32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[saxo3]

See #2112 (04.11.2021)

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Like I said, going from +7 to -3 is fine (if a bit odd) if that’s where it stays. But I obviously took notice since the watch is ten months old, which seems right in the “problem zone” for these (even though a 2021 3230 seems less likely to be impacted than a pre-2020 3235).

Your watch lost about 10 seconds/day over a period of 10 months? That would be similar to the decrease rate of – 1 second/month as indicated in the graph above.

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?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Your watch lost about 10 seconds/day over a period of 10 months? That would be similar to the decrease rate of – 1 second/month as indicated in the graph above.

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?

Yes! +.7 to -.3!

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.

[saxo3]

Check every 4 weeks under the same conditions, always after full winding.

Measure also the amplitudes ...
Good luck!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

It seems to be gradually.
Of course this depends how often you wear the watch and how frequently you measure it.

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.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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.

no hard and fast rule to this. I don't measure my watches constantly but had a sub go from +2 to -2 in about 3 months between measuring and wearing sparingly.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

no hard and fast rule to this. I don't measure my watches constantly but had a sub go from +2 to -2 in about 3 months between measuring and wearing sparingly.

Did it stay there or did timekeeping continue deteriorating to the point it requires service? And was it a 32xx?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Did it stay there or did timekeeping continue deteriorating to the point it requires service? And was it a 32xx?

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

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

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

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?

[TswaneNguni]

24%

The 3135 rests its case ,Your Honour .

[Annan]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

24%

The 3135 rests its case ,Your Honour .

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?

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

24%

The 3135 rests its case ,Your Honour .

Though one must wonder: Do timegrapher-owning, amplitude poll-voting, movement problem thread-responding, watch forum-participants, constitute a representative population of 32xx owners?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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?

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

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

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

Ugh. Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, based on the posts in this thread by a RSC watchmaker, it sounds as though there’s been little acknowledgement that a systemic problem exists. Was hoping my watch, an early 2021 3230, might be late enough spared.

Time will tell.. see that, see what I did there?

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Ugh. Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, based on the posts in this thread by a RSC watchmaker, it sounds as though there’s been little acknowledgement that a systemic problem exists. Was hoping my watch, an early 2021 3230, might be late enough spared.

Time will tell.. see that, see what I did there?

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

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

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

Posts made by Bas, I believe earlier in this thread. He made it sound as though no guidance had been issued on the way to address 32xx movement issues, and therefore it doesn't surprise me that repairs and regulations aren't holding. This is in spite of supposed changes to how the movements are being assembled (angle of certain gears, IIRC). But simply replacing worn parts that were either poorly designed or positioned doesn't work for long...

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).

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Posts made by Bas, I believe earlier in this thread. He made it sound as though no guidance had been issued on the way to address 32xx movement issues, and therefore it doesn't surprise me that repairs and regulations aren't holding. This is in spite of supposed changes to how the movements are being assembled (angle of certain gears, IIRC). But simply replacing worn parts that were either poorly designed or positioned doesn't work for long...

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).

ah yeah okay, i thought you may have been referring to a new thread I had missed. Yeah it's amazing how Rolex stuffed this up so badly. Thankfully for them I don't think most of the watches they sell these days are actually been worn =)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

ah yeah okay, i thought you may have been referring to a new thread I had missed. Yeah it's amazing how Rolex stuffed this up so badly. Thankfully for them I don't think most of the watches they sell these days are actually been worn =)

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.

[dannyp]

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?

[mario1971]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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.

And you could write something more about the problems with the 3186 or point to the source. I am asking because I have such a watch with a 3186 movement and no problems whatsoever.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by mario1971

And you could write something more about the problems with the 3186 or point to the source. I am asking because I have such a watch with a 3186 movement and no problems whatsoever.

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.

[dannyp]

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…

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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…

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

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

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

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

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.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

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.

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.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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.

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.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

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.

Well, as he told it, the lubrication was the original fix, but didn’t prove to be a permanent one and it was a past design flaw responsible. He’s not reported on a fix to date.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

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…

Hand length and weight are certainly a factor but in this case it's only transient as the hands move around the dial in the vertical planes.
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.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

But is it done with the watch’s final hands? Also would be curious if that impacts component wear in ways that present later.

Component wear is certainly a factor.
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