32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Michael N Q8]

Thanks, the text marked in green I understand

Oh, is my explanation confusing? I will try to post some tables.

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Oh, is my explanation confusing? I will try to post some tables.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael N Q8]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atxwatch]

Well...I was on the list for a Daytona and Skydweller this year...I am not buying those new versions with the Chronergy escapements. That much is certain.

[Easy E]

We are going to have some new friends in this thread shortly. Everyone be nice.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Well...I was on the list for a Daytona and Skydweller this year...I am not buying those new versions with the Chronergy escapements. That much is certain.

Originally Posted by Easy E

We are going to have some new friends in this thread shortly. Everyone be nice.

Sorry can you guys clarify? Do the new calibers have similar issues to the 32xx? If so how do we know?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Sorry can you guys clarify? Do the new calibers have similar issues to the 32xx? If so how do we know?

Time will tell.
I certainly hope they will not develop similar issues.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Well...I was on the list for a Daytona and Skydweller this year...I am not buying those new versions with the Chronergy escapements. That much is certain.

Why? I heard that Rolex HQ will sell these new watches plus a W. timegrapher (for free).

Originally Posted by Easy E

We are going to have some new friends in this thread shortly. Everyone be nice.

We rarely play games here.

Originally Posted by Vince_76

Sorry can you guys clarify? Do the new calibers have similar issues to the 32xx? If so how do we know?

Nobody can know what these new calibers (4131, 7140, 9002) will deliver.
We have to wait .... but don't forget the 32xx all have the Chronergy escapement since 2015

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Why? I heard that Rolex HQ will sell these new watches plus a W. timegrapher (for free).

We rarely play games here.

Nobody can know what these new calibers (4131, 7140, 9002) will deliver.
We have to wait .... but don't forget the 32xx all have the Chronergy escapement since 2015

The introduction of the Chronergy escapement is increasingly the most likely culprit in all of these 32xx issues, based on my reading of this thread and other threads around the intewebs. I won't touch any movement that doesn't use swiss-lever or co-ax escapements. That includes the new GS high-beat movements.

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Calibre 9002
The new-generation Sky-Dweller is equipped with calibre 9002. A derivation of calibre 9001, which has driven the model since its launch in 2012, it is among the most complex movements designed by Rolex engineers.
Enabling the display of the hours, minutes, seconds, the date and the month, as well as an additional time zone in 24-hour format, calibre 9002 includes the latest technical innovations that Rolex has brought to its movements – Chronergy escapement, Paraflex shock absorbers and a new oscillating weight with an optimized ball bearing.

I was initially thinking this was probably not the best thread for my question, but after seeing this, maybe it is! Didn't the 9001 already have Paraflex shock absorbers and ball-bearing rotors? They are listed here: https://www.watch-wiki.net/doku.php?id=rolex_9001

Also, does anyone know if Rolex for sure did not upgrade the 9001 with the Chronergy escapement after 2015? I assume they did not, since otherwise they would've made a big deal about it, although they did upgrade the frail tension spring for the hour wheel assembly on the 3187 with a beefier one in the later years of its production quite silently.

[Seo]

If the new escapement is more efficient etc shouldn’t the pr be improved in the updated movements? I’m a bit confused the specs are the same.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Oh, is my explanation confusing? I will try to post some tables.

How did you measure, still using the TG app?

[Kentucky Gentleman]

My sense from reading much of this thread is that most of these issues do not involve the 3230. Am I understanding correctly that this movement is showing fewer problems? (And yes, I have an Explorer 12470; after 14 months near-daily wear it is fine...so far...)

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by Kentucky Gentleman

My sense from reading much of this thread is that most of these issues do not involve the 3230. Am I understanding correctly that this movement is showing fewer problems? (And yes, I have an Explorer 12470; after 14 months near-daily wear it is fine...so far...)

There are a few failures of the 3230 in this thread alone over the past few months. I'd imagine there are fewer 3230 failures, because it's not been on the market as long, but I don't believe there's been good evidence to suggest that the 3230 is inherently less prone to failure than the 3235. Maybe someone can correct me on that??

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

I was initially thinking this was probably not the best thread for my question, but after seeing this, maybe it is! Didn't the 9001 already have Paraflex shock absorbers and ball-bearing rotors? They are listed here: https://www.watch-wiki.net/doku.php?id=rolex_9001

Also, does anyone know if Rolex for sure did not upgrade the 9001 with the Chronergy escapement after 2015? I assume they did not, since otherwise they would've made a big deal about it, although they did upgrade the frail tension spring for the hour wheel assembly on the 3187 with a beefier one in the later years of its production quite silently.

Rolex have to pad out the marketing blurb as much as they can.
After all, they can't boast about having hour a minute hands on their watches, not to mention novels on the dial for a bit of light reading.
Says my good self taping this out whilst wearing a DSSD

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Easy E

We are going to have some new friends in this thread shortly. Everyone be nice.

True
But then again, maybe not if they're finally on top of it

[EEpro]

Guys... They are defying excellence.

That's all we need to know. #endthread

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by saxo3

How did you measure, still using the TG app?

Yes, I still use the Timegrapher app. One observation is that it gets increasingly difficult to get readings as the reserve goes past 50 hours.

I wonder if the watch passes 2 years without catching this virus, it means its cured? Hope so.

Seeing the new releases, I am also hesitant to buy one with this new tech on board, not that I would have an opportunity to though.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I wonder if the watch passes 2 years without catching this virus, it means its cured? Hope so.

I do NOT think any Rolex watch (Or any other brand) have a system that at 2 years the watch goes into "Fault" mode.

I doubt the problem has been fixed yet as no watches seem to have been consistantly tested and shown to be in a better state then others.

The only things that seem to have a built in self destruct feature are household items such as washing machines.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Yes, I still use the Timegrapher app. One observation is that it gets increasingly difficult to get readings as the reserve goes past 50 hours.

I wonder if the watch passes 2 years without catching this virus, it means its cured? Hope so.

Seeing the new releases, I am also hesitant to buy one with this new tech on board, not that I would have an opportunity to though.

Hello Michael, here is a comparison between your (serviced) watch and the one from EasyE.




Your 126710BLRO (3285 caliber) is within the known Rolex acceptance criteria:

- All amplitudes are above 200 degrees (24 hours after full winding).

- The average rate X = 1.4 s/d (after full winding) is well inside COSC (blue marked area) and also inside owner's expectation (-2,+2).

- Note, that I have not taken your 12U data into account.

Remark: I would not trust the measured data near 72 hours. As discussed in the past, you know the difficulties of the timegrapher app. A $200 cheap instrument will give you more reliable results.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by Dirt

True
But then again, maybe not if they're finally on top of it

Maybe so. That would be ideal.

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hello Michael, here is a comparison between your (serviced) watch and the one from EasyE.




Your 126710BLRO (3285 caliber) is within the known Rolex acceptance criteria:

- All amplitudes are above 200 degrees (24 hours after full winding).

- The average rate X = 1.4 s/d (after full winding) is well inside COSC (blue marked area) and also inside owner's expectation (-2,+2).

- Note, that I have not taken your 12U data into account.

Remark: I would not trust the measured data near 72 hours. As discussed in the past, you know the difficulties of the timegrapher app. A $200 cheap instrument will give you more reliable results.

Thanks for the comparison, I agree with you, the readings are not easy to get around the 70 hour point, and therefore not reliable.

I am still wearing the BLRO and its performing within expectations. I guess I can report again in a year, when its outside its warranty!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Thanks for the comparison, I agree with you, the readings are not easy to get around the 70 hour point, and therefore not reliable.

Towards the end of the power reserve no meaningful timegrapher readings are possible.

Amplitudes and rates start oscillating (already close to 66 hours) and their sigma values (error bars) strongly increase much before 72 hours, i.e., Weishi timegrapher and smartphone app readings become completely erratic and totally useless.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Let's hope you are right. My wife's 10 month old OP with 22xx just came back from Rolex factory service after 2+ months. It had super low amplitude and was running very erratically. Let's hope it is fixed for good.

I never suspected the 22xx watches might have this issue so I honestly never looked at my wife's DJ31 (caliber 2236, lift angle 52) from mid 2021 until a few days ago.

+0

DU 250-255 deg, +1 to +3 s/d
CD 225-230 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

+24

DU 220-235 deg, +4 to +6 s/d
CD 193-204 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

I'll check again in 6 months to see if it has changed. The timekeeping is reasonable for my purposes but the amplitude certainly doesn't look particularly strong (notably lower than her never-serviced 2006 Explorer 36, for example).

Of note to me, even after resting the full 24 hours in the dial up position on the timegrapher, the amplitude readings were jumping around quite a bit (in a 15 degree range which is more than I typically see in one position at one time).

If these calibers have the same "shouldn't drop below 200 degrees in any position in the first 24 hours" benchmark that the 32xx has, then this one failed that.

Hopefully it's ok, I really don't want to have to ask the mods to change the thread title to "x2xx movement problem"

[S.Explorer]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I never suspected the 22xx watches might have this issue so I honestly never looked at my wife's DJ31 (caliber 2236, lift angle 52) from mid 2021 until a few days ago.

+0

DU 250-255 deg, +1 to +3 s/d
CD 225-230 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

+24

DU 220-235 deg, +4 to +6 s/d
CD 193-204 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

I'll check again in 6 months to see if it has changed. The timekeeping is reasonable for my purposes but the amplitude certainly doesn't look particularly strong (notably lower than her never-serviced 2006 Explorer 36, for example).

Of note to me, even after resting the full 24 hours in the dial up position on the timegrapher, the amplitude readings were jumping around quite a bit (in a 15 degree range which is more than I typically see in one position at one time).

If these calibers have the same "shouldn't drop below 200 degrees in any position in the first 24 hours" benchmark that the 32xx has, then this one failed that.

Hopefully it's ok, I really don't want to have to ask the mods to change the thread title to "x2xx movement problem"

That's interesting as that particular movement doesn't have a chronergy escapement.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

If these calibers have the same "shouldn't drop below 200 degrees in any position in the first 24 hours" benchmark that the 32xx has, then this one failed that.

Yes, the 2236 also have the minimum amplitude criteria of 200 degrees at 24 hours.



Source: SearChart (TRF 28.02.2019)

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by S.Explorer

That's interesting as that particular movement doesn't have a chronergy escapement.

My thoughts as well.

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, the 2236 also have the minimum amplitude criteria of 200 degrees at 24 hours.

That's a helpful summary, I missed his post the first time around.

[Seo]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, the 2236 also have the minimum amplitude criteria of 200 degrees at 24 hours.



Source: SearChart (TRF 28.02.2019)

Oh the skydweller is a 51 lift angle. Interesting.

[atxwatch]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I never suspected the 22xx watches might have this issue so I honestly never looked at my wife's DJ31 (caliber 2236, lift angle 52) from mid 2021 until a few days ago.

+0

DU 250-255 deg, +1 to +3 s/d
CD 225-230 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

+24

DU 220-235 deg, +4 to +6 s/d
CD 193-204 deg, -1 to +1 s/d

I'll check again in 6 months to see if it has changed. The timekeeping is reasonable for my purposes but the amplitude certainly doesn't look particularly strong (notably lower than her never-serviced 2006 Explorer 36, for example).

Of note to me, even after resting the full 24 hours in the dial up position on the timegrapher, the amplitude readings were jumping around quite a bit (in a 15 degree range which is more than I typically see in one position at one time).

If these calibers have the same "shouldn't drop below 200 degrees in any position in the first 24 hours" benchmark that the 32xx has, then this one failed that.

Hopefully it's ok, I really don't want to have to ask the mods to change the thread title to "x2xx movement problem"

Thanks for sharing. My wife's amplitude numbers were around 100-ish fully wound. I don't have a timegrapher yet, but my wife's OP and my BLRO will all get measured soon enough...

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by atxwatch

Thanks for sharing. My wife's amplitude numbers were around 100-ish fully wound.

Do you mean your wife's watch?