North leg of the tripod

[Ad Astra]

Hello folks,

I have a question that relates to my new CGE pro mount.

The design of the thing essentially allows it to be assembled only one way - with the CW shaft and weights centered exactly between two of the tripod legs. When combined with my lower latitude (34-deg), this means the CW mass is sometimes beyond the base of support (the triangle formed by the three legs). Complicating this, my scope is a 133mm f/12 refractor - very long and a bit ungainly - so balance issues are very much on my mind.

Everything I know of mount design says the CW shaft (and the CW masses) should be positioned over one of the tripod legs for maximum stability. My old Vixen SP mount even has one tripod leg marked "North", and the mount forces you to put the CW shaft directly over this leg.

Question:

Should I mod the mount to reposition the CW shaft and mass over one of the tripod legs? This could be easily done in at least three ways, and two of those would cost me nothing. The expensive way would be to have an collar/adapter made to sit between the mount and the tripod to correct the position - this would mean that nothing had to be done physically to the (brand new!) mount.

The cheap way would be to drill 3 new holes in the pier extension (messes up the appearance - but keeps the designed strength of the cast aluminum tripod head). Alternatively, I could drill and tap three new holes in the cast tripod head (no messing with the appearance of the mount - but may compromise the strength of the casting.)

Advice would be appreciated.

Dan

[120ST]

are you sure you have the mount on there correctly?? all the photos i found online show the CW shaft over the North leg. I dont have this mount, so just searched for photos of the mount.

James

[msinclairinork]

I'm with James here it does seem very odd.

I am sure a member with the same mount will set things right.

Michael

[Ad Astra]

Hi Fellows,

Yeah, this was my thinking as well. When you look at the casting on the tripod head, the three places that are drilled and tapped for the bolts are precisely between the legs. When you attach the pier extension (the bit with the electronic in it) the pre-drilled holes force you to put the EQ head on so the CW shaft is also between the legs.

It is the strangest thing I've ever seen! I'll try to post a photo of this oddness later tonight after work.

Dan

[msinclairinork]

Hi Dan,

hmmm....that is a funney design!

I'm at a loss with my limited experance so I sudgest this; Maybe try a new thread but with the title including 'CGE Problems' or somthing. Just to hopfully draw in somone with the same mount?

Good luck mate.

Michael

[steppenwolf]

I can confirm that this was my experience with this mount as well although in operation with an HD1100 SCT on top, I didn't have any stability issues - it is most peculiar though and resulted in much head scratching!

[Ad Astra]

I can confirm that this was my experience with this mount as well although in operation with an HD1100 SCT on top, I didn't have any stability issues - it is most peculiar though and resulted in much head scratching!

Thanks, Steppenwolf!!!

At least I know I'm not going crazy! I also have a CGEM-11 at school, and this scope has the CW "between the legs" as well - and as you say - no stability problems there.

I'm still not comfortable with it for my 1.8 meter long refractor!

They only made 23 of the Apomax f/12's back in the mid-90's, and I could never replace this beauty if it crashed and smashed onto the ground. (I usually observe from a tiled concrete patio!)

I think I'm going to look into an adapter collar to fit between the tripod and the Electronics pier that will allow the pier to be attached 60-degrees off (over the "north" tripod leg!). It shouldn't cost too much to have one made from aluminum stock at a local machine shop - and this way, I don't have to actually drill, tap, or otherwise modify the mount at all.

Dan

[120ST]

i pulled up the user manual for this mount and it shows the CW shaft over the north leg....

look at page 7 of the manual....it specifically calls for the north leg

http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/downloads/1250207279_cgepro11086inst.pdf

what the manual says and what you have could be 2 different things.... if so.... thats really weird

James

[steppenwolf]

I think I'm going to look into an adapter collar to fit between the tripod and the Electronics pier that will allow the pier to be attached 60-degrees off (over the "north" tripod leg!). It shouldn't cost too much to have one made from aluminum stock at a local machine shop - and this way, I don't have to actually drill, tap, or otherwise modify the mount at all.

This sounds like a good way of resolving the problem without having to attack the mount.

Here is an image of the sample I used - you will see that the holes are drilled in a different location to those in the Celestron supplied image:-

[Ad Astra]

i pulled up the user manual for this mount and it shows the CW shaft over the north leg....

look at page 7 of the manual....it specifically calls for the north leg

http://www.celestron.com/c3/images/files/downloads/1250207279_cgepro11086inst.pdf

what the manual says and what you have could be 2 different things.... if so.... thats really weird

James

Exactly, James. The Celestron manual I got with the mount does specifically refer to the "north leg" of the tripod. As in the photo from Steppenwolf, My tripod and mount do not allow you to set up the way the manual describes.

Dan