constant pull crank and dropweight

[wonder_wall]

Wonder Wall: I made a mistake in my last post and fixed it now. But you don't need to read it anymore since I got your idea now. The key is explained in step 9(WITH TENSIONED STRING IN THE CLAMP - PROBLEM SOLVED!). Thanks a lot, my friend. But you pull the 1LM twice... lol....

You have to do something extra IF YOU HAVE A CRANK to fix the problem. I would guess that it's theoretically provable that in order to start the sequence with tensioned string in the clamp, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO SOME EXTRA WORK. Right?

I already pointed out a "less work" approach (double pull) and someone else pointed out the "unclamp while you crank" approach.

THOSE MAY BE BETTER FOR CRANK OWNERS and nearly as good as the starting clamp approach.

But the starting clamp approach seems to me to be the fullest solution since at the moment of unclamping tension loss can spread to the adjacent string using the other methods, I believe.

But again, hangzhou, YOU DON'T NEED TO BOTHER IF YOU HAVE AN ECO! (Or drop weight for that matter.) I still don't understand why you're intending to change your starting sequence, but please stay in the discussion even if you end up not doing that.

 

[hangzhou]

You have to do something extra IF YOU HAVE A CRANK to fix the problem. I would guess that it's theoretically provable that in order to start the sequence with tensioned string in the clamp, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO SOME EXTRA WORK. Right?

Agree.

I already pointed out a "less work" approach (double pull) and someone else pointed out the "unclamp while you crank" approach.

THOSE MAY BE BETTER FOR CRANK OWNERS and nearly as good as the starting clamp approach.

But the starting clamp approach seems to me to be the fullest solution since at the moment of unclamping tension loss can spread to the adjacent string using the other methods, I believe.

But again, hangzhou, YOU DON'T NEED TO BOTHER IF YOU HAVE AN ECO! (Or drop weight for that matter.) I still don't understand why you're intending to change your starting sequence, but please stay in the discussion even if you end up not doing that.

Will stay with you guys on this topic since I have learned a lot...

 

[Brad VanHorn]

Rich's approach has the "unpardonable sin" of tensioning two strings at the same time. Not what you want, and certainly another tension killer.

This is an interesting tangent, and what follows is by no means criticism of anyone here; just something different to think about.

When I learned to string I was told to never pull two mains at once; would lead to inconsistency in the stringbed. So, I string some tennis racquets, some "regular" racquetball racquets, and even a couple squash racquets, and all is well. But, I soon found myself stringing E-Force and Head racquetball racquets; their string patterns make it effectively impossible to string without pulling two mains at once. For those not familiar, racquetball tensions tend to run essentially half tennis tensions, but the issue of relative tension loss to a double pull would still affect the stringbed. (For a tension example, my current racquetball racquet is the Head Liquidmetal 180, which I string at 31 lbs., and my current tennis racquet is the Babolat Pure Control Zylon 360, which I string at 55 lbs. Not exactly 1/2, but close.) I've never bothered to measure the difference in tension when doing a double pull, but now that I'm reminded of the old "sin" perhaps it's time for a quick research project.

 

[Mike Cottrill]

Thanks for the update Mike.

I don't have a racket to string right now, but I wouldn't mind trying your marker thing, especially if based on the marks we can compute exact numbers on things (which I believe we could) but I can tell you there is definitely VERY significant tension loss, it would be less with the starting clamp of course as already stated, but still would be significant...

Wonderwall,
You do not need a racquet to do this. Just your clamp and tension head to see what I’m referring to.
Mike

 

[wonder_wall]

Wonderwall,
You do not need a racquet to do this. Just your clamp and tension head to see what I’m referring to.
Mike

OK, will try, yes I also didn't read close enough... I admit I don't understand the point of this though - you're expecting the string to stretch in there some?

 

[ambro]

AMBRO: I believe your technique may be the best pointed out so far - BUT, HOW DO YOU PROTECT THAT GROMMET AT 2L? Do you use something like the load spreader to have the starting clamp up against?

I don't use anything. The grommets come out fine, no need for any kind of protection. The first time I tried this technique I thought I'd have to protect it, like you think you do, but you really don't. Also, this 3/4" inside the starting clamp isn't going to change anything. Clamp drawback that is not recovered on the next pull produces more tension differential than this would.

 

[rich s]

Rich's approach has the "unpardonable sin" of tensioning two strings at the same time. Not what you want, and certainly another tension killer.

WW my approach does NOT pull two strings at one time. read again.

put the starting clamp on the outside of the frame on 1L.
pull 1R and clamp with the machine clamp.
pull 2R and clamp with the machine clamp.
pull 1L and clamp with the machine clamp.
The starting clamp is between the frame and the tension head so no tension is lost when you remove the starting clamp AFTER you clamp 1L with the machine clamp
pull 2L and clamp with the machine clamp...continue alternating sides.

At no point are you pulling 2 strings at once.

If you are saying that 1L is getting some tension applied to it when you pull 1R, yes, it most certanly does in order to achieve equalibrium but that's NOT pulling two strings at once...... that is the reaction force to balance the tension applied to 1R. AT NO point are you pulling 2 strings in the tension head at once and if you release the starting clamp on 1L AFTER you clamp 1L with the machine clamp then no tension is lost.

