User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 84
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What's the other advantage? With all due respect, I understand you are trying to find a market for your products, but please keep things strictly factual rather than introduce marketing tactics (like providing incomplete accounts of events with no factual evidence).

    I don't disagree that the tool can make grommet to grommet weaves slightly faster (seconds at best for a decent stringer - you can't deny that), but it also takes seconds to set up the tool and move it around, especially if you are tensioning after each cross. The best use I could see for this tool in a professional sense is for preweaving all the crosses before stringing. I'd like to see what the time difference is for preweaving 10 crosses for each method, but you also need to provide a video of a so called "experienced" stringer with the tool. If you do that then I will try and see if I can match that time for preweaving.

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    I do not think that testing the system it the first issue. There are quite some Dutch badminton stringers in the queue to do testing. We need more information to make the design of the tool as perfect as possible. We are “developers” we do not produce by trial and error.
    The major questions that we have to get answers to are:
    * Does such a unit offer enough gain in time? Therefore we need to know how fast badminton stringers can weave.
    So the question is: how fast do you weave 10 strings (without double holes) without tensioning and clamping.
    * What features does the tool need to do as many crosses as possible.
    The ideas are:
    - That we use only one site of the tool (for tennis we can use both), and that all strings from the first one at the head site can go through (although this may depend on the type of racquet.
    - To choose for 2 free main strings at each side. So 18 mains in the tool.
    Perhaps you can look at the video of the tennis unit and come up with remarks then.
    http://www.stringway-nl.com/movie/CROSSSTR-2_90MB.wmv
    The time to put the string through will not be very different for the badminton unit I think,
    1) For your info, my average weave time is about 12~18 sec for crosses. I know couple others have sub 15 sec/string. You can not use me as an average stringer because my background. I can tell you that if I get use to your tool, I can prob weave cross around 12 sec between B11 to A11. But your tool will be difficult to use for the top 5 strings and 2 close to throat.
    2) If you need to do A11 or B11, you will need to weave the 11th on both right and left. more cross you want to include, more on the side you need to weave. It is your call to decide what is the optimal main and cross combo.

    a) No matter if you use 1 side or 2 side of your tool, you will need to mount your tool after the first 2 crosses near the throat are done. And take out the tool at the A11 or the top 5 cross.
    b) As I explained it before in the other thread, this tool will not work well with oval racquet because the 11th string comes in an angle.

    I am sorry if I sound a little harsh, but I did make suggestions before and you are trying to push the miniture version of your tennis tool without any stringer here to test for you.

    Maybe if I have your tool to shoot a video with my comments on where issues are will help. Until then, not a lot I can help without redesign your tool for you.

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    With all due respect, I understand you are trying to find a market for your products, but please keep things strictly factual rather than introduce marketing tactics (like providing incomplete accounts of events with no factual evidence).
    So you are not allowed to mention anything on a forum without factual evidence?
    These are the other advantages that the tools have for tennis, maybe it is different for badminton?:
    * Weaving goes quicker and the speed is the same for nylon, gut and poly strings.
    * Weaving high density patterns goes as quick as weaving low density patterns.
    * Pulling the string through is quicker, without friction.
    * Minimum chance of mis-weaves.
    * No danger of “burning” the string.
    * Weaving goes more relaxed, so it is easier to string more racquets without interruption.
    I do not see the difference in using the tool with or without tensioning.
    But your tool will be difficult to use for the top 5 strings and 2 close to throat.
    2) If you need to do A11 or B11, you will need to weave the 11th on both right and left. more cross you want to include, more on the side you need to weave.

    There may be some misunderstandings:
    The new tool is designed to use from the first string at the top until 2 to 3 strings at the throat, it stays in the racquet all the time.( We assume that most stringers go from top to bottom (certainly on 6 p;oints machines) because that causes less stress in the racquet)
    It will have 2 channels on one side a shorter one for the first strings and a longer one for the rest of the strings.
    The advantage is that a badminton racquet is very wide at the throat so the tool can move far downwards.
    As I explained it before in the other thread, this tool will not work well with oval racquet because the 11th string comes in an angle.
    b)

    I do not understand what the angle has to do with the tool, besides most tennis racquets are oval?
    We once measured the time for the tennis units to enter 6 crosses and pull 4 meter of string through and the average time per string was 15,6 seconds. Pure weaving time will be around 10 seconds. But we will do a test with the badminton proto soon.
    OF course we do not need assistance with the design, we only want to hear requirements for the badminton tool which may be different then for tennis.

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    www.badstrings.com
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    We assume that most stringers go from top to bottom (certainly on 6 p;oints machines) because that causes less stress in the racquet)
    This is incorrect. Most stringers string bottom up. I'm not sure about tennis, but in badminton there is MORE stress on the racket going from top down. This is for any machine 2 pt or 6 pt.

    Why would you assume badminton stringers go top down? hmmm...

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Benelux
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I string most of the time bottom up especially on high tension. I think most stringers do because the tubes on the head are mostly single ones, so on a 4 knot pattern will be a problem if start from the top.
    I am very curious to see if this works.

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1.
    This is incorrect. Most stringers string bottom up. I'm not sure about tennis, but in badminton there is MORE stress on the racket going from top down. This is for any machine 2 pt or 6 pt.

    Why would you assume badminton stringers go top down? hmmm...


    Excuse me you are right,
    For badminton it is better to go from bottom to top but that counts especially with machines with outside supports and less for machines with multi point direct (inside) support.

    Most tennis stringers go top-down because the head is the weaker part of the frame.

    The reason that it is more important on 6-point machines is that the pressure on the outside supports at the throat side will be higher, because the throat side is wider.
    When you start at the throat you gradually pull the pressure off the outside supports, when you start at the top you push the pressure upwards and raise the pressure on the supports at the top.

    On inside supports this does not play a role.

  7. #24
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,064
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    some good points are made.

    i think the forumers will be willing to help and be part of an experiment. but you also need to contribute back to the forum by at least letting us see a video of the device at work. or even better by allow some forumer to get their hands on one.

    it would be really no fun if we contribute our side of the experiment and then we got left in the dark on how it turns up at your end.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So you are not allowed to mention anything on a forum without factual evidence?
    You can mention anything you want. Please back up your claim after you test it on a badminton racquet.
    These are the other advantages that the tools have for tennis, maybe it is different for badminton?:
    * Weaving goes quicker and the speed is the same for nylon, gut and poly strings.
    Yes for beginner. Questionable for for more experenced stringers
    * Weaving high density patterns goes as quick as weaving low density patterns.
    I can see that
    * Pulling the string through is quicker, without friction.
    No objection
    * Minimum chance of mis-weaves.
    OK, less chance.
    * No danger of “burning” the string.
    Yes for the middle 10 mains
    * Weaving goes more relaxed, so it is easier to string more racquets without interruption.
    Questionable. Interruptions are from TV or customers or the cute girl standing there watch you string (or my wife asking about the honey do list).
    I do not see the difference in using the tool with or without tensioning.

    There may be some misunderstandings:
    The new tool is designed to use from the first string at the top until 2 to 3 strings at the throat, it stays in the racquet all the time.( We assume that most stringers go from top to bottom (certainly on 6 p;oints machines) because that causes less stress in the racquet)
    The other member has corrected you on that.
    It will have 2 channels on one side a shorter one for the first strings and a longer one for the rest of the strings.
    OK, good idea and that might work.
    The advantage is that a badminton racquet is very wide at the throat so the tool can move far downwards.
    I think you see the problem when you move from throat up.
    b)
    I do not understand what the angle has to do with the tool, besides most tennis racquets are oval?
    Please get a Yonex Cabonex racquet and you will see.
    We once measured the time for the tennis units to enter 6 crosses and pull 4 meter of string through and the average time per string was 15,6 seconds. Pure weaving time will be around 10 seconds. But we will do a test with the badminton proto soon.
    Good, please test it on the top 5 strings and let us know if it make sense.
    OF course we do not need assistance with the design, we only want to hear requirements for the badminton tool which may be different then for tennis.
    Good, please get a regular badminton racquet and let me let me know if your tool can work on 22 main string pattern vs 12 main string pattern while 22 mains is regular width and 12 main is about 1/2 of the witdth. Please pick up a badminton racquet and you will see what I mean. Also, just to throw in a challenge for you. Get an YY ARC-Z racquet. If your tool works for a ARC-Z from 1st throat to last top and you can avg 15 sec cross weaving for entire racquet (including mounting and dismount of your tool), then got a winner.

