32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I have an answer to both of you:
The last approx. 10 hours, before reaching the 70 hours Power Reserve (PR), strongly depend on watch condition and in which position it remains at rest all time. I have measured that in 2019 for a 3235 coming back from a repair at Rolex. Below are the results.



Plots show Rate and Amplitude vs. Time after full winding at t = 0 in DU (dial up) and 9U (9 up) position.
Result for position DU was close to DD; 9U was close to 6U, 12U, 3 U.

I hope that gives a better view about the Power Reserve understanding. This drop in Amplitude with Time is a general feature of all movements.

Take note, these data were taken with a well running 3235 coming back from Rolex repair.
For 3235 and 3285 with "issues" the situation is completely different, worse.

Nice graphs. Did you not measure longer than 60 hours? I think the 60-72 hour range is where things could get very interesting. If it follows the trend and timing gets a little worse, no big deal, but if it drops like a rock (as mine does going to -180s/d) then this part of the power reserve is a bit worthless.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Nice graphs. Did you not measure longer than 60 hours? I think the 60-72 hour range is where things could get very interesting. If it follows the trend and timing gets a little worse, no big deal, but if it drops like a rock (as mine does going to -180s/d) then this part of the power reserve is a bit worthless.

No, I stopped after 58:40 hours, which is approximately the time from Friday (18:00) to Monday (06:00).

[philohlean]

Realized I never explicitly mentioned what movement I am representing. 3285 purchased 10/20. Will need to obtain more exact data with deliberate tests. To date it has tracked consistently average of +1/d, worn every day or every other day. Sounds as though it's unlikely I would have the issue this early into ownership anyway, may need to revisit the thread in another 6-8 months.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I hope that gives a better view about the Power Reserve understanding. This drop in Amplitude with Time is a general feature of all movements.

Please note, these data were taken with a well running 3235 coming back from Rolex repair.

Is that amplitude drop under 200 during the last hours, normal for a 3235 returning from Rolex ? Should it stay above 200?

[Davidt]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

There is also first year owners,unlikely to experience any problems clicking no issues .

I believe the percentage to be fairly accurate .

Based on what?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by philohlean

Realized I never explicitly mentioned what movement I am representing. 3285 purchased 10/20. Will need to obtain more exact data with deliberate tests. To date it has tracked consistently average of +1/d, worn every day or every other day. Sounds as though it's unlikely I would have the issue this early into ownership anyway, may need to revisit the thread in another 6-8 months.

You don't really know ... until I show you data for an unworn 3285 ...
Look at my 2 Tables in post #11, data for a fairly new 3285.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Is that amplitude drop under 200 during the last hours, normal for a 3235 returning from Rolex ? Should it stay above 200?

Yes, that's normal (inside specs), otherwise it would certainly not have passed their controls.

I have never seen an official Rolex document with specifications and acceptance criteria for the 3200 series, also not for other movements. I have been told the following.

No Guarantee!
Amplitude max: 300 degrees
Amplitude min.: 200 degrees
The 200 degrees are 24 hours after full watch winding.
No Guarantee!

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, that's normal, otherwise it would certainly not have passed their controls.

I have never seen an official Rolex document with specifications and acceptance criteria for the 3200 series, also not for other movements. I have been told the following.

Amplitude max: 300 degrees
Amplitude min.: 200 degrees
The 200 degrees are 24 hours after full watch winding.
No Guarantee!

OK,so the " guarantee " for +200 is only for the first 24h

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

OK,so the " guarantee " for +200 is only for the first 24h

No, I say that I have no official Rolex document about the movement specs.

The amplitudes I quoted (300 max, 200 min after 24 hours) are without "guarantee", i.e. I have no proof!

I also don't know if they take an average value over all positions.
I think they don't measure the 12U position (which I do).

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by saxo3

No, I say that I have no official Rolex document about the movement specs.

The amplitudes I quoted (300 max, 200 min after 24 hours) are without "guarantee", i.e. I have no proof!

I also don't know if they take an average value over all positions.
I think they don't measure the 12U position (which I do).

[klenboy]

I have a D-Blue Deepsea (3235) purchased in January 2019. I have 2 results below based on frequency of winding. I only wear the watch every 4 days (I rotate between 4 watches a week) and check the results upon wearing.

Results are based on dial up orientation when at rest/unworn:-

• When winding once every day I get between -2 to -3 spd.
• When winding on every third day I get between -5 to -6 spd.

I'm afraid I don't have any amplitude data here. These results are based on observation for the past 6 months and the watch has never been sent to RSC to be "fixed." At this point I don't think there's a need for me to send this in. To compensate, whenever I set the watch, I just set it between 30s to 60s advanced.

During the first year of ownership the timekeeping was definitely within "Superlative" standards and within 2nd year of ownership it settled to this. I also have a BLRO but that was purchased in December 2020 therefore it's results of "Superlative" will not be relevant here (need to wait for at least a year).

[TswaneNguni]

So,3235s with low amplitudes get slower .
3135s as they age actually gets slightly faster .I have two 3135s that got faster eg. 116660 was +1s,now at 10years its +3s.

Can anyone explain this difference for me ?

[TheVTCGuy]

I was trying to understand all this about amplitude, and beat error, and mainspring force, and molecular alignment.... Then my head exploded

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I was trying to understand all this about amplitude, and beat error, and mainspring force, and molecular alignment.... Then my head exploded

Stay calm ..and just get the pieces together .

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I was trying to understand all this about amplitude, and beat error, and mainspring force, and molecular alignment.... Then my head exploded

Same. Now i use my timegrapher to hang beef jerky on. Much simpler.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Stay calm ..and just get the pieces together .

OMG, that‘s an excellent one

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

Same. Now i use my timegrapher to hang beef jerky on. Much simpler.

Why already now? The data-plot-analysis party has not even started yet. More to come...

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

So,3235s with low amplitudes get slower .
3135s as they age actually gets slightly faster .I have two 3135s that got faster eg. 116660 was +1s,now at 10years its +3s.

Can anyone explain this difference for me ?

I had a Bluesy that held a +4 for 15 years. I really didnt even want to give it its first service at the 15 year mark.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Kirk19

I own a 2019 BLNR and a 2020 CHNR. Reading these comments it seems the 3235 has more issues then the 3285. I am not wearing my watches very often anymore due to my job and COVID... I wound my watches today and will keep track of time gained or lost. Interesting that there is a claim of a ‘problem’. Would Rolex rectify these problems with the 32xx movements when you go in for a service? Even outside the warranty period? If it is design problem I think they should...

That's always been the question around the elephant in the room.
As stated earlier in the thread, it would be reasonable to expect an extended warranty to be applied for this issue assuming Rolex doesn't come up with a proper fix and is able to only manage a work around.

There's no doubt it's been problematic for Rolex to date.
Especiay against the backdrop of a claimed 10 year service interval(with exclusions) and more significantly a 5 year warranty.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I had a Bluesy that held a +4 for 15 years. I really didnt even want to give it its first service at the 15 year mark.

The joy around this type of ownership experience is undeniable.
The daily wearer MK II 116660 i have on my wrist ATM is running at around - 3 seconds per day and has done since the day I bought it new in 2011 with 1 service under it's belt.

But we are primarily here to establish the bonafides of the 32xx series movements, which i think has been well established by now.
With all credit to Jeff and saxo3 for starting this much needed thread

As a group, we just need to wait see what happens on the mothership's end

[HogwldFLTR]

Just to be clear; I've no reason to believe the validity of any poll on the site. I've run more than a few and am more convinced that a fair number of respondents down own the watches they're responding about and just put an answer they want to see.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

So,the last 10 hour period of the PR is of no practical use for the user ?

