Results 1 to 8 of 8
08-22-2006, 07:08 PM #1
Questions about Stringing machines
I was looking into buying a badminton stringing machine, and was thinking about the eagnas st-200.
i noticed that some machines have C-shaped shoulder supports and some have V-shaped shoulder supports. I was wondering, can the C-shaped supports accomidate an Isometric racquet (AT800), or can they just be used for the oval racquets?
Also, I would only be stringing at around 23 lbs, so would i need a machine with fixed clamps or is one with just floating clamps enough? (ST200)
I would probably only be doing a couple of racquets a month. All of which would be Isometric head shaped. ( No one in our badminton club uses oval headed racquets)
Thanks for the advice!!!
08-23-2006, 09:47 PM #2
I've never used an ST-200/250, but I doubt you'll have any issues mounting your racquet on it. The side-support arms may be fixed, but the support pieces themselves should be able to swivel a bit to fit the racquet.
As far as floating clamps are concerned, I think the consensus here is with good clamps (e.g., Yonex, Hi-Qua/Alpha), sound techniques and a max. tension of 25 lbs. or so, they'd do the job just fine.
08-25-2006, 09:54 PM #3
A few more questions
these are the flying clamps that come with the eagnas ST 200 machine:
Are these any good? (I only want to string at 23 lbs max)
I read on this forum that with the C-shaped supports on Eagnas machines you would require a thin leather padding. What is this for? and how come you would not need this leather padding with the V-shaped supports? Is this leather padding totally necessary?
Appreciate the help!
08-25-2006, 10:48 PM #4
The flying clamp looks too narrow. Even if work with 23lb, it still might lose quite a bit tension. Consider invest a bit more, to get another 2 Yonex or HiQua ones.
08-25-2006, 11:05 PM #5
or/and get adjustable flying clamps even though they might dent the string a bit. They hold very very tight.
08-25-2006, 11:09 PM #6
Originally Posted by Pete LSD
08-26-2006, 03:10 AM #7
Originally Posted by markburry_90
"C" supports can be a pain to work with because the space at the "C" supports is very tight with very little room to work with. V-shaped supports are made of hard plastic and they do not require any leather or other padding. "C" supports work differently. They need to be held or screwed tight, and one side of the screw-down clamp is raw metal, hence the leather strip to protect the frame.
Despite the trouble, "C" supports will give you the least frame distortion, provided you check and tighten the 4 "C" supports after every pull. V-shaped supports are easier to work with but you still do get some frame distortion, because these supports only prevent the outward distortion of the frame but they are useless in handling inward distortion. In contrast, the "C" supports do prevent both outward and inward distortion, and they do these at the critical corners of a badminton frame.
09-05-2006, 05:07 PM #8
I called Eagnas about the ST-250 machine and they are sold out.
My next choice is the Easy-3.
Does the "easy 3" machine have C shaped OR V shaped shoulder supports? Do I need any leather padding?
Also, do you need the starting clamp if you thread the main strings before you mount the racquet on the machine?
The reason I am asking this is because I have watched Dominic Soong string a racquet, and he said it was better to thread all the main strings, and then mount the racquet on the machine, and then tension all the mains. I do not remember him using a starting clamp, only yonex flying clamps.
Thanks, sorry about all the questions ..lol...I just don't want to waste my money as I am a student.
By masterblaster99 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 3: 11-03-2011, 11:30 PM
By azn_123 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 27: 03-20-2007, 11:03 PM
By JoeyC. in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 9: 08-30-2006, 01:06 PM
By Z1985 in forum Market PlaceReplies: 0: 04-11-2004, 08:15 AM
By timeless in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 3: 09-29-2003, 11:08 AM