32xx movement problem poll and data thread

[amanbra]

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.

Companies unfortunately do get it wrong here and there. Automotive industry is proof of that. This isn’t the first time Rolex have released a “bad” movement and prob won’t be the last time. You’d hope and I certain believe overall they will produce way more good movements vs bad. They’ve had a great run. The 31xx, the 4130, the sky dweller movement etc all excellent. Just a shame about this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Dirt

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

Perhaps. The lingering question though isn't: How could Rolex release such a flawed movement? It's: What's happening in the real world that wasn't accounted for during R&D?

Looking from that angle might yield more answers (well, not for us, since we don't know the R&D process, but you know what I mean).

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Perhaps. The lingering question though isn't: How could Rolex release such a flawed movement? It's: What's happening in the real world that wasn't accounted for during R&D?

Looking from that angle might yield more answers (well, not for us, since we don't know the R&D process, but you know what I mean).

As I mentioned, it took Omega 10 years to iron out the co-axial by releasing several revisions.

On the prior page, I posted a link to an interesting overview of the Chronergy escapement, who influenced it, and even why Patek didn’t use a similar design. Ultimately, the reasons are likely out of our depth.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Perhaps. The lingering question though isn't: How could Rolex release such a flawed movement? It's: What's happening in the real world that wasn't accounted for during R&D?

Looking from that angle might yield more answers (well, not for us, since we don't know the R&D process, but you know what I mean).

The answer is it's very common. Happens all the time with all sorts of products. Like the early iphones where just holding it blocked the antenna. Actually holding the phone wasn't accounted for during R&D.

They can simulate wearing a watch, speed up what might happen over 5-10 years of ownership but that is just not the same as what happens on actual wrists across hundreds of thousands of users.

[Tommy125]

Well, we just have to trust that Rolex will silently fix the issue behind by adding updates subtly.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Well, we just have to trust that Rolex will silently fix the issue behind by adding updates subtly.

I replied to you in the other thread but important to note here.

Looking at the timeline first of the 32xx movements are from 2015. We have examples of watches late 2021 failing both from factory and RSC repair.

This is a long time without a fix...

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by amanbra

I replied to you in the other thread but important to note here.

Looking at the timeline first of the 32xx movements are from 2015. We have examples of watches late 2021 failing both from factory and RSC repair.

This is a long time without a fix...

Maybe the issue did not come to light until recently due to the movement only being used in a wider range of watches just recently?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Maybe the issue did not come to light until recently due to the movement only being used in a wider range of watches just recently?

Regardless of the timeline, the issue has been well reported here and elsewhere from a long time ago.
That is the very(unprecedented) reason why this thread was created
All the problem movements were born that way.
As far as anybody (including watchmakers throughout the industry) can ascertain, there is no known long term fix for the issue.
Beyond warranty, the movements are a liability for the owners.

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Maybe the issue did not come to light until recently due to the movement only being used in a wider range of watches just recently?

Unfortunately that’s not the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrissimons]

I read a lot about 3235 issues, are there the same with the 3230?

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Regardless of the timeline, the issue has been well reported here and elsewhere from a long time ago.
That is the very(unprecedented) reason why this thread was created
All the problem movements were born that way.
As far as anybody (including watchmakers throughout the industry) can ascertain, there is no known long term fix for the issue.
Beyond warranty, the movements are a liability for the owners.

Oh when was the earliest report of the issue?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Well I just wanna share my experience with my datejust 36 (126200) bought overseas in London in July 2019. Since it was quite a while ago, I can’t remember the details, but I think my watch did slow down slightly initially (very early in the ownership). It was minor and remained pretty consistent at around -3 spd on the wrist (I don’t wear it 24/7 but if I did it may reach closer to -4). I brought it in recently this year in late March for regulation. I did not know about the 3235 issue then so I didn’t ask RSC to check, but I assume they did. My watch has been very precise and accurate ever since (less than 1s difference a day). I don’t have a timegrapher and won’t be interested in testing my watch, but I do check the gain/loss per day occasionally against my phone time.

We can not expect any data from you?

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Well, we just have to trust that Rolex will silently fix the issue behind by adding updates subtly.

Yes, they apply a silent repair.

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Maybe the issue did not come to light until recently due to the movement only being used in a wider range of watches just recently?

No.

Originally Posted by Tommy125

Oh when was the earliest report of the issue?

Did you read the thread?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by chrissimons

I read a lot about 3235 issues, are there the same with the 3230?

Yes, but there are much less reports, which I know about.
The 3230 was introduced in 2020, the 3285 in 2018, the 3235 and 3255 in 2015.
These introduction dates may be part of the explanation?

[Tommy125]

Originally Posted by saxo3

We can not expect any data from you?


Yes, they apply a silent repair.


No.


Did you read the thread?

I don’t have a timegrapher so no data. Only can tell you how much time I’m losing or gaining a day.

I’ve read the thread quite a while back but have not been keeping myself updated. I can’t remember much details.

[maxbelg]

I don't know whether this info fits into this thread, but as continued upgrades have been discussed I thought I'd mention the ball-bearing change I've noticed. Zeitauktion is a german site where watches are sold and routinely include a pic of the movement. Here is a 126600 from 2017 compared to a 126710BLRO from 2021. As you can see the number of ball bearings for the rotor have gone up a lot!




My thoughts are that could be to improve winding efficiency (the 32xx seems to perform less well with lower mainspring tension) or to decrease rotor noise?

Another incremental upgrade to the movement is described in the Rolex Magazine Nr.10: "Never-ending clicks" which are now made from ceramic:





It seems Rolex is upgrading the movement and hopefully the 32xx woes will be solved soon. (if they haven't already been solved with a silent update in recent models...)

[amanbra]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

I don't know whether this info fits into this thread, but as continued upgrades have been discussed I thought I'd mention the ball-bearing change I've noticed. Zeitauktion is a german site where watches are sold and routinely include a pic of the movement. Here is a 126600 from 2017 compared to a 126710BLRO from 2021. As you can see the number of ball bearings for the rotor have gone up a lot!




My thoughts are that could be to improve winding efficiency (the 32xx seems to perform less well with lower mainspring tension) or to decrease rotor noise?

Another incremental upgrade to the movement is described in the Rolex Magazine Nr.10: "Never-ending clicks" which are now made from ceramic:





It seems Rolex is upgrading the movement and hopefully the 32xx woes will be solved soon. (if they haven't already been solved with a silent update in recent models...)

Super interesting, thanks for sharing. Wonder if the new rotors are quieter as a result. My DD is much quieter than my DJ but i figured that could be because of the metal not because of an upgrade.

[S.Explorer]

Nice to know. Not sure if these will fix the reported timekeeping issues.

[maxbelg]

Originally Posted by amanbra

Super interesting, thanks for sharing..........

Originally Posted by S.Explorer

Nice to know. Not sure if these will fix the reported timekeeping issues.

I agree, these could be incremental upgrades which have nothing to do with the issues. I read somewhere that the 32xx movements have a single powertrain (compared to the 31xx where the hour hand is driven off the barrel) and that even though the chronergy needs less energy, the torsion at the barrel is higher. It seems the 32xx is very sensitive to problems when not wound fully (less torsion??), so I'd postulate that the automatic winding system could be part of the solution.

I'm just guessing and could be totally off, so I'd be interested in a watchmakers perspective!

[dannyp]

The first pic is quite interesting. Not sure what it means, but very interesting nonetheless.

With the ceramic clicks, I find the reference to magnetism intriguing as well. Sounds like perhaps magnetism was an issue with these previously? Otherwise, why would that matter (unless it was just an excuse to mention antimagnetic properties since Omega is really the standard-bearer in that regard).

[Dirt]

The increase in the number of balls to the bearing is a solid upgrade
The ceramic clicks are at least novel and the introduction of ceramic parts in this application is nothing particularly new in the industry. Out of necessity IWC have moved to it a few years ago.

I seriously doubt it will change anything with regard to the 32xx pox, unless there have been some other quietly applied mods to the problem parts
We shall see.

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by maxbelg

I don't know whether this info fits into this thread, but as continued upgrades have been discussed I thought I'd mention the ball-bearing change I've noticed. Zeitauktion is a german site where watches are sold and routinely include a pic of the movement. Here is a 126600 from 2017 compared to a 126710BLRO from 2021. As you can see the number of ball bearings for the rotor have gone up a lot!

Yes, the 3230, 3235, 3255, 3285 all have it.


Source: rolex.com

The 4130, 4163, 9001 do not show it.
They have ball bearings with fewer balls.


Source: rolex.com

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, the 3230, 3235, 3255, 3285 all have it.


Source: rolex.com

Countdown to everyone rushing to watchmaker to have case opened to see how many ballbearings in rotor assembly...

[swissfrank]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Countdown to everyone rushing to watchmaker to have case opened to see how many ballbearings in rotor assembly...

Ha ha , good one Danny p

[EEpro]

4130 is the king of robustness. 10 years of running in spec is completely normal for that movement.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by EEpro

4130 is the king of robustness. 10 years of running in spec is completely normal for that movement.

Can see where the YMII movement came from >>>> 4130 .

[EEpro]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Can see where the YMII movement came from >>>> 4130 .

Yeah you're right. Good eye.

[Reikolexguy]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Yes, the 3230, 3235, 3255, 3285 all have it.


Source: rolex.com

The 4130, 4163, 9001 do not show it.
They have ball bearings with fewer balls.


Source: rolex.com

So in this particular case, it’s a good thing when you have less balls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Reikolexguy

So in this particular case, it’s a good thing when you have less balls.

Did you read the lasts posts and understand the suspected 32xx changes?

[Tommy125]

For those who bought the 3235 watches before they increased the ball bearing numbers, will they update it during a warranty service?

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Tommy125

For those who bought the 3235 watches before they increased the ball bearing numbers, will they update it during a warranty service?

Good question, I do not know when they changed the 32xx ball bearings and Rolex will certainly not let me know what they do during a warranty repair.