32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by searas

But, even if there are much less reported 3230 issues, given the fact that the suspected components are shared among all 32xx, it would only mean that the 3230 takes longer to show the symptons of the amplitude issues. We will be very thankful to the watches owners if they keep posting measurements at least once a year.

Not exactly the topic discussed in this thread, but, are there any testimonies of Rolex charging for repairment of amplitude issues outside of the warranty period?

Regards,
Daniel

Fewer compounding issues could also mean that the problems occur to a lesser degree. I have a watch with a 3230, worn regularly. Started losing time and falling out of spec a few months ago and has hovered around -3.8/day give or take for that time. No massive drop-off (yet) in terms of timekeeping.

Also, I don't know that I'd call them "amplitude issues" considering Rolex designed it to be able to keep time at lower amplitudes. Something else, however, seems to be getting in the way of the movement doing what it was intended to do overall.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Something else, however, seems to be getting in the way of the movement doing what it was intended to do overall.

The issue is that it must be seen against the backdrop of the Rolex much lauded 10 year service interval not to mention the warranty period.
In practice. If service intervals were 2-3 years and warranty was 12 months, it's doubtful that people would ever really notice an issue with their watch.

But at least it looks like progress is finally being made.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

… considering Rolex designed it to be able to keep time at lower amplitudes.

Never heard of this as a Rolex design criterion for the 32xx. They extended the power reserve (PR) from 44 hours (31xx) to 70 hours (32xx) by a completely new movement design. After about 3/4 of the PR, there is not enough power to keep the amplitudes high enough to ensure good timekeeping for all 32xx watches. One design decision was to stay with only 1 mainspring barrel, more wouldn't fit in these tractors?

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by saxo3

2015: 3235, 3255
2016: -
2017: -
2018: 3285
2019: -
2020: 3230

Oops. For some reason I thought the GMT came before the time-and-date version.

Originally Posted by saxo3

Never heard of this as a Rolex design criterion for the 32xx. They extended the power reserve (PR) from 44 hours (31xx) to 70 hours (32xx) by a completely new movement design. After about 3/4 of the PR, there is not enough power to keep the amplitudes high enough to ensure good timekeeping for all 32xx watches. One design decision was to stay with only 1 mainspring barrel, more wouldn't fit in these tractors?

I thought I'd read that they basically had to do this because amplitude was going to be sacrificed to meet the other criteria, and they thought they'd achieved it (indeed they did, but not long-term).

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Poodlopogus

Oops. For some reason I thought the GMT came before the time-and-date version.



I thought I'd read that they basically had to do this because amplitude was going to be sacrificed to meet the other criteria, and they thought they'd achieved it (indeed they did, but not long-term).

Interesting that you think you had read something about the development of this watch calibre. It would be great to know more about it all

We need to be mindful of the fact that watch movements are literally a grab bag of compromises so at all times some criterior has got to be proritised over another and another.
I think this thread has well demonstrated that Amplitude is probably more important in the grand scheme of these things than the mothership had ever appreciated as we know that the 32xx movements were never big on Amplitude.
Perhaps the Chronergy escapement is another mistake in the history of horology?
Also as has been mentioned in theses pages, a dual Spring barrel would be better utilised especially when pursuing much longer power reserves and may be a distinct advantage for a Chronergy escapement.

[searas]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Also as has been mentioned in theses pages, a dual Spring barrel would be better utilised especially when pursuing much longer power reserves and may be a distinct advantage for a Chronergy escapement.

The barrel in the 32xx is supposedly to add 10 hours of power reserve (according to the link in post #5255), but this same barrel has been mentioned as one of supposedly sources of the problems. I will be happy with just 60 hours of power reserve, keeping a barrel similar to those in 31xx, if that would mean a more reliable movement. It seems that Rolex went too far in trying to improve an already reliable and precise movement such as the 31xx.

Regards,
Daniel

[GradeV]

Originally Posted by searas

The barrel in the 32xx is supposedly to add 10 hours of power reserve (according to the link in post #5255), but this same barrel has been mentioned as one of supposedly sources of the problems. I will be happy with just 60 hours of power reserve, keeping a barrel similar to those in 31xx, if that would mean a more reliable movement. It seems that Rolex went too far in trying to improve an already reliable and precise movement such as the 31xx.

Regards,
Daniel

I think the other compromise was / is thickness. Rolex movements are not especially thin (which is not a bad thing; I think of them as robust) but it is possible that a thicker movement would have affected the case thickness.

As for me personally I’ve not acquired a 32XX and don’t intend to. No hard data from me.

[tho68]

My "practical" expirience confirms what I measured (see below) that my watch is crazy accurate. After around 4 days (including the test period) the deviation is 1s max.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by searas

The barrel in the 32xx is supposedly to add 10 hours of power reserve (according to the link in post #5255), but this same barrel has been mentioned as one of supposedly sources of the problems. I will be happy with just 60 hours of power reserve, keeping a barrel similar to those in 31xx, if that would mean a more reliable movement. It seems that Rolex went too far in trying to improve an already reliable and precise movement such as the 31xx.

Regards,
Daniel

Originally Posted by GradeV

I think the other compromise was / is thickness. Rolex movements are not especially thin (which is not a bad thing; I think of them as robust) but it is possible that a thicker movement would have affected the case thickness.

As for me personally I’ve not acquired a 32XX and don’t intend to. No hard data from me.

If I've understood other things I've read by watchmakers elsewhere, the primary compromise for the sake of PR was mainspring thickness. However, I don't think it would be as simple as "use a shorter, thicker mainspring, lose 10hr PR, maintain better amplitude" because of the escapement design. I think that was meant to be used in conjunction with a thinner mainspring.

I think I also recall watchmakers here saying that the barrel design itself just makes it a disposable, rather than serviceable, component.

The real problem, from my perspective, was in insisting that 36mm and 40+mm watches use identical movements. NOBODY else does this, other manufactures have a movement for large watches distinct from their midsize counterparts.

So, had Rolex kept the 31xx for 36mm watches and designed a larger movement for the larger watches, fewer compromises would have been required.

[Poodlopogus]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Interesting that you think you had read something about the development of this watch calibre. It would be great to know more about it all

We need to be mindful of the fact that watch movements are literally a grab bag of compromises so at all times some criterior has got to be proritised over another and another.
I think this thread has well demonstrated that Amplitude is probably more important in the grand scheme of these things than the mothership had ever appreciated as we know that the 32xx movements were never big on Amplitude.
Perhaps the Chronergy escapement is another mistake in the history of horology?
Also as has been mentioned in theses pages, a dual Spring barrel would be better utilised especially when pursuing much longer power reserves and may be a distinct advantage for a Chronergy escapement.

Agree that Chronergy is basically stupid. Maybe clever in theory, but in my mind, there were two way, way better options:

1. Forget about gimmicks and just do a better finished version of the Tudor MT movement. The specs are awesome, and any reported systemic issues seem to have been ironed out long ago. They could have changed enough to avoid the perception they were the same.

2. Keep the 31xx for the 36mm pieces and do a proper long-PR movement for the 40mm+ pieces. The vast majority of manufactures do exactly that; look at VC, Chopard, Zenith, Omega, Blancpain, etc. The midsize pieces all have shorter PR than the largest.