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: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
brokenwave
sage


Reged: 05/10/11

Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5778414 - 04/04/13 07:30 PM

Humm, it is still listed at $999 at OPT. Wishful thinking or do you know something? I hope they are going to re-tool to a LX85 so the AP guiding/tracking issue will be solved.
I still like mine but only up to 15 second exposures have worked for me. And I have locked 2 nuts on the spreader shaft to ensure I don't over tighten the spreader knob too tight to keep the stress off the leg saddles.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
OzAndrewJ
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 11/30/10

Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: brokenwave]
      #5778441 - 04/04/13 07:50 PM

Gday Mike

Quote:

I hope they are going to re-tool to a LX85 so the AP guiding/tracking issue will be solved.




Retooling the mount probably wont help there.
The unit uses the same handbox and commands that are used for all other "497" based Meade scopes, like the LX90s and LTs.
If they guide OK, then this beast should, ( at least in polar ).
The gears themselves, ( even the odd worm profile ) should have absolutely no undue effect on tracking or guiding, they only affect the load carrying capacity and PE.
One thing i have noticed is that with A3S4, they have changed the Aux Bus clocking times for reading the 909 guider lumpette, and they have fundamentally changed how the adjusts are sent to the motors, but the std serial pulseguide commands have not changed.
Sooooo, as long as PEC is turned ON, the basic serial pulseguiding "should" still work. If that doesnt work either, i have to again wonder re the motor card firmware.

Andrew Johansen Melbourne Australia


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Daud
sage


Reged: 08/05/06

Loc: AZ, Scottsdale
Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: brokenwave]
      #5778858 - 04/05/13 12:39 AM

Quote:

Humm, it is still listed at $999 at OPT. Wishful thinking or do you know something? I hope they are going to re-tool to a LX85 so the AP guiding/tracking issue will be solved.




It was there over the weekend, saying something $200 off until 4/10 <?> or until sold out. Might have been OPT clearance of the original supply ?


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

Reged: 10/01/08

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: Daud]
      #5779222 - 04/05/13 09:31 AM

I've found that most, if not all of Meade's Asian foundry work has very high silica content. Hey, sand makes a cheap filler. Problem is that it makes the alloy quite brittle. I found when machining Meade parts carbide cutting tools are quickly dulled. So I use tool steel on them as it can be sharpened. The carbide tooling edges suffer a lot of fracturing and really have to be tossed.

Turn a nice aircraft alloy and you will get long curls of swarf. Turn Meade alloy and all you get are chips.


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

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: Geo.]
      #5779365 - 04/05/13 10:50 AM

On the other hand, the AP Mach 1 weighs about the same and is available off the shelf, right now.

Yes, I know it sounds like one heck of a lot of money. But after many mounts I came to one. It really is like magic one can only stand in disbelief of as you plop it down and it just does things without complaint. And after a few sessions like that, I notices I had stopped spending time thinking about money as I tried to excuse a mounts faults which had just wasted something far more valuable: scarce observing time.

I'm really curious about what comes back. Please post pix.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
frolinmod
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 08/06/10

Loc: Southern California
Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5779401 - 04/05/13 11:09 AM

If you can afford it that's definitely the way to go Rich. Personally I wanted the ALT/AZ mode too, so I picked up a Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ6 GT. Not exactly a Mach 1, but it does okay for outreach events, which is what I use it for.

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

Reged: 12/25/10

Re: LX80 close-out? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5779403 - 04/05/13 11:09 AM

Its probably far cheaper to replace a few failed parts under warrenty that change the design and pay for new molds or tooling etc, you see this all the time with China made products,DA.

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


Reged: 01/08/12

Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: budman1961]
      #5779543 - 04/05/13 12:36 PM

My posts are in the 60+ page LX80 good/bad/ugly "debate" thread. The LX80 had great promise and on paper looked like a stellar design at a home run price... However Meade's implementation of this design has proven to be a little more than "wanting".

I'm happy for the OP that Meade has manned up an is paying for the return shipping. Looks like they are slowly learning what "customer service" and "customer support" means.


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

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: ur7x]
      #5780403 - 04/05/13 07:50 PM

Quote:

I'm happy for the OP that Meade has manned up an is paying for the return shipping. Looks like they are slowly learning what "customer service" and "customer support" means.




Folks (not singling you out ur7x), it is not about return shipping or customer service or any of that. Most of you are missing the point, including OP; what good is a new part of the defective design even it was overnighted free? What became of the sense for the common? Re-released LX850 "may" have some merit (yet TBD...); until LX80 get's the some kind of redesign, not just the defective base but shortcomings like guiding, carrying capacity, stability, etc., it is a lost cause. Thx


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
*****

Reged: 05/07/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: mmalik]
      #5780479 - 04/05/13 08:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:

I'm happy for the OP that Meade has manned up an is paying for the return shipping. Looks like they are slowly learning what "customer service" and "customer support" means.




Folks (not singling you out ur7x), it is not about return shipping or customer service or any of that. Most of you are missing the point, including OP; what good is a new part of the defective design even it was overnighted free? What became of the sense for the common? Re-released LX850 "may" have some merit (yet TBD...); until LX80 get's the some kind of redesign, not just the defective base but shortcomings like guiding, carrying capacity, stability, etc., it is a lost cause. Thx




Most of us probably agree with you, but we're just trying not to be hard on the people that have these mounts and are trying to make the best of a bad situation. That's all.


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

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: EFT]
      #5780507 - 04/05/13 08:55 PM

I for one wish the owners all the best. But I do wish that people who bought the mounts would have gotten together and showed Meade that they were not going to accept these mounts as is.

Meade should have to do more then just replace parts with parts that will likely have the same problems. If people let this happen, then when warranty is over they get off the hook. That leaves the customer holding the bag.

Blueman
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'm happy for the OP that Meade has manned up an is paying for the return shipping. Looks like they are slowly learning what "customer service" and "customer support" means.




Folks (not singling you out ur7x), it is not about return shipping or customer service or any of that. Most of you are missing the point, including OP; what good is a new part of the defective design even it was overnighted free? What became of the sense for the common? Re-released LX850 "may" have some merit (yet TBD...); until LX80 get's the some kind of redesign, not just the defective base but shortcomings like guiding, carrying capacity, stability, etc., it is a lost cause. Thx




Most of us probably agree with you, but we're just trying not to be hard on the people that have these mounts and are trying to make the best of a bad situation. That's all.




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

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: mmalik]
      #5780532 - 04/05/13 09:05 PM

Quote:

Quote:

?..until LX80 get's the some kind of redesign, not just the defective base but shortcomings like guiding, carrying capacity, stability, etc., it is a lost cause. Thx




Mike,

For those of us that don't need 40# capacity and are, at least primarily, visual observers, the only problem I see with the LX80 is the poor quality of the casting that I just had break. I think that that is the 3rd tripod with that problem. I really don't feel that that constitutes a lost cause, just an issue that needs to be addressed.

Celestron's new AVX has had a number of HC problems reported here on CN and I don't think it is a lost cause. Whatever the problem with the AVX is will get straightened out.

I used the LX80 to replace a SkyTeee II and a CG5 and have been happy enough. Meade needs to address the discrepancy between specs and actual performance but it's not a lost cause in my opinion.


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

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5780813 - 04/05/13 10:34 PM

Quote:

I had 2 80mm refractors, a finder and a DSLR on it at the time.




Mike, had you had smashed all your equipment, or God forbid, had you hurt yourself, your take would have been different. I think there comes a time to call things what they are. Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Red Shift
super member


Reged: 11/09/11

Loc: Bloomfield, New Jersey, USA
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5782486 - 04/06/13 07:33 PM

Quote:

Mike,

You are not at fault.

While 70 lbs. is a lot for a human being to move around, it is not a lot for a component this large made from an engineered material to support. It should be able to take several hundred pounds before failure.

There are two problems with this part:

(1) the material is unusually brittle. They really should have something more ductile than this, which would result in bending before breaking. Look for signs of bending before the break happened. I am guessing there are none- it looks like a brittle failure. Common aluminum castings should have much better ductility.

(2) The tray shaped part of the casting is shallow- and irrationally so. See where the bolt standoffs are? It would have been almost exactly the same cost to make a part with the entire rim flange going to that depth, and including webs which attached to those features at the full depth. Even with the inferior material choice, that would have likely yielded a trouble-free part. The sharp interior corners aren't just stress concentrations- they cause casting imperfections due to flow entraining bubbles and rapid cooling at these locations. Another option would have been to use the king of cheap but ductile materials: steel. However, given the way tripods are an off-the-shelf component, there is some reason to ask why the heck Meade would get caught up in designing one, anyway.

-Rich




BRAVO and congratulatins on your insightful comments.
THe folks at Meade should take notice.


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

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Red Shift]
      #5782923 - 04/07/13 12:12 AM

Thank you for,the kind words, Red Shift. It's like we have a design guide for mounts on this forum, now.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
geminijk
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 04/03/08

Loc: TN
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5785012 - 04/07/13 11:08 PM

LX80 owners should get together, sign a petition and send to Meade for a new top plate design that is more robust. I can't imagine what I would feel if the whole rig broke, crashing down and breaking my own scopes as well.

Seems like the marketing folks at Meade ignore the desperate situation their company is in. Frankly, I think its pathetic that a customer should have to pay for shipping of a clearly defective item. Do they seriously want to sit back and run numbers that the chance of a 3rd, 4th, etc failure is worth the risk of further damaging an already fragile opinion of Meades products, and thats not bashing, thats the truth. I want Meade to succeed, PLEASE Meade succeed. But if you sit idly by, and let just ONE CN member post pics of their LX80 on the ground with a failed tripod leg, with their beloved scopes busted as well, you can really count the LX80 out.

Maybe they wake up. Proactively say hey, we have an issue, and get a re-designed top plate, contact registered product owners, and send the plates out free of charge, and offer out of warranty customers the option to purchase it. Now that would be something huh?

John



John


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

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: geminijk]
      #5785102 - 04/08/13 12:10 AM

There's one good thing about the LX80: the counterweights have a 1.125" bore and fit nicely on the Mach1 small shaft (also for the AP600 and 400).

Cheapest weights ever!


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

Reged: 07/19/11

Loc: Greenfield, Indiana, USA
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: orlyandico]
      #5785111 - 04/08/13 12:14 AM

Quote:

There's one good thing about the LX80: the counterweights have a 1.125" bore and fit nicely on the Mach1 small shaft (also for the AP600 and 400).

Cheapest weights ever!




Great! When I throw away my LX80 I can keep the cw for the Mach1 replacement...


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

Reged: 08/10/09

Loc: Singapore
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5785216 - 04/08/13 02:18 AM

That's no joke, with Mach1 9SLCWT weights costing $115 a pop.

Thing is when you buy a Mach1, you still need to buy a saddle, weights, and a pier adapter. Plus tripod. Those other items nickel-and-dime you on a $6350 mount which ends up over $7000.

So saving $230 on two 9lb weights is significant

I also ended up using an old $75 Celestron tripod. Don't use the LX80 tripod though...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jmax
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 09/28/10

Loc: Alabama
Re: LX80 tripod failure (another) new [Re: Mkofski]
      #5785497 - 04/08/13 09:24 AM

I checked my tripod over the weekend, and the only difference I can find is the color. I still hope this means that they are fabricating them in a different facility or with different materials, but I really have no way to know unless and until mine fails. And I obviously don't want that! I will be honest, your picture scares the *BLEEP* out of me. I was going to put the LX80 in my observatory with my C9.25 and 200N, but now I have completely re-evaluated that. There is no way I'm going to leave my two biggest telescopes mounted on the thing unattended. I can just see me opening it up one night to find them crashed to the ground. I think the petition thing is a good idea. There is obviously a structural problem with the tripod plate and Mead needs to recall them and at least replace the top plate. If mine were to crash and damage my scopes, I would definitely be filing suit in small claims court. I think it would be much more prudent for Meade to just fix this known issue rather than risk such problems. If they have done so already, with the different colored plate, they should let everyone know that a black one is good and that a gray one needs replacing.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
8 registered and 29 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: 3509

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics