First Impressions of GSO 12" R/C Truss

[Bassnut (Fred)]

What makes a R/C telescope different to a TV?, really!, you must have your head in the sand !!!!!!!.

TV development is in the 100s of millions, and sales can get in the billions of units. Vast money is spent making them work perfectly out of the box.

How many RC telescopes are sold, 1000s?. Its a low volume niche market aimed at knowlegable users. The GSO 12" RC is just insane value for money. An RC perfect out of the box can cost more (of the same AP can be far more!) than 10 times the GSO!!! (eg RCOS).

So, you, being a chap of some nous, knows the market, is aware of what costs what and what you get for a given stack of bucks, would surely have realised the GSO might require a bit of tweaking. What did you expect, really, for a 10th of the price!!!.

As always, due diligence and buyer beware. With a bit of work, you have an excellent product (for the PRICE) which will serve you well, you complain too much, considering.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

What makes a R/C telescope different to a TV?, really!, you must have your head in the sand !!!!!!!.

TV development is in the 100s of millions, and sales can get in the billions of units. Vast money is spent making them work perfectly out of the box.

How many RC telescopes are sold, 1000s?. Its a low volume niche market aimed at knowlegable users. The GSO 12" RC is just insane value for money. An RC perfect out of the box can cost more (of the same AP can be far more!) than 10 times the GSO!!! (eg RCOS).

So, you, being a chap of some nous, knows the market, is aware of what costs what and what you get for a given stack of bucks, would surely have realised the GSO might require a bit of tweaking. What did you expect, really, for a 10th of the price!!!.

As always, due diligence and buyer beware. With a bit of work, you have an excellent product (for the PRICE) which will serve you well, you complain too much, considering.

That's your opinion Fred, others have different, and valid viewpoints. To each their own. By the way, The Trade Practices Act will agree with my stance 100%. That sort of invalidates your viewpoint I might add. The unit would be deemed unfit for sale.

Yes, the GSO RC's seem great value. But - when nearly 100% of purchases of the 12" unit have had issues, that tells me that it's a major QC and design issue. If it was only a few percent having issues, I could understand your point of view. But not when it's nearly the entire production run with issues.

Dave

[Bassnut (Fred)]

OK then. Your in the market for a very specialsed low volume niche product, just released , you do due diligence of course, its not a trivial amount of money, and you notice I suppose if what you say is correct, that 100% of users have issues. You decide that despite these issues, its an insane deal and you take a RISK (thats what buying something with 100% user feedback with "issues" is) expecting to have a bit of trouble that you may have to sort yourself.

If you dont do due diligence, dont see a red flag on something seemingly too cheap to be true (with a 100% "issue" rating), have expectations of perfect out of the box at a 10th of the price, then sir, you most definitely will be disappointed.

[gregbradley]

Yes good point David, these guys are doing illegal things in selling units not fit for purpose.

Sometimes it takes pressure to get compliance and make them try harder and get over their slackness.

A classic example recently was Nikon in the USA. They put out the defective D600 which was plagued with dust and oil spots on the sensor requiring constant cleans. They did nothing about it. They eventually released a D610 with a redesigned mirror box/shutter to handle it.

They were threatened with a class action suit. They suddenly offered a free replacement for D600 owners even if out of warranty. They never acknowledged the problem officially. Slack as. Cost them a lot of goodwill.

Greg.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Oh please Greg, millions of D600s are make for the generic plug and play consumer market, not remotely similar.

If every defect in a cutting edge specialised niche (especially low cost) product was threatened with a class action, their would be no inovation at all !!!.

If you were willing to pay say $20k, im sure GSO would be capable of making a fault free product.

Again, you get what you pay for. These days ppl want everything with no risk, liability or responsibility for their decisions for always the cheapest price and sue if dissappointed.

Id rather have the choice and evaluate the risk myself in an open buyer beware market.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

OK then. Your in the market for a very specialsed low volume niche product, just released , you do due diligence of course, its not a trivial amount of money, and you notice I suppose if what you say is correct, that 100% of users have issues. You decide that despite these issues, its an insane deal and you take a RISK (thats what buying something with 100% user feedback with "issues" is) expecting to have a bit of trouble that you may have to sort yourself.

If you dont do due diligence, dont see a red flag on something seemingly too cheap to be true (with a 100% "issue" rating), have expectations of perfect out of the box at a 10th of the price, then sir, you most definitely will be disappointed.

