New Sub 126040 - 3230 losing time

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by padi56

Just because any watch goes slightly out of spec by loosing or gaining a few seconds would doubt if it would effect reliability.Alll Rolex movements made over the past 60 odd years some had a few problems like the12,15,30,and 31 series but many are still ticking 50 plus years old.

Peter,

Let me sit down for this

Are you now accepting that the OP's watch is out of spec?

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by Dirt

So, let me get this straight
You are waiting for a Rolex Technician to come along to explain to you the difficulties they have to deal with in getting the dodgy 32xx movements to operate in accordance with Rolex specs.

It's been done and done more than sufficiently on this forum..
Not just by our own celebrity Rolex watchmaker on this forum but others also with overlaps across the internet forums from other well respected watchmakers who are probably more active and well known within the industry.

No. Not at all. Nothing to do with 32xx at all.

I suggest you read the posts and thread properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Devildog

…

Scott, please also sit down for this one

I fully understand all your posts, imho you are completely right. You correctly described facts and, especially, the customers view. A part of your post#25:
----------
How Rolex test is irrelevant.

They advertise +/-2spd after casing.

There is no caveat to that. No mention of averaged out over 6 positions. No mention of wear habits. No mention of anything else. Semantics over precision versus accuracy are irrelevant. What you know regarding the testing is irrelevant.

Rolex advertise +/- 2spd. The consumer has a legal right to expect their watch to stay within that 4 second window for the duration of the warranty period in whatever resting position they choose.

There is no debate. No argument. No rationalising positioning, temperature, how many seconds there are in a day. As far as the consumer is concerned that is all irrelevant. If the watch gains or loses more than the advertised number of seconds per day it is out of spec from that advertised. Rolex have made a rod for their own back with this.

I really struggle to see why that is so hard for so many on this forum to grasp.
----------

I would like to add some more facts about accuracy and precision.

In the field of research, the difference between accuracy and precision is crystal clear, no semantics, nobody cares what the Oxford Dictionary or any dictionary says about it, pure definition only.

Rolex SA in Geneva is doing research, with many people, since many years, on a very high scientific level. They collaborate with external researchers, they definitely know the difference between accuracy and precision. Rolex SA measures both. Rolex knows that they can not specify accuracy. Rolex publishes precision values (after casing).

I have illustrated accuracy and precision, on this watch forum, several times, click here to find a simplied graph, very easy to read, understandable, no maths, no language-dependent ambiguity, no issues of translation.

In the past, I performed many caliber measurements, out of curiousity, for Rolex and other brand’s movements, in April 2021 specifically with the aim to disentangle accuarcy from precision, done with my professional timegrapher, the same brand that Rolex SA is using.

I studied 6 watches, three with 31xx calibers plus three with 32xx calibers, all my own watches. My results showed why Rolex SA is able to specify a precision of -2/+2 sec/day.

All 6 tested calibers (31xx, 32xx series) were PRECISE along their entire power reserves.

The relevant post in the long 32xx data thread (p. 42) is copied below.

[saxo3]

Amplitudes, Rates, Precision of 32xx and 31xx calibers

I have investigated 6 watches in parallel and measured under identical conditions their amplitudes, rates, and precision along the entire power reserve.

The following movements were investigated in dial up position:
3235, 3285, 3285, 3130, 3185, 3187

Amplitudes (Figure 1)

Four watches had excellent high amplitudes (>290 degrees) after full winding, and >260 degrees after 24 hours.
The other two 3285 movements were significantly lower in amplitudes.

All 31xx calibers showed similar values during the power test, while the 3235 was significantly better than the two 3285 calibers.



Rates (Figure 2)

Good results were measured for all three 31xx calibers and the 3235.
Rate values where siginficantly worse for the two 3285, which also had low amplitudes.



Precision (Figures 3, 4)

The precision of a caliber can be measured by repeating many times the same rate measurement, which I did.
The standard deviation of the rate measurement is called precision.

The graph below shows the precision values of all 6 calibers measured during the entire power reserve, individually for each 31xx (48 hours) and 32xx (70 hours) movement.



The next graph shows the same result as a function of the remaining power reserve.
From 100 % (full winding) until 0 % (watch stopped).



It can be clearly seen that all 31xx and the 3235 remain very precise (+/- 1 s/d) from full winding until the end of the power reserve.
This is an excellent result.

The two 3285 are a bit worse but still remain within Rolex specs of -2/+2 s/d

The next graph summarizes the dependency between amplitudes and precision for all watches.



One can see that even for very low amplitudes, down to 120 degrees, all 31xx and 32xx are precise, i.e. within Rolex specifications.

Conclusions:

All 6 tested 31xx and 32xx caliber watches fulfil the -2/+2 s/d precision specification published by Rolex SA.

None of the tested calibers lost significantly in precision during the entire power reserve, not even at rather low amplitudes when a movement is not any longer accurate, especially the two tested 3285 movements.

[1William]

Great information and data. Thank you.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

No. Not at all. Nothing to do with 32xx at all.

I suggest you read the posts and thread properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies.
I have taken your advise and went back and started from the begining.
I couldn't seem to get much past posts "1", "2" and "3" before i got my head around it all.
It's difficult sometimes when the scene is set with the thread title and the body of the OPs first post, then subsequent posts by your good self and a number of others referencing 32xx movements, poor or degrading timekeeping, etc, etc.
Thanks for the heads up

[Roddypeepa]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Amplitudes, Rates, Precision of 32xx and 31xx calibers

I have investigated 6 watches in parallel and measured under identical conditions their amplitudes, rates, and precision along the entire power reserve.

The following movements were investigated in dial up position:
3235, 3285, 3285, 3130, 3185, 3187

Amplitudes (Figure 1)

Four watches had excellent high amplitudes (>290 degrees) after full winding, and >260 degrees after 24 hours.
The other two 3285 movements were significantly lower in amplitudes.

All 31xx calibers showed similar values during the power test, while the 3235 was significantly better than the two 3285 calibers.



Rates (Figure 2)

Good results were measured for all three 31xx calibers and the 3235.
Rate values where siginficantly worse for the two 3285, which also had low amplitudes.



Precision (Figures 3, 4)

The precision of a caliber can be measured by repeating many times the same rate measurement, which I did.
The standard deviation of the rate measurement is called precision.

The graph below shows the precision values of all 6 calibers measured during the entire power reserve, individually for each 31xx (48 hours) and 32xx (70 hours) movement.



The next graph shows the same result as a function of the remaining power reserve.
From 100 % (full winding) until 0 % (watch stopped).



It can be clearly seen that all 31xx and the 3235 remain very precise (+/- 1 s/d) from full winding until the end of the power reserve.
This is an excellent result.

The two 3285 are a bit worse but still remain within Rolex specs of -2/+2 s/d

The next graph summarizes the dependency between amplitudes and precision for all watches.



One can see that even for very low amplitudes, down to 120 degrees, all 31xx and 32xx are precise, i.e. within Rolex specifications.

Conclusions:

All 6 tested 31xx and 32xx caliber watches fulfil the -2/+2 s/d precision specification published by Rolex SA.

None of the tested calibers lost significantly in precision during the entire power reserve, not even at rather low amplitudes when a movement is not any longer accurate, especially the two tested 3285 movements.

Originally Posted by saxo3

Amplitudes, Rates, Precision of 32xx and 31xx calibers

I have investigated 6 watches in parallel and measured under identical conditions their amplitudes, rates, and precision along the entire power reserve.

The following movements were investigated in dial up position:
3235, 3285, 3285, 3130, 3185, 3187

Amplitudes (Figure 1)

Four watches had excellent high amplitudes (>290 degrees) after full winding, and >260 degrees after 24 hours.
The other two 3285 movements were significantly lower in amplitudes.