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Good, please get a regular badminton racquet and let me let me know if your tool can work on 22 main string pattern vs 12 main string pattern while 22 mains is regular width and 12 main is about 1/2 of the witdth. Please pick up a badminton racquet and you will see what I mean. Also, just to throw in a challenge for you. Get an YY ARC-Z racquet. If your tool works for a ARC-Z from 1st throat to last top and you can avg 15 sec cross weaving for entire racquet (including mounting and dismount of your tool), then got a winner.
    The only way they could make it work for most of the racket is to make the long channel 18 mains and the short channel 14 mains which would leave out the top 2 strings, not that big of a deal. But in order to make the tool work for both oval heads and isometric heads you'd probably need to reduce the long channel to 14-16 mains, probably taking away all the time advantage with it. Eagnas' cross string guide looks like it covers 12/10 mains on the long/short channel.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    Pure weaving time will be around 10 seconds.
    With a slippery thin string on an iso head and weaving one ahead my average is 8-10 seconds for a grommet to grommet weave, which is your 'quoted' time for a tennis racket. For a thick grippy string on a preweave instead of one ahead, my average is 12-15 like silentheart's. Even shaving off 5 seconds from the total stringing time per cross used with the tool, you'd be saving what, 1-2 minutes? So yes, I really only believe this tool will be useful for people who don't know how to weave.

    Barely any rackets have something other than 22 mains so your point about pattern density is kind of irrelevant with badminton (only Babolat's comes to mind which has 20 mains - even less, which makes your point more irrelevant). All of the "advantages" you list put together aren't enough to justify the product if it isn't quicker, and pretty much all of the advantages are removed if you are forced to make your product smaller - as well as adding a disadvantage as you have to remove the string from the tool in order to pull the string through without risk of burning using the normal method.
    Last edited by kenzo; 05-11-2011 at 11:21 AM.

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenzo View Post
    The only way they could make it work for most of the racket is to make the long channel 18 mains and the short channel 14 mains which would leave out the top 2 strings, not that big of a deal. But in order to make the tool work for both oval heads and isometric heads you'd probably need to reduce the long channel to 14-16 mains, probably taking away all the time advantage with it. Eagnas' cross string guide looks like it covers 12/10 mains on the long/short channel.


    With a slippery thin string on an iso head and weaving one ahead my average is 8-10 seconds for a grommet to grommet weave, which is your 'quoted' time for a tennis racket. For a thick grippy string on a preweave instead of one ahead, my average is 12-15 like silentheart's. Even shaving off 5 seconds from the total stringing time per cross used with the tool, you'd be saving what, 1-2 minutes? So yes, I really only believe this tool will be useful for people who don't know how to weave.

    Barely any rackets have something other than 22 mains so your point about pattern density is kind of irrelevant with badminton (only Babolat's comes to mind which has 20 mains - even less, which makes your point more irrelevant). All of the "advantages" you list put together aren't enough to justify the product if it isn't quicker, and pretty much all of the advantages are removed if you are forced to make your product smaller - as well as adding a disadvantage as you have to remove the string from the tool in order to pull the string through without risk of burning using the normal method.
    1) Thank you for seeing what I am talking about.
    2) Damn, you are fast. I usually don't string with slippery strings.
    3) Just want to add to your point. the crappy Prince (Bonny) Y throat racquet has less dense string pattern too. Also, if the tool only moving the center 12 or 14 mains, the mains out side of those center mains will be burned even more than you and I moving the string up and down the main while pulling crosses by hand.

