32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Thanks again.

Use the higher sensitivity mode of your Weishi 1900.
Rate accuracy: the measuring range is 999 s/d or 99.9 s/d, resolution is 1.0 s/d or 0.1 s/d
Place the watch on your timegrapher such that the crown is in contact with the microphone.

Below is the measurement procedure I posted (#771) in March 2021:

----------------
For everybody joining new in the fun of caliber investigations using a timegrapher, I recommend the following steps:

(1) Measure your watch in 5 positions (except 12U) and note rates, amplitudes, and beat errors.
(2) Start with full watch winding (40+ complete crown turns), place the watch on your timegrapher, in DU position.
(3) Wait (10-15 minutes) for stabilisation.
(4) Start timegrapher measurement, which usually takes about 2 minutes.
(5) Change watch position, wait (2 minutes), measure.
(6) This you do sequentially for all 5 positions.
(7) Save all data in an Excel file.
(8) Calculate average values and error bars (standard deviation).
(9) Save file.
(10) For long term measurements, leave your watch (at rest) in DU position on the timegrapher, repeat the sequence in certain time intervals.

Note: The more data the better; with 0, 24 h, 48 h … you will miss to detect some caliber characteristics, e.g. a fast decrease in amplitudes after full winding.

Following this simple procedure will allow us to obtain comparable data sets, which could be visualized in graphs, as done previously in this thread.
----------------

I hope that helps you Easy E?

[Easy E]

First run with my timegrapher. I only did two positions, I stated in my spreadsheet crown right, that would be @3. I also ran a couple of readings against a Grand Seiko and my 3135 Bluesy. For sure I will redo these, but I wanted to get some idea rolling. I find the numbers to be very interesting - the difference between my 619LB and the SD43. Also, the WG sub is by my most worn, followed by the TT DJ41.

With my next data collection I will also pull my warranty cards to get original DOP. Thanks all.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

First run with my timegrapher. I only did two positions, I stated in my spreadsheet crown right, that would be @3.

A few recommendations I already posted before:
- Do not measure 12 up = crown right.
- Measure all 5 positions, that is important, otherwise you don't get the complete picture.
- Timegrapher settings to higher resolution of the rates.
- Better to measure one watch at a time (0, 12, 24, 36, 48) and not several in parallel.
- Add the purchase dates and calibers to your list, not everybody is familiar which movement is used in different watches.

[saxo3]

[Easy E]

Please excuse my ignorance on this, but in regards to this-
Rate accuracy: the measuring range is 999 s/d or 99.9 s/d, resolution is 1.0 s/d or 0.1 s/d

Do I want the 999 or the 99.9? Also, I don't see a resolution setting, just rate range.

Also, why not to measure with crown at 3 (right)? What does that do or not do?

Finally, is there a chart that gives lift angle for other mfg/calibers? I have a couple other watches I would like to measure, for the sake of it.

Thanks.

E-

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Please excuse my ignorance on this, but in regards to this-
Rate accuracy: the measuring range is 999 s/d or 99.9 s/d, resolution is 1.0 s/d or 0.1 s/d

Do I want the 999 or the 99.9? Also, I don't see a resolution setting, just rate range.
You want 99.9 which provides a resolution of 0.1 s/d. You will see the difference (during measurements) on the Weishi 1900 screen.

Also, why not to measure with crown at 3 (right)? What does that do or not do?
It does not do any harm! Rolex 32xx and 31xx (and other) movements are regulated only in 5 positions (DU, DD, 3U, 6U, 9U) and 12U is not part of it. COSC and Rolex do not measure in 12U position. There are other watch brands who regulate their movements in 6 positions.

Finally, is there a chart that gives lift angle for other mfg/calibers? I have a couple other watches I would like to measure, for the sake of it.
There are several sites on the internet where you can find lists with lift angles, be careful not every information might be correct.
E-

[sski]

is the tempest still brewing strong in your teapot?!

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by sski

is the tempest still brewing strong in your teapot?!

WOT ??

Are people supposed to understand wht your comment has to do with poorly made 32xx movements and this thread ?

Ps.. I am an espresso drinker.

[sheldonsmith]

With having two 32xx Rolex watches with a combined five (5) trips to an RSC, here's my observation as a non-watchmaker but longtime Rolex wearer (the Exp I 214270 Mark II 39mm on my wrist right now is the 14th Rolex I have owned).

It just seems to me that the issue here is that we are experiencing the difference between a laboratory experiment vs. real world production results/design here.

The 32xx redesigned balance was designed to be more energy efficient and thus require less energy/power from the mainspring.

Subsequently, the 32xx movement mainspring is thinner and weaker (seen in a lower amplitude) to

a) not overpower the smaller, lighter Chronergy balance

and

b) have an advertised benefit of a 72-hour power reserve.

In a controlled setting, this design logic works.

In the real world where these movements are produced in millions and function for months without any interruption, the end-result is that any out-of-specification serial production flaw in the wheel train becomes an issue that manifests itself with degrading accuracy.

