Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
... a CP tensioner continues pulling the string to maintain constant tension until the string is clamped...
You have the same ability on a LO it is just a manual process instead of automatic.
... a CP tensioner continues pulling the string to maintain constant tension until the string is clamped...
You have the same ability on a LO it is just a manual process instead of automatic.
+1I strung on the alpha pioneer dc plus for a couple years. i think that will work fine for you. Don't worry about this constant pull stuff. Find a tension on your machine that produces a stringbed you like, then repeat it.
I saw the video. Nice. But that will only work with 2way-clamps. Anyway, I think this only shows the drawback of a LO; of course there are "tricks" to overcome this, but the basic way of working with a LO gives unpredictable results. For every string (as they all differ in "creep") you have to find a "new" correction to get ~same result as on a CP.You have the same ability on a LO it is just a manual process instead of automatic.
I saw the video. Nice. But that will only work with 2way-clamps. Anyway, I think this only shows the drawback of a LO; of course there are "tricks" to overcome this, but the basic way of working with a LO gives unpredictable results. For every string (as they all differ in "creep") you have to find a "new" correction to get ~same result as on a CP.
And as long as the gravity-field of the earth doesn't change, you only have to calibrate a drop-weight once. That working with a standard drop-weight is more time-consuming: yes, it is. But this is only so, because people using a LO turn a blind-eye to the build-in shortcomings.
Many folks compare dropweights to high end electronic machines simply because it has the accuracy of gravity and is "constant pull"... Apples/Oranges. a high end electronic pulls in a smooth continuous motion at a constant speed.
I've only ever strung on my Klippermate so I dont know how much more efficient I would be on an electric or crank.
I can say that the Klippermate is a rock solid bulletproof machine that will never need any parts replaced or even maintenance on it (other than standard cleaning of clamps).
I'm willing to bet you cannot say that about a lot of other more complicated machines. (heck the several thousand dollar Prince machine at my local tennis center goes down multiple times per year for something)
Plus with it being a drop weight there is never any tension variance and will be the same every time.
Once I got used to my Klipper I was able to get most of my drops right the first time with the occasional adjustment and re-drop.
Right now it takes me ~45 minutes to do my Pure Aero while watching TV and drinking a beer (this is a must, no beer no stringing )
As Irvin showed in his instruction-video: the immediate tension-loss due to creep the moment the LO "locks". You can turn a blind eye to this, and you can think you can correct this by adding 5# to the reference tension, but that's only a clumsy way to try to correct a build-in shortcoming.What do you consider to be the built-in shortcomings of a crank lockout?
I wouldn't trade my spring assisted, swivel, fixed clamps for your floating ones.
It would be better to get a machine with fixed clamps that have neglible drawback.I would like to check if floating clamps may be used to help fixed clamps hold the cross strings and prevent them from drawback. Unfortunately, I don't have one.
As Irvin showed in his instruction-video: the immediate tension-loss due to creep the moment the LO "locks". You can turn a blind eye to this, and you can think you can correct this by adding 5# to the reference tension, but that's only a clumsy way to try to correct a build-in shortcoming.
And I am fully aware that you can achieve a repeatable, reliable, client-satisfaction-guaranteed result on a LO. But the shortcoming is there to stay!
Well, agree to disagreeThat is NOT a shortcoming
Plus/minus 5(?) degree has very little influence on the tensiona dropweight the bar will continue to pull but not at the exact reference tension since the bar will continue to drop slightly below horizontal as the string stretches before clamping off.
As said, this "higher number" has to be different for every type of string to get same SBS, as all strings have different "creep". Therefore, in an ideal world, you have to adjust when you change stringtype; and who does that?? (and how do you quantify this "extra" weight)What matters is that one sets the reference tension on each type of machine that results in the desired stringbed. On a lockout, this will be a higher number. So what? It's not a deficiency.
agree 100% (and never ever needs re-calibrating ( as long as the earth gravetanional field doesn't change ))Your Stringway pulls tension in a very different manner than a regular dropweight (with/without a ratchet) with a single, smooth and continuous drop of the weight and is closer to a good electronic.
That's nice, but only shows that a lot of people keep on their bad habitsWhat's nice about my Neos 1500 is that it's the same tensioner that TW uses
Agree.If I had a lockout, I would guess I could get consistent results with that. Don't most of you say it's the stringer not the machine?
You mean on a LO I set the tension ~5-10% higher than I would on a CP? Well on a LO initially the tension would be higher than the tension on a CP until after a short break in period. I agree after the break in the DT would be the same.What matters is that one sets the reference tension on each type of machine that results in the desired stringbed. On a lockout, this will be a higher number. So what? It's not a deficiency.
You work around a problem, and still you claim it is not a deficiency The fact is, so many people in the US (NOT in Europe) use LO's; this makes it such a standard that people tend to believe this deficiency is "normal".What matters is that one sets the reference tension on each type of machine that results in the desired stringbed. On a lockout, this will be a higher number. So what? It's not a deficiency.
I assume you mean "after using the +5-10% higher tension" . First of all, 5-10% is quit a margin. Second: you can not use the same "extra tension" as this depends on the type of string. Even if you use the same reference-tension with another string (same frame), your resulting SBS will be different.Well on a LO initially the tension would be higher than the tension on a CP until after a short break in period. I agree after the break in the DT would be the same.
You work around a problem, and still you claim it is not a deficiency The fact is, so many people in the US (NOT in Europe) use LO's; this makes it such a standard that people tend to believe this deficiency is "normal".
