Dream machine(s), Featuresets, Wishlists

Discussion in 'Stringing Techniques / Stringing Machines' started by diredesire, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Hi All,

    Something I've been mulling over in my head for a while is what my "dream machine" (or machines) would look like. When I say machines, I'm not specifically referring to stringing machines, this could include things like the RDC and/or diagnostic equipment. What are your criteria for a true "dream machine?" What do you find fantastic about X machine compared to Y machine? What is it lacking that would elevate it to "perfect" status?

    Sort of separate/related question: Most home stringers won't have the ability to dedicate enough resources to purchase their own RDC. How much would you be willing to pay to have the functionality of an RDC? What's functionality like that worth to you? I did a google search and found it was roughly ~$5200 :shock::shock: Do you wish you had the ability to measure SBS/SW/Balance/Flex?

    Is there anything ELSE you wish you had available to you in a home stringing setup? Stringing robots? The sky is the limit here, I want to hear about the crazy things that run through fellow stringers' heads while they're beating themselves up in front of their machines.
     
    #1
  2. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    I'll lead by example:

    Things I love:
    NEOS mounting stock adjustment. Long (good leverage) lever under the turn table that positively (and securely) releases and locks for quick, one sided adjustment.

    Positive locking clamps (switch action, LF switch clamps, etc).

    Super thin clamp heads

    Unobtrusive mounting (in my experience, 2 point has been best, but there ARE excellent 6 point mounts).

    Very short string length requirement for tensioning. Some grippers are absolutely ridiculous.

    Pre-stretch function

    Pull speed adjustment

    Memory settings

    Easy (push button) height adjustment

    Wireless finger switch (instead of foot switch) [dream/not-cost effective feature]

    Non-linear pull speed (very fast at low string resistance, pulls much slower when nearing tensioning, to improve accuracy)

    Extremely fast sampling rate, on the order of 1/1000s. Constant re-adjustment, mimics "dropweight" smoothness

    Edit: OH MY GOODNESS: MINIMAL THINGS TO CATCH STRINGS ON @#)%(*@#$@#%.

    I haven't played with the Baiardo, but the ergonomic solutions sound nice

    I'd spend $500-1000 on an RDC, but it really depends on business, if it's not useful data to me, I simply wouldn't buy one. To make it "worth it" to buy "just because," price would have to drop <$500.

    I'd also like a networkable stringing machine where I can "capture" data from the string job (tension, overall job time, string used, frame, pattern, etc) and report out to an automated data capturing tool (for personal and customer records' purposes). This could be via a voice memo, or whatever.

    If we're talking crazy: I think it'd be cool to have stringing robots, but that'd sort of put us all out of a hobby/job... This would theoretically lower labor prices if these robots weren't cost prohibitive to own, and I think this would be good for all tennis players in general. Can you imagine if labor only cost $2 and you could get your frame back within 10-20 mins [faster??]? I wouldn't even bother stringing anymore, especially if the human aspect (inconsistency) was removed from the process. I'd spend my money on strings :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
    #2
  3. themitchmann

    themitchmann Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,622
    Just got a Prince 5000 (new green base...which is sick), but missed out on a used RDC. The 5000 is too new for me to criticize, but I'm sure I'll think of something to make it even better.

    I'd love, at the very least, to measure Swing Weight. I would be happy with a Prince PTC. But the nerd in me wants to be able to measure flex!
     
    #3
  4. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    How much was the used RDC, out of curiosity? It's one of those things where the used market is pretty niche still, so I have no idea how the value holds over time..
     
    #4
  5. themitchmann

    themitchmann Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,622
    I'd love some Bluetooth functionality in machines...so you could have an built in speaker for music, or a mic for phone calls, as well as the ability to use a phone or tablet to control all the machine settings (tension, pull speed, etc).
     
    #5
  6. themitchmann

    themitchmann Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,622
    1 was $1,800 OBO and another $2,000 OBO.
     
    #6
  7. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Yeah, that sounds pretty much right. If I was in a poor state of judgement I'd probably make an offer on one... and then cry myself to sleep knowing it'd never turn out to be cost effective... :cry::cry::cry: What area are you in, out of curiosity? I've never seen one in the PNW, but I don't exactly keep an eagle eye out for them.
     
    #7
  8. themitchmann

    themitchmann Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,622
    Connecticut
     
    #8
  9. MayDay

    MayDay Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    455
    Stringing Monkey. (Trunk Monkey, in case anyone's been locked in a box since year 2003.)
     
    #9
  10. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    Alpha has the Accuswing 2 for $799 to measure SW and a small postal scale can measure total weight and balance very effectively. Why does a home stringer need an RDC?
     
    #10
  11. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    There's definitely a point of diminishing returns, that's for sure. Is the $799 price point compelling to you? I'm more interested in dreams and/or cost points (sort of unrelated topics, i admit).
     
    #11
  12. nyc

    nyc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,532
    Location:
    SoCal
    Personally, I would love an affordable machine (sub $200) that can give me SW/Balance/Flex/Weight measurements, and send those to my phone, so I can put them into my notes, or email to clients without having to enter the data myself.

    The thing should also fold away small and neatly.

    Enough of an Engineering/Design/marketing challenge for you?

    For those String Geeks who can't/don't want to jump to higher priced stringing gear etc but have gotten into tweaking Frames.
     
    #12
  13. themitchmann

    themitchmann Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,622
    But for another $1,000-1,200, I could do flex and stringbed stiffness. :)

    Not a need...just a wish.
     
    #13
  14. tennytive

    tennytive Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    I have an old Pioneer DC drop weight.

    It would be great if there was some sort of gauge based on tension that would allow me to know exactly how high to raise the bar so that it would land horizontal on the first pull.

    There are times when it happens, but with different strings, tensions, not as often or predictable as I would like.

    That feature alone would really cut down on my stringing time.
     
    #14
  15. struggle

    struggle Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Location:
    Western North Carolina
    fully automated.
     
    #15
  16. AR15

    AR15 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    Gulf Coast, USA
    I'd like to see string packaged and delivered woven. You would take the woven string and thread the mains and crosses from the inside of the frame. The string machine would stretch all of the mains and crosses at one time, and fuse the string ends to the racquet.
     
    #16
  17. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    Like a trampoline bed where you connect springs or bike spokes all around and tension the racket with a torque wrench so you don't need a stringing machine. LOL Never going to happen but it's a good idea. Or will it?
     
    #17
  18. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Ah, the pains of traditional dropweight stringers ;) I wish a mechanism like this was easy to design, it makes more sense to invest in an 'automatic dropweight' design, or a ratcheting dropweight, the adjustment is RELATIVELY painless compared to a complicated system like you have in mind. I imagine implementing something like that would start driving the prices of DW machines into the range where it makes sense just to go electric (Obviously this is just idle speculation, I am fully aware that this is 'dream features'). Do you utilize your ratcheting function?

    This is actually a pretty crazy idea that would be really neat... It'd be even neater if you could hand tighten/crank down your string bed as it got more and more dead (although this would probably reveal that tighter isn't better...)
     
    #18
  19. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    What's so complicated? Seems to me you need a longer arm and a gripper that is always fixed to the radius of the point where the string goes to the racket is say 1/10th the radius of the arm at any angle. If you have a 6 pound weight (weight and bar) then you have 60 lbs. Automatic drop weight pure and simple.

    But what you have is a fixed distance on the rotating device at the gripper. The effect length of the weight continuously changing above and below the bar so you leverage changes. I am not an engineer but that's not hard to figure out.

    EDIT: BTW the reason for the longer bar is so you have more travel and you don't have to regrip the string.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
    #19
  20. AR15

    AR15 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,125
    Location:
    Gulf Coast, USA
    Or the head of rackets could be designed for string nets. The racket head could be split in half and it could have clamps that would hold the string net in place.

    What if the racket head had an internal loop that the strings connected to? The loop could be tightened or loosened with a knob (above or below the grip).
     
    #20
  21. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Yeah, this is not at all what tennytive was describing. I agree, it's easier to design [or copy] an automated dropweight (which is exactly what I said in the next half of the sentence in the above quote).

    Additionally, if the gripper were fixed at the end of the bar, how would that increase travel distance? I assume you're referring to string stretch, here.
     
    #21
  22. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    Yes he was talking about using the gauge to determine stretch - that wont work the only solution is an "automatic" drop weight.
     
    #22
  23. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Right. That's what I said ;)

    I think it's possible, just not feasible. I think in the spirit of the thread, I'd be shooting higher if it were me, though :)
     
    #23
  24. tennytive

    tennytive Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Ha, yeah I was aiming pretty low if you're talking wishes.

