constant pull phraseology

[fwtennis]

About constant pull. I don’t think the Tennis Industry’s coined term “constant pull” in a stringing machine is the same as the literal academic definition being used in messages below. I think I first heard the term “constant pull” was in a Babolat booth at a Tennis Industry Trade Show in Dallas some 20 odd years ago. Not sure who coined the term. Maybe the USRSA. Maybe Babolat. I don’t know.

Ever since, the Tennis Industry has always generally referred to “constant pull” as a more advanced stringing machine that will bring a string to a set reference tension and then automatically regulate and maintain the string at the “constant” set reference tension regardless of the immediate elongation and tension loss that naturally wants to happen as the string is pulled.

By the industry’s intent and definition of constant pull, that would exclude lock outs and drop weights from the category. The category would include electronic machines like Babolat, Prince, Gamma, Tecnifibre, Alpha, etc. in addition to all the Laserfibre machines too. Whether it is right or wrong, I’m not sure it matters here. It’s the way the powers that be in the Tennis Industry seemed to differentiate. Maybe they should use a term other than constant pull to identify the difference in machines. Suggestions?

 

[barry]

About constant pull. I don’t think the Tennis Industry’s coined term “constant pull” in a stringing machine is the same as the literal academic definition being used in messages below. I think I first heard the term “constant pull” was in a Babolat booth at a Tennis Industry Trade Show in Dallas some 20 odd years ago. Not sure who coined the term. Maybe the USRSA. Maybe Babolat. I don’t know.

Ever since, the Tennis Industry has always generally referred to “constant pull” as a more advanced stringing machine that will bring a string to a set reference tension and then automatically regulate and maintain the string at the “constant” set reference tension regardless of the immediate elongation and tension loss that naturally wants to happen as the string is pulled.

By the industry’s intent and definition of constant pull, that would exclude lock outs and drop weights from the category. The category would include electronic machines like Babolat, Prince, Gamma, Tecnifibre, Alpha, etc. in addition to all the Laserfibre machines too. Whether it is right or wrong, I’m not sure it matters here. It’s the way the powers that be in the Tennis Industry seemed to differentiate. Maybe they should use a term other than constant pull to identify the difference in machines. Suggestions?

The definition does not exclude drop weight machine only lock out machines, by definition.

 

[fwtennis]

please explain?

 

[Masamusou]

I believe barry is stating that, well basically, gravity (the driving force of a dropweight) doesn't simply just stop working once you have reached tension... I'm pretty sure that even basic physics covered that as long as gravity is present, it doesn't just start and stop based on what you or anyone else is doing.

 

[barry]

please explain?

Here is the definition:

"Constant pull, as the name would suggest, will pull the string to the desired tension, but then continue pulling at that tension. Lockout on the other hand, will pull to the desired tension and then lock the string at that point. Typically lockout stringing machines will produce a string tension that may feel about 5% looser than the same tension on a constant pull machine. "

Drop weight machines do not lock out, but gravity continues to tug on the string until you clamp.

http://www.e-tennis.org/whisgostjo.html

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

There is a poster amongst us who is a wee bit delusional on this topic. Drop weight machines do indeed constantly pull on the string, but as they pull the tension varies. Whereas constant pull machines maintain the set tension, something that hobby drop weight machines are incapable of achieving.

So what we really have are two types of machines.

1. Those that pull constantly (i.e. hobby machines)

2. Constant Pull machines. Those that pull to a desired tension and maintain that tension.

They are not the same, yet many are confused by the terminology.

Glad to help set the record straight!

 

[mortgageguy]

Here is the definition:

"Constant pull, as the name would suggest, will pull the string to the desired tension, but then continue pulling at that tension. Lockout on the other hand, will pull to the desired tension and then lock the string at that point. Typically lockout stringing machines will produce a string tension that may feel about 5% looser than the same tension on a constant pull machine. "

Drop weight machines do not lock out, but gravity continues to tug on the string until you clamp.