How would you call a kitchen-balance for which you have to add every time 135gram to get a correct reading; yes, you can get good result, but that balance has clearly a deficiency
I assume you mean "after using the +5-10% higher tension" . First of all, 5-10% is quit a margin. Second: you can not use the same "extra tension" as this depends on the type of string. Even if you use the same reference-tension with another string (same frame), your resulting SBS will be different.
No, as said, you can get excellent results with a LO. But you have to make adjustments that are not necessary on a CP (and still you will not get same results; but it can be very good results )You're basically saying TW does disservice to their customers with a bad habit stringing machine.
I cheat. I pull only on the headside, 2 L-strings at the same time. And I let the lever "bounce" a little to overcome the resistance of the grommets. I compared this method with "one string at the time", by doing 2 strings in one pull on the left-side, single-pull on the right side. Symmetrical strings had the same pitch when plucked. (used a slick string, and little bounces in both ways)Also... you have an older Stringway without the Concorde system, correct? How do you tension the center mains and account for the added friction of the strings going over the throat of the racquet?
Top 10 in the man ATP-rankings: 9 from Europe, one Japanese. Maybe we have better stringers ( but I doubt that is the reason)We already know that Europeans are superior in every way so no need to go there....
It would be better to get a machine with fixed clamps that have neglible drawback.
I compared this method with "one string at the time", by doing 2 strings in one pull on the left-side, single-pull on the right side.
A lot of interesting points, but after a while, my eyes glaze over reading these "which is better" threads. I got consistent results with the Klippermate and Eagnas drop weights I used to have and I get consistent results with my P200 pneumatic constant pull. If I had a lockout, I would guess I could get consistent results with that. Don't most of you say it's the stringer not the machine?
Top 10 in the man ATP-rankings: 9 from Europe, one Japanese. Maybe we have better stringers ( but I doubt that is the reason)
You've had a crank lockout, a good electronic and now a high end electronic.. I am not comparing any of those. It's a comparison between a crank lockout and a dropweight. Not sure whether you've had a dropweight.You mean on a LO I set the tension ~5-10% higher than I would on a CP? Well on a LO initially the tension would be higher than the tension on a CP until after a short break in period. I agree after the break in the DT would be the same.
Weaving one ahead before clamping makes the drawback negligible on DW. Though I heard Parnell saying that one should clamp ASAP for getting consistent results.
The nudge would produce something higher than reference. How much would depend on how much play is in you clamps and just how much that nudge is. For you nudge to be consistent you would have to vary the pressure on the nudge depending on the length of string you tensioning and whether it is a main or a cross.Irvin, the nudge seems to have added some tension. My perception is that at the same reference tension the "nudged" racket strings seem firmer. I'm thinking I need an ERT but instead I'll just nudge all further rackets and throttle back the tension if necessary. I wonder if the nudge produces tension closer to reference - I would suspect that it does.
You may want to rethink that, it is exactly the opposite depending on whether you're pushing on the top of the clamp or the base of the clamp....Taking out the play in the clamp by pushing it away from the tensioner will minimize drawback...
This makes no sense... Drawback is a function of the clamp and not the tensioner. Weaving one ahead makes no difference.
Taking out the play in the clamp by pushing it away from the tensioner will minimize drawback. Better quality machines will have less drawback as well. Also clamping as close to the grommet as possible will minimize the effects of drawback.
True. Hoop deformation is much more essential than drawback in terms of tension loss while stringing the crosses down to the throat.On the next pull, the drawback will somewhat be accounted for minus the friction in the grommets.
The nudge adds tension to the string.
The nudge would produce something higher than reference.
I would not attempt machine prestretch on anything other than a high end electronic.another advantage of the drop-weight, which I only recently discovered on my Stringway: you can have a machine-prestretch of the string. I don't think that can easily be done on a crank.
And: the accuracy of my dropweight Stringway: I can set the tension to an accuracy of 0.1kg. What I saw on the setting-options of a LO, you can be glad if you can make steps of 0.5kg.
That's what I meant... Those who've used fixed clamp machines for a while know to do this.You may want to rethink that, it is exactly the opposite depending on whether you're pushing on the top of the clamp or the base of the clamp.
Pretty much all of themWhat machine would offer two stringers the ability to string one particular racket with one particular string setup nearly the same? Just curious.
I'll stick with my NEOS as it works for me. But it would be interesting to know which machine takes out the most of the human element.
What machine would offer two stringers the ability to string one particular racket with one particular string setup nearly the same? Just curious.
I'll stick with my NEOS as it works for me. But it would be interesting to know which machine takes out the most of the human element.
Agree.Pretty much all of them
Why? I put the weight on the bar on the correct spot, and then I can add a weight on such position to get the required pre-stretch. Then I remove the extra weight, relax the string, and tension on the reference-tension. No big deal.I would not attempt machine prestretch on anything other than a high end electronic.
Well, I would love to challenge you doing this in parallel with me putting the weight in the correct position . And how do you calibrate the different force needed for the X-strings?I can set the the tension to any increment/resolution with a calibrator in about the time it takes you to install the bar and weight.
If you eliminate drawback you're going to put more stress on the string
Why? I put the weight on the bar on the correct spot, and then I can add a weight on such position to get the required pre-stretch. Then I remove the extra weight, relax the string, and tension on the reference-tension. No big deal.
Well, I would love to challenge you doing this in parallel with me putting the weight in the correct position . And how do you calibrate the different force needed for the X-strings?
I do have a brandless LO, used it years ago. The size of the scale for adjusting the tension is ~1" for a range of 36kilo! That same 1" gives a diffence of 1 kg on my Stringway-bar.