User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 35 to 51 of 74
  1. #35
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,272
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyBuddy
    I am sure there are stringers who prefer quatity (e.g. speed) than quality. This method does save a bit time in the progress, but the quality of work usually take a beat up. It's easier to result into un-even balance and especially dangerous when working on high tension.
    This maybe true but I just tried it for the first time. The string job was seamless and the results are wonderful (initial informatl testing). Will know more tonight.

  2. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    May I know how do you qc check if your strung racquet has no distortion?

  3. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Bell tower
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F-Man
    ...
    Point is, what are the benefits of doing this? Relevance and implications? I have noticed a number of stringers using this pattern for ALL rackets not just that of the Nanospeed series. Does anyone know?
    I'll leave the analysis to the experts. Personally, I use this pattern because it results in a shorter tie-off jump which is an untensioned length of string, really. (The jump is from T10 to T8 rather than T12 to T8.)

    It also looks neater on the outside of the frame.

    FWIW.

  4. #38
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,272
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    May I know how do you qc check if your strung racquet has no distortion?
    Absolutely. I do two things:

    1) I have one unstrung racket identical model, in known good condition. I match it up with the racket I just strung.

    2) I measure the height of both the known good condition and the racket I just strung.

    Any other tricks/tips would be appreciated.

  5. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Comparing two racquets of the same model is not as accurate. The best way is to measure the "before and after" total length of the same racquet. Since the before and after cannot be placed side by side to check visually, you take a snap of the before and then align the after with the snap. They should be identical. This is a very stringent test, much more accurate than comparing two identical racquets visually.
    To do the before and after qc, you simply draw an outline of that particular racquet (just the top curve part of the frame will do) without any string, standing perpendicular against a wall or tall bookshelf. Use a type of paper that you can take off without smearing. You then check the same racquet, now strung, and then see if it follows the curve exactly.

  6. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am now using 2 knot stringing exclusively. Since mains/crosses barely migrate, using 4 knots is unnecessary. Different tension can be used for mains and crosses even if there is only one piece of string used.

    Measuring the vertical distortion is easy. When the racket comes off the 6 and 12 o'clock support posts easily on completion of stringing, there would have been none or minimal vertical compression.

    My string jobs are definitely not Yonex compliant.

  7. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F-Man

    Point is, what are the benefits of doing this? Relevance and implications? I have noticed a number of stringers using this pattern for ALL rackets not just that of the Nanospeed series. Does anyone know?
    The reasons are simply to minimize distortion of the frame and to minimize tension loss.
    Ideally, it would be best to string the middle string first, first the right one and then the left, and then the last main string on the extreme right followed by the last main string on the left. You then start all over again with the other two mains and the other two side strings, etc., etc. But this is not practical and you would end up with strings all over the outer frame and needing perhaps double the normal length of string. As you know when you pull the mains the pressure on the frame goes sideways. If you then go on to pull the extreme side string, the pressure on the frame "equalizes" by going inwards. I think you know what I mean. So the "second last side string-as the last main string" is the most practical way to strive for this goal.
    The second reason is to minimize tension loss. This is brought about by the use of a shorter piece of unstrung string for the tie-off and the use of a "buffer" string (B12 to T11) to slow down tension creep or loss of the last string (T10 to B10).

  8. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F-Man
    Chilefeu and DinkAlot:
    If you guys have strung any of the Yonex Nanospeed series rackets before, you'll know that towards the end at either sides of the mains, the string loops back in a different way than the standard traditional way.
    One advantage is that the clamp can clamp close to the grommet on second-outer-most main. Because of the frame supports, it's almost impossible to clamp close to the grommet on the outer-most main.

  9. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In France, at East.
    Posts
    111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Hi all,

    Sorry for answering late, But When It's 23.00 H in the U.S. It's 06.00 H in France ... (Yes, I was sleeping )

    I'm going to answer to several things that have been posted here by you guys :

    - I don't know If my method Is like the Proportionnal stringing method. I never dared reading everything, since my english is quite bad. It takes me at least 45 minutes to read everything
    However, I had a quick glance at several answers, and it seems my stringing method is not exactly the same. It seems to be, a "variation", like Pete LSD said.
    Well, did you try this proportionnal stringing method ??? Or did you understand it well ? If that's the case, I guess you could tell me the differences between mine and this one ...
    I believe Mine must be the best. (In addition I'll thank my former stringer coach for this method)
    That being said, feel free asking me any questions / Giving me tips about my method. I will be eager to answer to you.

    - As for measuring Distortion. I use a simple and pragmatic method.
    I take a paper sheet, and i draw the outside frame (unstrung) form with a lead pencil.
    Then, I string my racquet.
    Next, I put my racquet on the drawing, and I compare

    * After many try, I noticed the frame Was larger on the center. It's normal : You need to add 2 Lbs on every cross string. It helps restoring the original shape of the racquet.

    * I also noticed something else, when compared my newly strung racquet with the paper sheet on which the unstrung frame was drawn. After the string job is completed, the distance between the top and the bottom of the racquet is slightly reduced. About 0.5 cm. (I donno the equivalent in Inch sorry)
    I clarify that this distance (Bottom-top-Top-Bottom) remains the same with or without adding 2 Lbs on every cross string.

    I guess It's normal again, But I need your help. Maybe you could tell me If it's perfectly normal or not ???

    Thanks for your help

  10. #44
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilefeu
    Hi all,

    Sorry for answering late, But When It's 23.00 H in the U.S. It's 06.00 H in France ... (Yes, I was sleeping )

    I'm going to answer to several things that have been posted here by you guys :

    - I don't know If my method Is like the Proportionnal stringing method. I never dared reading everything, since my english is quite bad. It takes me at least 45 minutes to read everything
    However, I had a quick glance at several answers, and it seems my stringing method is not exactly the same. It seems to be, a "variation", like Pete LSD said.
    Well, did you try this proportionnal stringing method ??? Or did you understand it well ? If that's the case, I guess you could tell me the differences between mine and this one ...
    I believe Mine must be the best. (In addition I'll thank my former stringer coach for this method)
    That being said, feel free asking me any questions / Giving me tips about my method. I will be eager to answer to you.

    - As for measuring Distortion. I use a simple and pragmatic method.
    I take a paper sheet, and i draw the outside frame (unstrung) form with a lead pencil.
    Then, I string my racquet.
    Next, I put my racquet on the drawing, and I compare

    * After many try, I noticed the frame Was larger on the center. It's normal : You need to add 2 Lbs on every cross string. It helps restoring the original shape of the racquet.

    * I also noticed something else, when compared my newly strung racquet with the paper sheet on which the unstrung frame was drawn. After the string job is completed, the distance between the top and the bottom of the racquet is slightly reduced. About 0.5 cm. (I donno the equivalent in Inch sorry)
    I clarify that this distance (Bottom-top-Top-Bottom) remains the same with or without adding 2 Lbs on every cross string.

    I guess It's normal again, But I need your help. Maybe you could tell me If it's perfectly normal or not ???

    Thanks for your help
    So you learned all this from a professional stringer in France? Where in France? Is it one of the Babolat people?

  11. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In France, at East.
    Posts
    111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I learned that from a French representant of Fz brand.
    I meet him 6 months before getting my string machine, at the France Badminton Open.

    He even gave me an explanation paper with pics. As far as I'm concerned, a pic is worth a thousand word, it gives a better understanding to sentences ... It really helped me

    This sheet was translated from Danish to French, But I cannot find this sheet on the net. (I think An english version - for The U.K. - exists). Consequently I only have the French Version ...

    Of course I can send it to you, If you really need it. (My previous explanations aren't so bad, are they ? )
    Last edited by Chilefeu; 12-28-2006 at 05:41 AM.

  12. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Chilefeu, from what you have described your strung racquets have frame distortion. In stringing machines there is a so-called "sweetspot" where distortion is close to zero. Each machine is different but if you know what you are doing you can find that spot.
    Tracing your blank frame on a piece of paper and then comparing the strung frame with the tracing is passable, but the devil is in the alignment of the frame with the tracing. A better method will be to measure the whole length of the racquet, before and after. This way, minute distortion not apparent in the tracing method will stand out starkly.

  13. #47
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,272
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilefeu
    * I also noticed something else, when compared my newly strung racquet with the paper sheet on which the unstrung frame was drawn. After the string job is completed, the distance between the top and the bottom of the racquet is slightly reduced. About 0.5 cm. (I donno the equivalent in Inch sorry)
    I clarify that this distance (Bottom-top-Top-Bottom) remains the same with or without adding 2 Lbs on every cross string.

    I guess It's normal again, But I need your help. Maybe you could tell me If it's perfectly normal or not ???

    Thanks for your help
    I don't know about that but when I strung my racket with your method, before and after I compared it with an identical racket (didn't draw it) and fact the fact, the racket is spot on, no distortion. It's possible the 6-point support helps.

  14. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In France, at East.
    Posts
    111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Chilefeu, from what you have described your strung racquets have frame distortion. In stringing machines there is a so-called "sweetspot" where distortion is close to zero. Each machine is different but if you know what you are doing you can find that spot.
    Tracing your blank frame on a piece of paper and then comparing the strung frame with the tracing is passable, but the devil is in the alignment of the frame with the tracing. A better method will be to measure the whole length of the racquet, before and after. This way, minute distortion not apparent in the tracing method will stand out starkly.
    Maybe I can solve my problem easily. I suppose I don't tight enough the top as well as the bottom support when stringing, unlike to side supports which are correctly tight. Thus, It may result in a slight "shortage" (donno the word in english) of the racquet lenght between the head and the T-joint. I have to try tightenning more maybe ?

    As for my method, there are 2 main reasons explaining why I'm using it :

    - Safer for the racquet, none distortion -or almost none- distortion.
    - Seems it well increases the sweetspot, I hear the noise is louder and I feel my racquet responds better. And also a bit more power too ... At 22X24 or 23X25.

    Presently, I'd like to know Who else tried this method and what did it change when compared with another method ? Especially when it comes talk about playability ? I'd be curious to know more opinions
    Last edited by Chilefeu; 12-28-2006 at 07:51 PM.

  15. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilefeu
    Maybe I can solve my problem easily. I suppose I don't tight enough the top as well as the bottom support when stringing, unlike to side supports which are correctly tight. Thus, It may result in a slight "shortage" (donno the word in english) of the racquet lenght between the head and the T-joint. I have to try tightenning more maybe ?

    As for my method, there are 2 main reasons explaining why I'm using it :

    - Safer for the racquet, none distortion -or almost none- distortion.
    - Seems it well increases the sweetspot, I hear the noise is louder and I feel my racquet responds better. And also a bit more power too ... At 22X24 or 23X25.

    Presently, I'd like to know Who else tried this method and what did it change when compared with another method ? Especially when it comes talk about playability ? I'd be curious to know more opinions
    Chilefeu, a 0.5cm shorter frame is a very serious distortion, putting great stress on your racquet frame. If I were you I would cut the string now.
    The real sweetspot is actually a tiny point which no stringing pattern or tension can affect. What you experience is due to low tension which is more "friendly", due to trampoline effect, on off-centre hits and for players who use less wrist snap but more arm movement.

  16. #50
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,272
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilefeu
    Presently, I'd like to know Who else tried this method and what did it change when compared with another method ? Especially when it comes talk about playability ? I'd be curious to know more opinions
    I will report back tonight...

    I can already tell you the sweetspot is larger.

  17. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The stringing pattern descriibed by Chilefeu is proportional stringing. It is basically stringing the middle mains and middle crosses at their highest respective tensions first and then stringing the remaining strings at progressively lower tensions. Some use 3 (like Chilefeu), some even up to 6-7, tensions roughly proportional to the length of each string, with proportionally less tension for shorter strings.
    The effect of this is to increase the trampoline effect with an overall reduced tension, based on the premise that the longer the string the higher should be the tension. However the shape of the racquet frame, in which the center mains are the longest for the vertical and the center crosses the longest for the horizontal, followed by progressively shorter strings outwards from the center, already has a native trampoline effect even if all the mains and crosses are tensioned to their respective one tension. If all the mains are tensioned to 25lbs and all the crosses to 27.5lbs, the frame-shape-induced string length differences will have a trampoline effect. The difference is that the trampoline effect is much less than the proportional method. As to which method is better it all depends on the way you use your forearm and wrist rotation and wrist snap-which I call a synergy of 3-for your shots, excepting net tumbles and reverse drop shots.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Variations for Different Levels Playing Together
    By Kevin402can in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 6
    : 05-20-2010, 12:17 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    : 08-14-2008, 05:35 PM
  3. how to start tensioning when you prestring and only have flying clamps?
    By miketlo in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 1
    : 09-05-2007, 08:20 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    : 04-23-2004, 02:24 PM
  5. the different variations for Swing Powers
    By zero in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 8
    : 08-24-2001, 08:56 AM

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
  •