 

[wonder_wall]

WW my approach does NOT pull two strings at one time. read again.

put the starting clamp on the outside of the frame on 1L.
pull 1R and clamp with the machine clamp.
pull 2R and clamp with the machine clamp.
pull 1L and clamp with the machine clamp.
The starting clamp is between the frame and the tension head so no tension is lost when you remove the starting clamp AFTER you clamp 1L with the machine clamp
pull 2L and clamp with the machine clamp...continue alternating sides.

At no point are you pulling 2 strings at once.

If you are saying that 1L is getting some tension applied to it when you pull 1R, yes, it most certanly does in order to achieve equalibrium but that's NOT pulling two strings at once...... that is the reaction force to balance the tension applied to 1R. AT NO point are you pulling 2 strings in the tension head at once and if you release the starting clamp on 1L AFTER you clamp 1L with the machine clamp then no tension is lost.

OK.

I think I understand what you are saying but yes, I'm not talking about putting two strings in the tensioner at the same time, I'm talking about having the tensioner tension a distance of string that includes TWO main strings, as you identified in the part where you agreed "yes it most certainly does in order to achieve equilibrium."

I understand you later tension 1L properly, and I guess it's possible this technique is kind of OK, but I don't know, it still makes me nervous especially because you continue tensioning strings on the right while you have that "dead" piece all along 1L (and perhaps on 1R as well). Seems to me you'd lose some tension there. For example, you agree that the 1L string is NOT PROPERLY tensioned while you're going ahead and doing 2R, yet they're not separated by clamps so what's to keep at the very least "contamination" from going on.

Also, you agree it's a bad thing to have 1L and 1R tensioned at the same time, meaning you must agree that there is tension loss on 1L during this period, yet how do you even know 1R is properly tensioned in this scenario. When you are pulling a double length, it seems equally likely that both strings will end up loose, though I would tend to think in this situation that 1R would be more or less OK as I guess you are claiming. I would claim 1R is probably looser than it would be if you were pulling it normally (and not pulling two main strings at the same time).

I agree your technique is clever though.

 

[wonder_wall]

I don't use anything. The grommets come out fine, no need for any kind of protection. The first time I tried this technique I thought I'd have to protect it, like you think you do, but you really don't. Also, this 3/4" inside the starting clamp isn't going to change anything. Clamp drawback that is not recovered on the next pull produces more tension differential than this would.

What?? I don't think whatever minimal amount of clamp drawback I see (and I've measured my own at 1/16" or so) causes ANY SIGNIFICANT tension loss.

But even if what you were saying was correct and clamp "drawback" caused just as significant of tension loss as this, it makes no sense to say, "well, it's fine to add ANOTHER significant tension loss factor because we have this clamp drawback thing that also causes serious tension loss." By logic, you would still want to ELIMINATE the additional factor leading to signficant tension loss, and not just say "oh, to hell with it, there's clamp drawback anyway!"

With the machine clamps it's 16% of string that goes untensioned. With the starting clamp it's 6%. You think 16% is not OK, but 6% is?

 

[wonder_wall]

...Also, this 3/4" inside the starting clamp isn't going to change anything.

I forgot to mention thanks for pointing out that your method has this problem as well, because I was not clear on this and so when I said I thought your technique was the best I was mis-reading it and thinking you had started on 2L in order to avoid the problem on 1L, but in fact you don't and your technique has the same problem, in fact I have no idea why you start on 2L instead of 1L.

Your technique could of course be redone to ameliorate this by removing the starting clamp on 2L after you tension and clamp 1L, though I would move 1L to the standard starting position location as well instead of to the other side of the head and then just do the standard starting sequence.

 

[ambro]

What?? I don't think whatever minimal amount of clamp drawback I see (and I've measured my own at 1/16" or so) causes ANY SIGNIFICANT tension loss.

My point exactly. There is virtually no tension loss from drawback, and I'm saying there's less than that from starting the mains.

Here, try this:

Use MarcR's FreqMess program thing on the next racquet you string. Use my method or Gaines' method, if you have a starting clamp. Otherwise use the normal starting sequence. When done with the mains, test the two middle strings only, and separately. I'd be willing to bet you they will be the same, within .5 lb of each other, well within the 1% range, not 6% or 16% like you think will happen.

My point being, you're looking too far into this whole thing, and you're an idiot.

 

[wonder_wall]

Wonderwall,
You do not need a racquet to do this. Just your clamp and tension head to see what I’m referring to.
Mike

Sorry for the delay, but I didn't have an opportunity earlier. I just pulled out and assembled my machine, and I still am not sure why you wanted me to do this. Anyway, nothing was moving in there, as I earlier said would be the case. The lines I made on the string didn't budge one iota, not even on the end closest to the tensioning head where the string was being pulled from. This was at 68 lbs.

 

[wonder_wall]

My point exactly. There is virtually no tension loss from drawback, and I'm saying there's less than that from starting the mains.

Oh geeze, yes I am an idiot: This whole side discussion relates to CRANK MACHINES. It appears YOU have a drop weight...

 

[ambro]

I do, but that's besides the point. I realize a crank is different than a drop weight. I understand all the points you're making, and I'm just disagreeing with them based on a crank machine standpoint.

 

[wonder_wall]

I do, but that's besides the point. I realize a crank is different than a drop weight. I understand all the points you're making, and I'm just disagreeing with them based on a crank machine standpoint.

And you think on a crank the tension loss from not tensioning 16% of the string on a main is something like 1% or something very insignificant? And what would it be if the number were changed to 50% of the string not being tensioned? Maybe 2%?

Anyway, go ahead and think whatever you want to think, fine, it's obvious this conversation holds no interest for you...

 

[ambro]

You either bud... You have a dropweight too.

 

[wonder_wall]

You either bud... You have a dropweight too.

Very good! It's right in my signature in fact! It's easy to lose track, but I'm only in this discussion pointing out A DIFFERENCE between crank machines and constant pull machines (yours technically isn't exactly, but close enough). I'm only in this part of the discussion because of a DISPUTE about the difference.

I'd try to help you with your technique and point out YOU do not need to be using a starting clamp or anything. I'd recommend you switch to the "standard starting sequence" - much easier and quicker. I read a few of your posts and it looks like your stringing speed is not too good. I'd also recommend you read my contribution in the "stringing secrets" thread if you want to speed up. Do you weave one ahead?

 

[ambro]

I'd try to help you with your technique and point out YOU do not need to be using a starting clamp or anything. I'd recommend you switch to the "standard starting sequence" - much easier and quicker. I read a few of your posts and it looks like your stringing speed is not too good. I'd also recommend you read my contribution in the "stringing secrets" thread if you want to speed up. Do you weave one ahead?

My technique is easier and quicker than the "normal" starting sequence. Also, my speed isn't too fast because speed doesn't matter to me. I like to take my time, not rush, etc. I'm not going for any records here. I weave one ahead, I know the stringing secrets/tips, stuff like that. I'm sure if I tried to go fast, I could get 35 minutes. But like I said, I have no need to because I don't have many racquets to string.

PS - Mine IS technically constant pull. Looks like you got caught up in the Laserfibre "true constant pull" malarky.

 

[wonder_wall]

My technique is easier and quicker than the "normal" starting sequence. Also, my speed isn't too fast because speed doesn't matter to me. I like to take my time, not rush, etc. I'm not going for any records here. I weave one ahead, I know the stringing secrets/tips, stuff like that. I'm sure if I tried to go fast, I could get 35 minutes. But like I said, I have no need to because I don't have many racquets to string.

I don't mind stringing, but I find the longer it takes me the more I don't like it. It took me 28 minutes or so last couple times I did it (timed in same way silent partner videos are times) and I wasn't remotely sweating or anything and in fact that includes me deliberately allowing the constant pull process time to do its work, so not particularly trying hard.

The last couple I'm speaking of at 28 minutes made it about 20 string jobs I've done in my whole life (I never hide this fact).

PS - Mine IS technically constant pull. Looks like you got caught up in the Laserfibre "true constant pull" malarky.

Your machine is fine, but I also noticed in your posts you said your rackets deform while you're stringing. Mine don't deform or change shape whatsoever, not even 1/100th of an inch I'd say (my machine also makes it easy to see if ANY deformation DID take place and how much). And when the racket is in there, the damn thing is like a mountain it's so much part of the machine. So there are other reasons for buying an LF machine... But again, I'm not criticizing your machine, I think Gammas are fine...

But on your point, I guess you absolutely never have to do a re-pull or re-ratchet of the arm then, since it's pulling the same thing all the time. Is that how your machine works? Seriously though, how many degrees off horizontal do you allow before you re-ratchet (I always find this an interesting question to ask drop weight owners, and I'm often surprised at the numbers I hear).

 

[ambro]

All racquets will deform, just some more than others. Most of mine don't. Also, I don't have a protractor on me while I string... However, constant pull has nothing to do with repulling or reratcheting. To answer your question though, I never repull, reratchet, or anything. I know where to position it and insert the string so it will stay parallel or within 5* of it every time. Same with the crosses. I put the string in, ratchet it 6 times (this how many ratchet clicks have to be done to get Duraflex to stay parallel), and let the arm down.

Let's not turn this into another "Laserfibre is the only constant pull machine" thread. There are enough of those already to prove you wrong...

 

[wonder_wall]

All racquets will deform, just some more than others. Most of mine don't. Also, I don't have a protractor on me while I string... However, constant pull has nothing to do with repulling or reratcheting. To answer your question though, I never repull, reratchet, or anything. I know where to position it and insert the string so it will stay parallel or within 5* of it every time. Same with the crosses. I put the string in, ratchet it 6 times (this how many ratchet clicks have to be done to get Duraflex to stay parallel), and let the arm down.

Sounds like nice technique.

Let's not turn this into another "Laserfibre is the only constant pull machine" thread. There are enough of those already to prove you wrong...

I've heard people out here talk about this before and I admit I have no idea what they're talking about. Who is it who said Laserfibre is the only constant pull machine? I'd really like to know this so I could understand what the heck people out here are referring to.

Obviously electronic constant pull machines like the Wise 2086 ARE constant pull.

I'd also acknowledge your machine is perfectly constant pull after all necessary re-ratcheting is done, let's say for you even when you get some unfamiliar string.

