 months, then got sick again.

I do expect this to happen again after sending it back a second time.

[effovex]

Very informative thread.

Is there consensus if the amplitude + accuracy issue is a question of “If” vs “When”?

In other words, say if 100 32XX Rolex watches leave the factory, will all 100 exhibit this issue at various points in their life?

Or, out of the 100, “x%” are going to have the issue within a few years while the others will be perfectly fine. If your watch does not have the issue manifest within a few years, is it “in the clear”?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

Here‘s a good summary of the fundamental design flaw with the 32xx movements, paraphrased from one of the responses to the photo essay thread. The problem is not a lack of lubrication. The issue is there should not be a friction on the dial side seconds wheel pivot. The temporary fix consists in replacing the part and lubricating to mitigate the friction, but this is a temporary fix, a paliative, it delays the reocurence of the drag, but eventually it manifests itself again after a year or so, having to pay another visit to the RSC. Rolex need to redesign the part or other elements of the movement to fix the problem once for all.

Recall from that thread that it‘s not one watchmaker saying this, it‘s multiple watchmakers.

As to the size of the problem, I think it‘s far larger than the naysayers here claim. A majority of Rolex buyers aren‘t WIS with timegraphers who post on forums, but people who don‘t know a balance spring from a mainspring, they just want a quality, prestigious watch. And lots of newer Rolex buyers stick their watches in the safe and wait for the investment to pay off. Most of these people will never notice the low amplitude problem.

My plan is to see if my 2022 Air-King develops the problem within the warranty period. If so, I‘ll get it fixed and sell it and enjoy my other watches that don‘t have design defects. If the problem doesn‘t develop in 5 years, I‘ll consider myself lucky.

This is just a very bad situation all round.
We've never seen this before with previous Rolex calibres.
Teething problems yes, which were inconsequential in the grand scheme of things but this whole 32xx business is in another league entirely.
Especially this many years down the track.
Very bad form from a brand that had a great reputation for ruggedness and reliability which was built up over many decades. Now these 32xx movements can turn to sh"te all by themselves.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

This is just a very bad situation all round.
We've never seen this before with previous Rolex calibres.
Teething problems yes, which were inconsequential in the grand scheme of things but this whole 32xx business is in another league entirely.
Especially this many years down the track.
Very bad form from a brand that had a great reputation for ruggedness and reliability which was built up over many decades. Now these 32xx movements can turn to sh"te all by themselves.

I agree completely, but want to point out one thing, which I have in the past, too: I think that this problem took longer to recognize than previous ones because:

1. It takes a while to present at all (low amplitude, some erratic timekeeping).

2. Even when it does present, many don't notice it for a long, long time if not obsessively tracking with timegrapher/app.

3. Watches frequently rotated (i.e. allowed to stop and require re-winding) will take even longer since cumulative inaccuracy will rarely reach noticeable levels.

4. Far more safe queens these days; I'd imagine that there are BLROs for example nearing the end of their warranty that are just now being worn for the first time.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

How can that be explained by second wheel pivot wear? I'm not saying anyone is wrong - I know who said this first - and I believe.



I just can't fathom how it could get better after it got worse if it's a wear/friction issue. Oil Migration?

Looking at those pics of the wear, it's possible a burr could develop and provide more friction, then break off or smooth out, then develop another, etc. That's just speculation of course, but certainly possible for the friction to vary over time between two rubbing parts, especially if the lubrication is changing.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I agree completely, but want to point out one thing, which I have in the past, too: I think that this problem took longer to recognize than previous ones because:

1. It takes a while to present at all (low amplitude, some erratic timekeeping).

2. Even when it does present, many don't notice it for a long, long time if not obsessively tracking with timegrapher/app.

3. Watches frequently rotated (i.e. allowed to stop and require re-winding) will take even longer since cumulative inaccuracy will rarely reach noticeable levels.

4. Far more safe queens these days; I'd imagine that there are BLROs for example nearing the end of their warranty that are just now being worn for the first time.

Well yeah, there are two whole classes of Rolex customers who will rarely notice.

1. Collectors as you mention. Any given watch might only get a few months wear per year. And even many of those here mention they rarely pay attention to timekeeping once set for that particular wear period.
2. Most normal buyers. They buy a Rolex to celebrate something but it probably isn't a first line timekeeping device for them. They just like wearing it.

I'm not sure why after all these years Rolex decided a 48 hour power reserve was no longer enough and had to move to 70 hours. They didn't want to start from the ground up so had to recover some efficiencies elsewhere like in the escapement, which required a pretty serious redesign. Probably else where too although I'm not familiar with the other changes (other than the mainspring and housing)

The Chronergy Escapement is new. No idea if the problem is there but that change certainly seems to have started something. Or maybe whatever modifications were done to increase the overall efficiency of the movement beyond that.

And I am by no means even barely educated on the subject beyond what I can read on the internet. It's just an interesting problem.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

M
How can that be explained by second wheel pivot wear? I'm not saying anyone is wrong - I know who said this first - and I believe.

I just can't fathom how it could get better after it got worse if it's a wear/friction issue. Oil Migration?

More likely the seconds wheel pivot wear is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the loss of timekeeping.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

I'm not sure why after all these years Rolex decided a 48 hour power reserve was no longer enough and had to move to 70 hours.

The same reason 1,200M (or 3,900M, for that matter) was no longer good enough: Omega. Can't resist the temptation for constant oneupmanship there.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

I'm not sure why after all these years Rolex decided a 48 hour power reserve was no longer enough and had to move to 70 hours. They didn't want to start from the ground up so had to recover some efficiencies elsewhere like in the escapement, which required a pretty serious redesign. Probably else where too although I'm not familiar with the other changes (other than the mainspring and housing)

The Chronergy Escapement is new. No idea if the problem is there but that change certainly seems to have started something. Or maybe whatever modifications were done to increase the overall efficiency of the movement beyond that.

I wish we could at least point to some kind of correlation between what this new movement added and the reported problems, but I've never seen a hint of that connection. Basically they made a more efficient ticking mechanism and put a longer mainspring in there and the combo allows the watch to run longer. But the problems being discussed like seconds pivots and date wheel posts wear, what is different or novel in these mechanisms? How are these not tried and true works which are completely ironed out at this point? That's the part I really struggle with.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I wish we could at least point to some kind of correlation between what this new movement added and the reported problems, but I've never seen a hint of that connection. Basically they made a more efficient ticking mechanism and put a longer mainspring in there and the combo allows the watch to run longer. But the problems being discussed like seconds pivots and date wheel posts wear, what is different or novel in these mechanisms? How are these not tried and true works which are completely ironed out at this point? That's the part I really struggle with.

Quite frankly, I'm a little dissapointed at this.
I've given you the clues as to where to look.
It's right in front of you and your close to doing a Mr Spock on it.

A few more hints.
The key words start(in no particular order) with the letters "R"(no, it doesn't represent Rolex), "H" and "V".
I expect someone of your experience to be able to connect the dots from here. Put your thinking cap on

That other dedicated thread i've mentioned previously may be in order and with a bit of luck someone may be in a position to tip poor old Rolex off if we can come to a plausible conclusion through reasoned discussion without predjudice.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

The same reason 1,200M (or 3,900M, for that matter) was no longer good enough: Omega. Can't resist the temptation for constant oneupmanship there.

True.
But where to now?
Is this latest offering from Rolex, the classic knockout bid for the foreseeable future with absolutely nothing left on the table with the only direction left to go being to make these things smaller/more wearable?

That would require some extremely serious material specifications

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

Well yeah, there are two whole classes of Rolex customers who will rarely notice.

1. Collectors as you mention. Any given watch might only get a few months wear per year. And even many of those here mention they rarely pay attention to timekeeping once set for that particular wear period.
2. Most normal buyers. They buy a Rolex to celebrate something but it probably isn't a first line timekeeping device for them. They just like wearing it.

I'm not sure why after all these years Rolex decided a 48 hour power reserve was no longer enough and had to move to 70 hours. They didn't want to start from the ground up so had to recover some efficiencies elsewhere like in the escapement, which required a pretty serious redesign. Probably else where too although I'm not familiar with the other changes (other than the mainspring and housing)

The Chronergy Escapement is new. No idea if the problem is there but that change certainly seems to have started something. Or maybe whatever modifications were done to increase the overall efficiency of the movement beyond that.

And I am by no means even barely educated on the subject beyond what I can read on the internet. It's just an interesting problem.

New escapement designs are nothing out of the ordinary.
Excluding the Springdrive, there must be at least 8 escapement designs out there now with Grand Seiko being very interesting.
The thing is, if there's a problem with the GS one. Nobody outside of the mothership will ever know about it unlike the Omega experience and now Rolex.

