new movement, old instructions?

[aayates]

Hello -
I have a new 2021 41mm sub I bought from an AD a few weeks ago. It runs a little over 2 seconds slow per day (based on my timing with watchcheck, which I know is approximate). I've been leaving it "dial-up" at night to "gain a few seconds" per old Rolex instructions. Thing is, it works. After a couple of days it's gone below 2 seconds a day slow. Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

[RJRJRJ]

It might not be exactly what the old instructions say, but position will affect almost every watch. Just test out different positions and you'll learn how your individual watch reacts. I don't remember which movement it was, but the last one I bothered to try it on actually matched the old instructions for the most part as well.

[Rori]

Originally Posted by aayates

Hello -
I have a new 2021 41mm sub I bought from an AD a few weeks ago. It runs a little over 2 seconds slow per day (based on my timing with watchcheck, which I know is approximate). I've been leaving it "dial-up" at night to "gain a few seconds" per old Rolex instructions. Thing is, it works. After a couple of days it's gone below 2 seconds a day slow. Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

I recently discovered that putting the watch dial down during the night makes it gain more seconds than dial up, at least with my watch, an SD43 which got the new movement also. It passed from losing 2 sec / day to losing 10 sec in 30 days after I started regulating it by using the dial down setting instead of dial up. With my new discovery, I’ll be able to get + or - 00 seconds per day from my SD!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Only a question of time until experts will tell you that -2 sec is extremely good because a day has 60 x 60 x 24 = 86400 sec. So your watch is running with an accuracy of 99,998 %. Then somebody will quote the -2/+2 sec/day "specs" from Rolex while wondering about the meaning of accuracy since precision is something strange, or the same, who knows or cares?

I'm only joking....!!! Cheers & good luck.

[JSolution]

just wear the watch mate and enjoy, people seem to drive themselves crazy over this second or two over or out of spec.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by JSolution

just wear the watch mate and enjoy, people seem to drive themselves crazy over this second or two over or out of spec.

Exactly this

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by aayates

Hello -
I have a new 2021 41mm sub I bought from an AD a few weeks ago. It runs a little over 2 seconds slow per day (based on my timing with watchcheck, which I know is approximate). I've been leaving it "dial-up" at night to "gain a few seconds" per old Rolex instructions. Thing is, it works. After a couple of days it's gone below 2 seconds a day slow. Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

Curiosity is encouraged by (most of) us! :)

The short answer is, in general this advice makes sense for all movements, old and new, Rolex and otherwise. When the movement is in a horizontal position the friction is minimized and thus the watch will run a little faster. When the movement is in a vertical position the friction is increased and the watch will run a little slower.

If you are further curious as to why this is, consider the following picture:



This shows how things would look in a horizontal position. The pivot (axle) is up and down (the wheel mounted on the pivot is thus horizontal) and therefore only its very end tip is contacting a jewel and creating friction. If you rotate this image 90 degrees, now the pivot is side-to-side and a comparatively larger part of its surface (the side of the pivot not the end tip) is in contact with the hole in the jewel, thus creating more friction. In a watch with precision tolerances and proper lubrication the goal is to minimize these variations in friction between positions, but in the real world it can never be 100% the same.

[Rollieboi]

3225

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Rollieboi

3225

He didn't specify for sure, but the no-date Sub is 3230 and the date Sub is 3235

[aayates]

T

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Curiosity is encouraged by (most of) us! :)

The short answer is, in general this advice makes sense for all movements, old and new, Rolex and otherwise. When the movement is in a horizontal position the friction is minimized and thus the watch will run a little faster. When the movement is in a vertical position the friction is increased and the watch will run a little slower.

If you are further curious as to why this is, consider the following picture:



This shows how things would look in a horizontal position. The pivot (axle) is up and down (the wheel mounted on the pivot is thus horizontal) and therefore only its very end tip is contacting a jewel and creating friction. If you rotate this image 90 degrees, now the pivot is side-to-side and a comparatively larger part of its surface (the side of the pivot not the end tip) is in contact with the hole in the jewel, thus creating more friction. In a watch with precision tolerances and proper lubrication the goal is to minimize these variations in friction between positions, but in the real world it can never be 100% the same.

I appreciate it. FYI, it's a 3230, new sub 41mm.

[Meyrin]

Just in case anyone's interested these instructions came with my bought-new 1996 14060 Sub.
KEEP YOUR WATCH CLEAN.jpg

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by aayates

Hello -
I have a new 2021 41mm sub I bought from an AD a few weeks ago. It runs a little over 2 seconds slow per day (based on my timing with watchcheck, which I know is approximate). I've been leaving it "dial-up" at night to "gain a few seconds" per old Rolex instructions. Thing is, it works. After a couple of days it's gone below 2 seconds a day slow. Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

You can give an update?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by aayates

Hello -
I have a new 2021 41mm sub I bought from an AD a few weeks ago. It runs a little over 2 seconds slow per day (based on my timing with watchcheck, which I know is approximate). I've been leaving it "dial-up" at night to "gain a few seconds" per old Rolex instructions. Thing is, it works. After a couple of days it's gone below 2 seconds a day slow. Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

Gravity affects mechanical watches the most thats why they are tested in 5 different positions at COSC.And in those different positions there will be very very slight deviations in the timekeeping.Remember this the escapement of a mechanical watch in 24 hours pushes the gears 432,000 times and a day has 86400 seconds.But on the wrist or off the wrist can affect all mechanical movements given the fact that the movement is constantly affected by the earth's gravity, metal expansion and contraction, temperature variations,mainspring power-reserve, subtle changes in lubrication and friction, shocks, and so on.The fact is that no mechanical watch made will keep 100% perfect time, very close yes but perfect no.Now many on forum would state their watch is well out of tolerance for Rolex timekeeping requirements. As the +5 seconds and -3 seconds are out of the Rolex precision test average +2 -2 range, but this below Rolex movement test for a cal 3235 is actually in spec for Rolex.

Timegrapher Test Result.

Position Of Watch seconds Per Day
Dial Up +2
Dial Down -1
6 o’clock +3
9 o’clock -3
3 o’clock +5

[Liga]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Curiosity is encouraged by (most of) us! :)

The short answer is, in general this advice makes sense for all movements, old and new, Rolex and otherwise. When the movement is in a horizontal position the friction is minimized and thus the watch will run a little faster. When the movement is in a vertical position the friction is increased and the watch will run a little slower.

If you are further curious as to why this is, consider the following picture:



This shows how things would look in a horizontal position. The pivot (axle) is up and down (the wheel mounted on the pivot is thus horizontal) and therefore only its very end tip is contacting a jewel and creating friction. If you rotate this image 90 degrees, now the pivot is side-to-side and a comparatively larger part of its surface (the side of the pivot not the end tip) is in contact with the hole in the jewel, thus creating more friction. In a watch with precision tolerances and proper lubrication the goal is to minimize these variations in friction between positions, but in the real world it can never be 100% the same.

Did you know Rolex pivots are not designed like this.
The pivot is designed to hit the hole jewel insetting long before the shock spring deflects to it's limit.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Liga

Did you know Rolex pivots are not designed like this.
The pivot is designed to hit the hole jewel insetting long before the shock spring deflects to it's limit.

No, I didn't have any specifics on this. I have never been able to find such a cutaway view of the Paraflex system. Even the Rolex press briefings on it are just words, no illustrations. If you have such info I'd love to see it.

You would agree, though, that a Rolex is still sensitive to positions and this comes down to different frictional losses resulting from parts being loaded on different faces, right? Even at full wind my 3235 sees a 30 degree change in amplitude horizontal versus vertical, so clearly there is more resistance in the vertical position.

[Liga]

Any mechanical movement will have the same problem.
They go even further to make these differences smaller by making the tip of the balance staff larger than a normal watch. To increase area of friction, reducing as much as possible amplitude loss in pendant positions.

[waspy1]

Originally Posted by Meyrin

Just in case anyone's interested these instructions came with my bought-new 1996 14060 Sub.
Attachment 1206131

Winding button? Crown, surely. Who calls it a winding button? SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Liga]

Hey. Listen, when I correct people calling it a face, I get raked over the coals.

Be careful.

[DCheeta]

Originally Posted by waspy1

Winding button? Crown, surely. Who calls it a winding button? SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Older watchmaking manuals or tech sheets from the UK call the crown the “button.”

[Tools]

Originally Posted by aayates

. . . Does this make sense given the new 3230 movement? Not complaining, just curious.

Physics is a law, it works all of the time.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by waspy1

Winding button? Crown, surely. Who calls it a winding button? SMH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rolex does...or did for many years.

[waspy1]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Rolex does...or did for many years.

Thanks, never knew that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

One can defy gravity - at least with regard to mechanical watch movement accuracy - via a tourbillon.

220 years ago this June, Breuget patented his breakthrough technology.

By rotating the balance wheel/escapement in a cage, his tourbillon averaged out positional errors.

Not something with which Rolex has dabbled - instead they’ve focused on simpler reductions in friction to get tolerably close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 77T

One can defy gravity - at least with regard to mechanical watch movement accuracy - via a tourbillon.

220 years ago this June, Breuget patented his breakthrough technology.

