SkyWatcher HEQ5 - NEQ6 payload downgrade.

[ecuador]

Have you noticed that SkyWatcher has recently downgraded the payload capacity of the HEQ5 and EQ6/NEQ6? They've been around for over a decade and the HEQ5 has always been listed as a "15kg visual payload" mount (which from my experience seems accurate if I compare it with payloads of Celestrons, iOptrons etc - everybody exaggerates a little, especially for "visual"), while the EQ6 was usually listed as "18kg imaging / 25kg visual". When the AZ-EQ5 and AZ-EQ6 were introduced, they were listed at the same capacities as the HEQ5 and EQ6 respectively. A while ago I had compiled a neat little comparison table and charts for the various goto mounts on the market and I was surprised that someone commented recently that I was favoring Skywatcher mounts by listing them higher than their rated capacity. I opened the skywatcher website to discover that their HEQ5 is now listed at 13.7kg, the EQ6 at 18.2kg, while the AZ-EQ5 is still at 15kg and the AZ-EQ6 at 20kg. As far as I know, the old mounts were not changed, so the only possible explanation I can give is that the SkyWatcher marketing dept. had a hand in this, wanting to give some extra reason for people to shell out more for the newer mounts - justify the increased cost in any case, and as the new AZ's can't actually take heavier loads than the old mounts, they simply had to downgrade the latter. Which is a bit ridiculous, the HEQ5 is now rated less than the Celestron Advanced VX and the iOptron iEQ30, which would be pretty disappointing for the 10kg mount head if it was true.

Thoughts? I didn't see it discussed in another thread, but sorry if I missed it.

[Sevo]

I really don't know how these guys calculate the payload. My NEQ6-pro have 3 enormous ballbearings on each axis, that can pull a truck. But it was claimed that this mount shoul handle 20kg.

I think that marketing takes majority of these numbers

[ecuador]

On 10/9/2016 at 18:08, Sevo said:

I really don't know how these guys calculate the payload. My NEQ6-pro have 3 enormous ballbearings on each axis, that can pull a truck. But it was claimed that this mount shoul handle 20kg.

I think that marketing takes majority of these numbers

My point is that they even downgraded it suddenly. Now your NEQ6 pro can only lift 18kg! The 20kg is reserved to the AZ-EQ6 (which I've seen only once, but it did not look more sturdy - perhaps even less).

[Sevo]

Yeah...someone from the SWmarketing has to be fired:)

[si@nite]

The payload for the neq6 is understated  i.m.o., pier mounting & good balance of the ota is more critical thoe, especially when imaging with higher payloads!

[neil phillips]

Wonder what I am at with 4 weights a 300p camera and barlow on the NEQ6

[si@nite]

Pushing the limits for sure Neil  but just shows how good these mounts are even when on the edge, as you,ve said in the past a game changer!

[ecuador]

2 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Wonder what I am at with 4 weights a 300p camera and barlow on the NEQ6

Yeah, I know. I guess now that it's official you should downgrade to a 250p, the NEQ6 can't lift that anymore

But seriously, my question is can the AZ-EQ6 lift the same weight successfully? They now advertise it as a greater capacity mount.

[spaceboy]

Funny you should mention this. I had the opportunity to buy an AZ6 some time ago but due to already having an EQ6 and there would be no overall gain in payload capacity I withdrew from the sale. In hindsight I wish I'd had the mount for the AZ dual scope capability but none the less it goes to show the thinking behind a potential customer. SW has no doubt snagged on to this and have decided to make the AZ6 look more favourable in more ways than one over the EQ6. Payload is after all what makes a mount more desirable allowing for future scope upgrades or imaging. If you can get a mount offering the same payload for less money then of course most are going to go with the cheaper alternative.

TBH though I have found many discrepancies with details on SW site in the past. This was mostly to do with weights of scopes and what scopes upgrade focusers would fit but I believe all those details have now gone or been amended with the site update that happened a couple years ago.

I'm sure SW reserve the right to edit payloads as they see fit and it has no true representation to what mounts are truly capable of. They are a business at the end of the day trying to make money and if it means bending the truth with out actually implying a mount is capable of more than it is, they are going to do it if it's going to make them money. By downgrading the capacity on the EQ6 they are allowing the AZ6 to shine which I feel is an amazing sales ploy. They are not technically misleading anyone as the EQ6 is capable of more than they care to show so in fact those who choose to purchase the EQ6 are going to be pleasantly surprised with it's performance. Does put an undue strain on those wishing to sell their used EQ6 mounts though

[neil phillips]

At risk of sidetracking for a second. I have always gone against the wisdom. Mainly through not being able to afford what I would have preferred to have had  

Hows this for breaking spec rules. I attached my old Meade legs from a 7" Mak I had.  To a Vixen GP mount. It had a bolt holding it on. But no side to side stabilizing. it could slip sideways. So I got a old skipping rope and tied it very tightly around the mount preventing it from moving sideways lol. It was either this or the Vixen GP wooden legs. This was actually better. I got great images with both the wooden tripod, and the Mixen mount ( meade and vixen ) But thought you guys Could get a laugh from this  Don't show skywatcher or they might just put DO WHAT YOU LIKE under payload