Horseman L/LX - F/R standards question

[Deleted member 88956]

Are the front and rear standards exactly the same on these Horseman monorails? Meaning either one can be used at either end? They look like it, but am not 100% sure.

Also while on it, do the locks wear out over time with use? Given configuration of a single point pivot arrangement, do they remain tight or problems develop with heavy use?

 

[wiltw]

I have original Horseman price list, and Horseman did differentiate Front standard from Rear standard, with different part numbers for front vs rear, for LB standards and for LS standards and for LX standards, and for LX-C standards.

I have an LS and, like you, I do not perceive a difference between the two.

I have no input regarding durability of locks...I have had no issues. And Horseman price list did not offer new locks as standard parts (no information about locks as Service parts).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I have original Horseman price list, and Horseman did differentiate Front standard from Rear standard, with different part numbers for front vs rear, for LB standards and for LS standards and for LX standards, and for LX-C standards.

I have no input regarding durability of locks...I have had no issues. And Horseman price list did not offer new locks as standard parts (no information about locks as Service parts).

Let me expand on my question in this case. Perhaps there is a reason why they differentiated, reasons not important to my application as I want to get one, but then split it and use each standard separately on it's own. Both look identical in how they adjust and provide own movements in all directions/film back. Is each side of each standard built same, so say lens board can be mounted where ground glass is and vice versa? Which would tell me they are identical enough for me..

 

[wiltw]

Let me expand on my question in this case. Perhaps there is a reason why they differentiated, reasons not important to my application as I want to get one, but then split it and Weeach standard separately on it's own. Both look identical in how they adjust and provide own movements in all directions/film back. Is each side of each standard built same, so say lens board can be mounted where ground glass is and vice versa? Which would tell me they are identical enough for me..

The Horseman standards are assymmetric, but are mirrors of each other, so as to allow the minimum distance between standards.
The range of motions are identical. So it seems possible to use two 'front' standards, at the detriment to the minimum distance between standards, but vertical flipping of one of the two standards would restore the minimum distance.
The only thing that I can see with using 'front' as rear, and using 'rear' as front, is that the dial for computation of minimum f/stop for min distance vs. max distance for a shot is in the 'wrong place'...DOF f/stop computation scale is valueless when used on the wrong standard.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Thanks. I'm looking at a cheap, somewhat beat up L with messed up bellows, but standards in fully functional state. I'm looking at using one for a wide angle fixed set up with lens on helical mount and the other for pinhole concoction in similar fashion. Given wide range of inherent movements on each standard, it seems quite useful to reframe a shot after tripod is set up. So part of my question, about overall rigidity of locks, was for ascertaining my expectations, given the beat up state, so not all that well taken care of, camera.

 

[wiltw]

Horseman L series use disc-type brakes, so highly unlikely they 'wear out'