i tighten the north post up until i have "resistance" when securing the frame to the supports. I loosen and tighten this post to ensure that i do not stretch it. basically if the side supports didnt touch the frame, the north and south post would hold the racket suspended without falling down. that's how tight it is. so based on those conditions (assuming the racket is just mounted and not tensioned at all yet)...my answer is: the frame does not stretch vertically (nothing visibly noticeable). Now if you want me to measure this...it's less than 1mm...which in my opinion is not noticeable.
If that's the case, the frame probably shortened (got fat) during tensioning the main strings. That "kind" of explains the need for 10% + main for the cross.
remember the comparison case which is the ASE. the ASE isn't immune to that either. i remember i measured the old racket heads from using the ASE and it was a few mm shorter. and also with the ASE adding 10% didn't feel as good as not adding it.
Perhaps the ASE support the frame better than the Gamma: adding 10% made the stringbed too stiff . . .
i did manage to measure the shrinkage and it was 3mm for 25lbs. measured before and after mains were tensioned. but i don't agree that the 10% will make that much of a difference. while i don't have exact measurement, my guess is that adding the 10% and not adding 10% will end up having a different of 0.3mm, which IMHO will be something completely negligible.
Those who use a load spreader at 12 might consider re-tightening the 6 support after the center mains are tensioned - the racket often sinks into the LS slightly, leaving the 6 loose (to the order of 1-2 mm).
Does anybody find that using the load spreader at the 12oclock with some older rackets (such as Yonex mp88) that it prevents the top cross strings from being strung as the load spreader gets in the way? I had to take it off when stringing this particular racket. I had no problems with it with the Arcsaber 7.
I use a Gosen Load spreader so it isn't an issue. Might be an issue if you use an MBS one. Mark, I considered doing that. Will have to try it on one of my panda's. We'll see if that makes any difference with shape.
The MBS spreaders sometimes foul the top cross with the Yonex 9000/Z pattern rackets (without modifications, that is). If you try my technique, you might want to have your 4/8 supports literally one-finger tight. As the racket sinks into the loadspreader, the entire hoop will want to move downwards - if the 4/8 are too tight, the frame will "bunch up" in those areas.
It's too bad you still don't have the ASE. I'd be curious to know the measured pull of both machines at different tensions.
Kwun as you seem to be like a Yoda figure on here, is the ASE a good machine for a beginner stringer who isn't really looking to make anything other than pocket money on stringing?
It's not the cheapest available machine, but it is a very good quality/price machine. Kwun used that machine for a long time and even modded it to add an electronic tensionner to it. From what I've seen and read, it is much better than comparable machines like the Eagnas ST-250. It is definitely a good machine for casual stringing and if you charge something for every string job you do for your friends, you will get your investment back decently fast.
totally. i did that for 3 years. went from 2 rackets per month to up to 30 per month. but i'd also recommend adding a WISE tension head at one point.
They are very similar, but got some differences. I think the main difference is that the ASE has "better" North/South supports and seems to be much harder to find. I'm saying "better" because I've never tried the system that's on the PSE (screw down system), but it seems like it would be a hassle without much benefit.
the other difference is that the ASE has a longer "body", the main metal plate. it allows easier fit of the WISE if you decide to get one later.
Although I haven't touched one, from what I've seen it's actually superior to some machines that are used by local club stringers (not professionals, nor do they claim to be). The downside is the lack of stationary clamps, which will make some parts of the stringing process tricky (how did you clamp the 2nd last main, kwun?), and without modding, the dropweight system (although that IS better than some of the crap used by 'professionals' around here, some actually use crank machines and don't adjust for the tension loss compared to a ECP stringjob). Anyhow, it should indeed be sufficient for the first steps in stringing and a low amount of string jobs for friends (I think more than 5 a week would be bothersome).
