I bet it's battery size

luckily both of mine work fine.

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

 

So, back to the big question: What are the main differences that seem to have allowed Tudor (through its Kenissi collaboration) to achieve what Rolex could not?

Sorry, but what did Tudor do that Rolex could not? Do you have numbers of issues vs each movement?

 

It's because his premise is false to begin with. Get your tin hat ready, it's gonna be entertaining.

 

For the sake of this post, let's assume that 1 is greater than 2... Wait a minute.

 

Ok, maybe I should have instead made the preface: Only those who believe there is an issue with the 32xx will be able to benefit or meaningfully contribute to this thread.

If you don't believe it exists, then there's no point to this particular discussion, and no reason to engage in it. And that's not directed at any individual (despite quoting a post above)

 

Assuming anything was your first mistake.... this looks like nothing more than mental masturbation to me...

 

this looks like nothing more than mental masturbation to me...

Which makes it different from the very idea of a watch forum how???

 

 

Isn’t Tudor’s movement thicker? Rolex watches are much thinner than the competition with similar power reserve (Tudor and Omega). Perhaps thinner mainspring provides less power margin for increased friction? Richemont has its own problems with long PR and isochronism. But thicker watches from Omega and Tudor seem to be rock solid.

 

Isn’t Tudor’s movement thicker? Rolex watches are much thinner than the competition with similar power reserve (Tudor and Omega). Perhaps thinner mainspring provides less power margin for increased friction? Richemont has its own problems with long PR and isochronism. But thicker watches from Omega and Tudor seem to be rock solid.

I didn’t notice much difference between the BB36 and my Explorer but wasn’t wearing the later the day I tried the former. And the new 54 seems fairly thin despite its greater WR. But could be some small difference.

How many WIS are graphing their Tudors and comparing them that retentively?

A. None
B. Very few
C. Hardly any
D. graphing?
E. F Rolex

You do raise a good point there. My guess is that if timekeeping were becoming an issue with the new Tudors we’d have heard something by now but maybe not. It is a good consideration though.

 

This is what I read in one of the many 32xx posts by a forum member named Al. I'll just copy and paste here. If you're interested in finding the OP, look up 32xx movement issue and TRF.

POST BY Al from TRF Below!!!!!!



"32XX Movement Issue Explanation"


The torque available from a given strength of mainspring is a finite thing. That's somewhat different from the length of the power reserve. A mainspring is a different kind of spring, so I'll explain...


The torque of the mainspring is a function of its width and it's thickness. The power reserve is a function purely of the length, all else being equal.


A typical mainspring designation goes something like this...


1.60 X .10 X 267 - all numbers are in mm.


First number is the width or height of the spring, and is related to how tall the mainspring barrel is.


The second number is the thickness, or commonly known as the strength.


The third number is the length.


The first two numbers can affect the torque delivered from the mainspring, but do in in different proportions. A change in width has a small impact, where a change in strength has a very large impact - it is cubed, so a small change in the strength measurement can have a very significant impact on the torque.


Neither of these are directly related to power reserve. That is determined by the length of the spring - simple relationship between the length of the spring determining the number of turns the mainspring barrel will make, and the gear ratio between the teeth on the barrel, and the subsequent train wheels. Again, all else being equal.


The only relationship they have to power reserve is that when you make a mainspring thinner, you can fit a longer spring in the same sized barrel. That is what Rolex has done. In an effort to catch up to other brands who have extended their power reserves, they have tried to fit more spring in the same space, rather than taking another approach such as two mainspring barrels.


So to fit more spring in the same barrel they made 2 changes:


1 - Thinner barrel wall.


2 - Thinner mainspring.


These changes have consequences. The thinner barrel wall now means that you cannot use the barrel over again, because it's too fragile to open up and close again in service. So the entire mainspring barrel must be replaced at every service. That's a servicing implication, but not necessarily a performance implication.


The thinner mainspring now reduces the torque delivered, which reduces balance amplitude. To now make up for that reduced torque, they did some very un-Rolex like things to the escapement. They made things thinner and more fragile. Smaller surface contact reduces friction, but concentrates the forces and wear that may occur. There's always a give and take in any design, and watch movements are no different in that regard.


So why is balance amplitude important? It's simple - isochronism.


A balance inside a watch is a very imperfect oscillator, so watch companies go to a lot of trouble to help it maintain its period (rate) when there are changes in the distance travelled (amplitude), but there's only so much you can do.


