Jump to content


Photo

Optic Craft Machining Clock Drive Review

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
108 replies to this topic

#51 opticcraft1

opticcraft1

    Vendor (Optic Craft Machining)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 20 May 2011

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:44 PM

Further comments from Optic Craft Machining Co.

Attached is simple design 2” shaft diameter simple bushing design equatorial mounting using one 6.6” clock drive, wedge and fabricated oak tripod. Max size OTS 10” F/4.5 or 6” f/10 refractor.

All positive operating reports from my customers.

Terry Clinard Optic Craft Machining Co.

Attached Files


 

#52 opticcraft1

opticcraft1

    Vendor (Optic Craft Machining)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 20 May 2011

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:50 PM

Last comments from Optic Craft Machining Co.

Attached is an example of one of the many 2.5” head assemblies we have constructed over the years. This particular assembly is installed at a local University here in Michigan. It uses 2.5” SS shafts, a 12” RA drive , a 9” DEC drive, wedge and AWR GO-TO system. The OTA is a Celestron C-14.

Runs perfectly.

Terry Clinard Optic Craft Machining Co.

Attached Files


 

#53 ahopp

ahopp

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 May 2012

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:57 PM

Terry,

You say that your issue with Dr. Hays was an anomaly. If so, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I would recommend that you bend over backwards to satisfy him.

I own my own business and would never let it get this far. As long as you believe that what he showed us was in fact what you delivered then you should pony up and get this resolved.

If, however, Dr. Hays did not show what you delivered, shame on him.

Tony
 

#54 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5792
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 31 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

Do you believe that Mr. Hayes worm, as received and photographed, is a good representation of your work?
 

#55 dawsonian2000

dawsonian2000

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Riverview, FL, USA

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

Good recommendations, Tony. I guess I am as guity as others in judging OC before getting the story from Terry's side. I hold off on removing OC site from my site until we all can come to an honest consensus on the matter.

I will be awaiting "the rest of the story"...


Mel
 

#56 rdandrea

rdandrea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Colorado, USA DM59ra

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

You can probably make this right with the customer. You should.
 

#57 Jay_Bird

Jay_Bird

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2006
  • Loc: USA

Posted 31 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

I'm glad to see that OC responded to the "OP" and hope that the two of them take the opportunity to come to terms to resolve this.

Even after all these posts, they are the ONLY TWO who are fully informed about the matter, and fully invested in the outcome.
 

#58 Gert K A

Gert K A

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 31 January 2013 - 06:41 PM

Terry Clinard Optic Craft Machining Co. :

During the construction of his order I was going through a bad case of the flu and should not have been working.

I agree :imawake:
 

#59 ahopp

ahopp

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 24 May 2012

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:32 PM

Terry,

One more point, please do not work around machinery while sick. No one wants you to get injured to meet some self imposed, or otherwise, deadline. Be safe, be good and and nip this thing in the bud...

Tony
 

#60 iceblaze

iceblaze

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2011
  • Loc: 33.9° N, 118.4° W Lawndale, CA

Posted 31 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

This thread is now re-opened. You will notice that almost nothing has changed. We believe that both parties need to be heard here, so long as everyone can play nice. This means we expect constructive, respectful posts, and not vendor bashing. We will also not tolerate any vendor pushing as both of these are direct violations of our ToS. So please, everyone play nice, and if Dr. Hayes and Opticraft wish to work this out publicly, in a respectful manner, then we have no problems with it.

Thanks,

-James
 

#61 smallscopefanLeo

smallscopefanLeo

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:51 PM

Hi Terry, I don't know you but I am happy to see that you defended yourself in a smart fashion here with stunning photos of some projects, which so many posters on this board here can only dream about. Don't listen to the haters. None of them have made things that have been used to success by NASA or University departments. I can't believe that our own astro community would defame and cannibalize each other like this. Glad to see the vendor bashing moderated. It is one thing to have a grievance about service and quality, quite another to drag someone right through the mud, I am not referring to the OP, but to some of the bandwagon jumper-on-ers. It is almost like they want to attempt to destroy this man's business, just sad to read. Doubt it will affect him though, doing work for JPL (I just read that.. crikey). I wish you continued success and good business to you sir as we need more men like you in our society who build things, rather than the so many out there who just seem to want to tear other people and their work down.
 

#62 cheapersleeper

cheapersleeper

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3198
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Sachse TX

Posted 01 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

Would not this all have been avoided had a dissatisfied customers concerns been dealt with?

B
 

#63 PhaedrusUpshaw

PhaedrusUpshaw

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Southwestern Indiana

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:04 PM

This thread is now re-opened. You will notice that almost nothing has changed. We believe that both parties need to be heard here, so long as everyone can play nice. This means we expect constructive, respectful posts, and not vendor bashing. We will also not tolerate any vendor pushing as both of these are direct violations of our ToS. So please, everyone play nice, and if Dr. Hayes and Opticraft wish to work this out publicly, and in a respectful manner, then we have no problems with it.

Thanks,

-James


Good call James, flame wars suck...
 

#64 Old Rookie

Old Rookie

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 462
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2008
  • Loc: North Central Ohio

Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:39 PM

I've really enjoyed reading these comments. I especially enjoyed looking at the photos provided by Optic Craft. They appear to be well done. I wonder why the OP received equipment from Optic Craft that looked such as it did? Why is the quality that Optic Craft talks about not evident? Does the large customer receive a better quality instrument than the smaller customer? Is Optic Craft really proud of what they sent out? Did they send it out thinking that the OP would be glad just to have it? Did Optic Craft not recognize that it was a piece of ****? If they did, why did they send it out in the first place? Just wondering!!
 

#65 Chemisttree

Chemisttree

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2008
  • Loc: San Antonio, TX

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

Request that this thread be moved to the vendor forum. Should this matter ever have been presented as an article?

My 2c, worth every penny too.
 

#66 andysea

andysea

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

I am a little confused or perhaps I am missing the point. How are all those crednentials and nice pictures going to make the delivered drive and documented emails any better?.
 

#67 smallscopefanLeo

smallscopefanLeo

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

Request that this thread be moved to the vendor forum. Should this matter ever have been presented as an article?

My 2c, worth every penny too.


I feel that is was in poor taste to present this as an article. There are some legitimate issues raised in my mind, but at the same time many of the complaints had to do with cosmetics which don't appear as though they would have any bearing on the functionality of the product. It is one thing to warn others of a bad experience, but quite another to go out of one's way to make somebody look as bad as can possibly be. There are numerous sides to every story. And for those who might wonder, I have zero connection to this company, and only recall coming across a reference or two to them on here over the years. My only clock drive is a NexStar GT goto mount. I don't really care what the parts inside look like, so long as it works. Sorry but I just have little patience for this sort of behavior online where others are trashed. It is like bullying.
 

#68 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5792
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:45 PM

Request that this thread be moved to the vendor forum. Should this matter ever have been presented as an article?

My 2c, worth every penny too.


I feel that is was in poor taste to present this as an article. There are some legitimate issues raised in my mind, and at the same time many of the complaints had to do with cosmetics which don't appear as though they would have any bearing on the functionality of the product. It is one thing to warn others of a bad experience, but quite another to go out of one's way to make somebody look as bad as can possibly be. There are numerous sides to every story. And for those who might wonder, I have zero connection to this company, and only recall coming across a reference or two to them on here over the years. My only computerized clock drive is a NexStar GT. I don't really care what the parts inside look like, so long as it works.


I saw the cosmetics as a small problem. The worm being crooked and the quality of the spur gear, are the major issues. Look at the spur, would that even work? It wouldn't for imaging. As others have said, if the tolerance on a single bolt hole was off, that would be enough justification to reject the part; as you would expect NASA or JPL to do. The problems here are numerous and obvious.

If a machine shop provides custom machining to spec, the the custom work is their product. I don't see a better place to review them, then in CN's review section.
 

#69 smallscopefanLeo

smallscopefanLeo

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 335
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

Fair enough, I am content with agreeing to disagree on the proper place for this discussion, while I agree with you that some of the machining there does look sloppy. In the article the author notes that:

"He did eventually offer to exchange the spur gear if I would return the unit to him and pay all shipping. At that point, I refused to pay him anything - for shipping or anything else - and I gave up dealing with him."

It looks like there was a bit of back and forth, and like the manufacturer was being stubborn perhaps. Speculation on my part that perhaps I best not venture into. Maybe if the author pushed a bit more he could have gotten a refund, or not have to pay shipping on the exchange, but I agree fully that a buyer should not have to do that in today's economy. Still not a good enough excuse for smearing someone's reputation online in my mind, a growing problem these days. Many of us here are emboldened by our relative anonymity (not referring to the reviewer of course but myself and the rest of us armchair star commandos), and I am no exception to that. I try to be mostly meek but am open to being put in check should I overstep my bounds.

I am 100% for open and honest discussion. But not defamation of a character or business based on one example here. Since this is already in the process of being aired out, let's hear from all sides involved. I don't have a horse in the race, I just care about what is overall fair. I would be very hurt personally to be talked about this way if I felt that I didn't have it coming to me.
 

#70 andysea

andysea

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2010
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

I disagree. It appears they the design wasn't executed as per the construction documents.
 

#71 okieav8r

okieav8r

    I'd rather be flying!

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4187
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Oklahoma!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:36 PM

I don't feel that the OP did anything inappropriate with regard to writing an article about his experience with the vendor. Apparently, neither did Cloudy Nights. If I am not mistaken, articles are submitted and then vetted by CN before they are posted.

Both parties have had their say, and those who have read this thread can make up their own minds.
 

#72 jhayes_tucson

jhayes_tucson

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Bend, OR

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:04 PM

I’m glad to see Mr. Clinard’s respond; however, I want to clarify that there is no “misunderstanding” between us. Mr. Clinard accepted an order for a drive with custom specifications. The unit delivered did not meet the specifications we agreed to or my expectations based on his representation of his capabilities and what he promised to deliver. My review was not of any work that Mr. Clinard did for NASA/Godard, Roger Angel, AWR Technology Systems, or any other piece of equipment shown in the pictures that he has uploaded to this forum. My review was vey specific to the product that he delivered and all of the photographs accurately show the condition of the product as it came out of the box. My comments in the review are virtually the same ones that I made directly to him when I received the product and I’ve told you how he responded. I’ve moved on and the sole intent of my review was to provide a community service with some well-documented information about a product and a vendor. The community at large is better off if we share these kinds of experiences--both good and bad. I don’t have any hidden agenda. I gave Mr. Clinard ample opportunity to resolve this issue and he didn't take it so I originally had no intent of trying to get it resolved here. However, Mr. Clinard has privately contacted me to discuss how we might re-open our discussion. So, for now, I’ll take my discussion with him offline and if he wants to do the right thing, I will be the first to come back here to congratulate him publicly.

- John
 

#73 iceblaze

iceblaze

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2011
  • Loc: 33.9° N, 118.4° W Lawndale, CA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 08:11 PM

Hello John,

Glad to hear you guys are working it out offline, and that he has come back to the table :waytogo:.

-James
 

#74 rogercelliott

rogercelliott

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Redding, CA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:17 AM

I bought my OCM drives (Both RA and Dec) back in 1991 and I was quite pleased with their accuracy - especially the RA drive which tracked with very little need to for correction. Sorry to see and hear that he made a bad drive.

Cheers
Roger
 

#75 psi_chemie

psi_chemie

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 01 May 2011
  • Loc: Leawood, KS, USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 09:35 AM

Wow Terry it looks like you make a ton of cool stuff. I hope to get into this business someday. This is a great lesson for me. I hope you get it worked out because in my honest opinion, the part did not appear to meet spec, seems like people were having bad days and a personality clash prevented this from being resolved easily.

Thank you everyone for posting this is a valuable learning experience, hope it ends with no hard feelings.

Kind Regards
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics