oh right. yeah. the current gen is metal. which i think is great for rigidity but they designed it to be too tall. i cut it in half and still can fit every badminton frame.
Yeah (well, Pro's Pro Shuttle express) ... the problem is integral to the design, so i would image the Alpha version would have the same problem if it was screw down, unless the machining/casting tolerances were very tight. What happens is that to secure the tower you have to tighten a grub screw in the base of the tower that relies on friction into the metal bar, but because the tolerance isn't that good, and the screws go in from opposite sides the tovers will both lean in opposite directions, and that's before you try to get them vertical. For under £200 i wouldn't have expected rolls royce level precision though. You could try an experiment with your ASE tables though; dismount it from the bearing and remove the side and 12/6 supports, then place it upside down on a flat plane (a mirror or piece of glass, unless you have access to an engineering flat plate) and see how level yours is. i would be really impressed if there wasn't at least a little bit of wobble.
interesting. two points. i was actually looking at the towers the other day. and was wondering if it is possible to flip one of the towers around, which will mean that the grub screws will be on the same side. the question is (and i didn't find out), if the mounting holes that holds the 12/6 platforms are symmetrical and can be flipped. it will require taking off the top black padding to find out. even if the tower cannot be flipped, it maybe possible to shim one side of the platform to tilt it back to level. it will require inserting a thin washer of appropriate thickness on one of the screws that secure the platform to the tower.
Hmm, interesting idea on flipping the tower around, might work. I've already shimmed mine, and also drilled, tapped and put bolts into the bottom of each tower to add another plce to secure them, all to no avail. The problem is when i tighten the grub screws it just gets hold of it and twists slightly.
Just tried flpping mine and it does work, don't know if it will have any benefits or not though, but it is doable.
Yep, pretty much identical to what I've got. If you don't want to keep moving your towers in and out, get hold of an NSP racket and do what Rav did in his first picture, and OSP rackets are then covered by default; the racket in the second picture will probably be perfectly alright as-is. I agree with Pete: a load spreader at 12 wouldn't go amiss, but would it fit those cylindrical billiards of yours? They look pretty wide...
You nailed it, so I'm going to steal your phrasing: all the mains' endpoints should fall between the shoulder supports and the 12/6. If you have main endpoints on either side of a shoulder support, there is "spreading stress" on both sides of the support. I think.
the load spreader fits better now that it has the plastic and heatshrink than it did before as a round post as there is something for it to grip on, before it could slip sideways a bit easily.
I also string using the top down method and it looks as if your entire racket could be shifted down by 0.7-1cm by simply moving both the 12 & 6 o'clock support northwards. But if you do it bottom up, should be okay but will be annoying as there's a contstant shared gromet blockage. I know most people don't use loadspreaders at the 6 o'clock since the T is beefy and strong, but I've seen some instances by other people where the small area mounting post actually made an indentation into the frame due to high pressure. Probably didn't harm the racket, but could totally have been prevented by use of another load spreader. I agree with this point, but if he's doing bottom up, it's a sacrifice that might be a good precautionary measure. I always preach the top down method as the top of the frame is the most fragile and you don't want all the frame compression pressure to be there at the end of your string job. PeteLSD and I have pushed 30-40lb jobs on our machines without one ever dying! I'm forever sticking to top down, but if I had to do bottom up, I'd probably shift my mounting points northward to beef up the top~
i apologize if this has been answered before, but what stringing machine do you use and how do you like it? it kinda looks like a hi-qua
Thus for bottoms up cross stringing on a NSP will it be more advisable to place the top shoulder supports with the next immediate single pass grommet below the last shared hole (from top) right in the middle of the supports (on both sides)? Then the bottom supports will be placed on the second single pass grommet above the last shared hole (from bottom)? I am looking for maximum protection for my racquet frame, tensioning at 33x33lbs calibrated crank. Looking at Michal's positioning, it seems that setting the support arms a little lower may also suffice even when doing bottoms up?
Master Blitz, Looks like you have an overlapped cross string . Sorry for being picky. Nice work at 33 X 33!
Master Pete, thanks for the encouragement. The racquet and setup in the picture actually belongs to Michal. Referencing that, I usually have my top supports slightly more north, with the next immediate single pass hole below the last shared hole (with the old string pattern) in the middle of the support contact. I have been doing 33x33lbs with this said setup. I was thinking if I should shift the arms a little more southward as Michal, as from experience I have seen quite a lot of racquets (strung bottoms up on 2 point support machines) broken at around the spot where Michal has set the top support arms at in the picture.
i haven't dropped this topic. i am still trying to understand the implications of putting the support inside vs. outside the mains. here is another food for thoughts. what this is a my attempt to see what angle the string exits the frame and goes to the tensioner. initial thought tells me that the angle of the string will originate through the center of the circle. but not sure if that would be the actual case. the picture below is a composite of many photos, each one with a single string slightly tensioned and thus resting at the final angle in which it will exit the frame. i basically just took 19 pictures and combined them for visualization purposes. the placement of the support would ideally be between the strings exit paths, so that the support won't make any contact with the string itself in either side reducing any loss in tension from friction and or deflection. it also means ideally the support should be narrow enough to do so. another observation is that the angle in which the support makes with the tangent of the frame is not necessarily 90 degrees. in fact, most likely it is not 90degrees.
NVM this, I read "outside the frame" and not "outside the mains", I was so confused! lol I think you want them inside the mains because of the deformation that happens when you pull the mains. That tension on the frame causes the most deformation at 3 and 9 o'clock, so having the supports closer to those points will prevent horizontal deformation.
hi, just wondering which shops and website are the best for strining machine accessories? e.g. load spreaders and side supports. also which shape side support is the best?