All 31xx calibers showed similar values during the power test, while the 3235 was significantly better than the two 3285 calibers.



Rates (Figure 2)

Good results were measured for all three 31xx calibers and the 3235.
Rate values where siginficantly worse for the two 3285, which also had low amplitudes.



Precision (Figures 3, 4)

The precision of a caliber can be measured by repeating many times the same rate measurement, which I did.
The standard deviation of the rate measurement is called precision.

The graph below shows the precision values of all 6 calibers measured during the entire power reserve, individually for each 31xx (48 hours) and 32xx (70 hours) movement.



The next graph shows the same result as a function of the remaining power reserve.
From 100 % (full winding) until 0 % (watch stopped).



It can be clearly seen that all 31xx and the 3235 remain very precise (+/- 1 s/d) from full winding until the end of the power reserve.
This is an excellent result.

The two 3285 are a bit worse but still remain within Rolex specs of -2/+2 s/d

The next graph summarizes the dependency between amplitudes and precision for all watches.



One can see that even for very low amplitudes, down to 120 degrees, all 31xx and 32xx are precise, i.e. within Rolex specifications.

Conclusions:

All 6 tested 31xx and 32xx caliber watches fulfil the -2/+2 s/d precision specification published by Rolex SA.

None of the tested calibers lost significantly in precision during the entire power reserve, not even at rather low amplitudes when a movement is not any longer accurate, especially the two tested 3285 movements.

Really interesting data. This is exactly what I was getting at - look at how the rates change as they approach the end of the power reserve.

How did they actually do “in the real world” when on the wrist?

Superb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[forcinitijp]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I disagree. Manufacturers generally increase warranty periods for one, or both, of two reasons:

1) Because they have faith their product is reliable and will not fail in some way for longer than the original (shorter) period previously offered.

2) For marketing/keeping up with or bettering the competition reasons.

To increase a warranty because they expect problems is highly unusual for a manufacturing company and makes little sense, financial or otherwise.



Its really not hard

I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you are not simply trolling

Set watch to exact time against recognised exact time source. I use time.is.

Compare watch to recognised time source 24 hours later.

Repeat as necessary to understand the impact of as many variables as you see fit

There are also many smartphone apps for this purpose that allow you to record as many data points in a chosen period as you see fit and which will then present the results in various forms including a graphical representation of timekeeping.

Once installed it takes but seconds each time to use

I think it's an unnecessary task, but if it makes you feel better to question things that don't make sense, because the conditions that you can have when you measure the seconds were very different from those that Rolex used... a user in presenting all the graphics in different calibers... there is no more controversy! Greetings to the king!

[saxo3]

Originally Posted by Roddypeepa

Really interesting data. This is exactly what I was getting at - look at how the rates change as they approach the end of the power reserve.

How did they actually do “in the real world” when on the wrist?

Superb.

Thank you.

This effect does not happen when I wear these watches because my wrist/arm movements are sufficient to keep the caliber amplitudes very high, i.e., rather close to a full winding.

Consequently, also the caliber rates do not decrease, as shown in the figure, and the accuracy remains very good ... as long as the caliber has (i) not too low amplitudes (which is the main issue of 32xx movements) and (ii) was well regulated by a watchmaker.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by saxo3

Scott, please also sit down for this one

I fully understand all your posts, imho you are completely right. You correctly described facts and, especially, the customers view. A part of your post#25:
----------
How Rolex test is irrelevant.

They advertise +/-2spd after casing.

There is no caveat to that. No mention of averaged out over 6 positions. No mention of wear habits. No mention of anything else. Semantics over precision versus accuracy are irrelevant. What you know regarding the testing is irrelevant.

Rolex advertise +/- 2spd. The consumer has a legal right to expect their watch to stay within that 4 second window for the duration of the warranty period in whatever resting position they choose.