Sometimes it doesn't pay to ask for more with this business around longer power reserves than 48 hours.
The improved accuracy and precision are a bonus in anybody's language and genuinely longer service intervals are also welcome.
To my mind, the 31xx movements were pretty much gold standard stuff even with their inherent minor flaw which could've been engineered out with the stroke of a pen.
They were theoretically capable of meeting the requirement for longer service intervals and demonstrably they had dependability and reliability covered and certainly accuracy/precision standards were being met before their discontinuation, all with old tried and true escapement technology.
Longer power reserves are another thing altogether with a number of alternative solutions. The GS approach where they have stacked 2 Mainsprings inside a single barrel is rather interesting

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

I agree completely, but want to point out one thing, which I have in the past, too: I think that this problem took longer to recognize than previous ones because:

1. It takes a while to present at all (low amplitude, some erratic timekeeping).

2. Even when it does present, many don't notice it for a long, long time if not obsessively tracking with timegrapher/app.

3. Watches frequently rotated (i.e. allowed to stop and require re-winding) will take even longer since cumulative inaccuracy will rarely reach noticeable levels.

4. Far more safe queens these days; I'd imagine that there are BLROs for example nearing the end of their warranty that are just now being worn for the first time.

Agreed
100%

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Looking at those pics of the wear, it's possible a burr could develop and provide more friction, then break off or smooth out, then develop another, etc. That's just speculation of course, but certainly possible for the friction to vary over time between two rubbing parts, especially if the lubrication is changing.

We are potentially touching on surface finishing and definately metalurgy here

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

How can that be explained by second wheel pivot wear? I'm not saying anyone is wrong - I know who said this first - and I believe.

I just can't fathom how it could get better after it got worse if it's a wear/friction issue. Oil Migration?

Is it an "Oil Migration" issue or something that looks like it might be migration to the layman?
I'm not suggesting anything here except that it may be symptomatic of another more sinister factor not yet fully explored in these discussions around this.

I believe my long held theory will adequately address this phenomenon.
Somehow we've got to be able to drill down into it some more and fully explore the options and the factors which can potentially come into play

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I believe my long held theory will adequately address this phenomenon.

Dirt, what is your long held "theory"?

Can you please explain it in a short, specific, and comprehensible form?

I remember that you (and your wife) have no 32xx watch and therefore have no practical experience yourself.

"Theory" in quotation marks because I don't see how you can explain the problems theoretically, without own hands-on experience; also without R&D that only Rolex SA can do.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Is it an "Oil Migration" issue or something that looks like it might be migration to the layman?
I'm not suggesting anything here except that it may be symptomatic of another more sinister factor not yet fully explored in these discussions around this.

I believe my long held theory will adequately address this phenomenon.
Somehow we've got to be able to drill down into it some more and fully explore the options and the factors which can potentially come into play

I am interested in your explanation for this phenomenon…..theoretically.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I believe my long held theory will adequately address this phenomenon.

Help please,

Both Saxo3 and I would like to know the basis of your theory so we can benchmark your theory against our proven data.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I wish we could at least point to some kind of correlation between what this new movement added and the reported problems, but I've never seen a hint of that connection. Basically they made a more efficient ticking mechanism and put a longer mainspring in there and the combo allows the watch to run longer. But the problems being discussed like seconds pivots and date wheel posts wear, what is different or novel in these mechanisms? How are these not tried and true works which are completely ironed out at this point? That's the part I really struggle with.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Quite frankly, I'm a little dissapointed at this.
I've given you the clues as to where to look.
It's right in front of you and your close to doing a Mr Spock on it.

A few more hints.
The key words start(in no particular order) with the letters "R"(no, it doesn't represent Rolex), "H" and "V".
I expect someone of your experience to be able to connect the dots from here. Put your thinking cap on

I don't think he was saying that we have no clues/theories as to the cause, just whether there is an obvious relationship between the "improvements" made and the damage observed.

On a side note, I'm curious what those three letters represent, as I don't recall from previous posts. Do those letters indicate parts: H = hairspring? R = Rotor? V = __? Or measurements: R = rate? V = variance? H = ____?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Dirt, what is your long held "theory"?

Can you please explain it in a short, specific, and comprehensible form?

I remember that you (and your wife) have no 32xx watch and therefore have no practical experience yourself.

"Theory" in quotation marks because I don't see how you can explain the problems theoretically, without own hands-on experience; also without R&D that only Rolex SA can do.

+1000

Sorry Dirt, I'm not going to engage if you keep speaking in riddles. I asked you in the other thread to spell out what your hypothesis was and you said I was being a meanie. I don't need to hear how I'm disappointing you, I need to hear something concrete as to what you think the problem is. Then we can hash through it and possibly move the conversation forward.

[nickrb]

Originally Posted by nickrb

Just found this thread.

