Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

** Stringway cross-stringer for badminton**

Discussion in 'Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools' started by stringtechno, May 5, 2011.

  1. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Hello guys,
    I just received congratulations for my birthday so I thought maybe I can reply with a useful message:
    Our cross stringers for tennis seem to work well and we get quite some inquiries for the same tool for badminton.
    So we decided to updated the design so that it is most suitable for badminton and made a proto-unit.
    The tool works better than we expected with the much thinner badminton strings.

    We will make a small series to test the market soon.
    The price for the badminton unit will certainly be lower than that of the tennis units, because of some design changes.

    Kind regards
    Stringtechno
     
  2. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,263
    Likes Received:
    528
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Got any pics? need a tester? ;)
     
  3. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I will make a jpg from the 3D design system, the proto is not so suitable for a picture.
    There are some Dutch badminton stringers already in the queue.
     
  4. maa2003

    maa2003 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Eagnas did it before you ...... http://www.eagnas.com/maxgen2/bs2.html
     
  5. Udonming

    Udonming Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    my den
    The design is only good for stringing 10 crosses and I wonder how much time one can really save or maybe even more time consuming. Brilliant idea but not Kaizen at all.
     
  6. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,263
    Likes Received:
    528
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    agreed. the total time for weaving a cross string maybe 10 seconds? the setup and overhead time for using such a tool must be taken into consideration as well.
     
  7. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Eagnas copied our tennis units changed the pitch and called them “badminton units”.
    We have all the Eagnas units.
    Our badminton unit is completely different.
    You can do all crosses up to the last 3.
    The trick is that you position the unit at the throat side of the string area and leave it there all the time. The unit does not have to be in line with the holes in the grommets.
    One of the questions that we have is: Do we put 18 or 20 mains in the unit.
    And of course we tested how much faster it is with the unit compared to without.
    You weave faster and more relaxed and you can pull the string through faster without friction. So it is better for the string also.

    We did not measure the time yet, but I estimate that you need 2 seconds to put it through the unit and perhaps 2 to 3 seconds to go through the grommet and pass the 2 (or 4) free strings.
    I would like to see a stringer who can do it so fast,
     
  8. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    We are not interested in producing a product that does not add anything, we have enough products so w are not just looking for new products.
    So perhaps we can do an objective test together so that we find out what the advantage of the tool can be:
    We can compare the time needed to insert 10 cross strings without tensioning.
    To avoid extra time loss we enter those strings without double holes, so start at the 5th or 6th string from the top.
    What do you think?
     
  9. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,263
    Likes Received:
    528
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    i think that will be valuable.

    but we should further reduce variables. unless the tool helps threading the string through grommet holes, let's take that out of the test too.

    we can take a video and time how long it takes to thread the string through 22 main strings, starting after the string has been threaded through the grommet.

    a few of us can try that as well as taking a look at previous videos we have of pro stringers. then we can see how the tool compare with amateur as well as pros.
     
  10. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Thanks Kwun
    We appreciate this kind of cooperation.
    The more input we get the better the tool will be
    I think it is better to leave single grommet holes in otherwise it is difficult to get the time for more then one string.
    We have to compare the total cycle time including switching the tool for the next string
     
  11. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,263
    Likes Received:
    528
    Occupation:
    BC Janitor
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    cool. i will volunteer myself as a amateur stringer. others can do it too. i also have videos of pro stringer to do a comparison.

    others can join in too. we will upload videos to youtube and share here. and i will suggest including a watch/clock in the video as a comparison.

    i also suggest we just do the weaving, no tensioning/clamping as that varies between machine and machine types.
     
  12. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I suggest we make a special offer for those on the "test team" for their contribution to the development.
    I agree; no clamping and tensioning.
     
  13. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    I would like to offer my time to test your device. Also, I will only report my experience to you. I will consider this as a confidential info other than the time comparison which I will post if I can do the test for you.
     
