Rolex accuracy and power reserve

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The real world advantage to me is the watch remains super accurate/constant longer into the power reserve. It’s one thing for a watch to run for three days but how long into the 72 hours is the watch keeping excellent time?? In my experience the new 32 series movement holds outstanding accuracy into the 50 hour while at rest. I mean holding perfect time to + or - 1 to 2 seconds. That is a real world advantage over the previous mainspring because it’s accuracy drops off in a similar % to its shorter power reserve.

I am currently toward the end of my BLRO mainspring Power reserve test. Resting position 3UP is neutral for my particular BLRO so that is the position I am using for the mainspring test. I started the test with the watch running +2.

Here is it’s current performance notes:
Rolex 126710BLRO GMT Pepsi
Power Reserve Test:
10/04/21 9:02 am full wind +2.0 3UP +2.0 @ 10:30pm
10/05/21 +2.0 @ 9:00am, +2.0 @ 1pm, +2.0 @ 11:30pm
10/06/21 +1.0 @ 9:00am, +0.50 @ 1pm, +0.0 @ 4pm, -0.50 @ 9pm
10/07/21

Thanks for sharing. Also reading the other thread regarding 32xx movement problem poll since I also have a Sub 41. Interesting read.

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by doboy007

Thanks for sharing. Also reading the other thread regarding 32xx movement problem poll since I also have a Sub 41. Interesting read.

This is what my Sub41 in its Power Reserve test:

Rolex Submariner 41 Power Reserve Test
07/31/21. wound/set +0.0 @ 7:15am. 3UP. +1.0 @ 9:30pm
08/01/21 +0.75 @ 6am +0.0 @ 7:45pm
08/02/21 -2.0@8am -4.0@1:30pm -5.0@5pm - 6@6:30 -8@9pm …………….…-9@11pm.
08/03/21 6:01am Stopped. 70 hours and 46 minutes

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by Mystro

This is what my Sub41 in its Power Reserve test:

Rolex Submariner 41 Power Reserve Test
07/31/21. wound/set +0.0 @ 7:15am. 3UP. +1.0 @ 9:30pm
08/01/21 +0.75 @ 6am +0.0 @ 7:45pm
08/02/21 -2.0@8am -4.0@1:30pm -5.0@5pm - 6@6:30 -8@9pm …………….…-9@11pm.
08/03/21 6:01am Stopped. 70 hours and 46 minutes

I guess it performed well for the first 48-50 hrs then took a bit of dive.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by doboy007

Don’t understand why you say 72h (70h) is useless.

I meant 70h. The extra 22h of power reserve offered by the 3235 cal. is useless to me. The reason is if I use that extra day by not wearing the watch during almost 70h, the watch slows down considerably in those last 22 to 24h. In other words, if I take off the watch on Friday afternoon and put it back on Monday morning, it will have slowed down several seconds, which I personally find a bit annoying. If I leave it unworn just 48h, I don't see it slowing down.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I meant 70h. The extra 22h of power reserve offered by the 3235 cal. is useless to me. The reason is if I use that extra day by not wearing the watch during almost 70h, the watch slows down considerably in those last 22 to 24h. In other words, if I take off the watch on Friday afternoon and put it back on Monday morning, it will have slowed down several seconds, which I personally find a bit annoying. If I leave it unworn just 48h, I don't see it slowing down.

Creating another set of problems just so they can say they have 70hrs of power reserve.
Perhaps a double spring barrel arrangement would've been better?

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Creating another set of problems just so they can say they have 70hrs of power reserve.

Perhaps a double spring barrel arrangement would've been better?

Indeed, the double barrel might have been a better solution. My Speedy coax cal 9900 was very accurate all the way through its 60h PR.

[doboy007]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I meant 70h. The extra 22h of power reserve offered by the 3235 cal. is useless to me. The reason is if I use that extra day by not wearing the watch during almost 70h, the watch slows down considerably in those last 22 to 24h. In other words, if I take off the watch on Friday afternoon and put it back on Monday morning, it will have slowed down several seconds, which I personally find a bit annoying. If I leave it unworn just 48h, I don't see it slowing down.

Got it!

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Indeed, the double barrel might have been a better solution. My Speedy coax cal 9900 was very accurate all the way through its 60h PR.

It absolutely is. Rolex did more of a firmware update to their mainspring than a actual upgrade to achieve the power reserve. Dual barrel mainspring is better than what Rolex did by thinning their single barrel spring down in every way. Interior case space had to be the reason Rolex went the way they did.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I meant 70h. The extra 22h of power reserve offered by the 3235 cal. is useless to me. The reason is if I use that extra day by not wearing the watch during almost 70h, the watch slows down considerably in those last 22 to 24h. In other words, if I take off the watch on Friday afternoon and put it back on Monday morning, it will have slowed down several seconds, which I personally find a bit annoying. If I leave it unworn just 48h, I don't see it slowing down.

This is such pointless hairsplitting. Your watch does what it does just as all watches do. You’ve studied it, you know its quirks, that’s the fun of owning mechanical watches. They aren’t quite perfect, that’s part of their attraction. The answer to your trauma is to not use the extra day and then your Rolex will perform just like every other Rolex you have owned before the 3235. Problem solved.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

This is such pointless hairsplitting. Your watch does what it does just as all watches do. You’ve studied it, you know its quirks, that’s the fun of owning mechanical watches. They aren’t quite perfect, that’s part of their attraction. The answer to your trauma is to not use the extra day and then your Rolex will perform just like every other Rolex you have owned before the 3235. Problem solved.

Thanks doc, feeling much better now.

[HiBoost]

I find the arguments against a 70 hour (Rolex doesn't claim 72) a bit forced. They usually start with "for those of us who wear the watch every day"... well for those people, why do you need more than 10 hours of PR on any watch? Isn't a 48 hour PR just as ridiculous as a 70 hour PR? As long as it doesn't run out while you are sleeping then all good, right?

But what percentage of us WISs have only a single watch? Even for the "work watch and weekend watch" crowd being able to keep it running from Friday at 5p to Monday at 7a is a benefit.

This all boils down to the same nonsense argument made over and over: Rolex goes to great lengths to improve the engineering and design of these timepieces, then advertises the products using the new performance achieved, and then the owners are just supposed to ignore all of that and be happy with whatever they get. I need to make sure I percolate this genius through the rest of my life:

500hp car only makes 400hp - no problem!
4K TV can only do 1080p - all good!
2TB hard drive can only store 1.5TB of data - don't be so anal!
Chest freezer can only chill to 35 deg F - close enough!

Damn this is really liberating when you realize that specs are just random words with no implied connection to the real world. Thanks TRF!

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I find the arguments against a 70 hour (Rolex doesn't claim 72) a bit forced. They usually start with "for those of us who wear the watch every day"... well for those people, why do you need more than 10 hours of PR on any watch? Isn't a 48 hour PR just as ridiculous as a 70 hour PR? As long as it doesn't run out while you are sleeping then all good, right?

But what percentage of us WISs have only a single watch? Even for the "work watch and weekend watch" crowd being able to keep it running from Friday at 5p to Monday at 7a is a benefit.

This all boils down to the same nonsense argument made over and over: Rolex goes to great lengths to improve the engineering and design of these timepieces, then advertises the products using the new performance achieved, and then the owners are just supposed to ignore all of that and be happy with whatever they get. I need to make sure I percolate this genius through the rest of my life:

500hp car only makes 400hp - no problem!
4K TV can only do 1080p - all good!
2TB hard drive can only store 1.5TB of data - don't be so anal!
Chest freezer can only chill to 35 deg F - close enough!

Damn this is really liberating when you realize that specs are just random words with no implied connection to the real world. Thanks TRF!

But the 70 hour watch runs 70 hours, and Rolex accuracy is defined as an average over time. How is any of this being told we are supposed to be happy with what we get?

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

But the 70 hour watch runs 70 hours, and Rolex accuracy is defined as an average over time. How is any of this being told we are supposed to be happy with what we get?

That would be a reasonable response if this were the only thread on TRF. I was addressing the pervasive mindset more broadly. It's usually the same voices who claim we don't need an X hour PR who also say we don't need to be concerned about losing Y seconds a day. It's a no-win situation no matter how things turn out. If a watch meets the spec, the spec is "useless" anyway. If it doesn't meet the spec, then you are silly for caring.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

That would be a reasonable response if this were the only thread on TRF. I was addressing the pervasive mindset more broadly. It's usually the same voices who claim we don't need an X hour PR who also say we don't need to be concerned about losing Y seconds a day. It's a no-win situation no matter how things turn out. If a watch meets the spec, the spec is "useless" anyway. If it doesn't meet the spec, then you are silly for caring.

I salute the artful way you said my response wasn’t reasonable.

Well done.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I find the arguments against a 70 hour (Rolex doesn't claim 72) a bit forced. They usually start with "for those of us who wear the watch every day"... well for those people, why do you need more than 10 hours of PR on any watch? Isn't a 48 hour PR just as ridiculous as a 70 hour PR? As long as it doesn't run out while you are sleeping then all good, right?

But what percentage of us WISs have only a single watch? Even for the "work watch and weekend watch" crowd being able to keep it running from Friday at 5p to Monday at 7a is a benefit.

This all boils down to the same nonsense argument made over and over: Rolex goes to great lengths to improve the engineering and design of these timepieces, then advertises the products using the new performance achieved, and then the owners are just supposed to ignore all of that and be happy with whatever they get. I need to make sure I percolate this genius through the rest of my life:

500hp car only makes 400hp - no problem!
4K TV can only do 1080p - all good!
2TB hard drive can only store 1.5TB of data - don't be so anal!
Chest freezer can only chill to 35 deg F - close enough!

Damn this is really liberating when you realize that specs are just random words with no implied connection to the real world. Thanks TRF!

All those who think more power reserve is always better really ought to be looking at by-passing Rolex and start picking up some serious 8 day watches.

The example given of a 10 hours power reserve being adequate is ridiculous. 10 hours doesn't provide an adequate balance against the practical realities of normal day to day wearing habits and the desire for optimal timekeeping capability with a single Spring barrel.
To get the practical balance right, a minimum of roughly 42 hours is required up to roughly 48 hours.
This has been adequately demonstrated by watchmakers for decades.
For a watch that has roughly 70 hours power reserve a single Spring barrel is fine as long as it's a manual wind, where it's best if it's routinely wound fully once a day. Otherwise practically speaking, experience has shown that 2 Spring barrels is genuinely an optimal configuration for an Automatic wind watch.
Actually it could be argued that 2 Spring barrels are better all round except for the added cost to manufacture and service or repair.

What Rolex has done in pursuit of keeping up with the Jones's is push the single Spring barrel design beyond reasonable limits when packaged into a normal sized Wrist watch movement and they've added little to nothing in terms of practical timekeeping performance.