Bucky1379
20-04-2008, 05:01 PM
Hi Guys
I've just been working on on improving a friends Synta HEQ5 Pro Go-To which he got for the current bargain price currently being offered by Bintel and Andrews. They are only about $100 more than just the SynScan motor/controller upgrade kit for an EQ5, HEQ5 or EQ6 so it is really a no-brainer if you can get one.
I can't deny that the mount does reflect Synta's cutting costs at all costs approach but I think it gives a great basis for a very cost effective, solid unit if the cost cutting issues can be addressed (and I think they can be) by an average DIY astronomer. To start with I have just spent the afternoon looking at the stainless steel tripod and fixing a couple of things that might help others that have the HEQ5 (and maybe the EQ5 and EQ6) mount.
People seem to be complaining about the S/S tubing for the legs but I think that I see a much bigger problem in the play between the top leg castings, the bolts and the mount base casting and this is what I was trying to address.
I first took the legs off the the mount base casting and, using a fairly fine, smallish, flat file, filed the powder coated mating surfaces flat without going through the paint. I then made up some plastic washers from some A4 filing sheets that I had that measure 0.25 mm thick. The washers needed to be 36 mm dia with an 8 mm hole to suit the through bolts. I also used some small squares of this sheet to make up some tubuler sleeves to go around these bolts because they are a fairly loose fit in the leg top casting holes.
In the end, two legs needed 3 washers (two one side and one on the other) and one needed 2 (one each side of the leg casting) but with the previously mentioned sleeves on the bolts and using lithium grease between all mating surfaces, everything went back together very neatly and by nipping up the bolts and nylock nuts I ended up with virtually no play at all in the leg to mount base casting joints. In fact, in my opinion, the result is less play in the tripod than I saw before the work even without tightening up the brace bracket. Obviously doing that makes it even better.
Note that I found that Synta puts a single, thinner plastic washer between each leg and mount base castings but this is obviously just a standard fitment without actually trying to individually minimise play. I removed these before customising the washer requirements. Also note that I have made and installed a greased, plastic washer between the mount and the tripod mount base casting to allow smoother azimuth alignment.This came from a thickish biscuit dip lid but I will end up making a 'proper' one from an ice-cream container
I'm not saying that these simple improvements will replace a pier but I think that most people will find that the improvement in rigidity of the tripod (at minimal cost) is more that worthwhile or at least worth trying.
Steve M
I've just been working on on improving a friends Synta HEQ5 Pro Go-To which he got for the current bargain price currently being offered by Bintel and Andrews. They are only about $100 more than just the SynScan motor/controller upgrade kit for an EQ5, HEQ5 or EQ6 so it is really a no-brainer if you can get one.
I can't deny that the mount does reflect Synta's cutting costs at all costs approach but I think it gives a great basis for a very cost effective, solid unit if the cost cutting issues can be addressed (and I think they can be) by an average DIY astronomer. To start with I have just spent the afternoon looking at the stainless steel tripod and fixing a couple of things that might help others that have the HEQ5 (and maybe the EQ5 and EQ6) mount.
People seem to be complaining about the S/S tubing for the legs but I think that I see a much bigger problem in the play between the top leg castings, the bolts and the mount base casting and this is what I was trying to address.
I first took the legs off the the mount base casting and, using a fairly fine, smallish, flat file, filed the powder coated mating surfaces flat without going through the paint. I then made up some plastic washers from some A4 filing sheets that I had that measure 0.25 mm thick. The washers needed to be 36 mm dia with an 8 mm hole to suit the through bolts. I also used some small squares of this sheet to make up some tubuler sleeves to go around these bolts because they are a fairly loose fit in the leg top casting holes.
In the end, two legs needed 3 washers (two one side and one on the other) and one needed 2 (one each side of the leg casting) but with the previously mentioned sleeves on the bolts and using lithium grease between all mating surfaces, everything went back together very neatly and by nipping up the bolts and nylock nuts I ended up with virtually no play at all in the leg to mount base casting joints. In fact, in my opinion, the result is less play in the tripod than I saw before the work even without tightening up the brace bracket. Obviously doing that makes it even better.
Note that I found that Synta puts a single, thinner plastic washer between each leg and mount base castings but this is obviously just a standard fitment without actually trying to individually minimise play. I removed these before customising the washer requirements. Also note that I have made and installed a greased, plastic washer between the mount and the tripod mount base casting to allow smoother azimuth alignment.This came from a thickish biscuit dip lid but I will end up making a 'proper' one from an ice-cream container
I'm not saying that these simple improvements will replace a pier but I think that most people will find that the improvement in rigidity of the tripod (at minimal cost) is more that worthwhile or at least worth trying.
Steve M