The definition does not exclude drop weight machine only lock out machines, by definition.

http://www.e-tennis.org/whisgostjo.html

Actually Barry, by your own definition this would preclude a drop weight machine because they do not continue "pulling at that tension" unless the bar is perferctly horizontal. If you are 30 degrees plus or minus then the correct tension is no longer achieved.

 

[barry]

Actually Barry, by your own definition this would preclude a drop weight machine because they do not continue "pulling at that tension" unless the bar is perferctly horizontal. If you are 30 degrees plus or minus then the correct tension is no longer achieved.

Not true, it has been proven as long as the bar is within 15 degrees of horizontal, then the tension is true. But once again, we are talking "constant pull". Gravity is constant pull period. You do understand the definition of constant pull?

 

[barry]

There is a poster amongst us who is a wee bit delusional on this topic. Drop weight machines do indeed constantly pull on the string, but as they pull the tension varies. Whereas constant pull machines maintain the set tension, something that hobby drop weight machines are incapable of achieving.

So what we really have are two types of machines.

1. Those that pull constantly (i.e. hobby machines)

2. Constant Pull machines. Those that pull to a desired tension and maintain that tension.

They are not the same, yet many are confused by the terminology.

Glad to help set the record straight!

Wrong again. Last time I checked gravity pulls to a desired tension and maintains it force! Exactly how a drop weight system works, now doesn't it?

You need to go back to school and learn physics

 

[Audiodude]

Actually Barry, by your own definition this would preclude a drop weight machine because they do not continue "pulling at that tension" unless the bar is perferctly horizontal. If you are 30 degrees plus or minus then the correct tension is no longer achieved.

If you can't get a dropweight within five degrees of level, just by eyeballing it, you shouldn't be allowed to operate a motorized vehicle.

 

[rich s]

A drop weight machine arm can be off as much as +/-8 degrees from horizontal and you still achieve 99% of the reference tension. That means that if your drop arm is ~18" long the tip of it could be as much as 2.5" above or below a perfect horizontal position and you get 99% of the reference tension.

On a 60# pull that is equivalent to 59.4# of tension.

On a 55# pull that is equivalent to 54.5# of tension.

If you can't clamp off a string within the time it takes for the arm to drop more than 8 degrees (and we are talking minutes here, not seconds or tenths or hundreds or thousands of a second but minutes) then you don't need to be stringing and you don't need to be b i t c h in' about string bed feel or consistancy.

If you can honestly tell me you can feel the difference between 60# and 59.4# or the difference between 55# and 54.5# you don't need to be on this forum you need to be getting paid to play tennis.


A drop weight is in fact the truist form of a constant pull machine and they existed before any babolat, tf, etc, etc electronic machine ever did.

A drop weight machine is no less a constant pull machine than a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle is a car or a Piper Cub is an airplane.

 

[David Pavlich]

I agree with Rich. The only advantage that a top flight electronic has over a good drop weight is that there is no fear of being off by those tenths of a pound since the machine does the same thing every time the tension head is activated. However, in the strictest terms, the drop weight is constantly pulling regardless of the angle of the arm.

Since the thread is about what machines are constant pull and what machines aren't, then it's the CP electronics and the drop weights. Now if you want to discuss accuracy, that's a whole different ball game. Then we have to talk about clamps and the mounting system as well as the tensioning system.

And then there's the sensitivity of the tensioning systems. Not all electronics are created equally. The most sensitive tension head is found in the Star 5 and the Sensor/Sensor Expert. Albert Lee explained the term "hysterisis" which, in the stringing machine world, is how much drop in tension does the CP machine sense before it compensates. The Sensor head is very sensitive in this respect.

So...there's a lot more to this equation than meets the eye. Keep in mind that if the operator isn't doing things correctly, it really doesn't matter.

David

 

[wonder_wall]

In the parlance of the stringing marketplace, the significance that "constant pull" has is this: it refers to a machine that pulls correct tension over time IN A MANNER INDEPENDENT OF THE OPERATOR. I.e. any moron operating the machine gets the same thing to happen at the tensioner and it happens across time.

Drop weight machines obviously do not fit such a characterization.

As a note to the significance: I've pointed out cases here in the past where at the TENSION-UNCLAMP-CLAMP sequence, there are times when at the UNCLAMP stage, the string will lose a significant amount of tension.

So, with the drop weight, that means a fairly precipitous drop in the arm AFTER THE OPERATOR HAS ADJUSTED IT TO HORIZONTAL (*if* he even bothered in the first place), and nothing about the machine guarantees that the drop weight operator will then notice this and pick up the arm again. This is just one respect in which the drop weight doesn't fit the definition in my first paragraph. There are of course others.

 

[barry]

In the parlance of the stringing marketplace, the significance that "constant pull" has is this: it refers to a machine that pulls correct tension over time IN A MANNER INDEPENDENT OF THE OPERATOR. I.e. any moron operating the machine gets the same thing to happen at the tensioner and it happens across time.

Drop weight machines obviously do not fit such a characterization.

As a note to the significance: I've pointed out cases here in the past where at the TENSION-UNCLAMP-CLAMP sequence, there are times when at the UNCLAMP stage, the string will lose a significant amount of tension.

So, with the drop weight, that means a fairly precipitous drop in the arm AFTER THE OPERATOR HAS ADJUSTED IT TO HORIZONTAL (*if* he even bothered in the first place), and nothing about the machine guarantees that the drop weight operator will then notice this and pick up the arm again. This is just one respect in which the drop weight doesn't fit the definition in my first paragraph. There are of course others.

If this statement is true, then there is no such thing as constant pull, because all machines require operator intervention and oversight. Any machine can be used wrong.
"It refers to a machine that pulls correct tension over time IN A MANNER INDEPENDENT OF THE OPERATOR.”

To me this is a better definition.

A “constant pull” type uses either gravity or electric tensioning and continues to pull tension as the string stretches, and, until the tensioning head has been “deactivated”. The “constant pull” types can yield a tighter string bed depending on how long the tensioning cycle lasts. Generally, though, a stringer does not allow much “dwell” time before clamping off and deactivating the tensioning device.

 

[wonder_wall]

To me this is a better definition.

A “constant pull” type uses either gravity or electric tensioning and continues to pull tension as the string stretches, and, until the tensioning head has been “deactivated”. The “constant pull” types can yield a tighter string bed depending on how long the tensioning cycle lasts. Generally, though, a stringer does not allow much “dwell” time before clamping off and deactivating the tensioning device.

Too mishy mashy and yet at the same time too specific! You mention string stretching - too specific. Note for instance the example I gave to exclude drop weights which had nothing to do with intervals of time during which string stretches.

How about if I append a little onto my original: a machine that pulls correct tension over time UNTIL DEACTIVATED and in a manner independent of the operator, ASSUMING THAT OPERATOR IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE STRING INSERTION SEQUENCE AND NOTICING END OF TRAVEL PROBLEMS. I bring up the "any moron" type characterization because I honestly believe this is a reason for the appeal of the "constant pull" ideal. Shops can feel they get a more consistent and accurate stringbed with a mechanism that at least partially compensates for operator technique problems.

 

[Jeff488]

It seems obvious to me that a drop weight machine that pulls constantly as long as the weight is free, should or could rightly be called a "constant pull" device.
A machine that maintains a constant , pre-selected tension could and should be called a "constant tension" machine. A lock-out machine, of course, does not maintain a specific tension after locking out, it just holds. So it's not constant pull or tension.
Anything powered by gravity is going to have a constant amount of work being done, as gravity can't be turned off, only disconnected from the work piece.
Maybe it doesn't really matter.

