User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 108
  1. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Improving products

    Hello Valentinas,

    Thank you for your comments, We are watching the badminton message board closely because we are convinced that we can only improve the details of your products with the help of the users.
    And we are also aware that our machines can be improved for use for badminton, our machines were designed primary for tennis.

    But we would like to improve any detail with the help of the users.

    Some remarks:
    1) It is very easy to bring the clamps a little more towards the middle of the racquet. We just move the guiding bars about 5 mm inwards.

    2) I am uncertain what happens here. I do not think that the bars are too narrow, it seems more that you have a movement inside your guiding system. Could it be that you have to adjust the clamping force of the guiding system a little heavier?

    3) Clamping the last strings on a badminton is an issue that comes up regularly. Of course it is the consequence of the inside support that the movement of the travel of the clamps is restricted. But we changed the front side of the plates which is now machined under an angle.
    If the last string can not be reached we advise to use the following trick:
    - Skip the string before last and put in the last cross string first (coming from the throat).
    - Do not tension the last string.
    - Put in the string before the last one and pull the knot tension while pulling tension on both strings together.
    - Make your knot.
    The last strings are so short that it does not matter when the tension in them is a little lower.

    4) The remark concerning the central support is very welcome: I think it might be good to reconsider this design which is already 17 years old.
    It is easy for us to supply a special central support that has the shape of a load spreader.
    I did some designing.




    5) Do you use the V-block at the throat, I do not think that moving around is possible anymore then.

    Thanks again we appreciate every constructive remarks and will use those that can help to improve our systems.

    Stringtechno

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Inside, near the kitchen
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hello Stringtechno

    1. Yes, I am planning to do it actually. But I will be happy if it will be possible to get modified shorter stands from stringway-nl.com

    2. Ok, I will re-check

    3. I agree, but I am using small Yonex strong grip flying clamp to finish las two crosses. Plates mashined at an angle are great .

    4. Yes, now it looks like similar design of Yonex ST-250. It is way better now. But I think that three Yonex designs must be considered before making a finas design: Aerodynamic Shape, Box Shape and the Delta Power Frame. H load spreader like this http://shuttle-house.com/PAGE_top_JA.../GM02517_b.jpg may be a better option sometimes

    5. Yes, I am using the V-block. I have noticed that movement occurs on the modern rackets where the T-joint area is very slim. When stringing the T moves to one side and the handle of the racket to other side.

    Almost forgot - some Vistor models with anti-torsion bridge like this http://www.victor-sport.de/badminton_atb.htm can not fit the bottom supports.

    Thank you for you answers,

    Valentinas

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know about tennis racquet but in my experience badminton racquets are subject to the greatest stress at the 4-5'o'clock and 7-8 o'clock positions. Using inside supports at the tip and throat of the frame is not as good as using 4 side supports or 6-point supports, with the 6-point machine having two clampdowns at the tip and throat. The greatest stress is not when the mains are completely tensioned using 4 side-supports, insofar as a badminton racquet is concerned. The greatest stress is when you start tensioning the crosses, at very high tension, from the top towards the throat. By design a badminton racquet is "squeezable" on the sides at the top half of the frame. With high tension, tensioning the crosses from the top towards the throat is effectively "squeezing" the frame from the top towards the bottom. Without the 2 bottom side supports, the lower half of the badminton frame will "buldge" and then crack with a sound. This is the most common crack in stringing badminton racquets.
    Re cracks at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions on 6-point machines, this happens mainly in 6-point suspension system and is solely the fault of the stringer. In a suspension system the frame should never be stretched by the top and throat supports, because tensioning the mains will cause wear and tear on the inside tip of the frame.
    For badminton racquets the key is to prevent the buldging of the lower half of the frame, not from the tensioning of the mains, but from the squeezing of the frame from the crosses that start from the top. Tensioning of the mains on a 4 side support system creates no stress at all on a badminton racquet. As a matter you want the frame to be slightly round after tensioning the mains, provided it is strung on a machine with 4 side supports, so that the "squeeze" hurdle that is to follow when you start the crosses from the top is easily surmountable.

  4. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    There you go: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...erfibre&page=8

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentinas View Post
    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

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Inside, near the kitchen
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Thank you Pete

    Hi Pete

    I have seen you post before, thank you.
    I have considered it carefully and decided not to change the bottom supports plate.

    Regards,

    Valentinas

  6. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1. Yes, I am planning to do it actually. But I will be happy if it will be possible to get modified shorter stands from stringway-nl.com
    1) The stands are glued in the main casting with positioning pieces that keep it in place. So you only have to move them inwards a little. I send you a trick in a personal message.

