Possible 3186 design flaw?

[chrisca70]

Hello all,

I am not watchmaker just an enthusiast with a good amount reading. I just read a post by Mark Sirianni where he explains that the cal. 3186 has a problem with the date setting caused by a spring that may be too thin. Interestingly he praises the cal. 3185 which does not have this problem. I wonder if Rolex corrected this on the newer 3187...

I would love to hear the input of our CW21 forum members...

Link to the blog post

[SearChart]

The spring will be replaced during service, the stock one in the 3186 is indeed too weak.

[chrisca70]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The spring will be replaced during service, the stock one in the 3186 is indeed too weak.

Is the replacement one stronger?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by chrisca70

Is the replacement one stronger?

Yes, slightly different design too.

[yoniman]

Wow. This is indeed an eye opener particularly someone (like me haha) waiting for the BLNR which has the movement in question.

While it has not put me off in the perpetual waiting list, it's satisfying to know that DJ 36 and others have the movement praised by the watchmaker.

Thank you for posting.

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by yoniman

Wow. This is indeed an eye opener particularly someone (like me haha) waiting for the BLNR which has the movement in question.

While it has not put me off in the perpetual waiting list, it's satisfying to know that DJ 36 and others have the movement praised by the watchmaker.

Thank you for posting.

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

I believe that later 3186 movemets are already equipped with the updated spring from the factory. Don't worry, it is a fine movement.

[yoniman]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I believe that later 3186 movemets are already equipped with the updated spring from the factory. Don't worry, it is a fine movement.

Man, you strengthen my faith in Rolex.

Whether you like it or not, you shall be known to me as the TRF High Priest.

Cheers!

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by yoniman

Man, you strengthen my faith in Rolex.

Whether you like it or not, you shall be known to me as the TRF High Priest.

Cheers!

Sent from my TRT-LX2 using Tapatalk

[Rashid.bk]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I believe that later 3186 movemets are already equipped with the updated spring from the factory. Don't worry, it is a fine movement.

That is indeed the case. This was a known issue and if you hadn't heard of it, that's because it was something that happened to early generation GMT2Cs.
Rolex was fixing any watch that exhibited this problem free of charge even to customers that were out of warranty. When this was an issue, there were threads about it. Now there are none.

Today, this is a non issue. I believe the 3186 to be superior to it's predecessors, but I'm not a watchmaker, just my opinion from my little research and ownership.

[rushca01]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I believe that later 3186 movemets are already equipped with the updated spring from the factory. Don't worry, it is a fine movement.

Any date range when this happened?

[RickB8960]

I just sent mine off after having the spring give way, it is a very early BLNR. I'm hoping they fix it for free because it is out of warranty.

[RickB8960]

Unfortunately, I just got word from the AD and Rolex wants to charge me to fix this. I am pretty pissed given that this was a known issue and Rolex even updated the spring. Anyone have any advice for me or any idea if I could contact someone? Thanks!

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by RickB8960

Unfortunately, I just got word from the AD and Rolex wants to charge me to fix this. I am pretty pissed given that this was a known issue and Rolex even updated the spring. Anyone have any advice for me or any idea if I could contact someone? Thanks!

Well officially your watch is out of warranty, so not strange that they would charge you for it.

[SearChart]

Here's a comparison of the old and new(updated) spring that makes the hour hand click.
The old one is the smaller one and is significantly weaker.

I took this picture while servicing a 116710LN last month.

[handsfull]

Wow- significantly different. Thanks Bas

[RickB8960]

I completely disagree. When a reputable company realizes they made an inherent design flaw and took actually made a correction in later years they should repair it at no cost. So you think automobile recalls should be paid by the consumer? It’s very simple, they screwed up the design and they know it so they should repair it at no charge. Period. I’m pretty pissed off actually and wish right now that Rolex was not my favorite brand.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by RickB8960

I completely disagree. When a reputable company realizes they made an inherent design flaw and took actually made a correction in later years they should repair it at no cost. So you think automobile recalls should be paid by the consumer? It’s very simple, they screwed up the design and they know it so they should repair it at no charge. Period. I’m pretty pissed off actually and wish right now that Rolex was not my favorite brand.

There are tons of modifications in current movements that most people on here don't even know about, not as white/black as "screwed up the design".

The updated spring is a bit stronger making it less likely to break, it's not like all the old style springs were breaking left right and center.
Yours worked fine all throughout the warranty period, yet broke shortly after, too bad.

[RickB8960]

We can agree to disagree, as I've read of many failures, but it is what it is. No point in continuing to bitch about it, I'll let it go and enjoy the watch after it's full service when it returns.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Here's a comparison of the old and new(updated) spring that makes the hour hand click.
The old one is the smaller one and is significantly weaker.

I took this picture while servicing a 116710LN last month.

Cool, thanks Bas. Does this spring now also come in the 3187, which has also had the issue?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

Cool, thanks Bas. Does this spring now also come in the 3187, which has also had the issue?

The 3187 is basically the same movement, just a larger baseplate and it has the paraflex.
Same procedure as the 86, repair within warranty or update/repair during service.

[spoilsofwar01]

Originally Posted by SearChart

There are tons of modifications in current movements that most people on here don't even know about, not as white/black as "screwed up the design".

The updated spring is a bit stronger making it less likely to break, it's not like all the old style springs were breaking left right and center.
Yours worked fine all throughout the warranty period, yet broke shortly after, too bad.

Are there any known service modifications with the 114270 , 3130 movement ? not that I'm concerned

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by spoilsofwar01

Are there any known service modifications with the 114270 , 3130 movement ? not that I'm concerned

There have been some minor (insignificant) changes to the 31×× aside from the Parachrom hairspring in modern ones.

[spoilsofwar01]

Originally Posted by SearChart

There have been some minor (insignificant) changes to the 31×× aside from the Parachrom hairspring in modern ones.

would this be disclosed at the point of servicing if required? many thanks

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by spoilsofwar01

would this be disclosed at the point of servicing if required? many thanks

No, I don't think most people care that their blued screws in the large plate under the dial were changed from partially blued to fully blued including the thread.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SearChart

No, I don't think most people care that their blued screws in the large plate under the dial were changed from partially blued to fully blued including the thread.

Bas - please check my understanding of the original spring longevity. You mentioned that it is replaced as part of a routine overhaul, right?

So wouldn’t it be expected to last up to 5 years in normal use? I get the warranty period had expired for RickB8960’s watch - but the redesign is more robust for a reason methinks.

So would an owner traveling between time zones often (and sets the hour hand more often) experience a failure sooner than the average owner? So a GMT buyer could be expected to cause a failure sooner, don’t you think?

I’m sure I’m overthinking this but inquiring minds, you know...

As an aside, if the spring redesign was a result of RSC repairs on the old one, then Rolex could do something like Apple did for battery problems on their 1st gen Apple Watch. Apple tripled the warranty period for that issue.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/28...airs-extended/

Apple began asking Watch users questions about using lotions, sunblocks and insect repellent. If yes, they got a new, better for free.

I’m sure Rick’s expectation (or hope) was missed by RSC. The $10 part breaking causes an early $700 overhaul. Escalation and sharing the knowledge that this part was redesigned might change the RSC attitude.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by 77T

Bas - please check my understanding of the original spring longevity. You mentioned that it is replaced as part of a routine overhaul, right?

So wouldn’t it be expected to last up to 5 years in normal use? I get the warranty period had expired for RickB8960’s watch - but the redesign is more robust for a reason methinks.

So would an owner traveling between time zones often (and sets the hour hand more often) experience a failure sooner than the average owner? So a GMT buyer could be expected to cause a failure sooner, don’t you think?

I’m sure I’m overthinking this but inquiring minds, you know...

As an aside, if the spring redesign was a result of RSC repairs on the old one, then Rolex could do something like Apple did for battery problems on their 1st gen Apple Watch. Apple tripled the warranty period for that issue.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/28...airs-extended/

Apple began asking Watch users questions about using lotions, sunblocks and insect repellent. If yes, they got a new, better for free.

I’m sure Rick’s expectation (or hope) was missed by RSC. The $10 part breaking causes an early $700 overhaul. Escalation and sharing the knowledge that this part was redesigned might change the RSC attitude.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Of course the new spring is better and routinely replaced during service for a reason. And yes, heavy use of the function can cause premature failure, which should be fixed free of charge if it happens under warranty.

But everything that happens if the warranty is expired will not be fixed for free, Rolex is very straightforward when it comes to that.

[77T]

Thanks

I do think the 5 year warranty is sufficiently long enough for the majority of users. If the spring failed in the 6th year as Rick’s then some latitude might be afforded.

But I agree, the term is the term. Wish Rolex offered a RolexCare option to extend warranty for the gap twixt 5 years and the time of first recommended overhaul (10 years).

For a Sub that might be equal to $1000 - then if customer declined, no reason to whine.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by 77T

Thanks

I do think the 5 year warranty is sufficiently long enough for the majority of users. If the spring failed in the 6th year as Rick’s then some latitude might be afforded.

But I agree, the term is the term. Wish Rolex offered a RolexCare option to extend warranty for the gap twixt 5 years and the time of first recommended overhaul (10 years).

For a Sub that might be equal to $1000 - then if customer declined, no reason to whine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Rick is just unlucky as he purchased the watch before the 5 year warranty started, maybe the AD can do a courtesy repair or a heavily discounted service. An actual RSC will not budge.

[RickB8960]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Rick is just unlucky as he purchased the watch before the 5 year warranty started, maybe the AD can do a courtesy repair or a heavily discounted service. An actual RSC will not budge.

Correct! Since it’s already in hand at the RSC I just told them to do it. I want my watch back!

[77T]

Originally Posted by RickB8960

Correct! Since it’s already in hand at the RSC I just told them to do it. I want my watch back!

Well they should do a fine job. Have you considered escalating for some latitude? Because an early failure, the service was required in light of the spring’s inherent design issue (I wouldn’t say “flaw” at the outset).

Perhaps a discounted fee?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro