32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by padi56

Lets get things into perspective first the bare uncased movements are tested at the COSC to a AVERAGE of -4+6 seconds to get the swiss chronometer certification time of testing only. And on the COSC 15 day test on any one single day the movement could vary by up to 10 seconds and still pass the the test. The movements are then shipped back to Rolex in there many hundreds stored until wanted on production run. Rolex further checks on a machine in the watches case to this new -2+2 spec much like the COSC time of testing to say its been tested and met the spec on a machine. Now this is not a guarantee it will perform exactly the same everyday for life only the fact it was tested on a machine and met the spec. But it could vary a bit as there are many variables to overcome on the wrist on the wrist. Such as gravity, mainspring power-reserve, different temperature's, shocks on the wrist, metal expansion and contraction, subtle changes in lubrication and friction, plus the many others. Plus a simple fact if watch is out a few minutes over a few months its very easy to adjust with the winding setting crown.

And that's all fine and perfectly correct. I totally agree with you on all of the above.

What isn't fine and perfectly correct however, is when something suddenly changes for the worse and an 18 month old, lightly worn watch that was previously consistent, predictable, easy to self-regulated, and highly accurate, very suddenly starts losing a number of ever increasing seconds per day. In my case, no matter how I wear it or how I rest it (crown up, crown down, dial up, etc) nothing makes it speed up; it just consistently loses more and more time. I'm now up to circa -10 secs a day. This is a problem.

I've owned mechanical watches for nearly 30 years and I've owned Rolexes for almost 25 of them. I also moderate another watch forum dedicated to a different brand. Consequently I have plenty of experience and I don't have rose-tinted glasses about expectations of quartz-like accuracy - far from it. If my watch was an isolated case, I'd just ship it off to RSC and be thoroughly confident it would be fixed. However what we're seeing are numerous cases of the same issue even in this microcosm of Rolex owners here. We've also seen watchmakers telling us that this is caused by a key part wearing ABNORMALLY fast and that this part is currently just replaced with like-for-like as part of the "fix". We are also seeing some people having to send a "fixed" watch back after a matter of months for the same issue. In some cases multiple times.

This is nothing to do with the fully expected and accepted tolerances and limitations of mechanical watches, and everything to do with a problem. A problem that Rolex refuses to publicly acknowledge and are apparently currently unable to permanently fix. Yes, I'm sure that over time Rolex will fix it, but 5 or 6 years would seem to me to be a more than reasonable time for a company with Rolex's resources to resolve it.

[saxo3]

I would say that a watch which runs at -6 sec/day is correct to 99,993 % (86394/86400).

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Driver8

A problem that Rolex ... are apparently currently unable to permanently fix.

All very true what you say in post # 361.
Except what I did not crop out (see above).

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by saxo3

All very true what you say in post # 361.
Except what I did not crop out (see above).

Why, is there a permanent fix available now?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Driver8

And that's all fine and perfectly correct. I totally agree with you on all of the above.

What isn't fine and perfectly correct however, is when something suddenly changes for the worse and an 18 month old, lightly worn watch that was previously consistent, predictable, easy to self-regulated, and highly accurate, very suddenly starts losing a number of ever increasing seconds per day. In my case, no matter how I wear it or how I rest it (crown up, crown down, dial up, etc) nothing makes it speed up; it just consistently loses more and more time. I'm now up to circa -10 secs a day. This is a problem.

I've owned mechanical watches for nearly 30 years and I've owned Rolexes for almost 25 of them. I also moderate another watch forum dedicated to a different brand. Consequently I have plenty of experience and I don't have rose-tinted glasses about expectations of quartz-like accuracy - far from it. If my watch was an isolated case, I'd just ship it off to RSC and be thoroughly confident it would be fixed. However what we're seeing are numerous cases of the same issue even in this microcosm of Rolex owners here. We've also seen watchmakers telling us that this is caused by a key part wearing ABNORMALLY fast and that this part is currently just replaced with like-for-like as part of the "fix". We are also seeing some people having to send a "fixed" watch back after a matter of months for the same issue. In some cases multiple times.