    My machine does have a ratcheting feature. Usually no more than one or two extra lifts are needed on mains. On crosses, I can usually get level on one pull. ?

    So back to the wish list. How about swivel clamps that lock to the base simultaneously when you clamp the string?
     
    #24
  25. abllee2198

    abllee2198 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Potomac, MD
    Dream Machine Feature Set

    Dire Desire: Interesting posting!

    My dream machine would have a smart tensioner mechanism that doesn't overshoot reference in normal non-prestretch mode. The Yonex Protech and Wilson Baiardo is close on this point.

    I would want full "Vee" supports on the four outrigger arms and would like to see loadcell attached to the arms to display strain on the arm that are displayed on the user panel so we can see what's going on with the frame during stringing. The arms should be forged alloy for rigidity and strength. Babolat Sensor arms look to be the current best available at this time.

    Another interesting feature is to have a timed constant pull feature. This feature would pull in constant pull mode for a user selectable time (say 5 seconds after reaching reference) then drop into lock out mode and stop pulling. This could yield more consistent tensioning across a string bed. Yonex does this now.

    Tension Jaw Pop Up level pull like Sensor Expert would be nice on more machines.

    Overall: all clamps, bases, and tracks should be user removable for easy cleaning.

    That's all my pea brain can think of at this time,

    Albert Lee
    Former Pro Tour Stringer
     
    #25
  26. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723

    Hey Albert,

    Funny you post in this thread, I actually tried to e-mail your comcast e-mail that I contacted a long time ago about something similar. If you get bored, feel free to shoot me an e-mail at my username @gmail.com

    Thanks :)
     
    #26
  27. eelhc

    eelhc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,630
    Fun thread...

    Fun thread... I've just started to string earlier this year. As a casual/home stringer (~dozen racquets per month), my dream machine is quite different than someone who needs to make a living stringing. IMO... the machine needs to be SIMPLE and PORTABLE.

    no calibration and little regular adjustment required
    easy to use tensioning mechanism
    quick and secure racquet mounting
    easy to adjust/use, gentle on the strings clamping system.
    etc...

    I just purchased what I would consider to be close to a Dream Machine for the home stringer, a Technifibre MS200TT. There are a couple of improvements I would like to see though... Since I don't have a dedicated/permanent setup for stringing and store my machine in the basement and bring it up and set up on my kitchen counter to string I want a lighter, easy to transport machine without losing any functionality of the Laserfibre/Stringway.

    Lighter - I think this machine could be made lighter and more portable without losing any stiffness (particularly on the mounting/turntable). Yes the "brute force" method is proven and works well... the cast turntable and mounting towers with machined surfaces on the MS200TT are solid and stiff, but there's no reason that an equally stable stringing platform can't be designed with some engineering skill and application of Finite Element Analysis. After all the tension applied to the racquet/strings is not outrageous. I would like a machine under 30lbs.

    Easy transport and storage - The Stringway machines already have an easily removable dropweight bar. I would love to have a machine that breaks down easily and easily stow-able into a storage/carrying case.

    If there is one other improvement I would like to see it's the Mounting System - I love the mounting system on the Stringway machines (better than the 6 point Gamma, Alpha or Eagnas I've had)... But I love the mounting on the Prince Neos better. Simpler and quicker.
     
    #27
  28. sstchur

    sstchur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    I really really like the idea of timed constant pull. There's something that I've had a hard time convincing people of (which I'll get to in a minute) but the fact that Yonex is already doing this feature (to an extent) feels like it validates my opinion.

    People have often said that constant pull is superior to lock out because it yields more consistent tension. They says lock outs are fine but difficult to be consistent with.

    I'm not so sure this is true. There is a variable in most lock out machines in that you have a human turning the crank and he may not always do it at a consistent rate all the way through.

    But let's remove that variable for now. Let's assume you have a robot pulling the tension (slowly and consistently) but that it stops immediately after hitting ref tension and locks out (in fact I think there are some low-end electronic machines that do this).

    In this case, you have a very consistent pull. I would ALSO argue that you will end up with a very consistent string bed (albeit one that is considerably looser than its constant pull counterpart). Why? Because a string has (what I'll call) a "natural rate of relaxation." Nature is pretty consistent. Nature isn't going to allow the string to start relaxing at one rate for one pull and different rate on another pull.

    Or to put it another way, say you using string X. You pull to reference tension of 60, and immediately upon lock out, the string begins to relax (lose tension). This continues until it stabilizes (however long that takes). Say it stabilizes at 51 (just as an example).

    My point is that if you have a CONSISTENT pulling mechanism, then every pulled string will relax at the same rate and stabilize to the same result. Meaning that in the end, you have a very consistent (repeatable) string bed.

    Now take an electronic constant pull. I pull tension to 60 and immediately the electronics in my machine detect that tension has dropped so it pulls some more to maintain the 60. This continues...

    Now at some point I will (had better) clamp off and release the tensioner. But what if I didn't? The string is going to continually relax and stretch, at least until there is not more stretch left in it! In fact, Gamma machines have a timer whereby they will auto release if you don't do it. I suspect this is because you could probably snap a string otherwise.

    But what's the bigger take away here? It's that, even with a constant pull machine, you have the potential for significant human inconsistency. This is why I try to always move my clamps into position and clamp the string and release at the same speed. I never let the machine "beep" and then take my good old time moving the clamps into place.

    Think about it this way: The FASTER you clamp off and release with a CP machine, the MORE like lock out it is!

    In some sense, I would argue it might actually be HARDER to be consistent with a CP machine because an inexperienced stringer might vary wildly in the amount of time he takes to get his clamps into place and release tensioner.

    With lock out, you don't have this issue. It has locked out -- it has stopped pulling. You can wait 10 minutes if you want before you clamp off and release; it doesn't matter. The only major variable with lock out, is the rate at which the stringer turns the crank.

    Now if you think that that's a MAJOR variable, ok fine -- that point is debatable. But I'm not 100% convinced that it isn't easier to master a consistent crank-turn rate than it is to master getting your clamps into position at a consistent rate.

    Thus, I think the idea of a timed constant pull makes a TON of sense.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2013
    #28
  29. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    I completely agree with you one this one. Constant pull is the most inconsistent method of pulling tension. First you have the speed demon who turns it into a lockout. Then there are those machine with a lot of over pull. Then when you use a CP it cuts off at reference or somewhere above reference and when the string relaxes to somewhere below reference it kicks back in. Whenyou clamp the string no telling where it is tensioned.

    With a good calibrated lockout you have no over pull, and it does not matter how long it take you to clamp the string. I think the human factor of pulling speed is neglible.
     
    #29
  30. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Interesting critera. I think you meant "laserfibre." I think you've captured what is great about the LF/SW machines, but I can't say it's close to a dream machine by any means. If you're looking at the standup models, I might be more inclined to agree with you. The Mounting is actually pretty bad on the LF machines. I prefer inside mounts, particularly because they have a lot of potential to be very fast, but the LF/SW implementation is far from fast. The hold down method is also not very optimal, if there were more components of a suspension inside mount, that would be much better to me. There's problems specifically with very thin throated racquets with SW/LF's implementation.

    I agree with the lighter. Cast tables are expensive to ship, and a PITA to carry. I was thinking to myself whether or not resin/polymer machines would be possible. I think they can be designed to have extremely little flex, but it'd probably take a lot of convincing of the average consumer to show that this is a viable option. Metal is obviously going to be the preferred route here, but I can't help but wonder... In the end, if you have an extremely high end machine (Baiardo), which (at least appears to have) polymer mounting points, why aren't people concerned with the flexion there? Why not the mounting arms? The mounting stocks? Etc?

    I don't think your ideas here are half as outlandish as you suggest other people think they are ;) I think anyone who has given considerable amount of thought to the stringing process can come to the same conclusions. The time from tension to clamp is generally pretty consistent. Even from a beginner's standpoint, if clamping is prioritized after tensioning has been achieved, the time the tensioner is pulling SHOULD be pretty close. What else are you doing at this point? At the worst, you're probably fanning string (provided you didn't fan and pull slack prior to tensioning -- which I generally recommend). I think an inexperienced operator on any machine has potential to screw things up, as you mentioned. This is widely regarded as a "duh" statement.

    While the tensioning system you propose makes a ton of sense, I think that to achieve the benefits that we'd want out of a system like this, you'd need to be pulling long enough where you're eliminating some of the slack/slop, but not long enough where you pull all the liveliness out of a string. I actually think the amount of time a string is tensioned (even with a constant pull/electric machine), is not generally long enough to really compensate for 'natural' relaxation of the string. Maybe I'm an outlier in thinking this, though, but I waste little time from tension to clamp...
     
    #30
  31. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    I'd happily agree, provided we give the disclaimer that it's not an inexperienced/silly operator running the machine. If ANY effort is made on a lockout to have a consistent-ish pull speed, I think the negative press towards cranks are widely blown out of proportion. Then again, we are a community which focuses on these tiny difference. In the big picture/real world, I think it approaches negligible, like you said.

    (I have to point this disclaimer out, because if I had a stringer who was varying pull speed from normal to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8D72FqBV8 this speed... well, i'd have to dispute the "negligible" claim)
     
    #31
  32. sstchur

    sstchur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    Maybe my impression comes from another thread on here somewhere were (IIRC) some people were effectively calling me an idiot for claiming that I believe lock out is (to certainly can be) very consistent and that CP isn't necessarily "better."

    So maybe I'm wrong in thinking that I've hard a hard time convincing people -- maybe I've merely had a hard time convincing a few!
     
    #32
  33. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Well, there definitely is a hivemind mentality. More expensive HAS to be better, right?

    I think the perception issue is that pro tour stringers don't use cranks, so they have to (by definition) be worse. I acknowledge that there's systematic differences, but that's about as far as I'll get with 'factual' claims. I personally prefer crank machine stringbeds over CP, even with ~10% "rule of thumb" tension adjustment. I feel like a crank's string bed is just livelier, and I know others share the same sentiments (that I've seen in other threads).
     
    #33
  34. Dags

    Dags Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    951
    The Wise has a lock out option on it, but I've never come across anyone who uses it, even though the vast majority of Wise users are upgrading a crank machine.

    Any reasons why that is? If we were to agree with the last handful of posts, it would sound like the accuracy of a lock out combined with the convenience of an electronic machine would be perfect.
     
    #34
  35. sstchur

    sstchur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    This is a GREAT point! I used to always say that if I ever got a wise, I would most likely use it in lock out mode. Like DD, my feeling has always been that a lockout string bed is somehow livelier. I have an electronic machine now and it doesn't have a lockout mode. But if it did, I would definitely use it (or at least try it out and see if I prefer it to a CP bed like I used to always think I did).

    But that said, as a stringer, I prefer stringing on an electronic. I find it more enjoyable and a smoother process. Sure seems like it ought to be a no brainer than any electronic machine should have a lockout option. And in fact, since it was abllee's idea about timed CP that started this topic, I'll say I'm even more convinced now. With a configurable timed CP, you could effectively get "lockout" mode by setting it to 0 seconds.
     
    #35
  36. Dags

    Dags Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    951
    I had to string one of my racquets today, and found myself asking 'WWSD'? (that's 'What Would sstchur do'?). So I turned off constant pull for the first time (the button works!).

    Rather than trying to compensate via guess work, I decided to keep everything the same and use a setup that I've used for the past four string jobs. That's Tecnifibre Biphase X1 1.18 in the mains at 44, Luxilon Adrenaline 1.20 crosses at 41. My readings on racquetTune immediately after string those four jobs have been 45.4, 45.4, 44.7 and 45.4. I'm fairly happy with this consistency. :)

    When pulling tension, I wait until the machine beeps and then undo the clamp and move it. Watching the reading on the tension head, there's definitely no overshoot. If anything, it sometimes looks like it's not actually reaching reference tension, but the figure drops so quickly it's hard to tell. On the mains, it was reading 38 - 39 when I clamped off (i.e. it was almost always 38 point something).

    The crosses were interesting. When I first switched to the Wise, I always felt I had a more consistent string bed (consistency measured by subjective impressions whilst playing). The main factor to which I attributed this was that it was so much easier to straighten the crosses whilst tension was still being pulled; not only do you have both hands free, but the CP would obviously pull for as long as required. With it in lock out mode, you obviously still have both hands free, but poly really doesn't take long to reach a low tension so it became something of a race to get them completely straight before it finished. I use the Wise on the middle speed; I tried the lowest when I got it, but the tension head became very juddery and so I decided the mechanism was really designed to go a bit quicker. The reading was dropping into the 34s when clamping off.

    Job complete, and racquetTune has given me a figure of 41.4. The racquet will now sit in my bag until its brother breaks, which is usually between 6-8 hours. At the frequency I'm currently playing, that'll probably be a fortnight or so. I'll report back when I've had a hit.
     
    #36
  37. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    Good info Dags but if you don't like the new lower tension then your only alternative in to increase tension (using lockout) or pull more than one time in LO. If you increase tension then it is the same as overshoot on a CP machine.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Find the feel you like and stick with it. But I think now you're comparing apples to oranges because your tension is so much lower than before.

    To get the same SBS in lLO mode without overshoot you're going to have to pull more than once.
     
    #37
  38. sstchur

    sstchur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    "WWSD" Ha! I like it :)

    Although, I don't know if I'm anywhere near smart enough or accomplished enough at ANYTHING that people should be using me as any sort of basis for making their decisions! :-/

    But I think it's cool that you did this experiment, and I'd be interested to see how it works our for you (or doesn't, whatever the case may be).

    Looking forward to hearing more...
     
    #38
  39. uk_skippy

    uk_skippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,054
    Location:
    Waterlooville, Hampshire, UK
    I'm going to throw my hat in the ring, to a point, and in 2 parts; commenting partly on the LO v CP issue raised over more recent posts and what I'd like etc.

    So, firstly LO v CP:-

    I'm not going to go into detail on that discussion as such, but I know which line I follow. Anyway, consider this; assuming that I have a LO & CP and they're both calibrated correctly using the same calibrater. If I pull a single string without a frame in the machine @ 55lbs it should be a straight pull. With no friction it tension on that string should be 55lbs, notwithstanding the drop off of tension with a LO and the (possible) overpull of the CP. Now put a frame in the machine and do the same thing, stringing the centre mains. Because of friction between the string & grommets, and the slight angle of pull off the vertical plane the result will be just below 55lbs. Consequently, when pulling the outer mains the angles will increase and the tension will drop off a bit more.

    The point I'm making is that from a near actual tension of 55lbs at the beginning it will drop off due to other influences. So, from the actual tension we get the reference tension; and this is what we all work from. While we all try to be as accurate as possible, and lose as little tension as possible during the stringing process, in the end it almost doesn't matter how the tension heads perform.

    While the question of 'accuracy' of the tensionheads has been raised, then the things that determine how much of the tension is retained in the stringjob is down to the frame fixtures i.e. frame supports/towers, clamps, clamp bases and turntable. Inherently the 'better' (read more expensive) machines have better supports/clamps/turntable which aid tension retention.

    So what would I want in a machine? On a minor scale, I think that USB ports need to be introduced, at least to be able to charge phones/tablets. While having built-in speakers could be good, its more electrics that if it goes wrong because more to fix. I like the idea raised about using a phone/table to operate the machine, although I'd think it would be better to enhance the controls rather than replace the actual machines controls. A tensionhead that raises to match the plane on the frame should be more common. The Yonex clamps re made of a material that makes the very light. In fact they fit on the Sensor clamp posts but are to light to operate the automatic clamp release on dropping it. The feel of the Star 3/4 clamps is better that the Sensor type clamps. They feel softer and have a more haptic feedback. A good keypad should also be essential. The Star series, or even the series above that had some good keypad, with individual keys for specific functions. With pre-stretch becoming more popular now, this should certain have a separate button, like the Prince 6000 has.

    I'm sure there's more I could do with, but I can't remember it all while sitting here writing. I'll probably remember half-way thru a stack of racquets.

    Regards

    Paul
     
    #39
  40. Dags

    Dags Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    951
    I was thinking about this before I did it, but decided that if bumped the tension up I was at risk of changing too many variables. I was also curious what reading I'd see on racquetTune, and to an extent remind myself what sort of difference a new customer may experience if their last stringer used a lock out. Unless I hate the results, I'll probably continue the experiment with a higher tension next time.

    Don't sell yourself short. One day I'm going to want to buy a premium machine, just because I'm an enthusiast. There will be no rational justification for such a purchase (least of all a financial one), and so the only way it can happen is by asking 'WWSD'? :D
     
    #40
  41. sstchur

    sstchur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,595
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    I agree with everything you're saying Paul. And just to be clear, my original point was not the LO is "better" (or worse) or that CP is "better" (or worse), and it wasn't even that one was "more accurate" than the other.

    My issue is that MOST people say it's "harder" to be accurate (read "consistent") with a LO than with a CP. And I'm saying I'm not so sure I believe that.

    I agree that it's reference tension that we're dealing with. We try to "accurate", yes (in the sense that we try to hit the tension that was actual chosen). But you're right; there are some many other variables that that's almost impossible. What really matters is consistency.

