开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. Halfhitchtelescope
  2. Topics

Sticky A Brief History of Hitch Mounts (Charles Riddel)

 

I want to give a brief account of the history and philosophy of the various Hitch mounts, explain the differences between the Half Hitch and the Nova Hitch, and clear up a few misconceptions that are being propagated.
?
The goal of the Half Hitch project was to produced a mount that was highly optimized for grab 'n go astronomy.? Everything about the design revolved around the idea that a true grab 'n go telescope can be picked up and carried with ease by one hand.? I envisioned lightweight refracting telescopes in the 80 to 90 mm range being used with either a single zoom eyepiece or a small set of similarly-sized, not-too-big eyepieces.? I imagined the mount and scope sitting atop a lightweight and somewhat undersized tripod.? I also imagined that the ability to "sweep" the sky would be very important to observers since part of the grab 'n go concept is to easily escape bright lights for dark, star-filled skies.? And it should be a fantastic mount for 100 mm angle-view binoculars.
?
To implement these objectives, I developed the following engineering criteria:
  1. The mount should have very low-friction rotations to facilitate scanning and sweeping,?and to operate without excessive vibration on undersized tripods.
  2. To make smooth, low-friction rotations possible, the mount should support two-axis balancing.
  3. To?reduce stress on the tripod and allow for the smoothest possible tracking in azimuth, the mount should have centerline payload positioning to minimize the moment-of-inertia around the critical vertical axis.
  4. The mount structure had to provide good tripod clearance without resorting to a tripod extension column.
  5. The mount should incorporate slow-motion controls for a variety of compelling reasons, not the least of which was to permit low-vibration observing on undersized tripods.? But the slow-motion controls would need some very unique properties.? They would have to be equally adept at scanning as at tracking and centering -- and they would need to be fingertip-light for effortless variable-speed motion and (again) to allow vibration-free movements on undersized tripods.? And they needed to have little or no backlash so one could "cruise" around the sky like they were driving a sports car.
  6. The mount would require a rigid but lightweight structure that?was based upon?clever geometry rather than a lot of added material.
The Half Hitch implemented these concepts and achieved the stated goals -- resulting in a 4.7-pound grab 'n go mount that was unique and compelling.? For those?who shared my concept of grab 'n go astronomy, Nirvana was at hand.
?
But?as for most inventions, at some point, idealized dream meets the reality of the market.? There were two dramatic realizations that surfaced immediately:? 1.)? Most observers wanted to mount 105 mm scopes on the Half Hitch rather than 90 mm scopes, and 2.) most observers owned extensive eyepiece collections, ranging from small and light to large and heavy, and they were going to use ALL their eyepieces (making frequent changes) -- even?for what they were calling "grab 'n go" astronomy.? Some users were stretching my conception of grab 'n go astronomy?even?beyond the suitcase full of eyepieces?by employing binoviewers.
?
Despite these unforeseen?deviations from my definition of grab 'n go astronomy, the original Half Hitch was "in the ballpark" for handling the new challenges.? As a business, one must go where customers want to go.? So, I revised the mount with a beefed-up structure to accommodate larger scopes and added the balance trimmer to help maintain approximate balance after eyepiece swaps that differed considerably in size and weight.? The revised mount was dubbed the Mark II Half Hitch.? I offered?all?18?"Mark I" owners a complete rebuild of their mounts to Mark II standards, mostly absorbing the cost of the rebuilds myself.? All but six Mark I mounts were converted to Mark II units.? The owners of the other six Mark I Half Hitches simply told me that they considered their mounts to be perfect as was -- and they did not want to change them.
?
Eventually, I again revised the Half Hitch -- slightly -- to the Mark III.? And once again, the changes were driven by customers.? The Mark III differs from the Mark II in three ways:
  1. The altitude axis was beefed-up to accommodate the new Stellarvue 115 and similar scopes.
  2. The up-down saddle adjustment was simplified.
  3. An azimuth axis carry-lock was added.
The Mark II and Mark III Half Hitches differ so slightly that it takes a trained eye to tell them apart.? It is also important to note that any Half Hitch accessory item fits either mount (contrary to some rumors).? The Quarter Hitch that was introduced at about the same time is nothing more than a slightly simplified Mark III Half Hitch -- created to offer a mount at a bit lower price.
?
Despite my clear definition of what I considered to be grab 'n go astronomy (which I explained on my website, in ads, and in the user group), people still pursued application of the Half Hitch outside its intended envelope.? Introduction of the Balance Trimmer Extension Arm was yet another attempt to accommodate the widening envelope of application beyond the realm of grab 'n go astronomy (as I had extensively defined it).
?
Eventually, I introduced the Super Half Hitch, which was an entirely new mount based on the same Half Hitch design architecture.? The purpose of the Super Half Hitch was to provide a quasi grab 'n go experience for compact, lightweight 120 to 130 mm APO refractors like the AP 130 GT.
?
Soon -- people were asking about the TEC 140 on the Super HH.? And so it goes ...
?
What I finally concluded?was that many people defined any scope they can lift off the ground as "grab 'n go;" that thanks to the clever mind of Al Nagler, most?folks were going to make huge eyepiece changes in the course of just about any observing session.? Also,?binoviewing was becoming very popular and binoviewers were getting larger and heavier.?? The focusers on most scopes were becoming titanic, themselves creating a large shift in mass.? And significantly,?backyard astronomy is far more popular than grab 'n go astronomy.? What the market was really demanding was a general-purpose alt-az mount -- not an optimized grab 'n go mount.? As a business, you can only swim against the tide for so long.? You have to follow the market.? And so the Nova Hitch was born.
?
The Nova Hitch is a completely new and different mount from the older Half Hitch mounts.? It does share the following attributes, which I consider essential:
  1. Centerline payload positioning.
  2. Built-in tripod clearance.
  3. Two-axis balancing for low-friction rotations.
  4. Inclusion of slow-motion controls.
  5. Efficient structure that avoids bending and twisting stresses.
The Nova Hitch is a general-purpose mount.? Although it is considerably lighter than its direct competition, it does not pretend to be a grab 'n go mount.? As a general-purpose mount, the slow-motion controls are no longer biased towards sweeping and scanning, instead concentrating on precision and being house-jack powerful.? Although ?tripod-friendly the Nova Hitch is not required to perform on absurdly undersized tripods the way a grab 'n go mount would.? The Nova Hitch?assumes?that dramatic eyepiece and configuration changes will be the norm -- and it contains multiple provisions to handle such changes quickly, easily, and without tools.? And the Nova Hitch provides a large reservoir of reserve capacity -- something that would be inappropriate for a specialized grab 'n go mount.
?
Since the Nova Hitch is a new mount, the family of users is still small.? I've seen online inquiries about the Nova Hitch to which someone responded with her/his impression of the Half Hitch as if the two mounts were essentially the same.? These responses are completely invalid because the Half Hitch and Nova Hitch are radically different.? The Half Hitch has a hard-core group of enthusiasts composed of users who understand its specialized nature and use it accordingly.? The Half Hitch is simply without peer as a pure grab 'n go mount.? And it might be the best mount for 100 mm angle-view binoculars that will ever be built.? Most Half Hitches are still in the hands of the original owners -- or have found second owners who are equally enthusiastic.
?
But the Nova Hitch will likely find appeal?with a much broader spectrum of users who wish to use the mount more conventionally.
?
Changes in products occur because of shifts in the market or because an initially targeted market is not capable of supporting a product.? The Half Hitch is a great grab 'n go mount -- probably the best ever.? But the Nova Hitch addresses the heart of the?market.? The change occurred not because of any failure of the Half Hitch (although it has often been?misapplied by a number of users).? The rise of the Nova Hitch in its place is simply a reflection of market reality.
?
Charles
 

To continue the overview of the history of the Hitch mounts, I will add the following notes about the Nova Hitch.
?
The Nova Hitch that is being delivered today is absolutely not the same mount that was originally announced as the "Nova Hitch."? In fact, it shares not one single part with the "Nova" that was originally described and for which I initially solicited orders.? The only thing that wasn't changed was the name.? I like "Nova" as the designation for the new mount because it signifies that the new mount was being based on a different architecture than the original Half Hitch mounts.
?
The forerunner of the Nova Hitch is the original Mini Hitch -- but the Mini and the Nova are at different ends of the spectrum in terms of the refinements.? There is basically a one-to-one correspondence between the major components of the Mini and the Nova, but there is a world of difference in the details.? The Mini Hitch proved that the basic concepts for the Nova were valid -- but it also showed how those concepts could be honed to perfection.
?
Originally, the first-announced Nova Hitch was going to be nothing more that a slightly scaled-up version of the Mini Hitch -- with essentially the exact same implementation.? However, at the time I was receiving a great many inquiries from people wanting a good mount for 5-inch class refractors.? At first, I considered simply scaling-up the originally specified Nova Hitch a bit more.? But I began to see the possibilities for a much better implementation that (in my opinion) would produce the world's premier visual observing mount for large, portable refractors -- not just superior to other choices of alt-az mounts, but also offering a very tempting alternative to high-end equatorial mounts (employed for visual observation).
?
At that point, I completely redesigned the Nova Hitch.? Some folks who are not aware of this history that have speculated that the originally announced pricing for the Nova represented a dramatic reduction for promotional purposes -- and they lament about "missing out."? But nothing could be farther from the truth.? The changes to the originally announced price occurred simply because the cost to build the Nova doubled with the more sophisticated design.
?
Current pricing for the Nova Hitch actually does represent an "introductory price."? When?the inventory?from the current production run is exhausted, higher prices will (by necessity) immediately go into effect.? Those new prices are now listed on the ordering page of the website -- just to give folks fair notice of the changes that are inevitable.
?
The Mini Hitch II reverses the direction of flow of design ideas -- this time flowing from the Nova Hitch down to the Mini Hitch.? The Nova Hitch became a better mount because of lessons learned from the original Mini Hitch.? But now the Mini Hitch II is inheriting refinements from the Nova Hitch.
?
In between, there will be the Plus Hitch -- sized more or less the same?as the originally specified Nova Hitch (that wasn't actually built).? The Plus Hitch will be more like the Mini Hitch II than the Nova Hitch, but?as with?the Mini Hitch II, the Plus Hitch benefits from refinements developed for the Nova Hitch.
?
I have in the past mentioned the possibility of a Super Nova Hitch -- but I am no longer leaning in that direction.? The Nova Hitch is proving to be capable of handling many of the loads envisioned for the Super Nova.? I would not be surprised to see the Nova routinely carrying 180 mm refractors in the near future.
?
Once all three mounts have been introduced, additional development will focus useful accessories for these mounts.? Each mount is envisioned as the enabling foundation for a system.
?
Charles
 
Edited

The FTX is a TOTALLY unrelated design to the older Half Hitch (and Super?Half Hitch) mounts. The FTX and Half Hitch have completely different?missions.

The Half Hitch was developed as a high-end, pure grab & go mount for?small telescopes (80 to 90 mm refractors primarily) -- intended for few?(if any) eyepiece changes, mostly between modestly-sized eyepieces not?varying too much in weight. It was also intended to be an excellent?mount for 100 mm angle-view, binoculars. The Half Hitch was designed as?a "sweeping" mount -- for scanning over regions of the sky, as people?often do with grab & go scopes and binoculars.

Although the purpose of the Half Hitch was made abundantly clear in ads?and on the website, the mount was often misappropriated to more?general-purpose observing with larger than intended scopes. Some?observers even insisted on adding and subtracting a binoviewer?on-the-fly -- and many others changing from huge "hand-grenade"?eyepieces down to tiny, very high magnification eyepieces, back and?forth on-the-fly.

Although I continued to promote the mount for specialized grab & go?usage in combination with lightweight tripods, small scopes, and zoom?eyepieces or fixed-eyepiece deep-sky observing, many people continued to?employ the Half Hitch for larger scopes and general-purpose observing?involving many eyepieces changeovers, adding and subtracting?binoviewers, and larger than intended scopes. I attempted to provide
accommodations to people who were using the Half Hitch in ways for whichit was not intended -- but this was an uneasy compromise of a pure?concept. Of course, there were individuals who better understood the?Half Hitch and its intended use -- and many of these individuals are?still happily using the Half Hitch today.

These considerations led me to develop a completely new general-purpose?mount -- and completely new design with a completely different?architecture -- not an evolution of the Half Hitch. The first?manifestation of the new direction was the Nova Hitch. While having?many technical innovations and being extremely elegant in its details,?the Nova Hitch did not quite align with the heart of the potential?market. But the Nova Hitch fathered the FTX -- and the two mounts are?related. Neither the Nova Hitch nor the FTX bear any relation to the?earlier Half Hitch design, in any of its slight variations.

The V.2 FTX is merely a refinement of the V.1 FTX. These are two
variations of the same basic mount -- and I produced an upgrade kit for?the V.1 FTX that transforms it into the V.1+ FTX, which lends the V.1?FTX the most notable upgrades found in the V.2 FTX.

There were adjunct developments for the Mini Hitch and FTQ -- both of?which are also related to the Nova Hitch. These were sidetrack?developments intended to test high-end multi-purpose and grab & go?markets. These sidetrack developments quickly showed that, for small?instruments, cheaply-built mounts made in China would dominate and not?leave commercially viable space in the market for a high-end choice.

That's it! That's the history of mounts made by Half Hitch. I've read?GROSS exaggerations of many different models with extreme variations and?constant tinkering. All such rumors are completely false and somewhat?maliciously intended. The fact is that over almost ten years, there?have only been three mount designs. There were two slight variations of?the Half Hitch -- and then the larger Super Half Hitch using the same?basic design and aimed mostly at the A-P 130 GT (which had become the
largest segment of my user base). But there were simply not enough?high-end, grab & go purists to support the Half Hitch design -- and so?it was discontinued. The Nova Hitch was produced very briefly -- and?explored new concepts and a new architecture. The Nova Hitch led?directly to the FTX, which was more in tune with the general market.

The V.1 FTX (and especially the V.1+ FTX) and the V.2 FTX are
essentially the same mount. Functionally, the V.1+ FTX and V.2 FTX are?almost identical. And they have the same dimensions and are nearly the?same weight. But the V.2 FTX does contain some nice refinements.

In my opinion, the V.2 FTX is nearly a perfect, general-purpose, alt-az?mount for amateur astronomy. It was created with the idea that it would?remain in production for many years without any need for further?evolution. Of course, the market for astronomy gear has taken a huge,?undeniable hit in the past year and a half or so. So, I can't say?exactly what lies ahead for the V.2 FTX. But I do know that it is still?the near-perfect, highly versatile, lightweight but solid, elegant but?rugged and beautiful mount that it was intended to be -- and needs no?evolution to make it the gold-standard of manual alt-az mounts. It's
truly in a class by itself -- and the numbers alone prove it -- but the?eye confirms it.

Charles
 

Most of the changes to my products have been market-driven
Charles Riddel Sep 23, 2012
?
Let's review a little Hitch History:
?
The original Half Hitch was conceived as a high-end, grab 'n go mount for 90 to 105 mm APO refractors.
?
The Mark I Half Hitch had a couple of points of flexure that made it slightly less rigid than I originally intended when used with somewhat longer or heavier than average 4-inch APOs.? Thus, I quickly made an upgrade to the Mark II version and retrofitted all but six of the Mark I mounts to Mark II status.? The Mark II kit completely solved the flexure problem -- and I also used the upgrade to switch from 2160-step encoders to 4000-step encoders.
?
The Mark II version was also short-lived in terms of production numbers.? While there was no specific deficiency with the Mark II, several worthwhile enhancements were identified.? So, for the second time, I made a model upgrade based upon technical issues.
?
The upgrades from Mark I to Mark II and Mark II to Mark III represent the refinement of a fundamentally sound and innovative design.? The overall size and configuration of the Half Hitch did NOT change during this maturation process.? Instead, improvements were made to a few specific details based upon actual experience with the new design.
?
The Quarter Hitch is essentially a slightly simplified Mark III Half Hitch.? Together, these two mounts represent the bulk of the Half Hitch mounts that I built.? I consider the Mark III Half Hitch and Quarter Hitch to be very successful designs from a technical perspective -- and they did pretty well in the market, too.? Their success and desirability is evidenced by the very small number of them which have been resold -- and the high prices they fetch in the used market.
?
But there was a nagging thorn in the market aspect for Mark III (and QH) -- the relentless apple-to-orange comparisons to vastly inferior mounts.? Although some very fine 4-inch APOs are popular in the market, the discerning analysis that leads many to spend for an exquisite 4-inch OTA does not seem to carry over to the selection of an equally exquisite mount in this size range.
?
I have to say that this was NOT a behavior that I expected -- not at all!? If it were not for this quirk in the market, then I would still be manufacturing Mark III Half Hitches and Quarter Hitches.
?
With some inquiry, research, and logical extrapolation, it became evident that a shift from targeting 4-inch APO owners to focusing on 5-inch APO owners would produce a much more discriminating clientele for my high-end mounts.? And thus, the Super Half Hitch was born!
?
The strong market for the Super was quickly verified.? But a second reality quickly overtook the Super:? The climate (especially costs) for manufacturing in the United States started skyrocketing at completely unprecedented rates!
?
For example, the cost for anodizing parts essentially quadrupled in less than a year!? Moreover, reliable sources for quality anodizing became very difficult to find.? Additionally, machining costs almost doubled -- and the number of shops capable of doing the high-precision, high-finish production needed for my mounts has diminished to the point of near-extinction!? The costs of aluminum and stainless steel materials have more or less risen in parallel to the rise in oil prices (for many of the same reasons).? In the past three years, the production of quality bearings has virtually ceased in the US -- and most quality bearings are now imported from Japan at prices affected by the short supply and weak dollar.
?
I could go on about the specifics, but take note that the largest one-month drop in US manufacturing activity since WWII (not coinciding with a strike at GM or Ford) occurred last month!? Seven of the eight manufacturing indices thus far reported for 2012 have been negative -- including three of the largest monthly drops in US history!
?
From a technical standpoint, the Super Half Hitch is a jewel.? And the SHH also address a sweet-spot in the market for high-end alt-az mounts.? So, if external forces were not at work, I would continue to manufacture the SHH and change little or nothing in its design.? But the manufacturing context has rapidly changed AROUND the SHH.? Caught in the rising tide of manufacturing costs in the US, the costs for building the first batch of Supers greatly exceeded the price which customers paid the mount.? Were I to set the price for the SHH today, it would have to be about $4500 for units without tracking and almost $6000 for units with tracking.
?
In my opinion, a market saddled with tough economic times would not be able to absorb these prices.? And thus, the Nova Hitch is born.
?
A realistic look at the manufacturing environment and the economic burdens looming over the market told me that a creative new approach would be needed -- preserving as much as possible of the goodness of the previous Hitches, but boldly addressing the new circumstances.
?
The Nova Hitch is a bold mount.? It is designed to cope with the harsh circumstances of today's manufacturing and market climates.? Other manufacturers can poke fun at what they see as a departure from stodgy norms -- but I believe that I will have the last laugh.
?
The Mark III and Super were great mount designs.? I'm very proud of them.? But climatic changes forced a bold rethinking of the problem -- and the Nova is positioned to devour the competition in the same way that climate change always favor the adaptable over the static.
?
Charles

1 - 4 of 4