Alpha Axis Pro or an Alpha Apex II
- Thread starter pennc94
- Start date
I know Alpha has not released the Apex II yet, but is it a clone of this machine? http://www.eagnas.com/plus6500.html
They sure look alike and have the same mounting system.
They sure look alike and have the same mounting system.
pennc94,
I posted a thread on this a few weeks ago. Alpha has already sold a few Apex 2's, but production is slow right now according to Mark at Alpha. The machines go for $995. The Apex 2 has the suspension mounting system and better clamps than the Axis Pro. I've narrowed down my search to the Apex 2 or the Gamma 6004. Other members here have this machine, so yes, Alpha has already released it.
I posted a thread on this a few weeks ago. Alpha has already sold a few Apex 2's, but production is slow right now according to Mark at Alpha. The machines go for $995. The Apex 2 has the suspension mounting system and better clamps than the Axis Pro. I've narrowed down my search to the Apex 2 or the Gamma 6004. Other members here have this machine, so yes, Alpha has already released it.
According to Alpha it is not available and is not shipping. Eagnas has been selling their unit for 6 months. So who cloned whom? Apex II clamps are the new 3 tooth models that Eagnas and Babolat have been using them for years.
Since I already own a Wise 2086, the Gamma 6004 2 point mounting system is a better choice than either the Eagnas or Alpha. The 6004 has a must faster and cleaner mounting system, plus no blocked holes or obstructions when you are stringing.
Strange. I have seen the Eagnas well before the Alpha. The Alpha is still not on their site. My guess would be that the Alpha and Eagnas are clones of some other original design.
pennc94
Professional
I am not getting into which came first. It looks like Chicken Neck's Apex II (see: http://www.photostringer.com/alpha_apex_ii_01.htm) has 5 tooth clamps.
Don't know or care, but usually the first one to market can claim to be the original. Someone earlier reviewed the Apex II and mentioned Alpha is switching to the 3 tooth clamps. I think his machine was a beta or built out-house. The new ones are suppose to come off the in-house production line.
If you are like me and do a lot of stringing, you might take a look at the 6004 2 point mounting system. It is really quick as reported in this review http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=121311
Gamma still uses the 5 tooth clamps, but otherwise I liked the machine, but have only strung my racket on it. I am not a diablo fan, but since I use a Wise will not have to deal with the diablo issues.
The Eagnas machine actually shares the appearance of the Alpha Eclipse (which I believe is only available in Asia at the moment). The only real differences between the Eclipse and the Apex II are: The shape of the table (more rounded vs. oblong), the mounting towers (adjustable vs. fixed), and the rails (curved vs. Straight).
The Alpha Apex II on the other hand is similar to the older Poreex manufactured Alpha Apex (new paint, new clamps). The Apex II, similar to the Equinox (while it was in production), shipped with what Alpha refers to as a "hybrid" clamp. It has the width of barry's beloved 3-tooth clamps, but with 5 smaller teeth instead of 3 larger teeth (which by the way, make it even easier for dense patterns). They were made to withstand tennis tensions with ease, but are still small enough for use on badminton. Alpha is, however, working on a 3-tooth clamp, but I am out of the loop as far as whether they have finished it yet or not. I won't even go into the whole argument of Eagnas 3-tooth clamp vs. Babolat 3-tooth clamp because that's just a waste of time.
As far as the 6-point mounting vs. 2-point mounting goes. I'm not sure where barry is getting the idea that a 6-point mounting is slow because I've used some of the best ones out there, and it's faster to mount on, and DOES NOT block holes. A well-designed 6-point mounting system does not slow you down with "blocked holes" because the side supports are designed in a way so that they do not block access at all. I string on both my Babolat 6-point mounting and on a Neos 1000 and there is no benefit for the Neos mounting over the Babolat. It takes less than 15 seconds to mount ANY frame on the Babolat, whereas the Neos has trouble with certain types of frames.
As far as my opinion on the Apex II goes. It has potential, but honestly I feel that the mounting could be improved. The side supports are well-designed in the aspect that they do not block grommets or slow you down in that regard, but I feel that they aren't as secure as some other mounting systems. The Babolat I use now has a much deeper "V" shape to the side supports that holds securely without applying too much pressure. The Alpha (and Eagnas) mounting on the other hand had trouble with certain frames holding it securely without really cranking down on the mounting. I feel that the main weakness of the mounting arms on those machines is that the angle of the side supports (the "V" shaped area) isn't deep enough and so some frames like to slide up and down if you don't crank it down.
The Alpha Apex II on the other hand is similar to the older Poreex manufactured Alpha Apex (new paint, new clamps). The Apex II, similar to the Equinox (while it was in production), shipped with what Alpha refers to as a "hybrid" clamp. It has the width of barry's beloved 3-tooth clamps, but with 5 smaller teeth instead of 3 larger teeth (which by the way, make it even easier for dense patterns). They were made to withstand tennis tensions with ease, but are still small enough for use on badminton. Alpha is, however, working on a 3-tooth clamp, but I am out of the loop as far as whether they have finished it yet or not. I won't even go into the whole argument of Eagnas 3-tooth clamp vs. Babolat 3-tooth clamp because that's just a waste of time.
As far as the 6-point mounting vs. 2-point mounting goes. I'm not sure where barry is getting the idea that a 6-point mounting is slow because I've used some of the best ones out there, and it's faster to mount on, and DOES NOT block holes. A well-designed 6-point mounting system does not slow you down with "blocked holes" because the side supports are designed in a way so that they do not block access at all. I string on both my Babolat 6-point mounting and on a Neos 1000 and there is no benefit for the Neos mounting over the Babolat. It takes less than 15 seconds to mount ANY frame on the Babolat, whereas the Neos has trouble with certain types of frames.
As far as my opinion on the Apex II goes. It has potential, but honestly I feel that the mounting could be improved. The side supports are well-designed in the aspect that they do not block grommets or slow you down in that regard, but I feel that they aren't as secure as some other mounting systems. The Babolat I use now has a much deeper "V" shape to the side supports that holds securely without applying too much pressure. The Alpha (and Eagnas) mounting on the other hand had trouble with certain frames holding it securely without really cranking down on the mounting. I feel that the main weakness of the mounting arms on those machines is that the angle of the side supports (the "V" shaped area) isn't deep enough and so some frames like to slide up and down if you don't crank it down.
Last edited:
Actually, the 6004 does not have the deep "V" shaped supports that I am talking about. They use a side support that is more of an "L" shape, the bottom is flat and and touches the bottom of the frame parallel to the stringbed and then the upper part of the "L" shape is angled forward to touch the top corner of the frame essentially. This is of course assuming they haven't changed them in the last 4 months since I was looking at the 8800Els. In the case of the Gamma mounting, those "L" shaped supports function more like the standard "K" shaped supports that lower 6-point systems use. They will occasionally block access to holes and slow you down because the largest open area is to the bottom corner of the "L" shape instead of directly in front of the grommet like a "V" shaped support has. If I remember correctly, the Maestro has the same "V" shaped supports that the Aria has which is more the style that I am talking about.
I would never personally buy a 2-point mounting system because I have seen how much it can warp certain frames. I figure most people on the boards will just criticize me or my stringing or whatever else they want so that they can continue praising the the 2-point system (which isn't a bad system, it's just a bit more limited IMO). A month or two ago I ran a test where I strung the same frame at the same tension with the same string on two different machines by the same person (me). One was done on a Neos 2-point mounting and the other was done on a 6-point mounting system. The particular frame I chose was the LM Radical OS (since it is known for deforming during stringing). After measuring the dimensions unstrung, I strung it on the Neos. After stringing, the head was 3/8" shorter, and 1/2" wider. After cutting the strings out and stringing it on the 6-point machine, it was 1/16" shorter, and 1/16" wider. This is of course not saying that the 2-point system is bad by any means, and some people really like it, but I think the drawbacks that a lot of people talk about when they mention how "slow" the 6-point mounting does not apply to a well-designed 6-point mounting system. Another drawback to the 2-point mounting in my opinion is the constant adjusting when stringing a large number of frames in row. The main limitations I see for the 2-point mounting are that certain frames have too much freedom to distort, and they generally have a more difficult time with thick beamed widebody frames that also have a very thin throat (think Head Ti. S series frames and even the PD). Since I figure I will only be attacked from here on out, take this however you feel.
Masamusou, I found your post to be very informative. I strung on an older Ektelon machine for 7 years and had no problems, but I think some of the newer technology has some advantages. I'm stringing for myself and buddies, so speed and volume are not a concern. I appreciate your explanation of the Gamma supports. From what you've seen, what's your opinion on the Apex 2 versus 6004 6 pt. mount. (will the "L" setup on the Gamma be problematic for me as far as blocked holes go, or other issues?) Are there any other quality machines in this price range I should be looking at also?
Thanks....
Thanks....
Yeah, stringing someone else's frame on 2 point mounting was
definitley a concern.
The other day I was stringing my friends Yonex's on my electronic
machine(2 point mounting, lock-out) with a tension of 68 lbs.
I was frightened to see the warping and worried if I might break
my friend's frame....
Oh boy I need an upgrade.... especially for stringing for others...
definitley a concern.
The other day I was stringing my friends Yonex's on my electronic
machine(2 point mounting, lock-out) with a tension of 68 lbs.
I was frightened to see the warping and worried if I might break
my friend's frame....
Oh boy I need an upgrade.... especially for stringing for others...
Last edited:
I have to agree with what Audiodude on his review of the 2 point Gamma mounting system. The 2 point system is faster than the 6, just as stable, and with no arms in your way. I think it is the best mounting system available.
"The new mounting system is everything I'd hoped it would be. It takes very little time to mount a racquet, and the racquet is very secure when mounted. Adjustment is done with one smoothly operating and easy to turn knob, and takes just seconds. Although there is a knob at each end of the turntable, turning either of the knobs moves both mounting posts. I have zero concerns about damaging a racquet. The racquet is secure enough to string with only one side clamped down. Although, I doubt Gamma would advocate doing it. One of the biggest benefits of the two point mount, and something I hadn't given any thought to, is the huge reduction in the number of times that string gets hung up on the machine. Frankly, I hadn't even thought about it until I had already strung a couple of racquets. It's not unusual to string several racquets in a row without one hang up. You end up working faster because you stop concerning yourself with avoiding the snags. Nice. One also quickly becomes accustomed to not working around the blockages that occur with a six point mount. I was taking that for granted by the end of the first racquet."
You have to agree this http://www.photostringer.com/images/Gamma_6004_070110-02a.jpg has a lot less obstacles and easier to navigate than this http://www.photostringer.com/images/Star_V_061225-07.jpg . Hopefully it will become the next standard. After all it took a heck of a marketing effort to convince stringers to move to the 6 point system. Today’s rackets are much stronger than previous generations, and the Neos has been used successfully for years.
"The new mounting system is everything I'd hoped it would be. It takes very little time to mount a racquet, and the racquet is very secure when mounted. Adjustment is done with one smoothly operating and easy to turn knob, and takes just seconds. Although there is a knob at each end of the turntable, turning either of the knobs moves both mounting posts. I have zero concerns about damaging a racquet. The racquet is secure enough to string with only one side clamped down. Although, I doubt Gamma would advocate doing it. One of the biggest benefits of the two point mount, and something I hadn't given any thought to, is the huge reduction in the number of times that string gets hung up on the machine. Frankly, I hadn't even thought about it until I had already strung a couple of racquets. It's not unusual to string several racquets in a row without one hang up. You end up working faster because you stop concerning yourself with avoiding the snags. Nice. One also quickly becomes accustomed to not working around the blockages that occur with a six point mount. I was taking that for granted by the end of the first racquet."
You have to agree this http://www.photostringer.com/images/Gamma_6004_070110-02a.jpg has a lot less obstacles and easier to navigate than this http://www.photostringer.com/images/Star_V_061225-07.jpg . Hopefully it will become the next standard. After all it took a heck of a marketing effort to convince stringers to move to the 6 point system. Today’s rackets are much stronger than previous generations, and the Neos has been used successfully for years.
I would agree that the 2 pt. would seem to be faster than the 6 pt. in regards to fewer parts to block holes or causing the string to hang up. I would question whether the 2 pt. is "just as stable" though. Based on physics, I don't know how a frame could be supported as well from two ends versus six points of contact, unless the side supports are engineered in a way as to be ineffective, but I could be wrong... It surely is a personal preference thing, and as I said earlier, I strung racquets on a Ektelon for years with no problems. Since speed is not an issue for me, I'm looking for a setup that supports the frame the best for my budget.