There is no debate. No argument. No rationalising positioning, temperature, how many seconds there are in a day. As far as the consumer is concerned that is all irrelevant. If the watch gains or loses more than the advertised number of seconds per day it is out of spec from that advertised. Rolex have made a rod for their own back with this.

I really struggle to see why that is so hard for so many on this forum to grasp.
----------

I would like to add some more facts about accuracy and precision.

In the field of research, the difference between accuracy and precision is crystal clear, no semantics, nobody cares what the Oxford Dictionary or any dictionary says about it, pure definition only.

Rolex SA in Geneva is doing research, with many people, since many years, on a very high scientific level. They collaborate with external researchers, they definitely know the difference between accuracy and precision. Rolex SA measures both. Rolex knows that they can not specify accuracy. Rolex publishes precision values (after casing).

I have illustrated accuracy and precision, on this watch forum, several times, click here to find a simplied graph, very easy to read, understandable, no maths, no language-dependent ambiguity, no issues of translation.

In the past, I performed many caliber measurements, out of curiousity, for Rolex and other brand’s movements, in April 2021 specifically with the aim to disentangle accuarcy from precision, done with my professional timegrapher, the same brand that Rolex SA is using.

I studied 6 watches, three with 31xx calibers plus three with 32xx calibers, all my own watches. My results showed why Rolex SA is able to specify a precision of -2/+2 sec/day.

All 6 tested calibers (31xx, 32xx series) were PRECISE along their entire power reserves.

The relevant post in the long 32xx data thread (p. 42) is copied below.

The linked graph should be a sticky. Perfect visual. Thanks.

[Mystro]

Just to add to the performance between the 31 and 32 series movement:

Out of all the many 31 and 32 series movements I have owned the common trait was at when as the mainspring winds down does accuracy falls off the table. With Rolex using a single barrel mainspring it doesn’t have the torque a dual mainspring has towards the end of its power reserve. What the 32 series has done is extend its ability to hold a very high accuracy farther into the mainspring than what the 31 could. That said, what good is a long power reserve if accuracy is falling away too fast? This is where a dual mainspring always trumps a single mainspring in maintaining accuracy longer in its power reserve. With all my 32 series I have owned and tested (8-10 models), accuracy is stellar generally into the 48 hour mark of its power reserve of 70+ hours. After that initial 48 hour of power reserve is when different models I have owned has either shined or just performed o.k.
In the end, I am more concerned with holding accuracy as long as possible as that is a real world advantage to the end user.

[Kinnakeet]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Just to add to the performance between the 31 and 32 series movement:

Out of all the many 31 and 32 series movements I have owned the common trait was at when as the mainspring winds down does accuracy falls off the table. With Rolex using a single barrel mainspring it doesn’t have the torque a dual mainspring has towards the end of its power reserve. What the 32 series has done is extend its ability to hold a very high accuracy farther into the mainspring than what the 31 could. That said, what good is a long power reserve if accuracy is falling away too fast? This is where a dual mainspring always trumps a single mainspring in maintaining accuracy longer in its power reserve. With all my 32 series I have owned and tested (8-10 models), accuracy is stellar generally into the 48 hour mark of its power reserve of 70+ hours. After that initial 48 hour of power reserve is when different models I have owned has either shined or just performed o.k.
In the end, I am more concerned with holding accuracy as long as possible as that is a real world advantage to the end user.

This is why I feel the Omega twin barrel 70hr movements are superior to the 32xx Rolex movements. With my owning many examples of each the omegas just keep much better time and always on the plus side. Rolex 32xx movements seem to run slow in my experience.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Just to add to the performance between the 31 and 32 series movement:

Out of all the many 31 and 32 series movements I have owned the common trait was at when as the mainspring winds down does accuracy falls off the table. With Rolex using a single barrel mainspring it doesn’t have the torque a dual mainspring has towards the end of its power reserve. What the 32 series has done is extend its ability to hold a very high accuracy farther into the mainspring than what the 31 could. That said, what good is a long power reserve if accuracy is falling away too fast? This is where a dual mainspring always trumps a single mainspring in maintaining accuracy longer in its power reserve. With all my 32 series I have owned and tested (8-10 models), accuracy is stellar generally into the 48 hour mark of its power reserve of 70+ hours. After that initial 48 hour of power reserve is when different models I have owned has either shined or just performed o.k.
In the end, I am more concerned with holding accuracy as long as possible as that is a real world advantage to the end user.

As another notable watchmaker has stated on this forum.
Like everything but probably much moreso with regard to a watch movement. A watch movement is a literal grab bag of compromises.

It is generally acknowledged that twin barrels is superior in providing a better torque curve across a longer time frame.
Given the above and against the backdrop of the Omega approach. We can see that twin barrels can typically increase bulk of the movement and therein lies the problem that Omega is not able to overcome with going down this route.
Some Omega fans prefer the references with the ETA based Co-axial movements because they are so much thinner and they don't want for longer power reserves but are happy to settle for the movements to be in the 40's with power reserves.
We all know that thinner watches is part of the charm with Rolex references as opposed to other watch manufacturers.

Now we also need to consider that Rolex isn't the only manufacturer that seems to do just fine with managing the balance of the requirements of having a single barrel and providing extended power reserves

[Kinnakeet]

Originally Posted by Dirt

As another notable watchmaker has stated on this forum.
Like everything but probably much moreso with regard to a watch movement. A watch movement is a literal grab bag of compromises.

It is generally acknowledged that twin barrels is superior in providing a better torque curve across a longer time frame.
Given the above and against the backdrop of the Omega approach. We can see that twin barrels can typically increase bulk of the movement and therein lies the problem that Omega is not able to overcome with going down this route.
Some Omega fans prefer the references with the ETA based Co-axial movements because they are so much thinner and they don't want for longer power reserves but are happy to settle for the movements to be in the 40's with power reserves.
We all know that thinner watches is part of the charm with Rolex references as opposed to other watch manufacturers.

Now we also need to consider that Rolex isn't the only manufacturer that seems to do just fine with managing the balance of the requirements of having a single barrel and providing extended power reserves

Yes Breitling for one, I haven’t had the same accuracy with Breitling having several examples. And there are others.

[Mystro]

Panerai P9010 has performed outstanding with its power reserve testing out for me at 80+ hours yet still rather thin. I find Rolex approach very elegant yet still maintaining its durability but I feel Rolex played the ultra thin single barrel a bit on the safe side as opposed to a more advanced development but that is/how Rolex does advancements. Omega has the best movements out there for their price point. A lot of bang for the buck in an Omega. Omega also risks more in movement development and that gives them an advantage as well as a disadvantage by watering down their lines too much.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Panerai P9010 has performed outstanding with its power reserve testing out for me at 80+ hours yet still rather thin. I find Rolex approach very elegant yet still maintaining its durability but I feel Rolex played the ultra thin single barrel a bit on the safe side as opposed to a more advanced development but that is/how Rolex does advancements. Omega has the best movements out there for their price point. A lot of bang for the buck in an Omega. Omega also risks more in movement development and that gives them an advantage as well as a disadvantage by watering down their lines too much.

Well said

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

Yes Breitling for one, I haven’t had the same accuracy with Breitling having several examples. And there are others.

Interesting.
May i ask what others do you have that are on a rotation?

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by forcinitijp

I think it's an unnecessary task, but if it makes you feel better to question things that don't make sense, because the conditions that you can have when you measure the seconds were very different from those that Rolex used... a user in presenting all the graphics in different calibers... there is no more controversy! Greetings to the king!

I'm not questioning things that don't make sense

And I'm not trying to replicate what Rolex do (whatever that may actually be)

Im simply establishing my watches' performance when worn.

[Kinnakeet]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Interesting.
May i ask what others do you have that are on a rotation?