This is nothing to do with the fully expected and accepted tolerances and limitations of mechanical watches, and everything to do with a problem. A problem that Rolex refuses to publicly acknowledge and are apparently currently unable to permanently fix. Yes, I'm sure that over time Rolex will fix it, but 5 or 6 years would seem to me to be a more than reasonable time for a company with Rolex's resources to resolve it.

I am not a watchmaker, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night (American TV commercial joke for those of you out of the US) but one thing I just can’t understand.

If, and I am not doubting your assessment, if, all this issue is caused by a single part wearing out excessively fast, why couldn’t Rolex solve the problem by replacing it with a more robust part? Or modifying the part it connects with to offer less resistance/friction/wear? I realize there are microscopic and extremely complicated interactions between all the parts in an automatic watch, and it may not be THAT simple, (just make the part out of a higher grade metal) but Rolex has been in business for 100 years making fine timepieces, I am sure if they identified the problem as this one part, WHY can’t they come up with a permanent solution?

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I am not a watchmaker, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night (American TV commercial joke for those of you out of the US) but one thing I just can’t understand.



If, and I am not doubting your assessment, if, all this issue is caused by a single part wearing out excessively fast, why couldn’t Rolex solve the problem by replacing it with a more robust part? Or modifying the part it connects with to offer less resistance/friction/wear? I realize there are microscopic and extremely complicated interactions between all the parts in an automatic watch, and it may not be THAT simple, (just make the part out of a higher grade metal) but Rolex has been in business for 100 years making fine timepieces, I am sure if they identified the problem as this one part, WHY can’t they come up with a permanent solution?

I was thinking exactly that, like coming up with a pivot in ceramic for example.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Driver8

And that's all fine and perfectly correct. I totally agree with you on all of the above.

What isn't fine and perfectly correct however, is when something suddenly changes for the worse and an 18 month old, lightly worn watch that was previously consistent, predictable, easy to self-regulated, and highly accurate, very suddenly starts losing a number of ever increasing seconds per day. In my case, no matter how I wear it or how I rest it (crown up, crown down, dial up, etc) nothing makes it speed up; it just consistently loses more and more time. I'm now up to circa -10 secs a day. This is a problem.

I've owned mechanical watches for nearly 30 years and I've owned Rolexes for almost 25 of them. I also moderate another watch forum dedicated to a different brand. Consequently I have plenty of experience and I don't have rose-tinted glasses about expectations of quartz-like accuracy - far from it. If my watch was an isolated case, I'd just ship it off to RSC and be thoroughly confident it would be fixed. However what we're seeing are numerous cases of the same issue even in this microcosm of Rolex owners here. We've also seen watchmakers telling us that this is caused by a key part wearing ABNORMALLY fast and that this part is currently just replaced with like-for-like as part of the "fix". We are also seeing some people having to send a "fixed" watch back after a matter of months for the same issue. In some cases multiple times.

This is nothing to do with the fully expected and accepted tolerances and limitations of mechanical watches, and everything to do with a problem. A problem that Rolex refuses to publicly acknowledge and are apparently currently unable to permanently fix. Yes, I'm sure that over time Rolex will fix it, but 5 or 6 years would seem to me to be a more than reasonable time for a company with Rolex's resources to resolve it.

Exactly!! Very well said. I think most onlookers can see the obvious here. We have a few people who keep making the same point over and over yet it's not even a point any of us are contesting. Nobody here is upset because they are seeing -4 instead of +2. We have reports of fairly sudden and dramatic (a minute a day) changes in timing. All the "timing will vary in real world situations" arguments don't explain this at all. Same owner, same daily movement patterns, same magnetic fields (lol), yet something changes. Then couple that with actual pictures of torn up metal parts and an RSC watchmaker indicating there is a problem and no long term fix, and honestly, how is this even a debate?

