Gorden Group venture - Gimbal Review

[Charles King]

Okay. I received my gimbal some time ago but have not really tested it on a post because I do not have one at the moment. But doing simple hand test one can tell if the gimbal is a 'fit in' or one step closer to being thrown in the garbage.

The one made for me was anodized and extra adjustments holes made in the bearing housing, if the need to re-adjust the gimbal become apparent. Like in the case of Wing Gee. Now this should not be necessary but as in this situation I allowed it to be added.

Okay. My thoughts are as follows. The machining job done on this gimbal was 95% perfect. I thought the fork ends could have been rounded of completely, regardless... Cody's plan recommends this.

The one thing I really liked was the machining of the gimbal clamp. Very nice. In fact this is how some of the high-end gimbals are done. Most. Very nice. It gets 10 outta 10.

The roll bearing feels very nice as well. The moment of play does not feel to be noticed. Again, I am only hand testing it so, completely verifying this on a sled will determine if there is play or not. Good job on it for now. For now I give it a 8 outta 10

The pan bearing is mediocre but that was expected. It probably will make a big difference if it was completely cleaned of all the grease and soaked in de-natured alcohol and finally replaced with Teflon oil. The difference would definitely be felt. But since this is a sealed bearing I would probably replace it with a non-sealed bearing after doing the above described method. I give it a 5 outta 10.

The tilt bearing is the only part on the gimbal, I feel a little unsure of at the moment.  The tightening of the bolts, I feel, just doesn't feel right. It seems too loose when adjusted to resist play in the gimbal. It feels that it will just fall out after handling a heavier load. If I try to tighten the bolts then friction and play will show itself 100%. when loosen to relief the tension it works Okay. I feel it looks too risky but then again, maybe I'm missing something. I feel the bolts have to be tighten and do not have to be loosen to remove play in the tilt bearing. I will have to test it on a post when I get mine made. I am still going to test it with a Home made weight. 'Till then, I'll give it a 5 outta 10 and only because it seems to work when the bolts were loosen. Continous use might force the bearing to fall out after many sessions. Then again, I could be wrong. That's all I can say for now. I'm curious to know why a needle bearing wasn't used instead of ball-bearing type?

The anodizing finish is nicely done. ) 9.5 outta 10

click on the .jpg file to open up a bigger pic.

[Charles King]

more pics...

[Job Scholtze]

It looks nice there Charles. I'll give him that. But i can tell you by my own experience, 90% or even 95% isnt close enough imo.
The gimbal is THE most important part of the sled. If that is not 100% your operating isnt 100& eighter. Build whatever you want/like, but dont stop perfection that gimbal untill its 110%

Its incredible what the small differences can be

[Charles King]

It looks nice there Charles. I'll give him that. But i can tell you by my own experience, 90% or even 95% isnt close enough imo.
The gimbal is THE most important part of the sled. If that is not 100% your operating isnt 100& eighter. Build whatever you want/like, but dont stop perfection that gimbal untill its 110%

Its incredible what the small differences can be

You are quite right Job. It can make or break a system. As you know I have the EFP gimbal and the upgrade from MK-v. Just holding the EFP gimbal in your hand and doing a spin, like I had done with this gimbal, I noticed a huge difference. I took it apart partly and noticed why... I'm sure Phil can atest to that. I just wanted to see how good a gimbal this was and probably use it as a back up. But I have to do more test when I finally get my post. Like I said I will definately have to modify the pan bearing and change out the pan bearing and in worse case scenerio, redo the tilt somehow. Don't know.

[Phil Kindred]

It looks nice, Charles, but as you said--Phil swears by his old EFP.  It is just wonderful and I was lucky to get it.   

[constantine tirint]

Hello.
First you dont have to get another bearing. Just get rid of the seals in that on , they come off very easily, then delubricate them and teflon lubricate them.
A tide pan bearing will make you do error lttle pans while you walk and you ll be try and correct only to pan from other side, very uncomfortable.
Occassionally I work with an adc steady system that a company I work for owns, and has exacly the same problems when you aply camera weight on it.It kind of gets a lot of friction and is a bastard to work.
As for the tilt , is there a presyre bearing in betwenn the yoke and handle apart of the tilt bearing?
It shouldnt be tiden just normal.
Look at the bearing of the pan in the EFP.
What do you see?

[Michele Coser]

The tilt bearing is the only part on the gimbal, I feel a little unsure of at the moment.... 

Charles, i was thinking the same thing....  and if there is some way to "lock" the bolt to the yoke.

[Charles King]

Hello.
First you dont have to get another bearing. Just get rid of the seals in that on , they come off very easily, then delubricate them and teflon lubricate them.
A tide pan bearing will make you do error lttle pans while you walk and you ll be try and correct only to pan from other side, very uncomfortable.
Occassionally I work with an adc steady system that a company I work for owns, and has exacly the same problems when you aply camera weight on it.It kind of gets a lot of friction and is a bastard to work.
As for the tilt , is there a presyre bearing in betwenn the yoke and handle apart of the tilt bearing?
It shouldnt be tiden just normal.
Look at the bearing of the pan in the EFP.
What do you see?

Thanks for the response. Constantine, I do not have the EFP gimbal with me at the moment. Unfortunately. It's being measured to be refitted with a new fork design I have in mind. If I can remember when I saw the tilt bearing, is that, it used a needle bearing and that the bearing was not in the fork but in the bearing ring itself. One of the reasons why it locks up when tighten is that the bolts puts pressure on the actual bearing axel, which gives the bearings resistence. This should not be the case.
When I get the EFP gimbal back I'll have a good look. As for the pan bearing I'll remove it and see if the cap can be removed.

[Jake Danilchik]

Thanks Charles ! Nice review.  

( I removed my post .... hopefully I can repost it with pictures and/or explain it better )

Jake

[Charles King]

hi Jake. Thanks for this long explaination althought I have a slight problem understanding what you real mean I'll try and firgure it out slowly. I get my machinist to take a look at it.

[Brett A. Noe]

I'm not so sure the EFP is the best comparison. When I was at NAB I talked to Jerry Holway for quite awhile. We talked about the EFP training video and he asked if I knew why they had not covered dynamic balancing the EFP system. He then told me they didn't cover it because the EFP would NOT dynamically balance!

To me this indicates a problem with the gimbal. Let the discussion continue!

This new gimbal is quite pretty though!

[Charles King]

I'm not so sure the EFP is the best comparison. When I was at NAB I talked to Jerry Holway for quite awhile. We talked about the EFP training video and he asked if I knew why they had not covered dynamic balancing the EFP system. He then told me they didn't cover it because the EFP would NOT dynamically balance!

To me this indicates a problem with the Gimbal. Let the discussion continue!

This new Gimbal is quite pretty though!

Brett  the dynamics have nothing to do with the Gimbal. They did not cover the Dynamic balance because it simply did not have the means to do so. Remember, you have to have an adjustable monitor bracket, which the EFP did not have. Also, the base had to be adjustable, which the EFP could, but the adjustment present on the EFP was inadequate.

Nice try  The gimbal is pretty but it also has to perform the way it is suppose to. Hope you are well.

[Jake Danilchik]

Charles, Michele, Brett, et al...

I believe that the gimbal clamp on the "Cody/Gordon" gimbal needs to be redesigned such that it doesn't cause an imbalance.   If you look at the picture (below) I highlighted the clamp bolt side of the clamp.  It is very apparent that it is the  one thing that isn't symmetrical.   If anyone that has the Cody gimbal wants to experience why this offset weight is such a hinderance to attaining a dynamic balance just put your gimbal on a 1.5" post with nothing else.  Just the carbon fiber post and get it close to its longest drop time.  No top stage, no bottom stage.. etc.  While you are trying to get a long drop time note that the post always rotates and the clamp bolt is always on the "low" side.   Try to dynamically balance the post such that the post doesn't want to rotate.   You'll never be able to attain a dynamic balance.   it is impossible without a counterweight opposite the bolt side of the gimbal clamp.   Also note that you can rotate the clamp so unless you note and maintain its position with respect to any ( top or bottom stage) counterweights it will throw your setup if you aren't ultra careful.   The solution is to add a counterweight directly opposite the clamp bolt on the clamp itself.     The other option is to redesign the clamp mechanism such that the clamp is perfectly round.   I suggest a LARGE knurrled nut instead of the current clamp.  The threads on the gimbal would have to be tapered ("pipe" threads ) .  Tightening the nut would increase tension creating the same clamping function that the current design achieves.  The tapered ( "pipe" ) threads would have longitudinal slits just as the current design to allow the clamping action ( however  they might have to be narrower slits as it may compromise the threads too much and allow a greater opportunity to strip them?  )

To me this seems to be overlooked and an undervalued problem in this design.    Any thoughts on this ?

cheers,

Jake

[Charles King]

Thanks for the reply Jake. You've made a very valid point. There was a discussion on this issue on the Steadicam forum a while ago which brought out a lot of ideas and one was more towards what you are mentioning now. A smaller refined design of the adjuster mechanism would more or less eliatvate this issue.
But as I said earlier, I have not tested this gimbal on a post yet as well as to see what other issues it may have. Thanks for the input.

[chuck colburn]

My thoughts on the clamping mechanisim would be to cut a bevel (30 to 45 degrees) on the end of the tube and then thread the tube using a coarse pitch like eight or ten threads per inch and slit the tube in three places (120 degrees apart). Do not use a even number of slits as the clamping action will tend to rock back and forth. Make a clamping ring with the mating thread and a bevel on the internal diameter at one end to mate with the one on the tube.  Knurling the outside of the clamping ring will make it easier to tighten and loosen the ring.

Chuck Colburn