![]() |
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 |
![]() |
#4501 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Romania
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4502 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Your numbers look good, the horizontal amplitudes (283°, 281°) after full winding are quite high, the 3U beat errors (0.4-0.5 ms) too. The lift angle setting on your timegrapher was 53°? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4503 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Romania
Posts: 14
|
Yes, it's the first thing I set when starting a new measurement.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4504 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: J.R.
Location: Texas
Posts: 792
|
Quote:
__________________
126719BLRO (meteorite) | 116500LN (white) | 218235 (concentric roman) | 116622 (blue) | 118238 (white) | 124200 (silver) | Ω De Ville Jumping Hours 4853.61 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4505 |
TechXpert
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,564
|
Then you pay for the service, unfortunately.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4506 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Real Name: Tom
Location: Switzerland
Watch: too many
Posts: 1,149
|
It will be interesting when the new Daytonas are out, if they show similar symptoms with the Chronergy escapement...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4507 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Below is an update of my 2018 GMT-Master II Ref. 126711CHNR (caliber3285).
The top graph compares my timegrapher data before/after a recent RSC repair under warranty. The bottom graph compares the 5-position average rate (X) with COSC and Rolex specs. The caliber is well serviced and very accurate now. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4508 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Real Name: Dwaine
Location: SC
Watch: 124060
Posts: 357
|
124060 purchased 4-8-2022.. -2 per day the first few months... worn daily and now -1 to -1.5... I can live with that....
__________________
124060 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4509 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,237
|
Quote:
That's good. May it always stay that way ![]()
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4510 | |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 X2 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: GA
Posts: 4,774
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4511 |
2024 ROLEX DATEJUST41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,231
|
My apologies.
![]() Is there anything new on this thread lately?
__________________
E |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4512 |
TechXpert
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,564
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4513 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Hello Bas, I still have a few open questions already posted in the past: Why does Rolex specify the famous -2/+2 s/d and the testing tolerance is -1/+3 s/d?
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4207 ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4514 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Canada/UK
Posts: 22
|
Hi all,
After following this thread with interest, I've been running my newer 2023 Explorer I 36 though its paces. Haven't plotted all the numbers yet but looking decent so far with the lowest amplitude after 24 hours in non-DU positions staying at around 230, and peaking DU in the low 280s, with very minimal BE across the board. I have really appreciated learning more about the 32xx movements, the watches that carry them, and owners' experiences with them. Here's hoping... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4515 | |
TechXpert
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,564
|
Quote:
I will be in Geneva in January and will ask there since nobody has managed to give me a definitive answer. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4516 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: In your heart
Posts: 13
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4517 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 4
|
3230 - Additional data point
Dear TRF Members,
My first post. Have been following this thread for a long time. Adding a data point to the ongoing discussion... Model: 124270 Caliber: 3230 Date purchased: Mar 2023 Timegrapher: Weishi 1000 Lift Angle: 53 Degrees Test period: 12 Seconds Full wind: HTML Code:
Position Rate (s/d) Amplitude (deg) Beat Error (ms) DU +4 262 0.20 6U 0 235 0.00 9U 0 230 0.00 12U 0 227 0.20 3U -1 230 0.20 DD 0 260 0.00 HTML Code:
Position Rate (s/d) Amplitude (deg) Beat Error (ms) DU +3 253 0.20 6U 0 219 0.10 9U -1 224 0.00 12U -2 218 0.10 3U -2 223 0.10 DD 0 245 0.00 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4518 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: L'Ecosse
Posts: 54
|
I posted my 32xx stats back in August (a few pages back), and this led me to send my BLRO in for repair (just before the 5yr warranty expired in Sept). I collected my watch 10 days ago, and have just remeasured at 0 and 24 hrs (I was on holiday last week). The results don't look great - only just at 200 minimum at 24hrs (at 3/6/9). As such, I think it's reasonable for me to send this back to Rolex (I'm not expecting it will improve from here on out and it will soon be back under 200, when I'm out of warranty). What do you think?
Also, I asked my UK AD to tell me what guarantee came with the warranty repair, they have still to get back to me. I'm assuming this should come with some guarantee, but perhaps not the normal 2yr service g'tee. Can anyone advise? Many thanks. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4519 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4520 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
As soon as you are beyond the 5-year warranty period any additional service (or repair) is to be paid for but comes with a 2-year service guarantee. That holds for all Rolex watches. I know that Rolex accepts to service (without payment) 32xx watch movements even a few months after the warranty period has expired. I cannot say if that also holds for your and other countries. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4521 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: L'Ecosse
Posts: 54
|
Hi Saxo3 -
Yes, my AD confirmed it went to the Rolex repair centre outside of London. My question was whether a minimum amplitude of 200 at 24hrs in the 3/6/9 positions (i.e. sitting on the required Rolex minimum benchmark) is enough for me to request that this is returned to Rolex and looked at again. I think I have good grounds to request this. I understand about the 5 year warranty period (repaired under guarantee within this and responsibility of owner after this, subject to potential goodwill shortly after expiry). That wasn't my question. My question is what guarantee comes with a repair provided by RSC within the 5 year window (I assume members on here will know from experience, of returning watches for repair, what Rolex's stance is on this). As you can appreciate, this is particularly relevant in my case (for this watch) given that my 5 year warranty period expired during the time of the RSC warranty repair - with my 32xx still having borderline issues. I am interested to know how long an "observation period" I have following return from this warranty repair to monitor timekeeping and then expect Rolex to repair it again it required within that "guarantee" window. I assume Rolex will have a standard / consistent policy between countries on this. Thanks. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4522 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
- Your 32xx watch had caliber issues during the 5-year warranty period and it was given (via an AD) to RSC for repair under guarantee. - The watch came back from RSC and was (at that date) outside the 5-year period. - You analyzed the repaired watch with a small delay of about 10 days. - You found that, according to your Weishi data, the caliber is (24 h after full winding) just within the tolerances of 200° (3U, 6U, 9U). - It would be interesting to measure how the caliber amplitudes change between 24 hours and (at least) 48 hours after full winding. - I do not know about your described "observation period". - Basically, you sent in a watch for warranty repair and it came back with an unsatisfactory result (for you). - Maybe this RSC cannot reach higher vertical amplitudes for this specific caliber? Even after a service (repair)? I think you have good arguments to approach the RSC again and say that you are not happy with the result of the repair and ask them to check the movement again with the aim to improve the 32xx amplitude values. I would write an E-Mail to the RSC; explain your points and kindly request another check, which should be free of charge for you, hopefully. Good luck! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4523 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3
|
Could it be the mainspring?
Having read this thread with great interest, I am asking myself if a problem with the mainspring could, with the exception of the occasionally observed and possibly unrelated unusual wear, explain the observed problems, including the loss of amplitude in largely unworn watches after a certain amount of time, and the difficulty obtaining proper amplitudes even after a movement service with fresh lubrication.
Although it seems to be absurd to the point of being impossible that a) Rolex would manufacture defective mainsprings, b) Rolex would not detect that problem, and c) Rolex would not fix that problem promptly, at least this theoretically may offer an explanation for the observed problems. Perhaps there is an undetected problem with the mainspring that causes it to pass quality control at time of manufacture, but then simply due to aging the mainspring at various rates sooner or later fatigues and produces less and less torque. A full service including replacement of the mainspring barrel would not necessarily rectify the problem if the new spring was manufactured years ago, thus also having reduced torque when put in, but a newly manufactured spring would produce good amplitudes, only to again fatigue with time. I know this sounds preposterous, but as has been said elsewhere, if all other possibilities have been excluded, then the remaining one, however unlikely, must be the solution. It should be possible to confirm or exclude this possibility by measuring the torque of fully wound mainsprings of watches with and without the amplitude problem, or see if changing the mainspring alone to a brand new one fixes the issue. Although it seems exceedingly silly to imply that this possibility has not been excluded by Rolex, the mainspring is new and thin, and perhaps the culprit is to be found there. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4524 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4525 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: Depends
Posts: 318
|
Hi everyone
Just letting you know my cousin and I have a Oct 23 submariner 3230 and Daytona 4131 on hand. Both are running well. We will report back it any issues especially the 4131 with the new escapement. ![]() ![]() Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4526 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
It would be great to measure the new Daytona caliber 4131 with a timegrapher, just as a reference to see where it starts (amplitudes, rates) when it is new. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4527 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3
|
Nothing of the sort, mate. In fact, as I said in the post, such a suggestion seems preposterous. However, deterioration of the mainspring strength at least offers a more logical solution than black magic. The history of technical gadgets is full of failures that in hindsight are hard to believe, such as torpedoes that FOR YEARS failed to run at correct depth or failed to explode on impact during WW2, space shuttles that explode because of brittle O-rings, or watch companies producing watches with all kinds of defects. Although mainsprings have been manufactured for well over a century, materials science is hard. It is not completely out of the question that for this mainspring a new alloy is being used that over time undergoes unexpected changes. Be that as it may, a "bad movement" without any insight into the actual nature of the problem remains highly unsatisfactory...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4528 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
Rolex SA would not need so many years (since 2015) to find this, but I have a more technical argument against it. A degradation of the main spring would probably be visible with a reduction of the approx. 70 hours power reserve. All data I have seen, including my three 32xx watches, did show (very) low amplitudes, negative rates but not a reduced power reserve. The power reserve for all my bad 32xx movements were still between 71 and 72 hours. If the main spring would be (very) weak and the main cause of the problem, then I would expect a significantly reduced power reserve, which is NOT the case. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4529 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Member 202♛
Posts: 1,811
|
Thanks for going back to the data as it supports that the mainspring does not degrade over time, but what if the mainspring is manufactured too weak from the outset to overcome greater friction from 6+ months of usage (supporting the lubrication theory?)
It seems to me that the mainspring’s tension had to be reduced as to not overpower the downsized Chronergy escapement, as well as improving the power reserve over 31xx movements… 31xx movements with a stronger mainspring and larger balance run for years. Despite the number of new patents introduced in the 32xx movements, there is something (design flaw?) with the mainspring change and the Chronergy escapement that makes the 32xx movement unreliable. -Sheldon Quote:
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4530 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
I just needed to construct a better framework around the proposition in my mind to apply some critical thinking ![]() I accept your theory as having a good dose of plausibility however ther are a number of other factors we need to take into fuller consideration which I also believe contribute collectively to the 32xx conundrum. Firstly the escapement is not running at the higher amplitudes which are traditionally a key feature of good performance. The Chronergy escapement naturally runs at lower amplitudes which gives less margin for any deficiencies that trigger low performance in timekeeping. So that's one thing ![]() Next, we have the understanding that as part of a standard service, the Mainspring and barrel are routinely replaced as a fresh assembly that is pre packaged, manufactured and lubed and assembled to Rolex levels of perfection.. Now either Rolex doesn't know as much about Mainsprings, metalurgy and machining as we would like and or their quality control is lacking. After all, we need to keep in mind that other manufacturers are doing 72 hour power reserves with a single Mainspring seemingly without issue ![]() On an automatic that's worn with reasonably sufficient activity levels it should be less of an issue regardless of power reserve capacity like the 31xx. Perhaps the movement would've been better designed with twin Spring barrels? We have been reliably informed that after all the routine elements of a service are performed at service, sometimes the 32xx movements are still not running to specs. So in order to chase down the problem before the RSC ships it out as satisfactory and running to specs, it has been reported that technicians have resorted to replacing parts prioritised by a judicious application of the principal of "balance of probability". Parts which would have normally been deemed fit for purpose are replaced out of desperation in order to try and get the movement running right ![]() In my non professional opinion, it's a combination of any number of the factors above, but the common denominator is the escapement when the above(and more) is taken into the fullest consideration. Perhaps the 33xx movement will have >80 or 90 hours of power reserve with twin Spring barrels assuming Rolex persists with the Chronergy escapement as it is. Let's face it. Omega had a few redesigs of the original Co-axial escapement movements before they were ready to go fully in-house with their movement designs. We may need to consider the possibility that mechanical movement designs are truly reaching the limits of the law of diminishing returns and Rolex are the proverbial canary in the coal mine ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (1 members and 13 guests) | |
94ExplorerII |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.