32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[DG123]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

First of all, a "fear mongering crusade" is a ridiculous label for what any of us are doing here. In the same post you quoted I referred to Rolex as my favorite brand. And not an hour ago I posted an update about a watchmaker who says he has had great luck servicing this movement and thinks the quality is good. To me that is a ray of hope for those of us who own these and are grappling with the idea that even Rolex doesn't know how to fix them - per a Rolex employee (another crusader?), not me. Me posting these things directly goes against the narrative that I'm trying to blindly trash the brand/movement any way possible, no?

It's fine that you own Rolex watches and it is your "favorite brand".
But my question to you was, is " have you considered that newcomers to the brand, or perhaps someone planning to buy their son or daughter an upcoming graduation gift, might read your "predictions" and choose to not buy a Rolex ? Have you considered that due to your crusade here some people might not ever get the enjoyment you've had owning and wearing a Rolex watch ?"
And for the record, no "Rolex employee" has posted here at this thread. You hang your hat on the words of a guy from the Netherlands who is a watch repair technician employed by a third party company, not an employee of Rolex.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

This is really something. Wild guess - was this output by ChatGPT? First of all, a "fear mongering crusade" is a ridiculous label for what any of us are doing here. In the same post you quoted I referred to Rolex as my favorite brand. And not an hour ago I posted an update about a watchmaker who says he has had great luck servicing this movement and thinks the quality is good. To me that is a ray of hope for those of us who own these and are grappling with the idea that even Rolex doesn't know how to fix them - per a Rolex employee (another crusader?), not me. Me posting these things directly goes against the narrative that I'm trying to blindly trash the brand/movement any way possible, no?

Furthermore, think about how ridiculous your assertion is... what if I've denied someone else the enjoyment that I've had? What?? To the contrary, I would be horrified if a friend or family member bought a Rolex on my recommendation and gave it as a gift only to have it become the headache that mine has become. Please explain to me what enjoyment I've had spending $15k on a watch that is outperformed by a $200 Seiko.

Your comment is so out in left field it makes me question what your motives are. This goes way beyond garden variety trolling. Why is it that you would desire a potential shopper to not have any idea that these issues are out there? What possible benefit could there be to that?

Best thing you can do to trolls like that is refuse to acknowledge their existence, they'll get bored soon enough.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

A bit of a different perspective on this topic...

I spent the morning chatting with an independent watchmaker about his results with the 32xx movements. To be honest, I didn't realize that there were many (any?) independent watchmakers who would even work on these movements so I was curious to speak with him. He said over the years he has serviced more than 50 32xx movements. He hasn't had a single one come back after his service (some of those were serviced as far back as 2018).

What I found particularly interesting is that the ones that come in do show low amplitudes as we've all reported, but, he says when he's done servicing them he typically sees around 290 dial up and 260+ crown down (and I confirmed he uses a 53 lift angle). That is very strong compared to what we typically see from the factory or RSC. He says the movement is dead simple to work on and overall feels it is almost as robust as the 31xx. The planned obsolescence elements are definitely present, but he also says he is able to service the mainspring barrel without issues (he had custom tooling made to do so). He's found one flaw related to the crown wheel post that he sees quite often, but apparently has an easy fix for it.

I realize most people with a newer watch who are having troubles are going to want to leverage their warranty instead of paying out of pocket with a 3rd party. On the other hand, if a solid repair could be done to increase peace of mind and not have to go back-and-forth to RSC, surely that is worth something to a lot of us.

I have no affiliation and to be clear I have not done any business with him. But we had a good chat and he was very willing to talk about the movement. I don't know what the rules are about putting a phone number in a post, but if anybody is interested in inquiring, you should be able to find him by googling "In Time Miami Corp". His name is Walter and he's a 3rd generation watchmaker.

I know a part of how Rolex increases PR is by reducing the amplitude (along with the more efficient escapement, new mainspring and barrel, etc). I'm curious if part of the cost of higher amplitude is lower PR? I doubt most folks would care if it was 60hrs vs 70hrs, especially if overall timekeeping was improved.

Did he elaborate on what he might be doing differently than the Mother Ship?

[t_serban]

Originally Posted by DG123

And for the record, no "Rolex employee" has posted here at this thread.

Are you sure? Because you sure sound like one.

[DG123]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Best thing you can do to trolls like that is refuse to acknowledge their existence, they'll get bored soon enough.

Why don't you set the record straight and admit you are not an actual employee of Rolex corporation ?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

A bit of a different perspective on this topic...

I spent the morning chatting with an independent watchmaker about his results with the 32xx movements. To be honest, I didn't realize that there were many (any?) independent watchmakers who would even work on these movements so I was curious to speak with him. He said over the years he has serviced more than 50 32xx movements. He hasn't had a single one come back after his service (some of those were serviced as far back as 2018).

What I found particularly interesting is that the ones that come in do show low amplitudes as we've all reported, but, he says when he's done servicing them he typically sees around 290 dial up and 260+ crown down (and I confirmed he uses a 53 lift angle). That is very strong compared to what we typically see from the factory or RSC. He says the movement is dead simple to work on and overall feels it is almost as robust as the 31xx. The planned obsolescence elements are definitely present, but he also says he is able to service the mainspring barrel without issues (he had custom tooling made to do so). He's found one flaw related to the crown wheel post that he sees quite often, but apparently has an easy fix for it.

I realize most people with a newer watch who are having troubles are going to want to leverage their warranty instead of paying out of pocket with a 3rd party. On the other hand, if a solid repair could be done to increase peace of mind and not have to go back-and-forth to RSC, surely that is worth something to a lot of us.

I have no affiliation and to be clear I have not done any business with him. But we had a good chat and he was very willing to talk about the movement. I don't know what the rules are about putting a phone number in a post, but if anybody is interested in inquiring, you should be able to find him by googling "In Time Miami Corp". His name is Walter and he's a 3rd generation watchmaker.

This is very very interesting!
I'd love to know which lubricants he uses for the escapement, which epilame and if there's a noticeable difference in the replacement mainspring that he might use.
The barrel can indeed be taken apart like any other, problem to me is I'm not allowed to do so, or even think about using an aftermarket spring.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by SearChart

This is very very interesting!
I'd love to know which lubricants he uses for the escapement, which epilame and if there's a noticeable difference in the replacement mainspring that he might use.
The barrel can indeed be taken apart like any other, problem to me is I'm not allowed to do so, or even think about using an aftermarket spring.

I was asking him similar questions. For lubes I believe it was HP1300, HP1000, 9415, 9010, molykote dx, 9504. He did mention that Rolex seems to use a very small amount of lube (even by watch movement standards) and he finds the ones with low amplitude are extra dry in the escape wheel and pallet fork. He also said that with a generic replacement mainspring (in the factory barrel) he still achieves 72 hours of PR. He used to buy the real Rolex ones but couldn't justify the cost for no added performance. I wondered if that aftermarket spring might have more torque and that might account for higher amplitude initially. Obviously it could be lube related too.

But the real interesting part, to me anyway, isn't so much the difference between achieving 270 deg and 290 degrees when new, it is getting that amplitude to last over time. If all our watches held 270 degrees at full wind for years we'd never be having this conversation. The problem is when 270 becomes 250. And 250 becomes 230, and so on.

Overall it didn't sound like he was a big believer in the 10 year service interval on these, but seemed to think they should have no issues at all running 5 years without problems.

[Vince_76]

Lol at Rolex’s latest Instagram post - how they pride themselves on printing “superlative” on the dial and how it’s a cornerstone of their integrity.

They’re tonedeaf and/or brushing this under the rug

[Tridor]

What the OP and others have done here is a real service to us all. And, make no mistake, this likely will be a problem of monumental proportions at some point as 32xx movements fail, particularly where they do so past the 5 year warranty period. Prior to this thread, I had seriously considered buying a new 32xx Rolex, but will not do so now. I'm grateful to the OP that I have been able to avoid the aggravation and inconvenience of a 32xx movement that plainly is defective in design. I hope that Rolex finds a permanent fix but, until it does so (and IF it does so), I'm not a buyer of its new product.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I was asking him similar questions. For lubes I believe it was HP1300, HP1000, 9415, 9010, molykote dx, 9504. He did mention that Rolex seems to use a very small amount of lube (even by watch movement standards) and he finds the ones with low amplitude are extra dry in the escape wheel and pallet fork. He also said that with a generic replacement mainspring (in the factory barrel) he still achieves 72 hours of PR. He used to buy the real Rolex ones but couldn't justify the cost for no added performance. I wondered if that aftermarket spring might have more torque and that might account for higher amplitude initially. Obviously it could be lube related too.

But the real interesting part, to me anyway, isn't so much the difference between achieving 270 deg and 290 degrees when new, it is getting that amplitude to last over time. If all our watches held 270 degrees at full wind for years we'd never be having this conversation. The problem is when 270 becomes 250. And 250 becomes 230, and so on.

Overall it didn't sound like he was a big believer in the 10 year service interval on these, but seemed to think they should have no issues at all running 5 years without problems.

These are all tried and tested lubricants that have been in use for decades in the industry. Whereas most of the lubrication that Rolex uses they developed themselves to slowly becoming completely in-house.
It wouldn't surprise me if a readily available lubricant+ epilame works better in the long run.

It's not uncommon to see a completely dried up escapement as he also pointed out, which should not be possible since Rolex policy is definitely not a small amount of lubrication when compared to brands like Patek or JLC.
During training and in the technical documentation there's a clear minimum and maximum allowed lubrication at various steps.

[saxo3]

Very interesting information and discussion!

@Bas: You (and other RSC's) must use the lubricants that are produced and delivered by Rolex SA? Or can you purchase them independently, e.g., from Moebius?

@HiBoost: the independent "Miami watchmaker" probably uses the lubricants that everybody can buy on the market? Does he apply either the Rolex recommended or a larger amount of the mentioned lubricants you listed? That would be interesting to find out. Also, how old his lubricants are, i.e., did he buy his bottles many years ago or recently? I ask that because there could be slightly different chemical compositions of the mentioned lubricants.

My contribution: since about 1.5 years, I suspect the migration of lubricants to be the main cause of the 32xx issues. Why? I did some search on lubricants fabricated in Switzerland and found very interesting information from the Swiss Federal Office for the Enviroment. They published a Swiss Chemical Legislation with a list of restrictions, prohibitions, and banned substances. It is the so-called Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance (ORRChem), 63 pages long!

This may have led to changes in lubricants that are allowed to use in the Swiss watch industry, and to the fact that Rolex SA started their own tribology research. Otherwise, I do not see many reasons why the standard lubricants are not (or can not be) used any longer for the 32xx movements.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Very interesting information and discussion!

@Bas: You (and other RSC's) must use the lubricants that are produced and delivered by Rolex SA? Or can you purchase them independently, e.g., from Moebius?

@HiBoost: the independent "Miami watchmaker" probably uses the lubricants that everybody can buy on the market? Does he apply either the Rolex recommended or a larger amount of the mentioned lubricants you listed? That would be interesting to find out. Also, how old his lubricants are, i.e., did he buy his bottles many years ago or recently? I ask that because there could be slightly different chemical compositions of the mentioned lubricants.

My contribution: since about 1.5 years, I suspect the migration of lubricants to be the main cause of the 32xx issues. Why? I did some search on lubricants fabricated in Switzerland and found very interesting information from the Swiss Federal Office for the Enviroment. They published a Swiss Chemical Legislation with a list of restrictions, prohibitions, and banned substances. It is the so-called Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance (ORRChem), 63 pages long!

This may have led to changes in lubricants that are allowed to use in the Swiss watch industry, and to the fact that Rolex SA started their own tribology research. Otherwise, I do not see many reasons why the standard lubricants are not (or can not be) used any longer for the 32xx movements.

Correct, I am required to use Rolex's lubricants and we do not have any other available in our atelier.
I am however familiar with most widely available lubricants due to 4 years of watchmaking school, having school friends at other companies in the industry and repairing the occasional watch on the side for friends and family.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Correct, I am required to use Rolex's lubricants and we do not have any other available in our atelier.
I am however familiar with most widely available lubricants due to 4 years of watchmaking school, having school friends at other companies in the industry and repairing the occasional watch on the side for friends and family.

I think you got my point.

The lubricants and epilames that Rolex SA delivers to RSC's for 32xx services may not have the same chemical composition but the same names and reference numbers as before.

Therefore, small modifications (by Rolex Tribology) are basically invisible to all watchmakers, also in Geneva.

That's what I meant in my posts 3156 and 3177 when I wrote new lubricants and new epilames.

Can you do somehow a 32xx service (unofficial test) with non-Rolex lubricants and epilames?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

I think you got my point.

The lubricants and epilames that Rolex SA delivers to RSC's for 32xx services may not have the same chemical composition but the same names and reference numbers as before.

Therefore, small modifications (by Rolex Tribology) are basically invisible to all watchmakers, also in Geneva.

That's what I meant in my posts 3156 and 3177 when I wrote new lubricants and new epilames.

Can you do somehow a 32xx service (unofficial test) with non-Rolex lubricants and epilames?

The lubricants and epilame supplied by Rolex is the same for every caliber, from 15×× to 4130, there are no specific lubricants for the 32××.

You are correct in saying that small chemical changes would be impossible to notice, so I cannot give any meaningful answer to this.

It is completely impossible for me to do such test, I only have access to these movements at work, and bringing my own lubricants and epilame to use on a customer's Rolex would result in the end of my career here.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

The lubricants and epilame supplied by Rolex is the same for every caliber, from 15×× to 4130, there are no specific lubricants for the 32××.

You are correct in saying that small chemical changes would be impossible to notice, so I cannot give any meaningful answer to this.

It is completely impossible for me to do such test, I only have access to these movements at work, and bringing my own lubricants and epilame to use on a customer's Rolex would result in the end of my career here.

Clear, don't do that!

[MikeyV]

Migration of lubricants is the only explanation I can think of that would explain my watch's behavior.

Specifically, it running at -4 to -8 spd for over a year, then miraculously - after letting it stop at home when I went on vacation - returning (and winding) and it ran perfectly for a few months before going slow again.

Any mechanical damage to surfaces, etc would not "heal" itself - but lubricant moving in and out could.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by csaltphoto

I know a part of how Rolex increases PR is by reducing the amplitude (along with the more efficient escapement, new mainspring and barrel, etc). I'm curious if part of the cost of higher amplitude is lower PR? I doubt most folks would care if it was 60hrs vs 70hrs, especially if overall timekeeping was improved.

The short answer is no.

I have measured several times the power reserve of 32xx watches and did not see that a higher starting amplitude reduces the power reserve, which is approximately 70 hours according to Rolex SA.

Look at the eample of my 3285 watch, which is extremely bad in amplitudes and rates.

The timegrapher measurements stopped after 48 hours because the signals were to weak for the vertical positions.

The watch kept running until 71 hours 40 min. I have a second 3285 watch which shows the same behaviour (71 hours 33 min).

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

@HiBoost: the independent "Miami watchmaker" probably uses the lubricants that everybody can buy on the market? Does he apply either the Rolex recommended or a larger amount of the mentioned lubricants you listed? That would be interesting to find out. Also, how old his lubricants are, i.e., did he buy his bottles many years ago or recently? I ask that because there could be slightly different chemical compositions of the mentioned lubricants.

He said he doesn't add "extra" lubrication, he just lubes it the way he was taught and how it has always been done across different movements. But he noted that it seems like Rolex in recent years are using a smaller about of lube than would be traditionally used.

He also said all his oils are new within the last 1-2 years, and yes, all are commonly available from watchmaker supply houses.

Originally Posted by SearChart

It wouldn't surprise me if a readily available lubricant+ epilame works better in the long run.

It's not uncommon to see a completely dried up escapement as he also pointed out, which should not be possible since Rolex policy is definitely not a small amount of lubrication when compared to brands like Patek or JLC.
During training and in the technical documentation there's a clear minimum and maximum allowed lubrication at various steps.

If the watch is assembled using a standard amount of oil but then later at service observed as under-oiled, then it begs the question where is it going? A modern synthetic oil shouldn't dry up or "evaporate" so if it isn't present at service the only choices seem to be it either wasn't put there to begin with or it moved. If movement is the answer, then we still need to explain why if the same oils are used on a 32xx and a 31xx that they'd only be migrating on a 32xx. That would seem to imply a difference in materials or surface finish?

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

He said he doesn't add "extra" lubrication, he just lubes it the way he was taught and how it has always been done across different movements. But he noted that it seems like Rolex in recent years are using a smaller about of lube than would be traditionally used.

He also said all his oils are new within the last 1-2 years, and yes, all are commonly available from watchmaker supply houses.




If the watch is assembled using a standard amount of oil but then later at service observed as under-oiled, then it begs the question where is it going? A modern synthetic oil shouldn't dry up or "evaporate" so if it isn't present at service the only choices seem to be it either wasn't put there to begin with or it moved. If movement is the answer, then we still need to explain why if the same oils are used on a 32xx and a 31xx that they'd only be migrating on a 32xx. That would seem to imply a difference in materials or surface finish?

Where amplitude and lubricant go hand in hand is between the escape wheel and pallet fork, pallet grease RL2 is used here.

It is indeed a place that frequently is found running dry on the 32xx, causing massive loss of amplitude.
But there's definitely more causes, like the seconds wheel pivot wearing out or even nothing visibly going on and still no amplitude.
Yet in all the other movements you rarely see this happening with the same epilame and grease.

A stronger epilame/grease bond is something I'd like to see in this spot, and I'm sure Rolex is aware of this and might work on it.

[train-time]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Where amplitude and lubricant go hand in hand is between the escape wheel and pallet fork, pallet grease RL2 is used here.

It is indeed a place that frequently is found running dry on the 32xx, causing massive loss of amplitude.
But there's definitely more causes, like the seconds wheel pivot wearing out or even nothing visibly going on and still no amplitude.
Yet in all the other movements you rarely see this happening with the same epilame and grease.

A stronger epilame/grease bond is something I'd like to see in this spot, and I'm sure Rolex is aware of this and might work on it.

Sounds like I would stay away from the 32xx movement given the choice.... Just sayin....

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Where amplitude and lubricant go hand in hand is between the escape wheel and pallet fork, pallet grease RL2 is used here.

It is indeed a place that frequently is found running dry on the 32xx, causing massive loss of amplitude.
But there's definitely more causes, like the seconds wheel pivot wearing out or even nothing visibly going on and still no amplitude.
Yet in all the other movements you rarely see this happening with the same epilame and grease.

A stronger epilame/grease bond is something I'd like to see in this spot, and I'm sure Rolex is aware of this and might work on it.

My understanding is that the Chronergy escapement has longer but thinner pallets. Could it be that the pallets are too thin to remain adequately lubricated? Or that the interaction between the thin pallets and the stubby “club feet” on the escape wheel results in more wear and tear on the lubricants?

I’d also like to echo thanks to the good folks here keeping up on this issue and to the people posting relevant and useful information.

[saxo3]

Just learned something interesting (to me) about escapement lubricant RL-2, from an article published in 2012:

Rolex RL-2 is proprietary escapement grease developed by Rolex. Prior to RL-2, two different lubricants, which will be discussed next, were necessary to lubricate watches that ran at either a low or high frequency (Figure). Moebius 941 was tailored to low-beat calibers, while its thixotropic alternative, Moebius 9415, was created specifically for high-beat watches. Rolex RL2 replaces both of these lubricants as a stable, high-performance, escapement grease.



Figure: Rolex RL-2 escapement grease eliminates the need for two lubricants.

RL-2, like Moebius 9415, is a thixotropic grease. In simple language, this means the grease liquifies (becomes less viscous) and becomes more slippery when hit with force. Thus, when a tooth of the escape wheel comes quickly into contact with the pallet fork, the grease adapts to the force and helps to provide a smooth, near frictionless surface for the escape wheel tooth to glide across. RL-2 has a more uniform consistency than Moebius 9415 and displays excellent staying power on epilame-treated surfaces. It offers all of the benefits of 9415, while still allowing enough "give" to be suitable for use on low-beat calibers where Moebius 941 would otherwise be necessary.

---------------

From an interesting TRF contribution by shofzr in 2014:

To me this is the most fascinating lubrication, as it seems to have two "personalities" the first is a grease that sticks where it is applied, the second, when pressure is applied to it from the escape wheel tooth striking the pallet stones is becomes a thin oil, after the pressure is gone it's back to grease state.

If the RL2 is applied incorrect to the pallet stones the watch will only run a few months before amplitude drops and timing becomes erratic.

Because as the escape wheel tooth passes through the RL2 a tiny amount gets pushed to the sides and eventually there is not enough where it needs to be.

You can see in this picture the "groove" in the RL2 from the escape wheel teeth passing through the bead applied to the pallet stone. This is only after a few hours of running, in a few months it will be all but dry.

[Aerogph]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

My understanding is that the Chronergy escapement has longer but thinner pallets. Could it be that the pallets are too thin to remain adequately lubricated? Or that the interaction between the thin pallets and the stubby “club feet” on the escape wheel results in more wear and tear on the lubricants?

I’d also like to echo thanks to the good folks here keeping up on this issue and to the people posting relevant and useful information.

But that is why Rolex in its lubrication guidance, suggests to lubricate the escapement club tooth insteas of the rubies (to my understanding). I'll double check today to confirm.

to Saxo3: before my trip to Rome the watch suddenly started losing time (first -0.5 s/d average, and then -4 s/d). Hadn't knocked the timepiece nor changed my wearing habits. It just started run erratic. I had the watch brought in to the Rolex certified watchmaker in Rome during my trip.

They first checked how the watch was performing (I'm sure they were very well aware of the issues as this was the first thing they asked), and then he proceeded regulating it.

Yesterday I asked my local watchmaker to put the watch on the timegrapher and this are the results (fully wound):



They have the same account of new factory watches coming with the issue. Still no clue as to why some develop it immediatly while others take more time. And still no clue as to where the issue lies. To be honest, could be that some of the parts might have been machined with the wrong tolerances and this brings the unusual wear.

Bas is probably the only one that can see the scale of this, and that can touch with hand the possible solution (when available)

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

My understanding is that the Chronergy escapement has longer but thinner pallets. Could it be that the pallets are too thin to remain adequately lubricated? Or that the interaction between the thin pallets and the stubby “club feet” on the escape wheel results in more wear and tear on the lubricants?

I’d also like to echo thanks to the good folks here keeping up on this issue and to the people posting relevant and useful information.

You apply the pallet grease to the escape wheel through a hole in the mainplate. It has to be running to do this, and it's called dynamic lubricating.
When doing this you see it evenly distribute and it sticks nicely to both the pallet fork's impulse surface and the rest surface of the escape wheel.

Problem is that you don't have control over the bond of the epilame coating and the grease. So when a design like this might be more prone to the grease migrating away from the desired surface you cannot stop that by using a different technique or amount of lube.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by SearChart

You apply the pallet grease to the escape wheel through a hole in the mainplate. It has to be running to do this, and it's called dynamic lubricating.
When doing this you see it evenly distribute and it sticks nicely to both the pallet fork's impulse surface and the rest surface of the escape wheel.
A photo would be very interesting to look at.

Problem is that you don't have control over the bond of the epilame coating and the grease. So when a design like this might be more prone to the grease migrating away from the desired surface you cannot stop that by using a different technique or amount of lube.
I understand that you are using the same Rolex RL-2 escapement grease for 32xx and 31xx movements. Why is there no (or much less) lube migration (in this area) on the 31xx?

Any idea what is different on the 32xx:
- Material?
- Surface hardness, roughness?
- Epilame coating: deposition technique, coating type, thickness?

Thanks for all these details and your explanations

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

But that is why Rolex in its lubrication guidance, suggests to lubricate the escapement club tooth insteas of the rubies (to my understanding). I'll double check today to confirm.

to Saxo3: before my trip to Rome the watch suddenly started losing time (first -0.5 s/d average, and then -4 s/d). Hadn't knocked the timepiece nor changed my wearing habits. It just started run erratic. I had the watch brought in to the Rolex certified watchmaker in Rome during my trip.

They first checked how the watch was performing (I'm sure they were very well aware of the issues as this was the first thing they asked), and then he proceeded regulating it.

Yesterday I asked my local watchmaker to put the watch on the timegrapher and this are the results (fully wound):



They have the same account of new factory watches coming with the issue. Still no clue as to why some develop it immediatly while others take more time. And still no clue as to where the issue lies. To be honest, could be that some of the parts might have been machined with the wrong tolerances and this brings the unusual wear.

Bas is probably the only one that can see the scale of this, and that can touch with hand the possible solution (when available)

Welcome back to the thread.

A watch (which Ref.?) that suddenly started to lose time (and had the movement issue) was solved by regulation? No.

Witschi data look good, 12H is normally not analysed for Rolex 32xx calibers.

Pieces machined with wrong tolerance since 7-8 years? That would never remain undiscovered by Rolex, wear is not always observed.

[Aerogph]

Originally Posted by SearChart

You apply the pallet grease to the escape wheel through a hole in the mainplate. It has to be running to do this, and it's called dynamic lubricating.
When doing this you see it evenly distribute and it sticks nicely to both the pallet fork's impulse surface and the rest surface of the escape wheel.

Problem is that you don't have control over the bond of the epilame coating and the grease. So when a design like this might be more prone to the grease migrating away from the desired surface you cannot stop that by using a different technique or amount of lube.

What do you do in case the lubrication is not distributing evenly? As you can notice it, you have to reapply it until is done properly?

Originally Posted by saxo3

Welcome back to the thread.

A watch (which Ref.?) that suddenly started to lose time (and had the movement issue) was solved by regulation? No.

Witschi data look good, 12H is normally not analysed for Rolex 32xx calibers.

Pieces machined with wrong tolerance since 7-8 years? That would never remain undiscovered by Rolex, wear is not always observed.

Thank you
Reference is 124060 from 2020. Haven’t noticed significant drops in amplitude but in timekeeping, yeah from last year until regulation. Highest I’ve seen is 300°C also noticed by RSC when brought in to check the parameters.

I’m starting to think that one of the major problems could be the Chronergy design that makes it difficult to lubricate as Bas correctly explained us. Still we haven’t the full picture…

As far as the machine tolerances are concerned, it could be. Also, bear in mind that the 32xx design is modular and the distance between the gears in the different modules might play something in the end (handshakes or games? I don’t know the precise term)

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

Thank you

Reference is 124060 from 2020. Haven’t noticed significant drops in amplitude but in timekeeping, yeah from last year until regulation. Highest I’ve seen is 300°C also noticed by RSC when brought in to check the parameters.

Hot ... you and the watchmaker looked at the Witschi screen or saw something else?

Timegrapher data before/after regulation would have been my way to look at it.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for all these details and your explanations

Possibly design difference, since the way the chronergy works is different than the traditional Swiss lever escapement. Maybe due to different contact times and interaction between surfaces that the chronergy is more prone to lubricant migration.

I'll try and shoot a picture of the escapement just after lubricating
Been working on a lot of 4130 lately, such a relief lol

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by Aerogph

What do you do in case the lubrication is not distributing evenly? As you can notice it, you have to reapply it until is done properly?




Thank you
Reference is 124060 from 2020. Haven’t noticed significant drops in amplitude but in timekeeping, yeah from last year until regulation. Highest I’ve seen is 300°C also noticed by RSC when brought in to check the parameters.

I’m starting to think that one of the major problems could be the Chronergy design that makes it difficult to lubricate as Bas correctly explained us. Still we haven’t the full picture…

As far as the machine tolerances are concerned, it could be. Also, bear in mind that the 32xx design is modular and the distance between the gears in the different modules might play something in the end (handshakes or games? I don’t know the precise term)

When a movement is running you hold the oiler with the grease against the running escape wheel. It never has trouble distributing properly as long as you use the appropriate amount.

The escapement is not harder or less hard to lubricate than a traditional one, and the way you do it is the same for most of them. Except for the old movements like the 2035 or 15××, those are impossible to lubricate dynamically, you'll add grease directly to the pallets on those.