Yet Another "Best Racquet Mounting System" Thread

[TenniseaWilliams]

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?

[kkm]

Originally Posted by TenniseaWilliams

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?

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'!

[jim e]

Originally Posted by TenniseaWilliams

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?

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!

[Technatic]

These threads are always a lot of fun

I am uncertain about this.

Read this page in the 2 pieces discussion perhaps it is fun to you:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...=354029&page=2

[dgdawg]

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.

[TenniseaWilliams]

Originally Posted by Technatic

I am uncertain about this.

Read this page in the 2 pieces discussion perhaps it is fun to you:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...=354029&page=2

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.

[Technatic]

On the other hand, you shouldn't act the complete innocent. You were off topic,

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.

[TenniseaWilliams]

Originally Posted by dgdawg

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.

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?

[TenniseaWilliams]

Originally Posted by Technatic

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.

So with a sufficient mounting system, throat to head crosses would be OK on any racquet?

[dgdawg]

Originally Posted by Technatic

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.

I will emphatically disagree with this statement.

Techna-Please explain your reasoning

[Technatic]

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?

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:

* The worst moment for the racquet occurs when all the main strings are tensioned. The strings pull the racquet head inwards.
- On a direct support system the supports work against the inside of the racquet and push the racquet outwards where the main strings pull it inwards.

- When the racquet gets shorter it gets wider also.
On an outside (6 point) mounting system the supports work on the outside preventing the racquet from getting wider.
Because the widening of the head is not the major deformation this is called indirect.

The problem with this is that the forces of the outside supports have to be transferred to the position of the main strings and this causes stress in the racquet material

So with a sufficient mounting system, throat to head crosses would be OK on any racquet?

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.

[kkm]

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.

[Technatic]

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.

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?

[kkm]

Originally Posted by Technatic

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?

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."

[Technatic]

Their parties

Who do you mean??

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

[TenniseaWilliams]

Originally Posted by Technatic

The problem with this is that the forces of the outside supports have to be transferred to the position of the main strings and this causes stress in the racquet material

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.

Originally Posted by Technatic

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

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.

[TenniseaWilliams]

Originally Posted by Technatic

Who do you mean??

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

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...wStringing.pdf

[kkm]

Originally Posted by Technatic

Who do you mean??

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

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?

[Technatic]

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.

[kkm]

Originally Posted by Technatic

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.

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.