Then the discussion goes to "well, all movements have their problems". Ok, again, no debate. But how many 31xx movement owners have multiple watches with issues and issues that come back even after service? We all understand nothing is perfect, but the rate of failure should be such that it is basically impossible for any one person to end up with multiple problem pieces, right? Even if we said 10% was an acceptable number (which it surely shouldn't be) how many here have more than 10 32xx powered watches?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Andad

Watchmakers on this Forum have indicated a problem with the 3235 movement but I can't remember reading about a specific issue that is being addressed by RSC's.
At one time it was a lubrication issue (from memory) on one pivot or cog?

Now it seems to have changed into a possible design, assembly or tolerance issue that may have the potential to cause a problem down the road.

How far down the road I don't know as this depends on how often the watch is worn.

I only have one Rolex with the 3235 movement and have only worn it a few times since it was purchased in November 2019. I have more than a few watches and an issue with this watch may not be noticed until well after the warranty has expired.
If there is a problem I would be interested in finding out now.

So at the risk of antagonizing some on this thread I will post up my results.

I will leave it up to much smarter members to evaluate the results.

This is really great, thank you for taking the time to collect! I'm in the middle of a 72 hour test on my 32xx currently. In your case, even though the last part of the 72 hour PR is pretty bad for accuracy, the PR overall still seems to be a winner compared to the 31xx (higher amplitude and better accuracy in the 4x hour range). Although your 32xx amplitude is definitely better than mine. I was at 184 crown down after only 24 hours. I'm testing every 12 hours and from 60 to 72 I'll test every 2 hours. Will post when completed.

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

If, and I am not doubting your assessment, if, all this issue is caused by a single part wearing out excessively fast, why couldn’t Rolex solve the problem by replacing it with a more robust part? Or modifying the part it connects with to offer less resistance/friction/wear? I realize there are microscopic and extremely complicated interactions between all the parts in an automatic watch, and it may not be THAT simple, (just make the part out of a higher grade metal) but Rolex has been in business for 100 years making fine timepieces, I am sure if they identified the problem as this one part, WHY can’t they come up with a permanent solution?

I'd almost be content having the problem if I could just understand what the problem is. I have the same types of questions you do. It seems baffling that if a part is wearing (as Bas said from improper tolerances) that those tolerances couldn't just be tweaked. The 32xx represents an evolution in movements, not a revolution. I fail to see how any wheel or pivot in this movement is so fundamentally different than any predecessor that Rolex truly may just have a bad design here.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I'd almost be content having the problem if I could just understand what the problem is. I have the same types of questions you do. It seems baffling that if a part is wearing (as Bas said from improper tolerances) that those tolerances couldn't just be tweaked. The 32xx represents an evolution in movements, not a revolution. I fail to see how any wheel or pivot in this movement is so fundamentally different than any predecessor that Rolex truly may just have a bad design here.

I do not follow this route trying to understand what is wrong inside this movement.

Even if YOU or WE find out what is wrong, what do you do next?
You will give Rolex a call and tell them what you/we found and what they should do?

Do you really think they did not do anything? Far off!
They know the problem and probably solved it, but they don't let anybody know.

The better way is to diagnose what is the situation of your caliber 32xx (you did that already, me too, a few others as well) and find out who else has these problems, in 2021!

Doing so, it is utmost important to see which watches are affected.

Watches sold in 2015-2018 only, or also watches sold in 2019-2021.
You get my points?

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I do not follow this route trying to understand what is wrong inside this movement.

Even if YOU or WE find out what is wrong, what do you do next?
You will give Rolex a call and tell them what you/we found and what they should do?

Do you really think they didn’t do anything?
They know the problem and probably solved it, but they don't let anybody know.

The better way is to diagnose what is the situation of your caliber 32xx (you did that already, me too, a few others as well) and find out who else has these problems, in 2021!

Doing so, it is utmost important to see which watches are affected.

Watches sold in 2015-2018 only, or also watches sold in 2019-2021.
You get my points?

We are still waiting for an "inside the watch" report on the 2020 releases ,to see if there are any changes made to the 3235 caliber .
Its seems no watchmaker on the forum has seen the inside yet .(Which of course,isnt a bad thing ! )

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Driver8

And that's all fine and perfectly correct. I totally agree with you on all of the above.

What isn't fine and perfectly correct however, is when something suddenly changes for the worse and an 18 month old, lightly worn watch that was previously consistent, predictable, easy to self-regulated, and highly accurate, very suddenly starts losing a number of ever increasing seconds per day. In my case, no matter how I wear it or how I rest it (crown up, crown down, dial up, etc) nothing makes it speed up; it just consistently loses more and more time. I'm now up to circa -10 secs a day. This is a problem.

I've owned mechanical watches for nearly 30 years and I've owned Rolexes for almost 25 of them. I also moderate another watch forum dedicated to a different brand. Consequently I have plenty of experience and I don't have rose-tinted glasses about expectations of quartz-like accuracy - far from it. If my watch was an isolated case, I'd just ship it off to RSC and be thoroughly confident it would be fixed. However what we're seeing are numerous cases of the same issue even in this microcosm of Rolex owners here. We've also seen watchmakers telling us that this is caused by a key part wearing ABNORMALLY fast and that this part is currently just replaced with like-for-like as part of the "fix". We are also seeing some people having to send a "fixed" watch back after a matter of months for the same issue. In some cases multiple times.

This is nothing to do with the fully expected and accepted tolerances and limitations of mechanical watches, and everything to do with a problem. A problem that Rolex refuses to publicly acknowledge and are apparently currently unable to permanently fix. Yes, I'm sure that over time Rolex will fix it, but 5 or 6 years would seem to me to be a more than reasonable time for a company with Rolex's resources to resolve it.

Well said. I don't know about others but to me this is unacceptable. Especially on a multi thousand dollar wristwatch that customers can't find at the AD and need to pay huge premiums to be able to buy. This is a perfect storm for buyers. Shortage, premiums and a defective product.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I am not a watchmaker, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night (American TV commercial joke for those of you out of the US) but one thing I just can’t understand.

If, and I am not doubting your assessment, if, all this issue is caused by a single part wearing out excessively fast, why couldn’t Rolex solve the problem by replacing it with a more robust part? Or modifying the part it connects with to offer less resistance/friction/wear? I realize there are microscopic and extremely complicated interactions between all the parts in an automatic watch, and it may not be THAT simple, (just make the part out of a higher grade metal) but Rolex has been in business for 100 years making fine timepieces, I am sure if they identified the problem as this one part, WHY can’t they come up with a permanent solution?

Unfortunately your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not a watchmaker either, and this is entirely speculation on my part, so take it with a pinch of salt(!), but perhaps the underlying design means that this part wears far quicker than it should, and replacement with a part made of anything will still result in wear, or at least still generate enough friction over time to slow the watch once lubricants start to be consumed. I'm not saying I'm right at all, but if it's a slight design issue, then that would go some way to explaining why a permanent fix hasn't been found in 5 or 6 years.

As I say, I'm just surmising here with regards to reasons, and all I can say with absolute certainty is that my SD43 definitely has a real and quantifiable issue.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Driver8

I can say with absolute certainty is that my SD43 definitely has a real and quantifiable issue.

When did you buy your SD43? (Sorry if you wrote that already, I did not scroll back)

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Driver8

What isn't fine and perfectly correct however, is when something suddenly changes for the worse and an 18 month old, lightly worn watch that was previously consistent, predictable, easy to self-regulated, and highly accurate, very suddenly starts losing a number of ever increasing seconds per day.

Originally Posted by saxo3

When did you buy your SD43? (Sorry if you wrote that already, I did not scroll back)

I could be wrong but I think he's using his own case on his post above.

