32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[t_serban]

Originally Posted by t_serban

Sadly I missed the 12h mark, but amplitude still looks good at 0h and 24h after 7 and 1/2 months of ownership.

After full wind

Position    Rate      Amplitude      Beat error
DU          +4        283            0.3
6U          +4        253            0.0
9U          +2        260            0.0
3U          -2        254            0.4
DD          +3        281            0.2

After 24h

Position    Rate      Amplitude      Beat error
DU          +3        265            0.2
6U          +3        232            0.1
9U           0        232            0.0
3U          -1        226            0.5
DD          +3        260            0.3

For reference, these are the values measured after purchase:

After full wind

Position    Rate      Amplitude      Beat error
DU          +2        281            0.3
6U          +1        243            0.0
9U          +2        246            0.0
3U          -1        244            0.3
DD          +2        272            0.1

After 24h

Position    Rate      Amplitude      Beat error
DU          +2        256            0.2
6U          +2        227            0.0
9U          +2        230            0.1
3U           0        217            0.3
DD          +2        259            0.2

Forgot to mention: 124060 Sub with the 3230 movement, purchased new on March 1st 2023, measured using a Weishi 1000.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by t_serban

Forgot to mention: 124060 Sub with the 3230 movement, purchased new on March 1st 2023, measured using a Weishi 1000.

Thanks for the new data.
Your numbers look good, the horizontal amplitudes (283°, 281°) after full winding are quite high, the 3U beat errors (0.4-0.5 ms) too. The lift angle setting on your timegrapher was 53°?

[t_serban]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for the new data.
Your numbers look good, the horizontal amplitudes (283°, 281°) after full winding are quite high, the 3U beat errors (0.4-0.5 ms) too. The lift angle setting on your timegrapher was 53°?

Yes, it's the first thing I set when starting a new measurement.

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

The first-year release CHNR is back from service, which i must say was done in a fast four to five weeks. She had amplitude problems, which of course affected accuracy...

Today, after about 20 hours of wear, she is a SOLID and stable 260-ish amplitude in various positions on my Timegrapher. Whatever the situation was, it's been solved and accuracy is excellent as expected with Rolex too :)

Look, i get it gentlemen. It can be a bummer yet it is serviceable. That's one of the benefits of a mechanical timepiece. Rolex is taking care of this under warranty and in a timely manner. Color me very happy.

As a side note, over the decades have chatted with a wide variety of luxury goods companies. RSC has always, in ALL ways, been excellent. If RSC is reading this, please be sure to thank the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. Many thanks.

PS: Have done this previously with watchmakers over the years... I'd be happy to buy lunch / dinner for the watchmaker(s) who worked on my CHNR. They earned it

What about when problem reappears but the warranty has lapsed?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

What about when problem reappears but the warranty has lapsed?

Then you pay for the service, unfortunately.

[steubi1]

It will be interesting when the new Daytonas are out, if they show similar symptoms with the Chronergy escapement...

[saxo3]

Below is an update of my 2018 GMT-Master II Ref. 126711CHNR (caliber3285).

The top graph compares my timegrapher data before/after a recent RSC repair under warranty.

The bottom graph compares the 5-position average rate (X) with COSC and Rolex specs.

The caliber is well serviced and very accurate now.

[dwaine99]

124060 purchased 4-8-2022.. -2 per day the first few months... worn daily and now -1 to -1.5... I can live with that....

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by dwaine99

124060 purchased 4-8-2022.. -2 per day the first few months... worn daily and now -1 to -1.5... I can live with that....

That's good. May it always stay that way

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Below is an update of my 2018 GMT-Master II Ref. 126711CHNR (caliber3285).

The top graph compares my timegrapher data before/after a recent RSC repair under warranty.

The bottom graph compares the 5-position average rate (X) with COSC and Rolex specs.

The caliber is well serviced and very accurate now.

When was the watch serviced?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Nothing new really.

My apologies.

Is there anything new on this thread lately?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Andad

My apologies.

Is there anything new on this thread lately?

No

[saxo3]

Hello Bas, I still have a few open questions already posted in the past: Why does Rolex specify the famous -2/+2 s/d and the testing tolerance is -1/+3 s/d?
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4207

Originally Posted by SearChart

As for the difference between after sales tolerance and sales tolerance, it beats me. I don't have an explanation, but I will ask around and see if I can get a more definitive answer.

[Stromness]

Hi all,

After following this thread with interest, I've been running my newer 2023 Explorer I 36 though its paces. Haven't plotted all the numbers yet but looking decent so far with the lowest amplitude after 24 hours in non-DU positions staying at around 230, and peaking DU in the low 280s, with very minimal BE across the board.

I have really appreciated learning more about the 32xx movements, the watches that carry them, and owners' experiences with them. Here's hoping...

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hello Bas, I still have a few open questions already posted in the past: Why does Rolex specify the famous -2/+2 s/d and the testing tolerance is -1/+3 s/d?
https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...postcount=4207

Apologies, no answer yet.
I will be in Geneva in January and will ask there since nobody has managed to give me a definitive answer.

[Saint_Tail]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Apologies, no answer yet.
I will be in Geneva in January and will ask there since nobody has managed to give me a definitive answer.

We're counting on you, dear Bas.

[palletforkk]

Dear TRF Members,

My first post. Have been following this thread for a long time. Adding a data point to the ongoing discussion...

Model: 124270
Caliber: 3230
Date purchased: Mar 2023
Timegrapher: Weishi 1000
Lift Angle: 53 Degrees
Test period: 12 Seconds

Full wind:

Position	Rate (s/d)	Amplitude (deg)   Beat Error (ms)
DU	            +4	             262	                0.20
6U	             0	             235	                 0.00
9U	             0	             230	                 0.00
12U	             0	             227	                 0.20
3U	            -1	             230	                 0.20
DD	             0	             260	                 0.00

24 Hrs after full wind:

Position	Rate (s/d)	Amplitude (deg)   Beat Error (ms)
DU	            +3	       253	                    0.20
6U	              0	       219	                    0.10
9U	             -1	       224	                    0.00
12U	             -2	       218	                    0.10
3U	             -2	       223	                    0.10
DD	              0	       245	                    0.00

Keeping my fingers crossed...

[jukeboxs]

I posted my 32xx stats back in August (a few pages back), and this led me to send my BLRO in for repair (just before the 5yr warranty expired in Sept). I collected my watch 10 days ago, and have just remeasured at 0 and 24 hrs (I was on holiday last week). The results don't look great - only just at 200 minimum at 24hrs (at 3/6/9). As such, I think it's reasonable for me to send this back to Rolex (I'm not expecting it will improve from here on out and it will soon be back under 200, when I'm out of warranty). What do you think?

Also, I asked my UK AD to tell me what guarantee came with the warranty repair, they have still to get back to me. I'm assuming this should come with some guarantee, but perhaps not the normal 2yr service g'tee. Can anyone advise?

Many thanks.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

I will be in Geneva in January and will ask there since nobody has managed to give me a definitive answer.

Thanks, noted.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by jukeboxs

I posted my 32xx stats back in August (a few pages back), and this led me to send my BLRO in for repair (just before the 5yr warranty expired in Sept). I collected my watch 10 days ago, and have just remeasured at 0 and 24 hrs (I was on holiday last week). The results don't look great - only just at 200 minimum at 24hrs (at 3/6/9). As such, I think it's reasonable for me to send this back to Rolex (I'm not expecting it will improve from here on out and it will soon be back under 200, when I'm out of warranty). What do you think?

Are you sure (and have any proof) that your watch was serviced by an RSC or was it serviced at your AD?

Originally Posted by jukeboxs

Also, I asked my UK AD to tell me what guarantee came with the warranty repair, they have still to get back to me. I'm assuming this should come with some guarantee, but perhaps not the normal 2yr service g'tee. Can anyone advise?
Many thanks.

A defect 32xx watch (also any other model) must be repaired by RSC, as often as required, during the 5-year warranty period, if, for example, the caliber is outside Rolex SA advertised and known specs.

As soon as you are beyond the 5-year warranty period any additional service (or repair) is to be paid for but comes with a 2-year service guarantee. That holds for all Rolex watches.

I know that Rolex accepts to service (without payment) 32xx watch movements even a few months after the warranty period has expired. I cannot say if that also holds for your and other countries.

[jukeboxs]

Hi Saxo3 -

Yes, my AD confirmed it went to the Rolex repair centre outside of London. My question was whether a minimum amplitude of 200 at 24hrs in the 3/6/9 positions (i.e. sitting on the required Rolex minimum benchmark) is enough for me to request that this is returned to Rolex and looked at again. I think I have good grounds to request this.

I understand about the 5 year warranty period (repaired under guarantee within this and responsibility of owner after this, subject to potential goodwill shortly after expiry). That wasn't my question. My question is what guarantee comes with a repair provided by RSC within the 5 year window (I assume members on here will know from experience, of returning watches for repair, what Rolex's stance is on this). As you can appreciate, this is particularly relevant in my case (for this watch) given that my 5 year warranty period expired during the time of the RSC warranty repair - with my 32xx still having borderline issues. I am interested to know how long an "observation period" I have following return from this warranty repair to monitor timekeeping and then expect Rolex to repair it again it required within that "guarantee" window. I assume Rolex will have a standard / consistent policy between countries on this.

Thanks.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by jukeboxs

Hi Saxo3 -

Yes, my AD confirmed it went to the Rolex repair centre outside of London. My question was whether a minimum amplitude of 200 at 24hrs in the 3/6/9 positions (i.e. sitting on the required Rolex minimum benchmark) is enough for me to request that this is returned to Rolex and looked at again. I think I have good grounds to request this.

I understand about the 5 year warranty period (repaired under guarantee within this and responsibility of owner after this, subject to potential goodwill shortly after expiry). That wasn't my question. My question is what guarantee comes with a repair provided by RSC within the 5 year window (I assume members on here will know from experience, of returning watches for repair, what Rolex's stance is on this). As you can appreciate, this is particularly relevant in my case (for this watch) given that my 5 year warranty period expired during the time of the RSC warranty repair - with my 32xx still having borderline issues. I am interested to know how long an "observation period" I have following return from this warranty repair to monitor timekeeping and then expect Rolex to repair it again it required within that "guarantee" window. I assume Rolex will have a standard / consistent policy between countries on this.

Thanks.

I understood all your points, my view is as follows:

- Your 32xx watch had caliber issues during the 5-year warranty period and it was given (via an AD) to RSC for repair under guarantee.
- The watch came back from RSC and was (at that date) outside the 5-year period.
- You analyzed the repaired watch with a small delay of about 10 days.
- You found that, according to your Weishi data, the caliber is (24 h after full winding) just within the tolerances of 200° (3U, 6U, 9U).

- It would be interesting to measure how the caliber amplitudes change between 24 hours and (at least) 48 hours after full winding.
- I do not know about your described "observation period".
- Basically, you sent in a watch for warranty repair and it came back with an unsatisfactory result (for you).
- Maybe this RSC cannot reach higher vertical amplitudes for this specific caliber? Even after a service (repair)?

I think you have good arguments to approach the RSC again and say that you are not happy with the result of the repair and ask them to check the movement again with the aim to improve the 32xx amplitude values.

I would write an E-Mail to the RSC; explain your points and kindly request another check, which should be free of charge for you, hopefully.

Good luck!

[SD 43]

Having read this thread with great interest, I am asking myself if a problem with the mainspring could, with the exception of the occasionally observed and possibly unrelated unusual wear, explain the observed problems, including the loss of amplitude in largely unworn watches after a certain amount of time, and the difficulty obtaining proper amplitudes even after a movement service with fresh lubrication.
Although it seems to be absurd to the point of being impossible that a) Rolex would manufacture defective mainsprings, b) Rolex would not detect that problem, and c) Rolex would not fix that problem promptly, at least this theoretically may offer an explanation for the observed problems.
Perhaps there is an undetected problem with the mainspring that causes it to pass quality control at time of manufacture, but then simply due to aging the mainspring at various rates sooner or later fatigues and produces less and less torque. A full service including replacement of the mainspring barrel would not necessarily rectify the problem if the new spring was manufactured years ago, thus also having reduced torque when put in, but a newly manufactured spring would produce good amplitudes, only to again fatigue with time.
I know this sounds preposterous, but as has been said elsewhere, if all other possibilities have been excluded, then the remaining one, however unlikely, must be the solution. It should be possible to confirm or exclude this possibility by measuring the torque of fully wound mainsprings of watches with and without the amplitude problem, or see if changing the mainspring alone to a brand new one fixes the issue. Although it seems exceedingly silly to imply that this possibility has not been excluded by Rolex, the mainspring is new and thin, and perhaps the culprit is to be found there.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by SD 43

Having read this thread with great interest, I am asking myself if a problem with the mainspring could, with the exception of the occasionally observed and possibly unrelated unusual wear, explain the observed problems, including the loss of amplitude in largely unworn watches after a certain amount of time, and the difficulty obtaining proper amplitudes even after a movement service with fresh lubrication.
Although it seems to be absurd to the point of being impossible that a) Rolex would manufacture defective mainsprings, b) Rolex would not detect that problem, and c) Rolex would not fix that problem promptly, at least this theoretically may offer an explanation for the observed problems.
Perhaps there is an undetected problem with the mainspring that causes it to pass quality control at time of manufacture, but then simply due to aging the mainspring at various rates sooner or later fatigues and produces less and less torque. A full service including replacement of the mainspring barrel would not necessarily rectify the problem if the new spring was manufactured years ago, thus also having reduced torque when put in, but a newly manufactured spring would produce good amplitudes, only to again fatigue with time.
I know this sounds preposterous, but as has been said elsewhere, if all other possibilities have been excluded, then the remaining one, however unlikely, must be the solution. It should be possible to confirm or exclude this possibility by measuring the torque of fully wound mainsprings of watches with and without the amplitude problem, or see if changing the mainspring alone to a brand new one fixes the issue. Although it seems exceedingly silly to imply that this possibility has not been excluded by Rolex, the mainspring is new and thin, and perhaps the culprit is to be found there.

So, are you suggesting that Rolex lacks the capacity to such an extent that they haven't fully explored this possibility to the fullest extent by now?

[Seo]

Hi everyone

Just letting you know my cousin and I have a Oct 23 submariner 3230 and Daytona 4131 on hand. Both are running well. We will report back it any issues especially the 4131 with the new escapement.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Seo

Hi everyone

Just letting you know my cousin and I have a Oct 23 submariner 3230 and Daytona 4131 on hand. Both are running well. We will report back it any issues especially the 4131 with the new escapement.

Thanks!
It would be great to measure the new Daytona caliber 4131 with a timegrapher, just as a reference to see where it starts (amplitudes, rates) when it is new.

[SD 43]

Originally Posted by Dirt

So, are you suggesting that Rolex lacks the capacity to such an extent that they haven't fully explored this possibility to the fullest extent by now?

Nothing of the sort, mate. In fact, as I said in the post, such a suggestion seems preposterous. However, deterioration of the mainspring strength at least offers a more logical solution than black magic. The history of technical gadgets is full of failures that in hindsight are hard to believe, such as torpedoes that FOR YEARS failed to run at correct depth or failed to explode on impact during WW2, space shuttles that explode because of brittle O-rings, or watch companies producing watches with all kinds of defects. Although mainsprings have been manufactured for well over a century, materials science is hard. It is not completely out of the question that for this mainspring a new alloy is being used that over time undergoes unexpected changes. Be that as it may, a "bad movement" without any insight into the actual nature of the problem remains highly unsatisfactory...

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SD 43

Nothing of the sort, mate. In fact, as I said in the post, such a suggestion seems preposterous. However, deterioration of the mainspring strength at least offers a more logical solution than black magic. The history of technical gadgets is full of failures that in hindsight are hard to believe, such as torpedoes that FOR YEARS failed to run at correct depth or failed to explode on impact during WW2, space shuttles that explode because of brittle O-rings, or watch companies producing watches with all kinds of defects. Although mainsprings have been manufactured for well over a century, materials science is hard. It is not completely out of the question that for this mainspring a new alloy is being used that over time undergoes unexpected changes. Be that as it may, a "bad movement" without any insight into the actual nature of the problem remains highly unsatisfactory...

I do NOT think that a deterioration of the main spring is the root cause of the 32xx issue(s).
Rolex SA would not need so many years (since 2015) to find this, but I have a more technical argument against it.

A degradation of the main spring would probably be visible with a reduction of the approx. 70 hours power reserve. All data I have seen, including my three 32xx watches, did show (very) low amplitudes, negative rates but not a reduced power reserve.

The power reserve for all my bad 32xx movements were still between 71 and 72 hours. If the main spring would be (very) weak and the main cause of the problem, then I would expect a significantly reduced power reserve, which is NOT the case.

[sheldonsmith]

Thanks for going back to the data as it supports that the mainspring does not degrade over time, but what if the mainspring is manufactured too weak from the outset to overcome greater friction from 6+ months of usage (supporting the lubrication theory?)

It seems to me that the mainspring’s tension had to be reduced as to not overpower the downsized Chronergy escapement, as well as improving the power reserve over 31xx movements…

31xx movements with a stronger mainspring and larger balance run for years. Despite the number of new patents introduced in the 32xx movements, there is something (design flaw?) with the mainspring change and the Chronergy escapement that makes the 32xx movement unreliable.

-Sheldon

Originally Posted by saxo3

I do NOT think that a deterioration of the main spring is the root cause of the 32xx issue(s).
Rolex SA would not need so many years (since 2015) to find this, but I have a more technical argument against it.

A degradation of the main spring would probably be visible with a reduction of the approx. 70 hours power reserve. All data I have seen, including my three 32xx watches, did show (very) low amplitudes, negative rates but not a reduced power reserve.

The power reserve for all my bad 32xx movements were still between 71 and 72 hours. If the main spring would be (very) weak and the main cause of the problem, then I would expect a significantly reduced power reserve, which is NOT the case.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by SD 43

Nothing of the sort, mate. In fact, as I said in the post, such a suggestion seems preposterous. However, deterioration of the mainspring strength at least offers a more logical solution than black magic. The history of technical gadgets is full of failures that in hindsight are hard to believe, such as torpedoes that FOR YEARS failed to run at correct depth or failed to explode on impact during WW2, space shuttles that explode because of brittle O-rings, or watch companies producing watches with all kinds of defects. Although mainsprings have been manufactured for well over a century, materials science is hard. It is not completely out of the question that for this mainspring a new alloy is being used that over time undergoes unexpected changes. Be that as it may, a "bad movement" without any insight into the actual nature of the problem remains highly unsatisfactory...

Don't get me wrong.
I just needed to construct a better framework around the proposition in my mind to apply some critical thinking

I accept your theory as having a good dose of plausibility however ther are a number of other factors we need to take into fuller consideration which I also believe contribute collectively to the 32xx conundrum.

Firstly the escapement is not running at the higher amplitudes which are traditionally a key feature of good performance. The Chronergy escapement naturally runs at lower amplitudes which gives less margin for any deficiencies that trigger low performance in timekeeping.
So that's one thing
Next, we have the understanding that as part of a standard service, the Mainspring and barrel are routinely replaced as a fresh assembly that is pre packaged, manufactured and lubed and assembled to Rolex levels of perfection.. Now either Rolex doesn't know as much about Mainsprings, metalurgy and machining as we would like and or their quality control is lacking.
After all, we need to keep in mind that other manufacturers are doing 72 hour power reserves with a single Mainspring seemingly without issue
On an automatic that's worn with reasonably sufficient activity levels it should be less of an issue regardless of power reserve capacity like the 31xx.
Perhaps the movement would've been better designed with twin Spring barrels?

We have been reliably informed that after all the routine elements of a service are performed at service, sometimes the 32xx movements are still not running to specs. So in order to chase down the problem before the RSC ships it out as satisfactory and running to specs, it has been reported that technicians have resorted to replacing parts prioritised by a judicious application of the principal of "balance of probability". Parts which would have normally been deemed fit for purpose are replaced out of desperation in order to try and get the movement running right

In my non professional opinion, it's a combination of any number of the factors above, but the common denominator is the escapement when the above(and more) is taken into the fullest consideration.
Perhaps the 33xx movement will have >80 or 90 hours of power reserve with twin Spring barrels assuming Rolex persists with the Chronergy escapement as it is.
Let's face it.
Omega had a few redesigs of the original Co-axial escapement movements before they were ready to go fully in-house with their movement designs.
We may need to consider the possibility that mechanical movement designs are truly reaching the limits of the law of diminishing returns and Rolex are the proverbial canary in the coal mine