Custom-Made Stringing Machine Parts

[Fidget]

Franken-stringer!!
Looks great. Congratulations on a job well done.

[kwun]

Initially i wanted to use a threaded rod but I am a bit lazy and i don't want to saw the rod so that's why I used bolts.
I 've grinded all the sharp edges. I'll see during the next stringing job if it's enough...

i really like the geometry of the design. most factory made support are so overly designed to the point that they are impractically large for badminton. this one is minimal and offers tons of clearance.

[Michal]

what would be the size dimension of this side-support ?

Pics after painting and with new yellow tube protection.
In the next week I will make another set of this "frame support" for my friend. It could be better than mine

[Michal]

I can't edit my post so I write it here. Better becouse the upper side (on the picture with yellow tube) will be cut on the CNC waterjet machine.

[Michal]

I can't edit my post so I write it here. Better becouse the upper side (on the picture with yellow tube) will be cut on the CNC waterjet machine.

[Pete LSD]

Man, that's so nice!!!

[Sgbad]

Wow, Good Job!

[Fidget]

That's impressive. Looks like you are ready for world-wide sales.
(what was originally in the box you have them packed in? They fit perfectly.)

[kwun]

Where do i place an order?

[Michal]

Thanks for praise.
I can maybe make more this parts (first I have to test it carefully) and sell. But I don't know when and what will be the final price including shipping. In Europe is no problem, North America, Asia, Australia is more difficult- shipping cost is my opinion quite expensive (50$ US and more). I'm still looking something cheaper.
If I know something new, I will write it here.
BTW. This is chocolates box. Candies was delicious
Best regards,
Michal

[fishmilk]

The only thing I would worry about is that rubber sleeve seems a bit thin. For a high-volume stringer (not myself) it may wear out and if he/she didn't notice, they might scratch a customer's racquet.

[Michal]

The only thing I would worry about is that rubber sleeve seems a bit thin. For a high-volume stringer (not myself) it may wear out and if he/she didn't notice, they might scratch a customer's racquet.

That's a good point. Thanks for advice. As I wrote before I have to test new version.
The previous „all hand made” version is with 2 layers (1st black, 2nd colourless) of protection rubber. After 30 racquets I can say, that's durable.

[maa2003]

Thanks for praise.
I can maybe make more this parts (first I have to test it carefully) and sell. But I don't know when and what will be the final price including shipping. In Europe is no problem, North America, Asia, Australia is more difficult- shipping cost is my opinion quite expensive (50$ US and more). I'm still looking something cheaper.
If I know something new, I will write it here.
BTW. This is chocolates box. Candies was delicious
Best regards,
Michal

you do not have to worry for the shipping cost boss.
if it is worth, it would be no meaning for the shipping cost.
to me, using high shipping cost but secure (for example using DHL, FedEx, UPS or similar) is better.

just do let us know how much for 1 set (4 pieces) and shipping cost.

we wait for your further information.

[Mark A]

These clamps are very promising, but I would suggest making the base significantly thinner. The higher the racket sits in the machine, the more angle there is between the string and the horizontal when pulling, which will make the true tension end up lower than the set value.

I've seen a few Pro's Pro Pilot/XP and other Eagnas 800/900 Combo clones on here, and these have removable rubber mats at 12/6. If these are removed the racket will drop down another 5 mm, which would be as good as we can get; ideally, the shaft would only just clear the puller when spinning the racket, getting as close to a horizontal string pull as possible.

Of course, some machines would need the extra clearance of the thick base, so the base thickness would probably end up being customer-specified.

[kwun]

Which version is better and why?
First is "half cnc" ,welded, upper cnc side (with yellow sleeve) is 6mm width, bottom side 14mm. Second (on the pics all black at the moment, without a rubber sleeve) all 12mm width. Both with M8 steel screws.. Mark A: It could be some problem with making "lower" base, but I will think about this. It's interesting. Thanks for opinion.
Attachment 82465Attachment 82466Attachment 82467
Attachment 82468Attachment 82469Attachment 82470Attachment 82471Attachment 82472Attachment 82473

Ooooo....! i like the one with the round back, it looks smoother and more defined. but i also like the other one's thinner profile as well as the protruding front (give more clearance).

perhaps the two properties can be combined? that will make an perfect one IMHO.

[Michal]

Which version is better and why?
First is "half cnc" ,welded, upper cnc side (with yellow sleeve) is 6mm width, bottom side 14mm. Second (on the pics all black at the moment, without a rubber sleeve) all 12mm width. Both with M8 steel screws.. Mark A: It could be some problem with making "lower" base, but I will think about this. It's interesting. Thanks for opinion.

[Mark A]

The ones with the curved back get my vote - the fewer sharp edges and/or corners there are the less chance there is of accidentally fouling or, worse, snapping a string on them.

However, the ones with the round backs look slightly too wide to me; they should fit between the closest holes on a racket (those in the middle of the crosses) without blocking them at all. If they were 1 mm or so wider than the Mk1s (with the rubbers included) they would be a winner for me.

If I may ask, what would be the problem with making a thinner base?