32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

For the record, I build my own motors, tig weld my own turbo kits, intercoolers and intake manifolds, and tune my own EFI, so better luck next burn.

Though I'm not "empowered" to force you to be polite, I think most people might find it a bit annoying in the future to be scrolling through an important thread with 500 posts, 400 of which are from some curmudgeon who doesn't even own the item being discussed. I tried to be respectful and helpful towards you, but you seem to prefer to take this in a more adversarial direction.



Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Believe me when i say i truly appreciate your help
Don't be surprised if one day I get the hang of it when I have the time.
Others have provided much more usefull detail since your first half hearted attempt. But i suppose i have to start with something.
I may be old, but I'm not obsolete yet

I acknowledge your skills and they appear to be losely equivalent to mine as I have had some considerable experience with tuning old school stuff as well as EFI.
But the cost associated with tuning EFI stuff and this modern day tendency to stick stuff on dynos sort of leaves me cold. Then you still have to fine tune with some on the road experience to get the best out of them anyway.

Fabrication and welding of exotic materials in GTAW, GMAW and MMA(all to codified standards) and employed as a qualified Welding Supervisor all over the world.
Involved in multi million dollar projects in what are described as technology transfers(us to them).
Even did a little stint in the US of A working for a native company involved in naval projects trying to teach them how we do it.
Welding Supervisor, and all it encompasses on the floor in a very hands on capacity, doing work that some of the young ones don't have confidence tackling like fabricating and welding Jet ducts(all positional work in situ) to the exacting standards as set out by Kamewa. Whilst being overseen by the likes of Lloyd's Register, DNV, BV, ABS or our own National and State based standards.
Some if it was Ultrasonic'd with the bulk being X-ray'd if that means anything to you. Then again as the old blokes used to say "X-ray is your friend". Experience has shown this to be the case time and again, especially when one has exposure to destructive testing at the lab.

These old eyes are giving out a bit more than I would like, so I'm not up to the cut and thrust of it so much. Now that it's set out in front of me here as i thought about it. Lord I feel old now
Oh I nearly forgot. The last Superyacht I worked on from it's inception was so good it won it's class at Monarco.
Which was a bit of a career highlight
So you see my good man.
I don't come to the table operating in a vacuum.
So it looks like we can have a contest to see who can urinate
up the post the highest

With one exception though.
I imagine people have trusted me with goods and dare I say it, parts there of, that would most likely cost more than your ricey stuff and more.
But we are going off topic again

I just needed to set you straight in kind as you have done with me

Keep plugging away at all that data though
Perhaps we could have a drink down the Yacht club one day and compare notes face to face. I'd like that as we may have a lot more in common than you think young fella

[Michael N Q8]

So, I downloaded the Timegrapher app to take readings of my BLRO. I honestly think this watch has a bigger problem than the time loss creep issue.

Since I have multiple models and some other brands, I checked all of them, and these readings march up with my observations of their daily performance.


Sea Dweller 4000 gave a rate of -3.3 s/d, amplitude of 283 and a beat error of 0.4 (Dial up)
Daytona (2005) gave a rate of 7.8 s/d, amplitude of 259 and a beat error of 0.1 (Dial up)
Daytona Ceramic (2016) gave a rate of 5.4 s/d, amplitude of 269 and a beat error of 0.3 (Dial up)
Air King (2018) gave a rate of 2.3 s/d, amplitude of 274 and a beat error of 0.9 (Dial up)
Explorer I (2018) gave a rate of 1.8 s/d, amplitude of 259 and a beat error of 0.3 (Dial up)

I recorded the results of the BLRO and the Breitling as they are both “long reserve” movements.

The values from the BLRO appear to indicate a problem, but the bizarre thing is that its keeping time within 2 sec per day while wound and worn. I’m going to leave it for 3 days and will keep checking the readings and monitor the time loss.

[Michael N Q8]

BLRO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michael N Q8]

Breitling 806


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

So, I downloaded the Timegrapher app to take readings of my BLRO. I honestly think this watch has a bigger problem than the time loss creep issue.

Since I have multiple models and some other brands, I checked all of them, and these readings march up with my observations of their daily performance.


Sea Dweller 4000 gave a rate of -3.3 s/d, amplitude of 283 and a beat error of 0.4 (Dial up)
Daytona (2005) gave a rate of 7.8 s/d, amplitude of 259 and a beat error of 0.1 (Dial up)
Daytona Ceramic (2016) gave a rate of 5.4 s/d, amplitude of 269 and a beat error of 0.3 (Dial up)
Air King (2018) gave a rate of 2.3 s/d, amplitude of 274 and a beat error of 0.9 (Dial up)
Explorer I (2018) gave a rate of 1.8 s/d, amplitude of 259 and a beat error of 0.3 (Dial up)

I recorded the results of the BLRO and the Breitling as they are both “long reserve” movements.

The values from the BLRO appear to indicate a problem, but the bizarre thing is that its keeping time within 2 sec per day while wound and worn. I’m going to leave it for 3 days and will keep checking the readings and monitor the time loss.

Michael,
The Brietling data is irrelevant to this poll.
Besides you're measuring in 6 positions. It's no a GS.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about the GMT.
For all intents and purposes it seems to be running fine on the wrist.
Simply enjoy it and send it in if you notice the timing go off and it's not to your liking.

Don't over analyse it all as you'll only start poisoning your mind

[Ashton_Horologist]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Believe me when i say i truly appreciate your help
Don't be surprised if one day I get the hang of it when I have the time.
Others have provided much more usefull detail since your first half hearted attempt. But i suppose i have to start with something.
I may be old, but I'm not obsolete yet

I acknowledge your skills and they appear to be losely equivalent to mine as I have had some considerable experience with tuning old school stuff as well as EFI.
But the cost associated with tuning EFI stuff and this modern day tendency to stick stuff on dynos sort of leaves me cold. Then you still have to fine tune with some on the road experience to get the best out of them anyway.

Fabrication and welding of exotic materials in GTAW, GMAW and MMA(all to codified standards) and employed as a qualified Welding Supervisor all over the world.
Involved in multi million dollar projects in what are described as technology transfers(us to them).
Even did a little stint in the US of A working for a native company involved in naval projects trying to teach them how we do it.
Welding Supervisor, and all it encompasses on the floor in a very hands on capacity, doing work that some of the young ones don't have confidence tackling like fabricating and welding Jet ducts(all positional work in situ) to the exacting standards as set out by Kamewa. Whilst being overseen by the likes of Lloyd's Register, DNV, BV, ABS or our own National and State based standards.
Some if it was Ultrasonic'd with the bulk being X-ray'd if that means anything to you. Then again as the old blokes used to say "X-ray is your friend". Experience has shown this to be the case time and again, especially when one has exposure to destructive testing at the lab.

These old eyes are giving out a bit more than I would like, so I'm not up to the cut and thrust of it so much. Now that it's set out in front of me here as i thought about it. Lord I feel old now
Oh I nearly forgot. The last Superyacht I worked on from it's inception was so good it won it's class at Monarco.
Which was a bit of a career highlight
So you see my good man.
I don't come to the table operating in a vacuum.
So it looks like we can have a contest to see who can urinate
up the post the highest

With one exception though.
I imagine people have trusted me with goods and dare I say it, parts there of, that would most likely cost more than your ricey stuff and more.
But we are going off topic again

I just needed to set you straight in kind as you have done with me

Keep plugging away at all that data though
Perhaps we could have a drink down the Yacht club one day and compare notes face to face. I'd like that as we may have a lot more in common than you think young fella

Seriously mate, what is wrong with you? Just give it up. Let the data come in. Nobody cares.

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Michael,
Don't over analyse it all as you'll only start poisoning your mind

I am pretty easy going and I used to be more chilled about these things, however, I got a new 991.1 Porsche GT3 in 2015. It turned out that they tend to "blow" their engines if used on the track (high revs + a valve/camshaft metallurgy issue). I used it on the track and lo and behold, the engine went bye bye.

Anyway, Porsche took care of it fully as the warranty was extended to 10 years. This extended warranty was given after a Rennlist forum got together with the necessary evidence and “encouraged” Porsche to address the problem. Those particular GT 3s now all have a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty on the engine (if/when it fails due to this issue). My experience was that all of them (991.1) require an upgraded engine.

This honestly feels like a similar situation.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Believe me when i say i truly appreciate your help
Don't be surprised if one day I get the hang of it when I have the time.
Others have provided much more usefull detail since your first half hearted attempt. But i suppose i have to start with something.
I may be old, but I'm not obsolete yet

I acknowledge your skills and they appear to be losely equivalent to mine as I have had some considerable experience with tuning old school stuff as well as EFI.
But the cost associated with tuning EFI stuff and this modern day tendency to stick stuff on dynos sort of leaves me cold. Then you still have to fine tune with some on the road experience to get the best out of them anyway.

Fabrication and welding of exotic materials in GTAW, GMAW and MMA(all to codified standards) and employed as a qualified Welding Supervisor all over the world.
Involved in multi million dollar projects in what are described as technology transfers(us to them).
Even did a little stint in the US of A working for a native company involved in naval projects trying to teach them how we do it.
Welding Supervisor, and all it encompasses on the floor in a very hands on capacity, doing work that some of the young ones don't have confidence tackling like fabricating and welding Jet ducts(all positional work in situ) to the exacting standards as set out by Kamewa. Whilst being overseen by the likes of Lloyd's Register, DNV, BV, ABS or our own National and State based standards.
Some if it was Ultrasonic'd with the bulk being X-ray'd if that means anything to you. Then again as the old blokes used to say "X-ray is your friend". Experience has shown this to be the case time and again, especially when one has exposure to destructive testing at the lab.

These old eyes are giving out a bit more than I would like, so I'm not up to the cut and thrust of it so much. Now that it's set out in front of me here as i thought about it. Lord I feel old now
Oh I nearly forgot. The last Superyacht I worked on from it's inception was so good it won it's class at Monarco.
Which was a bit of a career highlight
So you see my good man.
I don't come to the table operating in a vacuum.
So it looks like we can have a contest to see who can urinate
up the post the highest

With one exception though.
I imagine people have trusted me with goods and dare I say it, parts there of, that would most likely cost more than your ricey stuff and more.
But we are going off topic again

I just needed to set you straight in kind as you have done with me

Keep plugging away at all that data though
Perhaps we could have a drink down the Yacht club one day and compare notes face to face. I'd like that as we may have a lot more in common than you think young fella

[saxo3]

@Utomov #149
@Sheldonsmith #150
Thanks for your positive feedback

@Michal N Q8 #152, #153, #154
Great, we are on the same track! You even used my data table style (as posted in #11).
I was wondering so far that nobody commented on #11 in any reply.

If this thread can collect more data, as detailed as in our Tables, then it will fly fact and data based.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Michael,
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about the GMT.
For all intents and purposes it seems to be running fine on the wrist.
Don't over analyse it all as you'll only start poisoning your mind.

Sorry Dirt.
Each statement is wrong.

Look at Table 1, Data set 1 as well as the second Table
How can anybody claim that this BLRO 3285 movement is fine after full winding?
This watch is only 2 years + 7 months young and the caliber has a massive problem (not an issue)

I measure since several years, have never seen for any of my watches so high beat errors and so negative rates at such amplitudes.

With all my respect for you, please start thinking and understand such data sets, also go to the two Tables in post #11 and do the same there.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

I am pretty easy going and I used to be more chilled about these things, however, I got a new 991.1 Porsche GT3 in 2015. It turned out that they tend to "blow" their engines if used on the track (high revs + a valve/camshaft metallurgy issue). I used it on the track and lo and behold, the engine went bye bye.

Anyway, Porsche took care of it fully as the warranty was extended to 10 years. This extended warranty was given after a Rennlist forum got together with the necessary evidence and “encouraged” Porsche to address the problem. Those particular GT 3s now all have a 10 year 100,000 mile warranty on the engine (if/when it fails due to this issue). My experience was that all of them (991.1) require an upgraded engine.

This honestly feels like a similar situation.

I understand.
My apologies for being a tad dismissive.

I was thinking yesterday about the last TV we bought of a very highly respected brand.
It originally came with a one year manufacturer warranty and it was dead after a months long holiday and only just out of warranty by a few days.
We put in for a repair and asked if it would be covered under warranty and they agreed
It turns out there was a known problem with a particular circuit board.
A short time later we had the exact same problem, so my wife googled the issue which revealed a well known fault with that model and others in that series.
Buried within the manufacturers website we found a notice that the TV's in that series identified as having issues had the warranty extended to 5 years
Not a bad result there.
We are on the third board. Touch wood it will hold up and so far it's a record for the TV.
Each replacement board had a different part number so obviously they were actively updating it as one would naturally expect.

In summary, i believe they will have to extend their warranty if they can't right the problem. But we will be none the wiser regardless as the secret squirels business is strong with this one.
I hope you are looked after in accordance with your expectations
On the bright side.
It's a good thing you have more than enough back up watches

[alphadweller]

Data collected so far on my SD43 bought new from AD in May 2017:

summary:

position marginal rate comments total rate
CD - 7.4 s/d 22h after full wind -5.35 s/d
CU - 7.9 s/d 25h after full wind -6.07 s/d
DD - 4.1 s/d 21h after full wind -5.41 s/d
DU - 3.5 s/d 9h after full wind -5.40 s/d

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Breitling 806


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I did warn you Michael, timographs phone timing apps can and will be a Rolex owners worst enemy. Next it will be the {CCTS} constant checking time syndrome, followed by the many others of todays Rolex owners. And all this fuss over what are in most cases are around 5-10 seconds out of 86400 in a day..

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well I did warn you Michael, timographs phone timing apps can and will be a Rolex owners worst enemy. Next it will be the {CCTS} constant checking time syndrome, followed by the many others of todays Rolex owners.

This is the rationale which underpinned my previous thinking.
I do wonder if I was overly dismissive though
Especially since it has been duly pointed out that I'm quite wrong on all points because I'm not interpreting the data correctly

I'm sort of glad we only have obsolete old and antiquated Rolex movements in our family that run perfectly

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ashton_Horologist

Seriously mate, what is wrong with you? Just give it up. Let the data come in. Nobody cares.

Please don't call me nobody

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well I did warn you Michael, timographs phone timing apps can and will be a Rolex owners worst enemy. Next it will be the {CCTS} constant checking time syndrome, followed by the many others of todays Rolex owners. And all this fuss over what are in most cases are around 5-10 seconds out of 86400 in a day..

I agree, this can become an obsessive habit...as I said, I buy quite a few watches, as we all do, but only really check in the beginning to see if the new one is doing ok.

In this case, I think there is a problem so I will monitor it a bit more. Maybe I need more hobbies.

[Michael N Q8]

Originally Posted by Dirt

It's a good thing you have more than enough back up watches

No worries, I am an Engineer, so I guess its inevitable that I want to get to the root of the problem.

And as someone else said earlier, this is better than the "Is this model going to go up in value?" or "Which is the best investment?" threads

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well I did warn you Michael, timographs phone timing apps can and will be a Rolex owners worst enemy. Next it will be the {CCTS} constant checking time syndrome, followed by the many others of todays Rolex owners. And all this fuss over what are in most cases are around 5-10 seconds out of 86400 in a day..

I think in the 3235s case its some owners experiencing good time keeping and then getting-30s/day .
Also,getting a repetition of the exprerience after it was sent to RSC.

I think you will agree ,this is just not good enough for Rolex .
Wilsdorf would have freaked out if he was alive .

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

And as someone else said earlier, this is better than the "Is this model going to go up in value?" or "Which is the best investment?" threads

Absolutely,very informative and interesting thread .

[saxo3]

@alphadweller
Thanks a lot for data taking and documenting in this Table.

I conclude that this 3235 movement needs a full wind every approx. 24 hours to prevent that the deviation increases even stronger during the following 24 hours.

Between 21.01 (0:24) and 25.01 (8:09) this movement deviated -23,7 s despite the fact that you gave it 3x a full wind in-between. Based on my experience (and data) with the same Ref. this specific 3235 has a problem.

You changed position twice during data taking, did you wear the watch or did it remain at rest between 21.01. and 25.01.? You did no full wind on 23.01., right?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Absolutely,very informative and interesting thread .

Thanks, also for all data contributions of 3200 series owners.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by saxo3

@alphadweller
Thanks a lot for data taking and documenting in this Table.

I conclude that this 3235 movement needs a full wind every approx. 24 hours to prevent that the deviation increases even stronger during the following 24 hours.

Between 21.01 (0:24) and 25.01 (8:09) this movement deviated -23,7 s despite the fact that you gave it 3x a full wind in-between. That movement has a problem.

You changed position twice during data taking, did you wear the watch or did it remain at rest between 21.01. and 25.01.? You did no full wind on 23.01., right?

The watch remained at rest since the 21-Jan. My goal was to track deviation during 24h after a full wind, depending on the rest position, without resetting the time on the watch.

That's right, I did not fully wind on the 23rd, I let it run another 24h (48h in total) before the next full wind. I was curious to see how the deviation would behave after 24h at rest.

Yes, in total it has deviated -23.4 s in 104h approximately, so -5.4 s/d on average with four full winds in between. Not worn, only resting CD, CU, DD, DU.

RSC have offered to regulate it.

[peterskinner]

Is all this ‘fun’? Because it seems quite likely to spoil enjoyment over something pretty trivial (a few seconds ). If wearing a Rolex is not enjoyable, why would we do it?
After all, no mechanical watch can be totally consistent, governed as it is by the laws of physics. In general, they do very well.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

RSC have offered to regulate it.

Thanks for the detailed answer, all clear and well done, please continue.
In my view that is not a matter of regulation but a repair.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Is all this ‘fun’? Because it seems quite likely to spoil enjoyment over something pretty trivial (a few seconds ). If wearing a Rolex is not enjoyable, why would we do it?
After all, no mechanical watch can be totally consistent, governed as it is by the laws of physics. In general, they do very well.

Agreed, but to my mind there's a distinct difference with something being within normal tolerance for a mechanical watch (which in Rolex's case is apparently +/-2 secs/day), and something that adversely wears out one or more parts causing a fairly dramatic shift in performance. (Obviously I use the term "dramatic" fairly loosely, as we're talking about seconds here, but the mechanical watch industry is built on claims of accuracy, and if timekeeping isn't important then why bother).

Without speaking for anyone else who's experienced this issue, for me the problem is more about the lack of acknowledgement, and the lack of a permanent fix after the movement has been around for 6 years. If we assume the 32** will be around for 30 years like the 31** has been, then we're already 20% through it's lifespan.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

I think in the 3235s case its some owners experiencing good time keeping and then getting-30s/day .
Also,getting a repetition of the exprerience after it was sent to RSC.

I think you will agree ,this is just not good enough for Rolex .
Wilsdorf would have freaked out if he was alive .

Well have not seen any accounts on forum with like you say with anyone getting a consistent -30 seconds a day. But today many of the new Rolex owners like to over exaggerate there may be problem.

[Rori]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Even more than that, it can go from + to - immediately (i.e. same power reserve) just by changing positions. Every combination of position and power reserve represents another possible result in terms of timing accuracy, amplitude, beat error, etc.

Learnt something new today. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rori]

Originally Posted by Dirt

There seems to be a trend with your watch that's not accommodated by the poll. You're in the grey zone.
But I wouldn't worry about potential issues yet until or unless the timing falls out of spec.
So far i would just check it monthly or whenever you next change the date.

But in an effort to prevent a skewing of the results of the poll, i would urge you to abstain from clicking on any option at this stage, at least without the results of some figures from timing on a timeographer

Enjoy your watch

Noted:-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rori]

Originally Posted by Boopie

This may be a dumb question....but isn’t wearing a Rolex 10 hours a day enough movement to keep the watch fully run and performing accurately? If not, how much? 12?

Also, as for “fully wound”...I wind the crown 20-25 times (I thought was recommended). Isn’t that enough?

I have a ladies’ Yachtmaster, so not the movement at issue, but my watch turns 20 next month and it keeps great time. I’d guess that the power reserve is at about 30 hours, though.

I have no idea, I thought leaving a watch sitting for 14, 16 hours a day could lead to low power reserve.
Reason why both my Tudor GMT and SD43 sometimes stop after only 48 hours of not wearing them. I suppose this is due to the few hours they got worn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davidt]

I've already voted but after exactly 1 week of running, (worn 4 days, stored dial up at other times), my 3230 lost a total of 5 seconds, so less then 1 second per day.

My Explorer 1 with 3132 was +/- 0 seconds over the same period.