    4. Yes, now it looks like similar design of Yonex ST-250. It is way better now. But I think that three Yonex designs must be considered before making a finas design: Aerodynamic Shape, Box Shape and the Delta Power Frame. H load spreader like this http://shuttle-house.com/PAGE_top_JA.../GM02517_b.jpg may be a better option sometimes

    4) We will be happy to design a new center piece that offers the best possible support for badminton racquets. If we do that we will make a number of protos and send them around to experienced SW badminton stringers for testing. We would like to cooperate with you on the board to obtain the best possible shape. We need to know the dimensions of other load spreaders.

    The greatest stress is not when the mains are completely tensioned using 4 side-supports, insofar as a badminton racquet is concerned. The greatest stress is when you start tensioning the crosses, at very high tension, from the top towards the throat. By design a badminton racquet is "squeezable" on the sides at the top half of the frame. With high tension, tensioning the crosses from the top towards the throat is effectively "squeezing" the frame from the top towards the bottom. Without the 2 bottom side supports, the lower half of the badminton frame will "buldge" and then crack with a sound. This is the most common crack in stringing badminton racquets.

    This squeezing ending in cracks happened also on oversize drop shaped tennis racquets. Because of the widthe at the top the force on the outside supports was huge and rose even more when the crosses were tensioned from the throat to the head.

    I think that it is always better to put the cross strings in from the wider side of the frame towards the narrower side. In this way you lower the conflict between the upper and lower part of the racquet from the first cross string and the forces on the outside supports will go down also from the beginning. When you go from the narrower side of the stringarea to the wider side the "conflict" between the upper and lower part will get worse first with a big chance of damage.

    Stringtechno

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    And why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentinas View Post
    Hi Pete

    I have seen you post before, thank you.
    I have considered it carefully and decided not to change the bottom supports plate.

    Regards,

    Valentinas

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Doing so would lower the playability some of us like from stringing from the "narrower side to the wider side" .

    Anyway, please send the goodies or photos over once you have a new design. As per my PMs to you earlier, the center posts require press down devices too.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    1) The stands are glued in the main casting with positioning pieces that keep it in place. So you only have to move them inwards a little. I send you a trick in a personal message.


    4) We will be happy to design a new center piece that offers the best possible support for badminton racquets. If we do that we will make a number of protos and send them around to experienced SW badminton stringers for testing. We would like to cooperate with you on the board to obtain the best possible shape. We need to know the dimensions of other load spreaders.


    This squeezing ending in cracks happened also on oversize drop shaped tennis racquets. Because of the widthe at the top the force on the outside supports was huge and rose even more when the crosses were tensioned from the throat to the head.

    I think that it is always better to put the cross strings in from the wider side of the frame towards the narrower side. In this way you lower the conflict between the upper and lower part of the racquet from the first cross string and the forces on the outside supports will go down also from the beginning. When you go from the narrower side of the stringarea to the wider side the "conflict" between the upper and lower part will get worse first with a big chance of damage.

    Stringtechno

  9. #60
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham WA
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Back the stringer truck up: Part 2

    The recent posts are exactly what Iím talking about. Stringway is constantly posting scare tactics with claims of breakage and damage regarding different mounting systems to promote their own when it is ironic that it looks to me like stringers have been complaining about the Stringway mounting on this very site for years. StringWay claims their support is the best in the world and yet they are still trying to come up with something that works. It reminds me of Microsoft. They put a product out without thoroughly testing and let the buyers(in this case stringers) be the lab rats to find the problems and report back what needs to be fixed. Stringway could always do what I know Prince does and Iím sure all the other companies do. Take the next 3 months to string up a 200 or 300 different badminton racquets and discover on their own what most stringers would already know. Thereby avoiding disgruntled stringers with machines that don't suit their needs and a pile of cracked racquets!

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Inside, near the kitchen
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi Pete

    I decided not to change the bottom plate because it was not enough information for me to make decision. It is obvious that stringway supports are placed near the T joint and there is a lot of material around. Since I can not calculate or measure or take x-ray photo or do something like that to evaluate the change of stress when widening supports I decided not to change the construction.

    Regards,

    Valentinas

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    And why not?

  11. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why do you need to calculate or measure or take x-ray photo or do something like that is beyond me!

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentinas View Post
    Hi Pete

    I decided not to change the bottom plate because it was not enough information for me to make decision. It is obvious that stringway supports are placed near the T joint and there is a lot of material around. Since I can not calculate or measure or take x-ray photo or do something like that to evaluate the change of stress when widening supports I decided not to change the construction.

    Regards,

    Valentinas

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Pardon my frankness. Without any prove, I find that this thread has been infested with Stringway & "potentially" LaserFibre agents/supporters. The original intent of this thread is to showcase to the readers the new LaserFibre stringing machine. For both parties, please keep your stories in the tennis forum(s).

  13. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete LSD View Post
    Pardon my frankness. Without any prove, I find that this thread has been infested with Stringway & "potentially" LaserFibre agents/supporters. The original intent of this thread is to showcase to the readers the new LaserFibre stringing machine. For both parties, please keep your stories in the tennis forum(s).
    Thanks Pete. I agree that this thread has gone way off topic.

    It is probably not my place to say, and I appologize to the moderators in advance if I am overstepping my bounds. Personally, I feel that it was inappropriate for Stringtechno to promote their products/mounting, while degrading what seems to be the stringing industry standard "6 pt mounting", especially on a thread with a title containing "LaserFibre" (Stringway's former North American distributor). It is one thing for a consumer to be passionate about their purchase and promote one product over another, but for a manufacturer/supplier to do so in a forum like this, I feel is inappropriate.
    Last edited by KingO; 12-17-2008 at 07:45 PM.

  14. #65
    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 stringtechno View Post
    [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]1)

    I think that it is always better to put the cross strings in from the wider side of the frame towards the narrower side. In this way you lower the conflict between the upper and lower part of the racquet from the first cross string and the forces on the outside supports will go down also from the beginning. When you go from the narrower side of the stringarea to the wider side the "conflict" between the upper and lower part will get worse first with a big chance of damage.

    Stringtechno
    Stringing machines should be designed to meet the need of the customers. We have come a long way from the days of wooden racquets used in badminton, when the safest way to string a racquet was using a one-pc stringing job starting with the mains and then doing the crosses from the throat end towards the top, in the interest of safety from racquet breakage.
    In badminton the highest tension must be at the top part of the stringbed, in particular from tensions from the crosses, and starting the crosses from the top with a real starting knot is the gold standard for the best playability. Typically, the first two cross strings at the top are strung at a tension that is 15% higher than the mains tension, the next 12 strings are strung at a tension 12% higher than the mains, and the remaining crosses bar the last one at 10% higher than the mains, and the last cross at the throat end at 20% higher than the mains. Stringing the crosses from the bottom towards the top will take the modern game of badminton to a much lower standard. You may want to keep this mind.

  15. #66
    Moderator Oldhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,328
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the interests of free, unadulterated speech, here we go:

    Unless it is clear that a post contains commercial advertising or disguised commercial elements, anyone is free to post comments, arguments, likes or dislikes.

    If you don't agree with something, it's open to you to disagree and also state what your disagreement is based on. As an option, you could also ignore what you don't agree with.

    Curbing something merely because it looks like an opinion or a statement from a manufacturer or some other vested interest is not going to be of any help to anyone.

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    www.badstrings.com
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just think there isnt as much energy transferred to the walls as many people think. Why is it that a 2 point hold down machine can string upwards to 30 lbs and a suspension machine needs 6 points to safely go that high? Its cause we cant measure how much energy is being transferred to the frame, to bend it. Therefor all theories pretty much go out the windows, and only real life situations of "safe" stringing parameters can be observed and credited.

  17. #68
    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 illusionistpro View Post
    I just think there isnt as much energy transferred to the walls as many people think. Why is it that a 2 point hold down machine can string upwards to 30 lbs and a suspension machine needs 6 points to safely go that high? Its cause we cant measure how much energy is being transferred to the frame, to bend it. Therefor all theories pretty much go out the windows, and only real life situations of "safe" stringing parameters can be observed and credited.
    2-point holddown system has limits on stringing at very high tension, if you string the crosses from the top at 15% higher tension than the mains. However, it is very popular with professional stringers who count on large throughput or volume because it is the most speedy machine to string. At tensions above 30lbs, most stringers with 2-point machines revert to one-pc stringing or to stringing the crosses from the middle but at the expense of playability.
    In badminton the racquet is compressible from the sides and from the top, the former on the top half and the latter also on the top half. It is very important to maintain this status quo after stringing at very high tension, i.e. the shape must be exactly the same before and after stringing. It is also very important from a playability point to have the highest tension at the top half. Whether it is 2-point, 4-point, or 6-point the most important place to look for to prevent any "squeezing" of the top frame downwards is the waist location, i.e. 4-5 o'clock and 7-8 o'clock. Lock down these locations securely and the major problem to very high tension stringing with the crosses starting at the top will be no problem.

Page 4 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, 06:05 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    : 03-19-2009, 07:26 AM
  3. 21-point is better
    By weeyet in forum Commonwealth Games 2006 Badminton
    Replies: 92
    : 04-02-2006, 08:05 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, 05:34 PM
  5. point or no point???
    By mojoe in forum General Forum
    Replies: 5
    : 11-10-2002, 12:02 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
  •