Wimberley Mk2, thread stripped!

Messages
835
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Went to put my Wimberley Mk2 onto my tripod the other day and noticed that it wouldn't attach due to the thread inside the head being stripped!

Have gone back to my supplier who has said that they would fit an upgraded stainless steel original part but would charge me labour (£54) to fit it even though this is still within the 5yr warranty.

Obviously I'm glad it didn't go with all my kit attached as that could have been quite costly but I'm quite concerned that a bit of kit at this quality level has failed like this within warranty and to me, upgrading from an aluminium thread to a stainless steel one does seem to acknowledge that there might have been a design fault there to start with.

Has anyone here had this happen to them? Is it right to charge for a repair under warranty? Would appreciate your thoughts!
 
Is the 3/8" stud on your tripod long enough (or extended far enough) to have sufficient penetration into the head casting? A short stud will put put quite a lot of stress on the aluminium threads.....there's advice and warning about this on the instruction sheet that came with the head. Mine's about 8 years old now and the threads still seem fine.

Bob
 
I'm boggled. You'd think that something this expensive would be fitted with a thread insert. The cost is insignificant.

I'm not surprised it stripped. Not using inserts on threads that will be repeatedly tightened is poor engineering practice.
 
Repeated tightening shouldn't strip a thread but it only takes one overtightening to do so. The warranty would cover the parts IF there was a manufacturing fault but cannot be expected to cover ham fistedness, I'm afraid.
 
Hi Bob, hadn't thought of that, looking at it there's definately room for a longer stud to fit in which would make sense but that would need Gitzo to make a new plate I guess? It's used on a 5562GTS tripod (Gitzos do seem to be the default choice for this head) and a GM5541 monopod so should be ok on those I'd hope!

Now that this has happened, I agree that it does seem like poor engineering practice (or 'not fit for purpose') as opposed to a manufacturing fault, especially considering the value of kit that normally goes on it! As the kind of person who takes great care of their kit I don't think I would describe this as ham fistedness as my other head (a manfrotto 405) is older, has been removed and attached a lot more often, just as tightly and shows no sign of wear.
 
Hi Bob, hadn't thought of that, looking at it there's definately room for a longer stud to fit in which would make sense but that would need Gitzo to make a new plate I guess?
Maybe Gitzo have changed the design over the years but my big Gitzo simply has a 3/8" hex bolt screwed up through the centre plate...there's about 11-12mm protruding to mount the Wimberley onto it. The bolt on my Gitzo monopod has considerably less thread available (7-8mm).

Bob
 
There's an increased risk of cross-threading due to the centroid of mass being offset. Getting this squarely aligned every time you come to attach it to the tripod is going to introduce some wear in the initial thread form. In time, this will increase the likelihood of cross-threading and subsequently stripping the thread.

The Wimberley gimbal is a fine piece of hardware without doubt. It would be so very much better if a helical insert were included as standard.

@Unlocker, I wouldn't worry too much about the length of the stud once the insert's in place.
 
If you're having a helicoil fitted it may be worth asking whoever is going to do it whether they are going to use a free running or screw locking insert. A screw locking insert is more suited to something that is going to be assembled and disassembled frequently. It also needs to be done very accurately or the base of your head won't sit down flush on your tripod plate.

Having a stainless insert installed from new is going to increase the cost. A helicoil insert wouldn't be installed so it would have to be an oversize insert that is pinned or staked to avoid the risk of rotation caused by the torque that can be applied by the design of the gimbal head. Perhaps not massive cost given how expensive they are in the first place but an extra manufacturing process.
 
Last edited:
There's an increased risk of cross-threading due to the centroid of mass being offset. Getting this squarely aligned every time you come to attach it to the tripod is going to introduce some wear in the initial thread form. In time, this will increase the likelihood of cross-threading and subsequently stripping the thread.

The Wimberley gimbal is a fine piece of hardware without doubt. It would be so very much better if a helical insert were included as standard.

@Unlocker, I wouldn't worry too much about the length of the stud once the insert's in place.

Agree. I think this counts as a design flaw - surprising given the cost and disappointing that they want £54 to fix it within the warranty period. It's going to happen sooner or later if the gimbal is regularly taken on and off. That could add up to hundreds of times over a few years, and you only have to get it wrong once to do the damage.

Personally, I avoid this. In the past, I have purchased extra tripod platforms or centre-column (short ones) and my various heads are screwed down securely and then locked with the grub-screws underneath. To change heads, you just slide the whole centre-column out. I have now changed this and have Arca-Swiss clamps and plates permanently attached to the tripod and head. I can now swap all my various heads between different tripods very easily and securely in a couple of seconds.
 
Last edited:
If you're having a helix oil fitted it may be worth asking whoever is going to do it whether they are going to use a free running or screw locking insert. A screw locking insert is more suited to something that is going to be assembled and disassembled frequently. It also needs to be done very accurately or the base of your head won't sit down flush on your tripod plate.

Having a stainless insert installed from new is going to increase the cost. A helicoil insert wouldn't be installed so it would have to be an oversize insert that is pinned or staked to avoid the risk of rotation caused by the torque that can be applied by the design of the gimbal head. Perhaps not massive cost given how expensive they are in the first place but an extra manufacturing process.

Absolutely agreed with regards a screw locking insert to be used in preference to a free running insert. Installation is straightforward but you need to know what you're doing. They're not the easiest of things to remove if you get it wrong.

Inserts are big business (eg. aerospace). There are a multitude of different types from different manufacturers (Helicoil, make 3 or 4 different types). And the tools required to fit some of them aren't what you'd call cheap either!

I'm sure the supplier of the gimbal will have been advised as to the correct form of insert to use. I'd be happy knowing they'd be liable for any subsequent damage had the wrong type of insert been used.
 
Update.

After pushing them they finally, begrudgingly, agreed to repair under warranty. Took 13 days.

However, I'm not impressed with the repair and it has come back with a different serial number! At the moment I don't think I can trust it anymore so contacted Wimberley direct for some advice.

View attachment 42774

If anyone has any technical experience with this kind of thing, I'd love to hear what you've got to say!
 
If anyone has any technical experience with this kind of thing, I'd love to hear what you've got to say!

Looks OK from what I can make out. Does it feel nice and tight when it's screwed into the tripod? The fact that it's recessed is a good thing and the exposed aluminium just the threadform that the insert screws into. There look to be sufficient threads in the insert. The marks on the paintwork look to be cosmetic (and might have been there prior to the modification).

The key thing to look out for is the insert working its way out. It shouldn't happen if the jobs been done properly.

I'd be more miffed at seemingly getting someone else's gimble back! Probably worth checking the small print with regards the repair. Check that it doesn't specifically state that they reserve the right to replace your property with something of similar or better quality.
 
I use a thread insert in one of my Gimbals and looking at yours it looks like they have used Loctite thread locker red this is a permanent lock so I don't think you need worry it really is tough .

Rob.
 
Thanks for all your help and comments, it's helped a lot and I do have more trust in putting my kit on it now!

Looks OK from what I can make out. Does it feel nice and tight when it's screwed into the tripod? .

Now that I've had a chance to try it, it does feel perfectly fine, hopefully a shoot over the weekend will help me forget about the issues!

I use a thread insert in one of my Gimbals and looking at yours it looks like they have used Loctite thread locker red this is a permanent lock so I don't think you need worry it really is tough.

Looks like you're spot on there, from an email reply from Wimberley:

'We have begun to modify all our existing production panning spools with new inserts. Future production will see these inserts in every Wimberley Head. The panning spool you received was not reused, or refurbished. It was brand new, and it incorporates a threaded insert that was itself threaded and permanently glued into the panning spool with an aerospace quality adhesive. All panning spools are serial numbered in production prior to shipment. This is true whether the panning spool is sent as a repair part or used in a new Wimberley Head.'

For a product of such expensive value and importance to take the supplier 13days to agree to repair it is very poor, as its under warranty they should have took it straight back to fix straight away.

The repair itself took 13 days from sending to receiving which is poor as they were trying to persuade me to pay for the repair rather than send it to the US as it would take 2 weeks!

IT, is probably a different item to the one you sent in. Worth asking them I'd have thought.

Having taken many pictures of the head before it was sent away, in case of any issues, it definately is the same one. The different serial number issue was explained by Wimberley (see above). Would have been nice to have some paper work explaining the serial number change though, would avoid all problems that arise by not doing it and at the same time show what their doing to help resolve the issue.

Hopefully it's all good now and I hope I don't get any more issues! With this new insert going into all new heads as well, hopefully no one will see their kit fall off their tripod in the future!

Should this change in anyway, I'll let you know!

Regards

Danny.
 
Back
Top