The accuracy does fall off a cliff but I still appreciate it as it means I take my dj off Friday after work and Monday morning it’s still ticking. My watch used to only lose about 3 seconds over the weekend when left dial up.

With this issue it was like 2 mins out by Monday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

So,3235s with low amplitudes get slower .
3135s as they age actually gets slightly faster .I have two 3135s that got faster eg. 116660 was +1s,now at 10years its +3s.

Can anyone explain this difference for me ?

Low amplitude due to or dropping can result in faster oscillation. It happens with my nomos.

The 32xx it’s slowing down due to increased friction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Just to be clear; I've no reason to believe the validity of any poll on the site. I've run more than a few and am more convinced that a fair number of respondents down own the watches they're responding about and just put an answer they want to see.

Of course, it hasn't been assembled by professionals skilled in this discipline, with a suite of questions which are carefully constructed and framed in such a manner that's designed to extract the relevant data they need.
But being we are on an internet forum, perhaps this is the best that can be managed for our own purposes.

Naturally, it can't possibly compare to the abundance of data that Rolex has already compiled since they started their design process. Which would be the gold standard that we will never attain

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Just to be clear; I've no reason to believe the validity of any poll on the site. I've run more than a few and am more convinced that a fair number of respondents down own the watches they're responding about and just put an answer they want to see.

Is it scientifically and statistically valid? Of course not. But it's the best we have so far and it would be hard to see these accounts in any context and fully dismiss it as a non-issue. The most interesting thing to me is that from the very beginning of the pole the percentages have been fairly consistent. That seems pretty unlikely if it was all the work of trolls.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Low amplitude due to or dropping can result in faster oscillation. It happens with my nomos.

The 32xx it’s slowing down due to increased friction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or is it simply a matter of torque delivery when we are looking at data points derived from a partially wound down watch.
As Padi has mentioned a twin Spring barrel is generally accepted as the best solution.

I do accept the curiosity factor from amateurs on an internet forum who have no possible practical use for data they losely gather, which Rolex will already have in thier closely guarded possession

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Is it scientifically and statistically valid? Of course not. But it's the best we have so far and it would be hard to see these accounts in any context and fully dismiss it as a non-issue. The most interesting thing to me is that from the very beginning of the pole the percentages have been fairly consistent. That seems pretty unlikely if it was all the work of trolls.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Agreed
Fascinating none the less and certainly educational

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Or is it simply a matter of torque delivery when we are looking at data points derived from a partially wound down watch.
As Padi has mentioned a twin Spring barrel is generally accepted as the best solution.

I do accept the curiosity factor from amateurs on an internet forum who have no possible practical use for data they losely gather, which Rolex will already have in thier closely guarded possession

Yeah lower torque means the balance wheel is pushed less resulting in a faster oscillation. I don’t understand your amateur comment but this isn’t hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Timegrapher

There was a question about the usefulness and reproducibility of timegrapher results.
That's my factual answer:



The figure above displays a data comparison of two watches, measured in 2019 (after full winding) with the same timegrapher, one after the other, first the SD43 (2017) then the Submariner 14060M (2001), both in all 6 positions.

I think that's convincing.

Conclusion: all data shown are not an artefact of the instrument in use but mirror the performance of the investigated movement at a given moment, which is very useful and beyond the scope of the 3200 series.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Yeah lower torque means the balance wheel is pushed less resulting in a faster oscillation. I don’t understand your amateur comment but this isn’t hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lower torque does indeed lower amplitude but i wonder about two factors not fully explored.
Firstly, what is the actual torque curve delivery from the Main spring from go to wo.
Secondly, what effect or inter-relationship does it have with the Chronergy Escapement.

As i've said previously on the forum.
On paper, both items probably are great in their own right.
Is it possible they don't necessarily play that well together?

But that's just the amateur in me thinking out aloud.
Which i believe is fair enough as this is only an internet forum mostly comprised of amateurs.
Hense my reference to amateures being in respect to Horological capabilities.
Of course, that's not taking anything away from amateures in general