Yet Another "Best Racquet Mounting System" Thread

Discussion in 'Stringing Techniques / Stringing Machines' started by TenniseaWilliams, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Hi everyone!

    If we don't have a stringing machine mounting system debate thread every so often, it seems like the topic starts popping up in other unrelated threads.

    These threads are always a lot of fun, if we can keep the thread active long enough I'm sure we will get some interesting points of view on the relative trade-offs of each of the systems.

    The standard way to start one of these off is to declare a method superior to all the rest, or to make a clever derogatory remark. Anybody up for it?
     
    #1
  2. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Putting a log between 6:00 and 12:00 is the best mounting method of all time!
    Oops, forgot that today is not April Fools'! :oops:
     
    #2
  3. jim e

    jim e Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,361
    If you are trying to make trouble, then why don't you start it off and declare one method over another, and see the abuse you will get no matter what your choice is!
     
    #3
  4. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    #4
  5. dgdawg

    dgdawg Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Colorado USA
    Well....taking a risk thinking this is a legit thread:
    My preference go's to any 6 pnt system with shoulder supports that move simultaneously, and center "load spreaders".
    IMPO, this method allows the frame to flex slightly, but also allows it to return to it's natural shape as M's & X's are tensioned.
    A 2 pnt relies on forced clamping pressure to hold the frame @ the 12:00 and 6:00 points.
     
    #5
  6. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    I can see how that kind of rambling, barely coherent attack might not be fun for you.

    On the other hand, you shouldn't act the complete innocent. You were off topic, and evangelizing pretty heavily. We do get some sock puppets (vendors/affiliated/etc pretending to be impressed customers) but I think the majority of posters would consider you more of an overly enthusiastic fan boy than a sock puppet. That thread really had nothing to do with mounting, or stringing machines.

    I do think it would be fun discussing here some of the things you brought up.
     
    #6
  7. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    I do not think so;
    IMO the need to string in 2 pieces has everything to do with the kind of mounting system, that is used.

    Only my opinion of course.
     
    #7
  8. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Doesn't every machine rely primarily on a solid 12 and 6 mounting of some type? Nothing is perfectly stiff; no matter how stout, if it exists in the real world it gives a little (or a lot) proportional to stress. Is this another push vs pull argument? :)

    Load spreading can occur in a lot of clever and different ways, close to the 12 and 6 mount, or at different points along the frame. There are obvious tradeoffs with this versus ease/speed/consistency of mounting, how universal/flexible, how durable/reliable, how expensive to manf, etc.

    If more is better, why not 8?
     
    #8
  9. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    So with a sufficient mounting system, throat to head crosses would be OK on any racquet?
     
    #9
  10. dgdawg

    dgdawg Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Colorado USA
    I will emphatically disagree with this statement.

    Techna-Please explain your reasoning
     
    #10
  11. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    IMO this is the explanation for the difference between the 2 major systems; 6- point indirect and mulitpoint direct (inside) it comes from another discussion:

    On simple 3*) point or 5*) point direct (inside) systems there will not accur any accidents by going from throat to head.

    The biggest example of this were the Prince Extender Racquets, which were very wide at the head and narrow and strong at the throat.

    This is what happened:
    - Because of the wide head the deformation of the head between 12 o'clock and the outside supports was huge. This resulted in very high forces on the outside supports, the stiffer the support the higher the force!

    - The mains on these racquets ended at the throat and 2pcs stringing was not done so much then, so people went from throat to head with the crosses.
    The result of this was that the width of the racquet became smaller at the throat side first.

    This caused a big internal conflict in the racquet;
    The stress in the racquet at the top was maximum caused by the high forces of the outside supports.
    The fact that the bottom of the racquet became smaller first raised the bending stress between the outside support and 12 o'clock.
    Many racquet broke on the machine already or later during play.

    On simple inside systems there was no problem when you went from throat to head, because the stress between an outside support and the position of the mains does not excist..

    *) Even the simple old Ektelon and Prince do not have 2 but 3 point systems.
     
    #11
  12. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    The max stress is always with all mains under tension before crosses are put in.

    Use H adapter if possible when using 6 point “indirect.” This is quite sufficient. Do not lose sleep over it!

    Every discussion of racquet support or tensioning system turns into a Stringway propaganda rally, which is a tired routine, that's all. It's like they've got one big chip on their shoulder.
     
    #12
  13. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    Kkm;

    Why don't you just reply to the technical explanation.

    If this is Stringway propaganda it certainly is Eketelon and (old) Prince PR also.
    No problem on these systems either to go from T to H.

    Why does SW bother you so much, did they harm you?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2010
    #13
  14. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Technatic, I do.
    Ektelon and Prince do not seem to be all over the message boards as Stringway does.
    Did I say or suggest that SW have harmed me?
    Their parties do not just reply to discussions, technical or not, without always giving some flavour of their "Stringway direct support is superior to the indirect support of all others..." lecture and posting their "data."
     
    #14
  15. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    Who do you mean??

    Why don't all the supporters of the 6p-mounting system not just prove technically that 6-point is superior?
     
    #15
  16. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    That is one heck of a logical jump, and it doesn't really make much sense to me. A racquet can't get wider unless it is getting shorter. The supports are outside the frame because past 1 o'clock inside supports would not be opposing distortion. Think of it as a very wide load spreader.

    This is certainly not a very technical statement. I assume you mean that if I mounted identical racquets, and measured the hoop continuously as I strung it, the hoop dimensions would be identical between the two if I went from top to bottom on one, and bottom to top on the other. I believe that can rather easily be disproved.
     
    #16
  17. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    Although it would be difficult to prove overall superiority, 6pt does have obvious advantages.

    Here is an interesting if a bit extreme example:
    http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/pdfs/CrossbowStringing.pdf
     
    #17
  18. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Why does anyone have to prove anything and make a big p!ssing contest of everything? Why must one method be proclaimed as superior to all the rest, and the only proper way? Why cannot different people use different methods and each be satisfied? Racquet stringing is science but also art, and very good stringers can give a good result each with his own preference of method. There is merit to each person thinking for himself and using the methods he discovers to give the best result for himself. Groupthink can be dangerous.
    Direct support people can be happy with their direct support and 6 point people can be happy with their 6 point support. Or will you insist not?
     
    #18
  19. Technatic

    Technatic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    474
    I thought that the good thing about forums is that small details of stringing and machines can be discussed so that understanding about the hole system grows by many people.

    IMO the intentions of these discussions are to find the best solutions for systems and how to do things.

    But I step out of this one because I do not enjoy it when no answers are given but the mud is thrown. Perhaps I will understand your frustration one day KMM.

    Tenniseawilliams I send you a personal message in respond to your post.
     
    #19
  20. kkm

    kkm Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    649
    Yes a good thing is that details can be discussed. They do not have to be debated though with the possibility always for only one solution.
    The best solution for each person will be a little different.
    It is not true that no answers were given and only mud thrown. The answer was that direct support and 6 point with H adapter can both work. Or no?
    Maybe one day I will understand SW frustration.
     
    #20
  21. rufusbgood

    rufusbgood Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Messages:
    700
    The best racquet mounting system is a non-vise mounting system. There is no such thing as a vise that prevents distortion. Building a vise that could truly prevent distortion would require components so massive the machine would be impractical. Therefore I nominate the True Tension machine with its 1/2" thick cast aluminum annular plate as the best racquet mounting system. And all you 2, 3, 6 pt mounting system people are just arguing over whose inferior system gets to come in second place.
     
    #21
  22. verbouge

    verbouge Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    306
    This thread has been both informative and entertaining. This latest post may make the plot all that much thicker!

    Wow, Tennisea, you really know how to start 'em!
     
    #22
  23. jim e

    jim e Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,361
    All the Slam events have 6 point machines.
    French: 6 point TF
    Wimbledon: mostly Babolat, 6 point
    US Open: Wilson.6 point
    They work for the best pros in the world, so they can't all be detrimental to the equipment.
    More operator errors than mounting type causes problems.
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2010
    #23
  24. Darkhors

    Darkhors Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    The D
    I would say that as long as the quality of the machine is solid, either system will work. I agree with jim that most errors come from improper technique or mounting rather than the system itself.

    As for the slam events and such, I disagree that the main reason is that they're superior machines and that's why they are used. I would argue that they are more efficient machines allowing the stringers to complete more rackets per hour, which is why they are used. I own a stringway dropweight and love it, but if I was stringing 50 rackets a day or more you better believe I'd be using a TF, Extreme, Prince, Babolat or Wilson machine. The mounting is faster which will save precious moments when having to string multiple sticks especially on a time sensitive schedule.

    For me, I don't string enough rackets in a day to justify purchasing those types of machines yet, but hopefully down the road I will. For now though, I produce top-notch quality string jobs that are just as good as ones that are done on those machines. It's all relative to what you're doing with your equipment. Lots of rackets = need for faster, more efficient machine. Less # of rackets = whatever you feel you can do your best work on with the best bang for your buck.

    DH
     
    #24

Share This Page