Results 120 to 136 of 377
12-25-2010, 01:52 PM #120
I must agree with Mark. Supports working nicely.
Eagnas misplaced holes on the shoulders - considering to remove threads on the small pins of the two supports as well.
Thank you Michal :-)
12-25-2010, 09:56 PM #121
Let's have photos of the setup please !
12-26-2010, 09:43 AM #122
Just for Pete...
The height above the bed is more of an issue than I thought, so I'm having my support arms skimmed by a good 5 mm as soon as I can. The result will be a frame that's as close to the puller head's level as possible, once I remove the 12/6 rubber mats, and then all will be well. (If any of you BCers out there have access to milling machine with an endmill and can help me out with this, do let me know - I'm looking at you, Nick W.).
The brackets are extremely long and so may interfere with an awl's handle (unless your awl has a spike more than eight inches long), so I've put mine as close as possible to, but outside, the last shared holes at each corner. They look thin in the pictures, but they are a good 3 mm thicker than the PS badminton mounts. The padding is perfect, and keeps frame rotation within the brackets to a minimum.
12-26-2010, 12:20 PM #123
And the height is same as Mark.
12-26-2010, 01:15 PM #124
Valentinas - have you strung rackets at this height? If so, did you notice any frame "twist"/torque? I know that a lot of the top-end machines don't have any horizontal support at 12/6; the puller angle is what bothers me, i.e. I would have to pull from further away to get the same shallow angle.
You happen to have exactly the same machine with exactly the same clamps as I have, I noticed O/T, may I ask where you got your Yonex H-piece (can be seen at 12 o'clock)?
12-26-2010, 04:17 PM #125
Frame Holding Ability
So, in terms of holding the frame, are the new supports capable of less distortion than the previous ones? Do you still need to add 6.45% (about 2 lbs) on the cross?
12-27-2010, 12:38 AM #126
Since I am using Stringway tensioner - I have adjusted the height of the turntable so the string pulled is almost horisontal. Just changed standard 25 mm long bolts with 40 mm long bolts and used some metal washers to fine-tune the height.
Yes - I have tried a 3-tooth badminton clamps - it is crap. 5 tooth clamps are just perfect - after you use some fine sand-paper on them :-).
The H-piece is from shuttle-house. Veeeeeery expensive.
Last edited by Valentinas; 12-27-2010 at 12:40 AM. Reason: wrong quoting and poor grammar :-(
12-27-2010, 02:45 PM #127
An idea for anybody who wants to lower the height of the racket (Valentinas, especially):
*remove the support arms completely from the machine, leaving the splined/threaded shafts in place;
*add washers to the shafts (each set of washers has to be identical);
*replace the arms
This will have the effect of forcing the entire arms downwards - no need for skimming the metal. The springs should still engage the arms on the back side, they'll just sit lower. I'll be trying this myself later in the week, and if it works I'll do a pictured guide in case any other Eagnas owners fancy doing it.
12-28-2010, 03:08 AM #128
What problem exactly are you trying to solve?
In my setup racket with a small head (say arcsaber z-slash) will not reach the posts at all. Bigger headed rackets overlaps with the posts. But difference in height between my old setup and new one is only 1-2 mm. It was always some clearance between racket and ruber padding. Simple contact with a post will not prevent twisting by itself - you need some kind of counter force (like placing a wide plastic pad under and a brick on the top - just kidding) like shuttle express has.
If for some reasons you do need a contact between frame and a post - then remove the rubber pads and make a set of plastic ones with slightly different thickness to be able to string slim/narrow and thick frames.
If you try to lower the arms by adding the washers then the end of a bolt pressing the shoulder arm inwards will not fit into the groove on the arm.
12-28-2010, 03:31 AM #129
I do not have enough statistics yet. Stringing obviously becomes more comfortable :-). Not even small marks left in contact points on the frame.
Stringed 3 AT700 at 13 kg with a new setup - seems that the frame distortion is the same. I think that the next step for eagnas users is to replace the shoulder arms to reduce the up/down movement and outward twisting.
12-28-2010, 12:22 PM #130
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad that the supports work correctly.
About right supports angle. This issue is easy to solve. In the next version I can weld a upper part on a base aslant (two from left to right, two right to left). The angle beetween supports and the frame racquet will be around tangential.
About suppors height. In my opinion there is no need to lie a racquet frame on the 6/12 rubber padding. Some manufactures have the same view on this issue. If anyone thinks otherwise Mark method solves this problem perfectly- I've seen a construcion of machine arm.
In January I can make the other ordered supports (Maa2003 and DinkAlot- Pro's Pro/Eagnas machine; Signflip4life and Fidget- Silent Partner machine).
If there were some comments, suggestion about supports, please write.
12-30-2010, 04:24 PM #131
With regard to the string angle issue, Valentinas is 100% correct in that he washer/spacer solution won't work - the control knobs are designed to work with the arms at the standard height.
However, as an alternative to removing metal from the arms it would probably be easier to remove some metal from the bottoms of the support towers themelves (where they contact the turntable). This would still bring the racket downward w.r.t the puller, but would only need two machinings instead of four.
This may all be my OCD asserting itself - when I string a racket with them I'll also do one identically with the standard supports and comapre the pitch after 24 hrs. If they're the same (or as close as makes no difference - I can only hear 1/2 a pound anyway) I'll consider the matter closed and leave everything as it is.
12-30-2010, 06:01 PM #132
Mark's solution is an interesting one. Shortening the actual support towers would achieve it in a much easier manner than replacing supports. The only problem with that solution is the fact that most towers I've seen aren't solid metal. They're actually hollow for the most part, which can limit how much it can be shortened.
12-30-2010, 11:19 PM #133
12-31-2010, 03:53 AM #134
I noticed that after a few month's use my supports arms' nuts became loose - it's very subtle and builds very slowly over time, and it's something you may want to check for. Trying holding the ends of the arms and moving them up and down to check for looseness, and if there is any, do as follows:
Get the arms into their normal position (i.e. where they would be if they were holding a racket) and use a 19 mm spanner to tighten the nuts from underneath. Tighten each one a little at a time and try to wiggle the arms in the up-down direction - if there is no play the nut is tight enough, but tighten them to the absolute minimum necessary and check for smooth in/out movement once this is done.
The nuts in question are Nylok, but the Nylon wears out after a while so you might want to use Loctite or epoxy to keep the nut in place.
12-31-2010, 10:59 AM #135
12-31-2010, 05:28 PM #136
I just took the Michal supports for an impromptu spin, so I thought I'd share my findings for any potential buyers. Racket done at 25 lbs (a low tension, yes, but I'll try a 32 lb job once my new racket gets here).
My main worry, the racket frame height, didn't pan out. Even though the racket floats a good 4-5 mm above standard, I've seen larger angles on other machines - the ES5Pro is comparable, for example. I checked the frame at numerous points during stringing, looking for torque and/or twisting, and there was none; the racket came out as symmetrical and as flat as it went in.
In use these supports put the standard K brackets to shame. The K brackets have to be placed very carefully to avoid covering any holes whatsoever, as there isn't enough room around the back to push a string through even a single-pass hole (especially if a main loop is involved); the Ms have a vast gulf in which to play, so as long as you don't plonk them right on top of a shared hole, and account for awl clearance, you can pretty much put them anywhere. In addition, there is no protrusion into the string area whatsoever, so they will not interfere with clamping.
The padding is perfect - no other word for it - as it has more give than the K bracket and, thereby, better "grip" on the frame, preventing twist. The edges where the string could foul during pulling were in now way sharp or rough.
Improvements? Aside from the excessive height (which is no more than a niggle to my OCD), the only change I would make is to either make thinner or completely remove the rear thread, as it is possible that users would be unable to turn the Ms far enough to get a perfect 90 degree contact with the frame
I would heartily recommend these to any stringer with an appropriate Eagnas-style fitment. I wonder if Michal is planning any for tennis and squash...
By Mark A in forum Buy & SellReplies: 0: 12-21-2011, 03:49 PM
By sadlonelylad in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 2: 11-13-2011, 09:02 PM
By Pete LSD in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 52: 04-19-2007, 04:04 PM
By vatovey in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 1: 01-10-2007, 01:22 PM
By Michal in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 29: 12-18-2006, 10:00 AM