GS spring drive and high beat, have extended power reserves. Very accurate. Santos. My husband and I both own a Santos and find them extremely accurate. 38 hr power reserve I think. For me extended power reserve is over rated.

[Jim_K]

Originally Posted by Devildog

You really think that my posts are rough, bad mannered and course?

Wow. You americans must be more sensitive than I thought

Not this american. You have a very good point in your posts.

[warrior]

.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

GS spring drive and high beat, have extended power reserves. Very accurate. Santos. My husband and I both own a Santos and find them extremely accurate. 38 hr power reserve I think. For me extended power reserve is over rated.

The spring drive is a mechanical movement which is regulated by a computer, so it will be much more accurate than Rolex. The wonder of a mechanical watch is how it can be so accurate based purely on mechanics.

The extended power reserve is useful to people who wear a different watch on the weekends. They take their Rolex off at 5pm on Friday, and then put it back on 60+ hours later on Monday morning without having to wind it or set the time.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

For me extended power reserve is over rated.

The extended power reserve is where this whole kerfuffle started.

[East of Eden]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

The spring drive is a mechanical movement which is regulated by a computer, so it will be much more accurate than Rolex. The wonder of a mechanical watch is how it can be so accurate based purely on mechanics.

The GS Hi-Beat is a mechanical watch with an 80 hour power reserve.

[Scottyboy]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

This is why I feel the Omega twin barrel 70hr movements are superior to the 32xx Rolex movements. With my owning many examples of each the omegas just keep much better time and always on the plus side. Rolex 32xx movements seem to run slow in my experience.

Correct. In my experience (and I've owned 3 Omega and 5 Rolex), that Omega movements are far more accurate. This is coming from a bonafide Rolex fanboy who much prefers Rolex FWIW.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by Kinnakeet

This is why I feel the Omega twin barrel 70hr movements are superior to the 32xx Rolex movements. With my owning many examples of each the omegas just keep much better time and always on the plus side. Rolex 32xx movements seem to run slow in my experience.

Agreed 100%.

My Speedy Racing cal 9900 was running at +2s a week, mindblowing. Most accurate mechanical watch I've ever had. My only gripe was the absence of a date quickset, but that's another debate.

As for the 32xx, I've got one running at -6 s/d and another one at -1 s/d.

[waterman1]

I am not a complications expert by any means but agree with Mystro that my Panerai P9010 is a dependable workhorse of a movement. And I beat the hell out of the watch too. Carbotech.
My Tudors hold good accuracy throughout the 70 hours.
This turned into a heck of a thread! At least I found out the 124060 has seen some issues as well. I think that’s what I found out …there is so much arguing I can’t tell what’s going on)

[padi56]

Originally Posted by waterman1

I am not a complications expert by any means but agree with Mystro that my Panerai P9010 is a dependable workhorse of a movement. And I beat the hell out of the watch too. Carbotech.
My Tudors hold good accuracy throughout the 70 hours.
This turned into a heck of a thread! At least I found out the 124060 has seen some issues as well. I think that’s what I found out …there is so much arguing I can’t tell what’s going on)

Well tell you what it was originally about, the OP was worried that his watch was running 2.5 to 3 seconds slow a day. Then the 32 movement haters stepped in, and at every opportunity to say how bad this movement was, if it did not run exactly daily to Rolex stated precision -2+2 seconds spec.

[Scottyboy]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well tell you what it was originally about, the OP was worried that his watch was running 2.5 to 3 seconds slow a day. Then the 32 movement haters stepped in,, and at every opportunity to say how bad this movement was, if it did not run exactly daily to Rolex stated precision -2+2 seconds spec.

Peter, how many watches do you own with the 32** movement?

[padi56]

Only have one it was bought as a present off my sons, had it for around two years, never been anal about the exact second. But did do a check several weeks ago was running inside COSC spec that's accurate enough for me. My life was never ran to the exact second, the most important thing for me at the moment, is that every day I beat my own record for the numbers of days I stayed alive.