  14. illusionistpro

    illusionistpro Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    www.badstrings.com
    id like to give it a go and see how efficient it is
     
  15. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I do not think that testing the system it the first issue. There are quite some Dutch badminton stringers in the queue to do testing. We need more information to make the design of the tool as perfect as possible. We are “developers” we do not produce by trial and error.
    The major questions that we have to get answers to are:
    * Does such a unit offer enough gain in time? Therefore we need to know how fast badminton stringers can weave.
    So the question is: how fast do you weave 10 strings (without double holes) without tensioning and clamping.
    * What features does the tool need to do as many crosses as possible.
    The ideas are:
    - That we use only one site of the tool (for tennis we can use both), and that all strings from the first one at the head site can go through (although this may depend on the type of racquet.
    - To choose for 2 free main strings at each side. So 18 mains in the tool.
    Perhaps you can look at the video of the tennis unit and come up with remarks then.
    http://www.stringway-nl.com/movie/CROSSSTR-2_90MB.wmv
    The time to put the string through will not be very different for the badminton unit I think,
     
  16. kenzo

    kenzo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    It only looks beneficial to people who can't or don't know how to weave. To put this in perspective, YULitle (on youtube) can weave a cross in roughly the same time as the tool already set up, without all the extra time of setting up and adjusting the tool for every cross. The tool looks really fiddly and annoying to me.

    [video=youtube;L0FPGEBcBHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0FPGEBcBHo[/video]
     
  17. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    That is exactly the same opinion as a well known Wimbledon stringer had on the GSS symposium in Orlando
    .
    So he tried to beat the tool in a couple of crosses.
    He failed.

    And speed is only one advantage of using the tool.

    Please understand that you have to compare a stringer who is experienced with the tool with an experienced one without it!
     
  18. kenzo

    kenzo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    UK
    What's the other advantage? With all due respect, I understand you are trying to find a market for your products, but please keep things strictly factual rather than introduce marketing tactics (like providing incomplete accounts of events with no factual evidence).

    I don't disagree that the tool can make grommet to grommet weaves slightly faster (seconds at best for a decent stringer - you can't deny that), but it also takes seconds to set up the tool and move it around, especially if you are tensioning after each cross. The best use I could see for this tool in a professional sense is for preweaving all the crosses before stringing. I'd like to see what the time difference is for preweaving 10 crosses for each method, but you also need to provide a video of a so called "experienced" stringer with the tool. If you do that then I will try and see if I can match that time for preweaving.
     
  19. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    1) For your info, my average weave time is about 12~18 sec for crosses. I know couple others have sub 15 sec/string. You can not use me as an average stringer because my background. I can tell you that if I get use to your tool, I can prob weave cross around 12 sec between B11 to A11. But your tool will be difficult to use for the top 5 strings and 2 close to throat.
    2) If you need to do A11 or B11, you will need to weave the 11th on both right and left. more cross you want to include, more on the side you need to weave. It is your call to decide what is the optimal main and cross combo.

    a) No matter if you use 1 side or 2 side of your tool, you will need to mount your tool after the first 2 crosses near the throat are done. And take out the tool at the A11 or the top 5 cross.
    b) As I explained it before in the other thread, this tool will not work well with oval racquet because the 11th string comes in an angle.

    I am sorry if I sound a little harsh, but I did make suggestions before and you are trying to push the miniture version of your tennis tool without any stringer here to test for you.

    Maybe if I have your tool to shoot a video with my comments on where issues are will help. Until then, not a lot I can help without redesign your tool for you.
     
  20. stringtechno

    stringtechno Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    engineer
    Location:
    Netherlands
    So you are not allowed to mention anything on a forum without factual evidence?
    These are the other advantages that the tools have for tennis, maybe it is different for badminton?:
    * Weaving goes quicker and the speed is the same for nylon, gut and poly strings.
    * Weaving high density patterns goes as quick as weaving low density patterns.
    * Pulling the string through is quicker, without friction.
    * Minimum chance of mis-weaves.
    * No danger of “burning” the string.
    * Weaving goes more relaxed, so it is easier to string more racquets without interruption.
    I do not see the difference in using the tool with or without tensioning.

    There may be some misunderstandings:
    The new tool is designed to use from the first string at the top until 2 to 3 strings at the throat, it stays in the racquet all the time.( We assume that most stringers go from top to bottom (certainly on 6 p;oints machines) because that causes less stress in the racquet)
    It will have 2 channels on one side a shorter one for the first strings and a longer one for the rest of the strings.
    The advantage is that a badminton racquet is very wide at the throat so the tool can move far downwards.
    b)

    I do not understand what the angle has to do with the tool, besides most tennis racquets are oval?
    We once measured the time for the tennis units to enter 6 crosses and pull 4 meter of string through and the average time per string was 15,6 seconds. Pure weaving time will be around 10 seconds. But we will do a test with the badminton proto soon.
    OF course we do not need assistance with the design, we only want to hear requirements for the badminton tool which may be different then for tennis.
     

Share This Page