User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 41
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting that you mention the screw down would bend the frame if the mounting columns weren't exactly level. That says something about the precision of the manufacturing of the W&D Shuttle Express.

    Quote Originally Posted by _Rav_ View Post
    I am, but i don't use the screw down mounts anymore since they would bend the frame if the towers werent exactly level, which is really hard to achieve. with a bit of fiddling i've managed to get it to work nicely as a pure suspension mount that causes minimal racket distotion.

  2. #19
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    I think the half K supports are the same as the ASE. I think . . .
    the ASE half-K is metal. while the PPSE is plastic/delrin/...

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    My ASE is plastic/delrin, fyi.

  4. #21
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    My ASE is plastic/delrin, fyi.
    oh right. yeah. the current gen is metal. which i think is great for rigidity but they designed it to be too tall.

    i cut it in half and still can fit every badminton frame.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Interesting that you mention the screw down would bend the frame if the mounting columns weren't exactly level. That says something about the precision of the manufacturing of the W&D Shuttle Express.
    Yeah (well, Pro's Pro Shuttle express) ... the problem is integral to the design, so i would image the Alpha version would have the same problem if it was screw down, unless the machining/casting tolerances were very tight. What happens is that to secure the tower you have to tighten a grub screw in the base of the tower that relies on friction into the metal bar, but because the tolerance isn't that good, and the screws go in from opposite sides the tovers will both lean in opposite directions, and that's before you try to get them vertical.

    For under 200 i wouldn't have expected rolls royce level precision though.

    You could try an experiment with your ASE tables though; dismount it from the bearing and remove the side and 12/6 supports, then place it upside down on a flat plane (a mirror or piece of glass, unless you have access to an engineering flat plate) and see how level yours is. i would be really impressed if there wasn't at least a little bit of wobble.

  6. #23
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting.

    two points.

    i was actually looking at the towers the other day. and was wondering if it is possible to flip one of the towers around, which will mean that the grub screws will be on the same side. the question is (and i didn't find out), if the mounting holes that holds the 12/6 platforms are symmetrical and can be flipped. it will require taking off the top black padding to find out.

    even if the tower cannot be flipped, it maybe possible to shim one side of the platform to tilt it back to level. it will require inserting a thin washer of appropriate thickness on one of the screws that secure the platform to the tower.

  7. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    interesting.

    two points.

    i was actually looking at the towers the other day. and was wondering if it is possible to flip one of the towers around, which will mean that the grub screws will be on the same side. the question is (and i didn't find out), if the mounting holes that holds the 12/6 platforms are symmetrical and can be flipped. it will require taking off the top black padding to find out.

    even if the tower cannot be flipped, it maybe possible to shim one side of the platform to tilt it back to level. it will require inserting a thin washer of appropriate thickness on one of the screws that secure the platform to the tower.
    Hmm, interesting idea on flipping the tower around, might work.

    I've already shimmed mine, and also drilled, tapped and put bolts into the bottom of each tower to add another plce to secure them, all to no avail. The problem is when i tighten the grub screws it just gets hold of it and twists slightly.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just tried flpping mine and it does work, don't know if it will have any benefits or not though, but it is doable.

  9. #26
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    3,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Rav_ View Post
    I think i get what you mean ... So in these pics the white raquet is about right and the red one should be where the green arrows are?
    Yep, pretty much identical to what I've got.

    If you don't want to keep moving your towers in and out, get hold of an NSP racket and do what Rav did in his first picture, and OSP rackets are then covered by default; the racket in the second picture will probably be perfectly alright as-is.

    I agree with Pete: a load spreader at 12 wouldn't go amiss, but would it fit those cylindrical billiards of yours? They look pretty wide...

  10. #27
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    3,755
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    i am still trying to follow what you mean.

    "inside" the mains - by that you mean when the top supports are too far north and the low supports are too far south, right?

    mains "outside" - by that you mean mains with end points that sits between the side supports.

    cause stress beyond the supports, creating a kind of pivot at the contact point. - this is where i am not following. which forces causes the stress? the cross or the main?
    You nailed it, so I'm going to steal your phrasing: all the mains' endpoints should fall between the shoulder supports and the 12/6.

    If you have main endpoints on either side of a shoulder support, there is "spreading stress" on both sides of the support. I think.

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    Yep, pretty much identical to what I've got.

    If you don't want to keep moving your towers in and out, get hold of an NSP racket and do what Rav did in his first picture, and OSP rackets are then covered by default; the racket in the second picture will probably be perfectly alright as-is.

    I agree with Pete: a load spreader at 12 wouldn't go amiss, but would it fit those cylindrical billiards of yours? They look pretty wide...
    the load spreader fits better now that it has the plastic and heatshrink than it did before as a round post as there is something for it to grip on, before it could slip sideways a bit easily.

  12. #29
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,354
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Rav_ View Post
    the load spreader fits better now that it has the plastic and heatshrink than it did before as a round post as there is something for it to grip on, before it could slip sideways a bit easily.
    i use hot glue to glue mine in place. it is very secure.

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Canada, BC, Burnaby
    Posts
    763
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    doh.

    yes. i forgot to mention that. maybe i will do an additional video.

    what are your thoughts on staying clear of shared holes and also optimal location of side supports?

    clear of shared holes is easy. the lower shared hole is one of the worse ones as the angle is most acute and hard to get into. so it is desirable to avoid.

    however, what does that mean to the positioning of the side support?

    for bottom up stringing, the bottom 1/3 of the frame is pretty strong and has less need to be supported than the top 1/3. that's where all the forces are squeezing the racket, and that's where the racket is the most flimsy. so my gut feeling is that the side support should be leaning toward the top slightly.

    for top down, the reverse happens but maybe not as much, because while the bottom third is being squeeze, it is also thicker and stronger than the top third.
    I also string using the top down method and it looks as if your entire racket could be shifted down by 0.7-1cm by simply moving both the 12 & 6 o'clock support northwards. But if you do it bottom up, should be okay but will be annoying as there's a contstant shared gromet blockage.

    I know most people don't use loadspreaders at the 6 o'clock since the T is beefy and strong, but I've seen some instances by other people where the small area mounting post actually made an indentation into the frame due to high pressure. Probably didn't harm the racket, but could totally have been prevented by use of another load spreader.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    You nailed it, so I'm going to steal your phrasing: all the mains' endpoints should fall between the shoulder supports and the 12/6.

    If you have main endpoints on either side of a shoulder support, there is "spreading stress" on both sides of the support. I think.
    I agree with this point, but if he's doing bottom up, it's a sacrifice that might be a good precautionary measure. I always preach the top down method as the top of the frame is the most fragile and you don't want all the frame compression pressure to be there at the end of your string job. PeteLSD and I have pushed 30-40lb jobs on our machines without one ever dying! I'm forever sticking to top down, but if I had to do bottom up, I'd probably shift my mounting points northward to beef up the top~
    Last edited by Optiblue; 03-17-2012 at 01:36 AM.

  14. #31
    Regular Member Loafers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i apologize if this has been answered before, but what stringing machine do you use and how do you like it? it kinda looks like a hi-qua

  15. #32
    Regular Member Blitzzards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    GMT-04:00
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    Yep, pretty much identical to what I've got.

    If you don't want to keep moving your towers in and out, get hold of an NSP racket and do what Rav did in his first picture, and OSP rackets are then covered by default; the racket in the second picture will probably be perfectly alright as-is.

    I agree with Pete: a load spreader at 12 wouldn't go amiss, but would it fit those cylindrical billiards of yours? They look pretty wide...
    Thus for bottoms up cross stringing on a NSP will it be more advisable to place the top shoulder supports with the next immediate single pass grommet below the last shared hole (from top) right in the middle of the supports (on both sides)? Then the bottom supports will be placed on the second single pass grommet above the last shared hole (from bottom)? I am looking for maximum protection for my racquet frame, tensioning at 33x33lbs calibrated crank.

    Looking at Michal's positioning, it seems that setting the support arms a little lower may also suffice even when doing bottoms up?


  16. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Master Blitz,

    Looks like you have an overlapped cross string . Sorry for being picky.

    Nice work at 33 X 33!

  17. #34
    Regular Member Blitzzards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    GMT-04:00
    Posts
    1,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Master Blitz,

    Looks like you have an overlapped cross string . Sorry for being picky.

    Nice work at 33 X 33!
    Master Pete, thanks for the encouragement.

    The racquet and setup in the picture actually belongs to Michal. Referencing that, I usually have my top supports slightly more north, with the next immediate single pass hole below the last shared hole (with the old string pattern) in the middle of the support contact. I have been doing 33x33lbs with this said setup.

    I was thinking if I should shift the arms a little more southward as Michal, as from experience I have seen quite a lot of racquets (strung bottoms up on 2 point support machines) broken at around the spot where Michal has set the top support arms at in the picture.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WTB: Gamma 6004 w/ 6-Point SC Mount Stringing Machine
    By cokonut in forum Buy & Sell - Read the rules sticky before you post
    Replies: 6
    : 11-16-2011, 01:37 PM
  2. FS: Gamma 6004 w/ 6-Point SC Mount Stringing Machine
    By rebound7 in forum Buy & Sell - Read the rules sticky before you post
    Replies: 3
    : 11-16-2011, 12:24 PM
  3. How much can a racket distort if I string with a 2-point machine?
    By inzaniak in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 3
    : 09-13-2011, 01:20 PM
  4. About 2 point mount, crank tension machine
    By Blitzzards in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 11
    : 01-24-2011, 01:26 PM
  5. 2-point mount adapters
    By helzbane in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 13
    : 02-16-2010, 05:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •