32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[Youngling]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Wear rate never matches static generally so it’s not a reason to be concerned in isolation. The watchmakers can only really regulate for static and have no idea how will wear it.

I find dial up to be a good proxy for me without bogging down in silly amounts of testing. It’s a very consistent proxy for me.

There is one other aspect I think you should explore and this is one where you will need timegrapher results as others have mentioned. You may have large variances between your positions and you might be in that position for a long time with how you wear it. Also amplitude I’d imagine could have a large bearing on stability during wearing the watch.

You appear to be interested enough in all this to buy a timegrapher. Even a iPhone timegrapher maybe, it’s a rabbit hole but some people do enjoy this stuff so consider it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I understand that it is completely logical for the wearing rate to differ from resting positions but in my case they aren’t even near. All the resting positions are on the + side meanwhile it is -3 on the wrist. I’m not worried that there’s something wrong with it I just find it very odd and doesn’t understand why that can be - I would greatly prefer it to be closer to the other rates, that being on the + side. I know that I can achieve perfect timekeeping by resting it during night but I’m one that would like to be able to wear it 24/7 (also while sleeping so I can be able to tell the time of I wake up etc) and that’s why the -3 on wrist is a bit annoying.
Even when I have it on while sleeping it is -3. Which is VERY odd since I’m barely moving my arm while sleeping = the watch is ”resting”, just that it’s on my wrist.

Hehe, I know, I’ve thought about buying a timegrapher because it would be very handy but I think I may become a bit too obesessed with it. That’s just me as a person. In my case, it’s probably best to just go to a watchmaker if I want timegrapher values :)

Could you explain a bit about your theory regarding amplitudes / large variances. Didn’t quite get that.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Youngling

Yes I understand that it is completely logical for the wearing rate to differ from resting positions but in my case they aren’t even near. All the resting positions are on the + side meanwhile it is -3 on the wrist. I’m not worried that there’s something wrong with it I just find it very odd and doesn’t understand why that can be - I would greatly prefer it to be closer to the other rates, that being on the + side. I know that I can achieve perfect timekeeping by resting it during night but I’m one that would like to be able to wear it 24/7 (also while sleeping so I can be able to tell the time of I wake up etc) and that’s why the -3 on wrist is a bit annoying.
Even when I have it on while sleeping it is -3. Which is VERY odd since I’m barely moving my arm while sleeping = the watch is ”resting”, just that it’s on my wrist.

Hehe, I know, I’ve thought about buying a timegrapher because it would be very handy but I think I may become a bit too obesessed with it. That’s just me as a person. In my case, it’s probably best to just go to a watchmaker if I want timegrapher values :)

Could you explain a bit about your theory regarding amplitudes / large variances. Didn’t quite get that.

So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.

[Youngling]

Originally Posted by amanbra

So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.

Got it, thank you.

[mike morris]

25% of people in this forum have problems with 32... movements ,many get problems latter. This generation movements is born dead.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by amanbra

So weaker the amplitude the more likely the timing is affected by knocks and shocks. It's one of the reasons why some watchmakers use high beat, this isn't so much amp but the velocity at which the balance wheel alternates is faster and holds momentum better. My 321 Ed White which beats away at 2.5hz for instance is affected more by movement vs 1863 calibre speedy as a real world example.

Now in a situation where you're comparing the same movement I'd expect that a the movement with the higher amplitude is more stable vs it's lower amp counterpart.

So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by mike morris

25% of people in this forum have problems with 32... movements ,many get problems latter. This generation movements is born dead.

Poll result is 28% just now

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

28% just now

Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.

Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread. Members who have more than let's say 5-6 watches (32xx) may contribute even more with less speculations but more systematic timegrapher measurements and share the results here.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread.

Didn’t mean to knock that in the last, and hindsight always is 20/20. More commenting on how the numbers are likely higher than presented.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.

I'm still not sold on this magnetism theory. Brass can't be magnetized. And there's no reason to believe that 32xx owners are more likely the be in intense magnetic fields than 31xx owners.

Low amplitude is the cause of the poor timekeeping, but the excessive friction seems to be the cause of the low amplitude. For those of us who have been able to measure declines in amplitude, the amplitude itself drops off faster than the timekeeping. For example... my Sub is 18 months old. I've worn it probably a total of 30 days in that time. Amplitude started low when new, but has gotten worse since (even at full wind). Yet timekeeping is still very good if the PR is topped off. I don't use winders. So I take the watch out of the box, fully wind and set it and wear it that day. By the next morning the amplitude is well below 200 degrees (out of spec) but I'm still within a second on the time. So for now, I'll just leave it be. It's clearly not 100%, but it's working for my purposes and I feel I have the best chance of a "real fix" the longer I wait into the 5 year period to send it in.

Originally Posted by dannyp

Just realized: this poll would be far more accurate if it only asked for data from those whose watches are more than a year old. Nearly all 32xx seem to do fine until that point.

We have long ago crucified this poll as meaningless and unscientific :) That said, it has been uncanny how the % of problem vs no-problem has stayed within a very small range all the way back to the first 50 votes up to the near 1000 we are at now. Users can only vote once. So for there to be 280 users on one forum which are reporting some kind of issue, I don't see how that can be written off as a nothingburger.

And of course the standard caveat applies. There are like 200 million seconds in a day so we shouldn't worry about being 1ms off the atomic clock.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

And of course the standard caveat applies. There are like 200 million seconds in a day so we shouldn't worry about being 1ms off the atomic clock.

Hi!
You still do not remember the correct magic watch number: 00468?

What about an updated set of timegrapher data for your 18 months young Submariner, just to please a few guys here …

[mike morris]

many people have more than one watch and don't use it that often, most don't pay attention to lag at all and that's just on this forum, rolex produces at least 300,000 watches a year with this movement ,about 100,000 watches a year have problems or will have in the future. It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by mike morris

It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.

The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I'm still not sold on this magnetism theory. Brass can't be magnetized. And there's no reason to believe that 32xx owners are more likely the be in intense magnetic fields than 31xx owners.

You’re right, the likelihood is no greater. What a watchmaker told me was that small parts on modern Rolexes are still subject to magnetism, it will create friction, and the watch will lose some time. I’m going to assume it’s similar for 31xx and 32xx movements. My hypothesis is that the 32xx has tighter tolerances and therefore enough friction is created to actually damage parts not damaged on the other series.

The effects of the mannerism itself go unnoticed since they cause only small losses (vs older watches with springs subject to mannerism).

I still obviously have no proof, and someone could probably provide definitive evidence that I’m wrong (such as someone from Rolex R&D).

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.

Or, something completely unaccounted for in the development process. If, and big “if” here, my theory about magnetism were right, it’s quite possible that finished movements weren’t ever subjected to magnetic fields and then observed. The newer materials used for key parts should mean that’s not an issue.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Or, something completely unaccounted for in the development process. If, and big “if” here, my theory about magnetism were right, it’s quite possible that finished movements weren’t ever subjected to magnetic fields and then observed. The newer materials used for key parts should mean that’s not an issue.

Rolex SA knows how to handle the influence of magnetic fields since the Milgauss, created in 1956. It can withstand magnetic fields of up to 1000 Gauss. Just for comparison, the earth magnetic field is about 0.5 Gauss.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

You’re right, the likelihood is no greater. What a watchmaker told me was that small parts on modern Rolexes are still subject to magnetism, it will create friction, and the watch will lose some time. I’m going to assume it’s similar for 31xx and 32xx movements. My hypothesis is that the 32xx has tighter tolerances and therefore enough friction is created to actually damage parts not damaged on the other series.

The effects of the mannerism itself go unnoticed since they cause only small losses (vs older watches with springs subject to mannerism).

I still obviously have no proof, and someone could probably provide definitive evidence that I’m wrong (such as someone from Rolex R&D).

I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Rolex SA knows how to handle the influence of magnetic fields since the Milgauss, created in 1956. It can withstand magnetic fields of up to 1000 Gauss. Just for comparison, the earth magnetic field is about 0.5 Gauss.

Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.

I don't know the definite answer to this question but assume that magnetic field and certainly many material studies were part of their R&D and test programs.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.

Also quite plausible.

[douglasf13]

This was a great article about Chronergy, if anyone wants to get a sense of the kinds of changes it made vs. a regular Swiss lever.

https://watchesbysjx.com/2021/05/rol...-analysis.html

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So is it possible that the 32xx issues are actually just one of amplitude, and then it’s the “knocks and shocks” you describe that cause the faltering timekeeping as a secondary infection of sorts? And is it further possible that the longer PR is causing people to wear them in a less-wound state, perpetuating the issue?

I do still wonder if magnetism plays a role: small parts, with tight fit tolerances, become magnetized, friction results, but it goes unnoticed until damage is done because the springs are antimagnetic.

I don’t think so, for instance for me alone the watches when worn were very near full pr. When in a no shock situation on a timegrapher the watch was clearly slow and out of spec.

As for magnetism, if it were the culprit it would have been fixed in 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Hi!
You still do not remember the correct magic watch number: 00468?

What about an updated set of timegrapher data for your 18 months young Submariner, just to please a few guys here …

I need to get on it the measurements! Been a busy summer :)

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Maybe, when HiBoost created this poll in Jan 2021 it was close to the best possible poll imho. I may have done it differently, but that is irrelevant now. Don't forget, we knew much less than today. A lot of systematic data taking and work went into this thread. Members who have more than let's say 5-6 watches (32xx) may contribute even more with less speculations but more systematic timegrapher measurements and share the results here.

Agreed.
Then I will remind you all that I said the poll was flawed way back. If I recall correctly I also mentioned that my father would've been appaled as he was a highly respected Statistician in the Federal government and he imparted to me aspects of critical criterior which should be adhered to when puting a poll together.

Regardless, I have always supported the intent and acknowledge the contribution it has made
We found out early in the poll what we needed to know.

As an aside good people, I'm still not entirely convinced that I should get a timegrapher as I don't have a 32xx movement to worry about.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Didn’t mean to knock that in the last, and hindsight always is 20/20. More commenting on how the numbers are likely higher than presented.

100%
+1

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Oh, I’m sure it does know. But that wasn’t the question: the question was about whether that was a specific part of testing the new movements.

There has always been improvement in anti magnetic properties among the more reputable manufacturers.
Rolex has a long history in this regard starting with the original Milgause and currently sitting with Silicon Hairsprings with Parachrome in the interim.

Danny, magnetism is absolutely not the issue here.
If it were, de-gausing a movement would be the primary fix just as it is for old school movements of any and all origin that don't self destruct like the 32xx movements do if left unchecked

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by amanbra

As for magnetism, if it were the culprit it would have been fixed in 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
These things are really only bettered straight out of the box by Metas or quartz

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

I don’t know. I think we’re underestimating how dramatic an effect that an entirely new escapement design can have on a movement, and Chronergy may not have been ready for prime time. It took Omega a solid decade of version revisions, and then a new movement from the ground up, to get the co-axial to where it is today, and, while Chronergy isn’t quite as dramatic of a design difference, it’s really quite different than Rolex’s old Swiss lever.

This feeds directly into a solid theory i have long held regarding the problem with the movement

But that's another massderbate

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by saxo3

The answer is easy: the launch in 2015 was likely without sufficient (long term) testing and therefore too early.

True.
The problem as I see it, is that it would be impossible to do accelerated wear testing on the entire assembly as it has to be set up to run at it's correct operating frequency.
Beta testing is the only way forward.

I understand that other mainstream and reputable manufacturers routinely make updates to service parts. Even for movements which are out of production.
Perhaps a watchmaker can confirm through their own experience?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by mike morris

many people have more than one watch and don't use it that often, most don't pay attention to lag at all and that's just on this forum, rolex produces at least 300,000 watches a year with this movement ,about 100,000 watches a year have problems or will have in the future. It is not at all clear how such a large company could launch such a bad product on the market.

Rolex just plain and simply got it wrong and they didn't know it until they were going well down the path to double down on it. By the time they woke up, they probably thought they could get on top of it.
To date, they have not demonstrated the capacity. They might even be out of their depth.

The way I see it is they were caught with their pants down by their main competitor, with longer warranties and longer service intervals and longer power reserves and improvements around accuracy and higher technology.
Rolex got ahead of themselves by being motivated to out compete.

I seriously wonder if we'd be even having this conversation about Rolex products if they'd simply stuck with the 31xx movements. They basically had it covered in the 31xx movements with exception of power reserve.
They could've just kept up with the Jones's and been in a better place than they are now.
Anyway, it's a classic coulda, woulda, shoulda scenario