ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues | 1,059 | 69.67% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) but timekeeping is still fine | 62 | 4.08% | |
No, amplitude is low (below 200) and timekeeping is off (>5 s/d) | 399 | 26.25% | |
Voters: 1520. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
9 April 2023, 12:12 PM | #3841 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,622
|
Quote:
|
|
9 April 2023, 12:28 PM | #3842 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,243
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
Would also add from 20+ years as a design engineer: the closer you are to the hardware the more likely you are to get the real answer. Engineering knows about it, marketing / business dev (the ones that get bonuses up front whether it works or not) pressures program management to shoot the engineers and release the product, technicians (watchmakers) then deal with RMA'd materiel and repairs. They are well aware of an issue. They may not be able to tell you why but they know it's not right.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
9 April 2023, 12:53 PM | #3843 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,622
|
Quote:
As more of an engineering brain, myself, I feel like this thread is an example of engineers debating marketers. |
|
9 April 2023, 05:27 PM | #3844 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,522
|
Quote:
I am not sure if you or Kevin even own a watch with a 32** movement or if you have checked on e yourself for PR v amplitude. My 32** movement was keeping time easily to +/-2 sec/day and the slowing down was noticed by me only after it was unworn for 30 hours. I also noted a widening variation in amplitude from dial up/down to any other position to the point where it would not exceed an amplitude of 205, dial up, fully wound. At that point it was still keeping good time as long as it had high PR. This could only be seen when checking it on my Timegrapher. I have a few Rolex watches that I check on a regular basis and this 32** DJ is the only one that is a potential dud. I have some experience in engineering having been running my engineering company for 40 years. This 32** issue is real and is being currently under reported by owners for so many reasons.
__________________
E |
|
9 April 2023, 05:52 PM | #3845 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Real Name: Scott
Location: UK
Watch: ^^^ for now
Posts: 5,797
|
Quote:
He's made loads of posts about it, shared insighful posts and has built a stellar reputation on this forum as a very respected contributor. I would suggest taking some time to research all of that - its quite simple, click his username, click statistics, click on threads started by and decide for yourself
__________________
Past: 6239 (yes, I know...), 16610, 16600, 116515, 116613LN, 126600, 126711 CHNR Present: 16600, 116509, Cartier Santos Green. |
|
9 April 2023, 06:59 PM | #3846 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
|
Welcome to the forum as member since 06.02.2023 with a total of 21 posts, your first here. This thread started in January 2021.
Did you read the entire thread? How many 32xx watches do you own? Can you contribute to the following main objective of this thread? "We've got several other threads talking about this movement, but my goal here is to have a single source of real data…" |
9 April 2023, 07:10 PM | #3847 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Fabio
Location: Como - Italy
Posts: 4,811
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd say that this changes the perspective a lot, doesn't it? |
||
9 April 2023, 11:13 PM | #3848 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
I look at this situation from a logical, not a pure statistical, perspective. ALL manufactured mechanical items will have a non-zero failure rate. Nobody expects perfection on this or any other product line. But for one of the most prestigious watch companies, one known specifically for having "bulletproof" movements, we do expect this rate to be really low. There is nothing revolutionary about this movement. A spring-powered, lever escapement movement is hardly new tech. And Rolex are hardly new to the field. So the 32xx, their latest and greatest implementation, built on everything they've learned in over a century, should be very, very reliable, right? What number should we put on that expectation? 1% failure rate? I personally feel Rolex would be insulted if someone implied that 1% of their movements were bad. I think they'd like to assert something more along the lines of 0.1% or less. But let's say we go with 1% as a pessimistic worst-case value for the sake of this thought experiment. If we have a thousand people in this conversation then it shouldn't be hard to understand why there are 10 of us who have had bad watches, right? The problem is the multiple bad watch scenario. If the failure rate is 1% then the odds of getting 3 different watches that are all bad is 1 in a million. We have multiple owners in this thread who have 2 or 3 bad 32xx watches. I just find it hard to believe that all these "lotto winners" just happened to have found our little corner of the internet. It seems to me that someone like our friend saxo, who has had all 3 of his 32xx watches show issues, represents something more like the 1% case - common enough that we hear about it, but obviously not happening to everyone. And if we work backwards from there, that would require about a 20% failure rate on a per-watch basis. Is that a concrete number? Of course not. Neither is the poll. But now we get back to the logic part of this. All signs point to this not being a 1 in a 1000 situation. Does it really matter if the failure rate is 2% or 20%? Either number is way, way higher than it should be. Rolex can do better and Rolex customers expect it. Quote:
|
||
10 April 2023, 12:31 AM | #3849 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Some numbers until just now.
Since more than 2 years the quantity of 32xx watch owners that observe and report issues with their movements did not decrease over time but remained rather constant at a level of about 26 – 30 %. There are still 4 times more poll voters than different contributors to the thread. As before, the majority voted but did NOT post in this thread. Do they just vote "no issues" without knowing or any other reason? However, this survey is not representative and no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it. |
10 April 2023, 12:35 AM | #3850 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Feb 2023
Location: USA
Posts: 794
|
Quote:
|
|
10 April 2023, 01:45 AM | #3851 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Fabio
Location: Como - Italy
Posts: 4,811
|
Well, Worn and Wound is the first online magazine that clearly mentioned the amplitude issue in an article, let's hope than other will follow that path.
Last edited by cop414; 10 April 2023 at 08:54 PM.. |
10 April 2023, 04:03 AM | #3852 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
If we go with the 20% per-watch failure rate (which I'm still not claiming is a real number, but which we should all agree would be a terrible number if even remotely close), we get a 41% chance of buying 4 and having them all be good. Not awesome, but not far off of a coin toss. Meanwhile, to get 3 bad ones, there's only a 1% chance. What's the point? Simply that getting several good ones is still going to happen much more often than not, even with a very, very bad failure rate. So when people jump in these threads saying "I have X good ones, so this is obviously nonsense" (which I want to make clear you definitely did NOT come off that way) I always have to bite my tongue a bit. A good day to you as well! Hopefully you have something more enjoyable than this thread planned Do you have a link? I've seen the two places that Worn & Wound have mentioned it recently, but have not come across any other references. |
|
10 April 2023, 04:37 AM | #3853 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Watch: Oyster Perpetual
Posts: 1,629
|
Quote:
|
|
10 April 2023, 09:45 AM | #3854 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 333
|
Quote:
https://wornandwound.com/the-rolex-e...new-40mm-case/ https://wornandwound.com/hands-on-wi...rolex-daytona/ |
|
10 April 2023, 10:34 AM | #3855 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 37,522
|
I would have thought that W&W would have known that the SS Daytona was not a 40mm diameter watch.
But then they didn’t have callipers handy?
__________________
E |
10 April 2023, 06:24 PM | #3856 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Real Name: Fabio
Location: Como - Italy
Posts: 4,811
|
Quote:
|
|
10 April 2023, 09:42 PM | #3857 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,911
|
Amidst all the craziness, big shoutout to Bas and Saxo3 for fighting the hood fight.
From an objective vantage point, there are issues with the 32xx movement and I hope Rolex addresses them
__________________
AP 15500ST (Silver) // ♛ Rolex 126334 (Blue Roman, Fluted, Jubilee) // Ω Moonswatch (Mission to Pluto) // G-Shock GA2100-1A1 |
11 April 2023, 12:50 AM | #3858 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Real Name: Brad
Location: Purdue
Watch: Daytona
Posts: 9,243
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
Of course it is speculation. What a pointless comment. Ironic comment as well considering you're the one questioning Bas who IS a Rolex employee for not being an engineer in 3840. Rolex hasn't invented a new kind of engineering where the people who touch the hardware don't know anything about it but the marketing folks do. A damn good synopsis of this thread for sure.
__________________
♛ ✠ Ω 2FA Active |
|
11 April 2023, 01:55 AM | #3859 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
|
Indeed, although I feel it's actually broader than that. The root cause here (which to be clear, nobody has identified) is surely a very technical matter. But participation in this topic need not be. I see the two main camps in this debate as the curious and the incurious.
|
11 April 2023, 02:06 AM | #3860 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
As discussed above by our friend HiBoost, it is very unlikely that one owner purchases several 32xx watches, which all develop the 32xx issue during the 5-year warranty period.
Nevertheless, we have owners in this thread, who have several watches that all needed a repair due to very low amplitudes after full winding. An impressive example of this "multiple bad watch" scenario is member EasyE who owned 8 watches with 32xx movements, 6 of his watches clearly developed the movement issue, the other 2 will probably follow. Let us calculate what EasyE's chances were to buy these 6 watches that all developed the problem. It is rather simple to calculate the probability, as only one free parameter I varied the assumed caliber defect rate, from 0.1 % to 99%. For comparison, I also show bad movement scenarios for 3 watches and 1 watch (trivial case). For a movement defect rate of assumed 10% EasyE's chances were 1 : 1'000'000 (10^-4 %) to buy 6 watches with a 32xx issue. For a much higher defect rate of 30% the probability increases to only 0.07 %. For my three 32xx watches, I had a chance of 0.1% to get the problem with all watches assuming a defect rate of 10%. For a defect rate of 1% the probability was 0.0001 %. In other words, one needs to assume a VERY higher caliber defect rate to explain the two described scenarios for 6 and 3 watches. |
11 April 2023, 04:09 AM | #3861 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
|
^^^ Looks at those sexy curves!!
Seriously though, this visualization of the probabilities is fantastic. |
11 April 2023, 06:57 AM | #3862 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 5,622
|
Quote:
|
|
11 April 2023, 10:54 AM | #3863 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,429
|
Quote:
I'm not going to speculate since I don't know enough about watch movements to offer even a guess. |
|
11 April 2023, 11:02 AM | #3864 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,538
|
Quote:
|
|
11 April 2023, 12:43 PM | #3865 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Watch: Oyster Perpetual
Posts: 1,629
|
Quote:
These days within the USA it seems like there are many more "authorized Rolex service departments", including some jewelry store AD's. Certainly, technicians at the independently owned jewelry stores and Boutiques are not Rolex employees. I have no idea if "Bas in the Netherlands" is a Rolex employee. As far as "touching the hardware" is concerned, in my home area if I questioned half a dozen watch maker/repair technicians who work on Rolex watches, I would likely get six different opinions about this or that watch movement. Last edited by DG123; 11 April 2023 at 01:09 PM.. Reason: spelling |
|
11 April 2023, 01:13 PM | #3866 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,528
|
Quote:
In my case, I have seen the watch degrade about 15 degrees in amplitude for roughly each 20 days it has been worn. That's a shocking large drop in performance for a shockingly small amount of wear time. Clearly overuse isn't wearing it out. The only theory I've seen along the way which seemed to address this was the "oil migration" idea. One can imagine how oil may move (e.g. from gravity) over time even if a watch is not in operation. This would also explain cases where owners said they had not worn the watch for a while and once starting it again it was running quite slow, but after a week of continuous use it had improved somewhat. Getting things moving again might redistribute the lubrication. The info we have still suggests that oil migration is an issue, however, the latest report is that this is not the only issue. Even when oiling is known to be correct (i.e. just performed) there can still be issues achieving proper amplitude. The net net is the most reasonable explanation at this time is this movement is facing multiple issues. |
|
11 April 2023, 04:13 PM | #3867 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Brunei
Posts: 11
|
The pictures of excessive wear that were posted waaaay back in this thread suggested a materials issue. Probably from a bad batch of components that went into many watches and are likely difficult to trace. They simply need to be removed from circulation when / if the watches hit an AD for service. This will likely take decades.
|
11 April 2023, 05:28 PM | #3868 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,918
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11 April 2023, 11:47 PM | #3869 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Ireland
Posts: 327
|
https://youtu.be/stEk78O7ZxE
Rolex has just posted this on YouTube. Their "predicting the unpredictable" hasn't been on point so far. Hopefully they have this issue fixed by now. Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk |
12 April 2023, 12:00 AM | #3870 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: -
Posts: 212
|
Some very interesting analysis throughout this thread; thank you.
Might it be that having multiple 32xx watches increases the probability of each individual one developing the fault, rather than just owning one and wearing it each day? In the latter case the watch would remain wound so reduced chance of the lubricants migrating (if indeed that is one reason). Obviously, my assumption is that those not worn are allowed to run down and not kept fully charged on a winder. Last edited by Mountain; 12 April 2023 at 12:01 AM.. Reason: Clarity |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (1 members and 9 guests) | |
csaltphoto |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.