New Avalon Linear or second hand Mach 1 GTO

[fluX]

I've been researching mounts the last few months to decide upon a new one as  I feel my skywatcher NEQ6-PRO isn't up to the task.

I have narrowed down my list to an Avalon Linear and a second hand, barely used Astro-physics Mach 1 GTO from 2009.

I want to do narrow band imaging with my 130mm triplet APO which with imaging gear weights about 30lbs. Focal length is 910mm. The camera I use is a ZWO 1600MM Cool.

At the moment I'm clinging towards the Mach 1 as I know A-P is one of the premium mount makers. Though I think the Avalon linear must be great too.

I must point out that I have no experience with premium mounts and that makes it very difficult for me to decide which one will serve me best in the long run. I want to buy a mount that with little fiddling delivers great images. Not only now, but also in the further future when I might tryout different optics too.

I'd be very glad to receive advice on this big and difficult decision. Which points would favor the linear over the mach1 GTO and vice versa?

[Oddsocks]

Are you planning to use the mount from a fixed observatory or will you be mobile?

Premium mounts do suffer failures just as often as mass-market mounts so you also need to consider running costs over the lifetime of the mount. I currently have a five year old Paramount MX in my observatory but in the time I have had it I have had to replace the RA worm assembly, the mount electronics board and the drive belts. The cost of purchasing the parts from the USA and the import taxes into the EU has meant running costs of over a thousand Euro and several months of downtime. The on-going need to subscribe to annual software updates just to continue receiving bug fixes for the SKY-X, needed to operate the Paramount MX, has also added over five hundred Euro in running costs.

For the above reasons, as a European based end-user I would never again consider a mount from a USA based company unless I had an unlimited budget. The Paramount is a very good mount but just costs too much to run.

So, being a USA based manufacturer, the Mach 1 GTO would not be in my short list.

The Avalon Linear is a fine mount, two of my colleagues at my astro club use them, being a European manufacturer the running costs are very low, spare parts are reasonably priced and they don't need complicated software to run so no need to keep subscribing to software updates.

With no direct worm-gear contact it is very difficult to damage the drives during transport and wear over time is negligible with a belt drive system unlike a conventional worm-gear arrangement where the same small section of worm is in constant contact with the gear so suffers high wear rates.

The Avalon Linear is also reasonably easy to transport and manhandle so it suits both mobile and fixed observatory use though the weight is not something I would like to deal with for a mobile set-up these days.

Some flexibilty in the drive belts lend this type of drive system to telescopes of lower moment-of-inertia, so short tube telescopes with the centre of mass close to the drive axis, SCT's, Dall-kirkhams, Maksutov's, short, wide-field refractors etc, and being out of the wind in a sheltered observatory is preferable to being exposed to a gusty breeze, even so my colleagues don't have a bad thing to say about the Avalon Linear.

Inevitably, my Paramount MX will need more spares parts to keep it going and if still an active astronomer I have already decided that at that point I will probably replace it rather than keep pouring money into a black hole, in this case my choice would be a Mesu 200 mount.

If you are in a fixed observatory the Mesu 200 is an excellent mount for imaging, very stiff drive system, no backlash, and the manufacturer is just over the border from you in the Netherlands:

http://www.mesu-optics.nl/home_en.html

The Mesu 200 would never win a beauty contest, unless the judges are all engineering geeks, but it is a brilliant platform for imaging.

Dont forget to consider also how you will integrate the mount into an observatory environment, does the mount use ASCOM drivers that will integrate with observatory control software, does the manufacturer respond quickly to changes to Windows OS that may cause problems? 

So in answer to your question, if I need to be mobile I would choose the Avalon Linear, not the Mach 1 GTO.

If I was in a fixed observatory it would be a Mesu 200 for payloads up to 100Kg, or, the Avalon Linear provided my telescope was not too long and had a payload weight limit not exceeding 20Kg.

 

[Beeko]

The Avalon will have very little in the way of maintenance costs as there are no gears and teeth to regrease or repair every few years. Luciano (manufacturer of the mount) is also extremely approachable and has recently tweaked the mount to address historic concerns about elasticity in wind. I bought mine in February and have done a bit of imaging in 10-15mph winds and - pinpoint stars! The mount is extremely easy to use and is very portable. The stargo software is stable, flexible and works well on an intuitive level. I'm sure the Mach 1 is also a capable mount but why spend on second hand if it'll do an equal job with imaging gear way in excess of your planned imaging scale. In fact, if you are using the ASI 1600, I'd question whether you need this level of mount as most exposures with this camera are only 2-3 mins at they not. Surely achievable with your current gear. 

[RichLD]

16 hours ago, fluX said:

I feel my skywatcher NEQ6-PRO isn't up to the task.

Hi there! Hope you don't mind me asking but what is it about the NEQ6 that doesn't cut it for you? Just curious 

[swag72]

27 minutes ago, Beeko said:

.....Luciano (manufacturer of the mount) is also extremely approachable and has recently tweaked the mount to address historic concerns about elasticity in wind.........

Do you know what has been done to address this? For me this was probably the weakest part of the Avalon, but didn't stop it being a great mount!!

In the OP's situation I would go for a Linear, and I would base that largely on the fact as pointed out already, that anything from the US if spares or bits are needed makes it a very expensive task. The support from Luciano for his products is well known and being in the EU adds another dimension of ease. My Avalon Linear was faultless, it was a joy to use and unless I'd needed more weight capacity it would for sure still be in the observatory. Would I get another? In a heart beat. 

[Beeko]

Hi Sara,

Not sure I can remember the specifics of the conversation - it was face to face at a very busy Astrofest but if memory serves me right, I think it was something to do with the types and thickness of belts being used inside the mount. If I pull on the counterweight shaft of mine quite hard, it'll move slightly and reflex back but I'm talking an extreme tug and nothing that the wind could cause (even in hurricane conditions!!). I'm lead to believe this wasn't the case with older models of the mount. 

[Astrobug]

The mach 1 has a really low price/capacity ratio.

If it is for a mobile use, go for the avalon.

If it is for an observatory, the avalon will do the job and maybe later an ap1100/mesu  while the avalon will be your mobile mount.

From time to time you can find a 2nd hand avalon.

This mount for autoguiding is a real beauty.

[sloz1664]

I had an EQ6 and now have a Avalon Linear. Absolutely no comparison. Avalon every time.

Steve

[Alien_Photons]

Avalon over the Mach 1 for reasons flux gave. 

[ollypenrice]

I agree with everything said about the Avalon and am interested in Oddsocks' experiences with the Paramount. (I just had a guest here whose Paramount has worked for only three months out of three years and has also had two motherboards and a worm gear replaced. He is now unsure how to proceed regarding refund or redress. Having to rent software to cure bugs is outrageous. Is it even legal? However, let's remember that Bisque are not AP.)

For me the Avalon (and especially the EQ6 electronics version) has clear advantages over most other mounts at any price because of the low rates of wear, low levels of maintenance (none?), inexpensive and available spares and very predictable performance. However, mine is elastic and this does cost the odd sub in windy conditions. If I were using a physically shorter tube this would be less of an issue (and it isn't a big issue as it stands.) Mine carries a TEC 140 triplet which is a long tube endling in massive components at each end. There's the triplet up front and the big flattener, CCD and F/W at the other.

If Luciano has increased the stiffness then he really does have the portable mount to beat them all.

I will never like gear driven mounts. I've seen or heard of far too many problems with this arrangement. Hands on, I've struggled with backlash on EQ6, EQ8, 10 Micron, iEQ45, and LX200. My Avalon and Mesu just work. I've arranged to sell the Avalon now and replace it with another Mesu but that is 90% to do with payload (10 inch SCT plus TEC140) and 10% to do with stiffness in the wind. I may live to regret it, of course!

Olly

[Jessun]

All I can add to this, having had no hands on experience with either, is that I wouldn't worry about getting the AP.

I have the 1600 and I have enjoyed superb support directly from AP. (And Baader here in in Europe for that matter). I had a chip upgrade sent with FEDEX at no cost, and a gear box upgrade sent again at no cost.

Any mount from AP since 1998 can be upgraded with their latest GTOCP4 control box allowing for WiFi etc. 

I always refer to my 1600 as the gentle giant. It was never the issue when it came to imaging. Everything else was.

Remember also that it's a modular unit. You will at most send one faulty part back if there is one. Not the whole thing.

One final note is my personal view on wear. I think wear can be dismissed entirely. Let's say you live on the equator and enjoy 12 hours of imaging every day of the year. By one year your mount will have made about 183 revolutions if all you do is tracking, carrying a well balanced load with the resulting forces on your lithium greased gears approximating zero.

OK, start your car, let's say it's a diesel and it will idle at about 1000 rpm. The engine rotates under constant ignition shocks, and in just 11 seconds it has done your 183 annual revolutions. Every minute equates to almost 5 years of mount use...

It's true of course that we don't ask for the same tiny tolerance in our car engine, nor the precision of the revolutions, but that's why we guide or use a sky model. To correct these tiny errors. The sky is often a greater problem than the mount's accuracy.

/Jesper

 

[StuartJPP]

Jesper, I am not familiar with the drive mechanism of the mount you are referring to (GTO1600) but surely there are other parts of the system that rotate at more than 1 revolution per day...Unless this is a direct drive mount running at 1 RPD...

Also slewing can be quite strenuous especially with a large moment.

Though I am not really technical or qualified to answer to be honest...

[ollypenrice]

I like Jessun's point but I also like Stuart's counter to it. We could (but I'm not going to!) calculate the number of revolutions of the pinion (worm) relative the the number of revolutions of the wheel. The worm and wheel will obviously not rotate at the same rate so the worm will wear both faster and differently. Then there is the method for spring loading the worm into the wheel if one is used.

However, I think Jessun is probably right that wear is not the issue with worm and wheel. The issue is getting it right in the first place and here there are plenty of manufacturers with a bad track record. I have never heard of bad worms or wheels from AP, be it said, but eat your hearts out, certain others. Most others?

Olly

[StuartJPP]

Agree with you Olly and Jessun is right that a mount that is used correctly (balanced properly and within payload limits) must have a pretty easy life to be honest.

 

[fluX]

Thanks so much for your very helpful advice everyone.

I'm pretty much convinced about the Avalon Linear.
There's only 1 more thing I'd like to know about it.
Does the Linear have a polar alignment function like the Celestron/Skywatcher All Star Polar Alignment routine?

I'm often imaging from my balcony which has the entire north side blocked from view. Polaris is thus not visible.
For longer exposures I always do a drift alignment after having completed an ASPA routine.
It gives me pretty close alignment and saves me a lot of time.

I checked the Avalon manual, but couldn't find this function.
However they have a PA function with their plate solver "X-solver".
Does anyone have experience with this? Does it work well?
How about in my situation where the whole north is blocked out?
Would it work?

If it does, I will get the Linear
 

[ollypenrice]

17 hours ago, fluX said:

Thanks so much for your very helpful advice everyone.

I'm pretty much convinced about the Avalon Linear.
There's only 1 more thing I'd like to know about it.
Does the Linear have a polar alignment function like the Celestron/Skywatcher All Star Polar Alignment routine?

I'm often imaging from my balcony which has the entire north side blocked from view. Polaris is thus not visible.
For longer exposures I always do a drift alignment after having completed an ASPA routine.
It gives me pretty close alignment and saves me a lot of time.

I checked the Avalon manual, but couldn't find this function.
However they have a PA function with their plate solver "X-solver".
Does anyone have experience with this? Does it work well?
How about in my situation where the whole north is blocked out?
Would it work?

If it does, I will get the Linear
 

I don't know. I would just send an email to Avalon. They are very responsive.

Olly

[Beeko]

Nope, doesn't have aspa. The polar alignment feature on the x-solver is limited. I use a Polemaster which is very easy but of course, you need a north view. Contact Avalon, they'll likely have a solution for you. 

[ollypenrice]

The other option is to get it right once and then have a repeatable installation on the balcony.

Olly

[Jessun]

Yes Stuart, of course there are other parts in a traditional worm and wheel mount that will rotate at a higher rate, but as the torque drops on each part so does the price of that same part. I've had a free gearbox upgrade, but Roland and his team have since developed a new gearbox which I believe is metal all the way. It has other cool features too.

I could buy these units now and have them delivered within a week or so. Being a modular design that lends itself to end user bolt on upgrades I thinks AP can't be discarded from a European perspective.

What is the smallest piece of the Avalon that could be shipped back and replaced by the user? Are they even working on upgrades or just a complete new mount?

I really don't know and I'm also not on the AP payroll. It matters nothing what anyone uses really so long as it all works.

I just wouldn't worry to much about getting an AP. Several are in use on the South Pole... Pretty far away from your average Postman Pat van for replacement parts.

/Jesper

Below is a clip from NEAF 2016 with Dennis De Cicco. Just some new stuff. It's all really good, but I don't need any of it. I just roll out once in a blue moon, setup from scratch, and I'm only subjected to the drift of the clock in the handset. If it's off by a second per month I just have to redo a fix on a star and that's it. The star will be close to the cross hairs anyways. For me, guiding does the rest.

 

[1parsec]

I don't think you will go wrong with either mount, other than if you will be using the Avalon in a portable outfit it will be more sensitivity to wind than the AP.
If it's in an observatory wind will be less of a concern.

AP are now supplying spring loaded gearboxes that maintain full worm contact and eliminate backlash between the worm and wheel. I believe these will be available as an upgrade for earlier Mach1 mounts soon.
My main consideration would be tracking accuracy?  AP guarantee  +-3.5 arc sec before periodic error correction, with correction it should be +-1 arc sec.  What is the tracking error on the Avalon like?  Fast ripple or slow and smooth ?
 

[Astrobug]

The avalon is made for autoguiding (it excels in). When the seeing is good i get +/-0.5 arc sec with PHD2.

With no autoguiding the specs tells +/-  7 arc sec. I only use it with autoguiding, so I cant give my number with not autoguiding.

[swag72]

I agree that the Avalon does need to be auto guided - But it does it so well that you won't even realise it's doing it!!! 

[Beeko]

4 hours ago, 1parsec said:

I don't think you will go wrong with either mount, other than if you will be using the Avalon in a portable outfit it will be more sensitivity to wind than the AP.
If it's in an observatory wind will be less of a concern.
 

Please clarify your experience in using the Avalon mount in windy conditions. Having used mine in recent windy conditions (>15mph plus gusts) the below represents a snap shot of my guide graph. The subs were pin sharp. 

[1parsec]

3 hours ago, Beeko said:

Please clarify your experience in using the Avalon mount in windy conditions. Having used mine in recent windy conditions (>15mph plus gusts) the below represents a snap shot of my guide graph. The subs were pin sharp. 

I don't want to hi-jack flux's thread, but both Olly and Sara mention the 'elasticity' of the Avalon as being a weak point but not a big deal.

[Beeko]

22 hours ago, 1parsec said:

I don't want to hi-jack flux's thread, but both Olly and Sara mention the 'elasticity' of the Avalon as being a weak point but not a big deal.

Olly and Sara have older versions of the mount, not the recently revised model which has had a revision to sort elasticity, hence my guide graph.