[palmtree11]

nice to read it and watch

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I could be wrong but I think he's using his own case on his post above.

Thanks! That would be a SD43 purchased in July 2019

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by palmtree11

nice to read it and watch

Welcome! You own a watch with a 32xx movement?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I do not follow this route trying to understand what is wrong inside this movement.

Even if YOU or WE find out what is wrong, what do you do next?
You will give Rolex a call and tell them what you/we found and what they should do?

Do you really think they did not do anything? Far off!
They know the problem and probably solved it, but they don't let anybody know.

The better way is to diagnose what is the situation of your caliber 32xx (you did that already, me too, a few others as well) and find out who else has these problems, in 2021!

Doing so, it is utmost important to see which watches are affected.

Watches sold in 2015-2018 only, or also watches sold in 2019-2021.
You get my points?

We all have different perspectives and I'm not suggesting that most would be pacified with this information, but I will try to explain my logic. First off, my background with mechanical things is making cars go fast. In that world nobody expects every part from the OEM to be perfect. A particular motor might have a strong cylinder block and crankshaft, but weak pistons. So, we replace the pistons with better ones. But if the motor was just a black box and we treated the failure as simply "bad motor" then how can we ever move forward and improve it? Where the OEMs fail to deliver, the aftermarket and the custom builders step in. So let's jump back to the watch world. Let's say we could eventually come to an understanding that the real problem with the movement is a slightly oversized pivot on one particular wheel. But for whatever reason, Rolex just can't be bothered to produce a replacement in a smaller size. Well, I could seek out a watchmaker who could take my brand new movement, before it chews itself up, and machine that one piece. Or maybe a company would step in and make a drop-in replacement wheel that is the correct size. It probably sounds like a pipe dream in the watch world, but these are the types of feedback loops I am used to. If a part isn't good enough, somebody makes one that's better. If there's demand, the market will step up.

Now on the other hand, if this is some fundament design issue (which again seems hard to grasp, but I'm not a watchmaker) then yeah, all bets are off. Time to just trade the watches for ones with different movements and be done with it. The chances seem slim that Rolex is going to be sending out completely redesigned gear trains and bridges and converting our "v1" 32xx to "v2". But Rolex itself would have to be on a crash course with its own destruction if this is really what was required. I'll wager by the end of this year, every professional watch they make other than the Daytona and Milgaus will have a 32xx movement. It's almost unthinkable that they'd let a cancer spread through their entire line, so I have to assume we're dealing with more of a rash than a melanoma. And thus, having an actual doctor's diagnosis would sure be nice.

[saxo3]

Thanks, I hear you!
What would be an acceptable example (or case) for you where you say "yes, they probably found a solution"?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks, I hear you!
What would be an acceptable example (or case) for you where you say "yes, they probably found a solution"?

Well the best case scenario would be some follow up post from Bas (or someon in a similar position) saying "our service center just received a redesigned part X to address this problem, we are instructed to swap these in to all 32xx movements being serviced". I have no idea how Rolex does things, but for many other industries there would be an updated part number or some way to know for sure you are getting the "new X" vs the "old X". Then we'd have something concrete to ask for when sending a watch in to RSC. Right now, it's like you send it in and they send it back and hopefully it's "different" but you have no idea what was done. Obviously a simple regulation can change the timing, but for those who have reported amplitude increasing after service what actually caused this? New parts? More lube? Some tiny adjustment to an existing part or change in assembly procedure? Who knows!

Even if this hypothetical revised part wasn't guaranteed to be perfect, even if there ended up being another revision later, I would still be greatly relieved to see *some* indication that they are doing something. When I don't see that after 5 years, while it seems so "simple" to us onlookers, then I start to wonder about worst case scenarios (like more fundamental design issues).

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Well the best case scenario would be some follow up post from Bas (or someon in a similar position) saying "our service center just received a redesigned part X to address this problem, we are instructed to swap these in to all 32xx movements being serviced". I have no idea how Rolex does things, but for many other industries there would be an updated part number or some way to know for sure you are getting the "new X" vs the "old X". Then we'd have something concrete to ask for when sending a watch in to RSC. Right now, it's like you send it in and they send it back and hopefully it's "different" but you have no idea what was done. Obviously a simple regulation can change the timing, but for those who have reported amplitude increasing after service what actually caused this? New parts? More lube? Some tiny adjustment to an existing part or change in assembly procedure? Who knows!

Even if this hypothetical revised part wasn't guaranteed to be perfect, even if there ended up being another revision later, I would still be greatly relieved to see *some* indication that they are doing something. When I don't see that after 5 years, while it seems so "simple" to us onlookers, then I start to wonder about worst case scenarios (like more fundamental design issues).

Agreed.
For those of us here with decades of experience with Rolex we fully understand the depths of the realms of the secret squirels business which under pins their way(Rolex) of doing things.
Keep in mind that Rolex does have a policy of not returning parts that were deemed to be US and replaced so that's another aspect of the level of secrecy that Rolex enjoys.

To that, unless someone on "the inside" does indeed tips us off, we will never know.
Unless we get tipped off, this thread based on the poll needs to be maintained in perpetuity until a plausible conclusion is reached through studious tracking of trends along the timeline.
Alternately, another poll based thread could be crafted that addresses the many limitations of this current one.

As I have mentioned previously.
Revised part numbers are routine for modified components like i had previously mentioned in this thread about revised and updated TV circuit boards.

In addition, it could simply identify a different supplier for the same component which gives the manufacturer a method of increasing spare parts prices, whilst simultaneously masking potential traceability back through the supply chain from POS to the manufacturer for what may essentially be the exact same part as previously supplied.
Under the current business model this is an unlikely scenario

Keeping the above in mind, there is nothing concrete to be asked for when dealing with Rolex.
One can only make a request in the faint hope that Rolex can find the graciousness to follow through.
Such a request has been reported once before on this forum with confirmation of a positive outcome with Rolex and I have personally had a very similar experience some years ago with the exact same outcome.

In the case of the 32xx conundrum, I would not expect any tangible level of transparency. Just more secret squirels stuff.

Hope for the best

[MikeyV]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I would say that a watch which runs at -6 sec/day is correct to 99,993 % (86394/86400).

Ridiculous. It's also running WAY out of spec, 3 times slower than it's supposed to be.

Replace Rolex with Ferrari...how would you feel then?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

We all have different perspectives and I'm not suggesting that most would be pacified with this information, but I will try to explain my logic. First off, my background with mechanical things is making cars go fast. In that world nobody expects every part from the OEM to be perfect. A particular motor might have a strong cylinder block and crankshaft, but weak pistons. So, we replace the pistons with better ones. But if the motor was just a black box and we treated the failure as simply "bad motor" then how can we ever move forward and improve it? Where the OEMs fail to deliver, the aftermarket and the custom builders step in. So let's jump back to the watch world. Let's say we could eventually come to an understanding that the real problem with the movement is a slightly oversized pivot on one particular wheel. But for whatever reason, Rolex just can't be bothered to produce a replacement in a smaller size. Well, I could seek out a watchmaker who could take my brand new movement, before it chews itself up, and machine that one piece. Or maybe a company would step in and make a drop-in replacement wheel that is the correct size. It probably sounds like a pipe dream in the watch world, but these are the types of feedback loops I am used to. If a part isn't good enough, somebody makes one that's better. If there's demand, the market will step up.

