6 point mount myth?

[Redflea]

I don't understand the number of comments I keep seeing about folks liking two-point mounting sytems because (one recent example) "nothing in the way of the grommet strip..." and other comments about holes being blocked w/6 point systems.

I'm just not having a problem with blocked holes w/my Alpha's 6 pt mount system. That's stringing racquets from Head (2), Prince (1), Yonex (2), Dunlop (1), and Volkl (1)...probably a total of 25 to 30 string jobs to date, I haven't really kept track. I know that's a very small number of string jobs overall, but if this was an issue you'd think I would have seen it on a number of them, and I haven't. A few times I've moved my mount brackets between the two optional positions on the arm for better access...a three second activity, non-issue.

Are there 6-point mounts out there that are a problem, or is this one of those "myths" that keeps getting perpetuated.

Not wanting to dredge up other debates about which type is more secure, just curious if others are seeing bloked holes commonly on their 6 pt mount systems...

 

[MikeCrowChip]

I have a gamma 5003, which is a 6point mount. And it depends on the care taken when mounting the frame. When I mount my frames, i look at the side arms to make sure that they do not block any holes, and if the do, i adjust the mounts at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions so that they don't block.

I *guess* if you want to string fast, and don't want to pay attention, you could block the holes. With a 2 point mount, you don't have to worry about nuttin'. Quick mount and start stringing quickly.

Also, not all 2 point mounting systems are equal. Look at the mounts on the Klipper v.s. a Prince/Ektalon.

 

[Audiodude]

How about using the word, obstruct, or possibly, get in the way. I owned a Gamma 5003 for several years. Never once, was I not able to string a racquet due to blocked holes. I just had to work around the mounting arms. No biggie, really. I now own a 6004 with two point mount. Suffice it to say, the mounting arms no longer are an issue in any capacity. It's also faster to mount a racquet. Mind you the several seconds that it saves me don't justify the expenditure, and the end result is the same, but that argument could be made about a lot of "upgrades". I don't ever recall reading a post that claimed it made a big difference. But, it is a little nicer to work on. I especially like the lack of snags on the mounting arms, while stringing. Again, no big deal. Just something I noticed.


Mike D

 

[hadoken]

Another 5003 owner here...the blocked holes is not a problem so long as I take care to adjust the mounts properly. It's a slight nuisance. Def. slows me down compared to my old 2pt though

 

[Wondertoy]

As a matter of physics, string the mains on a 2-point mounting sytem will cause the sides to bow out and no one will tell me different!

 

[SW Stringer]

As a matter of physics, string the mains on a 2-point mounting sytem will cause the sides to bow out and no one will tell me different!

I own a Bear recurve bow that's been used tens of thousands of times. It's made up of many layers of wood and plastic laminate. It bends tremendously when used, yet it doesn't break! Imagine that. What's up with that?

A racquet designer, most likely a degreed Mechanical Engineer specializing in composite structures would probably comment on your post and say - so what, it's designed to flex. BFD. So, is there something you know, Wondertoy, that the racquet designers don't?

 

[Wondertoy]

I own a Bear recurve bow that's been used tens of thousands of times. It's made up of many layers of wood and plastic laminate. It bends tremendously when used, yet it doesn't break! Imagine that. What's up with that?

A racquet designer, most likely a degreed Mechanical Engineer specializing in composite structures would probably comment on your post and say - so what, it's designed to flex. BFD. So, is there something you know, Wondertoy, that the racquet designers don't?

The racquet designer does not comment on the 2 vs. 6 pt mounting. However, the end shape will be different after stringing on both or is that beyong your thinking and understanding?

 

[DANMAN]

I have the Gamma X-ST and have trouble with blocked holes on the Liquidmetal Prestige MP only. I have to take special care mounting the frame. Other than that, I have never had a single problem.

 

[Audiodude]

I can't address all two point mounting systems, but I can say that a racquet mounted on the new Gamma doesn't shorten while only the mains are strung and tensioned. I measured it myself on the first couple of racquets, just to be sure. If it's not getting shorter, it's probably not getting wider. I haven't bothered to continue to measure any other racquets, after the first two, but I don't see any difference between the results I'm getting now versus the results I got with my Gamma 5003 6 point mount.

 

[SW Stringer]

The racquet designer does not comment on the 2 vs. 6 pt mounting. However, the end shape will be different after stringing on both or is that beyong your thinking and understanding?

I can't address all two point mounting systems, but I can say that a racquet mounted on the new Gamma doesn't shorten while only the mains are strung and tensioned. I measured it myself on the first couple of racquets, just to be sure. If it's not getting shorter, it's probably not getting wider. I haven't bothered to continue to measure any other racquets, after the first two, but I don't see any difference between the results I'm getting now versus the results I got with my Gamma 5003 6 point mount.

In general, I'll agree with Audiodude on this one. If it doesn't shrink in length, it's probably not getting wider. Your hypotheses (Wondertoy's that 2pt and 6pt mount end up with different shapes) is wrong since Audiodude has seen no difference. However a true statement applying to both 2pt and 6pt mounts is that an incorrectly mounted frame will distort.

. . . or is that beyong your thinking and understanding?

A tad bit sensitive, are we?

 

[leftygun]

I don't think the bow analogy really applies since bows are intentionally designed to flex a great deal, thus creating the energy which propels the arrow. As racquets are engineered to flex some, ie when hitting a ball or stringing, etc., it's to a much lesser extent.

Not saying one is better than the other, I don't think any 2 pt. mount offers the same support as a well-designed 6 pt. I guess the question is, How much suport do you really need? Having strung on a 2 pt. Ektelon for years, I never had a problem with any frames. Some argue that small amounts of flex occur which weaken microfibers in the frame materials. Others will say that the engineers design the racquets to withstand these stresses, which also occur during play. Who knows for sure.

It seems to me that most posters who like the 2 pt. mounts are more speed/convenience conscious and like the fact that they don't have to deal with potentially blocked holes (or having to make adjustments to prevent this) and having extra parts (support arms) for the string to hang up on.

6 pt. mount users seem to like the extra frame support they are getting and are not so concerned with pure speed, or are able to string just as fast as they could on 2 pt. machines.

Like most things, it comes down to personal preference and figuring out what your stringing priorities are.

 

[officerdibble]

I have a gamma 5003, which is a 6point mount. And it depends on the care taken when mounting the frame. When I mount my frames, i look at the side arms to make sure that they do not block any holes, and if the do, i adjust the mounts at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions so that they don't block.

I *guess* if you want to string fast, and don't want to pay attention, you could block the holes. With a 2 point mount, you don't have to worry about nuttin'. Quick mount and start stringing quickly.

Also, not all 2 point mounting systems are equal. Look at the mounts on the Klipper v.s. a Prince/Ektalon.

Thanks - I'd never thought of that! I have a 6 point mount on my Eagnas machine and it sometimes blocks holes. I have a racket to string tonight and I'll follow your method.

 

[Wondertoy]

If it's not getting shorter, it's probably not getting wider....

Not true, there is not perfect elasticity in the racquet's shape. It may only distort 3/8" wider, but it does distort.

 

[Irvin]

I have to say I have strung about 20 rackets on my Gamma 6004 6 point and the support arms and supports do get in the way more so than on a 2 point system. Although even when the grommet holes are in the center of the support it is still ok. I have strung on both and with the 6 point I see no bending of the racket during stringing, while with the 2 point there is a lot of distortion while stringing.

I have heard a lot of comments about how the 2 point is 'just as good' but never the other way around.

 

[PBODY99]

I've strung my personal frames on both a Gamma 2 pt and the 5003 ,I have not really notice a difference in the frames after stringing. It is just important to make sure the frame is securely mounted, not matter which one you use. So yes sometimes it requires a little foresight; but I seldom have to bang out sub 25 minute string jobs one after another, so to me it is not a big deal.
As for frame safety, I've restrung the same frame over 100 time\with six bumper guard changes in a seven year span for one of my clients, so I guess the two point was stable enough.

 

[diredesire]

I prefer inside mounts, and to call one of the newer Gamma inside mounts a "2 point" is a bit of an insult. They are very secure, and support the frame in more than one location. Same with the SP supports, and the LF supports. They should just be called inside versus outside mounts. 2 points vs 6 is no argument, assuming a generic 2 point mount (Gamma X-2, klippermate, etc), I have no qualms with saying a 6 point outside mount is superior and better and supporting a racquet. HOWEVER, a 5-6 point (well designed) inside mounting system compared to a 5-6 point (well designed) outside mount is near the same, if not completely equal.

By DESIGN, 6 point outside mounts only REALLY do work WHEN a racquet deforms. The idea behind a 5-6 point inside mount is that the deformation is prevented to begin with. Those outside arms don't do any supporting until a frame is subjected to pressure/deformation.

I also prefer inside mounting for the speed and convenience, as I frequently have high volumes of frames (stringing for DI college tennis). Blocked holes can be a PITA when working with mushy strings, or with poly strings (especially on midsized prestiges!!!).

I personally think that the 2 pt vs 6 point argument is kind of a misunderstood one. I agree that a basic 2 pt versus ANY 6 point machine is going to get walloped by design, but pitting an excellent inside mount with an excellent outside mount is going to narrow the field quite a bit. I've actually experienced much more flex and expansion with the Gamma ESII+ (6 pointoutside) mount compared to my LF MS200TT at home. FWIW, I like inside.

 

[Audiodude]

I prefer inside mounts, and to call one of the newer Gamma inside mounts a "2 point" is a bit of an insult. They are very secure, and support the frame in more than one location. Same with the SP supports, and the LF supports. They should just be called inside versus outside mounts. 2 points vs 6 is no argument, assuming a generic 2 point mount (Gamma X-2, klippermate, etc), I have no qualms with saying a 6 point outside mount is superior and better and supporting a racquet. HOWEVER, a 5-6 point (well designed) inside mounting system compared to a 5-6 point (well designed) outside mount is near the same, if not completely equal.

By DESIGN, 6 point outside mounts only REALLY do work WHEN a racquet deforms. The idea behind a 5-6 point inside mount is that the deformation is prevented to begin with. Those outside arms don't do any supporting until a frame is subjected to pressure/deformation.

I also prefer inside mounting for the speed and convenience, as I frequently have high volumes of frames (stringing for DI college tennis). Blocked holes can be a PITA when working with mushy strings, or with poly strings (especially on midsized prestiges!!!).

I personally think that the 2 pt vs 6 point argument is kind of a misunderstood one. I agree that a basic 2 pt versus ANY 6 point machine is going to get walloped by design, but pitting an excellent inside mount with an excellent outside mount is going to narrow the field quite a bit. I've actually experienced much more flex and expansion with the Gamma ESII+ (6 pointoutside) mount compared to my LF MS200TT at home. FWIW, I like inside.

Excellent post. It really is a bit of a misnomer to call the new Gamma system a two point mount when the racquet is supported at 6 points. Gamma's obviously referring the the number of points that must be secured, not to the number of points that are actually supporting the racquet.

 

[barry]

Excellent post. It really is a bit of a misnomer to call the new Gamma system a two point mount when the racquet is supported at 6 points. Gamma's obviously referring the the number of points that must be secured, not to the number of points that are actually supporting the racquet.

Maybe a misnomer, but it is what Gamma calls it.

 

[Audiodude]

Maybe a misnomer, but it is what Gamma calls it.

I know. I've always referred to it as a two point mount and will continue to do so. I was just commenting on Dire's clarification, which I though was rather insightful.

 

[zapvor]

i am just starting out on my string machine education, but does it make sense to compromise and go with 4-point? or is that a whole different set up?

 

[Steve Huff]

Really, the only rackets that seem to distort a lot are Head Radicals and a few of their other low number (S 1, TiS2, etc) rackets. But, these do appear to flatten at the top some when strung on machines that support only at 6 and 12. I haven't seen them strung on the new Gamma 2-point machines, so I can't comment on those. The real advantage I have found with the 6-point machine is that with my old Ektelon, the racket would sometimes slide back and forth when finishing the lower 3rd of the crosses, especially at higher tensions. You just couldn't get the mount tight enough to hold it. With screw-down mounts, you can literally crush the frame trying to get it tight enough to hold.

About the 6-pt blocking holes. I have encountered in on a couple of occasions. It doesn't block stringing per se, but there have been times when I've come across a split grommet that I didn't pick up on the initial inspection. I had to use my awl to enlarge the hole to tube it. Now there's where a 6-pt machine's mounting arms can get in the way. But that's really the only time I can think of.

 

[SW Stringer]

I know. I've always referred to it as a two point mount and will continue to do so. I was just commenting on Dire's clarification, which I though was rather insightful.

The generic term two point mount I think refers to those mounting systems securing the frame at the 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock positions - and in no way implies the number of frame contact points for supporting the racquet. My two point mount Klippermate, for example, contacts the frame in eight areas on normal frames, and twelve areas on throatless frames. In my estimation that's more than adequate support for the job.

 

[neverstopplaying]

No problems whatsoever with 6-pt on SP Maestro. Regularly string all my rackets as well as friend's 200g, Prestige and n6.1 90. Very stable during stringing.

 

[156MPHserve]

I disagree with the whole inside mounting theory. Although it may work, it's a lesser scale than you may think. The reason I know this is because after 1.5 years of stringing on a Laserfibre. I still feel like my frames don't ever come out the exact same shape they went in. Mind you I'm a extreme perfectionist.

At first I thought it was because my racquet was slipping a bit. I got a good tip to put some grip tape between the frame and the supports when stringing and eliminated all slipping but I still found my frames to be slightly imperfect.

I also deal with badminton racquets. This really brings into perspective what happens to your frame that you might not see since the tennis frames are so thick. I have two little cousins I have trained to string their own racquets just so I don't have to deal with it. Being a good older cousin, I explained every bit of knowledge I could provide them. So on one occasion they came to string their racquet when I was about to leave. Since they were doing it together I was quite confident I had them well trained, and with both of them together, if they did forget anything, I'm sure ONE of them would remember. When I came home, I found the racquet sitting on the turntable with about 5 mains tensioned and one side still in the tensioner. I called asking them what the deal was. They innocently said, their mom told them to leave so they thought I could finish the job for them. In theory, there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. Deformation should have been PREVENTED completely. However in real life application that is not the case. The racquet was deformed severely and I strung it up and let them keep it as a reminder of why they should take care in their stringing.

Sorry for the long post but I felt it was necessary to share my experience.

 

[mellofelow]

I agree with 156. All that pressure has to affect something.

For years I have strung on old Ektelons. Those 2 point mounts are as sturdy as tanks however, the racket's oval head shape definitely is more rounded after mains are strung.

Myth or not, I'll stick with 6pt mounting system.

 

[SW Stringer]

I disagree with the whole inside mounting theory. . . . feel like my frames don't ever come out the exact same shape they went in. Mind you I'm a extreme perfectionist. . . .

.

I assume that you're saying that the unstrung frame shape is different than the strung frame shape.

Have you tried this experiment to verify frame shapes. Before stringing place the unstrung racquet on paper and trace the inside or outside outline of the racquet with a black pen. Be very careful to keep the pencil/pen perfectly vertical. Trace it again with a different color pen/pencil. After stringing trace it again (being very careful to align with either the top or bottom of the hoop with the previous marks) with a third different color. (Note that all pens/pencils must have the same diameter.)

Now measure the maximum seperation between the first two colored lines/marks. This is your standard error - the normal error you'd make due to misalignment of the marking device. If the first two sets of lines/marks are coincident then you did a great job of keeping alignment. Now measure the maximum difference between the last set of lines/marks and the first set and note their location. Save this template. Next time you string that exact same frame at the exact same tensions pull out the template and retrace in a fourth color. It should match the third tracing from last time plus or minus the standard error. If it varied significantly THEN I'D be worried and you could devise further experiments to find the source of the problem.