32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I discovered the problem, the 3235 has defective batteries.

Was it not vibrating to your liking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by 77T

Was it not vibrating to your liking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Jocke!? Is that you??

[CMAGS84]

Here are my results from the iPhone Timegrapher app. Not the most reliable way of gathering data but I have yet to purchase a real timegrapher.

These results were taken 24 hours after a full wind, with time split between wearing the watch during the day and resting the watch dial up at night.

I purchased this DJ 36 new from my AD in early February. It keeps excellent time between -0.5 and +1 SPD depending on wear and resting positions.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LC23]

I know this might derail the topic. I personally don't care for the time accuracy however when I unwind the crown I feel a lot of resistance unlike my other watches with different movements.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by CMAGS84

Here are my results from the iPhone Timegrapher app. Not the most reliable way of gathering data but I have yet to purchase a real timegrapher.

These results were taken 24 hours after a full wind, with time split between wearing the watch during the day and resting the watch dial up at night.

I purchased this DJ 36 new from my AD in early February. It keeps excellent time between -0.5 and +1 SPD depending on wear and resting positions.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If i can find a pair of headphones maybe I’ll try the app then my timegrapher to compare. I bet it’s close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by XplorerII

Baseline spring tension prior to measurement: I wound until I felt a slight abnormality/resistance in winding consistency, which I would hope is the clutch engagement. Approximately 30 winds.. sorry I didn't capture the exact # of full rotations.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=1704

[XplorerII]

saxo3 - thanks for the link. great to know 40 is the max for winding.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by XplorerII

saxo3 - thanks for the link. great to know 40 is the max for winding.

Your post 2909 is not easy to analyse, use Watch Tracker (or better a timegrapher, not the app).

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by XplorerII

saxo3 - thanks for the link. great to know 40 is the max for winding.

Keep in mind there is no max of 40 winds with an Automatic winding movement. Fully wound is fully wound and 40 turns is only a guide.
One could sit there all day and wind the watch 1040 times and never achieve anything more than a fully would condition because the Mainspring is designed in such a way as to continually slip around inside the Mainspring barrel when fully wound.

Less than 40 turns of the Winding crown on a watch that's come to a dead stop will likely result in a Mainspring that's not fully wound.
40 turns is only a guide as to the reasonable minimum

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by CMAGS84

Here are my results from the iPhone Timegrapher app. Not the most reliable way of gathering data but I have yet to purchase a real timegrapher.

It would seem a few of the participants here are using "TimeGrapher" type applications on their phones.

There seems to always be the problem of microphone and external noise that disturb the results.

I personally use a proper timegrapher, I used to use a Weishi, I now use a Witschi.

I also time clocks. A Timegrapher for watches is not suitable for that but I do use an app on my iPhone with a specialised but cheap microphone.

I use a microphone called ...
Pitch Grabber made by Peterson

It is described as a Mobile Clip-On Tuning Pick-Up.

It is made to be compatible with iPhones and Android phones.

This is what is used on acoustic guitars.

It has a 3.5 jack plug on the end but Apple make a cheap converter from 3.5mm jack plug to lightning if its needed.

This micriophone far exceeds the results I can get from my apple earbuds.

[CharlesN]

Just over a week ago I made a post about how my 3285 movement was becoming predictably poor at timekeeping.

You can see the original post here:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2857

I now have more data to share with you all (If you are interested that is).

These 2 graphs are after a period of 16 days. I generally wear my watch for approximately 16 hours per day and it is at rest Dial UP for the 8 hours at night.

This graph shows the daily changes ..


This next graph shows the variance.


I think it is pretty clear that my Explorer II's (226570 Polar) movement has now after about 14 Months caught the "Bug" as has been discussed within this very thread.

I suspect that Rolex still have not got to grips with the problem and formulated a fully successful fix for the fault.

I am not sending my watch in to the RSC quite yet .. I will wait until there is some evidence of a repair that works long term. To date there isnt one.

I have time as I have plenty of warranty time left.

When a solution is found I am sure Rolex will not make any form of announcement, they will just do "Silent Fixes" when watches come in for regulation or services.

Rolex will never admit that there is a problem in the first place.

32xx movement owners will be none the wiser if Rolex do fix things.

They will just be their usual over secretive selves.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Just over a week ago I made a post about how my 3285 movement was becoming predictably poor at timekeeping.

I think it is pretty clear that my Explorer II's (226570 Polar) movement has now after about 14 Months caught the "Bug" as has been discussed within this very thread.

Yes, sell it and buy an untouched white dial Explorer II, Ref. 216570, caliber 3187.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, sell it and buy an untouched white dial Explorer II, Ref. 216570, caliber 3187.

Thats a great idea.

But, Will I be able to find an untouched one ?

I like Un-Touched to be literally that ... Stickers etc ON.

The watch has not been in the AD's for a while ... That might be a tough call.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Just over a week ago I made a post about how my 3285 movement was becoming predictably poor at timekeeping.

You can see the original post here:
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=2857

I now have more data to share with you all (If you are interested that is).

These 2 graphs are after a period of 16 days. I generally wear my watch for approximately 16 hours per day and it is at rest Dial UP for the 8 hours at night.

This graph shows the daily changes ..


This next graph shows the variance.


I think it is pretty clear that my Explorer II's (226570 Polar) movement has now after about 14 Months caught the "Bug" as has been discussed within this very thread.

I suspect that Rolex still have not got to grips with the problem and formulated a fully successful fix for the fault.

I am not sending my watch in to the RSC quite yet .. I will wait until there is some evidence of a repair that works long term. To date there isnt one.

I have time as I have plenty of warranty time left.

When a solution is found I am sure Rolex will not make any form of announcement, they will just do "Silent Fixes" when watches come in for regulation or services.

Rolex will never admit that there is a problem in the first place.

32xx movement owners will be none the wiser if Rolex do fix things.

They will just be their usual over secretive selves.

Precision looks OK, just needs a tweak for accuracy?

[CharlesN]

I can not tell the precision from that data but we will swiftly measure it for you.

[Andad]

I can see the changes.

Unusual for only 16 days?

[CharlesN]

Eddie,

Here is the Accuracy and Precision data I promised you.

What do YOU think ?

[Andad]

I’m still thinking…..

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by avera

My 2021 126710BLRO started losing 4 seconds a day after 14 months. It is now visiting the RSC in Los Angeles. The one interesting thing that happened is that I had been wearing it non-stop for the whole 14 months. I then bought a 1680 and wore that one for a day and the GMT starting losing time that day. Either a very improbably coincidence, or the GMT's feelings were hurt, or perhaps most likely. That not being worn and therefore dropping below a certain level of woundness cause the problem to kick in (amplitude below 200).

That single datapoint could be a coincidence, but your hypothesis brings up a question: Did you manually wind the GMT when putting it on again? Wondering if picking it up with a low PR/amp and wearing as normal without topping it off has anything to do with it. Sort of like rolling out of bed, still stiff and achy, and going right to strenuous exercise.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by avera

You are right -- I did not wind it when I put it on again. I had it off for somewhere between 24-48 hrs.

Out of curiosity, over how many days did you then measure it, and was the -4/day consistent? Did you start with a "fresh" wind at some point, to get it to full power?

[alphadweller]

My 2020 TT Sub41 seems to be improving the more I wear it. It used to be at -1 s/d in 2020 and 2021. Now it's averaging +1 s/d.

It's less negative when worn than it used to be (now -0.3 s/d) and I can easily correct it with a dial up resting position (+1.7 s/d), whereas in the past no resting position could offset the negative deviation when worn, if that makes sense (all resting positions yielded a negative deviation). It's now become my most accurate mechanical watch.

This is anecdotal and the data was only taken over 5 days of wearing the piece daily. More observation needed.

[eijiboy]

I have 3285. No issue on accuracy but the manual winding system is. When i wind, feels really gritty and not smooth at all compare to my other 3285. And when you counterclockwise on winding position it doesnt make a noise. There should be a ratcheting sound
Its less month old vtnr

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by eijiboy

I have 3285. No issue on accuracy but the manual winding system is. When i wind, feels really gritty and not smooth at all compare to my other 3285. And when you counterclockwise on winding position it doesnt make a noise. There should be a ratcheting sound
Its less month old vtnr

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. You'll have to be more specific; as I recall, you have a lot of 3285s

2. Might it have something to do with the watch's current state of winding - i.e. one that is more fully wound will have a grittier feel than one running on empty?

[shedlock2000]

Well, I’ve spent well over 8 hours carefully digesting (and likely forgetting) the content of this thread.

I don’t own a cal. 32xx, so I have little to contribute in terms of data; however, the various and discussions over the phenomenon seem to be connected to reducing amplitude angles. Amplitude is, so far as I understand it, not just a simple matter of needle loading, friction, escapement, gravity, and so on — however, it’s also a function of mainspring performance. This steadily developing and progressive determination in performance reminds me of a similar set of symptoms which plagued Land Rover back in the day:

A very long time ago, Land Rover had a bad batch of driver’s side cart springs for the series III. These springs sagged prematurely after only a few years. (It took a long time for Land Rover to fix the issue because they simply avoided having a new batch of springs made until they ran out of the old springs). The issue was in the use of a substandard batch of spring steel which, when hardened, did not remain hardened and ‘work-softened’ during the natural bouncing series IIIs occasioned on their springs (the driver’s side also held the fuel tank, so the springs on that side were heavier rated to compensate; vehicles which had full fuel tanks more often developed sagging at an increased rate).

The basic principle of spring function, while light-years apart in tech and material engineering, would still present analogously in a barrel spring: if, after continuous winding of the mainspring it became ‘less springy’, then it would apply less force on the escapement and the amplitude would drop accordingly (and differ as a function of the watch’s position, which also corresponds with the data which seems to somewhat patterned in terms of watch position). Curiously, this would be very easily determined by simply testing two year old springs against new ones or by continual measurement of a section of spring (perhaps winding every hour, or making one full turn of the crown after 25 hours of discharge etc.)

Given that these new movements have the new throw away barrel with reduced side taper and thinner spring, you don’t suppose it could simply be poor spring manufacturing; that the spring, after sufficient windings, looses its recoil consistency? Or, in plain English, the spring grows weaker at a premature rate due to poor design/material management?

While there are some outlying samples (perhaps from those safe queens many have locked up or the odd poorly lubricated movements) it would explain a reducing amplitude, a precision deviation, and a reduction in accuracy. I bring this up because it’s likely that Rolex had a bucket full of the springs made, replace the barrel completely for a new unit during service (with a similarly defective spring) and the problem returns. Perhaps Rolex are looking too deeply for a problem that doesn’t exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ecbkk]

this spring theory is interesting. How messed up would it be if you solved the mystery that rolex didnt/couldnt? or maybe they have known that the springs were an issue for a long time but just cant publicly acknowledge it.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

Well, I’ve spent well over 8 hours carefully digesting (and likely forgetting) the content of this thread.

I don’t own a cal. 32xx, so I have little to contribute in terms of data; however, the various and discussions over the phenomenon seem to be connected to reducing amplitude angles. Amplitude is, so far as I understand it, not just a simple matter of needle loading, friction, escapement, gravity, and so on — however, it’s also a function of mainspring performance. This steadily developing and progressive determination in performance reminds me of a similar set of symptoms which plagued Land Rover back in the day:

A very long time ago, Land Rover had a bad batch of driver’s side cart springs for the series III. These springs sagged prematurely after only a few years. (It took a long time for Land Rover to fix the issue because they simply avoided having a new batch of springs made until they ran out of the old springs). The issue was in the use of a substandard batch of spring steel which, when hardened, did not remain hardened and ‘work-softened’ during the natural bouncing series IIIs occasioned on their springs (the driver’s side also held the fuel tank, so the springs on that side were heavier rated to compensate; vehicles which had full fuel tanks more often developed sagging at an increased rate).

The basic principle of spring function, while light-years apart in tech and material engineering, would still present analogously in a barrel spring: if, after continuous winding of the mainspring it became ‘less springy’, then it would apply less force on the escapement and the amplitude would drop accordingly (and differ as a function of the watch’s position, which also corresponds with the data which seems to somewhat patterned in terms of watch position). Curiously, this would be very easily determined by simply testing two year old springs against new ones or by continual measurement of a section of spring (perhaps winding every hour, or making one full turn of the crown after 25 hours of discharge etc.)

Given that these new movements have the new throw away barrel with reduced side taper and thinner spring, you don’t suppose it could simply be poor spring manufacturing; that the spring, after sufficient windings, looses its recoil consistency? Or, in plain English, the spring grows weaker at a premature rate due to poor design/material management?

While there are some outlying samples (perhaps from those safe queens many have locked up or the odd poorly lubricated movements) it would explain a reducing amplitude, a precision deviation, and a reduction in accuracy. I bring this up because it’s likely that Rolex had a bucket full of the springs made, replace the barrel completely for a new unit during service (with a similarly defective spring) and the problem returns. Perhaps Rolex are looking too deeply for a problem that doesn’t exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, good try but it seems you are not across the fullest extent of the symptoms.
How do you account for the abnormal wear factor on the Seconds pinion?

Besides, Land Rover anything isn't necessaeily a gauge of engineering and reliability factors. Lol.

[shedlock2000]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Ok, good try but it seems you are not across the fullest extent of the symptoms.
How do you account for the abnormal wear factor on the Seconds pinion?

Besides, Land Rover anything isn't necessaeily a gauge of engineering and reliability factors. Lol.

That’s a fair question, but I think we only have one example of pinion wear, don’t we? (I don’t think I read anywhere that every watch that had the issue and was serviced required a pinion, but I may have missed others).

Haha! No, but that such a problem has existed implies that it can exist again. Dodgy springs are hardly rare phenomena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eijiboy]

Originally Posted by dannyp

1. You'll have to be more specific; as I recall, you have a lot of 3285s

2. Might it have something to do with the watch's current state of winding - i.e. one that is more fully wound will have a grittier feel than one running on empty?

the auto wind works perfectly no probolem and when manual wind works too but something is wrong. it feels different and not smooth at all. i think the yoke that disengage when rotating counterclockwise is the broken part. it doesnt make a ratcheting noise like a normal 3285 movement when turning counterclockwise

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

That’s a fair question, but I think we only have one example of pinion wear, don’t we? (I don’t think I read anywhere that every watch that had the issue and was serviced required a pinion, but I may have missed others).

Haha! No, but that such a problem has existed implies that it can exist again. Dodgy springs are hardly rare phenomena.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The pinion wear is a common feature with one of the warranty/service fixes being to put lube on it but it doesn't prevent it from coming back when it eventually goes south again.
I think it's routine to replace the pinion on these
Even lube can't prevent the premature wear

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by shedlock2000

Given that these new movements have the new throw away barrel with reduced side taper and thinner spring, you don’t suppose it could simply be poor spring manufacturing; that the spring, after sufficient windings, looses its recoil consistency? Or, in plain English, the spring grows weaker at a premature rate due to poor design/material management?

While there are some outlying samples (perhaps from those safe queens many have locked up or the odd poorly lubricated movements) it would explain a reducing amplitude, a precision deviation, and a reduction in accuracy. I bring this up because it’s likely that Rolex had a bucket full of the springs made, replace the barrel completely for a new unit during service (with a similarly defective spring) and the problem returns. Perhaps Rolex are looking too deeply for a problem that doesn’t exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ecbkk

this spring theory is interesting. How messed up would it be if you solved the mystery that rolex didnt/couldnt? or maybe they have known that the springs were an issue for a long time but just cant publicly acknowledge it.

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.

Originally Posted by Dirt

Ok, good try but it seems you are not across the fullest extent of the symptoms.
How do you account for the abnormal wear factor on the Seconds pinion?

Besides, Land Rover anything isn't necessaeily a gauge of engineering and reliability factors. Lol.

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.