Last November 2021 I noticed my 126711CHNR was losing > 20 seconds per day. I think the problem built up gradually. Purchased it from local AD in Knoxville in May 2019.

Took it for service to AD, they sent it to Dallas (I believe). Got it back mid March. Now running at COSC.

I do believe I experienced whatever this mystery issue is.

Glad to have my favorite watch back. Hope it doesn't happen again!

It has been about six months after getting my 126711CHNR back from service for this issue. This morning I put it on the timegrapher to take some measurements after a full wind.

Dial Up 0 spd 282 amp (53 degrees) 0.1 ms beat error
3 Up -1 spd 236 amp (53 degrees) 0.1 ms beat error
6 Up 1 spd 245 amp (53 degrees) 0.0 ms beat error
9 Up -1 spd 246 amp (53 degrees) 0.2 ms beat error
12 Up -3 spd 247 amp (53 degrees) 0.0 ms beat error
Dial Down 0 spd 275 amp (53 degrees) 0.0 ms beat error

So it seems to be running OK 6 months after service.

[saxo3]

Congratulations, all 3285 amplitudes and the 5-position (w/o 12U) average rate X = -0.2 s/d are good. Nice that all three vertical amplitudes are very close.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by nickrb

This morning I put it on the timegrapher to take some measurements after a full wind.

So it seems to be running OK 6 months after service.

Those results are excellent. (I think i am a little jealous ( )

Do you wear you watch on a daily basis or is it left unworn for long(ish) periods ?

[nickrb]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Those results are excellent. (I think i am a little jealous ( )

Do you wear you watch on a daily basis or is it left unworn for long(ish) periods ?

I've worn it probably 60% of the time since March. So it is seeing significant wear.

Looks like this thread was moved to Watchtech subforum... unfortunately that will likely mean fewer people see it.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by nickrb

Looks like this thread was moved to Watchtech subforum... unfortunately that will likely mean fewer people see it.

This thread was moved here not long ago by “The powers that be”

It would appear that some people did not see the merit of the thread and decided it was not something that appealed to people.

Clearly by the number of people who joined in with comments that is not so !

I guess it’s some sort of censorship or something. If it does not appeal to someone who has the power, authority and facility to effectively kill the thread by burying it then that’s just what they have tried to do.

[Goatrope]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

This thread was moved here not long ago by “The powers that be”

It would appear that some people did not see the merit of the thread and decided it was not something that appealed to people.

Clearly by the number of people who joined in with comments that is not so !

I guess it’s some sort of censorship or something. If it does not appeal to someone who has the power, authority and facility to effectively kill the thread by burying it then that’s just what they have tried to do.

I’ve been following closely, as a new member and hopeful recipient of a 32xx. It’s been quite interesting to me seeing valuable input from many experienced members. I don’t see this topic discussed elsewhere, so I’m glad I tagged this thread.

The topic hasn’t deterred me in pursuing my future purchases, but I feel better informed.

Thanks guys!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptT]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

This thread was moved here not long ago by “The powers that be”

It would appear that some people did not see the merit of the thread and decided it was not something that appealed to people.

Clearly by the number of people who joined in with comments that is not so !

I guess it’s some sort of censorship or something. If it does not appeal to someone who has the power, authority and facility to effectively kill the thread by burying it then that’s just what they have tried to do.

Have to agree. And yeah unfortunately it is likely that fewer people will see it to learn and contribute.

I believe this thread is something like top 10 all time (excluding stickies?) in terms of number of replies - congrats to all y'all making it a meaningful source of information. Bummed to see it move from the main page where the dialogue was engaging, informative, polarizing.

I found the different perspectives interesting (and sometimes baffling!), but one thing is clear - the 32xx has had some issues and may still have issues, and regardless whether it's perfect science or not I appreciate that there are folks out there who are attempting to look at data to better understand.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CaptT

Have to agree. And yeah unfortunately it is likely that fewer people will see it to learn and contribute.

I believe this thread is something like top 10 all time (excluding stickies?) in terms of number of replies - congrats to all y'all making it a meaningful source of information. Bummed to see it move from the main page where the dialogue was engaging, informative, polarizing.

Position 9 in quantity of contributions and still strong in QUALITY



Also moved …

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CaptT

I found the different perspectives interesting (and sometimes baffling!), but one thing is clear - the 32xx has had some issues and may still have issues

... but one thing is clear - the 32xx still has issues.

Originally Posted by CaptT

I appreciate that there are folks out there who are attempting to look at data to better understand.

THANK YOU

[fmc000]

I will try to be on the positive side and I'll say that this thread was moved in the Tech section to increase the views of the section and not to silence the thread