View Single Post
Old 04-09-2013, 12:28 PM   #22
sstchur
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 1,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvin View Post
sstchur not to disagree with you but you or I have different concepts of what self-centering is (I think.) As I understand it with self centering the center of the racket from head to throat is always centered on the string bed, not left to right. With self centering the distance from the pivot point on the turn table to the top and bottom of the frame is always exactly the same every time you mount a racket no matter what racket you mount. Without self centering the distance from the bottom and or top support can be adjusted individually.

Sounds like you are saying the outside supports (with one adjustment) centers the racket which is self centering. You could have individual adjustments for both the top and bottom and or side supports. One is self centering one is not.

What you are saying (in other words) is it is impossible to have self centering on a two point machine . There a couple of (and this one) 2 pt point self centering machines[/url] offered by Gamma that I would prefer over the NEOS just because of self centering feature.

EDIT; Now does self centering matter? I think so because if the racket is always centered so the angle to the tensioner (from the frame) is always the same. If the angle is the same the friction is the same for a given tension / racket. If the friction remains the same the tension remains the same instead of varying from racket to racket you will have a consistent string bed.
No no, I wasn't implying that you can't have SC on a two point mount at all.

I was making a few points, specific to the two machines in question:

1. I personally, prefer 2pt, b/c it stays out of the way more (that's just a personal preference) and I mention it b/c one of the two machines in question is a 2pt.

2. Normally, I really like Gamma machines and would in most cases recommend them highly. In this particular case, I think I would prefer the NEOS 2pt design.

3. Caveat to point 2 -- it's not that I ALWAYS like all 2pt better than 6pt, but in THIS case, I do b/c the Progression is not what Gamma calls their "SC" model.

4. With respect to precisely how we are defining SC, I honestly don't care. I'm not saying "self-centering" as a feature is or isn't an important consideration (maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- that's not the point I'm trying to make). What I'm saying is that those models that Gamma calls "SC" are much more enjoyable to use, in my opinion, because there is a lot less stuff to "fiddle" with when mounting the racquet.

On my 6004 SC for instance, it was just ONE single knob to move both towers in and out at the same time. Then ONE knob to move one set of shoulder mounts, and ONE knob to move the other set.

The Progression has (if I'm not mistaken) individual knobs for each tower and for each shoulder mount.

It's just not as nice to work with when mounting a racquet, IMO.

So my point is that if you're talking any of the Gamma models labeled "SC", then I give Gamma the edge -- I find them nicer to use.

How we are defining SC was not at all part of what I was trying to say.


EDIT: And for the record, we DO have the same definition of self-centering. Your understanding of it is the same as mine. And I also agree that there are 2pt Gammas that are SC which I would take over the NEOS. But I was trying to speak specifically to the two models the OP mentioned.

Last edited by sstchur : 04-09-2013 at 12:31 PM.
sstchur is offline   Reply With Quote