User Tag List

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 35 to 51 of 108
  1. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I concur with GrandMaster Jerby . A good loadspreader will solve most of those issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    a well-made loadspreader will solve a lot of those problems, I string 20-29 lbs on a lot of rackets (29 on ym own) without any cracks at 12 o clock, because I use a load-spreader.
    (and yes, I have a 6 point machine, and yes, the supports are at 2 and 10 o clock)

  2. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,973
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, one last question to you. stringtechno,

    How much stress is there on an part of the frame that can move absolutely freely? none, right?
    So, when your badmintonracket is tensioned, the postion at 3 and 9 o clock are not under any stress, as you say.. So how much do they move?
    and, with all that movement, how likely is it to damage the racket?

  3. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @stringtechno : Thanks for the very detailed bescription on stress for Badmintonrackets.

    Next question to be discussed on is the direction(top-down oder down-top) how to string the crosses to get minimum stress on the frame on a indirect and direct machine?
    I'm very appreciate if you can also take it into account.

    Thx

  4. #38
    Regular Member maa2003's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kemaman, Malaysia
    Posts
    1,766
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    a well-made loadspreader will solve a lot of those problems, I string 20-29 lbs on a lot of rackets (29 on ym own) without any cracks at 12 o clock, because I use a load-spreader.
    (and yes, I have a 6 point machine, and yes, the supports are at 2 and 10 o clock)
    yup ..... now even a cheap racquet also can hold high tension thanks to load spreader ....

  5. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hi Kingo where did you get the kitchen cart?

  6. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yanansi View Post
    hi Kingo where did you get the kitchen cart?
    Sam's Club.

    http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/nav...=5&item=146064

  7. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    a well-made loadspreader will solve a lot of those problems, I string 20-29 lbs on a lot of rackets (29 on ym own) without any cracks at 12 o clock, because I use a load-spreader.
    * The load spreader is a huge help to lower the stresses at 12 o’clock in the badminton frames on 6p machines. I saw some load spreaders for tennis also at the Orlando symposium.
    Now, one last question to you. stringtechno,

    How much stress is there on an part of the frame that can move absolutely freely? none, right?
    So, when your badmintonracket is tensioned, the postion at 3 and 9 o clock are not under any stress, as you say.. So how much do they move?
    and, with all that movement, how likely is it to damage the racket?


    * Yes you are absolutely right, this is the essential matter to understand. This is the end of the “beam in the wall” in the explanation above.
    The worst thing that you can do is to place the bar across the 3 and 9 oclock position this introduces huge stresses between 3 and 12 o”clock.
    And therefore it is also of major importance that he outside support are not too close to the 3 o’clock position.

    * The maximum stress is much lower when the movement of the frame is gradually divided over the hole length of the racquet between 12 and 3 o’clock. This is the reason that the “old” Ektelon /Neos (4 p inside) supports never cause any problems.

    * The bending stress is higher when the bending radius gets smaller.
    When you let the racquet move freely with good inside supports the minimum bending radius will be smaller than when you add outside supports. The chance of damaging does not depend upon the movement in milimeters but upon the bending radius.
    So on a good inside support the chance of damaging is minimum while the movement at 3 o’clock can be 5 mm.

    * The widening at 3 / 9 oclock depends strongly on the way you support the racquet at the inside:
    - There would not be any widening if you support the racquet against the inside at every position of a main string. The force of every main string is directly “absorbed” by the in side support. Of course this solution is practically impossible.

    - The best practical compromise is to support the racquet at 3 positions.

    - The worst solution is only the narrow 12 o’clock support

    Next question to be discussed on is the direction(top-down oder down-top) how to string the crosses to get minimum stress on the frame on a indirect and direct machine?
    I'm very appreciate if you can also take it into account.
    * The best way to put the cross strings in depends upon the shape of the racquet and also on the support system:
    - The widening caused by the main strings is bigger when the width of the string area is bigger. When the string area is elliptic and head and throat have the same width there is no problem.
    - The problem arises when the width at the throat and the head is different like on most badminton racquets where the head is narrower than the throat. This causes a “conflict” between the upper and lower part of the frame. The forces of the mains at the head cause less widening at 3 o’clock than the forces on the throat side which causes stress between 2 and 4 o’clock. On the drop-shaped racquets it is the other way around.

