Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: << 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | >> (show all)
Mkofski
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: Why me? new [Re: ur7x]
      #5411136 - 09/09/12 03:52 AM

Quote:

Quote:


Well. If I had a chane to get a CGEM for what I paid for the LX80, I wouldn't still be waiting on the LX80. I'll keep my CG5 for portability.

I know I wouldn't have had the patience of the early LX80 users but I'm glad thy are still in there pitching!

I'm also glad to see that Ed Thomas is going to get a first hand look at,the innards... Even though it is a new mount, I'd add a Supetune kit if it improved the mount.




If I were you I would watch for a used CGEM in nice condition. 3 of these came up for sale on the Classifieds here for around $1000 last month. Last Spring Celestron was selling them "on sale" for $1200, maybe they will offer a sale next spring too...

When you consider how much pain and annoyance that Neilson has gone through, you have to consider how much that is worth to you. If you get personal enjoyment re-engineering a brand new mount, then go for it. But as I read Neilson's posts his mount is not much better then the CG5 that you already have (maybe not even as good as that old timer). You are likely to end up with two mounts that have very similar capacities.

If you have a second OTA looking for a mount then your purchase might make some sense, or if you are looking for something for terrestrial use... Otherwise I would either wait for Meade to fix this mount or save up for a better "proven" mount.




Ru7x,

I think I'm a day or 2 away from canceling my order and getting a CGEM. I bought a CG5 GT to fill in until the LX80 arrived and like it a lot. It wou
D make some sense to have both mounts using the same software. Heck, I may just stay with it for a while and not get a 2nd mount.

Many of the features of the LX80 appealed to me but I don't have the time or technical expertise to do what many of the other early users are doing.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Why me? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5411449 - 09/09/12 10:44 AM

The submerged reef here is if the drive is having this problem in the equatorial mode, the same loosening will be going on in alt-az. It's likely just taking a little longer to show up, but should be experiencing the same loosening with use. I expect the take offs for GOTO moves will start skipping with use.

Keep an eye out.

-Rich

Edited by Starhawk (09/09/12 11:36 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dmdouglass
professor emeritus


Reged: 12/23/07

Loc: Tempe, AZ
Re: LX80 new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5411485 - 09/09/12 11:22 AM

Greetings to all…

I have lost faith with this mount. I know….. what a shock !

For the past 2-3 months, I have made every effort to try and keep a positive attitude and “keep the faith”… and work with this thing. I really wanted to see it succeed. The original concept was fantastic. The initial observation of the construction was awesome. A very strong looking mount, that “should” perform well, designed and constructed (overseen) by an experienced company who had delivered products that I have enjoyed for years.

It did not take long for all of that to start coming apart at the seams. For some reason, Meade just did not follow through with their original ideas. They cut corners. The cost for them to have stayed true to the original design and concept, in the Meade historical manner of delivering good solid products would have been pennies. Well, maybe a few extra dollars. But the cost for their mistakes, I fear, will be huge.

For me, the final straw was the realization of the impact of the selected worm gears and their design implementation. I don’t think that can be fixed or replaced, at least not without a major re-work. Add to that the apparent DEC motor installation design problem, and the fact the Meade management has reportedly advised users that they are NOT working on the PEC or ENVISAGE problems. And guiding, in general, does not seem to be working as it should, apparently, according to Meade, due in part to the methods they are using to implement tracking.

I was going to be returning my LX80 to Meade on Monday morning, for repair or replacement, due to known and unknown problems, supposedly developed from the collapse of the tripod. Instead, on Saturday, I called OPT, and they agreed to issue an RMA for the return of the Mount and OTA, thus ending my LX80 adventure.

I have elected to go a different route for my portable configuration. Thanks in part to UNCLE ROD’s April 14th, 2012 blog of “A Gem of A GEM” (http://uncle-rods.blogspot.com/2012/04/gem-of-gem.html ), I have purchased a Celestron C6-SGT, which is a CG5-GT, combined with the C6 SCT OTA. This seems to be a proven mount with a very good track record. I look forward to enjoying its use in the field.

Best of luck to the remaining LX80 owners. I really do wish things would have worked out differently.
As my good friend, Steve Coe, likes to say….. Clear skies to us all….


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mkofski
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: Why me? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5411486 - 09/09/12 11:22 AM

Quote:

The submerged reef here is if the drive is having this problem th equatorial mode, the same loosening will be going on in alt-az. It's likely just taking a little longer to show up, but should be experiencing the same loosening with use. I expect the take offs for GOTO moves will start skipping with use.

Keep an eye out.

-Rich




Rich,

I'll watch the thread closely for the next few days. I was mostly interested in the LX80 because of the dual OTA AltAz capabilities with goto. It looked to me initially as if most of the problems were in Polar mode but it is hard to Imagin that, over time, AltAz will not be affected.

I hope that Meade gets this all sorted out and all the LX80 owners are happy in the end. I wound Imagin that a recall of the LX80 would be a lot harder that the LX800's recall due to volume. But, the success of the LX80 would help Meade more due to the volume compared to the LX800.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mkofski
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: LX80 new [Re: dmdouglass]
      #5411493 - 09/09/12 11:27 AM

David,

Thanks for all the work you did for many of us that do not yet have the mount. This has been a perfect example of why it is called the "bleeding" edge.

Best of luck with the CG5 GT!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: LX80 new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5411509 - 09/09/12 11:39 AM

David,

Get some time under the sky an all will be well.

Mike,

Read Neilson's posts carefully. He's touched every part of this. There are a lot of things wrong here.

The genesis of this mount looks like it is going to be a major mystery for amateur astronomy.

In the meantime, it looks like a lot of other vendors have been working on Alt-Az modes for their mounts. Believe it or not, you can request an AP1600 to be set up for Alt-Az operation.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
neilson
professor emeritus


Reged: 08/22/10

Re: Why me? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5411798 - 09/09/12 03:09 PM Attachment (40 downloads)

Hi David,
What you David?, I wouldn't think you would give up. But then I never thought I would either. But I think we are for the same reasons that you just listed. I had read Uncle Rods article also and it impressed me too. I hope you enjoy your new mount. It sounds like a good choice. Thank you for all the help you gave me and everyone else.

Mike,
In alt/az duel scope I really loaded mine up. That spring bouncing did effect it but mostly when you look through the eyepiece. If you touch it then it starts jiggling but my first mount was way loose. My second mount was fine in alt/az duel mode but it still jiggled a little until I tightened the spring. Remember though I had alot of weight. Its rated at 75lbs. I had 30lb 10"ota on one side and 23lb 152mm refractor plus an 11 lb weight on the other. total 64lbs.
It was really neat in that mode I have to admit. But the bouncing was there also, but didnt effect it as bad. But the bouncing was irritating when trying to look through the eyepiece. A lighter load might not have that problem. Despite the irritating bouncing every time I looked through the eyepiece. I have to admit, that was the one time I got to enjoy that mount. Plus it looked so cool with both huge otas mounted. And it did move them with no problem in Duel Alt/az. and with accuracy. This was the main reason I tried so hard to get polar working right. And I'm still sad about it.
neilson here is a picture

Edited by neilson (09/09/12 03:25 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mkofski
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: Why me? new [Re: neilson]
      #5411860 - 09/09/12 03:52 PM Attachment (22 downloads)

Quote:


Mike,
In alt/az duel scope I really loaded mine up. That spring bouncing did effect it but mostly when you look through the eyepiece. If you touch it then it starts jiggling but my first mount was way loose. My second mount was fine in alt/az duel mode but it still jiggled a little until I tightened the spring. Remember though I had alot of weight. Its rated at 75lbs. I had 30lb 10"ota on one side and 23lb 152mm refractor plus an 11 lb weight on the other. total 64lbs.
It was really neat in that mode I have to admit. But the bouncing was there also, but didnt effect it as bad. But the bouncing was irritating when trying to look through the eyepiece. A lighter load might not have that problem. Despite the irritating bouncing every time I looked through the eyepiece. I have to admit, that was the one time I got to enjoy that mount. Plus it looked so cool with both huge otas mounted. And it did move them with no problem in Duel Alt/az. and with accuracy. This was the main reason I tried so hard to get polar working right. And I'm still sad about it.
neilson here is a picture




Neilson,

I know that AltAz worked better than Polar and that is what I wanted primarily. But, I have most of the pieces in place to start some entry level AP. I don't want to cancel my order (I got in at the $799 price) but the mount worries me more and more. I'm not mechanically inept, but don't have the skills to do what you and others have done here. Still haven't decided for sure but I may stay with the CG5 GT (purchased to have a mount until the LX80 arrived) or buy a CGEM. I had a SkyTee 2 mount a while back and loved having 2 scopes available at one time. I got rid of my 10" SCT but still would be putting 25 to 40 pounds on it in AltAz.

I think that the LX80 may be best revisited sometime in the future. Don't know what a complete recall and redo would take on Meades part, but it looks to me as if that is the rout they need to travel. There must be MANY more units out there than LX800's and a recall may be a company killer. Sales on the mount must be headed for zero as the word of all the problems gets out.

I'm rambling because I have lots of mixed feeling right now. Part of my decision will be the price the dealer is willing to give me on a CGEM.

Best of luck with whatever route you take from here!

The dual scopes mounted in AltAz does look cool!

Edited by Mkofski (09/09/12 03:58 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Why me? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5412112 - 09/09/12 07:04 PM

Quote:

There must be MANY more units out there than LX800's and a recall may be a company killer.




I am thinking the same… Initial launches of LX80 & LX800 were a total disaster. Recall or no recall, LX80 doesn't hold much future unless redesigned. LX800 is already being redesigned & tested. Turn around on LX800 may be faster than LX80. LX80 was too cheap (even mechanically) and LX800 was too expensive (although relatively solid mechanically). As most have speculated, LX800 is no comparison for Astro-Physics's Mach1 regardless of equivalent pricing. Best course could be if Meade were to lower prices drastically on LX800 to somewhere in the middle, between LX80’s and LX800’s; that’s a big ‘IF’ on two points, a) if LX800 could be re-released with solid 100% performance b) if Meade could sustain an almost 50% drop in pricing (of LX800 I mean). Middle of the road pricing for LX800 would also pave the way for that intermediate mount offering from Meads that’s missing from their current lineup and may even be a savior of Meade as a company. I see no future for Meade with current state of affairs and it is not a good thing for the astronomy industry.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blueman
Photon Catcher
*****

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: Why me? new [Re: mmalik]
      #5412141 - 09/09/12 07:22 PM

I would seriously doubt they could cut the price by 50% and make a profit.
Blueman
Quote:

Quote:

There must be MANY more units out there than LX800's and a recall may be a company killer.




I am thinking the same… Initial launches of LX80 & LX800 were a total disaster. Recall or no recall, LX80 doesn't hold much future unless recalled and redesigned. LX800 is already being redesigned & tested. Turn around on LX800 may be faster than LX80. LX80 was too cheap (even mechanically) and LX800 was too expensive (although relatively solid mechanically). As most have speculated, LX800 is no comparison for Astro-Physics's Mach1 regardless of equivalent pricing. Best course could be if Meade were to lower prices drastically on LX800 to somewhere in the middle, between LX80’s and LX800’s; that’s a big ‘IF’ on two points, a) if LX800 could be re-released with solid 100% performance b) if Meade could sustain an almost 50% drop in pricing (of LX800 I mean). Middle of the road pricing for LX800 would also pave the way for that intermediate mount offering from Meads that’s missing from their current lineup and may even be a savior of Meade as a company. I see no future for Meade with current state of affairs and it is not a good thing for the astronomy industry.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Stew57
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 05/03/09

Loc: Silsbee Texas
Re: Why me? new [Re: blueman]
      #5412246 - 09/09/12 08:13 PM

They may not be able to make a whole lot of profit at $5000 but there is a lot of quality competition and, guide system or no, I think they will have a hard time up against the EQ8.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
budman1961
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 02/25/11

Loc: Springfield, MO
Re: Why me? new [Re: Stew57]
      #5412663 - 09/10/12 01:29 AM

I have been watching this and the numerous other threads on Meade's LX80, and 800. I believe in my heart that Meade will do the right thing, but in the face of the current performance of their newest offerings, I cant imagine anyone putting their hard-earned cash on loan to them, hoping that they will make good.

To all the folks that have worked so hard to make it right, and in my humble opinion, do Meades beta-testing, a job well done.

I own an LX200 10" Classic, and love it. It saddens me to see them slip so much.

Meade, and all of the beta/field testers of these 2 mounts, I hope you are pleased with your exhaustive testing. To use and internet term, EPIC FAIL. I am somewhat sure that the beta's had no financial commitment to their reviewed products. In other words, quit giving the mounts out to betas that have no real commitment to the program.....you have failed, miserably. Make them pay for them, maybe they wont "rubberstamp" them, and give them a pass.

Why do I post this? Many have accused me of waving the Meade flag way too often...... I too realize that the evidence is overwhelming.

I ask 1 question? Who in their right mind is going to send in the money for an LX600 ???


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter D.
sage
*****

Reged: 02/09/12

Loc: Central New York
Re: Why me? new [Re: budman1961]
      #5412932 - 09/10/12 09:34 AM

Regardless of the outcome of the LX80/LX800 messes, you've still got to give Meade credit for innovation and marketing. To bad they don't appear to have the capacity for follow-thru. I can't afford or justify an LX800, but its innovation in regard to automatic alignment, lock-on and guiding goes far beyond the present state of art; you can't compare it to a Mach1 or anything else.

I have an LX80 on order but I'm cancelling it; its alt/az capacity would have been a bonus, but I needed it to do intermediate-level AP with a 30 lb payload and it clearly isn't up to that in its current state of development. That's probably expecting too much at this price point, but I was hopeful of a breakthrough.

It's been great following this thread despite the depressing outcome; what a saga! My hat's off not only to all the people that have struggled with their mounts, but also to the multitude of commentators that have contributed along the way.

I'm still positive regarding Meade; they have a long history of supporting the vast expansion of our hobby, and they might yet pull through this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tanchistu
member


Reged: 01/04/12

Re: Why me? new [Re: Peter D.]
      #5412946 - 09/10/12 09:47 AM

My LX80 order is canceled now. I don't know how their financial situation looks like, but they will be Chinese owned pretty soon.

I have followed this thread closely, and I too wished this to succeed.

Meade should know that this thread has a lot more impact on the sales than all the Sky & Telescope ads put together. Even if this thread has a relatively small number of contributors, the number of people reading it is a lot bigger. Everyone researches their purchases online these days, and cloudynights is the second search result after meade.com itself.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Why me? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5413056 - 09/10/12 10:51 AM

Mike,

The simultaneous launch of three major products at the same time looked pretty scary in comparison with how small the R&D investment shown on their SEC data was. And it has turned out that was a real problem.

If, if, and if things were different, then things wouldn't be the same. Are these new products going to suddenly reappear in working form? "We'll have to see" is the stock answer. Those ads for star lock are still running. I hope they realize the user community is really going to try out the claimed capabilities.

-Rich

Quote:

Quote:

The submerged reef here is if the drive is having this problem th equatorial mode, the same loosening will be going on in alt-az. It's likely just taking a little longer to show up, but should be experiencing the same loosening with use. I expect the take offs for GOTO moves will start skipping with use.

Keep an eye out.

-Rich




Rich,

I'll watch the thread closely for the next few days. I was mostly interested in the LX80 because of the dual OTA AltAz capabilities with goto. It looked to me initially as if most of the problems were in Polar mode but it is hard to Imagin that, over time, AltAz will not be affected.

I hope that Meade gets this all sorted out and all the LX80 owners are happy in the end. I wound Imagin that a recall of the LX80 would be a lot harder that the LX800's recall due to volume. But, the success of the LX80 would help Meade more due to the volume compared to the LX800.




Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JimMo
I'd Rather Do It Myself


Reged: 01/08/07

Loc: Under the SE Michigan lightdom...
Re: Why me? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5413140 - 09/10/12 11:39 AM

I wonder how many mounts are out there without any problems?

Do I have the only one that works? There is no slop in the RA bearing and polar mode seems to work fine. Not sure if I'd try to image with a 2000mm f/l SCT mounted on it, but I wouldn't try that with my old LX200 classic on a wedge, either, which cost considerably more money 15 years ago. I do think Meade should refigure the max. weight they say the mounts will carry in their advertising.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jmiele
Patron Saint?
*****

Reged: 12/04/10

Re: Why me? new [Re: Peter D.]
      #5413751 - 09/10/12 05:18 PM

"Regardless of the outcome of the LX80/LX800 messes, you've still got to give Meade credit for innovation and marketing."

That's a joke right? They innovated two non working products and marketed them as better than anything on the market. Their only success was in duping trusting astronomers into lending them the money to do it.

Joe


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mkofski
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: Why me? new [Re: JimMo]
      #5413836 - 09/10/12 06:06 PM

Jim,

So, you are a happy camper? I just started another thread to see if I can find other happy users. I know of 1 other one... so that's 2 total.

I want the mount and am willing to take some risk. I guess if I get one of the bad ones, I can send it back and just b3e out some shipping cost and time.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ur7x
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/08/12

Re: Why me? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5413899 - 09/10/12 06:44 PM

You need to define for yourself "some risk"

There are lots of proven mounts at or near the same price as the LX80 that have near zero risk. This mount does not look to be any better than the mount that you already have. You have also stated that you are not all that keen on constantly rebuilding and tweaking a brand new mount.

I think you are about to take on "considerable risk" and an on going maintenance project.

To quote what another told me about 6 months ago,
"This clearly isn't the mount for you."

We can all wish that this mount came through on all of Meade's marketing claims, it is now clear that it does not.

While you take a Consumers Reports like satisfaction poll, make sure you include the size and weight of the OTA that people are happy (or unhappy) with and make sure that the OTA that you plan to use with this mount is smaller/lighter than any of the ones that the "happy" crowd is using.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ur7x
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/08/12

Re: Why me? new [Re: jmiele]
      #5413917 - 09/10/12 06:51 PM

Quote:

"Regardless of the outcome of the LX80/LX800 messes, you've still got to give Meade credit for innovation and marketing."

That's a joke right? They innovated two non working products and marketed them as better than anything on the market. Their only success was in duping trusting astronomers into lending them the money to do it.

Joe




Kinda like saying, you have to hand it to the Titanic, I mean since that ships maiden voyage all Cruse ships subsequent have had at least one space on a life boat per passenger.

Therefore, the Titanic was a huge safety success!

I guess just about anything can be spun in a positive light.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: << 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | >> (show all)


Extra information
16 registered and 39 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 68064

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics