A sad trip to RSC

[fsprow]

Sold my two (SD43 and Sub). Each “fix” of low amplitude lasted about a year. Someone else’s problem now.

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

Well, not really, unless you're writing an article or paper on the subject. If something is wrong and Rolex can't fix it they are out of their depth, regardless of the reason or circumstances.

I agree that if we knew Rolex were trying to fix this but were unable, then they are deficient in some knowledge or ability. How do we know this exactly? How do we know this isn't simply a financial decision on their end? Car companies do it all the time when pondering a recall. They weigh the cost of doing it versus not doing it. And if they opt to not do it that doesn't mean they don't know how to do it.

We don't know what they know. But the idea that for some reason they lack the ability to get movement basics correct now seems hard enough to believe that it's not my first assumption.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

This theory is of course quite possible and similar to the idea that it could be a pinion attached to the second hand.

But .... What I can not comprehend is that the "Problem' also exists in watches with NO date function.

I am wondering if this is in any way related to all the research and reporting back I did many months ago with Saxo3 also measuring similar results to me about the watch showing signs of "struggling" whilst the date change was engaged and then exactly 6 hours later.

This was all picked up easily on the Witschi Chronoscope.

I seriously think the date/no date arguments are irrelevant.
More importantly, I believe the Seconds pinion wear is symptomatic of the central issue. But possibly the single most tangible clue even taking the metalurgy factor into consideration
To focus on these aspects is taking one away from coming to a plausible conclusion. A red herring so to speak

[CharlesN]

Originally Posted by Dirt

I seriously think the date/no date arguments are irrelevant.:

Have I misunderstood you ?

Are you saying that a Swedish watchmaker (wm82) who has posted in this thread is wrong and you think you are better informed ?

Take a look back in the L O N G thread to where I showed that the date wheel and change was certainly slowing watch movements down. Both during the date change period and exactly 6 hours later.

There will be other causes of course but the date has to be part of the problem somewhere.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

I agree that if we knew Rolex were trying to fix this but were unable, then they are deficient in some knowledge or ability. How do we know this exactly? How do we know this isn't simply a financial decision on their end? Car companies do it all the time when pondering a recall. They weigh the cost of doing it versus not doing it. And if they opt to not do it that doesn't mean they don't know how to do it.

We don't know what they know. But the idea that for some reason they lack the ability to get movement basics correct now seems hard enough to believe that it's not my first assumption.

Nobody is necessarily saying that Rolex lacks the ability to get the basics correct. That's a flawed narrative, because as you say nobody knows what Rolex does or doesn't know.
But ignorance can be a funny thing in that when one is ignorant, one doesn't know what one doesn't know. This is a universal truth.

What is quite possible is that they have unwittingly found themselves in a place where their sphere of understanding is outside of the realm of their experience.
Experience which is very well grounded within the automotive world and to an extent is contained within the obscure arts of Marine engineering field.

That's why I think Omega could probably tell them a thing or two through their own hard won knowledge after they messed up the early part of the commercialisation of the Co-axial and had to go back to the basics as Daniels had worked it out.
It may be an over simplification but I always had it described to me in the circles I move in, as a case that the Swiss(Omega) were too arrogant and thought they knew better than Daniels.
We can't rule out the same dynamic may be a factor within Rolex.

The hard reality for Rolex is they can't enter into a collaborative arrangement like they had with the development of Silicone technology for Hair springs.
They can't go to a competitor to help them either. Though it has been known to happen in the past where a competitor has helped to sort out an issue if it's percieved that it's significantly damaging to the industry at large, which is possible in the case of Rolex as they are the unequalled flagship brand of the Swiss watchmaking industry.

Who knows, perhaps there are quiet discussions between Rolex and the Swiss government and within their industry around Rolex getting their house in order
So far they have been fortunate in that there is enough momentum behind the cover up.

If 1 in 3 cars with a particular engine series was playing up as badly as these 32xx things, even the drovers dog would know about it and the aftermarket would be making an outright killing on selling their own version of a fix(if known) or simply supplying the market with spare parts.
We have 2 Mercs in our collective stable that are well liked by the girls, but they have some troubling flaws that need to be attended to located at both ends of the engine with one flaw becoming very expensive if not detected early. Fortunately, a judicious inspection at every service can detect the emerging issues in a timely manner. Better still, OEM parts are available at better prices than Mercedes charge and unlike a modern Rolex we don't need to go back to Mercedes in order to put it right

[HiBoost]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Have I misunderstood you ?

Are you saying that a Swedish watchmaker (wm82) who has posted in this thread is wrong and you think you are better informed ?

Take a look back in the L O N G thread to where I showed that the date wheel and change was certainly slowing watch movements down. Both during the date change period and exactly 6 hours later.

There will be other causes of course but the date has to be part of the problem somewhere.

My understanding was that he was pointing out additional issues, the dry/worn date wheel post being one of them. I didn't take it to imply that he thought this was the core reason for the timekeeping degradation.

That said, have we had people with OP36/41s and no date Subs experience the low amplitude/slow timekeeping issue? I can't recall and I haven't read every post in the L O N G thread.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by CharlesN

Have I misunderstood you ?

Are you saying that a Swedish watchmaker (wm82) who has posted in this thread is wrong and you think you are better informed ?

Take a look back in the L O N G thread to where I showed that the date wheel and change was certainly slowing watch movements down. Both during the date change period and exactly 6 hours later.

There will be other causes of course but the date has to be part of the problem somewhere.

Well you have and haven't misunderstood me
In hindsight, I probably could have framed my response better, but what I mean is the Date wheel is an entirely separate issue. Not that it's not having an impact.
I think it's a minor side issue, and that if Rolex can fix the core issue with the movement 95% of their problems will go away and they could move on to fix the Date wheel at their leisure(or pleasure) as it's a relatively minor consideration in comparison.
Of course, I could be totally wrong and the Date wheel may be the core issue with the movement, but I doubt it because non-date movements are suffering.

Perhaps we need to frame our discussions around potentially separating the two issues out and treating them differently?

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

My understanding was that he was pointing out additional issues, the dry/worn date wheel post being one of them. I didn't take it to imply that he thought this was the core reason for the timekeeping degradation.

You beat me to it

[wadekind]

A

[wadekind]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Interesting you mentioned Porsche.
They were instrumental in helping a world renowned manufacturer overcome some serious challenges when designing an engine from the ground up in the early 2000's:

Ahh the IMS scare. I do not remember Porsche providing any sort of general warranty repair for this. Even the blown engines that were caused buy it. I still own a 2001 986 S with the original IMS. 120,000 miles on it.

[LC23]

bonkers... it wows me that people care that much about time accuracy. I barely even use my watch for time

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by HiBoost

Uh, this sounds like hand waving to be honest. Do you have specifics on your theory? Saying that pivot wear on a seconds wheel is outside the area of expertise of a highly regarded 120 year old watch company seems analogous to claiming Porsche is overwhelmed by the wheel bearing.

To look at it from another perspective, if we are to believe that Rolex got it wrong this time and has no way to fix it that would imply that in all their previous movements they just got lucky and things randomly worked out. I.e. they don't know what they are doing and just throwing parts together.

Look ... the movement has been out for 8 years and there's no permanent fix. Eight years certainly is a sufficient amount of time in which to do so. Rolex got the 32xx wrong, plain and simple, and it just has no clue at this point.

[Omarion07]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Look ... the movement has been out for 8 years and there's no permanent fix. Eight years certainly is a sufficient amount of time in which to do so. Rolex got the 32xx wrong, plain and simple, and it just has no clue at this point.

Big claims require big evidence. If what you say is true, Rolex wouldn't be so confident to update the movements inside the Daytona, the Skydweller, and the 1908 to the latest chronergy escapement design, 8 years after the introduction of their first chronergy movement. If what some people on this forum claim to be true, Rolex would be completely insane to put a movement with an inherent fault that they've no idea of fixing inside their unicorn and holy grail.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Look ... the movement has been out for 8 years and there's no permanent fix. Eight years certainly is a sufficient amount of time in which to do so. Rolex got the 32xx wrong, plain and simple, and it just has no clue at this point.

No pbm on any of my 32xx (4). All sharp. This is a fine movement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by train-time

Are they calling that LOVID? What might the cure be?

LOVID.
Beautiful

[CedCraig]

Originally Posted by JMGoodnight369

Funny enough i straight up asked if they knew what the problem was. I told them I’m a member of TRF and that there is a pretty extensive thread about issues with the 32xx movements and they denied knowing that this was a problem. So it’s still under wraps. Honestly it seemed like a touchy subject to bring up just based on how the overall vibe changed after that question. As for what the next step was, they wanted to keep my watch and service it but with it being my only one I opted to hold off until the next one comes in. This is my only one at the moment and since the time keeping is still quite good I’ll send it in after the next pickup. Plus they said the turnaround is a little fast after the holiday break.

They denied knowing anything about the issue, but got touchy and the vibe changed after the question, hmm. To me, it’s clear they know about the problem, because if they truly didn’t know anything, there would be no change in vibe and no touchiness.

It’s also clear to me that Rolex hasn’t figured out a fix and ADs/RSC staff are sick and tired of fielding questions about why some/many 32xx movements are lemons.

I’m more and more leaning towards the theory that because this is the first movement developed fully by Rolex, meaning Aegler wasn’t involved, that Rolex just got it wrong, though clearly nobody knows what “it” is, otherwise 2022 watches wouldn’t be failing and newer watches sent in for service wouldn’t be failing after the service.

Next time I’m at my AD I’m going to mention the 32xx issue and see how they react. I’m not worried about getting a stink eye because I won’t buy another 32xx watch anyway.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

No pbm on any of my 32xx (4). All sharp. This is a fine movement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My 32** was keeping excellent time but when I checked it on my TG the amplitude in some other positions but dial up and down was just above 200 when fully wound.

I am waiting for it to be returned from the RSC and will be interested in their comments if any.

There are non so blind……….

[2loaded]

The Great Thread Revival..

[ol' Rex]

Interesting discussion.

I know absolutely nothing about engineering or mechanics, but it appears that a few of the participants in this thread do.

In my own limited dealings with large corporations, I have found that executives will sometimes insist on making a decision -- for whatever reason -- that they have been warned against by employees who know more and yet have less power in the hierarchy.

I'm going to assume that most of the top executives at Rolex are not watchmakers. Is it possible that their decision to first implement and now cling to a problematic mechanical system is motivated by factors that have nothing to do with engineering and watchmaking? Could it be that the experts at Rolex warned them against using this sort of movement, and yet they did it anyway? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that another watch company had already had problems with a similar movement.

If that were the case, it seems to me that to solve the mechanical issue, one would probably first need to solve the management issue.

[Nads786]

Originally Posted by Omarion07

Big claims require big evidence. If what you say is true, Rolex wouldn't be so confident to update the movements inside the Daytona, the Skydweller, and the 1908 to the latest chronergy escapement design, 8 years after the introduction of their first chronergy movement. If what some people on this forum claim to be true, Rolex would be completely insane to put a movement with an inherent fault that they've no idea of fixing inside their unicorn and holy grail.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Great points. This is a luxury goods company that is not a need for anyone in the digital age. Part of their allure is their craftsmanship, precision and longevity.

I can't imagine a company so reliant on reputation would double down on including a bad movement in so many new watches.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Andad

My 32** was keeping excellent time but when I checked it on my TG the amplitude in some other positions but dial up and down was just above 200 when fully wound.

I am waiting for it to be returned from the RSC and will be interested in their comments if any.

There are non so blind……….

Please keep us posted. I would be interested in hearing.

I just dropped off my 214270 at RSC yesterday, right before warranty, expiration, because it was gaining so much time. But then again, I think it has it has a 3132, not a 32XX. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NachoNeal]

Originally Posted by LC23

bonkers... it wows me that people care that much about time accuracy. I barely even use my watch for time

For those of us that are not tethered to our cell phones, I totally get it.