    - The best way to put in the crosses on badminton racquets:
    It is important to lower the stress caused by the mains as soon as you start to put the crosses in. This means that you have to start the crosses at the throat so that the bigger widening there is lowered first.
    When the crosses are put in starting at the head the “conflict” between head and throat grows and the stress rises.

    - Depending on the support system:
    Putting the cross strings in on an inside direct support in the “wrong” way (going from the narrow to the wider part of the string area) is less dangerous than on an indirect support.
    The forces on the outside supports on an indirect racquet support are higher on the wider side of the string area. It is important to lower these forces as soon as the cross strings are tensioned. So on such a system it is even more important to go from throat to head on a badminton racquet.

    Stringtechno

  8. #42
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually, supporting every main string is possible. It's just a pain to make plastic/metal moulds for different badminton frames. In fact, a few existing Stringway parts can be used with the moulds.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post

    - There would not be any widening if you support the racquet against the inside at every position of a main string. The force of every main string is directly ďabsorbedĒ by the in side support. Of course this solution is practically impossible.

    - The best practical compromise is to support the racquet at 3 positions.

    Stringtechno

  9. #43
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham WA
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Back the stringing machine truck up . . .

    I have been stringing over 30 years as a PROFESSIONAL Racquet Sports Stringer and technician at my own shop and at tournaments. The gobble-de-goo that Stringtechno is professing to be truths are at best unsupported theories, if you can stretch the definition of theory that far. I use machines that only utilize 6 point mounting systems and I, #1 have never broken or cracked a frame and #2 I have never seen a frame distort like the diagrams Stringtechno has used to illustrate his "therory". I would like to ask the following: Stringtechno; What experience do you have stringing badminton or any other racquet sport racquet? What visual evidence do you have or can provide that supports your therory(ies)?

  10. #44
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default pro stringer

    Hi Prostringer,

    I am not launching these theories to have a theory. We have developed our last racquet support in 1992 based on computer calculation that calculate the stress in the racquet depending on the position of the supports. These calculations do not have anything to do with the size of the racquet only with the shape and the number of strings. So this counts for badminton and tennis.
    After we made the calculations we have taken more than 6 months to test the support that we designed based on the calculations.

    I am proud to say that our direct racquet support is known as a very reliable system.

    Around 2001 one our sales people asked me to design a 6 point outside support because that was easier to sell. After 4 months we stopped working on it because it was impossible to design an indirect (6 point) support that can match our direct support.

    So our theory is supported by quite some practical experience.

    Stringtechno

  11. #45
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham WA
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Stringtechno: Let me see if I understand what you wrote. Are you telling me if stringers use 6 point mounting they will damage any racquet they string? 80%? 50%? 10%? What exactly are you saying? I have never broken a racquet on 6 point while stringing. Never. My customers donít return with racquets all of a sudden breaking either.

    How is it possible for you to take 6 months to design a radical new theory of mounting support based on computer calculations in 1992 when what you came up with is hardly different than what Prince had been making 10 years before that? I canít believe you never saw the Prince air compressor(p2000) machines from the early 1980ís before you made all your calculations because your mounting is only a hair different. A copy I would guess.

    Iím curious to know about this because now that we are in the 21st Century, every major racquet company who also makes high end stringing machines puts 6 point mounting on their machines. Yes! Including Prince with their new P6000. Are you saying that the racquet companies donít know whatís good for their own bread and butter products? Or is it possible they know they design their racquets to be sufficiently strong to handle whatever stress is put on the racquet from a 6 point mounting. Iíve seen racquet companies caution stringers against stringing a certain racquet on inside supports. I have never seen one that says donít string on a 6 point support. It would seem to me if there was such a huge problem with 6 point mounting and exploding racquets, the industry would have known about it 25 years ago. By the way, Prince maked tennis, badminton and Squash frames, as does Wilson. I also believe Babolat is into Squash outside the US market.

    And while you are formulating your response, please answer my question regarding your stringing experiences.Observing doesn't count!

  12. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default in reply to prostringer's post

    Hi Prostringer,

    I do not feel good about this personal discussion, I do not think I have to justify my experiences as a stinger and a designer when I try to inform the market about technical matters.

    Some remarks:
    I think you pull this discussion out of proportion. I am not saying at all that racquets strung on outside supports will be damaged, I am saying that the stress in the racquet material is higher on a 6 point indirect support than on multipoint direct supports.
    But as long as the stresses stay below the level that is allowed for the material there is no problem at all, and racquets are very strong nowadays.

    But as a mechanical engineer you look for the best possible solution to use on your products and that is why we did the calculations and based our design on these figures.

    Designing a support system does not only mean putting the supports in the right position, our system was quite different from the Prince system (which I certainly do know). Our system had a fast clamp system and a T-bar clamping at the throat.
    And perhaps I am a slow developer but maybe it is also because of the famous rule in developing: 90 % of the job takes 90 % of the time and the last 10 % also cost 90 %.

    I do think that some racquets are not designed well to deal with the stresses during stringing. The big drop shaped racquets had many problems on 6-point machines and I do not think that the low profile bridges that many racquets have at the moment are a good idea , very high stresses occur in that part when the bridge is supported with a support that is too narrow.

    I find it quite peculiar that you think that you can develop such a range of stringing machines without learning about stringing continuously.
    Anyway I started stringing before we started the Stringway business in 1982.

    I hope that I passed this exam.

    Stringtechno

  13. #47
    Moderator Oldhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,332
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Guys, the last thing we need here is a personal exchange, especially of the flaming kind

    No one is required to prove any credentials here.
    We are all online - and most of us are anonymous too.

    If you don't agree with something, please question it or disagree with it or just ignore it.
    We are here to discuss issues.
    We are not here to discuss those discussing the issues.

    As far as advice goes, it's a simple take it or leave it equation

  14. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default keeping personal matters out!

    I agree completely Oldhand.
    I hesitated long before i posted the last one.
    So I tried to keep it to technical answers.
    On the other hand it is difficult to ignore personal "attacks" when your only intention is to add technical information to the discussion.

    Stringtechno

  15. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Actually, supporting every main string is possible. It's just a pain to make plastic/metal moulds for different badminton frames. In fact, a few existing Stringway parts can be used with the moulds.
    at one time, i did consider making a jig for some of the key yonex frame design: cabs, muscle power, armortec, etc but infortunately i was infected by the procrastination sickness

  16. #50
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Good Compromis

    About the mould inside the racquet:
    There are very good alternatives that are easier to realize and more universal than making a mould for every racquet.
    - A 2p support with rotating supports and the supports 60 mm apart will do a very good job.
    - The best compromis is a 3 point support with an adjustable one in the middle.

    Because the deformation at the wider throatside of badminton racquets is heigher a 3p at the throatside and a 2 point at the head side would be very good.

    When such an option is used on a 6 p indirect support it will lower the pressure on the outside supports enormously.

    Stringtechno

  17. #51
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Inside, near the kitchen
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Some suggestions

    Hello Stringtechno

    I think that you do have room for improvement in you product

    1. At my ML100 the bottom of the two-action fixed clamps is too short. Because of this the middle two mains are not straight when clamped. I think this happens only with badminton rackets and not with tennis ones.

    2. When clamping the base of fixed clamp the upper side is moving and sometimes significantly forcing you to re-clamp. I think this is happening because the metal bars of clamping system are narrow and high and have some play. How often do you re-clamp depends on what part of racket you are stringing.

    3. Usually it is impossible to clamp the last string on top (hole 7) witha fixe clamp. Frequently second last string is a problem to clamp too. This is happening because the last string are almost blocked with top supporting plate and the ^ shaped top of the fixed clamp are still too fat.

    4. Central support on top - the white one with funny shape - are ruining the frame on high tensions. Standart H or 5-finger load spreader cannot be used with it because the central support has shape W and is too fat.

    5. I have modified my central support to be able to use H load spreader. But it becomes too long to tighten the last string, so it must be unscrewed and removed every time before tightening 3 last strings on top. Central support will prevent putting the wider flying clamp like HI-QUA.

    5. And frame are moving when stringing crosses - this happens always

    Hope this will help to make you product better.

    Regards,

    Valentinas

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Point of Law
    By iain1953 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 3
    : 05-15-2009, 07:05 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    : 03-19-2009, 08:26 AM
  3. 21-point is better
    By weeyet in forum Commonwealth Games 2006 Badminton
    Replies: 92
    : 04-02-2006, 09:05 PM
  4. 2-point, 4-point, 6-point stringing machines-what does it mean?
    By taneepak in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 11
    : 06-30-2004, 06:34 PM
  5. point or no point???
    By mojoe in forum General Forum
    Replies: 5
    : 11-10-2002, 01:02 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
  •