    And what I'm saying is that I think you can make an argument for LO possibly being easier to achieve consistency on.

    I'm not saying I believe this definitively. I'm saying I think you can make a case. I've only experimented a little; not enough to come to any "strong" conclusions.
     
    #41
  42. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    I agree with your logic on the LO v CP. My grandson plays little league baseball so I bought an ION Block Rocker Bluetooth. Let me tell you everyone on the ball field will hear it it you turn it up. I has a USB port for charging your cell phone, iPad, tablet etc... and you can connect any bluetooth device to it for music or play the built in radio. Quality is great but the battery only lasts for 75 hours so you can't string for a whole fortnight.

    Now if I can figure out how to power the Wise with the USB port I will be all set.
     
    #42
  43. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    Thanks for the post, skip. I've NEVER even considered a USB port on a machine, but that sounds useful. Speakers would be interesting, for sure, but I'm not sure they'd make sense from a mass manufacturing standpoint -- that's not really the purpose of this thread, though :twisted:

    I think if a phone/tablet/touch screen were introduced into a machine it'd have to be fully integrated, or else futureproofing would be too difficult. That gives me a few crazy ideas, though.
     
    #43
  44. fortun8son

    fortun8son Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,144
    Location:
    The Desert
    USB and Bluetooth are sooo 2010! :)
    Make it wifi and voice actuated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
    #44
  45. eelhc

    eelhc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,630
    I mentioned previously that for the casual home stringer, a dream machine needs to be SIMPLE and PORTABLE.

    Well this recent thread seems to have surfaced just such a machine... Slight improvements/modifications maybe but I like it... Just 13 lbs.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=475162

    [​IMG]
     
    #45
  46. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    One thing I will say for that stringer is that it will require insanely low amounts of string for tensioning, and that's a good thing.
     
    #46
  47. Irvin

    Irvin G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    12,265
    Location:
    Marietta, Ga
    I can clearly see where it would be nice to have but not going to say it's my dream machine. It though at first too this little machine used very little string to pull tension but that I started thinking how could it use any less than any other linear gripper except for the fact that it is very close to the racket.

    EDIT: Beeing so close could be a bad thing. You probably could not string much larger racket than what Paula was using.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2013
    #47
  48. eelhc

    eelhc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,630
    I see the basis of a design that could be improved upon.

    Clearly there needs to be different categories of Dream Machines. At least 2 to start with:
    • Full featured stationary machine for the professional stringer
    • Portable, Lightweight machine with basic features
    If we had a dream car discussion... some folks will want a luxury sedan while some will want a quick, tight cornering sports car and others will want an SUV or a muscle car. There's no right/wrong... They are not the same and serve different purposes.
     
    #48
  49. diredesire

    diredesire Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,723
    I don't see width differences on the order of inches in frames, so I can't imagine that'd be a problem, but I definitely glossed over the fact regarding pulling angles, etc. I don't think the design is great, but after working on the 5800 ELS, I've definitely grown an appreciation for less wasted string. There'd need to be something similar to an angle-of-pull and pull-fulcrum like the stringway machines to make something like that viable for me. I doubt anyone would really call that a "dream machine" unless they were a highly mobile tournament player...

    Eh, I don't think we need to pigeonhole 'dream machines.' If you've got specific needs/wants/requirements, state them up front and then show why a machine or feature set is of specific interest to you. My initial goal was really no-holds-barred/cost-of-no-concern dream features, but specific categorization is OK. I've just been thinking about how I interact with my machine, and all the teeny-tiny things I'd change from every machine to make it a little bit better.

    If/when there are overlapping feature changes, I think those iterative improvements would trend towards a more 'ideal' machine. If you made a portable dream machine, state it up front and then go wild with your lists! I personally have no interest in making a portable machine, simply because I avoid space limiting situations, and I can't imagine portability is a huge concern for most people (exceptions are traveling tournament players and tournament stringers).
     
    #49
  50. Dags

    Dags Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    951
    The last string job held on for longer than usual, but I finally got a go with the experimental one. The main impression I had was that it felt quite buttery. I got a lot of action on the ball; the mains were sliding about noticeably more than they usually do on a fresh job. It could of course just be because of the tension differential. As expected, I really need to increase tension to get a fair comparison... or drop tension on the CP.
     
    #50

Share This Page