User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 86 to 102 of 108
  1. #86
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did not say that the bar is in the way. The device does not prevent the frame from twisting or moving.

    Direct vertical supports, in addition to side supports, are better. Both electronic badminton machines offer those features.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    Pete please,

    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.

  2. #87
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i am using the method ST is proposed for about 5 racket 23 to 26 lb with no problem.

    i do order an extra headplate to follow Pete's setup but mike run out off the badminton set when i order, expect delivery b4 Friday this week.

    i can not say which is better because i did not try both but for the last string problem i already have a idea to mod the headplate. picture attached. cut those red cross part off.

  3. #88
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default adjustments

    Thanks Yanansi for the advise.
    A special badminton centre piece is on our list.
    We first have to get the cross stringers on the market.

  4. #89
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,660
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I might have some problems with the post at 12 o'clock.
    1) Is the screw in direct contact of the frame? If not, is there a chance to the screw contacting? It might damage the paint job the best, damage the frame the worse.
    2) Also, is there some give on the 2 side supports on top because they are padded with rubber? If so, what is the chance of frame change shape?
    3) The diagram is for Oval shaped racquet. The 4 side supports might not be enough or in wrong position for ISO. Need to have a clear instruction on how to mount the racquet for the user when this implemented.
    These are just suggestions.

  5. #90
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    I might have some problems with the post at 12 o'clock.
    1) Is the screw in direct contact of the frame? If not, is there a chance to the screw contacting? It might damage the paint job the best, damage the frame the worse.
    2) Also, is there some give on the 2 side supports on top because they are padded with rubber? If so, what is the chance of frame change shape?
    3) The diagram is for Oval shaped racquet. The 4 side supports might not be enough or in wrong position for ISO. Need to have a clear instruction on how to mount the racquet for the user when this implemented.
    These are just suggestions.
    1, no there is about 5mm gap.

    2, so far i have no problem with it, tension under 26lb. But i would like to try out pete's setup and see how is that when i get the badminton set.

    3, the top two support is adjustable. but i do not have any ISO racket in hand.

    BTW i am a newbie for ML100

  6. #91
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I first mount the throat side, tighten the hold down clamp half way. and them loose the top side support arm, set the top side racket on, screw the T hold down half way, generally rail the support arm outward until the racket is completely support by the supporter(red). tighten all three hold down.

  7. #92
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    any updates on this mounting system? i was looking to purchase a stringway machine but there seems to be various potential problems with the mounting system for badminton rackets...

  8. #93
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Best mounting of badminton on Stringway machine.

    What are the problems you heard of?

    We advise to use the other way around method for badminton so that the wide side of the badminton frame is supported by 3 and the narrow side by 2 supports.

    This also makes it easier to clamp the first strings from the head.

    Please understand that outside supports introduce bending stress, the closer they get to 3 and 9 o’clock the higher the stress.
    You can compare this with the beam in the wall as shown below;

    It is not true that no deformation means no stress in the racquet material!









  9. #94
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    do you have any photos with a more square/isometric head shape?

    there aren't that many oval head badminton rackets anymore...

  10. #95
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not have these photos but it is easy to make some.
    We have some Yonex ones on stock.

    For those who are technically interested, this is the other page of the "beam-story"


  11. #96
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,945
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    no disagreement that having internal support is a good thing.

    but isn't it just a matter of making a really wide load spreader like the load spreader we can buy today?

    granted there are a few different head shape, but with the understanding that these load spreaders do flex under load, then we should be able to cover pretty much all head shapes with 3 or at most 4 shapes.

    current load spreader we can buy are 5 fingers. we can make a 9 or even 11 fingers ones.

  12. #97
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The outside supports causes the bending force!

    The load spreader is a very good part because it reduces the pressure between the frame and the centre support.
    But the bad thing with outside supports is the fact that the outside support causes a bending stress in the frame were there is hardly stress without the support.

    Compared to the beam in the wall:



    - Without a support there is no stress between point C and A.
    - With the support in A, there occurs a bending stress between C and A because the supporting force in A has to be transferred to the position of the load [C].
    - With the support in C (direct support) there is no stress at all between C and A.



    In the racquet.
    - Lets say that the main strings pull the frame inwards between 12 and 1.30 average in 12.45.
    When the support is at 2.30, the supporting force has to be transferred to 12.45 causing a bending stress that is not there at all with inside supports.

    - With a direct (inside) support, the supports against the inside directly generate a “contra force” against the force of the mains. Because there is no distance between the position of the main strings and the supports there is no bending force.

    So it would be much better to use a very wide load Spreader without the outside supports then a narrow load spreader with outside supports.

    Forgot to take the pictures will do it now.

  13. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The other way around on SW machines.

    Hereby some pictures of a modern frame on the SW support with the “other way around” method.






  14. #99
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,945
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    can you take a photo of those red supports without the racket? i am curious what shape they are and how they support racket.

  15. #100
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    Shot at 2012-04-15

  16. #101
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, a question for you then.
    If all the forces during stringing are inwards, then the inward supports are very well suited offcourse.
    But, if you string cross-strings you can clearly see the frame moving outward (say you string bottum-up and arrive at the last 3-8 crosses)

    If all forces and support is inward, why does this happen?

  17. #102
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,945
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    because the model used is too simplistic.

Page 6 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
  •