Danger of breaking frames on 2 point mount
- Thread starter hadaron
- Start date
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
I bet that stringer had a 6 point mount and would like to have your business.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
Nothing is completely safe. There was a question in Tennis Industry Magazine from a guy who cracked a racket. Look in the Ask the Experts article on pages 40-41.
I think a racket will deform more on a two point than it will on a six point. The more it deforms the more stress you put on the racket. The more the stress the better chance there is of the racket breaking. 99.44% of the time nothing will go wrong. You may string a racket one way hundreds of time and nothing happens then out of the clear blue it cracks. Nothing's lasts forever especially tennis rackets.
EDIT: If tennis rackets were indestructible the manufacturers would go out of business, your arm would hurt like hell, and Marat Safin would have thought tennis was boring and never picked up the sport.
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
The Prince isn't exactly two points though is it? Let me guess why you like your 'two point' better, it is faster because the side racket supports don't get in the way.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
The Neos has two mounts. If you want to go the "I can string a racquet in 4 minutes" route, you could say 4-point. I too would rather have the Prince Neos than anything else I've used.
And, I like my two point better because it is better.
And, I like my two point better because it is better.
I don't find this to be true at all with the Neos. In all the stringing I've done, 15+ years with the Neos, I've yet to see a frame deform.irvin said:
Last edited:
Cfidave
Professional
Yes and no. It is faster due to less restriction without side supports. The biggest reason is that you get so much more support at the 6 and 12'0clock points on the racquet, where it is most important. If the racquet is supported rock solid at those two points, flex from stringing is not, and has never been a problem on the Primce Neos, 3000, 5000, etc. The finished product as far as specs goes is always the same measurement as before stringing, unless you go crazy with tension differences between mains & crosses. Deformation during stringing, if the racquet is supported correctly is no problem, in fact I believe it is better then trying to stop that deformation with very little support at 6 and 12. I believe that is the theory behind Princes' two point mounting logic.
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
All rackets deform while being strung. The object is for the racket to end up close to where it started.
Cfidave
Professional
That is correct. It is a question of how the machine handles that flex. See my previous post concerning Prince two point. BTW, not all two point machines are created equal.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
I would agree with that statement. But speaking of what was said before and going back to the Tennis Industry Article I reference a guy was string a Balolat on a two point stringer bottom up which is the way it had been previously string and the racket cracketed at 10:30 position.
I have heard pressure is built up in the direction you're stringing. So in stringing the mains more pressure is placed on the shoulders of the racket about where the racket in the article cracked. Then stringing bottom up built up even more pressure and the racket craked on the fourth cross from the top.
Had that been a 6 point machine there would have been a side support right in that general area supporting the frame. Still it may have or may not have broke using a six point. I think the safer way would have been two piece or at least an ATW pattern.
I used to string with a Prince P-100 (a two point machine) and liked it very much except when I got down hear the bottom and some racket would tend to slide in the direction of the tension. But not having those side supports in the way made it much easier to string with no doubt about it. I believe there are advantages and disadvantages to any type of stringer and I'm not going to argue which is best.
Last edited:
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
For those interested, it can be found on pages 42-43.
irvin said:
The Neos and follow-on machines from Prince have an adjustment on the mounts. I do not know if the P-100 had an adjustment, but they allow you to hold the frame in place to prevent slippage. It is not a problem.
irvin said:
Your posts seem in contrasts to this statement, but I'll take your word for it.
Agree with you.
Funny to read always the statements I string the crosses 4-5 kg lower than the mains. My experience is that the racket deforms and I think the rackets plays less when it is deformed. Can you measure that, no way. But play testing I think you can.
A racket with no manufacturing defects or no cracks caused by the player will hold any string job on 2, 4 or 6 points. Well if you go very off limit maybe not. But never had a racket broken in any machine I worked on.
A racket with a crack, and for what ever reason needs to be strung, will be easier done in a 6 points, preferable with side points adjustable where to put them.
That is the simple reasons why I always would select a 6 point over any other system. If it works better for a cracked racket it will do it also for a good racket.
Peter
diredesire
Adjunct Moderator
Head frames IME deform quite a bit. The Radical OS is especially notable for me. i.Series frames from Head also had some iffy paint on them, the iRadical (IIRC) had some paint that made the racquet look like it was cracked due to flexing. It's not that they necessarily come off the machine "deformed," but there is definite rounding and/or widening on the machine. I'm a fan of (and prefer) "2" point mounting systems, but there's definitely a difference.
It depends how the load is spread out. "Rock solid" is an ambiguous term -- you can have 6 point (read as: 1 point at 6/12) that does not physically move "rock solid" and have the same issues as any other machine. The reality is that 6 point mounts are designed to support the frame as they deform, whereas "2" point machines are designed to prevent the frame from deforming from the start. How well either of these systems does either of these things is up for debate. Even Babolat 6 point mounts (I would suggest that this is the "industry standard") has issues for the reasons I describe above. If you search, you'll find anecdotes of people that get their frames "stuck" in the 6 point babolat mount because the adjustment knob design "locks" when significant pressure/force is applied from frame squeezing.
I think an acceptable "rule of thumb" is that more points are going to be better. Before disputing this claim, note that I'm suggesting that "2" point mounts (which are generally 4+, depending on interpretation) mounting systems can also be improved by spreading load over a wider range. Design issues prevent this from being cost effective, of course. If there were a 10 point inside or 10 point outside, it'd still be preferable from a racquet safety standpoint. You can extrapolate this to "infinite" points (fully supported hoop), but the returns are diminishing (per cost) pretty quickly.
IMHO/My 2.
Similar threads
