TheSkySearchers

I found this spreadsheet a while back, can't remember where so I can't cite it, but it is publicly accessible info.

Anyway, here's the spreadsheet. I can't claim it's 100% accurate but it's close because I just spent an hour on it trying to get the info updated and correct.

Go here:

Cheers,
JT

Handy reference, thanks JT!

another vote of thanks from me as well. The last time I did this it was years ago and so many mounts have come out in the meantime.

then we have the alt-az mounts, AOSwiss with their AYO mount is one left out.

Hrm handy reference but it looks a tad conservative! 37 lbs on a CGX-L ? Heck my OTA alone weighs mort than that!

Hi Tom,

That's the 50% payload capacity number, not the max capacity number. Look to the left of that number.

Cheers,
JT

Initial reviews on the CGX-L claim that the 75 lb load is the astrophotography load. I personally don't have enough equipment to reach that weight. So, I can't personally verify the claim. However, I have seen a C14 mounted on the CGX carry out some impressive images at 60 seconds. The CGX is rated for about 55 lbs. The C14 weighs 45 lbs. That's well over half the rated capacity of the CGX.

Overall, I think that this is an excellent spreadsheet.
Thanks JT.

Thanks JT. Interesting.

It uses manufacturer specs only. As such it rates the iEQ45 above the EM-200. Having used both mounts, the EM-200 out of the box is much much more rigid and stable than the iEQ45. The iEQ45 tripod is not up to the job. I have not assessed the iEQ45 on a rigid pier.

Joe

The AP1600 is 220lbs per my manual. But, even with a 17 CDK riding on top(not my OTA yet), it isn't laboring.
My MX+ is rated at 100lbs imaging
My previous Mach1 could easily handle my C14, STL6303/FW8/AOX as well even though it wasn't rated for it, rated for 45lbs but I was over by a bit but did 30 min subs all the time

Joe

I see they posted the wrong weight for the Vixen AXD as well, it is 30kg (66lb) photographic load not maximum capacity.

From the manual: Photographic loading weight- 30 kg (Maximum torque load): 750 kg/cm at a point of 25cm from the place where the R.A and Dec axes cross.

That is from the Vixen Optics website and I have no idea why he has it listed as such.
My SXP has a 33lb photographic load, the sentence I posted is straight out of the AXD manual.
Vixen mounts are normally listed by photographic weight instead of maximum capacity.

Wow, isn't that confusing. The manufacturer contradicts himself. I'll put a note in the spreadsheet about it being the photographic max payload.

Cheers,
JT

So this is interesting which is why I just called the Vixen US office in Cali, unfortunately, no one answered. After doing some more research, only the Japan Vixen site lists the max payload as a "photographic" max payload. The US and UK websites list the 66lbs as merely the max (no photographic) payload. To me, this says the info on the Japan site is outvoted by the info on the US and UK sites. I'll still keep the note in the spreadsheet though.

The updated spreadsheet is in the first post of this thread.

JT

Well if you really want to scratch your head take a look at the SXP2 advertisement and the website (VixenOptics.com)

On the website it says the capacity is 22.6kg (50lb), in the manual is says: Maximum Payload- 16kg (35.2 lb), (400kg•cm torque load = About 16kg at a point of 25cm from the fulcrum)
The tech specs and manual are both from the american site.

Now I have the SXP and I can tell you from experience the actual maximum capacity is around 23kg (50lb)
Now my manual for the SXP (purchased in Canada) says the Photographic Payload weight is 17.6kg (39lb) and I regularly put a 17kg load on it and it is rock steady with no issues tracking or strain on the motors.
I have been viewing before and tapping the telescope tube and it hardly vibrates, you would have to hit it quite hard to get it to shake.

I forgot to say that it is a nice collection of load data regardless of some of vendor ratings differences. I just try to get a load rating high enough so I have room for expansion. I just know that with my first AP Mach1 that AP said they are rather conservative on the load ratings because a 14" SCT will have less load inertia over a heavy long refractor.
That's sort of why I bought an AP1600 for the high load rating over my AP1100, well also I did get the Renishaw encoders to experience all the hub bub on doing unguided imaging but hindsight I wouldn't of bought them because OAG is easy with my current setup.

I remember my CGEM-DX fiasco, selected the DX over the standard CGEM based on the extra load rating but I could never get it dialed in even with a 8" AstroTech RC.(Dec cogging issue) while my astro buddy with his CGEM was actually getting some imaging in while I was talking bad to my mount.

Heck, I used to load up my old CG5 substantially over the limit but it worked rather well, just needed to get the balance on the money.


As mentioned, I know it will make a difference if you put a nice mount on a poorly made tripod.


CS,

Joe

Thanks, JayTee! This makes everything a little easier.
Mike M.

The Losmandy G11 is listed in the spreadsheet as having 30 lbs. AP capacity. The Losmandy website says it's 60 lbs. for AP, which I believe because I use mine with a 48 lbs. Newt astrograph plus a few pounds of Paracorr 2, ASI2600MC, OAG and autofocuser totaling over 50 something lbs. It appears to be working fine so I go with the 60 lbs. number. It's why I bought it. So I take that spreadsheet with a grain of salt.