32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by Scholar

Watchmaker Al of Archer Watches posted this overview of the issues with the 32 series on Watchuseek and saxo suggested I share it here:

Thank you, Al.

[Mountain]

Triangulating all information from the different sources, it seems as if there’s no single issue to point at, rather a possible combination of several. No doubt this is why there seems no obvious solution even after eight years.

Therefore, the question I guess we need to ask ourselves is whether Rolex, or indeed anyone else, can produce a final fix?

Or, whether we should just cut our losses and forget the 32xx series watches?

I’m not sure exactly where I stand now. But, I can be certain the trust I had towards my explorer and Rolex overall has been severely damaged.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Triangulating all information from the different sources, it seems as if there’s no single issue to point at, rather a possible combination of several. No doubt this is why there seems no obvious solution even after eight years.

Robert, I fully agree.

The following I posted 6 months ago in 3161:

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Robert, I fully agree.

The following I posted 6 months ago in 3161:

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

What does appear to be coming out of all of this is that the movements have a fundamental design "weakness" which has arisen from the marketing pressure to produce 70 hour reserve. A weakness that is exacerbated by a lack of lubrication creating friction and or wear sufficient to reduce the amplitude to a level that timekeeping is significantly affected.

And that the chronology escapement was created by necessity, not advancement in design.

The question I have is that the Daytona has had a 72 hour power reserve for years. Presumably it has a larger barrel?

[MikeyV]

Tudor has gone to the 72 hr power reserve on their movements - and there's no indication that they have similar issues - that's been at least 5 years now - more like 6 or 7 if I remember right.

I'd assume the ideas and technology used in the new Tudor movements would follow a similar philosophy to what Rolex has done with the 32xx.

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Robert, I fully agree.

The following I posted 6 months ago in 3161:

The root cause of the 32xx issues could be a combination of new movement design, new materials, new lubricants, high-performance epilames (thin film coatings), which should prevent oil from spreading across the surface, thereby preventing oil from flowing out of the friction zone.

Yes, it seems as if you were spot on with your conclusion.

[steubi1]

Originally Posted by Devildog

What does appear to be coming out of all of this is that the movements have a fundamental design "weakness" which has arisen from the marketing pressure to produce 70 hour reserve. A weakness that is exacerbated by a lack of lubrication creating friction and or wear sufficient to reduce the amplitude to a level that timekeeping is significantly affected.

And that the chronology escapement was created by necessity, not advancement in design.

The question I have is that the Daytona has had a 72 hour power reserve for years. Presumably it has a larger barrel?

Yes. The Daytona movement has a larger diameter because it must not fit into a 36 mm case...
So the barrel has much more volume, I guess...

Tom

[saxo3]

Below I copied the post from member 'Archer' in WUS.
I highlighted interesting (for me) parts and added some remarks and questions I have.
Maybe somebody can answer or explain my questions?

The torque available from a given strength of mainspring is a finite thing. That's somewhat different from the length of the power reserve. A mainspring is a different kind of spring, so I'll explain...

The torque of the mainspring is a function of its width and it's thickness. The power reserve is a function purely of the length, all else being equal.

A typical mainspring designation goes something like this...

1.60 X .10 X 267 - all numbers are in mm.

First number is the width or height of the spring, and is related to how tall the mainspring barrel is.

The second number is the thickness, or commonly known as the strength.

The third number is the length.

The first two numbers can affect the torque delivered from the mainspring, but do in in different proportions. A change in width has a small impact, where a change in strength has a very large impact - it is cubed, so a small change in the strength measurement can have a very significant impact on the torque.

Neither of these are directly related to power reserve. That is determined by the length of the spring - simple relationship between the length of the spring determining the number of turns the mainspring barrel will make, and the gear ratio between the teeth on the barrel, and the subsequent train wheels. Again, all else being equal.

The only relationship they have to power reserve is that when you make a mainspring thinner, you can fit a longer spring in the same sized barrel. That is what Rolex has done. In an effort to catch up to other brands who have extended their power reserves, they have tried to fit more spring in the same space, rather than taking another approach such as two mainspring barrels.

So to fit more spring in the same barrel they made 2 changes:

1 - Thinner barrel wall.
2 - Thinner mainspring.

These changes have consequences. The thinner barrel wall now means that you cannot use the barrel over again, because it's too fragile to open up and close again in service. So the entire mainspring barrel must be replaced at every service. That's a servicing implication, but not necessarily a performance implication.

The thinner mainspring now reduces the torque delivered, which reduces balance amplitude. To now make up for that reduced torque, they did some very un-Rolex like things to the escapement. They made things thinner and more fragile. Smaller surface contact reduces friction, but concentrates the forces and wear that may occur. There's always a give and take in any design, and watch movements are no different in that regard.

So why is balance amplitude important? It's simple - isochronism.
The isochronism, measurable with a timegrapher, is one method to investigate a 32xx movement, as explained and demonstrated in 3647, 3692, 3816.

A balance inside a watch is a very imperfect oscillator, so watch companies go to a lot of trouble to help it maintain its period (rate) when there are changes in the distance travelled (amplitude), but there's only so much you can do.

So this means that when amplitude drops, timing changes. How much depends on how big the drop is, but also where in the amplitude range that drop is occurring.
The smaller the accuracy or timing change with decreasing amplitude, the better the isochronism.

Rolex watches don't tend to have really high amplitudes to begin with, compared to many other makers.
So on say a standard ETA movement, it's not unusual for amplitudes to be in excess of 300 degrees, where on a Rolex you are more typically looking at 270's or 280's.
True for 32 xx calibers but not true for 31xx and 15xx calibers; they reach 300 degrees after full winding.

In fact the point at which there is too much amplitude, and you experience rebanking (also known as knocking), is much lower on a Rolex than say on an ETA 2892, due to the geometry of the Rolex escapement.

When you get to lower amplitudes, such as the low 200's, then some odd things start to happen. There's an amplitude where poise errors on the balance tend to go away (these are only in vertical positions) and it's widely considered that around 220 degrees is where this happens, at least with a traditional lever escapement.
What is the physics explanation that at low amplitudes poise errors on the balance tend to go away in vertical positions?

As you drop below that, there's a point where poise errors reverse, so if at full wind amplitude crown left (=6U) runs faster that crown right (=12U), those reverse, and now crown right will run faster than crown left. As you drop lower, the magnitude of those poise errors gets magnified significantly.
Rolex calibers are not regulated in 12U position. Anyhow, I can confirm, measured this for 3U (= crown up) and 9U (= crown down) rates while it is not visible in the amplitudes. But why do poise errors reverse at low amplitudes? What is the mechanism?

This is well known with watchmakers and is useful in the context of dynamic poising procedures, so for that I drop the balance amplitude to 160 degrees to magnify the errors, locate the heavy spot on the balance wheel, and make the appropriate adjustments.
OK, a very good technique.

So for example I just dynamically poised a watch last week where at full wind the positional variation was 21 seconds across 6 positions (amplitudes were from the mid 280's to around 310). When I dropped the balance amplitude to 160 degrees, those errors ballooned to 57 seconds, so they nearly tripled in magnitude.

So on these 32XX watches, Rolex wants to keep the balance amplitude after 24 hours above 200 degrees to avoid some of the more extreme effects that are seen at lower amplitudes. It is somewhat of a detriment that the amplitude starts lower on these watches to begin with, because you have less of a buffer in the amount that it can drop before you start to see those unwanted effects.
This clearly underlines the importance of high amplitudes after full winding and 24 hours later.

So do they know what the problem is? Yes, I'm sure they do by now. The problem that presents itself is repairing this issue without sacrificing any of the promised performance metrics that this movement is known for. So that means not changing the accuracy and power reserve goals. It's not that they don't know what to do, because they have built plenty of robust movements in the past - it's doing so while maintaining the current performance demands that is the issue.
It sounds hopeless to me that Rolex will solve (after 8 years) the 32xx problem within the given space and design limits while keeping the specified precision (+/- 2 sec/day) AND the power reserve (approx. 70 hours).

Hope this helps those who are interested, understand the technical side of this a bit better...

Cheers, Al
Thanks for the very interesting post.
Hopefully you (Al) can join here too.

[S.Explorer]

It's great that this knowledge has come to light. Hoping Rolex will significantly modify the 32xx movement.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

What does appear to be coming out of all of this is that the movements have a fundamental design "weakness" which has arisen from the marketing pressure to produce 70 hour reserve. A weakness that is exacerbated by a lack of lubrication creating friction and or wear sufficient to reduce the amplitude to a level that timekeeping is significantly affected.

And that the chronology escapement was created by necessity, not advancement in design.

The question I have is that the Daytona has had a 72 hour power reserve for years. Presumably it has a larger barrel?

Originally Posted by steubi1

Yes. The Daytona movement has a larger diameter because it must not fit into a 36 mm case...
So the barrel has much more volume, I guess...

Tom

4130 - diameter: 30,50 mm, thickness: 6,50 mm
3235 - diameter: 28,50 mm, thickness: not found

Copy from an article by Ashton Tracy

"Another factor to consider is that the 3235 has a movement diameter of 28.5 mm. Let’s compare this with a 4130, the in-house Rolex chronograph movement, which also has a power reserve of 70 hours.

There is no Chronergy escapement here; Caliber 4130 contains a standard lever escapement. Admittedly, it is 2 mm larger in diameter, coming in at 30.5 mm; however, it incorporates a three-register chronograph.

How did Rolex achieve this this feat? By installing a longer mainspring into a barrel with regular-sized walls. This barrel doesn’t need replacing every service – a new mainspring will do just fine.

So why couldn’t this have been an option for the 3235? Perhaps to make the servicing and the acquisition of parts more difficult? Perhaps there was truly no more space to install a larger barrel? I’ll let you be the judge of that one.

Increased power reserves are definitely a win for the customer: people don’t enjoy having to set their watches frequently, which can become tedious.

Additionally, the less the wearer has to adjust his or her Oyster watch, the less likely water-resistance problems will arise. I have no issue with a modern caliber outlasting an older counterpart by many more hours, but I do take issue with the way it has been achieved in this particular case."

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

4130 - diameter: 30,50 mm, thickness: 6,50 mm
3235 - diameter: 28,50 mm, thickness: not found

Copy from an article by Ashton Tracy

"Another factor to consider is that the 3235 has a movement diameter of 28.5 mm. Let’s compare this with a 4130, the in-house Rolex chronograph movement, which also has a power reserve of 70 hours.

There is no Chronergy escapement here; Caliber 4130 contains a standard lever escapement. Admittedly, it is 2 mm larger in diameter, coming in at 30.5 mm; however, it incorporates a three-register chronograph.

How did Rolex achieve this this feat? By installing a longer mainspring into a barrel with regular-sized walls. This barrel doesn’t need replacing every service – a new mainspring will do just fine.

So why couldn’t this have been an option for the 3235? Perhaps to make the servicing and the acquisition of parts more difficult? Perhaps there was truly no more space to install a larger barrel? I’ll let you be the judge of that one.

Increased power reserves are definitely a win for the customer: people don’t enjoy having to set their watches frequently, which can become tedious.

Additionally, the less the wearer has to adjust his or her Oyster watch, the less likely water-resistance problems will arise. I have no issue with a modern caliber outlasting an older counterpart by many more hours, but I do take issue with the way it has been achieved in this particular case."

Right from its introduction, the 3235 has always been claimed by Rolex to be thinner than the 3135.
I think the figure is exactly 0.5 mm thinner from memory.

[CedCraig]

0 for 3 from a guy who responded to a comment of mine on Instagram: “100000%. I have 4 with the 31xx movements and zero issues. 3 with the 32xx and each one slowed to a crawl and had to be sent in. 2 of them twice. Ridiculous.”

I told him about the threads on TRF and WUS and he said he used to belong to TRF but stopped posting. He said he’s now part of the Tim Mosso FB group and added “So many ppl with the 32 caliber issues.”

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I have a 2022 Air-King, my first Rolex, and the winding action is rough and „sandy,“ worse than even my 500 euro kickstarter watch. It‘s keeping good time, -1 spd, but so far I‘m not that impressed.

Originally Posted by CedCraig

The next time I visit my AD I‘ll ask them to throw my new Air-King on their timegrapher. Although it‘s running -2.5 spd, that‘s worse than my other decent watches.

Did you get your Air-King measured?
6 months ago it was -2.5 s/d, now?
How old is your watch?

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Did you get your Air-King measured?
6 months ago it was -2.5 s/d, now?
How old is your watch?

9 months old now and still a consistent -2.3/-2.4 spd. I haven’t had it checked since I haven’t made the time to visit my AD, though later next month I’ll might swing by. I’d like to handle the new YM.

I wear the watch in rotation, for around a week every six weeks or so.

My curiosity is building so I may just order a timegrapher after I get back from my next trip. I’m sort of curious about the specs of my other watches, too.

As I recall the Weishi 1900 was the model to get?

[Rocket_Man]

Wow, this is a really long thread. I've skimmed through most of it and the last 20 or so pages more in depth. What brought me here was that I noticed my DJ41 has needed more time adjustment than my other watches I wear in rotation with it. I had known about the 'new' 32XX movement and some issues with it, but I didn't dive into it until it was hitting home. This weekend I bought a weishi 1900 timegrapher to test my own watch(es). This confirmed to me that my DJ41 suffers from low amplitude and poor timekeeping. I added my vote to the poll based on measured data. I'm 24 hrs into testing the DJ41 and a few other Rolex and one non-Rolex mechanical watches. None of those have the 32XX. I'll post that data when I get a few more datapoints. But life gets in the way of taking this data.

Luckily the DJ41 which I bought new in Aug 2019 is still under warranty. I wear it in rotation with several other watches. So I wear it once or twice a week and it is on an Orbita winder when I'm not wearing it.

I like the watch. I'm glad I bought it. I have no plans to sell it because of this. But what irritates me is that I feel Rolex knew the shortcomings of this movement well before they put it in production 8 or so years ago (they must have tons of test data) and know through their service data that this movement has issues that violate their own standards. But they made the calculated decision to release it any way. To just absorb the cost of warranty repair as a cost of doing business. They conceal this from customers hoping that most won't notice (this appears to be the case) and eventually when the watch gets bad enough they will send it to an RSC to be repaired at the customers expense. So Rolex eventually will make money at the RSC's due to this movement. My goal is to avoid this if possible so I want to send it under warranty for repair and hopefully they may actually make this movement right.

Some say 'don't worry, just enjoy the watch' which I really want as well. But I didn't pay $10K for a watch with an in-house Rolex movement that is worse than my Selitta 300-1 based watch that cost $1,600. Rolex is risking their reputation on this issue. Many customers only buy a Rolex for the name recognition. Fewer buy them for their timekeeping accuracy. They have spent over 100 years building their reputation. Ask Panerai how quickly that can be damaged.

[whatsthetime?]

Just curious as to why there is no class action lawsuit against Rolex being this is ongoing for 8yrs?

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Just curious as to why there is no class action lawsuit against Rolex being this is ongoing for 8yrs?

Well, the watches come with a 5 year warranty which is better than most cars and most cars cost more than a Rolex movement. No one is dying either. Like cars you could just consider them fully depreciated after 10 years. Yeah, we all know Rolex is supposed to be a multi generation watch but they don't promise that. And as others have said there is probably little profit in an international lawsuit directed at a loved industry in a famously insulated country.

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Just curious as to why there is no class action lawsuit against Rolex being this is ongoing for 8yrs?

I think for two reasons, first what @csaltphoto said and two because the overwhelming majority of 32xx owners are clueless about the problem. As to why most people don’t know, here are some reasons I’ve posted elsewhere (apologies to those who’ve already seen this):

Reasons why the 32xx movement issue might be undercounted and not common knowledge outside of enthusiast circles (in no particular order):

-Few people own timegraphers so many in the “my 32xx watch runs great” crowd don’t know what their amplitude is.

-Many watches are safe queens, especially newer models.

-Many newer watches are, um, new, and haven’t developed the problem. “I just got my BLRO and it’s run great in the first month!”

-Many people have collections and rotate their watches so frequently that -10spd or more just isn’t noticed.

-People who follow and post WUS and TRF are a tiny minority of Rolex owners.

-Rolex is jewelry now so who cares about timekeeping? I’m seeing this comment more and more and it shocks me that people on WUS/TRF say this. I understand this being the case for the general public, though.

-Major watch blogs and YouTubers are too afraid to open this can of worms for fear of being blacklisted by the watch industry. Kudos to Worn&Wound for asking what’s going on.

-Grey market dealers and flippers want to keep the issue quiet so people don’t start hesitating about buying watches with 32xx movements. Regular owners who frequently sell their watches are also in this category.

-People who paid a lot of money for a Rolex can’t bear to think their precious is anything but perfect.

-The Rolex ecosystem of ADs, SAs, RSC staff have a vested interest in not admitting anything is wrong. This is the Rolex way. The fact that a few insiders have admitted to problems suggests to me quite a widespread issue.

[fmc000]

Originally Posted by CedCraig

I think for two reasons, first what @csaltphoto said and two because the overwhelming majority of 32xx owners are clueless about the problem. As to why most people don’t know, here are some reasons I’ve posted elsewhere (apologies to those who’ve already seen this):

Reasons why the 32xx movement issue might be undercounted and not common knowledge outside of enthusiast circles (in no particular order):

-Few people own timegraphers so many in the “my 32xx watch runs great” crowd don’t know what their amplitude is.

-Many watches are safe queens, especially newer models.

-Many newer watches are, um, new, and haven’t developed the problem. “I just got my BLRO and it’s run great in the first month!”

-Many people have collections and rotate their watches so frequently that -10spd or more just isn’t noticed.

-People who follow and post WUS and TRF are a tiny minority of Rolex owners.

-Rolex is jewelry now so who cares about timekeeping? I’m seeing this comment more and more and it shocks me that people on WUS/TRF say this. I understand this being the case for the general public, though.

-Major watch blogs and YouTubers are too afraid to open this can of worms for fear of being blacklisted by the watch industry. Kudos to Worn&Wound for asking what’s going on.

-Grey market dealers and flippers want to keep the issue quiet so people don’t start hesitating about buying watches with 32xx movements. Regular owners who frequently sell their watches are also in this category.

-People who paid a lot of money for a Rolex can’t bear to think their precious is anything but perfect.

-The Rolex ecosystem of ADs, SAs, RSC staff have a vested interest in not admitting anything is wrong. This is the Rolex way. The fact that a few insiders have admitted to problems suggests to me quite a widespread issue.

Excellent post.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Just curious as to why there is no class action lawsuit against Rolex being this is ongoing for 8yrs?

Because aside from the points CedCraig has raised, your "class action lawsuit" - in inverted commas because the concept differs depending on the Country of origin would need to be raised against Rolex SA which is a Swiss registered company and ultimately whatever action was raised would need to be raised under Swiss law in a Swiss Court (to have any legal impact)

Sure, you could go after Rolex in the USA, but that would not be enforceable against Rolex SA.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Because aside from the points CedCraig has raised, your "class action lawsuit" - in inverted commas because the concept differs depending on the Country of origin would need to be raised against Rolex SA which is a Swiss registered company and ultimately whatever action was raised would need to be raised under Swiss law in a Swiss Court (to have any legal impact)

Sure, you could go after Rolex in the USA, but that would not be enforceable against Rolex SA.

Rolex SA could be sued in the US under long-arm jurisdiction. See, e.g., Rosenblatt v. Coutts & Co. AG (2d Cir. 2018).

[RFC]

Originally Posted by whatsthetime?

Just curious as to why there is no class action lawsuit against Rolex being this is ongoing for 8yrs?

Because any lawyer worth his or her salt knows that for a class action you need to prove two elements, among others, commonality and numerosity. There are many problems with certifying a class but focus on just those two interrelated elements. How many owners of the 32x movement (numerosity) have had Rolex deny warranty coverage when it should be honored or honored the warranty but the watches still remain out of spec after servicing (commonality)? You need a large number of owners whose watches remain out of spec after Rolex has serviced them. Despite anecdotes, I’m afraid there are not many owners to form that class.

[whatsthetime?]

Thank you all for the info, much appreciated.

[MikeyV]

So Tudor has the 72 hour PR. We're blaming that spring/barrel along with the changes made to the escapement for these problems.

Did Tudor also change the escapement to go along with the higher PR?

Why does Tudor not have these same problems? Tudor MT movements work fine.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by MikeyV

So Tudor has the 72 hour PR. We're blaming that spring/barrel along with the changes made to the escapement for these problems.

Did Tudor also change the escapement to go along with the higher PR?

Why does Tudor not have these same problems? Tudor MT movements work fine.

I’m no movement expert and there are members here that are more knowledgeable than I am, but the architecture of Rolex calibres is different to those of Tudor. Also, Rolex movements/cases are much thinner than Tudor’s which might explain why Rolex opted for a thinner barrel to fit into their compact movements. The two can’t be compared IMHO. I have a feeling that Rolex knew about the issue/s before this thread was even started and are yet to find a permanent solution without sacrificing precision, PR, and movement/case dimensions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeyV]

Thanks for responding. Yeah, I didn't think about the overall thickness of the movements. Good point. Just wondering why if Tudor can do it, Rolex can't - seeing as how they're basically one in the same - or at least would share engineering knowledge.

Cheers!

[Rocket_Man]

I finished testing my only 3236 watch. The DJ41 was bought new from an AD in Aug 2019 and never serviced. I used a Weishi 1900 and tested in 6 positions, but I excluded the 12Up position from the average calculation, so the average only uses the 5 COSC positions. I let the timegrapher run for 2 minutes after letting the watch settle 30 seconds between positions. Couldn't take any more data after 53hrs. Watch ran down after 68 hrs.

I also tested a GMT II with a 3186, an Explorer with a 3132, an old DJ 16030 with a 3035, and a Zinn 856 with a Sellita 300-1. All these movements seem to have higher accuracy and higher amplitude than the 3235. But they wound down sooner as expected.

[Rocket_Man]

This is data from an Explorer with a 3132. This watch was new in Dec 2016 and never serviced. And a GMT II with a 3186 bought new in 2015. it was serviced in 2018. It was losing 10 minutes in 6 hrs. Dallas RSC serviced it, they never told me what they fixed, but it has been running well since. I wear both these watches in rotation once or twice a week and they are on a winder when not worn.

[Rocket_Man]

I also tested a ~38 year old Datejust 16030 with a 3025 movement. I've owned this watch since new. It was serviced twice in its life by Dallas RSC, but it has not been serviced in the last 10 years or more. I can't find the last service records. I stopped wearing this watch over 5 years ago and it has been sitting in a coffin in a drawer. I pulled it out, wound it up and tested it just for fun. Even with that history it tested surprisingly well. Also I tested a Zinn 856 with a Sellita 300-1.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Rolex SA could be sued in the US under long-arm jurisdiction. See, e.g., Rosenblatt v. Coutts & Co. AG (2d Cir. 2018).

Absolutely, can happen in the UK as well, but Rolex SA could simply disregard the decision of the US Court