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    1) Thank you for seeing what I am talking about.
    2) Damn, you are fast. I usually don't string with slippery strings.
    3) Just want to add to your point. the crappy Prince (Bonny) Y throat racquet has less dense string pattern too. Also, if the tool only moving the center 12 or 14 mains, the mains out side of those center mains will be burned even more than you and I moving the string up and down the main while pulling crosses by hand.
    YULitle can do a tennis cross in 5 seconds

  12. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1.
    some good points are made.


    It might be good to explain more about the way we develop and the phases we go through and are in at the moment:
    - We want to develop this new product with feed back from the market, instead of putting it on the market and hear what users think of it. So this is not a way of marketing a product it is a cooperation with the market.
    - There is only one prototype that we have been testing which uses the principles of the production unit but does not have all features of the production unit and looks quite different.
    - We are designing the production unit with our 3 D design system at this moment. As soon as we are satisfied with it we will show a jpg from the system.
    - After the design is as perfect as it can be we make a production proto.
    - We will show pictures and a video of the production proto as soon as it works well.
    - If the production unit works well we order a series 200 to 300 units.

    i think the forumers will be willing to help and be part of an experiment. but you also need to contribute back to the forum by at least letting us see a video of the device at work. or even better by allow some forumer to get their hands on one.

    So there are no units that could be used for forumers and no video to show. As I already said we make a nice offer to those who contribute to this discussion IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. We are open for any criticism that can lead to a better product but not for those who only try to blow away new ideas.

    Please get a Yonex Cabonex racquet and you will see.

    We just received a number of Yonex racquets from the Dutch Yonex importer to test.

    Good, please test it on the top 5 strings and let us know if it make sense.

    Because the tool has channels of 3 length it is not more difficult to do the first crosses, the short channel passes 14 mains, the second channel 16 and the long one 18. You just choose the channel you need and the first 5 strings are not more difficult then others (except for the double holes).




    Good, please get a regular badminton racquet and let me let me know if your tool can work on 22 main string pattern
    We are using the unit that we have on a badminton racquet 22 mains and with 20 strings in the unit.
    We do not understand the sense behind the short Eagnas unit.

    YULitle can do a tennis cross in 5 seconds

    I do not think that Yulitle is standard as a stringer, most stringers are much slower and such tools are meant for those who prefer use it, do not like weaving or are slow. I assume that the 5 seconds counts for a tennis?

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    I do not think that Yulitle is standard as a stringer, most stringers are much slower and such tools are meant for those who prefer use it, do not like weaving or are slow. I assume that the 5 seconds counts for a tennis?
    Which was pretty much the point I was trying to make in my first post - this product doesn't really have a market for people who know how to weave. Yes, 5 seconds is the tennis weave, but I'm sure there are some who could do a 5 second weave in a badminton racket.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    We are open for any criticism that can lead to a better product but not for those who only try to blow away new ideas.
    No one tried to blow away new ideas, you wanted to know whether a unit offers enough gain in time and my answer was that for experienced stringers no, beginners probably yes - as you confirmed yourself. Up until now you haven't really disclosed any details on your current design so constructive criticism couldn't have been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    Because the tool has channels of 3 length it is not more difficult to do the first crosses, the short channel passes 14 mains, the second channel 16 and the long one 18. You just choose the channel you need and the first 5 strings are not more difficult then others (except for the double holes).
    Your design has really assumed that badminton stringers string top to bottom. All Yonex rackets require you to use a Yonex pattern (which is bottom to top) otherwise warranty is invalidated. For people wanting to use your product for bottom to top patterns, the top 5 or 6 crosses will not be reachable with your tool if you make it so large. Oval head rackets will also be incompatible with this design because of the slanted outer mains and higher density pattern, you will need to create a separate product to compensate for this or ignore these rackets entirely. Don't forget, tennis rackets have a lot more space either side of the mains than badminton rackets.

  14. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your design has really assumed that badminton stringers string top to bottom. All Yonex rackets require you to use a Yonex pattern (which is bottom to top) otherwise warranty is invalidated.

    The design of the tool has nothing to do with going from top to bottom or the other way. I mentioned that only to explain that you can position the tool at the throat side and do the crosses with the shorter channels including the first ones.
    The advantage of going from the bottom is that you can start with the long channel side, when 18 mains are in the tool. I saw that the first cross at the throat passes 16 mains in the Yonex racquets.
    Of course you can go up further when the tool is shorter but with 18 mains in the tool and the short side at the head that could be a good compromise.
    There is a trick to enter crosses on both sides of the tool but that depends if the stringer, if he wants to adjust his string pattern when he uses the tool.

  15. #32
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    The design of the tool has nothing to do with going from top to bottom or the other way. I mentioned that only to explain that you can position the tool at the throat side and do the crosses with the shorter channels including the first ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    Of course you can go up further when the tool is shorter but with 18 mains in the tool and the short side at the head that could be a good compromise.
    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    * What features does the tool need to do as many crosses as possible.
    Contradict much? But fair enough, you don't want to reduce the size so how about just state that instead of making up ignorant justifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by stringtechno View Post
    There is a trick to enter crosses on both sides of the tool but that depends if the stringer, if he wants to adjust his string pattern when he uses the tool.
    Yonex stringers cannot modify the stringing pattern as I said, and using both the 18 and 16 channel at the top of the racket will only gain you 1 extra cross with more hassle to boot as you have a hard weave to do if you skip 1 cross and come back on yourself. Any stringer worth their weight will not skip 2 crosses so using the 14 channel as well is out of the question.

    I notice you've previously tried to "release" your tool in 2009, why is it now that you are still at the design stage?
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...from-Stringway

    As your tool's design appears to be set in stone (seeing as you've ignored my other points), there really is nothing more one can add. Good luck.

  16. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi Kenzo,
    You seem to understand for 100 % how the tool is used, I have my doubts.
    We launched the tennis tools in 2009 and sold many of them and got a lot of requests for badminton tools.
    That is the reason that we are working on the badminton tool now.
    I thought I answered all your points, which were most relevant.

  17. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi Stringtechno,

    I feel it is you who did not see what we are talking about. As we are trying very hard to explain to you. You got a dilemma with your tool.
    1) If you wish to use it for all crosses, without changing the insert, your tool can not be wider than 14 mains (I would argue it can not be wider than 12 mains in oval racquet case) When that happen, you will need to weave the outer 5 main on each side. With your tool in place, weaving the outer 5 main on the right then weaving the 5 on the left again will take more than 7 sec with my estimate. Especially with the string close to the top, you will have no room to do so. So you are slower than me without your tool.
    2) If you wish to use it on all strings, you will need to change the insert every other cross once you reach the share holes. Let me ask you, how long does it take to change your inserts? By doing so, you will add at lease 4xtime of changing inserts. Then your time will be longer than I would without your tool.

    We ask you to use a mini size of your tennis tool as proto type and you will see what we are talking about.

    Really, this is our best suggestion to you.

    Unless you can send us a test unit or show us a video how it works on a badminton racquet (Not on a tennis racquet), I can not help or contributing to your idea.

    Good luck...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New cross stringing tool from Stringway
    By stringtechno in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 69
    : 01-03-2013, 07:13 AM
  2. Stringway MS200
    By GT0ro in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 8
    : 04-30-2012, 12:45 PM
  3. Stringway ML 90
    By Jurong in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 10
    : 04-08-2012, 10:48 PM
  4. Bad badminton stringer?
    By Footwork_816 in forum Badminton String
    Replies: 9
    : 10-24-2011, 04:48 PM
  5. tennis stringer = badmiton stringer
    By minhmap9999 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 18
    : 12-11-2009, 09:41 PM

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
  •