But there is a difference between your machine and a Wise 2086. The Wise will pull the requested tension constantly until disengaged.

Yours pulls quantities that are significantly off in certain circumstances until it is re-ratcheted.

With the Wise, there's no real operator error factor, the machine just does its constant pull thing.

With yours, there is an operator error factor before you ACTUALLY GET constant pull. What if the operator has a 10 degree tolerance, but in fact can't tell the difference between 9 and 12 degrees, for instance? That 3 degree difference introduces almost as much lost tension as the 9 degree difference, 0.62 missing pounds (at 65 pounds) versus 0.8 missing pounds at 9 degrees, total of 1.42 lbs off of what a Wise 2086 constant pull machine would be.

Put it this way, if a store advertised "constant pull stringing" and had a Wise 2086, customers would not be ill served by the ad.

If a store advertised the same thing and only had a drop weight, in fact the ad would be misleading. In order for the sign to avoid deception, the store would have to also state what angle of the arm they tolerate, the maximum deviation from tension if every pull is at this angle, and how they establish what the exact angle is at each pull. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT "INCONSTANCY" POSSIBILITIES WITH THEIR "CONSTANT PULL" MACHINE.

Educated customers would obviously just go to the shop where they had a Wise 2086, which should tell you something about in what sense drop weights are constant pull.

I still like drop weights and of course I own one, though mine DOES work essentially the same as a Wise 2086 (of course I wish I had those prestretching and memory settings though!).

'Night.

 

[Brad VanHorn]

I don't mind stringing, but I find the longer it takes me the more I don't like it. It took me 28 minutes or so last couple times I did it (timed in same way silent partner videos are times) and I wasn't remotely sweating or anything and in fact that includes me deliberately allowing the constant pull process time to do its work, so not particularly trying hard.

The last couple I'm speaking of at 28 minutes made it about 20 string jobs I've done in my whole life (I never hide this fact).

In my experience, speed is not your friend when stringing, unless you are simply looking to make more money. When I was stringing a lot (for me anyway), I was doing 3-4 customer frames per night. I would usually spend 40-50 minutes on a frame, inspecting, repairing, and restringing, as necessary. One of my principle competitors (who strung at a club) would do the same thing in about 30 minutes, but (and I know this since he had previously strung my racquets a few times) his string jobs weren't very good. He did everything correctly, and didn't work hard to be fast, but his results just weren't there. He didn't care though, as he strung for volume, and he made a lot of money. To contrast, I go slower and take the time to care about my results. I don't care about speed or volume, and I don't make much more than pocket money. Perhaps that's short sighted, but I already have a full time job, and don't want stringing as another.

Wow, I wish I knew everything after 20 string jobs

Educated customers would obviously just go to the shop where they had a Wise 2086, which should tell you something about in what sense drop weights are constant pull.

In my experience, customer education on stringing equipment is practically irrelevant. Customers who care, and many don't, go where they get the best string job for their money. This is totally subjective, as what feels good to one customer may not feel good to another. If one stringer does a "better" job with a drop weight than another does with an electric, people who care about their string job will tend to gravitate to the drop weight guy, but not because of his machine choice. I spent over two years with a good, consistent stringing business out of my home (and still do some on occasion these days), and I'd be surprised if even 10% of my clients knew what kind of machine I used.

Oh geeze, yes I am an idiot...

Thanks goodness we finally got this settled

 

[barry]

ambro

Curious which machine do you have?

My analogy:

I bought exactly the same racket as Roger Federer uses, but I do not play as well he does.

Maybe it is more about the stringer, than the stringing machine.

 

[Mike Cottrill]

Sorry for the delay, but I didn't have an opportunity earlier. I just pulled out and assembled my machine, and I still am not sure why you wanted me to do this. Anyway, nothing was moving in there, as I earlier said would be the case. The lines I made on the string didn't budge one iota, not even on the end closest to the tensioning head where the string was being pulled from. This was at 68 lbs.

I almost missed this within all this “stuff”
Humm??, Did you use a string like prince synthetic gut? Oh, don’t crush the string. It is good that you think and learn about these technical “things”. Consistency should be to goal in the end though. How do you rate the “human factor”? My background brings the burden of perfection which can really be a hindrance at times. UGg, I could go on for a whole book on that. Anyway, yes I expect the string to elongate inside the clamp, but not slip on the far end.

 

[ambro]

ambro

Curious which machine do you have?

My analogy:

I bought exactly the same racket as Roger Federer uses, but I do not play as well he does.

Maybe it is more about the stringer, than the stringing machine.

I have a Gamma X-6 FC. I don't quite understand the analogy, maybe you could elaborate. I just woke up and can't think straight.

 

[barry]

ambro

I started early today, 530 so may have lost something in translation.

It was suppose to mean, the person stringing is more important than the stringing machine.

Are you please with your Gamma? I am till in the market for a new one.

The comments were originally for Brad VanHorn who seems to be a seasoned stringer.

 

[ambro]

I am very pleased with my X-6 FC. It produces quality results. It's no speed machine, that's for sure, but I didn't buy it to be one.

 

[Brad VanHorn]

It was suppose to mean, the person stringing is more important than the stringing machine.

I certainly agree with you on this one.

The comments were originally for Brad VanHorn who seems to be a seasoned stringer.

Umm... I'm not sure "seasoned" is how I'd put it ;-)

 

[thefossman]

Sounds like nice technique.

With the Wise, there's no real operator error factor, the machine just does its constant pull thing.

Put it this way, if a store advertised "constant pull stringing" and had a Wise 2086, customers would not be ill served by the ad.

Educated customers would obviously just go to the shop where they had a Wise 2086, which should tell you something about in what sense drop weights are constant pull.

You guys are getting caught up in stuff that just doesn't matter. Suppose your stringer was using a Wise 2048 setup. On the left side of the mains he clamped the strings as soon as the Wise head stopped moving and on the right side of the mains he waited five minutes for the Wise head to do its "constant pull thing". The mains on the right side of the stick would be tighter than the mains on the left and the frame would be distorted. Are you really saying that there is no operator error factor if you use the Wise tension head?!?! A good operator with a calibrated lock out machine will produce a more consistent and repeatable string job than an undisciplined operator with the best constant pull or continuous pull stringing machine on the planet.

 

[wonder_wall]

You guys are getting caught up in stuff that just doesn't matter. Suppose your stringer was using a Wise 2048 setup. On the left side of the mains he clamped the strings as soon as the Wise head stopped moving and on the right side of the mains he waited five minutes for the Wise head to do its "constant pull thing". The mains on the right side of the stick would be tighter than the mains on the left and the frame would be distorted.

Fossman, thanks for your post, but the issue here being discussed, easy to get lost due to "all this stuff" as Mike put it, is that on a crank machine 16% of the string on one of the center mains goes untensioned using typical stringer technique (6% if a person uses a starting clamp technique like Gaines claimed "completely" addressed the issue - it does not).

(I'd note GuyPerez made an excellent point regarding one VERY EASY WAY to avoid the large problem from this for crank owners - crank owners should note that post. That suggestion helps much more than Gaines extensive suggestion which only removes about 2/3 of the problem and is NOT a "complete" solution as he claimed.)

While I agree with you that the constant pull operator SHOULD NOT clamp the string EXTREMELY QUICKLY AFTER TENSIONING, I'd argue THERE IS VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN RESULTS YOU GET BETWEEN 20 SECONDS AND FIVE MINUTES.

If you changed your example to say "what if someone waited 20 seconds on one string and five minutes on others" my answer would be that THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE.

The string ESSENTIALLY COMPLETELY STOPS moving at some point, let's say at 15 seconds. THE STRING MOVES LESS AND LESS AS TIME GOES ON. THE STRING REACHES EQUILIBRIUM.

TO PUT THIS INTO MATHEMATICAL TERMS: STRING MOVEMENT UNDER TENSION IS ASYMPTOTIC.

Now as far as your claim about inconsistency you have to take INTO ACCOUNT REALITY THAT THERE ARE NO STRINGERS WHO CAN ENGAGE THE TENSIONER, UNCLAMP ONE CLAMP AND THEN CLAMP AT A DIFFERENT POSITION IN ONE SECOND. There might be some who are capable of 3 seconds as a best performance.

So the REAL VARIATION HERE WOULD START AT AROUND 3 SECONDS, and the PROBLEMS INTRODUCED BY THE CAPABILITY TO DO 3 SECONDS WOULD BE A VERY UNCOMMON ISSUE, because even very experienced stringers don't generally go that fast.

So the real problem you've identified would be (ASSUMING A SUPER-FAST STRINGER) between say 3 seconds on one string and let's say 15 seconds on another.

Now the extent to which that 3 seconds would be a problem would VARY depending on the machine. For instance if the constant pull machine's pulling is just as slow as say the (non-constant pull) "e.stringer" electric, which is quite slow and takes something like FIVE SECONDS, then 3 seconds would be a REAL PROBLEM because you haven't even gotten close to reaching tension at that point - string stretch is a side issue at that point.

With a LF machine, this would be less of a problem since even AT THE START OF THIS 3 SECOND INTERVAL the string is "ALREADY AT TENSION" since you have to start the interval from the time you let go of the arm.

An EXTREMELY FAST INDIVIDUAL with an electronic constant pull would want to have a machine CAPABLE OF GETTING INITIALLY UP TO TENSION VERY QUICKLY, and then the remaining issue would not be very great. In practical terms, the problem is even smaller BECAUSE ONLY THE VERY BEST STRINGERS can do these things in 3 seconds, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE UNLIKELY TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY NEED TO SLOW DOWN A TINY BIT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE CP PROCESS A LITTLE MORE TIME.

It's the dangers with the less experienced stringers that you need to worry about.

Are you really saying that there is no operator error factor if you use the Wise tension head?!?! A good operator with a calibrated lock out machine will produce a more consistent and repeatable string job than an undisciplined operator with the best constant pull or continuous pull stringing machine on the planet.

First point is that the operator error factor being discussed was wrt DROP WEIGHT MACHINES VERSUS ELECTRONIC CONSTANT PULL MACHINES. Yes, constant pull machines have much less operator error factor than Wise machines.

Second point, now regarding crank "consistency": CONSISTENT STRINGING RESULTS IS NOT EQUAL TO CONSISTENT STRINGBED. Consistently poorer results are just that. And that is what the discussion here is regarding cranks.

The crank's 16% untensioned string on one of the center mains factor IS NOT OPERATOR ERROR RELATED IT IS SIMPLY A BUILT IN ELEMENT OF STRINGING ON THE CRANK UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO FIX THE PROBLEM.

Pointing out this problem is all I've been doing. Most people out here are saying "DUH, that is not a problem" (which it is). The more people who say this, the more my point is proved, BECAUSE IT IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY A PROBLEM ON CRANK MACHINES.

Again, GuyPerez's tip is an excellent one for crank owners (though as I earlier mentioned a good solution using a starting clamp might be slightly better).

There are other problems I've been waiting to get into, but it's been a little difficult...

 

[Mike Cottrill]

While I agree with you that the constant pull operator SHOULD NOT clamp the string EXTREMELY QUICKLY AFTER TENSIONING, ...

Wonderwall, you might want to read this again. I think you got it backwards from what he was saying.
Mike

 

[barry]

wonder_wall

Did you see the video on the Wise 2086 at http://www.**********.com/video.html , in case TW is block it is ********** dot com

Somewhat interesting to watch how the string tension varies on the meter, and then it settles down. Looks like 30 seconds or so. Makes me wonder if stringing and clamping in 3 seconds is a good idea.

 

[wonder_wall]

wonder_wall

Did you see the video on the Wise 2086 at http://www.**********.com/video.html , in case TW is block it is ********** dot com

Somewhat interesting to watch how the string tension varies on the meter, and then it settles down. Looks like 30 seconds or so. Makes me wonder if stringing and clamping in 3 seconds is a good idea.

I believe the Wise is on the slower side.

I did mention that the meaning of 3 would vary depending on the machine, noting that if your machine is as slow as an e.stringer, you'd have to definitely be accomodating the extra time required and also noting that ALMOST NOONE CAN ACTUALLY DO 3 SECONDS.

As I said, the issue would vary by the machine. The USRSA review of the Wise notes that it has a slower mechanism, having a "ramping down" process after it reaches 80% of tension even on the fastest setting...

 

[barry]

Wonder Wall

If I purchase a Wise, then it will take longer to string a racket than on a drop weight machine because of the ramp up time.
Would be interesting to find out the minium wait time using the wise.

 

[wonder_wall]

Wonder Wall

If I purchase a Wise, then it will take longer to string a racket than on a drop weight machine because of the ramp up time.
Would be interesting to find out the minium wait time using the wise.

Barry I don't need any more trouble with Gaines than what's absolutely necessary!

I've only mentioned this part of the discussion as being relevant FOR THE VERY FASTEST CLAMPERS. Proably noone out here, not even Gaines, who I know does not rush.

As I've been saying, the Wise is a fine machine as far as I can see.

I'm certainly not saying it's slower than an e.stringer.

I'm also not trying to help you rationalize your well established budget stringing decisions.

I just looked at the video in fact and it looks like it reaches initial tension in a little under 3 seconds on the video. That's pretty fast if you ask me.

I think I could see the ramping, and it couldn't have been adding much, maybe a quarter to a half second.

The e.stringer is about 5 or 6 seconds (not to mention it seems to be not anywhere near as accurate and not constant pull), so the Wise is way faster than an e.stringer.

The Wise also has faster speed settings, so if the 3 seconds shown on the video was at a slower speed setting, maybe it can beat that.

On the other hand, I wasn't particularly trying to bring this out, but it is true that on an electronic machine, this is kind of "dead time" versus a drop weight or Laserfibre drop weight. On the drop weights, the second you let go of the arm the machine is doing USEFUL WORK AT THE TENSION YOU REQUESTED, whereas these electronics have this "dead time," in the case of the Wise a little under 3 seconds.

Something to consider that I actually hadn't given much thought to prior to this part of the discussion.

 

[wonder_wall]

Wonderwall, you might want to read this again. I think you got it backwards from what he was saying.
Mike

If he's saying letting it sit for five minutes is a big crime, I don't agree as I was saying, because NOTHING WILL BE HAPPENING FOR ALMOST ALL THAT TIME.

This is my opinion, that string movement is "asymptotic".

Neither supposed "sin" he pointed out is a very big deal if you ask me when compared to JUST NOT TENSIONING 16% of the string on one of the center mains. But as I say, in my book the instantaneous clamping is the bigger sin.

Someone with a Wise could help us with this problem. They could set it to lockout mode and they could watch the tension drop and report how much it drops after 10, 20, 30 seconds.

I could also measure my arm's movement...

 

[wonder_wall]

First point is that the operator error factor being discussed was wrt DROP WEIGHT MACHINES VERSUS ELECTRONIC CONSTANT PULL MACHINES. Yes, constant pull machines have much less operator error factor than Wise machines.

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I posted and hopefully the misstatement in the above is obvious, but just in case it isn't, the second sentence was meant to read something like: "Yes, a Wise machine has much less operator error factor than a regular (non-LF) drop weight machine."

 

[Mike Cottrill]

Neither supposed "sin" he pointed out is a very big deal if you ask me when compared to JUST NOT TENSIONING 16% of the string on one of the center mains. But as I say, in my book the instantaneous clamping is the bigger sin.

..

You’re entitled to your opinion. In your book, I guess the big tournament stringers are doing a bad job.

 

[wonder_wall]

You’re entitled to your opinion. In your book, I guess the big tournament stringers are doing a bad job.

I lost you. They seem to almost all be using Babolats, so they don't have the "16% problem" the crank owners have at all. Or are you saying they all clamp super-fast?

 

[Mike Cottrill]

From what I have heard so far, they clamp fast. Have you heard any that leave the tension pulling for long periods of time? I have not heard any that say they release the first clamp while the tension head is still pulling? I must have missed that if they do. Is that why you say CP eliminates your 16% issue with crank machines? Anyway, there is a simple way to do the same as you would recommend with a crank with out all this “stuff” if one is so worried about it. I do not. Just my opinion.

 

[wonder_wall]

From what I have heard so far, they clamp fast. Have you heard any that leave the tension pulling for long periods of time? I have not heard any that say they release the first clamp while the tension head is still pulling?

What do you mean? They have to. On each main, the cycle goes TENSION, UNCLAMP, CLAMP, right? At the point of UNCLAMP, the Babolat will tighten up the tension loss, because it is a constant pull machine.

Taking up that 16% untensioned string slack should not take long.

Is that why you say CP eliminates your 16% issue with crank machines? Anyway, there is a simple way to do the same as you would recommend with a crank with out all this “stuff” if one is so worried about it. I do not. Just my opinion.

I'm not saying it's impossible to address this problem with a crank, in fact I'd LOVE TO MAKE THIS CONVERSATION BE AN EXACT EXPLANATION OF HOW CRANK OWNERS CAN MAKE THEIR MACHINES PRODUCE SIMILAR QUALITY RESULTS TO CONSTANT PULL MACHINES.

If those owners end up liking their machines even more after that, good for them I'd say.

So, how would you do the same as I recommend with a crank? I didn't actually think you had a crank...

 

[Mike Cottrill]

WonderWall,
Foo bar on my part, I got distracted as I was typing.. I should have said clamp before removing the starting clamp. I have not heard anyone say they remove the starting clamp (the method Gaines describes) before the clamp. If they do, then maybe an adjustment is required if you want to match. IMO, consistency in stringing method is the goal. 16%?? Did you use a generic synthetic gut in your test?

If you want to eliminate this concern, just crank just until the break is about to engage, then unclamp, crank until lockout. Does this seem reasonable?

Mike

 

[ambro]

Here's the best possible way I can think of. This is using a starting clamp.

1) Put starting clamp on the OUTSIDE of the frame at 1L.
2) Pull the other side of 1L, clamp with right machine clamp.
3) Pull 1R, clamp with right machine clamp.
4) Pull 2R, clamp with right machine clamp.
5) Clamp 1L with left machine clamp at the same end as the starting clamp.
6) Release starting clamp.
7) Pull 2L, clamp with left machine clamp.

Gets rid of your 16% and you never pull the same string twice. Should produce a consistent stringbed. Good enough for you wonder_wall?

 

[wonder_wall]

Here's the best possible way I can think of. This is using a starting clamp.

1) Put starting clamp on the OUTSIDE of the frame at 1L.
2) Pull the other side of 1L, clamp with right machine clamp.
3) Pull 1R, clamp with right machine clamp.
4) Pull 2R, clamp with right machine clamp.
5) Clamp 1L with left machine clamp at the same end as the starting clamp.
6) Release starting clamp.
7) Pull 2L, clamp with left machine clamp.

Gets rid of your 16% and you never pull the same string twice. Should produce a consistent stringbed. Good enough for you wonder_wall?

Yes, keep in mind this is not for me or my machine, but yes, I'll admit ambro IT IS THE BEST AND MOST EFFICIENT METHOD POINTED OUT SO FAR to *absolutely* get rid of the problem on a crank machine. If all crank machine owners would adopt this method, I'd have to say it would ELIMINATE ONE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM THAT CRANK MACHINES DO IN FACT HAVE versus constant pull machines...

There are other problems though with cranks...

You may find a LF owner chiming in here: "Hey, I can't do that." I'd point out in advance, LF OWNERS DO NOT NEED TO USE THIS TECHNIQUE.

But I might as well go off on a tangent here, this brings up a REAL PEEVE I have with my machine, LASERFIBRE HATERS TAKE NOTE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE AMMO!

The one and only thing I HATE about my machine, my clamps not only cannot "cross over" as ambro's clamps can, they also JUST BARELY reach the center mains, this JUST BARELY is my peeve (not being able to cross over as ambro's clamps can IS FINE AND DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL TO ME).

The clamps on one side REACH THE CENTER MAINS ALMOST EXACTLY and on the other side DON'T QUITE REACH, so you have to angle the top of the clamp a little and the string gets pulled to one side a bit once the base of the clamp is locked off, creating an angle when the string is clamped instead of the clamp being straight in line.

This slight angle is the problem.

This has always pissed me off, and moreso because I don't see why LF doesn't just move the clamps IN a few millimeters to eliminate the problem with one of the clamps just barely reaching, and frankly I AM CERTAIN THIS ALSO LEADS TO TENSION LOSS on the center mains as well, though the constant pull process would help remedy this situation SOME as it would help with almost all little machine issues, and also I'd say it's of course not as big a problem as leaving 16% of the mains untensioned.

BUT I'M QUITE CERTAIN LF MACHINES WITH THIS ISSUE LOSE A LITTLE TENSION ON THE CENTER MAINS, and I believe my stringmeter readings (which I take on every last string vertical and horizontal on every string job) tend to support this.

Any other LF owners want to chime in here? Do you all have this problem as well?

The problem appears as follows: When you put the racket in and bring clamps as far over as they can go to center, then lace the first two mains and pull tight with your fingers, one of the clamps lines up and reaches the center main string almost perfectly and the other doesn't. OR it could appear alternately as both clamps not quite reaching. So when they don't quite reach you have to angle the clamp head a little on the side that comes up a little short and the string instead of being straight through the main has an UNAVOIDABLE SLIGHT ANGLE to the clamp head...

I BELIEVE THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH ALL LF FIXED CLAMP MACHINES.

I'd really like to hear other LF owners comments...

This also gets into an interesting thing that CRANKS HAVE OVER CP MACHINES IN MY OPINION concerning similar "clamp angle" issues that come up based on imperfect stringer technique.

 

[wonder_wall]

WonderWall,
Foo bar on my part, I got distracted as I was typing.. I should have said clamp before removing the starting clamp. I have not heard anyone say they remove the starting clamp (the method Gaines describes) before the clamp. If they do, then maybe an adjustment is required if you want to match. IMO, consistency in stringing method is the goal. 16%?? Did you use a generic synthetic gut in your test?

RE: 16% untensioned string comes from 2" in the clamp of 12.5" length of the main. 16% untensioned string is definitely true. If you happen to use a starting clamp method with the same problem the percentage goes down just because the starting clamp happens to not be as long.

As far as the pros at the tournaments, I don't really know but I don't think the pros use the method Gaines describes. For example, on the Parnell knot videos there certainly is no load spreader in sight and they certainly wouldn't be putting the starting clamp right up against the grommet, whether ambro thinks that's ok or not.

I could be wrong though, they might have a particular device they use for placing the starting clamp on the inside other than the load spreader.

I've also had a couple discussions on gss concerning starting the mains, including concerning use of starting clamps when starting the mains and this never came up.

So I'm not under the impression the tournament pros use the load spreader/starting clamp deal, I believe they use the "hobbyist" starting sequence. It's not actually the "hobbyist" starting sequence, Gaines was joking about that.

If you want to eliminate this concern, just crank just until the break is about to engage, then unclamp, crank until lockout. Does this seem reasonable?

Yes, I pointed out this was GuyPerez's solution, and I think that's an OK one. I probably shouldn't have entered in on this whole starting clamp discussion, but I think the starting clamp is A LITTLE more complete of a solution, but yes, that solution first mentioned here by GuyPerez has the merit of not requiring a starting clamp and being quite simple and should work pretty well. I'd note though that since it's quite a bit of tension loss I believe some of that could unrecoverably spread to the next string, especially if you do the unclamp part a little on the early side. Hence the starting clamp method which has no such issues at all. The starting clamp versions are a little better, ambro's being the best, and ambro's shouldn't take any longer either.

I don't hear any crank owners saying they are actually adopting this - OK, more's the pity for you all, 16% untensioned string on one of the center mains is SERIOUSLY BAD STRINGING.

 

[Mike Cottrill]

Wonderwall,
Consistency is the key. BTW, on gss site take a look at the picture section. You will see some pictures of load adaptors being used. There is a funny one on there where there are three starting clamps being used :0. The other guys are probably waiting to get their clamps back . I admit, you bring an interesting point, but I’m not sure I agree with the 16%. And I have not seen 16% loss in the tension readings or noticeable movement in the strings when the clamp is released. The lab will tell. The next time I string my own stick, I will see what difference the reading give with the release of the clamp while still pulling. How does that sound? You should be careful about saying things are BAD!! Just as your comment about clamping time!. BTW, I have strung on both CP and lockout.

Added section: If an adjustment is required in the process, kudos’ to you for bringing it up.

 

[Gaines Hillix]

I don't really see the significance of the load adapter in this technique either. It seems like it would work just as well without it, unless I'm missing something fundamental here (wouldn't be the first time ).

-- bb

It keeps the SC from crushing the grommet. My whole point with this technique is to eliminate putting the fixed clamp a full clamp width inside of the frame so no tension is lost on that length of string. The standard starting sequence in the USRSA stringing guide says to put the fixed clamp about 2 1/2" from the inside of the frame on 1LM, pull tension on 1RM, clamp off, thread, tension and clamp 2RM, come back and pull tension on 1LM and reclamp, then thread, tension and clamp 2LM. When the clamps are on 1LM and 2RM there isn't enough clearance for the clamps to sit side-by-side, that's why they are offset. Using a SC eliminates this. It also reduces the amount of string that's inside the clamp, which one could argue is not tensioned on a crank machine. That's making a very fine point, but stringers are anal and tend to split the shortest of hairs .