Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster? The newer mounts come with the larger polar forks. Does this help?

I will mark my patio (while the wife is not around) to get a consistent spot, but it will likely need tweaking each time out.

Also, thought about the ATS pier with the Scope Roller wheels. Wheely bar wheels are too wobbly. Anyone with some experience? The kicker is I have to traverse about 10 feet of aggregate concrete (bumpy) driveway to get to the smooth finished patio.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster?

---

I'm pretty critical when it comes to my gear. I don't find the altitude adjustment a problem. Matter of fact I've never given it a second thought. I don't use the adjustment bar just the large knob. In my experience I have found the AP's altitude knob more comfortable than the G-11. I have also found that the AP's altitude adjustment is rock solid with none of the slop that both of my G-11's had/have.

I should add that I am near 40° north. If you were near 20° then I can see that the altitude adjustment would be tough to get to.

--------------------
Chris

A mount from Illinois
A scope from Japan
A camera from Cal-I-Fornia
A dog from Kentucky
A wife and kids from the "Twilight Zone"

The Geek Shed





Edited by lineman_16735 (10/06/09 04:56 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster?

---

Not at all. I have no problem using the alt knob while looking through the polar scope. The knob hides out between the fork arms but there is plenty of room to grab it and turn it:



I disagree with both of Greg's claims when he says, "The "ultimate critique" of the design is as follows: First, AP had to issue a little lever thingy to help people to the adjustment. Second, AP moved away from the "under" design in the Mach 1 and went Losmandy style."

First, the lever is used to make fine tweaks (longer lever arm, basic physics), not to make using the knob easier. In fact, with the lever in place the knob has only a small range of motion as you can see in the picture.

Second, the alt adjustment knob sticks out on the Mach1GTO not because of any difficulty using the knob in their other mounts, but because the Mach1 is a much smaller mount and there isn't any other place to put the knob. A pic is worth a thousand words:

Mach1GTO

Head on

--------------------
Gus

Tasco 4.5 Reflector EQ Telescope

Edited by Paul G (10/06/09 06:40 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster?

---

Not at all. I have no problem using the alt knob while looking through the polar scope. The knob hides out between the fork arms but there is plenty of room to grab it and turn it:



I disagree with both of Greg's claims when he says, "The "ultimate critique" of the design is as follows: First, AP had to issue a little lever thingy to help people to the adjustment. Second, AP moved away from the "under" design in the Mach 1 and went Losmandy style."

First, the lever is used to make fine tweaks (longer lever arm, basic physics), not to make using the knob easier. In fact, with the lever in place the knob has only a small range of motion as you can see in the picture.

Second, the alt adjustment knob sticks out on the Mach1GTO not because of any difficulty using the knob in their other mounts, but because the Mach1 is a much smaller mount and there isn't any other place to put the knob. A pic is worth a thousand words:

Mach1GTO

Head on

---

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The AP900 is a wonderful mount. Accessing the altitude adjustment from the front is easy. What is hard is accessing it from the rear. In exactly the format shown.

The little lever does help for minor adjustments and has a short range. So you would want to level to minimize the movement of the little lever. The problem is what happens if you want to go the other way. (The picture shows the lever with maximum travel in one direction, not in the other). Then the lever thingie has to be put in the opposite hole. But you don't know which hole to put it in until you look in the polar scope to find out. Now you have to come back around and re-situate the lever thingie. Then you have only so much travel before you need to resituate it again.

I personally find it to be a little lever thingie that is easily lost and I don't use it.

The lever thingie does give leverage and that IS simple physics. And the reason it is *necessary* is that in spite of a *generous* diameter on the handle you can't access it to get adequate torque. It's a deficient design. If the handle were more accessible you'd have plenty of torque and no need for the lever thingie.

By way of contrast the Titan has an easily accessible altitude adjustment for a big mount, but I found the altitude adjustment between latitude settings to be a nightmare. Here I'm discussing range of travel with the adjustment knob. Both AP series and Titan have finite range of travel for a given latitude and allow you to reset the mount higher or lower. The AP design is in my view superior to the Titan on that part, no doubt about it.

I'm just discussing the knob, though. The altitude knob you use if you set and tear the thing down a lot.

I've set my AP900 up dozens of times and this is one of two design deficiencies IMHO. The other one is specific to the
QMD series and not relevant to this discussion.

So let it be understood I consider the mount a treasure. But if you're setting it up each and every time you use it, the altitude adjustment process is a weak link. This is particularly true if you've gotten used to a Mach 1 or G11, both of which are ergonomically best in class if you're trying to adjust altitude *while looking through the polar scope*.

regards
Greg N

--------------------
"Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."

featuring selected astrojunk:

bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster?