I did my research and no, I wouldn't personally buy the 12" (if I could afford it!). Yes, it's good value compared to the competition, but that's cos the competition is vastly overpriced. But either way, our trade practices act does not allow for companies knowingly selling products with faulty issues that are beyond being reasonable.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Yes good point David, these guys are doing illegal things in selling units not fit for purpose.

Sometimes it takes pressure to get compliance and make them try harder and get over their slackness.

A classic example recently was Nikon in the USA. They put out the defective D600 which was plagued with dust and oil spots on the sensor requiring constant cleans. They did nothing about it. They eventually released a D610 with a redesigned mirror box/shutter to handle it.

They were threatened with a class action suit. They suddenly offered a free replacement for D600 owners even if out of warranty. They never acknowledged the problem officially. Slack as. Cost them a lot of goodwill.

Greg.

strictly speaking, yes, it is illegal, although I think that's a bit harsh of a term to use for GSO. They've generally offered quality products for a great price and have listened to the community in many instances.

I hadn't heard about the D600 issues - thank you for the heads up. It reminds me of Canon's 1D Mark III that had the dud AF...it surprisingly never got to a class lawsuit as far as I'm aware of (but it should have).

I remember having a 4GB Apple iPod mini years ago. It failed about 3 weeks out of the 12 month warranty with a known hard drive issue. This had happened en masse in the US, and a class lawsuit had forced Apple to fix units with the issue at their cost, whether they were in or out of warranty as it was classified as a known manufacturing defect. I queried Apple Australia and was very bluntly told tough $hit - and rather cheekily that "that court decision was for the US and doesn't apply to the Australian market". This wasn't from tier 1 support or customer service either I might add. Nor was it from tier 2 support. That came from higher up in Apple Australia. The moral of the story is that not all manufacturers are honest, nor look after the customer, unless forcibly legally compelled to do so. it should never have to come to that.

Dave

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Oh please Greg, millions of D600s are make for the generic plug and play consumer market, not remotely similar.

If every defect in a cutting edge specialised niche (especially low cost) product was threatened with a class action, their would be no inovation at all !!!.

If you were willing to pay say $20k, im sure GSO would be capable of making a fault free product.

Again, you get what you pay for. These days ppl want everything with no risk, liability or responsibility for their decisions for always the cheapest price and sue if dissappointed.

Id rather have the choice and evaluate the risk myself in an open buyer beware market.

Oh well Fred. Life experience has taught me that manufacturers and large companies cannot be trusted. LIKE EVER. They will screw the customer over in every instance. That is what life experience has taught me. Open buyer markets treat the consumer with contempt.

[Logieberra (Logan)]

OK. All Trade Practices Act talk aside (it's not even called that anymore?) - triangular stars showing on GSO 12 " RC Truss scopes. I think I noticed 'hints' of that on a mate's new 12" last night. Paul, is this just a simple mirror clip pressure thing? I saw the three clips in place, but it's hard to eyeball how far off surface. Otherwise, this fix that GSO is coming out with - how does an owner register for those free parts? Thanks.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Oh well Fred. Life experience has taught me that manufacturers and large companies cannot be trusted. LIKE EVER. They will screw the customer over in every instance. That is what life experience has taught me. Open buyer markets treat the consumer with contempt.

I should clarify. I think consumer protection for mass market generic product is a good thing, absolutely. An open buyers market works for innovative niche product for aware users that appreciate the opportunity despite the (measured) risk, thats what I meant . A GSO 12" RC is NOT a generic consumer product, its is very difficult to figure RC mirrors, it stuns me how they do that for the price.

I dont think GSO is trying to screw you at every instance, they are offering you a product at a price that implies obvious risk on your part, as an aware purchaser.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Logieberra

OK. All Trade Practices Act talk aside (it's not even called that anymore?) - triangular stars showing on GSO 12 " RC Truss scopes. I think I noticed 'hints' of that on a mate's new 12" last night. Paul, is this just a simple mirror clip pressure thing? I saw the three clips in place, but it's hard to eyeball how far off surface. Otherwise, this fix that GSO is coming out with - how does an owner register for those free parts? Thanks.

Paul said that's what he believes it is. But, the OP tried that and it made no difference.

[Rac (Raymond)]

Can we just release the mirror clips and get a star test photo done.

Please please pretty please.

[Logieberra (Logan)]

Ray. I missed this. Further test data provided by user:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=120976

[Astro_Bot]

Sigh. Another topic where I can't help but post something ... meanwhile, the conversation has moved on a bit and this may sound a bit too adversarial, which is not intended ... but FWIW ...

Originally Posted by dpastern

By the way, The Trade Practices Act will agree with my stance 100%. ... The unit would be deemed unfit for sale.

While the TPA (or more likely the equivalent state Fair Trading act, though these are now harmonised through national Australian Consumer Law) could be relevant in that it deals with 'misleading and deceptive conduct', it mostly deals with issues like safety, uncompleted work, non-delivery, pyramid schemes, unfair contracts, substitution of materials, hidden charges, warranties. etc., and not so much with hard-to-define concepts like quality. Where quality is mentioned it's pretty vague. For example, ACL states:

All products must be safe, durable, free from defects, fit for purpose, acceptable in appearance, match its description and match any sample or demonstration model.

When a 12" RC or similar-sized astrograph can sell for $20K+, then something selling for one-fifth the price can't be expected to match that more expensive product's standard of performance.

Originally Posted by dpastern

our trade practices act does not allow for companies knowingly selling products with faulty issues that are beyond being reasonable.

But ...

Originally Posted by dpastern

strictly speaking, yes, it is illegal, although I think that's a bit harsh of a term to use for GSO

Well, you can't have it both ways. If it's contrary to an Act, it's illegal - not necessarily criminal, but illegal. If you think that's too harsh a term, then how should GSO's product quality be rated really?

Originally Posted by dpastern

Life experience has taught me that manufacturers and large companies cannot be trusted. LIKE EVER. They will screw the customer over in every instance.

Seriously? Every instance? Every company? Are you sure you're not overstating the issue by an order of magnitude or two?

Whether the problems with the GSO 12" RC are a "defect" or just something you expect in a scope at this price point, I can't say for sure, but given the number of optics manufacturers losing money and going out of business, I find it hard to believe that a budget manufacturer like GSO is overcharging for the level of quality it's producing.

IMHO, it's up to each purchaser to make up his/her own mind, but I'd say you get what you pay for.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

I think it'd be very reasonable to expect stars to focus down to a point, and not to a triangle. I mean, that's the genre of kiddie scopes *wink wink*. And $3800 is a hellavu lot of money. Maybe to some of the rich kids on these forums it isn't, but to the average Aussie, it's a lot of money. If anyone wants to disagree with that, feel free to donate that sum to me!

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by dpastern

And $3800 is a hellavu lot of money.

That's precisely the point: for some products, it isn't.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

That's precisely the point: for some products, it isn't.

You must have too much money to spend! Trust me, the vast majority of Australians would say that $3800 was a LOT of money, no matter what the item.

edit: just couldn't resist, here's a list of BMW recalls:

https://www.recalls.gov.au/content/i.../itemId/952885

these are pretty damn pricey cars. Of course, if you drive a 1 million dollar ferrari, they're cheap. That still doesn't excuse sloppy QA.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by dpastern

You must have too much money to spend!

Actually, I don't have too much money to spend. None at all, in fact. I'm just surviving for now. That doesn't mean I expect premium quality for a budget price.

Originally Posted by dpastern

I rarely post on IIS, and my thoughts are generally not well received

I'm beginning to see why.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

$3800 is loose change in RC imaging. I spent near twice that much just on filters. If the kitchens too hot, stop cooking.

That's an exceptionally poor attitude Fred, and no wonder why few people are getting into this hobby. I mean, Dobsonians are just as big (12") and far cheaper than this RC from GSO and they tend to lack these optical issues. From reading many people's threads about this on a variety of forums around the world, many are saying it's simply down to a bad design for the mirror and mirror cell from GSO. And whilst I lack your extreme technical knowledge, I'd tend to agree with them.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

Actually, I don't have too much money to spend. None at all, in fact. I'm just surviving for now. That doesn't mean I expect premium quality for a budget price.


I'm beginning to see why.

$3800 is not a budget price. If you had bought a 80K bmw that had issues, and I told you "tough luck, it's cheap, you should have bought a Ferrari, just suck it up" you'd be pissed. This is very elementary, I find it amusing that some users are so staunch in their support of bad QA and design, no matter what the price.

I state things as I see them, I'm not a 'yes' man who agrees with the rest of the crowd to look cool. I have a brain and I use it. If people have a problem with that, tough luck.