By rotating the balance wheel/escapement in a cage, his tourbillon averaged out positional errors.

Not something with which Rolex has dabbled - instead they’ve focused on simpler reductions in friction to get tolerably close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The Tourbillon IMHO serves no real purpose in a wrist watch at all, only the fact the watchmakers can make them at crazy retail prices .And today you would be quite surprised how many watch HI end brands Tourbillons and cages are made China, and they make them very very well too to equal the Swiss. I sometimes wonder why there so much admiration for the Tourbillon, perhaps the unquestioned and deserved prestige of Breguet the inventor many many years ago. But the Tourbillon movements always work best in one position and in the Tourbillon is always modifying the slight timing errors in the vertical position. The Tourbillon does not correct position variations, it only prevents them being detected in the usual testing conditions. But when placed on say a Vibrograph timing machine, the Tourbillon reveals its weaknesses immediately. The Tourbillon does not correct anything, in wrist movements, it only prevents the detection of any beat errors that still exists in natural gravity with wrist movement.

The Tourbillon is in fact an additional mechanism that consumes energy without producing anything except misinformation. The energy it consumes is taken from the reserve destined to the balance regulator. As a result, the balance wheel with less energy will have reduced advantages. Now I agree totally the skill needed to make the cage plus Tourbillon etc is a great horological skill. But in reality any Tourbillon watch is no more accurate that several other non Tourbillon watches that cost quite a bit less. When you think of today's modern watches, with or without Tourbillons are not so nearly accurate as one produced by John Harrison 300 plus years ago.

Gravity is one of the main causes of rate variations in watches, by creating the Tourbillon, when Breguet thought he was eliminating its effects, it looks like it was an big error on his part, he only masked them like Tourbillons do. Now if someone could come up and counteract the effect on gravity on a wrist watch totally, now that would be a big break through but until then Tourbillons, IMHO are just good to look at, and they are very very expensive to own, and they make them because they can. But again looking at the other side of the coin, in Breguets day two hundred plus years ago when he invented the Tourbillon and the tools he had then. And now today with modern machines and computers puts a different perspective on the making side of Tourbillons today. But for any purely mechanical watch to run to the Swiss chronometer spec is a mechanical marvel, considering what the watch has to put up with daily on the wrist

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by waspy1

Thanks, never knew that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alpharulez]

Originally Posted by padi56

The Tourbillon IMHO serves no real purpose in a wrist watch at all, only the fact the watchmakers can make them at crazy retail prices .And today you would be quite surprised how many watch HI end brands Tourbillons and cages are made China, and they make them very very well too to equal the Swiss. I sometimes wonder why there so much admiration for the Tourbillon, perhaps the unquestioned and deserved prestige of Breguet the inventor many many years ago. But the Tourbillon movements always work best in one position and in the Tourbillon is always modifying the slight timing errors in the vertical position. The Tourbillon does not correct position variations, it only prevents them being detected in the usual testing conditions. But when placed on say a Vibrograph timing machine, the Tourbillon reveals its weaknesses immediately. The Tourbillon does not correct anything, in wrist movements, it only prevents the detection of any beat errors that still exists in natural gravity with wrist movement.

The Tourbillon is in fact an additional mechanism that consumes energy without producing anything except misinformation. The energy it consumes is taken from the reserve destined to the balance regulator. As a result, the balance wheel with less energy will have reduced advantages. Now I agree totally the skill needed to make the cage plus Tourbillon etc is a great horological skill. But in reality any Tourbillon watch is no more accurate that several other non Tourbillon watches that cost quite a bit less. When you think of today's modern watches, with or without Tourbillons are not so nearly accurate as one produced by John Harrison 300 plus years ago.

Gravity is one of the main causes of rate variations in watches, by creating the Tourbillon, when Breguet thought he was eliminating its effects, it looks like it was an big error on his part, he only masked them like Tourbillons do. Now if someone could come up and counteract the effect on gravity on a wrist watch totally, now that would be a big break through but until then Tourbillons, IMHO are just good to look at, and they are very very expensive to own, and they make them because they can. But again looking at the other side of the coin, in Breguets day two hundred plus years ago when he invented the Tourbillon and the tools he had then. And now today with modern machines and computers puts a different perspective on the making side of Tourbillons today. But for any purely mechanical watch to run to the Swiss chronometer spec is a mechanical marvel, considering what the watch has to put up with daily on the wrist

Agree with points made. Quick point around brand specific tourbillons like the JLC spherotourbillon. My understanding is that it was implemented/JLC marketed it as such to resolve some of the valid points you raise around positional effectiveness of a T in a wristwatch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk