![]() |
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1,039 | 69.83% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
61 | 4.10% |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
388 | 26.08% |
Voters: 1488. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#361 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 2,853
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#362 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
I would say that a watch which runs at -6 sec/day is correct to 99,993 % (86394/86400).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#363 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#364 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 2,853
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#365 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2008
Real Name: Paul
Location: San Diego
Watch: 126619LB
Posts: 21,540
|
Quote:
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? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#366 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Real Name: Vic
Location: Spain
Watch: SD43
Posts: 6,065
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#367 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#368 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#369 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
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? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#370 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: .
Watch: Daytonas/Subs/GMTs
Posts: 12,609
|
Quote:
Its seems no watchmaker on the forum has seen the inside yet .(Which of course,isnt a bad thing ! ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#371 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Flavio
Location: N/A
Posts: 14,654
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#372 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 2,853
|
Quote:
![]() 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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#373 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#374 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Real Name: Flavio
Location: N/A
Posts: 14,654
|
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#375 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 13
|
nice to read it and watch
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#376 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#377 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#378 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#379 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Thanks, I hear you!
What would be an acceptable example (or case) for you where you say "yes, they probably found a solution"? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#380 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
Quote:
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). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#381 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
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 ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#382 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Real Name: Mike
Location: N. California
Watch: DateJust 41 TT
Posts: 548
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#383 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
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 ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#384 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#385 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
Practicality comes with experience. ![]() It's likely that most people still misunderstand the spec.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#386 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,231
|
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. ![]() ![]()
__________________
E |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#387 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#388 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: London
Posts: 3,301
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#389 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#390 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Real Name: Mike
Location: London
Posts: 3,301
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 37 (1 members and 36 guests) | |
bigmcmuffins |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.