tool-free gimbal

[David Baldwin]

Here's the dumbest question in a while: :unsure:

 

Is replacing the gimbal hex screw with a a kipp handle all it takes to make a gimbal "tool-free"?

 

Dave "hardly technical" Baldwin

[RobVanGelder]

That depends on the placement of that hex screw.

 

If your gimbal has a handgrip extention (tube) on the lower part, and the hex screw is low down, it is that simple.

 

when the hex screw is near the bearing and therefore near the place where you want to put your hand, well, you don't need to be a techie to figure this out......

 

:D

[David Baldwin]

Thanks, Rob.

Dave

[Lawrence Karman]

That depends on the placement of that hex screw.

 

If your gimbal has a handgrip extention (tube) on the lower part, and the hex screw is low down, it is that simple.

 

when the hex screw is near the bearing and therefore near the place where you want to put your hand, well, you don't need to be a techie to figure this out......

 

:D

 

 

I have a "tools free" gimbal adaption for the PRO that Howard made at Mark V which is basically a handgrip extension with the kip handle at the bottom. Soooo much better than the original version. Chris Haarhoff tried to explain to me why this would not work and I have never understood it. Mine has been working just fine for years. They made the VZ tool-less gimbal which still tightens the gimbal nearer the bearing, like the original hex screw version because it is supposed to work better that way. Maybe it does.

[RobVanGelder]

For something that "does not work" it is remarkable how many versions and brands have this same design....

 

Though I can understand why Chris said this, it might be such a unimportant detail that is in fact does work.

Probably what Chris means is that since you don't attach/clamp near the center of gravity in the gimbal, you have a larger handle that you operate and therefore the rig could be easier to put off level by a sideway force.

 

this is true if that attachment/clamping point is the only place that touches the rig's post, however, it still touches , but with a minimum force, not a clamping force, against the post around the gimbal bearing.

this makes it in fact a one-piece clamp that also acts near the center of gravity.

 

I bought once the upgrade from MK-V to the IIIa gimbal, with it's kipp-handle on the bottom and i can only say good things about it, my operating improved and it was much easier to set up, instantly.

 

It was not more work than unscrewing the stainless ring on the top , lifting out the bearing and dropping it in the new handle and fix it with the same screw ring. and it made a big difference!

[Jason Williams]

I can back up the MK-V gimbal upgrade - I did my EFP gimbal and it's so much nicer now, plus knurled grip - so much easier to operate than with the original CP one....

 

Jason :)

[WillArnot]

For the sake of argument, I visited with GPI several weeks ago and can explain why Chris H said what he did and there is some merit to it.

 

You are on to it Rob when you say, "that since you don't attach/clamp near the center of gravity in the gimbal, you have a larger handle that you operate and therefore the rig could be easier to put off level by a sideway force. This is true if that attachment/clamping point is the only place that touches the rig's post, however, it still touches , but with a minimum force, not a clamping force, against the post around the gimbal bearing. This makes it in fact a one-piece clamp that also acts near the center of gravity."

 

But how positive is that point of contact at the gimbal bearing itself if it is just 'touching' as you say? I am just playing devils advocate here as I own an XCS gimbal and it is the best of all the 2" gimbals. Bar None.

 

PRO's take on it is that due to micro tolerance discrepancies in the diameter of the post, one does not have a truly positive attachment to the center post at the gimbal. The only point as you pointed out Rob, would be 6 inches down the post where your kip handle or whatever clamps down.

 

The thing that hasn't been mentioned about the PRO VZ tool free gimbal is that the clamping mechanism at the bottom of the handle activates a clamping 'sleeve' all the way up the inside of the handle, such that the entire 6 inches is actively clamping down on the center post all the way up to the gimbal. Pretty sweet.

 

And anything is better than the old CP gimbals. Larry how does that MK-V upgrade work on the older PRO gimbal. Does it still activate a clamp at the gimbal? Or does it just clamp down at the bottom of the handle?

 

What kind of center post do you have?

 

My gut feeling is that there will be less discrepancies in diameter with a Carbon Fiber post than there will with an Aluminium post.

 

Anyone? Anyone?

 

Will

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

And anything is better than the old CP gimbals. Larry how does that MK-V upgrade work on the older PRO gimbal. Does it still activate a clamp at the gimbal? Or does it just clamp down at the bottom of the handle?

 

 

Hey Will,

 

The MK-V tool free clamps at the bottom and has some horrendous centering issues. Howards V2 gimbal shares those problems that's one of the reasons that I now fly an XCS Gimbal.

[Howard J Smith]

Eric

 

This is utter BS and you know it!

 

H

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Eric

 

This is utter BS and you know it!

 

 

No it's not Howard, the rig will hang different as you clock the gimbal lock around the post. That is due to non concentric clamping

[Jason Williams]

Hey Will,

 

The MK-V tool free clamps at the bottom and has some horrendous centering issues. Howards V2 gimbal shares those problems that's one of the reasons that I now fly an XCS Gimbal.

 

I have had my EFP in perfect dynamic balance, so I totally disagree with your comment - plus I have also seen the V2 work perfect in dynamic too.

 

The one thing I will say is - every thread you post in you have to fire off at someone - your a Moderator for pity's sake - you don't set a good example for the forum, if you have such a personal vendetta should you be using this forum in that way - I think not.

 

Jason

[JobScholtze]

I own the V2 gimbal and i tryd your suggestion the first day i got it. Static balance, pointing to one side. Than point it to the other side, still 100% balance. Also, unlose the gimbal and move it around clock wise, no problemo. So i have to disagree with you.

 

This is when i recieved the sled and tryd it for the first time, using a practise camera.

Spin

 

Dynamic balance is no issue either

 

regards

[Charles King]

Hey Jason, is it hard to do the transformation form the old EFP gimbal to the new MK-v conversion? How do you remove the lower section? I'm thinking of getting it from MK-v. BTW, any pics of how you did it(if you have any) would be very nice. Thank you.

[Jason Williams]

Hey Jason, is it hard to do the transformation form the old EFP gimbal to the new MK-v conversion? How do you remove the lower section? I'm thinking of getting it from MK-v. BTW, any pics of how you did it(if you have any) would be very nice. Thank you.

 

It was very simple, all I did was undo the nut on the top of the gimbal (should have two grooves in - I used a metal ruler to undo mine), pull the gimbal off the top and place in on the MK-V upgrade - if I can do it, anyone can :)

 

I will grab you a picture next week - I don't have my rig with me at the moment but will post something on Monday.

 

HTH

 

Jason

[RobVanGelder]

I did not notice the issues Eric mentioned, it might be an exemplary problem?

And I am happy to see others attest here their positive experiences.

And Eric, I have had major problems with much more sophisticated Master gimbal, but my simple IIIa/EFP gimbal that i still have, with no adjustments possible, is doing fine!

 

I think that you should be careful with loud voicing your opinions, or make it at least clear that this is only your opinion, not a general rule!

You might have had issues with Howard, but one thing is sure, Howard is a person who absolutely knows the requirements of operators, but his solutions might not be your choice or flavor though!

----

 

Anyway, we better do some more "Think-Tanking" here, about the reason why it should or should not work properly due to the low clamping.

 

This is what i think of it:

We all know that only a little force is already enough to move the rig in any direction.

 

The tolerances in the gimbal construction are VERY tight. it slides across the post very easily though, but without any play, kloink-kloink feeling, even with the clamping loosened.

You can also hear it sliding, i am sure. a faint plastic or metal on metal, fiber, composite, whatever. Smooth but there is a sound, meaning a minimum friction meaning a slight touch.

 

This is probably all it takes to make the lengthened gimbal with a clamping on the bottom BEHAVE (in my experience) as if it is clamped near the bearings.

The faint contact which exists over the full lenght of the gimbal body acts as if it is one longer, bigger clamping cylinder around the inner tube (post). Basically, it doesn't really matter if there is a bit more metal in between your fingers, hence the preference of many operators to have a fatter post and/or gimbal than the original IIIa had.

 

other thoughts?