Anyone using the ZWO AM5 mount with the Quattro 200P scope (or comparable payload)? - Forums

Topic starter

Mar 11, 2023

I have the AM5 mount and am thinking of adding one last telescope to my setup, the Skywatcher Quattro 200p reflector. This scope comes in both aluminum and carbon fiber, but I don't believe it's possible to get the carbon fiber version in the United States. I hope I am wrong because it's 4 pounds lighter.

Will the AM5, with counterweight, be able to handle this telescope, plus around 5-6 lbs for the camera, guide camera, guide scope, filter, and coma corrector?

What size counterweight would I need?

Thanks,
Jerry

Well Written Engaging

AppalachianAstroworks

Mar 12, 2023

I'm interested in the replies here as I have just ordered my AM5 and a Quattro 8" myself. The scope weighs 21 pounds and even with all the extras I feel like it will do just fine. I will be running an ASI1600mm pro, filter wheel, coma corrector, and OAG guider with ASI120mm.

According to the description on the mount on Highpoint — "This 11 lb. (5 kg) mount is able to hold up to 28.66 lb. (13 kg.) without a counterweight and 44 lb. (20 kg.) with a counterweight."

I'm curious to see what others say about this, since I feel like the mount can handle all of it. If a counterweight is necessary, I'm planning on just using one of the weights from my skywatcher HEQ-5 pro.

Helpful Engaging

Markus R.

Mar 13, 2023

This probably wont be that helpful but in my experience if you have to think about if a setup is too heavy for a mount or not, it usually is :-D I have some useful thoughts for you though.

On paper the AM5 with counterweight might be able to handle the weight and the drive should be fine (i didnt do the math but i guess you did or you wouldnt be asking

). But it will be more susceptibile for wind and other vibrations. Leverage is another thing. The net weight might be fine but if the weight if further away from the turning axis it will aply more torgue. Also isnt balancing a harmonic mount pretty difficult because it has no clutches to freely move it? I have a ioptron hae29 and i cant think of a way to balance it properbly. Might not be as necessary with this kind of drive but with this payload ontop it could become important even for a harmonic drive.

As I said, I have a ioptron hae29(which has similar weight rating with and without a counterweight) and I used it with a 150/750 Newton, Qhy183c, 180mm guider and zwo eaf + mini computer and cables. All in all nearing 10kg. It was handling it without counterweight but i felt it getting wobbly.

Hopefully this gives you some stuff to think about that you didnt already had in mind.

clear skys!

Helpful

Jerry Gerber

Topic starter

Mar 13, 2023

Markus R.:
This probably wont be that helpful but in my experience if you have to think about if a setup is too heavy for a mount or not, it usually is :-D I have some useful thoughts for you though.

On paper the AM5 with counterweight might be able to handle the weight and the drive should be fine (i didnt do the math but i guess you did or you wouldnt be asking ). But it will be more susceptibile for wind and other vibrations. Leverage is another thing. The net weight might be fine but if the weight if further away from the turning axis it will aply more torgue. Also isnt balancing a harmonic mount pretty difficult because it has no clutches to freely move it? I have a ioptron hae29 and i cant think of a way to balance it properbly. Might not be as necessary with this kind of drive but with this payload ontop it could become important even for a harmonic drive.

As I said, I have a ioptron hae29(which has similar weight rating with and without a counterweight) and I used it with a 150/750 Newton, Qhy183c, 180mm guider and zwo eaf + mini computer and cables. All in all nearing 10kg. It was handling it without counterweight but i felt it getting wobbly.

Hopefully this gives you some stuff to think about that you didnt already had in mind.

clear skys!

Thanks Markus, that's helpful. I think it will handle it OK, as long as I put the correct amount of counterweight on it and put the counterweight at the right position. My understanding is that strain wave mounts are much easier to balance compared with traditional EQ mounts, everything I've read say that that balancing isn't a big deal, unless one mounts the telescope at such a point where it's obviously going to be unstable!

Supportive

Michael Ring

Mar 15, 2023

I am running my new AM5 with both a Celestron EHD 9.25 and a 1000mm F5 Carbon Fibre Reflector. Both run fine with Guiding usually around 0.7-0.8 ArcSec RMS under Bortle 4 skies.
For the Celestron I needed a 5kg counterweight, so in your case it could be worth to try if it improves things but you should be fine without it as the weight of the Quattro is closer to my f5 than to my EHD.

A 5kg counterweight will do fine but you might get away with a 2.5kg if needed at all. The only thing to check would be if the hole in the weight is large enough so that it does fit the bar, I read somewhere that this can be an issue sometimes.

Helpful

Jerry Gerber

Topic starter

Mar 15, 2023 · Edited: Mar 15, 2023

Michael Ring:
I am running my new AM5 with both a Celestron EHD 9.25 and a 1000mm F5 Carbon Fibre Reflector. Both run fine with Guiding usually around 0.7-0.8 ArcSec RMS under Bortle 4 skies.
For the Celestron I needed a 5kg counterweight, so in your case it could be worth to try if it improves things but you should be fine without it as the weight of the Quattro is closer to my f5 than to my EHD.

A 5kg counterweight will do fine but you might get away with a 2.5kg if needed at all. The only thing to check would be if the hole in the weight is large enough so that it does fit the bar, I read somewhere that this can be an issue sometimes.

Thanks Michael. I checked the weight of your TS F5 1000mm CF reflector, and it's about 17.6lbs. The Edge HD 9.25 is listed as 21 lbs, which is exactly what the Quattro 8" reflector is. So my guess is that a counterweight would be a good idea because without it the payload, including camera, filter, adapters, etc. is closely approaching the limit of the AM5 without counterweight. Unfortunately, Skywatcher told me that they are no longer making the carbon fiber version of the Quattro 8", so this adds about 3-4 lbs of weight. I'd buy the carbon fiber version if I could...

Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful

Related discussions

Should I Upgrade My Original Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer to a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer GTi

Hi all, I am debating whether to just upgrade from my original Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer to the Star Adventurer GTi. I did post something on here a while ago asking what you guys think I should consider for my next mount purchase, but I still haven...

Feb 16, 2023

Both posts discuss astronomers seeking advice about upgrading their telescope mount equipment to handle additional or improved gear.

Setup with 8 or 10 inch Newton?

Hello, I am interested to know, if there are users who use the M-UNO in combination with a newton telescope? Especially with 10 inch aperture, f/4 and with a mono camera? I have a 6 inch Newton and a RC10 and think about adding a 10 inch newton but I...

Jul 12, 2025

Both posts are asking about the compatibility and weight capacity of specific telescope mounts with larger telescopes they want to add to their setups.