So this means that when amplitude drops, timing changes. How much depends on how big the drop is, but also where in the amplitude range that drop is occurring. Rolex watches don't tend to have really high amplitudes to begin with, compared to many other makers. So on say a standard ETA movement, it's not unusual for amplitudes to be in excess of 300 degrees, where on a Rolex you are more typically looking at 270's or 280's. In fact the point at which there is too much amplitude, and you experience rebanking (also known as knocking), is much lower on a Rolex than say on an ETA 2892, due to the geometry of the Rolex escapement.


When you get to lower amplitudes, such as the low 200's, then some odd things start to happen. There's an amplitude where poise errors on the balance tend to go away (these are only in vertical positions) and it's widely considered that around 220 degrees is where this happens, at least with a traditional lever escapement.


As you drop below that, there's a point where poise errors reverse, so if at full wind amplitude crown left runs faster that crown right, those reverse, and now crown right will run faster than crown left. As you drop lower, the magnitude of those poise errors gets magnified significantly. This is well known with watchmakers and is useful in the context of dynamic poising procedures, so for that I drop the balance amplitude to 160 degrees to magnify the errors, locate the heavy spot on the balance wheel, and make the appropriate adjustments.


So for example I just dynamically poised a watch last week where at full wind the positional variation was 21 seconds across 6 positions (amplitudes were from the mid 280's to around 310). When I dropped the balance amplitude to 160 degrees, those errors ballooned to 57 seconds, so they nearly tripled in magnitude.


So on these 32XX watches, Rolex wants to keep the balance amplitude after 24 hours above 200 degrees to avoid some of the more extreme effects that are seen at lower amplitudes. It is somewhat of a detriment that the amplitude starts lower on these watches to begin with, because you have less of a buffer in the amount that it can drop before you start to see those unwanted effects.


So do they know what the problem is? Yes, I'm sure they do by now. The problem that presents itself is repairing this issue without sacrificing any of the promised performance metrics that this movement is known for. So that means not changing the accuracy and power reserve goals. It's not that they don't know what to do, because they have built plenty of robust movements in the past - it's doing so while maintaining the current performance demands that is the issue.


Hope this helps those who are interested, understand the technical side of this a bit better...


Cheers, Al

 

 

So I have a 32xx watch and a couple of Mt5400 watches...What am I pretending is wrong with them and what am I supposed to be doing about it?...

 

ask @Fahoo Forays ...
beats me

 

Lots of talk, zero actual knowledge or qualifications.

 

Wondering the same thing. I have a Rolex no date Submariner with a 3230 movement and a Tudor Ranger with a MT5402 movement. Both are about a year old and keeping great time even on low PR.

I’m unsure how comparable the two movements might be as MSRP for the Submariner was roughly 3X that of the Ranger. Frankly I see no merit to this thread, including its premise.

It’s not only Al, but also longtime TRF member Bas who works at RSC who’s posted in depth frequently about the issue. Are people really still doubting the issue exists???

The 32xx keeps good time while the full-wind amplitude inexplicably decreases, but then there’s a tipping point where accuracy plummets. It happens to some in 6 months and others in 3 years, but it happens frequently, with many forum-goers having multiple watches affected.

 

🤦🏻

So you're basing your thread on two incorrect assumptions - a questionable theory on amplitude issues of the 32xx movements, and ignoring the fact that Rolex had long achieved the +2/-2 spec BEFORE the 32xx series other than PR...

I suppose I enjoy a discussion as much as the next guy but talk about flawed logic.

Not sure I follow. I personally believe that the 32xx flaw exists but had hoped not to start another "is the problem real?" discussion and instead discuss the differences between two movements with nearly identical specs. I'd said "let's assume" in an effort to avoid resuming that lengthy, death spiral of a discussion. We're not going to resolve that to anyone's satisfaction. Perhaps I should have opened with:

"Let's assume we're not going to resolve the question of whether a 32xx design flaw exists. The question central to this thread stems from a belief that it does exist, and will therefore probably only interest those who share the belief."

I assume that your thread is just bait for the little fishes swimming through this sub forum who contribute nothing more than saying how they would not / could not own a Rolex...

By all means, present some facts and statistics to discuss though…

Flawed as the polls are, I think that the information shared on TRF (poll results and individual accounts) is sufficient evidence that there's some problem with the 32xx design. So far no indication that the same is true of the most similar Tudor movement.

Initially, I'd concluded (thanks to Al's detailed assessment) that Rolex had to make too many compromises when designing the 32xx and wanting to fit it into its 36mm watches w/o making them thicker, achieve 70hr+ PR, and maintain +/-2 accuracy. But when I thought about the Tudor movement's specs, it occurred to me that Tudor had achieved pretty much the same, but somehow avoided making the design compromises Rolex did (at least there aren't widely reported systemic issues without an identifiable permanent fix... yet...).

That naturally led to the question: What's the difference in design/architecture?

 

Flawed as the polls are, I think that the information shared on TRF (poll results and individual accounts) is sufficient evidence that there's some problem with the 32xx design. So far no indication that the same is true of the most similar Tudor movement.

Like anything mechanical, the result is often 'a balance of compromises'. Many years ago we had a F1 team as a client, and their engineering director once said that the perfectly designed component fails the second it crosses the finish line (this was in the late 90's).

It is true that the Rolex movement, an evolution of the 3135, is smaller and thinner than that developed by Kenisi, and if the data acquired on TRF is accurate - and there is no reason to suggest that it isn't - the question would be worth pursuing there to see if this 'balance of compromises' is not perfect.

You will no doubt have seen the thread here, which descended into a skip fire, which is why I suggest TRF as a better choice to have your discussion. Although TBH in either forum - I don't think the comparison with Tudor is either helpful or useful - they are essentially different movements from different companies.

 

So far no indication that the same is true of the most similar Tudor movement.

Similar how? They may have similar performance specs but the architecture is totally different - the Tudor uses a tried and true Swiss lever escapement while the Rolex uses the Chronergy escapement.

Perhaps get your facts straight before even attempting a thread like this?

 

Rude as your response comes off, it's actually the first one to understand the real question I'm asking. When I said "similar" I was referring entirely to the performance and dimensional specs. In fact, the entirely different architecture is exactly what I was asking about, as I don't really understand the differences, other than the fact they exist.

Anything besides escapement (and therefore any reason Rolex had to use Chronergy to achieve the stated performance)?

 

Let me update your knowledge with the popular Tissot PRX Powermatic 80 now available in 35mm with 80 hours power reserve.

Longines offers some 36mm watches with 64 hours with the L888.2 movement.

See the note on the PRX above. Similarly, the L888 can actually achieve 72hrs in a smaller watch, but also beats at a reduced rate of 25,200 VPH so the compromise was made elsewhere.

 

Ok then let’s look at the Blancpain - 5100-1127-NAT

38mm diameter, 300m water resistance, 10.77mm thick, 28,800 PvZ, 120 hours power reserve. I have a watch with the same movement (1315) and it actually worked 136 hours before it stopped when fully wound. While being ultra precise….

Plus the movement is amazing to look at.

 

Ok then let’s look at the Blancpain - 5100-1127-NAT

38mm diameter, 300m water resistance, 10.77mm thick, 28,800 PvZ, 120 hours power reserve. I have a watch with the same movement (1315) and it actually worked 136 hours before it stopped when fully wound. While being ultra precise….

Plus the movement is amazing to look at.

Well, there is the substantial difference in thickness of the Blancpain watches vs. Rolex. However, there's also the fact that Blancpain is simply in a different league of watchmaking.

it’s not the perfect comparison though - its still apples and oranges.

Swatch / Richemont etc. own all the IP and know how in their brands - it doesn’t make the movements or those brands comparable regardless of technology or personnel transfer.

Ok, fair. But I think the "comparison" here is between two different approaches to achieve identical goals (in terms of movement size and performance).

 

Well, there is the substantial difference in thickness of the Blancpain watches vs. Rolex. However, there's also the fact that Blancpain is simply in a different league of watchmaking.


Ok, fair. But I think the "comparison" here is between two different approaches to achieve identical goals (in terms of movement size and performance).

Yes, the Blancpain are way slimmer, 10.77mm and 300m water resistance to 11.7mm for a Datejust 36… with 100m….
I agree with you. Blancpain is on a different level indeed.

 

Yes, the Blancpain are way slimmer, 10.77mm and 300m water resistance to 11.7mm for a Datejust 36… with 100m….
I agree with you. Blancpain is on a different level indeed.

Right you are; I'd always been under the impression that the Blancpain was thicker than an Explorer/OP. On another note, still wish that 1130 Hodinkee were still in production.