32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Yes, it's an interesting theory. The fact that the whole barrel mechanism is meant to be replaced could also mean that fewer of them are taken apart and examined at service (making the problem harder to discover and diagnose originally).

Perhaps the thought at Rolex is simply that SOP will be to replace when watches come in for service until the bad batch/batches have been depleted.

Speaking of... One or more bad batches (that are presumably weak in the same way) would explain a few things:

1. Why some watches go bad and others don't.
2. Why the problem recurs on some but not others.
3. Why the problem always seems to present around the same point in a watch's life.




Good point. However, defects can have systemic effects. Is it not conceivable that a spring problem could manifest itself as wear on a seemingly unrelated part due to a chain reaction of sorts? It would also make sense then why the lubrication wasn't a permanent fix. Analogous to:

I get frequent lower back pain (muscular). Try lots of different things. Then I realize: when working out I have a tendency to overuse/not stretch a muscle in my leg that attaches to those in the lower back. The result is a tightening in the leg that pulls at my back, making it hurt. But it's not a back problem, so the back muscles aren't what to address.

Not saying it is the case, but just a possible reconciliation of different ideas.

Some interesting points that are possibly worth more consideration
But I imagine that Rolex know more about their springs and the longevity of them than they are getting credit for.
After all, they've been at it for a very long time and I fully expect the replaced parts are often sent back to the mothership for some degree of analysis to discover if there is a deficiency in quality.
Especially given they are already devoting a disproportionate amount of resources to the issue.
Of note, i have also seen a youtube video of a service to a 32xx movement that apparently restored the timekeeping of the watch and for some reason the Mainspring and Barrel weren't changed. They were serviced in the usual manner and re-used to good effect. This suggests there is nothing wrong in that regard when taken at face value

We already know from someone who is extremely hands on with these things, that one factor which may be compounding the issue is the metalurgy of the pinions in this modern era. It should be something that's rather easily addressed if actually deemed to be a part of the problem rather than being symptomatic.
I note the latest fix for the Omega 3861 as an example of how a seemingly inconsequential change can make a rather profound difference. Certainly enough to potentially see the movement conceivably go the full distance between what is deemed to be a reasonable service interval as far as Omega are concerned. But that's a rather fluid thing in it's own right

I do have a theory which I think has a degree of plausibility that i have held now for quite a long while, that also has its roots in the automotive industry based upon my own experience which I think may be outside of the realms of experience of Rolex or perhaps even the Horological world in general which may apply to the woes of this movement series.
But for all we know, Rolex may have found a solution that meets their criterior anyway

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Dirt

But I imagine that Rolex know more about their springs and the longevity of them than they are getting credit for.
After all, they've been at it for a very long time and I fully expect the replaced parts are often sent back to the mothership for some degree of analysis to discover if there is a deficiency in quality.

That’s possible, but sometimes the simple things can get overlooked — especially if a few which were tested happen to be ok rather than from a bad batch. With the data received in terms of repaired 33xx movements (the data show nothing consistent in terms of repair and much of what is actually changed or inspected is not communicated) it’s difficult to determine what is or is not consistently damaged/faulty on all movements. We basically don’t have enough actual data on faulty components removed from suspect movements to know what is or is not causal or corollary. Throwing parts at a movement to resolve an issue has a habit of spoiling any differential diagnostic process.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Of note, i have also seen a youtube video of a service to a 32xx movement that apparently restored the timekeeping of the watch and for some reason the Mainspring and Barrel weren't changed. They were serviced in the usual manner and re-used to good effect. This suggests there is nothing wrong in that regard when taken at face value

I was led to believe the barrel is not serviceable at all and must be exchanged. Assuming that what you say is correct and that the YouTuber has managed to resolve the issue on a bench in his shed (or wherever), this seems to contradict what you said above about Rolex being well directed and heavily invested in the repair of the movement. Moreover, it seems to suggest that the resolution is one that can be resolved without the resources Rolex have available to them. Of course, this is not impossible (my suggestion is such a fix), but it at least invalidates the argument you used against my fault spring hypothesis, as it implies Rolex *do* actually overlook some things that (random) YouTuber has identified by himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

I was led to believe the barrel is not serviceable at all and must be exchanged. Assuming that what you say is correct and that the YouTuber has managed to resolve the issue on a bench in his shed (or wherever), this seems to contradict what you said above about Rolex being well directed and heavily invested in the repair of the movement. Moreover, it seems to suggest that the resolution is one that can be resolved without the resources Rolex have available to them. Of course, this is not impossible (my suggestion is such a fix), but it at least invalidates the argument you used against my fault spring hypothesis, as it implies Rolex *do* actually overlook some things that (random) YouTuber has identified by himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My understanding is that the spring barrel wasn't intended to be serviced (something about the thinness of the walls). That doesn't mean one can't service it, just that one (or more) of the following is true:

1. There's a high probability of breaking when servicing.
2. The time needed to painstakingly work on it costs Rolex more than a replacement.
3. There's a chance that, even if it is serviced and works, the structural integrity will be compromised.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

My understanding is that the spring barrel wasn't intended to be serviced (something about the thinness of the walls). That doesn't mean one can't service it, just that one (or more) of the following is true:

1. There's a high probability of breaking when servicing.
2. The time needed to painstakingly work on it costs Rolex more than a replacement.
3. There's a chance that, even if it is serviced and works, the structural integrity will be compromised.

That is all true, but it seems as though it may not be impossible.
Though it was only a youtube video and who knows how well it reflects real world outcomes.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

That’s possible, but sometimes the simple things can get overlooked — especially if a few which were tested happen to be ok rather than from a bad batch. With the data received in terms of repaired 33xx movements (the data show nothing consistent in terms of repair and much of what is actually changed or inspected is not communicated) it’s difficult to determine what is or is not consistently damaged/faulty on all movements. We basically don’t have enough actual data on faulty components removed from suspect movements to know what is or is not causal or corollary. Throwing parts at a movement to resolve an issue has a habit of spoiling any differential diagnostic process.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is more than enough information available to us on this forum going back a number of years as to the standard scope of work Rolex has put in place to deal with the warranty claims on this movement.
Anything else is based on common sense when the movement is torn down by the watchmaker.