32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

Sheldon

Thanks for coming back here. I agree with what Scott (aka Watchmaker) wrote "High amplitude is not analogous to good performance of a watch" I add that its starting value and time dependance is a very good indicator of movement health, see several graphs in this thread.

Interesting "that lower amplitude contributes to longer power reserve". I can't confirm but would like to see measurement data for this.

Your SD43 came back from RSC Dallas in Dec 2019. Lift angle 55 degrees gave:
DU: 284, +3
CL: 253, 0
CD: 267, +3
CR: 253, +1
DD: 293, +4
Your data yield to X = +2.2 and D = 3, which is very good.

I don't understand why you measured in position CR = 12U and not CU = 3U. Is that right?

For a watch serviced by a RSC in 12/2020 it would be interesting if you could measure for DU the amplitude decrease with time, i.e. from full caliber winding (t = 0) to the end of the power reserve (t = 70-72 h) using 53 degrees lift angle.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Thanks, I will adjust the lift angle to 53. Regarding the beat error, all my other watches gave the expected results, so I suspect this issue was related to the poor condition of this movement prior to the service?

So far the watch is maintaining +-2 sec per day. My next test is to not wind or wear it and see what happens as the power reserve runs down.

Did you do this test?
It would be great to see your data for a recently serviced caliber!

[FTX I]

I know some will disagree but I really like this thread. Now with almost 460 votes, 30% have amplitude issues. I wonder when Rolex will fix this.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I know some will disagree but I really like this thread. Now with almost 460 votes, 30% have amplitude issues. I wonder when Rolex will fix this.

I agree, this thread is useful and necessary. The way I see it is I'd rather be aware of possible issues and make an informed decision next time I buy a watch.

The low amplitude doesn't bother me much if this is done by design to help achieve a longer power reserve. What I don't like is the tendency to drag or run slow no matter the position. Also, from observation there seems to be a sharp fall in precision after 48 hours at rest.

The many reports from owners having to take their watches to the RSC after a year or so due to sudden drops in accuracy cannot be ignored. The unexpected wear on the seconds hand pivot (axle), as described by a trusted watchmaker cannot be disregarded either. I need to take a leap of faith and rely on Rolex' capability to find a permanent remedy. I don't doubt they will fix this, if they haven't done it already.

This situation did not and will not stop me from buying new Rolex models. My unworn SD43 from 2017 is at -6 s/d on average, used to be at -0.5 s/d at the beginning, 4 years ago. This could be because I've never worn it, I don't know. I got the 2020 Bluesy 126613 last year, I wear it a lot, it can be self regulated with dial up rest position to 0.5 s/d on average, which is excellent, but this is still early days to draw conclusions (6 months ownership so far).

I put my name down for a 2021 DJ36 and a Pepsi on oyster. I know what I'm getting myself into, that's cool.

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I agree, this thread is useful and necessary. The way I see it is I'd rather be aware of possible issues and make an informed decision next time I buy a watch.

The low amplitude doesn't bother me much if this is done by design to help achieve a longer power reserve. What I don't like is the tendency to drag or run slow no matter the position. Also, from observation there seems to be a sharp fall in precision after 48 hours at rest.

The many reports from owners having to take their watches to the RSC after a year or so due to sudden drops in accuracy cannot be ignored. The unexpected wear on the seconds hand pivot (axle), as described by a trusted watchmaker cannot be disregarded either. I need to take a leap of faith and rely on Rolex' capability to find a permanent remedy. I don't doubt they will fix this, if they haven't done it already.

This situation did not and will not stop me from buying new Rolex models. My unworn SD43 from 2017 is at -6 s/d on average, used to be at -0.5 s/d at the beginning, 4 years ago. This could be because I've never worn it, I don't know. I got the 2020 Bluesy 126613 last year, I wear it a lot, it can be self regulated with dial up rest position to 0.5 s/d on average, which is excellent, but this is still early days to draw conclusions (6 months ownership so far).

I put my name down for a 2021 DJ36 and a Pepsi on oyster. I know what I'm getting myself into, that's cool.

Exactly. We can make our mind with a lot more infos. One of the reasons why I'm here.

[CharlesN]

I have finally after several years bought myself a Timegrapher.

I don’t know what took me so long as they really are not that expensive but can be very informative and quite a bit of fun

This is my setup with my Rolex Sub-Date on it during a rest period from actual measuring




I have been taking measurements for the past 56 hours and here is a copy of my log. The watch being timed is a Rolex Submariner Date 126610 with a 3235 movement bought new in September 2020

I hope some of you are interested




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by EEpro

Maybe they got a "talkin' to"

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I have heard this to be the truth

Complete nonsense.



I will try and post some 32xx data of amplitude, beat error and rate, from before and after a service.

[CharlesN]

Perhaps I should add a little explanation to my post above ...

I have NOT taken the watch off the timer arm at all during the testing period.

It stays Dial Up between testing periods and even then there is a minimum of movement whilst the angle of the bracket is changed.

Over the entire 56 hours (so far) the watch has lost a total of just 3 seconds. Thats about 1 second per day with no winding at all.

I will do more tests as time carries on and keep logging and this will also show how long the power reserve is as I know i would the watch fully at 10:00 hours on the 08th April.

Ill report back with more data when my watch stops .. Hopefully in at least another days time. As the old saying goes ... Only time will tell.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Complete nonsense.

I say a lot of ridiculous things in general Bas and on this occasion, I am so glad what I said is nonsense!

[doramas]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I know some will disagree but I really like this thread. Now with almost 460 votes, 30% have amplitude issues. I wonder when Rolex will fix this.

I agree

[sheldonsmith]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Thanks for coming back here. I agree with what Scott (aka Watchmaker) wrote "High amplitude is not analogous to good performance of a watch" I add that its starting value and time dependance is a very good indicator of movement health, see several graphs in this thread.

Interesting "that lower amplitude contributes to longer power reserve". I can't confirm but would like to see measurement data for this.

Your SD43 came back from RSC Dallas in Dec 2019. Lift angle 55 degrees gave:
DU: 284, +3
CL: 253, 0
CD: 267, +3
CR: 253, +1
DD: 293, +4
Your data yield to X = +2.2 and D = 3, which is very good.

I don't understand why you measured in position CR = 12U and not CU = 3U. Is that right?

For a watch serviced by a RSC in 12/2020 it would be interesting if you could measure for DU the amplitude decrease with time, i.e. from full caliber winding (t = 0) to the end of the power reserve (t = 70-72 h) using 53 degrees lift angle.

I’ll see what I can setup. Essentially, take measurements in the timing machine with the watch running over a 72 hour period (correct?)

I wish I could repost Nick’s article from his email list, but Nick and the TRF owner had a falling-out years ago (the things you pick up from following this forum for the last 300 years). Below is an excerpt that might help explain:

There are two 'powers' in the balance wheel system. The first one is the balance power, which is the amount of power presented in the oscillator, calculated as a product of balance inertia, amplitude squared and frequency cubed. For the Rolex calibre 3135, the balance power is 372 micro Watts. The second power is the oscillator maintaining power - the power required to keep the oscillator running. Again, for the Rolex 3135 that is 1.24 micro Watts. Fine tuning the ratio between the two is an engineering challenge because extending the power reserve by reducing the energy consumption of the balance wheel will come with a trade-off: degraded performance and poor timekeeping.

I am sure the Daniel’s watchmaking book would have more detail. I’ll dig it up and see if I find any better explanation.

On your question regarding CR position, I’ll have to go back to my notes as well. My watchmaker pal says that measuring CR is not an official position because in that position, you would have to hold the watch in front of your face all the time for that timing position to be meaningful and thus is not considered.

-Sheldon

[TheVTCGuy]

Well, here is a one-month check. In the last 31 days, my 126610 is 47 seconds slow, which equivocates to aproximately 1.51 seconds lost per day. This is all rudimentary timing from my Ipad/internet time and me looking at the second hand, so I can’t sear to it’s accuracy, but it is close enough for me.

My watch is six months old and is worn (pretty much) 24-7. Being less then one minute slow per month for an automatic watch is pretty darn good if you ask me, and I am very happy with it.

[CharlesN]

Unfortunately even though I am logging my watches amplitude etc I don’t yet understand what I have done and can not tell if I have “The Problem” or not.
That’s going to be part of my hoped for learning curve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Complete nonsense.



I will try and post some 32xx data of amplitude, beat error and rate, from before and after a service.

Happy to hear it!

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I agree, this thread is useful and necessary. The way I see it is I'd rather be aware of possible issues and make an informed decision next time I buy a watch.

I agree as well. In a sea of "investment/resale value/discontinued" threads I think this one is a breath of fresh air.

I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with this thread as for a start it's just great real-world consumer information - forewarned is forearmed, etc - so if people have access to information (both good AND bad) then they are better placed to make an informed decision.

And secondly, the more a potential issue is recognised the quicker it is likely to be resolved. IMO that makes this thread a win-win.

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Complete nonsense.



I will try and post some 32xx data of amplitude, beat error and rate, from before and after a service.

Welcome back, Bas. You are missed.

[Onequik135i]

Picked up my 126610LN last night at the local AD. Timegraphed it dial up which read 267-272 range of amplitude @ +2 spd (that was set at 52 L/A). From my understanding for these newer movements the correct L/A is 53 which should increase the amplitude some if I’m not mistaken.

[TswaneNguni]

Bas is back !

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by sheldonsmith

I’ll see what I can setup. Essentially, take measurements in the timing machine with the watch running over a 72 hour period (correct?)

Yes, full watch winding, timegrapher measurements in dial up position until the end of the PR. Watch always at total rest from t = 0.

If you can use in parallel a watch tracker app then you can log also timekeeping (accumulated deviation, see plot below)

Aim is to create new data to produce plots as follows. If you provide me with your results then I will make such graphs. Your data for a recently serviced caliber will be very interesting.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Unfortunately even though I am logging my watches amplitude etc I don’t yet understand what I have done...

Hi Charles,
Your photo triggered two things.
(1) What does he smoke? I want the same stuff!
(2) It needs a position naming convention with 3U, 6U, 9U, 12 U and not CL, CD, CR, CU, as some others use exclusively.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hi Charles,
Your photo triggered two things.
(1) What does he smoke? I want the same stuff!
(2) It needs a position naming convention with 3U, 6U, 9U, 12 U and not CL, CD, CR, CU, as some others use exclusively.

Hi saxo3,

Thanks for that.

The 3rd + 4th columns along on my spreadsheet shows the position I think in both novice (me) and pro (you) language.

I have more data which I will post shortly that looks very different to what i have already posted.

Things are happening as the watch runs out of power it seems..

[peterskinner]

Still, the single most vital criteria is missing....how representative is this data? It’s not even clear what proportion of TRF members are contributing, let alone the (literally) millions of modern Rolex users.
This isn’t ‘pedantry’ or an attempt to be obstructive. Reliable data needs clear context. The unanswered question is ‘what percentage of users of the modern movement are experiencing problems?’.
You can try to label me as unhelpful, but actually I’m making a very simple point. Ignoring it isn’t going to help because the thread will remain highly vulnerable. Sorry, but there it is.
The general theme seems to be that if a few involved members submit lots of data, the thread is valid. But that’s not so.
Anyway, I won’t contribute again. No point.

[CharlesN]

Hi all,

I am back with more readings
My watch has now been on the test bench for 69 hours (It is still there until it actually runs out of power).

You can see from the 2 sets of readings on the second page that things are now changing rapidly.

I do have to say thank you to everybody for helping me with this and especially saxo3 who has guided me along with private messages and he has shown me the correct way to take and log these measurements
Now I have my timegrapher I think I’ll be measuring all manner of things and my other watches.

Next up I think it might be a comparison with a 116610 which has the older movement but I will take good advice from others who may have better ideas







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Still, the single most vital criteria is missing....how representative is this data? It’s not even clear what proportion of TRF members are contributing, let alone the (literally) millions of modern Rolex users.
This isn’t ‘pedantry’ or an attempt to be obstructive. Reliable data needs clear context. The unanswered question is ‘what percentage of users of the modern movement are experiencing problems?’.
You can try to label me as unhelpful, but actually I’m making a very simple point. Ignoring it isn’t going to help because the thread will remain highly vulnerable. Sorry, but there it is.

Hi Peter,
Good morning.
I do understand and take your point.
I think it is valid but impossible to come true. It just wont happen.
we have to just accept that there are very few people who actually care about the workings of a watch.

I think most Rolex wearers bought their watch for one simple reason ... Status Symbol. They will never ever join in and give data that they dont understand anyway. they wont find this forum either.

They certainly wont spend their drinking money on things like a timegrapher.

Darn it I'm already thinking of getting one that is far far more advanced than the one i have even though it costs almost as much as a new watch.

As to your percentage wish for how many have the problem or even know about it ... I reckion the nunber is so small that it can not be represented without several Zero's coming before a very small number.

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I know some will disagree but I really like this thread. Now with almost 460 votes, 30% have amplitude issues. I wonder when Rolex will fix this.

I would like the poll to be re-run ..

With dates of watch and other data included.

I do think It was early batches of the watch that were problematic.

from what i have read here and in other places Rolex have found and sorted the issue and newer watches are now measured with a 53 degree anglke as compared to the original 55 or 59 degree.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by SearChart

Complete nonsense.



I will try and post some 32xx data of amplitude, beat error and rate, from before and after a service.

Ah you’re back!!

Bas Rolex continue to roll out the 32xx. Surely they have a perm fix at this point?

The lift angle change do we apply it backwards or just for the recent movements?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Still, the single most vital criteria is missing....how representative is this data? It’s not even clear what proportion of TRF members are contributing, let alone the (literally) millions of modern Rolex users.
This isn’t ‘pedantry’ or an attempt to be obstructive. Reliable data needs clear context. The unanswered question is ‘what percentage of users of the modern movement are experiencing problems?’.
You can try to label me as unhelpful, but actually I’m making a very simple point. Ignoring it isn’t going to help because the thread will remain highly vulnerable. Sorry, but there it is.
The general theme seems to be that if a few involved members submit lots of data, the thread is valid. But that’s not so.
Anyway, I won’t contribute again. No point.

It’s not so much as ‘unanswered’ as ‘unanswerable’. The only way we’d ever know what percentage are affected would be if Rolex told us....which will obviously NEVER happen. And even then that would only be a number reported to Rolex as those strange people who don’t even bother to set the time on their Rolex will obviously never even know there’s an issue. So yes I admit the sample size is small in the grand scheme, but that doesn’t totally invalidate the data that has been collected, and I for one don’t subscribe to saying that just because data isn’t (and can never be) complete that we just shouldn’t bother at all. At the end of the day, even if we disregard the numbers who have said they have no problem, and therefore also the percentages, there are still almost 130 people here who HAVE had a problem. If there’s another example of those kind of numbers being reported on a class of movement then please let me know. I don’t remember seeing those numbers reported for the Tudor GMT date issue, or for the Omega 33xx movement issues from a few years back.

I, and I guess everyone else here, can only speak from personal experience. Including my own SD43, I personal know of 4 people who own 32xx powered watches....and 3 of them (including mine) have had this issue to some extent. Now I’m not remotely suggesting that that somehow extrapolates to 3/4 of all 32xx movements being affected as the sample size is clearly too small. However, personally knowing 3 people with this problem strikes me as quite a lot. Likewise, 129 people here with the same issue also strikes me as quite a lot. And it’s that that I think people should take note of.

At the end of the day it’s just a watch, and this thread is not going to lead to any life of death decisions being made - but personally if I was in the market for a new 32xx Rolex I’d still rather know as much as I can (even if it’s just anecdotal) before making a decision.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by peterskinner

Still, the single most vital criteria is missing....how representative is this data? It’s not even clear what proportion of TRF members are contributing, let alone the (literally) millions of modern Rolex users.
This isn’t ‘pedantry’ or an attempt to be obstructive. Reliable data needs clear context. The unanswered question is ‘what percentage of users of the modern movement are experiencing problems?’.
You can try to label me as unhelpful, but actually I’m making a very simple point. Ignoring it isn’t going to help because the thread will remain highly vulnerable. Sorry, but there it is.
The general theme seems to be that if a few involved members submit lots of data, the thread is valid. But that’s not so.
Anyway, I won’t contribute again. No point.

Have to agree if anything it's created more Rolex owners hysteria than normal.

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree if anything it's created more Rolex owners hysteria than normal.

I guess we should just stick to nice safe “incoming”, “investment” and “discontinued” threads instead of anything that might be vaguely informative.

[Combine man]

All very interesting to read,impressed so many watch owners understand how they work to the degree they do.
My SD 43 was new Oct 20 and was within a second a day for the first 3 months,either fast or slow now is consistently 7 seconds a week fast,so will watch as the months go by,worn 24/7 and wound twice a week.