Debate: 2 vs 6 Point

[Stan]

Sundog gets it. Some in this thread do and others are forever going be living in a land of fog and confusion.

[prostaff18]

Originally Posted by abllee2198

Nate Ferguson, Ron Yu, Roman Prokes, and Glynster Flint string for the top players in the world. They all use 6 point machines period! 6 points rule!

If Prince could have made a 6 point machine and avoided paying royalties for the Babolat patent, I think they would have built a 6 point machine.

Have fun with this,

Albert

Also Albert Lee strings on 6 point machines....that has to count for something! Do you know what they are going to use in Beijing for the Olympics this year?

But to add to your list you have to take into consideration all of the great stringers and racquet technicians. They all use 6 point machines. They wouldn't use them if they were not the best available. I have strung lots on both the 3k and Star 5. I can say that I can visually see the difference in distortion between them. I can see on some racquets during stringing the racquet will push pretty hard against the side supports. On the 2 points what happens to this pressure...what holds it back? It distorts the frame and, in my mind, causes damage to the frame. Is the damage enough to worry about...I don't really think so on most racquets, but on some it could add up and eventually cause more damage. When a racquet is strung it flexes regardless of machine. What this flexing does is cause spots in the frame like pivot points that become weak after repeated stringing's. In my mind the 6 point will stop some of the flexing causing the pivot points to become less of an issue. (Pivot point is what I call it. There may be another name for it that.)

Note that my assumptions are just that. I have no way to prove anything. This is just what I believe. I really don't know if there is any way to measure the pressure put on the frame.

[iplaybetter]

i look at the distortion numbers on GSS
ps, did you get my email?

[mellofelow]

Originally Posted by Stan

Sundog gets it. Some in this thread do and others are forever going be living in a land of fog and confusion.

I don't give a flying dog crap whether I get it or not. I will only use a machine with a frame support at 10, 12, 2, 4, 6 & 8 o'clock positions.

In the old days I used Ektelon for 20+ years and I'd break string every 4 sets. So I'm stringing 2 rackets a week. I rotate 6 sticks throughout and would have to replace with new rackets every year just because the frame feels weaken and soft.

[abllee2198]

Prostaff18: Rumors say the Olympic stringing team for both tennis and badminton will be using Yonex ES5-Pro machines. These are Toyo Zouki manufactured six-point machines.

Alternately it could also be the the updated version called Pro-Tech machine which includes a pneumatic height adjust, 0.5 pound resolution, enhanced table lock, and improvements to mounting towers. Also a new mounting plate for attaching an articulated arm work light.

Albert

[iplaybetter]

Originally Posted by abllee2198

Prostaff18: Rumors say the Olympic stringing team for both tennis and badminton will be using Yonex ES5-Pro machines. These are Toyo Zouki manufactured six-point machines.

[b]Alternately it could also be the the updated version called Pro-Tech machine which includes a pneumatic height adjust, 0.5 pound resolution, enhanced table lock, and improvements to mounting towers. Also a new mounting plate for attaching an articulated arm work light.[b]

Albert

sounds impressive

[!Tym]

I think inside-mounting is the best. A little slower and less convenient to mount, the old T-bar style was much better in this regard imo and why I still use it; but I think just a better concept.

There are different schools of thought on this, each with some merit.

With 2-point, the theory is that it's better than six-point, because it allows a racket to go through the natural flexing process during stringing by letting it breath on the sides, that 6-pt. mounting places an ungodly amount of stress on the frame at the side retainers, and this obviously isn't good for the racket, and can occasionally even lead to frames being slightly "stuck" in the retainers afterward because of this.

With 6-pt, the theory is that two-points allow the frame to expand and "flex" TOO much, so much so, in fact, that the frame maynot be able to quite make it back to its original shape afterwards. Just two supports also make it more difficult to keep the racket in place while strinigng without slipping, as there aren't enough contact points.

With the inside-mounting design of Strungway, you combine ample tie-down support with very widely spread and evenly distributed inside supports at multiple points.

They say the idea is to prevent the distortion from happening in the first place whereas with 6-pt the idea isn't to prevent the distortion it's too more or less vice-clamp it in, by providing solid walls on the side where the racket can't expand past even if it wanted to. These are EXTREME pressure points people, which is what Strungway will point out to you, and this is definitely not good for a frame. Convenient mounting, yes, but logically flawed they say.

Imo, however, Strungway should reword their literature. Their mounting doesn't completely prevent the racket from expanding while stringing, to do so is impossible. A racket goes through insane stress during stringing any way you look at it, it IS going to expand one way or another on ANY kind of mounting system. The ultimate goal then is to get to the final "normal" headshape by the end of the string job with the least amount of stress and damage done to the frame over the long haul.

Imo, Strungway accomplishes this. But a better way to look at it, is that inside-mounting accomplishes this because it's kind of a "best of both worlds" theory between the old standbyes of 2 and 6-pt.

Inside-mounting gives you many more contact and stability points as with 6-pt, but it also allows the racket to go through the natural flexing process, but it doesn't allow it to OVER flex and expand to the point (i.e. the point of no return, spooning, etc.) that 2-pt mounting sometimes can.

Thus, I kind of like to think of it as I said, like the "tweener" concept, a kind of generation 3 approach to mounting philosophy.

To me, it makes the most sense and I feel best about getting my rackets strung on inside-mounting, but by the same token if I had to string all day and every Sunday for hordes and hordes of players like at a big box store, pro shop, or tour stringer; I definitely wouldn't want to use inside-mounting. 6-pt. with the self-centering arms is just plain faster and more convenient to string on, and if you're strining a lot that's going to make a difference to you.

[Mansewerz]

So 2 point usually means the multiple inside mounting, on machines like the Neos and Prince 3000?

Is it the same as my SP swing?

[iplaybetter]

2 point is a mis conception, the prince sytem truley provides 4 points of support

[Mansewerz]

Originally Posted by iplaybetter

2 point is a mis conception, the prince sytem truley provides 4 points of support

4 points? That's weird. I've only heard of 2 and six.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by mellofelow

6 pts FTW! I hate seeing an oval racket head go round on 2 pts.

How does an oval racquet head go round while stringing on a 2pt. system if the 2 points are mounted inside the frame at 12 and 6?

[Aerial]

2 point(ektelon, prince p-200) is faster but I'm used to the babolat 6 point.

Yeah from 2 to 6 and never looked back...

[mellofelow]

Originally Posted by Bud

How does an oval racquet head go round while stringing on a 2pt. system if the 2 points are mounted inside the frame at 12 and 6?

I'm no photoshop expert but here's a sample illustration of what a racket head goes through on 12 & 6 o'clock mounts. Left side strung versus normal shape on right.

[Loco4Tennis]

Originally Posted by Bud

How does an oval racquet head go round while stringing on a 2pt. system if the 2 points are mounted inside the frame at 12 and 6?

the only time ive seen this happen was on a racquet i did, and this was only seen after the 24 hour rest period after stringing
during, no sign of deformation
after, racquet was a little harder to remove from the 2pt mounts than normal
24hrs latter, i saw a round shape strung racquet, never doing 10lb mains over crosses again, but also the racquet was a aluminum type of metal, when restrung to normal tension, shape flexed back
again, lesson learned for me, never doing that much diff. again; what effect this would have on a stiff frame racquet, i dont know

but anyways, i would think that the type of flex i experienced would happen regardless of 2pt or 6pt

[!Tym]

Neos is actually a combination inside-mount, two-pt. tiedown method. It's definitely of a much higher par than your typical Klippermate style two-mount found on the entry-level machines.

That said, I still really wouldn't call it a true, dedicated inside-mounting system like the Strungway.

The Silent Partner inside-mounting imo isn't as good as Strungway's either. The tie-down method is not as good, and also I doubt the turntable is as rigid as the twin i-beams of Strungway.

People don't realize this, but a rigid turntable is very big factor in the effectiveness of a mounting system. The higher-end machines, their turntables flex appreciably less than the entry-level machines. I do think inside-mounting is better than 6-pt, but one of the reasons you find so many tour stringers in favor (besides the obvious time and ease of mounting benefits) is that the turntables on their machines aren't exactly Tonka truck quality, I mean that's some serious rigidity they've got going on there.

Imo, a cheaply implemented inside-mounting design like on the lower-end Silent Partner models is not the equal of Strungway's, just as a the 6-pt. mounting on a lower-end machine isn't the equal of that 6-pt. mounting on a beefy Sensor turntable for instance.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by mellofelow

I'm no photoshop expert but here's a sample illustration of what a racket head goes through on 12 & 6 o'clock mounts. Left side strung versus normal shape on right.

I've strung hundreds of racquets on my X-2 and have never seen/experienced what you've illustrated here. If you follow proper procedure and don't string all mains on one side and then the other... this should not occur.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Loco4Tennis

the only time ive seen this happen was on a racquet i did, and this was only seen after the 24 hour rest period after stringing
during, no sign of deformation
after, racquet was a little harder to remove from the 2pt mounts than normal
24hrs latter, i saw a round shape strung racquet, never doing 10lb mains over crosses again, but also the racquet was a aluminum type of metal, when restrung to normal tension, shape flexed back
again, lesson learned for me, never doing that much diff. again; what effect this would have on a stiff frame racquet, i dont know

but anyways, i would think that the type of flex i experienced would happen regardless of 2pt or 6pt

Lol! Yes, I've had this happen on a Pro Tour 280 when I strung the crosses 10+ pounds less than the mains... this has nothing to do with the stringing machine though. The fact the racquet 'popped' off the machine's two point mounting system proved it was performing the way it should. It prevented deformation (uneven forces) while being strung.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by !Tym

Neos is actually a combination inside-mount, two-pt. tiedown method. It's definitely of a much higher par than your typical Klippermate style two-mount found on the entry-level machines.

That said, I still really wouldn't call it a true, dedicated inside-mounting system like the Strungway.

The Silent Partner inside-mounting imo isn't as good as Strungway's either. The tie-down method is not as good, and also I doubt the turntable is as rigid as the twin i-beams of Strungway.

People don't realize this, but a rigid turntable is very big factor in the effectiveness of a mounting system. The higher-end machines, their turntables flex appreciably less than the entry-level machines. I do think inside-mounting is better than 6-pt, but one of the reasons you find so many tour stringers in favor (besides the obvious time and ease of mounting benefits) is that the turntables on their machines aren't exactly Tonka truck quality, I mean that's some serious rigidity they've got going on there.

Imo, a cheaply implemented inside-mounting design like on the lower-end Silent Partner models is not the equal of Strungway's, just as a the 6-pt. mounting on a lower-end machine isn't the equal of that 6-pt. mounting on a beefy Sensor turntable for instance.

I agree with you on the turntable/mounting post flex. The stringbuddy (I think this was the name of the low end Alpha machine) seemed to have a problem with this (it would start to bend upward).

The X-2 turntable is solid steel (almost 1/2" thick) and does not noticeably flex. The mounting posts are also double steel I-beams and do not noticeably flex, either. I've tested the flex of the machine by stringing racquets at 75+ pounds with Kevlar.

[mellofelow]

Originally Posted by Bud

I've strung hundreds of racquets on my X-2 and have never seen/experienced what you've illustrated here. If you follow proper procedure and don't string all mains on one side and then the other... this should not occur.

Bud o Bud... I call your bluff pal. Either that or you have not being paying attention. What you're saying absolutely goes against the law of physics. It's as if you're telling us in archery, when you draw the bow, the limbs stay stationary. HUH???!!

My diagram illustrates what a frame goes through after stringing 16 or so mains at 60 lbs. This is where the machine's mounting system is most crucial.

OK... why don't you make a cardboard template of your racquet head shape. After stringing the mains at 60lbs, let us know if there are any variance. What's the bet?

[Bud]

Originally Posted by mellofelow

Bud o Bud... I call your bluff pal. Either that or you have not being paying attention. What you're saying absolutely goes against the law of physics. It's as if you're telling us in archery, when you draw the bow, the limbs stay stationary. HUH???!!

The bow is not a very good analogy. As far as a bluff... I wasn't attempting to bluff you or anyone else. I'm telling you what my experience has been when stringing a racquet on an X-2. The plastic adapters and mounting system are meant to prevent head deformation and stress while the racquet is mounted

My diagram illustrates what a frame goes through after stringing 16 or so mains at 60 lbs. This is where the machine's mounting system is most crucial.

I'll take some pictures of the next frame I string when it's mounted with no string and then after the mains are strung.

OK... why don't you make a cardboard template of your racquet head shape. After stringing the mains at 60lbs, let us know if there are any variance. What's the bet?

No need to create a cardboard template. I'll simply measure the distance diagonally from two specific grommets (with no mains... and then with only mains)... I'm assuming you mean while the racquet is still mounted.

After pulling it from the mounts, yes the head can deform if there is a large differential between main tension and cross tension.