Now on the other hand, if this is some fundament design issue (which again seems hard to grasp, but I'm not a watchmaker) then yeah, all bets are off. Time to just trade the watches for ones with different movements and be done with it. The chances seem slim that Rolex is going to be sending out completely redesigned gear trains and bridges and converting our "v1" 32xx to "v2". But Rolex itself would have to be on a crash course with its own destruction if this is really what was required. I'll wager by the end of this year, every professional watch they make other than the Daytona and Milgaus will have a 32xx movement. It's almost unthinkable that they'd let a cancer spread through their entire line, so I have to assume we're dealing with more of a rash than a melanoma. And thus, having an actual doctor's diagnosis would sure be nice.

In the best interest of not discussing cars and drawing comparisons.
One will run fowl of the mothership if one starts replacing genuine parts with aftermarket.
Besides this pats swapping business on car engines mostly only improves one issue and shifts the problem to another unless one has a clear outcome in mind it only becomes a rabbit hole.

To that, i have found it's simply best to stick with the OEM/genuine parts and enjoy it for what it is.

As Padi continually points out, Rolex has continually updated parts and made modifications which are applied at service time which we are not privy to.
It has been reported by another world renowned Horologist that there have been a number of other movements which were fixed by updates.
This process has contributed to making the 31xx derived movements, the workhorses they are today and the benchmark we are basically using. The only difference is it was possibly a better movement to start with because the necessary updates were able to be applied in a timely manner and the shortcomings were more easily identifiable.

Besides, we still haven't been able to ascertain with any degree of certainty, if Rolex has potentially fixed these issues. with the 32xx movements

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

Ridiculous. It's also running WAY out of spec, 3 times slower than it's supposed to be.

Ridiculous? Tough judgement.
Your claim (from an Engineer!) is also interesting.

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Ridiculous? Tough judgement.
Your claim (from an Engineer!) is also interesting.

Practicality comes with experience.

It's likely that most people still misunderstand the spec.

[Andad]

When Rolex increased the PR on the 3235 movement did they increase the power output of the mainspring or did they install a longer mainspring to supply less power for a longer time?
In has been stated in other threads that to wind a 48 hour PR model requires about 40 revolutions of the crown and to wind a 72 hour PR movement requires >70 full revolutions.

When I checked my DJ41 from zero PR to an obvious slippage of the mainspring in the barrel it took exactly 40 revolutions.
Did Rolex change the gearing of the winding mechanism?

One big issue I see with my 3235 results is a lack of power to the movement when the PR is less than about 50%.

I am not a watchmaker but I have been running my engineering company for 40 years and if I had feedback such as this with one of my products I would be seriously concerned.

And as far as some of the engineers on TRF are concerned who profess their wide experience in all things known to man when their credibility is challenged in any way I can only add one thing.

I will always know something that you don’t know.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Practicality comes with experience.
It's likely that most people still misunderstand the spec.

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.

[GMT Aviator]

It seems from looking at all the data points collected, that whilst Rolex have increased the PR of this new movement, it’s achieved nothing for the movements accuracy or precision past the old benchmark power reserve time of approx 47 hours.
In daily use this makes little to no difference at all and maybe that’s all Rolex have focused on. I wonder, also, with the new ball raced rotor, how long it takes for the watch to recover to full PR once back on the wrist? It surely must be a lot quicker at winding the mainspring back to full wind than the previous design?
As for movements slowing badly after some months of day to day wear, that’s obviously something else going on.
I have a BNIB 2019 CHNR unworn. Shortly it will be going into daily service. I’ll get it on the time-grapher and see how it does as the months roll by.

[saxo3]

Thanks for your feedback and interest.
Can you measure rates, amplitudes, beat errors already now, including date of purchase and how often (approx.) you had it on your wrist? I understand your CHNR is close to unworn? Some data and plots for my 126711 CHNR (3285 caliber) you find (for comparison) in post #11, #197, #317

[GMT Aviator]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for your feedback and interest.
Can you measure rates, amplitudes, beat errors already now, including date of purchase and how often (approx.) you had it on your wrist? I understand your CHNR is close to unworn? Some data and plots for my 126711 CHNR (3285 caliber) you find (for comparison) in post #11, #197, #317

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.