I was playing with the exposure calculator (SkyTools3 pro)last night after plugging in the numbers for the Veloce RH 200. Of interest was the tool has an SNR sort of bent and you can compare exposure times and expected signal to noise ratio, how many subs of a given length or how many subs of a different (shorter or longer) length to get to say an expected SNR of 50 (which going by their numbers usually results in a great image.
Sticking with 20 minute sub exposures, I see I can get to an expected SNR of 50 with about a third as many sub exposure using the f/3 scope as I can using the f/5.3 scope.
In the case of NGC1499 the California nebula to get to ~SNR 50 using my FSQ85 at f/5.3 would take about 18 exposures at 20 minutes.
Using the Veloce 200 at f.3 requires about 6 exposures at 20 minutes.
The tool is extremely versatile in ways (takes airmass into account and other atm), here is a screen clip of the RH 200 stat's...
I'm hoping this thread can help explain to a newcomer to this part of the hobby why the 'need for speed' and the rise of 'astrographs'.