12-18-2008, 01:14 AM #69
12-18-2008, 01:23 AM #70
Manufacturers on message boards, is that wrong??
I do understand the discussion about manufacturers trying to promote their products on message-boards.
My questions are:
* Why would message boards not be used to bring manufacturers and users in contact with each other so that the users have more influence on the design of the products?
* What is wrong with technical information behind the design of stringing machines when everybody can give their opinion about that including other manufacturers?
* Is it wrong when manufacturers can use the message boards to ask the opinions of users about new products (like with our cross stringing tool)?
We feel that a product can only become as good as possible when we know every detailed comment of users.
12-18-2008, 02:18 AM #71
12-18-2008, 02:57 AM #72
12-18-2008, 03:38 AM #73
It is irrelevant for me to address your questions here, but if you are interested, PM me and I will be glad to oblige.
12-18-2008, 03:41 AM #74
12-18-2008, 09:42 AM #75
12-18-2008, 11:48 AM #76
12-18-2008, 12:10 PM #77
And that's all for now...
OLDHAND: I agree with you 100% and I apologize to the real contributors to this thread.
Don't interpret my questions as a personal attack. I was encouraged to visit this thread because of the ingenious and creative solutions by the people who first posted to this thread. In 30+ years of professional racquet sport stringing, I have admired the ability of stringers from all racquet sports to create ingenious solutions to situations and dilemmas that arise from time to time. You're never too old or too experienced to learn something.
StringTechno's posts are inappropriate for this thread. He skillfully changes the thread from "hybrid Quantum" to the theory of frame distortion according to Stringway, a competitor of Laserfibre.
I agree that freedom of speech is one thing, but blatant advertising in a forum devoted to sharing ideas about modifications to a particular machine is inappropriate and just plain wrong. Unfortunately, Stringtechno has a very long history of doing this type of thing in other forums along with friends of his.
Let's get back to the subject: Laserfibre Quantum Hybrid machines and see what stringers have come up with. Enough with the commercials.
01-06-2009, 09:09 AM #78
I didnt think for a second when reading this thread that techno was advertising for stringway. In fact I found his findings quite an interesting read. Again at no point did i think oh i better by a new machine!
That said, a very informative post, keep the info rolling
02-11-2009, 12:30 AM #79
" The other way around" on a Stringway
We had an internal discussion about our badminton support some time ago and we tested the new idea with some experienced badminton stringers.
The idea is simple very logical and easy to use for every stringer with a Stringway machine.
Therefore this update;
We call it “The other way around”.
For badminton racquets, which are always wider at the throat, it is better to support the wider head with the 3 supports and the throat with the 2 like the photo shows:
It also improves the reach of the clamps.
Our tests have shown that the support is better and the stringers agree.
To make it possible you can do 2 things:
- Switch the posts around so that the stop will be at the site of the shaft again.
- Remove the nylon stopper from the frame, which might be good for badminton anyway.
I hope you agree and I would like to hear your opinion about this.
02-11-2009, 01:24 AM #80
02-11-2009, 01:48 AM #81
I doubt it, it is important to put the inside supporta at a distance where the racquet moves inwards. outside points A the racquet moves outwards and it is no use to position inside supports there. I think that the outside supports on the 3 point
For reaching the last cross strings the option of 2 head support plates is certainly not better.
We do not have to agree as long as we have a nice discussion.
02-11-2009, 02:09 AM #82
That T press-down device was originally meant for the throat. It had almost zero grip and almost no contact area with the badminton frame: the frame would slide and twist. I wouldn't trust it. The setup with two-head plates locks down the frame and provides solid & even support to the head area.
The machine isn't designed for badminton in the first place. No matter how we muck around with it, the last and frist cross strings will be impossible for the fixed clamps to get to. What I do is to unscrew the press down when I have the last cross under tension and clamp it with the flying clamps.
02-11-2009, 02:29 AM #83
It feels a little funny that you tell the designer where it was designed for.
But the T-bar is not meant to clamp with the bar and the central piece at the same time, the bar was meant for Y-shaped racquets.
What machines are specially meant for badminton?
Certainly not all those with outside support so close to the middle of the frame, because that is technically rather wrong.
02-11-2009, 04:42 AM #84
Then why show the photos with the T press-down device if it is not meant for the average badminton frames with the traditional t joint?
In 2006, I actually used the T press-down device when it came with the LaserFibre MS-200. The contraception did not prevent the frame from movement and twisting.
As stated previously, Exthree AM-600 and Victor C-7030 are designed specifically for badminton.
02-11-2009, 05:28 AM #85
The T-bar piece is a universal piece, the bar is not in the way at all.
And we just took a quick picture with an old racquet to show the system.
About the 2 machines:
It seems obvious that designers have different opinions about the best solutions in this case.
I thought that it was you who explained that a direct support is better.
By iain1953 in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 3: 05-15-2009, 06:05 PM
By CkcJsm in forum General ForumReplies: 12: 03-19-2009, 07:26 AM
By weeyet in forum Commonwealth Games 2006 BadmintonReplies: 92: 04-02-2006, 08:05 PM
By taneepak in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 11: 06-30-2004, 05:34 PM
By mojoe in forum General ForumReplies: 5: 11-10-2002, 12:02 AM