The 31XX movements have a heavier, stronger mainspring that powers through any production abnormalities because the traditional Swiss-lever balance and wheel train accommodates a heavier, stronger mainspring (think oversized, lifted, big tired, tacky American 4x4 seen at the county fair vs a Prius).

At least in the States, smaller 4-cylinder vehicles drive around traffic circles whereas oversized testosteroned designed V-8 4x4 trucks drive through them (seen it, but don't like it). I am seeing/experiencing/observing a similar difference between the 32xx movement and 31xx movements.

I think Rolex got too comfortable with 30xx and 31xx designs scaling up to larger production numbers without issues and expected the same result with the redesigned 32xx series.

Feel free to guide me/explain otherwise...

-Sheldon

[Easy E]

Back for more. I now have what I believe is a better set of data. Below is the data set from the SD43 only. I will post the data from my other 3235 watches shortly. This SD43 has an original purchase date of Feb 11, 2020.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Back for more. I now have what I believe is a better set of data. Below is the data set from the SD43 only.

Looking at your table (Date, POM) I can not understand the sequence of measurements. Maybe only a matter of changing the rows in the table?

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Looking at your table (Date, POM) I can not understand the sequence of measurements. Maybe only a matter of changing the rows in the table?

I think I understand your confusion. Last Friday, 12/16 the watch(es) had been sitting for approx. 12 hrs, I took a reading (late in the day). Then wound the watch up and took another reading. I knew I would not have any data over the weekend. Then, Monday morning wound the watches back up, but did not take a reading, assuming I had a recent full wind data set from last week. So the watches sat until Tuesday 12/20 for the 24hr reading, then another reading at 48hr - which is today. Make sense?

[Easy E]

Readings from my 126300 DJ41 - DOP Jan 19, 2021, 126610LN Sub Date - DOP March 30, 2021. The TT DJ41 126333 is currently sitting waiting for the 48hr reading, which will be tomorrow morning.

[Easy E]

Not super happy about what I see at the 48 hr mark. Uneasy, if I may.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I think I understand your confusion. Last Friday, 12/16 the watch(es) had been sitting for approx. 12 hrs, I took a reading (late in the day). Then wound the watch up and took another reading. I knew I would not have any data over the weekend. Then, Monday morning wound the watches back up, but did not take a reading, assuming I had a recent full wind data set from last week. So the watches sat until Tuesday 12/20 for the 24hr reading, then another reading at 48hr - which is today. Make sense?

Thanks for the clarification but I still do not understand row 12 of your SD43 data table:
12/16/2022 Sitting >48 Hr

That cannot be right because rows 7-11 say full winding at the same day (12/16/2022).

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the clarification but I still do not understand row 12 of your SD43 data table:
12/16/2022 Sitting >48 Hr

That cannot be right because rows 7-11 say full winding at the same day (12/16/2022).

Of course. That was just a single random measurement. The watch had been sitting for a undetermined amount of time, way longer than 48 hrs. I think it was approaching 70, like near end of advertised power reserve. I just want to see how the watch was performing. It was obviously terrible so I didn't bother with the other 4 positions. Its just a random data point.

I took that before fully winding the watch for the 12/16 data set.

[saxo3]

@EasyE

I looked at your amplitude data and created the following graphs for your 3 watches to show the differences.

In addition, your Sea-Dweller is compared with the one from Sheldon, which was repaired twice at RSC (see post #3267).



Based on experience gained with my 32xx watches, and the numbers I have seen from other members in this thread, I conclude that your three 3235 watches all have started to develop the problem of too low amplitudes.

I expect that, during the guarantee period, they will further degrade, and you will have to send them all to RSC for repair.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

@EasyE

I looked at your amplitude data and created the following graphs for your 3 watches to show the differences.

In addition, your Sea-Dweller is compared with the one from Sheldon, which was repaired twice at RSC (see post #3267).



Based on experience gained with my 32xx watches, and the numbers I have seen from other members in this thread, I conclude that your three 3235 watches all have started to develop the problem of too low amplitudes.

I expect that, during the guarantee period, they will further degrade, and you will have to send them all to RSC for repair.

This is great. Thank you.

Super curious that the original date of purchase between my SD and Sheldon's SD is only a month apart in 2020. Surely there is something to that. I believe you are correct that a RSC visit is eminent.

I do have two other 3235 watches. I will get data on them soon. Thanks again.

[atxwatch]

Has there been a single 32xx movement among any of us that has not developed the issue?

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Has there been a single 32xx movement among any of us that has not developed the issue?

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

I have a continuously running Pepsi from Dec 2020 that keeps sub second per day at this time. It has lint on the dial but the movement is fine. In my experience long periods of rest exacerbate the issue which I think is lube migration. Mine rocks gently on an Orbita Sparta when not worn.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Has there been a single 32xx movement among any of us that has not developed the issue?

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

Look at the poll results after nearly 2 years. About 3/4 of the 32xx owners voted their movements have no issues.


22.12.2022

Some members with several 32xx watches (3 and more) had 100 % failures, i.e., defect movements identified within about 1-3 years after purchase date. Look at the recent data posted by member EasyE. All his three 3235 have the issue, purchsse dates are 2020 and 2021.

