Both mounts are about the same size mechanically. The extra weight comes from the following:

The Mach2 is heavier, in part, because it uses a pair of high power servo-stepper motors with belt drive that weigh more than the much smaller DC servo motors used on the Mach1. Using the belt drive servos reduced the slewing noise that some people objected to, and also saved cost that was then used to partly offset the added cost of the two encoders.

The Mach2 added an extra set of bearings in the clutch system to allow users to balance their scopes without having to back off the gear teeth. Backing off the gear teeth can be problematic if users ignore the safe way to do this (only in park3 position!!!), and our experience is that a number of people wrecked their worm gear teeth doing it wrong, and we ended up having to replace costly parts. I don't want to repeat that in a small mount.

The Mach2 extended the main shafts all the way to the back where the encoders are, and this stiffened the mount significantly and eliminated shaft runout. It allowed the mount to be rated for a higher payload without being larger in size.

The Mach2 added internal wiring which added some extra parts on top of the Dec axis, thus incrementally increasing weight.

The Mach2 has a much beefier low end that adds stability in windy conditions and allows larger and longer refractors to be used with less settling time compared to the Mach1. This also increased weight.

The Mach2 has the gearboxes enclosed in rigid covers that protect the critical parts during transport and rough handling. I felt that this was very important for a mount that would be thrown into a car trunk and transported to a weekend observing site. It makes the Mach2 more robust versus the more delicate Mach1. Are most people really careful with their equipment? Yes, but we have seen quite a few mounts that were not so carefully handled and had their gears mashed and parts bent.

The difference in weight is about 9 lb between the two. Can we do something about that - maybe, maybe not.

The Mach2 is for serious imagers who want to get the best possible result from their imaging equipment and not have the mount be a limitation. If your skies allow it, the mount will deliver the tracking accuracy that you need to realize the best resolution of your telescope and camera.

Rolando

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Tan <ktanhs@...>
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Apr 29, 2021 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small AP Mount Ideas

No I mean Mach1. The Mach2 is a great mount but on the heavy side. 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 01:48, John Chakel <jachakel@...> wrote:

You mean a Mach 2?

--
Roland Christen
Astro-Physics

You mean a Mach 2?

All AP would really have to do is just bring back the Mach 1. No design work necessary, tools exist.   As has been previously said by George, it's all about manufacturing capacity at AP. They seem very busy, and as we know, folks wait a long time for AP products.  In the meantime, I had the RST-135 out last night with the Stowaway. What a wonderful machine and great experience.  In alt-az mode, I zeroed in on 100 double stars with a 4.5 Delos eyepiece in very short order.  That little telescope was crying out for more magnification!   Cheers.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:59 PM <alan.dang@...> wrote:

If we are going to do fantasy-football type scenarios, I think reasonable strategies would be to do a collaboration with 

Takahashi
- EM-11 with AP electronics/software

AP doesn’t have to invest in manufacturing a small mount and gets the closest thing to an AP400.

Takahashi doesn’t even have official ASCOM support even with the Temma3.  They need software help.

Win-win.  The EM-11 and EM-200 really do not compete with any of the current AP mounts.  Risk is that an EM200 with AP secret sauce cannibalizes the Mach2 line, so it might have to be limited to the EM-11.

Vixen 
Starbook Ten for GTOCPO4
APCC/APPM for Starbook Ten

Starbook Ten is a very nice controller for visual astronomy and portability.  Its database won’t disappear if the battery runs out.  They have software to handle relative encoders already.  Would be a nice upgrade to the Mach2 for visual astronomers.

The current SXD2 and SXP2 are lighter than a Mach2.  Maybe AP can get acceptable portable performance with support for APCC/APMM and adding a factory PEC.  It’s further away from the Mach2 so there is zero chance of cannibalism and AP gets to offer two options for the hand controller on their premium line.

Unitec
The SWAT-350 V-spec is a really good ultra light mount and can be combined as a pair to provide GEM capabilities.  There is no good software support so AP could tweak CPOGT4 to support this setup if there was a way to increase the drive speed (it’s limited to 2x sidereal right now)
https://reflexions.jp/tenref/astro/equipment/mount/9283/

Clearly would not cannabilize the current AP mounts but may involve a lot more effort than the other two options. 

If we are going to do fantasy-football type scenarios, I think reasonable strategies would be to do a collaboration with 

Takahashi
- EM-11 with AP electronics/software

AP doesn’t have to invest in manufacturing a small mount and gets the closest thing to an AP400.

Takahashi doesn’t even have official ASCOM support even with the Temma3.  They need software help.

Win-win.  The EM-11 and EM-200 really do not compete with any of the current AP mounts.  Risk is that an EM200 with AP secret sauce cannibalizes the Mach2 line, so it might have to be limited to the EM-11.

Vixen 
Starbook Ten for GTOCPO4
APCC/APPM for Starbook Ten

Starbook Ten is a very nice controller for visual astronomy and portability.  Its database won’t disappear if the battery runs out.  They have software to handle relative encoders already.  Would be a nice upgrade to the Mach2 for visual astronomers.

The current SXD2 and SXP2 are lighter than a Mach2.  Maybe AP can get acceptable portable performance with support for APCC/APMM and adding a factory PEC.  It’s further away from the Mach2 so there is zero chance of cannibalism and AP gets to offer two options for the hand controller on their premium line.

Unitec
The SWAT-350 V-spec is a really good ultra light mount and can be combined as a pair to provide GEM capabilities.  There is no good software support so AP could tweak CPOGT4 to support this setup if there was a way to increase the drive speed (it’s limited to 2x sidereal right now)
https://reflexions.jp/tenref/astro/equipment/mount/9283/

Clearly would not cannabilize the current AP mounts but may involve a lot more effort than the other two options. 

The G-11 isn't much lighter than the Mach1. And the Losmandy worm block + motor designs are better these days than days past, but still crap.

The GM-8 combined with their Gemini-II isn't a bad solution for a portable mount and is better than all of the far-East stuff. Still nothing like a Mach1. And nothing like the Rainbow Astro mounts for portability. 

"My advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson

Observatory Engineer

Summit Kinetics

Waikoloa, Hawaii

Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:48 AM Raymond Lillard <rlillard@...> wrote:

I am on the wait list for a Mach2, but from recent communication with
AP, it will be at least a year before my name comes up.  My concern with
the Mach2 is the weight.  I have a Mach1 which I can muscle around when
mobile and shooting with one of my big guns.  When my name comes up I
will need to think very carefully about its weight.

I also have an iOptron CEM25EC and a good collection of Nikon camera
lenses, the longest focal length is 300mm.  It is good enough to shoot 5
minute subs @300mm with the ASI2600MC.  The stars are just barely oval
at 7 minutes.  This is UNGUIDED with a very precise polar alignment.

I'll omit the details of the mechanical modifications I had to make to
get good polar alignment.  Take my word for it, the machining is
embarrassingly bad and I say the same about the software. I does work,
not because of, but in-spite of...

I said all of that to make a point that I would love to have an similar
offering from AP.  I don't think it would not need to retail for more
than $5k-ish as the tolerances for such wide-field work need not be as
tight as for AP's big mounts.

What about the crazy idea of AP working with Losmandy to put encoders on
a G11 ?  I'd buy one right now.  I'd even help with the firmware
development for free.  I am a semi-retired (sometimes just tired)
engineer who has managed many development projects and written miles of
code to control similar things.

I'm not sure how the Gemini thing would work in this scenario. Maybe it
goes away, maybe not.  A joint effort would not burden AP's overloaded
factory and Losmandy would not need to build a software team.

I too like the feature that the Mach1 and the G11 axes can be separated.

I should have warned everyone at the top that I never know where my
stream-of-consciousness posts will go when I get wound up.

--
Ray


On 4/27/21 4:06 PM, W Hilmo wrote:
> Certainly, if you don't separate the AP1100 axes, it's bigger and heavier than the Mach2.  I do separate them, though, for packing and transport.  The bin in which I carry it would need to be much larger if I didn't separate them.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm no stranger to using big mounts as "portable" mounts.  I take my AP1600 into the field at least once per year, for Oregon Star Party.  Occasionally, I take it to another event or two, but mostly I use the AP1100 as my portable imaging mount.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jeffc
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:09 PM
> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small AP Mount Ideas
>
>
>
>> On Apr 27, 2021, at 1:13 PM, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:
>>
>> and I don't think that it's any more portable than my AP1100, since
>> the axes don't separate.
>
> Fwiw… I transport the 1100 (non AE version) with the axis mated.
> It is easier/faster to setup this way given the Dec cable.    The removable Dec/saddle plate is nice because then the whole mount fits in a decent size tub with the Dec plate + 16” saddle removed.
>
> I’m finding the Mach2 definitely takes up less space in the vehicle than the 1100.   The weight of the Mach2 (the part I need to carry off the tripod) is a tad bit less than the 1100 Ra+Dec.
> But yes the Mach2 is surprisingly heavy.
>
> Just another perspective: I prefer the Mach2 over the 1100 since the biggest OTA I’m using is a 12” ACF SCT.   The Mach2 seems to carry it no problem.   (Of course the 1100 I own is non-AE ; this also biases me to the Mach2.)
>
> And for “portable” work , I don’t think I need the 1100 capacity (no observatory here until we move to a different location.)
>
> Background: I acquired the 1100 to “downsize” from a 1200.  Note: I still have the 1200 — it is a bit dated, but is also “portable” and imo a very nice mount.
> I signed up for the “Mach 1 replacement” and was also surprised by the Mach2 size when I saw it at AIC.   Now that I’m using the Mach2 for a bit I’m not at all disappointed by the larger size.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I’m not sure why but somehow I found myself looking at the 2013 NEAF review of some Astro-physics mounts and software. I was blown away by the description of the APCC control of the mount. Is there a YouTube video or something else that explains how you set up and use the APCC control?

JimP 

Get Outlook for iOS

I am on the wait list for a Mach2, but from recent communication with
AP, it will be at least a year before my name comes up.  My concern with
the Mach2 is the weight.  I have a Mach1 which I can muscle around when
mobile and shooting with one of my big guns.  When my name comes up I
will need to think very carefully about its weight.

I also have an iOptron CEM25EC and a good collection of Nikon camera
lenses, the longest focal length is 300mm.  It is good enough to shoot 5
minute subs @300mm with the ASI2600MC.  The stars are just barely oval
at 7 minutes.  This is UNGUIDED with a very precise polar alignment.

I'll omit the details of the mechanical modifications I had to make to
get good polar alignment.  Take my word for it, the machining is
embarrassingly bad and I say the same about the software. I does work,
not because of, but in-spite of...

I said all of that to make a point that I would love to have an similar
offering from AP.  I don't think it would not need to retail for more
than $5k-ish as the tolerances for such wide-field work need not be as
tight as for AP's big mounts.

What about the crazy idea of AP working with Losmandy to put encoders on
a G11 ?  I'd buy one right now.  I'd even help with the firmware
development for free.  I am a semi-retired (sometimes just tired)
engineer who has managed many development projects and written miles of
code to control similar things.

I'm not sure how the Gemini thing would work in this scenario. Maybe it
goes away, maybe not.  A joint effort would not burden AP's overloaded
factory and Losmandy would not need to build a software team.

I too like the feature that the Mach1 and the G11 axes can be separated.

I should have warned everyone at the top that I never know where my
stream-of-consciousness posts will go when I get wound up.

--
Ray


On 4/27/21 4:06 PM, W Hilmo wrote:
> Certainly, if you don't separate the AP1100 axes, it's bigger and heavier than the Mach2.  I do separate them, though, for packing and transport.  The bin in which I carry it would need to be much larger if I didn't separate them.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm no stranger to using big mounts as "portable" mounts.  I take my AP1600 into the field at least once per year, for Oregon Star Party.  Occasionally, I take it to another event or two, but mostly I use the AP1100 as my portable imaging mount.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of Jeffc
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:09 PM
> To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Small AP Mount Ideas
>
>
>
>> On Apr 27, 2021, at 1:13 PM, W Hilmo <y.groups@...> wrote:
>>
>> and I don't think that it's any more portable than my AP1100, since
>> the axes don't separate.
>
> Fwiw… I transport the 1100 (non AE version) with the axis mated.
> It is easier/faster to setup this way given the Dec cable.    The removable Dec/saddle plate is nice because then the whole mount fits in a decent size tub with the Dec plate + 16” saddle removed.
>
> I’m finding the Mach2 definitely takes up less space in the vehicle than the 1100.   The weight of the Mach2 (the part I need to carry off the tripod) is a tad bit less than the 1100 Ra+Dec.
> But yes the Mach2 is surprisingly heavy.
>
> Just another perspective: I prefer the Mach2 over the 1100 since the biggest OTA I’m using is a 12” ACF SCT.   The Mach2 seems to carry it no problem.   (Of course the 1100 I own is non-AE ; this also biases me to the Mach2.)
>
> And for “portable” work , I don’t think I need the 1100 capacity (no observatory here until we move to a different location.)
>
> Background: I acquired the 1100 to “downsize” from a 1200.  Note: I still have the 1200 — it is a bit dated, but is also “portable” and imo a very nice mount.
> I signed up for the “Mach 1 replacement” and was also surprised by the Mach2 size when I saw it at AIC.   Now that I’m using the Mach2 for a bit I’m not at all disappointed by the larger size.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>