I never saw your orignal post. Maybe I missed it, or maybe it never came through. Anyway, while I've repaired a lot of things in my life, a Rolleiflex isn't one of them. Hopefully someone else can help you out. Cheers, Thor On 17. okt. 2013, at 10:12, Brett Rogers wrote: > "Greetings List Members, I have recently worked out how to join and post to > the > list after perusing the archives over a couple of years in search of Rollei > repair lore. I am the owner of several Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes based in > Australia. I've mostly been using my 2.8C Xenotar lately but have loved using > my Rolleicord V & Va models and have several projects awaiting my time, > including a 2.8D Xenotar and Rolleicord Va and V. > > I'd appreciate some input please, on the topic of what the Rollei Repair > Manual > refers to as "glide pieces". AKA as the fibre cam followers that are located > between the focus cams and the U bracket supporting the lens carrier. Ie. > those > pads at the front side of the focus cams. > > I should add, at this point, that I've been successful in persuading several > Rolleicords back to life as regular users with great results on film over > several years. The last one I tackled was a Rolleicord Vb with wear in the > focus system, that required resetting of the parallelism between the film > rails > and the lens board. I found this to be a fiddly exercise, and had to > fabricate > a number of shims to achieve correct alignment, but got it right in the end > (a > measured 0.03mm across the corners, within the factory spec of 0.05mm). So I > am > not a total newbie when it comes to Rollei repairs, but like all of us, am > always learning, or trying to. > > Back to those pesky glide pieces. Those who have performed their own repairs > will be aware that these are > often found in worn condition depending on how much use and care an > example has had. It seems, from my observations of various Rolleis, that > procuring good used pairs of these from a donor camera is problematic > because they're often in less than ideal condition for re-use. Have > members been able to procure new replacements of these crucial parts used in > a > number of the later Rolleicord and Rolleiflex models? > > I have enormous respect for the quality of Franke & Heideckes design and > manufacturing skills, so I do not wish to second guess or to improve on their > designs. However, in the absence of good used glide pieces to replace worn > originals, I find myself wondering if other materials may be substituted > successfully in place of the original parts, in order to keep these cameras > working well into the future. I've been considering fabricating replacement > glide pieces from, for instance, nylon, as a substitute for fibre. Do any of > you have any experience trying this? > > Secondly, I've found the differences and similarities between the Rolleicord > and Rolleiflex focus mechanisms interesting and have a question about this. > When I corrected the focus alignment of the Rolleicord Vb, one of the issues > was some wear in the focus rails. The consequence of this was that the first > initial movement of the focus knob would not to translate to immediate > extension of the lens board. A small amount of side thrust (Ie. up and down > motion as viewed from the side of the camera body) would be induced by the > sliding motion of the cams across the "glide pieces"), which had to be > absorbed > before the lenses would extend to sub-infinity focus settings. I'm sure many > of > us are familiar with the "rocking" action from the top and bottom of the lens > carrier, that this wear will encourage. > > I found correcting the side play between the lens carrier and the rails of > the > Vb quite straightforward. The Rolleicords (at least the later ones) feature a > simple wedge adjuster on either side, below the rail. I was able to quite > satisfactorily correct the clearance to the necessary minimum by using the > position of the wedges to eliminate excess play. However the Rolleiflex does > not, as far as I can see, have a similar adjuster. Whilst the two guide posts > fitted to the Rolleiflex would appear to offer superior axial alignment > across > the full focus range of the lenses compared to the Rolleicord mechanism, > excessive clearance between the focus rails, the lens carriage and the camera > body still work against immediate, simultaneous travel of each side of the > carriage, when the focus knob is actuated. So adjustment is still necessary. > Presumably replacement of worn focus rails would be one solution; once again, > the issue of procuring usable replacement parts arises. The play is, as seems > often to be the case, most evident at and just off the infinity position, and > is less apparent at closer focus distances. It's likely that the deft use of > a > small hammer and punch to the rearward part of the rails would have the > desired > result of eliminating said excess clearance. However if there is a better, > factory sanctioned method of adjusting this wear, I would be pleased to know > what that is. > > I should add the current repair patient is a Type one Tele Rolleiflex, and > that, doubtless, the strain of transporting those two 135mm lenses has > aggravated the wear typically suffered by 80mm or 75mm Rolleiflex models. > Replacement of the glide pieces is not optional as the wind side (why is it > *always* the wind side?) one has collapsed. The focus side of the lens > carrier > would therefore"lead" the wind side by at least a millimetre off of infinity, > so it simply has to be dealt with. > > If no sensible alternative solutions are suggested, I'll likely fabricate > some > new glide pieces out of a substitute material and see how that goes, but all > input gratefully received. My apologies for such a lengthy first post. > Best, > Brett Rogers" > ----------------------------------------- > > > The silence has been deafening. Was it something I said? Or some other faux > pa? > > I had thought the members of this list included members willing and able to > conduct some repairs themeselves. Richard Knoppow and Todd Belcher are a > couple who come to mind. I would have regarded my original post as "on topic" > so the absence of replies puzzles me. Or does nobody have any words of wisdom > to proffer? --- > Rollei List > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' > in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org > > - Online, searchable archives are available at > //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list > --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list