---

Not at all. I have no problem using the alt knob while looking through the polar scope. The knob hides out between the fork arms but there is plenty of room to grab it and turn it:



I disagree with both of Greg's claims when he says, "The "ultimate critique" of the design is as follows: First, AP had to issue a little lever thingy to help people to the adjustment. Second, AP moved away from the "under" design in the Mach 1 and went Losmandy style."

First, the lever is used to make fine tweaks (longer lever arm, basic physics), not to make using the knob easier. In fact, with the lever in place the knob has only a small range of motion as you can see in the picture.

Second, the alt adjustment knob sticks out on the Mach1GTO not because of any difficulty using the knob in their other mounts, but because the Mach1 is a much smaller mount and there isn't any other place to put the knob. A pic is worth a thousand words:

Mach1GTO

Head on

---

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The AP900 is a wonderful mount. Accessing the altitude adjustment from the front is easy. What is hard is accessing it from the rear. In exactly the format shown.

The little lever does help for minor adjustments and has a short range. So you would want to level to minimize the movement of the little lever. The problem is what happens if you want to go the other way. (The picture shows the lever with maximum travel in one direction, not in the other). Then the lever thingie has to be put in the opposite hole. But you don't know which hole to put it in until you look in the polar scope to find out. Now you have to come back around and re-situate the lever thingie. Then you have only so much travel before you need to resituate it again.

I personally find it to be a little lever thingie that is easily lost and I don't use it.

The lever thingie does give leverage and that IS simple physics. And the reason it is *necessary* is that in spite of a *generous* diameter on the handle you can't access it to get adequate torque. It's a deficient design. If the handle were more accessible you'd have plenty of torque and no need for the lever thingie.

By way of contrast the Titan has an easily accessible altitude adjustment for a big mount, but I found the altitude adjustment between latitude settings to be a nightmare. Here I'm discussing range of travel with the adjustment knob. Both AP series and Titan have finite range of travel for a given latitude and allow you to reset the mount higher or lower. The AP design is in my view superior to the Titan on that part, no doubt about it.

I'm just discussing the knob, though. The altitude knob you use if you set and tear the thing down a lot.

I've set my AP900 up dozens of times and this is one of two design deficiencies IMHO. The other one is specific to the
QMD series and not relevant to this discussion.

So let it be understood I consider the mount a treasure. But if you're setting it up each and every time you use it, the altitude adjustment process is a weak link. This is particularly true if you've gotten used to a Mach 1 or G11, both of which are ergonomically best in class if you're trying to adjust altitude *while looking through the polar scope*.

regards
Greg N

---

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, my bad for replying to two different posts in one.

I'm not disagreeing with your contention that you have trouble with the knob. If you say you do I'm sure you do. My disagreement is with your insinuation that 1) the lever thingie was designed to compensate for a bad design of the knob; according to the manual it is used for fine alignment. While it can be used to apply more torque it is designed to allow fine movement of the knob. And 2) that AP wised up and changed the knob placement on the Mach 1 because it was better than the placement on their larger mounts. As the photos clearly show, the knob on the Mach 1 can go nowhere else other than to stick out as it is larger than the housing behind it. Same with the G11, no other place for the knob to go.

Everyone is different. I found my G11's alt adjustment to be rough and jumpy, not easy to use. And to answer the previous poster who inquired whether everyone agreed with you that the alt knob is a knuckle buster I would note that in all the years these mounts have been out yours is the first post I've seen with that complaint. However, I can certainly see where a person with huge hands may have an issue with its recessed placement or one with short arms may have trouble reaching around while looking through the polar scope.

Clear skies,

--------------------
Gus

Tasco 4.5 Reflector EQ Telescope

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The key though, is to polar align first before mounting your telescope. When you are adjusting the altitude with 40+ lb's of telescope on top then it is definitely harder to get enough torque to make a major altitude adjustment - but you don't have to do it this way.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I was also looking at the AP Portable Pier and had read a post on the forums that the AP was somewhat more adjustable for leveling than the Parallax product. I called AP and asked about the leveling issue, and was told the best method of leveling was to use wood blocks under the low leg. With that tie-breaker gone and the turnbuckle issue remaining I ended up ordering the Parallax pier.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The key though, is to polar align first before mounting your telescope. When you are adjusting the altitude with 40+ lb's of telescope on top then it is definitely harder to get enough torque to make a major altitude adjustment - but you don't have to do it this way.

---

Good point. The mount's manual says this: "If possible, you should do your rough polar alignment with the R.A. axis only since you will be making major adjustments to position of the mount at this time. The remainder of the mount, telescope and counterweights will add considerable weight and require more hand effort. Later, you will do your final polar alignment with the telescope and counterweights attached, but the adjustments will be comparatively small."

---

This all depends on what we're doing. If you're mounting a five or six inch apo on the AP900 then the idea that you should polar align before mounting the OTA is probably a good one. If you're lifting up a C14 into the saddle the "heave" puts a stress on the mount that certianly affects polar alignment. And it may not be on the mount as such, it might be just depressing the entire rig's feet into the soft grass.

But I perceive another issue here. My hands are not huge, my arms are not short. But I do the altitude adjustment with a C14 and a refractor on top.

It is quite possible that it is less difficult with a lighter rig. My FS128 only weighs 15 lbs.

The other dimension to this is how critical is the alignment. On the FS128 I have a 2.8 degree field so if I jar the mount while putting on the OTA (but the process is intrinsically easier) then the result is not as important.

With the 43 arc minute fov of the C14 I work for every arc minute of pointing accuracy. So the mount gets polar aligned AFTER the scope goes on. So relative to what I'm reading here there are two differences which go not to the mount design but to setup protocol as a funtion of rig. My setup protocol requires polar alignment with the scope on, so I don't jar it when I mount the big tube, and the adjustment procedure is more difficult with about 50 lbs of scope and refractor on board than it is with a lighter rig.

But this is no different from when I had the C14 on the Losmandy G11. Same procedure for the same reason. The G11 is much easier to adjust. And of course with a heavy OTA on board the altitude adjustment will respond readily to up/down changes, not jerky at all.

But I still argue that it's a design imperfection. The mount is a great mount but could be improved in this regard. The placement of the handle prevents one from getting maximum torque for adjusting the altitude of the mount while it is carrying at the upper end of its design spec.

To sum up, I find it easier to polar align the AP900 while it is level. And thems my reasons. And therefore I would want a pier that can be leveled without using wood shims.

regards
Greg N

--------------------
"Aperture will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no aperture."

featuring selected astrojunk:

bunch o' widefield eyepieces
bunch o' narrowfield eyepieces
couple o' Barlows
couple o' scopes
couple o' mounts
couple o' tripods
and a pier 'n' stuff

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have to put in a final thought: the Mach 1 doesn't have the altitude adjustment out front because it is smaller. It was *able* to get smaller because the decision was made to put the altitude adjustment up front Losmandy style. And I suspect that Mach 1 design could be scaled, but I don't pretend to know at what production cost.

regards
Greg N

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You guys are way ahead of me, but I can say that even with the "up front" design of the Mach1, adjusting the mount with 30 pounds of counterweight and a C11 on top is not easy.

I usually put one counterweight on, then finish the alignment before loading the rest of the gear. There is some sag, but it's okay for my purposes. I've never bothered trying to level the pier.

Ron

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I think as a service for the budget conscious.

---

I try to keep telling my wife that I am budget conscious. IMO a great value, but try explaining to the non initiated that there is $7K difference between the G-11 and AP-900

--------------------
Joel

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You guys are way ahead of me...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I try to keep telling my wife that I am budget conscious. IMO a great value, but try explaining to the non initiated that there is $7K difference between the G-11 and AP-900

---

Yup. -- My Mach1 cost as much as all my scopes combined.

But when you get right down to it - that is exactly how my Dad taught me to think. A great mount can make a budget scope look good.

Ron

--------------------
Time spent looking at the stars is added to your life.

Tak FS-128, C925-CF, C6SE, other stray cats and refractors.
A-P Mach1 GTO
Zeiss orthos to Ethos - and some stuff in between.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

No, I did not pursue the Ovision upgrade, but did spend considerable time with feeler gauges trying to get backlash to a minimum while not binding things up (0.016 seemed pretty good).

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, I did not pursue the Ovision upgrade, but did spend considerable time with feeler gauges trying to get backlash to a minimum while not binding things up (0.016 seemed pretty good).

---

I'm lucky to have such toys as consolation for the trials of middle age.

---

I am still on trial, hoping for an aquittal

--------------------
Joel

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Does everyone agree that the altitude adjustment is a knuckle buster? The newer mounts come with the larger polar forks. Does this help?

I will mark my patio (while the wife is not around) to get a consistent spot, but it will likely need tweaking each time out.

Also, thought about the ATS pier with the Scope Roller wheels. Wheely bar wheels are too wobbly. Anyone with some experience? The kicker is I have to traverse about 10 feet of aggregate concrete (bumpy) driveway to get to the smooth finished patio.

---

Post Extras: