Hi Keith,

Good question, I too was thinking about that last week.

The trade off is you can use a smaller weight farther out - let's say near
the end of the bar. In some mounts, with thinner counterweight bars, that
introduces flex. Not sure whether that does any harm on an AP, which has a
very thick bar, and doesn't even turn as most mounts do, according to Roland's
recent comment here.

However, let me introduce another novel idea. I saw a photo of Terry
Dickinson (editor Sky News magazine), on the current RASC Toronto Centre
webpage, with his AP1200. I noticed that on his, the "heavier" counterweight
is almost at the end of the bar, while a "smaller" weight is ABOVE it. I
wondered, and asked him, whether that was a photo op error, or if there was a
good reason for that configuration - all scopes that I have ever seen have the
usual smaller, "adjusting weight", at the bottom. Terry said there was no
particular reason, just two different weights.

If you think about it, however, lets say I have an AP900, for which there
is only the standard AP's 18 lb and 10 lb. weights. Placing the small weight
at the bottom, there would be little room to slide it up or down, to
compensate as you add more equipment to the scope, or rebalance the RA every
time there is a meridian flip. But, if you place it above the larger weight,
with the latter near the bottom, then the smaller weight is not only easier
for your to lift, up and down the shaft, but you have a greater range of
travel with it, if needed for a variety of different OTA equipment changes.
This could also apply to your AP1200 situation, just like Terry's mount.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it sure seems like a nice new
way of stacking the weights. What do you think?

Joe