A summary what we know I posted one month ago (3161 and 3182).

[Easy E]

So my brain is slow. After reading a good bit of this thread last night I realized this issue also applies to GMTs. I have two of those also, will start data collection soon.

[Easy E]

Here is the 48 hr update on my TT DJ41, 126333. I'd say not great.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Here is the 48 hr update on my TT DJ41, 126333. I'd say not great.

Graphs are easier (for me) to look at the results.

Just a reminder for the different watch positions:
DU: dial up
DD: dial down
9U: 9 up
6U: 6 up
3U: 3 up
X: average

Better to have additional data points at 12, 36, and 60 hours. At t = 0 the measurement in 9U position is missing.

[saxo3]

@EasyE

Conclusion: for the three vertical positions (3U, 6U, 9U) all your 4 watches with 3235 movements are close or below the amplitude acceptance limit of 200 degrees measured 24 hours after full winding.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

With having two 32xx Rolex watches with a combined five (5) trips to an RSC, here's my observation as a non-watchmaker but longtime Rolex wearer (the Exp I 214270 Mark II 39mm on my wrist right now is the 14th Rolex I have owned).

It just seems to me that the issue here is that we are experiencing the difference between a laboratory experiment vs. real world production results/design here.

The 32xx redesigned balance was designed to be more energy efficient and thus require less energy/power from the mainspring.

Subsequently, the 32xx movement mainspring is thinner and weaker (seen in a lower amplitude) to

a) not overpower the smaller, lighter Chronergy balance

and

b) have an advertised benefit of a 72-hour power reserve.

In a controlled setting, this design logic works.

In the real world where these movements are produced in millions and function for months without any interruption, the end-result is that any out-of-specification serial production flaw in the wheel train becomes an issue that manifests itself with degrading accuracy.

The 31XX movements have a heavier, stronger mainspring that powers through any production abnormalities because the traditional Swiss-lever balance and wheel train accommodates a heavier, stronger mainspring (think oversized, lifted, big tired, tacky American 4x4 seen at the county fair vs a Prius).

At least in the States, smaller 4-cylinder vehicles drive around traffic circles whereas oversized testosteroned designed V-8 4x4 trucks drive through them (seen it, but don't like it). I am seeing/experiencing/observing a similar difference between the 32xx movement and 31xx movements.

I think Rolex got too comfortable with 30xx and 31xx designs scaling up to larger production numbers without issues and expected the same result with the redesigned 32xx series.

Feel free to guide me/explain otherwise...

-Sheldon

Whatever the issue, I agree it’s likely something where laboratory tests don’t account for real-world performance. Question is what exactly that is, based on the evidence so far (could be your theory, or another, no basis to say with certainty).

Originally Posted by saxo3

Look at the poll results after nearly 2 years. About 3/4 of the 32xx owners voted their movements have no issues.


22.12.2022

Some members with several 32xx watches (3 and more) had 100 % failures, i.e., defect movements identified within about 1-3 years after purchase date. Look at the recent data posted by member EasyE. All his three 3235 have the issue, purchsse dates are 2020 and 2021.

A summary what we know I posted one month ago (3161 and 3182).

Which also makes me wonder whether usage patterns influence it at all. If members with several watches see failures in all, yet others see issues with none, that seems an odd distribution.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Whatever the issue, I agree it’s likely something where laboratory tests don’t account for real-world performance. Question is what exactly that is, based on the evidence so far (could be your theory, or another, no basis to say with certainty).


Which also makes me wonder whether usage patterns influence it at all. If members with several watches see failures in all, yet others see issues with none, that seems an odd distribution.

I am starring down 4 watches that are tracking this problem, with measurements still to go on 2 others. I find it statistically impossible that out of random distribution I'm 4 for 4.

On initial wind they all run ok. As mentioned in previous posts by a few others, I don’t think most people realize what is going on under the hood.

This has given me great pause on my next watch purchase(s).

[Easy E]

Sooooo….is this an issue with Day Date 40s?

[CedCraig]

I haven‘t read every page, but I don‘t get the feeling that people are selling their lemons. Why?

My 2022 Air-King runs fine now, but if it develops the Plague under warranty I‘ll have it fixed and sell it in a New York minute.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I don‘t get the feeling that people are selling their lemons. .

I have had three Rolex watches with 32xx movements.

Two Submariner Dates and one Explorer II.

All three had the "Sickness" and all three have been sold on.

I have replaced all three watches. I have ensured that I have watches that have good quality movements, have good precision and accuracy (Yes, they are different !).

The only problem there is that as so many Rolex watches have the 32xx movement and it has now been proven beyond doubt that Rolex movements currently have an unfixed problem I had to go away from buying Rolex watches to buying another brands watches.

I have sold three Rolex watches, this year and replaced them with three watches all from the same brand.

Thats a real shame for Rolex .... I am not alone on my thoughts and actions ... I personally know of others in my same situation.

I am now looking for a perfect condition, Explorer II with a 3187 movement. If I don't find that it will be a long wait until Rolex produce a new movement and then it will have to prove itself before I buy a Rolex watch again.