Debate: 2 vs 6 Point

P

prostaff18

Semi-Pro
Ok it seems like every thread about machines gets hijacked with 2 vs 6 point mounting. I know that I'm guilty and I'm sorry for that! So here you go this thread is designed to have a good debate on the subject. I know this has been talked about before but I think that we could get something going here.

Debate the effectiveness, speed, ease of use or whatever comes to your mind!

Also for people with questions about the different mounting systems just ask them here and I'm sure someone will answer it for you!

At the end I will try to make a list of the pro's and cons of both.



Here is my opinion: I prefer the 6 point over the two point. I have strung many frames on the Prince 3000 and Babolat Star 5. I feel like mounting the racquet is faster and easier on the 6 point. Also I think that stringing is not impaired at all by having the extra mounts. Sure at first anything can slow stringing but it took me 5 string jobs to get used to the 6 point on the Babolat machines. Also with the 2 points you have to lock the frame down. I don't like this at all. I only have had physics one semester in college so I don't understand all the different variables effecting the distortion of the frame but to me the way that the frame is locked down would put too much force in one place. Also what do you see in the stringing rooms at all the ATP tournaments? You see Babolat, TF, Wilson, and The AO uses the Top Serve(?) machine. All have 6 point. I'm not saying that this alone is reason enough to use the 6 point or even to make it any better but they wouldn't be using them if they were not the best available.

This is just my 2 cents. There are tons of other reasons to support either side. :)
 
L

LttlElvis

Professional
I like the 2 pt mounting system of the Gamma 6004 in particular. It does have the lock down mechanism as you mentioned, but what I really like is the 4 internal supports. This is something most 2 pt mounting systems do not have. Silent Partner has it to some degree, but it is not as good as Gammas.

The 6 pt floating mount system is said to be more stable. I believe the four side mounts on the 6 pt system provides nice racquet support when stringing the mains. It's the cross stringing that I have always questioned about support. As the racquet compresses during crosses, the 4 side supports don't seem to be holding as much, and the racquet is mainly being supported by the little head and throat internal supports. This has always been my concern.

Also, sometimes I think 6 pt mounts may be overkill for today's racquets. The Neos was used for wood and aluminum racquets. Never was a problem for those. I was stringing my aluminum Prince Pro at 80 lbs. The Neos was able to do it. Todays's racquets are much stronger than those of the past, and the 2 pt. Neos still was the industry standard until more recently.

However, like you said, most tournaments use the 6 pt floating mount systems. I wish there was a mounting that had Gammas head and throat support, with the 4 side supports.

I've used both systems, and still prefer the 2 pt system.
 
YULitle

YULitle

Hall of Fame
I would rather take a 2-pt over a non-self-centering 6-pt. But, I'd take most self-centering 6-pts over any 2-pt.

All, if used properly, should be sufficient support for racquet stability.
 
P

prostaff18

Semi-Pro
LttlElvis said:
I like the 2 pt mounting system of the Gamma 6004 in particular. It does have the lock down mechanism as you mentioned, but what I really like is the 4 internal supports. This is something most 2 pt mounting systems do not have. Silent Partner has it to some degree, but it is not as good as Gammas.

The 6 pt floating mount system is said to be more stable. I believe the four side mounts on the 6 pt system provides nice racquet support when stringing the mains. It's the cross stringing that I have always questioned about support. As the racquet compresses during crosses, the 4 side supports don't seem to be holding as much, and the racquet is mainly being supported by the little head and throat internal supports. This has always been my concern.

Also, sometimes I think 6 pt mounts may be overkill for today's racquets. The Neos was used for wood and aluminum racquets. Never was a problem for those. I was stringing my aluminum Prince Pro at 80 lbs. The Neos was able to do it. Todays's racquets are much stronger than those of the past, and the 2 pt. Neos still was the industry standard until more recently.

However, like you said, most tournaments use the 6 pt floating mount systems. I wish there was a mounting that had Gammas head and throat support, with the 4 side supports.

I've used both systems, and still prefer the 2 pt system.
Click to expand...

Very good points made. I think that the Prince has four supports too. I don't know if it is the same as the gamma. I have seen many good reviews for the Gamma 2 point. I remember Gamma Tech on these boards said that he likes the gamma 2 point over the six point. I have only used a gamma machine with the 6 point in the past.

Also I forgot there is a guy with Prince machines that strings at tour events. I mean he's not stringing with them at any slams but some pretty good events. If I remember right he had a van/truck with Prince on the side of it and it had pictures of the pro's who used Prince on it too. This could be old info because I saw it in DC (I think) some time ago. Also my friend who played on the tour knew him and he said he hadn't seen the van in some time.
 
S

SunDog

Rookie
Those machines (prince 4000 - prototypes) in DC belonged to Craig Brotman at PCS. They used one of them at a Challenger in Knoxville last year - until a clamp malfunctioned (flat worn out) at which time they borrowed UT's Star 5. The players had no problem with either machine.

I am probably always going to cast my lot for the multiple point inside mounting designs. String Way used to claim that inside was the way to go because it was a preventative system as opposed to the outside system designs being more reactionary. I dont know that I buy that - as anyone who has ever seen a raquet strung on any machine will attest to some distortion during the process. Net distortion (end product) is generally what concerns me though.


I use Strig Way machines - and I have posted distortion measurments on a G S S site head distortion thread - along side of those posted by some other members for machines with outside side mounting support systems and the prince 5000 with inside mounting. The net results for the SW machine is IMO - impressive.

The Prince system is way faster to mount a racquet than the SW system. The self centering suspension outside mounting are very fast as well. I've had trouble with the SP inside mounts - but I think that was more of a materials issue than a design issue.
 
iplaybetter

iplaybetter

Hall of Fame
prostaff18 said:
Ok it seems like every thread about machines gets hijacked with 2 vs 6 point mounting. I know that I'm guilty and I'm sorry for that! So here you go this thread is designed to have a good debate on the subject. I know this has been talked about before but I think that we could get something going here.

Debate the effectiveness, speed, ease of use or whatever comes to your mind!

Also for people with questions about the different mounting systems just ask them here and I'm sure someone will answer it for you!

At the end I will try to make a list of the pro's and cons of both.



Here is my opinion: I prefer the 6 point over the two point. I have strung many frames on the Prince 3000 and Babolat Star 5. I feel like mounting the racquet is faster and easier on the 6 point. Also I think that stringing is not impaired at all by having the extra mounts. Sure at first anything can slow stringing but it took me 5 string jobs to get used to the 6 point on the Babolat machines. Also with the 2 points you have to lock the frame down. I don't like this at all. I only have had physics one semester in college so I don't understand all the different variables effecting the distortion of the frame but to me the way that the frame is locked down would put too much force in one place. Also what do you see in the stringing rooms at all the ATP tournaments? You see Babolat, TF, Wilson, and The AO uses the Top Serve(?) machine. All have 6 point. I'm not saying that this alone is reason enough to use the 6 point or even to make it any better but they wouldn't be using them if they were not the best available.

This is just my 2 cents. There are tons of other reasons to support either side. :)
Click to expand...


the DC stringer who strings at other events uses a prince, he is one of the guys who sold me on the sytem after a conversations
 
Last edited:
P

prostaff18

Semi-Pro
iplaybetter said:
the DC stringer who strings at other events uses a prince, he is one of the guys who sold me on the sytem after a conversations
Click to expand...

Well the guy who strings for Federer sold me on the 6 point! No just joking:) But I did talk with Ron once in Cincinnati and he told me why he preferred the Babolat machine.

Also about the string way I have seen some numbers that are amazing as far as frame distortion. I think that the star 5 puts up some great numbers too. It is amazing how good the string way works!! I have never used one but I would like to someday. Can you post a pic or two of your machine so others can see what it looks like?

Thanks
 
P

prostaff18

Semi-Pro
iplaybetter said:
i might see if craig needs an unpayed intern
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

hey that would be great! I know that a lot of the great stringers have worked under great stringers when they were younger. I'm actually working on going to Europe next summer and working with a very respected stringer (nothing final...still very early in the planning stage.). I think it would be 1)unbeatable to gain experience. 2)a very good experience to travel in the summer. Plus it would give me an excuse to not take these **** sumer classes. (Does anyone like taking summer courses in college?)

Also today I got to string on a TF7000 and I loved the mounting. It was pretty fast and, in my mind, effective. Youlitle - you have strung more on a 7000 than most people....what do you think about the mounting on the 7000? I could see how it would possibly block a grommet or two but I liked it.
 
A

abllee2198

Rookie
2 point or 6 point.

My 2 cents:

Seems to me if you start with 2 point and move on to 6 point Babolat, you never look back. What I'm saying is very few people switch from Babolat 6 point to anyone's 2 point.

I know Craig Brotman switched, but that was a sponsorship issue.

All the machines at Grand Slams are 6 point systems.

Australian: Xspider 6 point
French Open: TF 7000 6 point
Wimbledon: Mostly Babolat 2502 series machines 6 point
US Open: Poreex 6 point

Have a great weekend all,

Albert
 
YULitle

YULitle

Hall of Fame
prostaff18 said:
Also today I got to string on a TF7000 and I loved the mounting. It was pretty fast and, in my mind, effective. Youlitle - you have strung more on a 7000 than most people....what do you think about the mounting on the 7000? I could see how it would possibly block a grommet or two but I liked it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my chief concern. It did block a few grommets more than typical. But besides that, it was nice.
 
R

RacquetDoctor

Rookie
Albert,
No one switches because of the $$$$. I own a Sensor...I absolutely love it. But I have also strung on the Prince machine...(Craigs...)

I have to say that I love the mount. There is way more room to work. They are fast to mount a stick too.

Now, the clamps, I love my Sensor...it's really about preference!

Now, if my machine were to ever become unusable and unfixable...I would go with the Prince design in the future.
 
Loco4Tennis

Loco4Tennis

Hall of Fame
prostaff18 said:
.....This is just my 2 cents. There are tons of other reasons to support either side. :)
Click to expand...

dont you mean 6 cents :)

here are my 2 cents

reasons i like the 2 point:
simple machine to mount, 2 posts thats it
no blocked cross grommets holes, ever
top and bottom clamp support on mine
makes the machine less bulky and easily transportable
less contact points with the racquet frame, and issue when paint chips

having listed thoes, i still would rather have the 6pt to a 2pt, infact thats the only change i would make to my klippermate machine right now
reason is because it does support the frame better, and this is on all kinds of frames, soft and hard frames, this would add all the piece of mind i need when stringing a soft frame racquet; however, whether its a 6pt or 2pt, you still have to follow safe stringing procedures not to screw up the frame; example, not too long ago someone posted a experience with a 6pt mounting system, where they did the mains, tied them off and walked away, several minutes latter, kabooom, cracked racquet because the crosses where not done right away, perfect example of what happens when you dont follow proper stringing procedure, regardsless of machine you use.
 
S

Stan

Professional
This thread is all over the place. The original question is easy to answer. 6 point is superior to 2 point. End of discussion.

However, what is actually being discussed is multiple point inner frame mounting versus traditional 6 point systems. There is some merit for discussion around the topic, but it should NOT be labeled as 2 point vs 6 point...rather inner frame vs 6 point.

Now carry on...
 
A

abllee2198

Rookie
French open machine

Zhou: 2008 French Open machine was TF 7000.

TF anniversary site showed an 8000, which may have misled you.

Albert
 
A

abllee2198

Rookie
2 point vs 6 point

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
 
S

SunDog

Rookie
Stan said:
However, what is actually being discussed is multiple point inner frame mounting versus traditional 6 point systems. There is some merit for discussion around the topic, but it should NOT be labeled as 2 point vs 6 point...rather inner frame vs 6 point.

Now carry on...
Click to expand...

I've tried to make that point several times in these types of discussions. While you are correct - it seems that no one will acknowlege the point and the multiple inside mounting point systems will continue to be referred to as 2 point systems for eternity.
 
S

Stan

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

prostaff18

Semi-Pro
abllee2198 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

mellofelow

Semi-Pro
Stan said:
Sundog gets it. Some in this thread do and others are forever going be living in a land of fog and confusion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
A

abllee2198

Rookie
Olympic Machines

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

iplaybetter

Hall of Fame
abllee2198 said:
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
Click to expand...

sounds impressive
 
T

!Tym

Hall of Fame
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.
 
D

Deleted member 25923

Guest
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?
 
A

Aerial

New User
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...
 
M

mellofelow

Semi-Pro
Bud said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.

round-racket.jpg
 
Last edited:
Loco4Tennis

Loco4Tennis

Hall of Fame
Bud said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
T

!Tym

Hall of Fame
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

Bud

Bionic Poster
mellofelow said:
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.

round-racket.jpg
Click to expand...

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

Bud

Bionic Poster
Loco4Tennis said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Bud

Bionic Poster
!Tym said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


P1020883.JPG



P1020885.JPG



P1020887.JPG



P1020889.JPG
 
Last edited:
M

mellofelow

Semi-Pro
Bud said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
mellofelow said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

Deleted member 25923

Guest
I've measured headwidth on my SP swing and the width increases with just the mains. When I put the crosses in (I put em in 2 lbs tighter just in case), the headsize when back to normal.
 
M

mellofelow

Semi-Pro
Bud said:
The bow is not a very good analogy.
Click to expand...
And why not? It's only a bit of a stretch... LOL :) pun intended! :) Please elaborate... don't just refute my analogy without a scientific explanation.

Honestly, considering you're using an X-2, I think you're so focused on the task at hand and failed to recognize this phenomenon.

IMHO, after 20+ yrs of stringing on Ektelon, the 6pt mounting system is the single most significant innovation in recent years (in string machines).

I do agree though that the racquet head will return to shape when cross strings are installed. Again that's because the law of physics is applied when pressure is applied (almost) equally from 360 degrees. Here's an analogy again. Remember in early shool we tried to break an egg in the palm of our hand? Impossible because the force is being applied from all around. In a racquet with the main installed, it's like breaking the egg with 2 fingers.
 
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
Mansewerz said:
I've measured headwidth on my SP swing and the width increases with just the mains. When I put the crosses in (I put em in 2 lbs tighter just in case), the headsize when back to normal.
Click to expand...

How much of a width increase did you note with just mains strung?
 
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
mellofelow said:
And why not? It's only a bit of a stretch... LOL :) pun intended! :) Please elaborate... don't just refute my analogy without a scientific explanation.

With a bow, the forces are completely different... and you're dealing with 2 very flexible pieces of wood or fiberglass connected solely by a string. A bow is not mounted when strung nor is it braced in multiple locations due to different forces acting in different ways. Apart from that, they are identical! :p

Honestly, considering you're using an X-2, I think you're so focused on the task at hand and failed to recognize this phenomenon.

Perhaps, that's why I stated I'd focus directly on it when I string my next racquet, take pics and measurements. I'll let you know the outcome. To this point, i've not noticed significant deformation after stringing many racquets.

IMHO, after 20+ yrs of stringing on Ektelon, the 6pt mounting system is the single most significant innovation in recent years (in string machines).

I do agree though that the racquet head will return to shape when cross strings are installed. Again that's because the law of physics is applied when pressure is applied (almost) equally from 360 degrees. Here's an analogy again. Remember in early shool we tried to break an egg in the palm of our hand? Impossible because the force is being applied from all around. In a racquet with the main installed, it's like breaking the egg with 2 fingers.
Click to expand...

So, being that I've strung many racquets on a 2-point system, from wood to brand new kfactor and everything in between and never had any issues with structural damage... why is a 6-point mount such an innovation in your opinion?
 
D

Deleted member 25923

Guest
Bud said:
How much of a width increase did you note with just mains strung?
Click to expand...

I believe it was about 1 inch, give or take a quarter inch. I don't remember the exact measurements, but it did get wider. After the crosses, it was fine again.
 
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
Stringing Experiment Results on Head Deformation

A HEAD Radical OS tennis racquet was strung on a Gamma X-2 with a 2-point mounting system (with included plastic collars) in order to measure racquet deformation at various points along the racquet head. This was performed to document and understand the effects/forces of a two-point mounting system on a tennis racquet head. A moderately flexible, oversize racquet was used to accentuate any potential deformation.

Equipment:

Racquet: Head Radical OS (Bumblebee) - Made in Austria
Headsize: 107 sq. in. (9-3 measurement - ~11.0")
Stiffness: 58-60
String: Babolat Tonic Gut 15 mains at 60#, Isospeed Baseline 17L crosses at 50#

----------

Measurements:

Two diagonals were measured (5 to 11 o'clock and 4 to 10 o'clock) and a measurement was taken from 3 to 9 o'clock. In addition, the inside and outside of the racquet frame, from approximately 1 to 5 o'clock and 7 to 11 o'clock, was traced on a piece of cardboard. Measurements and tracings beyond these points were not possible due to interference from the racquet mounting system.

Method:

Measured distances, traced frame on cardboard and took pictures (from overhead) when racquet mounted under no tension.
Measured distances, traced frame on cardboard and took pictures (from overhead) when racquet mounted under 60# tension on mains only.

Results:

Deformation from 5 to 11 was negligible (near the throat, the racquet head deformed slightly inward approximately 0.05").
Deformation from 4 to 10 was approximately 0.20" (0.10" each side) - outward.
Deformation from 3 to 9 was approximately 0.50" (0.25" each side) - outward.

Conclusion:

Racquet head deformation is small (~4.5% using 9 to 3 measurement) and barely noticeable (to me) on a moderately flexible, oversize racquet when mounted on a Gamma X-2 stringing machine using the 2-point mounting system and plastic collars.

----------

Will post pictures, ASAP.
 
D

Deleted member 25923

Guest
Is this just with mains measured? Also, you may not notice it as much with a frame that is already pretty round. But half an inch wider could be like .25" shorter.
 
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
Mansewerz said:
Is this just with mains measured? Also, you may not notice it as much with a frame that is already pretty round. But half an inch wider could be like .25" shorter.
Click to expand...


This is strictly with the mains strung and while the racquet is still secured to the stringing machine. That is what the experiment was for. It was to detect the bulging that occurred from 9 to 11 / 1 to 3. Were were determining the amount of stress/deformation on the racquet head with a two-point mounting system.

It won't be any shorter... the racquet head is constrained at 12 and 6. The only way it would/could be shorter is if the posts started collapsing/bending inward... or the turntable started collapsing upward... both of those scenarios could possibly affect the 'roundness' while the racquet is still on the stringing machine.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 25923

Guest
Bud said:
This is strictly with the mains strung and while the racquet is still secured to the stringing machine. That is what the experiment was for. It was to detect the bulging that occurred from 9 to 11 / 1 to 3. Were were determining the amount of stress/deformation on the racquet head with a two-point mounting system.

It won't be any shorter... the racquet head is constrained at 12 and 6. The only way it would/could be shorter is if the posts started collapsing/bending inward... or the turntable started collapsing upward... both of those scenarios could possibly affect the 'roundness' while the racquet is still on the stringing machine.
Click to expand...
It has happened before on a stringing machine such as the x-2.

My RDX 500 MP shortened by 1/16th of an inch. Neglible, but still there.
 
Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
Mansewerz said:
It has happened before on a stringing machine such as the x-2.

My RDX 500 MP shortened by 1/16th of an inch. Neglible, but still there.
Click to expand...

While still secured in the machine? or after you pulled it off and measured it fully strung?

How did you measure a difference of .06" with the mounting system in the way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Gamma 2 Point vs 6 Point Mounting System
Replies
29
Views
5K
struggle
S
MuscleWeave
2 point or 6 point?
2 3
Replies
104
Views
12K
4sound
4sound
SteveI
2 point vs 6 point???
Replies
5
Views
2K
SteveI
SteveI
W
Stringing Prince O3s with 6 Point Mounting
Replies
3
Views
814
Greg Raven
Greg Raven
H
2-point or 6-point mounting machine?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Goldberg
G
Top