![]() |
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 |
![]() |
#2701 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
Even when I have it on while sleeping it is -3. Which is VERY odd since I’m barely moving my arm while sleeping = the watch is ”resting”, just that it’s on my wrist. Hehe, I know, I’ve thought about buying a timegrapher because it would be very handy but I think I may become a bit too obesessed with it. That’s just me as a person. In my case, it’s probably best to just go to a watchmaker if I want timegrapher values :) Could you explain a bit about your theory regarding amplitudes / large variances. Didn’t quite get that. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2702 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2703 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2704 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Real Name: Mike
Location: New York-Miami
Watch: SUB40-DJ36-YM40
Posts: 1,010
|
25% of people in this forum have problems with 32... movements ,many get problems latter. This generation movements is born dead.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2705 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2706 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2707 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2708 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread. Members who have more than let's say 5-6 watches (32xx) may contribute even more with less speculations but more systematic timegrapher measurements and share the results here.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2709 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Didn’t mean to knock that in the last, and hindsight always is 20/20. More commenting on how the numbers are likely higher than presented.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2710 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
Quote:
Low amplitude is the cause of the poor timekeeping, but the excessive friction seems to be the cause of the low amplitude. For those of us who have been able to measure declines in amplitude, the amplitude itself drops off faster than the timekeeping. For example... my Sub is 18 months old. I've worn it probably a total of 30 days in that time. Amplitude started low when new, but has gotten worse since (even at full wind). Yet timekeeping is still very good if the PR is topped off. I don't use winders. So I take the watch out of the box, fully wind and set it and wear it that day. By the next morning the amplitude is well below 200 degrees (out of spec) but I'm still within a second on the time. So for now, I'll just leave it be. It's clearly not 100%, but it's working for my purposes and I feel I have the best chance of a "real fix" the longer I wait into the 5 year period to send it in. Quote:
And of course the standard caveat applies. There are like 200 million seconds in a day so we shouldn't worry about being 1ms off the atomic clock. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2711 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
You still do not remember the correct magic watch number: 00468? ![]() ![]() What about an updated set of timegrapher data for your 18 months young Submariner, just to please a few guys here … |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2712 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2020
Real Name: Mike
Location: New York-Miami
Watch: SUB40-DJ36-YM40
Posts: 1,010
|
many people have more than one watch and don't use it that often, most don't pay attention to lag at all and that's just on this forum, rolex produces at least 300,000 watches a year with this movement ,about 100,000 watches a year have problems or will have in the future. It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2713 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2714 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
The effects of the mannerism itself go unnoticed since they cause only small losses (vs older watches with springs subject to mannerism). I still obviously have no proof, and someone could probably provide definitive evidence that I’m wrong (such as someone from Rolex R&D). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2715 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Or, something completely unaccounted for in the development process. If, and big “if” here, my theory about magnetism were right, it’s quite possible that finished movements weren’t ever subjected to magnetic fields and then observed. The newer materials used for key parts should mean that’s not an issue.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2716 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2717 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,619
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2718 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2719 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,819
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
I don't know the definite answer to this question but assume that magnetic field and certainly many material studies were part of their R&D and test programs.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2720 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2721 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,619
|
This was a great article about Chronergy, if anyone wants to get a sense of the kinds of changes it made vs. a regular Swiss lever.
https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2722 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
I don’t think so, for instance for me alone the watches when worn were very near full pr. When in a no shock situation on a timegrapher the watch was clearly slow and out of spec. As for magnetism, if it were the culprit it would have been fixed in 2016. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2723 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,526
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2724 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Then I will remind you all that I said the poll was flawed way back. If I recall correctly I also mentioned that my father would've been appaled as he was a highly respected Statistician in the Federal government and he imparted to me aspects of critical criterior which should be adhered to when puting a poll together. Regardless, I have always supported the intent and acknowledge the contribution it has made ![]() We found out early in the poll what we needed to know. As an aside good people, I'm still not entirely convinced that I should get a timegrapher as I don't have a 32xx movement to worry about. ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2725 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2726 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
Rolex has a long history in this regard starting with the original Milgause and currently sitting with Silicon Hairsprings with Parachrome in the interim. Danny, magnetism is absolutely not the issue here. If it were, de-gausing a movement would be the primary fix just as it is for old school movements of any and all origin that don't self destruct like the 32xx movements do if left unchecked ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2727 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2728 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
![]() But that's another massderbate ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2729 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
The problem as I see it, is that it would be impossible to do accelerated wear testing on the entire assembly as it has to be set up to run at it's correct operating frequency. Beta testing is the only way forward. I understand that other mainstream and reputable manufacturers routinely make updates to service parts. Even for movements which are out of production. Perhaps a watchmaker can confirm through their own experience? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2730 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 7,963
|
Quote:
To date, they have not demonstrated the capacity. They might even be out of their depth. The way I see it is they were caught with their pants down by their main competitor, with longer warranties and longer service intervals and longer power reserves and improvements around accuracy and higher technology. Rolex got ahead of themselves by being motivated to out compete. I seriously wonder if we'd be even having this conversation about Rolex products if they'd simply stuck with the 31xx movements. They basically had it covered in the 31xx movements with exception of power reserve. They could've just kept up with the Jones's and been in a better place than they are now. Anyway, it's a classic coulda, woulda, shoulda scenario ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 26 (1 members and 25 guests) | |
Bald Angus |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.