Every time I string a racket, I keep asking myself are those side supports really necessary. If you have an opportunity try the new 2 point system, you can’t get an appreciation for it until you use it. I strung my racket on one, and did not miss the side supports at all. The frame was rock solid inside the mounts.
Good point, Barry. Remember years ago we were stringing wooden Jack Kramer Autographs at an average of 52 lbs. Never had problems then.
Barry, that's a good point about trying the machine. Ideally, I would get a chance to try the 6004 6 pt. and 2 pt., but that's tough to do. I bet I would have a preference after doing so. What kind of machine are you using, and if not the 6004, have you had any experience with the 6004 with 2 or 6 pt. It would be great to hear from others as well who have used both. I believe Audiodude had the 5003 before he upgraded to the 6004 2 pt, which is not really an apples to apples comparison, since the 5003 6 pt. it not as user friendly as the 6004.
Several years back I briefly owned a Neos. I didn't really care for the glide bar clamps, so I sold it. I can't remember specifics, but I can say that the new Gamma 2 point mount seems much more secure than the Neos did. Each tower on the Gamma has two nylon supports that contact the inside of the racquet. The nylon supports, coupled with the metal racquet hold downs, make for a very secure mounting system. The racquet simply will not slip. The 6 point mount on my 5003 didn't really block holes, but made them less accessible. It wasn't really a big deal, but it's nice to not have to deal with it at all. The lack of snags while stringing is very easy to get used to.
Mike D
Mike D
Ideally it would be great if we had a single shop in town which had 1 of each machine we could try before purchasing. I have strung 1 racket on a friends 6004 2 point mounting system, so am not an expert on the product, but compared to my Eagnas 925 with a Wise 2086, and a friends Alpha Apex, it worked much better. The 6 point mounting system is usually in the way when you string a racket, no matter which vendors name is on the machine. It is just the nature of the beast. My machine has a suspension mounting system with the larger L shaped pads. http://www.eagnas.com/maxgen/fh925ms.html
I have narrowed my new machine selection to 2 machines. The Gamma 6004 2 point mounting system, and the http://www.eagnas.com/plus6500.html . The Eagnas has the newer 6 point mounts, but if price was equal I would take the 6004 2 point. I string a lot of rackets, and need a quicker mounting system which the 6004 provides. The 6500 is also supposed to be quick, but have not tried the machine yet.
Barry,
Even though the two point mounting system saves a bit of time, when it comes to mounting a racquet, I think the thing that you would come to appreciate most is the lack of blocked holes and the lack of snags. It really allows you to get into a rhythm while stringing. Several racquets can go by without a string getting caught on the machine once. Everything just flows a little more when you're not spending time untangling snags or feeding string through a hole in a tight spot, blocked by a mounting arm.
Mike D
So, just so we're clear barry, how many frames have you strung on a 2-point? I've seen one on the Gamma, any others? I've strung over a 100 on a Neos in the last 6 months, and about 15 on a Prince 3000 (similar mounting style to the "new" Gamma with both towers with the nylon turning points), along with about 45 on my Star 5. You know how many times string has gotten caught on my Star 5? 4, total.
I'm going to repeat that there is a huge difference between a WELL-DESIGNED 6-point mounting system, and a poorly-designed one. I've had a string get caught on average once every 11 frames. Every single one of those times the string caught on the brake knob. The Star 5 unit is designed in a way to virtually eliminate ALL possible places to catch string. I also repeat, the Star 5 does not (nor did the Equinox) "block" holes. The support would be over a grommet occasionally, but it was designed in a way that it DID NOT slow be down because the string NEVER gets "caught" back there like it does on your style of side supports. The Equinox had a few more places that could catch string, but never enough to slow me down any appreciable time. I've simply cut off 2 minutes of my normal time with the Star because of the tension unit, the Star reaches tension faster.
Again, I'm not saying the 2-point mounting is worthless, it's not, but making the judgements that you are and saying things like "IT SHOULD BE THE NEXT STANDARD, DOWN WITH BABOLAT AND ALPHA" based on the "experience" of ONE frame is a huge stretch even for you. If you want to find out how quick mounting is on the different machines, do this test. Take a k90, a Head Flexpoint 10, and Babolat PD, mount them one after the other. Given a good 6-point mounting (Like the Star) you will be able to mount all of them on the Star faster than the Gamma. There are simply no adjustments to be made like you have to deal with on the two point. ANY frame can be mounted on the Babolat in under 10 seconds. There are certain frames that are NEVER totally secure in the 2-point mount of the Neos and 3000. It's just a mounting system, a different way of doing it. No big deal, but you need to keep that in perspective and stop acting like the 6-point mounting is going to kill tennis. If you like the 2-point mount of the Gamma, go for it, just stop spreading all your typical comments based on the "experience" of ONE frame.
I'm going to repeat this one more time for you, maybe it will catch on this time. When comparing 2 well-designed mounting systems of 2-point vs 6-point, it comes down to preference. Your preference is apparently slower mounting and no supports to "work around". No big deal, just stop acting like it is the ONLY way to do things. If you don't like "dealing with" side supports, that's you, on a good 6-point mount, you aren't dealing with side supports. They are there for support and get "in the way" a lot less than you seem to think. In fact, over the 150 frames I've done on the Equinox and Star combined, you know how many times the side support has gotten in the way and slowed me down? ZERO. Maybe it's good design, maybe I'm just that damn good, both are acceptable answers to the question.
I'm going to repeat that there is a huge difference between a WELL-DESIGNED 6-point mounting system, and a poorly-designed one. I've had a string get caught on average once every 11 frames. Every single one of those times the string caught on the brake knob. The Star 5 unit is designed in a way to virtually eliminate ALL possible places to catch string. I also repeat, the Star 5 does not (nor did the Equinox) "block" holes. The support would be over a grommet occasionally, but it was designed in a way that it DID NOT slow be down because the string NEVER gets "caught" back there like it does on your style of side supports. The Equinox had a few more places that could catch string, but never enough to slow me down any appreciable time. I've simply cut off 2 minutes of my normal time with the Star because of the tension unit, the Star reaches tension faster.
Again, I'm not saying the 2-point mounting is worthless, it's not, but making the judgements that you are and saying things like "IT SHOULD BE THE NEXT STANDARD, DOWN WITH BABOLAT AND ALPHA" based on the "experience" of ONE frame is a huge stretch even for you. If you want to find out how quick mounting is on the different machines, do this test. Take a k90, a Head Flexpoint 10, and Babolat PD, mount them one after the other. Given a good 6-point mounting (Like the Star) you will be able to mount all of them on the Star faster than the Gamma. There are simply no adjustments to be made like you have to deal with on the two point. ANY frame can be mounted on the Babolat in under 10 seconds. There are certain frames that are NEVER totally secure in the 2-point mount of the Neos and 3000. It's just a mounting system, a different way of doing it. No big deal, but you need to keep that in perspective and stop acting like the 6-point mounting is going to kill tennis. If you like the 2-point mount of the Gamma, go for it, just stop spreading all your typical comments based on the "experience" of ONE frame.
I'm going to repeat this one more time for you, maybe it will catch on this time. When comparing 2 well-designed mounting systems of 2-point vs 6-point, it comes down to preference. Your preference is apparently slower mounting and no supports to "work around". No big deal, just stop acting like it is the ONLY way to do things. If you don't like "dealing with" side supports, that's you, on a good 6-point mount, you aren't dealing with side supports. They are there for support and get "in the way" a lot less than you seem to think. In fact, over the 150 frames I've done on the Equinox and Star combined, you know how many times the side support has gotten in the way and slowed me down? ZERO. Maybe it's good design, maybe I'm just that damn good, both are acceptable answers to the question.
Masamusou, Kudos and thanks for the good information. We need more of your thoughts and stringing knowledge. This thread used to have many proven stringing experts sharing their insight and knowledge of stringing and slowly most have diappeared due to the lack of respect displayed to them. Today, the thread contains much more limited and many times erroneous, mis-leading information.
I agree with your thoughts on the benefits of multi-point or six point mounting for proper frame support and that on the better, higher level machines the stringing time is not compromised. I do not want my frames strung on machines that compromise the longer term integrity of the frames, simply because of time savings to the stringer. I understand that beginning stringers will use the two point mount entry level machines, but encourage the users to measure the frame stringbed before and after stringing so they can be aware of any frame deforamtion.
I agree with your thoughts on the benefits of multi-point or six point mounting for proper frame support and that on the better, higher level machines the stringing time is not compromised. I do not want my frames strung on machines that compromise the longer term integrity of the frames, simply because of time savings to the stringer. I understand that beginning stringers will use the two point mount entry level machines, but encourage the users to measure the frame stringbed before and after stringing so they can be aware of any frame deforamtion.
Masamusou, thank you for the post. Do you consider the Apex 2 and Gamma 6004 to be a "well designed mounting system". I understand that the Babolat is, but don't want to spend that kind of money for how many frames I do. Is it correct to say that the Gamma side supports offer the same or similar support to the frame, but may be more prone to block holes based on the "L" rather than "V" design??? I'm ready to buy a machine and am willing to work around the supports if I'm getting superior frame support.
SW Stringer
Semi-Pro
Maybe I missed that article in RSI, so would someone point out which issue it appeared in, you know, the article by a major racquet manufacturer that showed how the long term integrity of their racquet frames was compromised by two point mount stringing machines. I sure would like to read it and see their detailed scientific data that supports it.
(p.s. - I won't be holding my breath for a reply.
)My personal opinion about multipoint mounts better preserving frame integrity is . . . that it's worrying about nothing. The worrying has already been done by the frame designers . . . and the margin of strength and flexibility has been designed and built into the frame to withstand ALL the rigors of use. Stringing a racquet is a slowly (over a period of seconds/per pull and minutes per string job) applied stress that a racquet is designed to withstand. Stresses of a much higher magnitude and much shorter duration (milliseconds) are regularly applied during serving and vollleying. Playing and hitting thousands and thousands of hard hit shots over the life of a racquet are much more demanding than stringing . . . yet the racquets hold up to that type of "normal" and "expected" use. Yes, that's what a racquet designer does, let him worry about it.
Two point mount vs multipoint mount is simply a matter of preference, but if you have some scientific data that would suggest otherwise, please present it here. Thanks
Masamusou
Maybe you should string a racket on the new Gamma 2 point mounting system, and then post your review. It would give you a better understanding of the product and a basis for comparison. The Prince Neos and Gamma systems are not the same. I strung one racket on the Gamma and it was wasier than any 6 point system I have used and yes, I believe the newer mounting system will be adopted by other manufacturers, and likely become the mounting system of choice. Maybe even Babolat!
Maybe you should string a racket on the new Gamma 2 point mounting system, and then post your review. It would give you a better understanding of the product and a basis for comparison. The Prince Neos and Gamma systems are not the same. I strung one racket on the Gamma and it was wasier than any 6 point system I have used and yes, I believe the newer mounting system will be adopted by other manufacturers, and likely become the mounting system of choice. Maybe even Babolat!
If you keep posting, I am going to have to buy one. I always have snags or blocked arms and lose time. It is just the nature of the 6 point system. Works, but after using the 6004, might give Drew at ATS a call.
To me this http://www.photostringer.com/images/Gamma_6004_070110-02a.jpg
Verses this
http://www.photostringer.com/images/Star_V_061225-07.jpg
Is a no-brainer. No obstructions.
chrisplchs
Professional
that said.. which machine would I rather have?
hmm..
Is a no-brainer
hmm..
Is a no-brainer
barry, have you ever seen a Prince 3000? The difference between your precious Gamma 2-point and the Prince 3000 is mainly the "self-centering" knobs. Nice feature, not a huge importance, saves you maybe 3-5 seconds in comparison. The Prince 3000, just like the Gamma 2-point uses a mounting similar to the tip mounting of a Neos. You turn a knob to set the white retainers to the right height, set the frame in and then clamp down using the top piece and the lever (not sure how you adjust the retainer height on the Gamma). The Prince 3000 is an improvement on the Neos mounting because let's be honest, those throat adapter pieces are a pain in the ass and adjusting each retainer individually is tedious. The Gamma 2-point mount is essentially a re-working of the 3000 mounting. Add a self-centering feature and you pretty much have the Gamma mounting.
chrisplchs
Professional
Both have pretty good frame supports, otherwise, they probably wouldn't be making them.
However, if I had to choose between the two, I would definitely go with the alpha support as there is less possibility of trouble with supports blocking the holes.
However, if I had to choose between the two, I would definitely go with the alpha support as there is less possibility of trouble with supports blocking the holes.
Sorry I missed this one earlier. The 6004 is a well-designed mounting system from a support standpoint (the most important standpoint for mounting in my opinion) but the side supports do have a tendency to "catch" string more often than the side supports on the Apex II. In all, I think the 6004 has a slightly better mounting than the Apex II (I'm basing this comparison on experience with the similar, but not identical Equinox mounting). The Equinox mounting had some trouble with some frames (mostly Head frames) due to the beam shape primarily. I'll try to summarize my opinions into a quick rundown comparison of each machine's advantages with mounting, I think clamps/tensioner are pretty much even.
Apex II:
Side Supports less likely to catch string
No adjusting of Tower spacing
Side Supports will not hinder access to any grommets
6004 6-point:
Mounting Towers less likely to catch string
A little better support in my opinion
Overall I feel that the 6004 6-point mounting is a bit more secure than the Apex II (which I only have similar experience with the Equinox, not with the Apex II itself), while the Apex II has less chance of "getting in the way". It's not that the Apex II mounting is insecure, I just think the design of the side supports limits their effective on certain frames.
Never had a change to use a Prince 3000, just a Neos. I really like the openness of the new Gamma system. Babolat is at the top of the heap for as stringing machines. But if you get a chance, give the Gamma a try.
Chicken Neck
Rookie
I see that alot of guys feel that there is an appreciable amount of time to be saved using a 2 point mount as compared to a 6 point as on the Apex II. Well, in my experience there is not. It takes me a grand total of about 15 seconds to mount a frame on my machine and the only time I have ever had string catch on the side supports is when stringing one piece the long side will catch once in a great while. I have strung many frames on the Neos and I defy anyone to mount a frame faster on that machine than I can on my Alpha. The most important thing for me however, is the added security I get from the 6 point mount which is something the 2 point simply cannot match. This is especially important when stringing for others. It's not for nothing that all of the top tier machines are 6 point. Now I love my Alpha but in no way do I feel it to be the last word in stringing machines, I am simply saying that it is a fast, stable, high quality stringing platform. The Gamma is also a quality machine with which I'm sure you will be satisfied. Regardless of the brand you choose I would stick with the 6 point mount. Good luck and happy stringing.
Chicken Neck
One unique thing I noticed about the Apex II is the head and throat mounting supports are "V" shaped, as opposed to other suspension mounting supports that are usually straight. Do you notice added support on the frame because of this design?
You may be the only person I have heard of who actually owns an Apex II. I have been calling Alpha about this for months.
My next stringing machine is going to be the Alpha Apex II or Gamma 6004. If I do choose the Gamma 6004, I would be confident with either 2 or 6 pt mounting. Both appear to be well designed.
One unique thing I noticed about the Apex II is the head and throat mounting supports are "V" shaped, as opposed to other suspension mounting supports that are usually straight. Do you notice added support on the frame because of this design?
You may be the only person I have heard of who actually owns an Apex II. I have been calling Alpha about this for months.
My next stringing machine is going to be the Alpha Apex II or Gamma 6004. If I do choose the Gamma 6004, I would be confident with either 2 or 6 pt mounting. Both appear to be well designed.
Chicken Neck
Rookie
I have not really noticed a difference in the level of support given by the v shape as opposed to the flat mounts. However, I have noticed a propensity for denting of the frame finish with the v shaped mounts so you must exercise extra care not to over tighten them.
Last edited:
Mike Cottrill
Hall of Fame
Are you speaking of Alpha V's or all V's?
Chicken Neck
Rookie
In this case I'm speaking of the mounts on the Alpha. It does however, seem that few other machines use the v shape anymore so perhaps the problem is common to this shape of mount regardless of make. That said I do feel that the v mount does, with certain frame shapes, offer better support than the flat mount.
Mike Cottrill
Hall of Fame
I don't think you are the only one who has noticed this. The problem is in some cases, is no win because of the design, not just over tightening. Not convinced it is the V design though
Last edited:
Chicken Neck
Rookie
You could be right. With the new Yonex frames, for example, I have found that the v mount does a brilliant job. It seems that as with most things in life, one size does NOT fit all.
Similar threads
