ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
|
View Poll Results: Does your 32xx movement seem to be 100% ok? | |||
Yes, no issues | 1,059 | 69.72% | |
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) | 398 | 26.20% | |
Voters: 1519. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11 March 2022, 12:37 AM | #2251 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
|
See #2112 (04.11.2021) |
11 March 2022, 12:43 AM | #2252 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
Or did you want to say from +0.7 s/d to -0.3 s/d (as in post 2245)? The rate numbers you provide are these averaged values (X in s/d) over 5 positions or for one specific position? |
|
11 March 2022, 04:58 AM | #2253 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
Happened over the course of about three weeks. I always rest in same position: dial up, bracelet closed. My only potential concern here is sudden change in consistency. |
|
11 March 2022, 05:06 AM | #2254 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: .
Posts: 2,915
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Check every 4 weeks under the same conditions, always after full winding.
Measure also the amplitudes ... Good luck! |
16 March 2022, 07:14 AM | #2255 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Meant to ask: For a daily-worn piece (or nearly daily), what constitutes "gradually" here? Running -.7 (ish) now, but I expected it to go a little slower after DST change, and a full wind (since that always slows it a bit). If it's behaving relatively "normally" then I expect it to even out in the next day or two, when PR has dissipated a bit more. Otherwise, will be on the lookout for bigger problems.
|
16 March 2022, 08:27 AM | #2256 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
|
|
16 March 2022, 10:14 AM | #2257 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Did it stay there or did timekeeping continue deteriorating to the point it requires service? And was it a 32xx?
|
16 March 2022, 11:48 AM | #2258 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
Sold it as this is how my dj and ym40 behaved before running into full blown problems. The DJ I keep taking to rsc. Can’t be bothered with the sub and ym. Yes 32xx. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
16 March 2022, 12:17 PM | #2259 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Ouch. So at what point will RSC just put a new movement in the DJ, if this seems to be a pervasive problem with yours? And how long did it take for those "full blown problems" to emerge once the slowdown started?
|
16 March 2022, 02:35 PM | #2260 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Real Name: Chris
Location: .
Watch: Daytonas/Subs/GMTs
Posts: 12,609
|
24%
The 3135 rests its case ,Your Honour . |
16 March 2022, 09:44 PM | #2261 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Real Name: Ron
Location: Arizona, USA
Watch: 116233
Posts: 3,180
|
So, nearly 76% report no issues/low amplitude but timekeeping is OK. Can this disparity versus 24% reporting issues be chalked up (in part) to the simple fact that many of us just don't care about accuracy?
Personally, I have owned two DJ41s that developed "the issue" so I believe there is or has been a problem with the 32XX movements. So now I have to wonder if I was just being too fussy, was it just my bad luck, or did Rolex slowly make some changes to the movement?
__________________
so many Rolexes.....so little time |
16 March 2022, 09:56 PM | #2262 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
|
17 March 2022, 12:18 AM | #2263 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
32xx movement problem poll and data thread
Quote:
Dunno. If I needs to go back a third time I’ll be selling it I noticed at the one year mark when it started to run really slow. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
17 March 2022, 01:52 AM | #2264 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
Time will tell.. see that, see what I did there? |
|
17 March 2022, 06:50 AM | #2265 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
Which post are you referring to? Yeah there is no real acknowledgement. I do wonder what the real issue rate is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
17 March 2022, 07:25 AM | #2266 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
That's part of why I'd be hesitant to send mine in, or why I'd want to at least ask about swapping for a new watch/movement (though I doubt Rolex would agree to either). |
|
17 March 2022, 07:27 AM | #2267 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Real Name: Graham
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,449
|
Quote:
|
|
17 March 2022, 07:29 AM | #2268 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Lol, never considered that as a reason that so few were making it back to RSC for service. Problem seems to be that even if the problem is known, it's difficult to issue guidance to RSCs around the world if the cause (and therefore fix) is still unknown. I want to say the issues with the 3186 unfolded similarly.
|
17 March 2022, 09:55 AM | #2269 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Oh, one other weird thing I’ve noticed: the watch isn’t losing that much more time when worn. It’s that it’s not gaining that time back when not worn. Is that a characteristic of the movement series issue?
|
18 March 2022, 03:47 AM | #2270 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Aug 2018
Real Name: Mariusz
Location: Poland, EU
Watch: Rolex/ALS/Chopard
Posts: 2,655
|
Quote:
__________________
This is my opinion and I fully support it |
|
18 March 2022, 04:50 AM | #2271 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Some did, some didn't. Most likely you didn't because the culprit spring (forget which it was) was replaced with the redesign at routine service. They were prone to early wear, and mine failed because service by an "authorized" service center neglected to do the replacement. However, it took some time for the problem to be documented with an updated part designed and fabricated and both to be distributed.
|
20 March 2022, 01:47 AM | #2272 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
So something just occurred to me: Does Rolex calibrate the same calibre differently for watches of different sizes? Or, more accurately, different dial sizes? Reason being: different hand lengths and therefore weights. Given the precision with which these are meant to operate, would that not make a difference? Not sure if this would cause any abnormal wear, but seemed as good a place as any to ask this…
|
20 March 2022, 02:25 AM | #2273 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Ireland
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
So from my understanding is that Chronometer certification (-4/+6 spd) is done on the bare movement. Then Rolex case up the movements and test them in 6 different positions to no worse than -2/+2 spd. This is known as superlative chronometer. I’m assuming the things you mentioned are taken into account when calibrating. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
20 March 2022, 02:39 AM | #2274 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
|
|
20 March 2022, 04:34 AM | #2275 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Ice House
Watch: Ingersoll Mickey
Posts: 3,381
|
Do we see consistent component wear over time? I know we often read of regular maintenance here but I can’t remember any talk of consumable components requiring replacement.
|
20 March 2022, 04:51 AM | #2276 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
One of our resident Rolex watchmakers (Bas, a.k.a. SearChart) has mentioned it a few times. Seconds gear pivot, IIRC, seems to be experiencing premature wear on some 32xx pieces.
|
20 March 2022, 05:00 AM | #2277 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Ice House
Watch: Ingersoll Mickey
Posts: 3,381
|
So you have your answer. I have read his posts about this and seem to remember this was on early pieces, something about a different type of lubrication perhaps (I welcome correction if I’m wrong). Also since the movement family is relatively young in Rolex terms we haven’t really yet encountered what might present later.
|
20 March 2022, 05:52 AM | #2278 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
|
Quote:
|
|
20 March 2022, 07:12 AM | #2279 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
|
Quote:
As the hands are moving uphill more torque is required to drive them, when they are going downhill it's not really a consideration. In effect, it's a 50/50 proposition to put it in its simplest terms but still a factor. It can be demonstrated at home by yourself with a simple experiment by setting your watch aside in any vertical position and leaving it to run down and stop of its own accord. You will notice a traditional lever escapement will stop with the Seconds hand roughly as its rotating upward and load is at its maximum. For example, the Seconds hand will stop in the vicinity of the 12 o'clock marker if the watch is left to stop in the "Crown up" position. The other vertical resting positions will yield their own result relative to the Crown position when the watch eventually stops. Also weight and length are a more serious consideration when we are comparing different types of movements. For example, a mechanical movement can handle longer and heavier hands because of the inherently higher torque used to drive the movement from the Mainspring. Way out on the other end of the spectrum, a Quartz movement typically has considerably less torque so weight and length of hands is a much more important factor. But again, it's mostly a factor in the vertical positions but torque is still a factor in the horizontal planes with a Quartz movement that has an Analogue display. |
|
20 March 2022, 07:38 AM | #2280 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,061
|
Quote:
From my understanding in this case the Seconds pivot is not necessarily lubricated. But part of the stop gap fix for the 32xx problem is to put lube on the pivot in the hope the problem doesn't manifest itself again before they can say(with a degree of plausibility) the watch is due for a service and due to lifestyle factors. One can only assume it would theoretically be within a 7-10 year time period, or at least that is what Rolex and the dealerships would be hoping for. As we now know, it hasn't necessarily worked out like that with a number of watches presenting with the issue within the warranty period. With some examples being repaired for the same issue multiple times within warranty. Back to the unusual high wear factor on the Seconds pinion. There has been a suggestion that the material spec/metallurgy has shifted toward a softer material in more modern times. If so, this would certainly be a contributing factor One may ask "Why the change to a softer material?" But that's a question for more knowledgeable folk to answer than typically comprises the internet forum demographic. Personally I would be inclined to simply leave it up to Rolex to sort out and hope for the best if i were an owner, as hope is all we have left at this stage |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 18 (0 members and 18 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.