 

[Audiodude]

It seems obvious to me that a drop weight machine that pulls constantly as long as the weight is free, should or could rightly be called a "constant pull" device.
A machine that maintains a constant , pre-selected tension could and should be called a "constant tension" machine. A lock-out machine, of course, does not maintain a specific tension after locking out, it just holds. So it's not constant pull or tension.
Anything powered by gravity is going to have a constant amount of work being done, as gravity can't be turned off, only disconnected from the work piece.
Maybe it doesn't really matter.

Agreed. Many of the other arguments sound like nothing more than nitpicking.

 

[mortgageguy]

It looks like the USRSA has all drop weight machines classified as constant pull machines but not all electric machines are constant pull.

I guess we are arguing over semantics but if the USRSA defines them as constant pull then this is the correct terminolgy to use. I think where some of us disagree is with our own interpretation of what "constant pull" is.

 

[barry]

It looks like the USRSA has all drop weight machines classified as constant pull machines but not all electric machines are constant pull.

I guess we are arguing over semantics but if the USRSA defines them as constant pull then this is the correct terminolgy to use. I think where some of us disagree is with our own interpretation of what "constant pull" is.

Great information! You are correct; all drop weight machines are constant pull. Many of the LF owners / posters are confused because LF sales information implies only their tensioner is true constant pull, but do not provide a definition of “true constant pull”.

It probably sold a few more units for them, but in reality, all drop weights and upper end electronic machines are “true constant pull” and crank machines or lockouts are “false constant pull”. By definition “false constant pull” means it does not have constant pull.

Gravity wins again!

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

Jeff488 has the BEST explanation. The difference between "Constant Pull" and "Constant Tension" seems to be the issue. Drop weights may be considered by some as constant pull, but they do not maintain the desired tension. That is where the LF and electronic machines differentiate themselves.

 

[rich s]

....we are picking the fly s h i t out of the pepper at this point.......

 

[barry]

Jeff488 has the BEST explanation. The difference between "Constant Pull" and "Constant Tension" seems to be the issue. Drop weights may be considered by some as constant pull, but they do not maintain the desired tension. That is where the LF and electronic machines differentiate themselves.

So are you saying LF machines do not depend on gravity for tension?
Last time I looked at the LF machine, I did not see a motor pulling the string, only gravity. You can change the name and call it anything you want, but fact remains, drop weight machines are constant pull.
The definition, deactivated is the key.
"A “constant pull” type uses either gravity or electric tensioning and continues to pull tension as the string stretches, and, until the tensioning head has been “deactivated”. "
Drop weight machines meets this criteria.

 

[wonder_wall]

Great information! You are correct; all drop weight machines are constant pull. Many of the LF owners / posters are confused because LF sales information implies only their tensioner is true constant pull, but do not provide a definition of “true constant pull”.

It probably sold a few more units for them, but in reality, all drop weights and upper end electronic machines are “true constant pull”...

Boy, I fell into that one.

Clarifications:

1. I do concede that a drop weight machine when kept at very nearly perfect horizontal, say within 5 degrees, during the entire tensioning process acts the same as a high-end electronic constant pull machine. This is absolutely true. Not likely with something like a Klippermate, but true.

2. To Barry, LASERFIBRE/STRINGWAY MANUFACTURES THEIR OWN CONSTANT PULL HIGH-END ELECTRONIC based on similar technology to other high-end electronics, so how could anyone possibly believe that LF claims that their "any angle" drop weights are superior to high-end electronics?

They simply say all their machines are constant pull, whether high-end electronic or "any angle" drop weight. And they fully agree that all other high-end electronic machines (Wise, Babolat Sensor) are constant pull - AND I CAN TELL YOU FOR CERTAIN SINCE I'VE TALKED TO THEM!

3. Regarding Laserfibre marketing, the only grain of truth in Barry's statement is that they do use the term "constant pull" to DISTINGUISH FROM REGULAR DROP WEIGHT MACHINES. I think any semi-intelligent person who is familiar with the Laserfibre "any angle" idea would say there is a distinction worth making there.

So this gets to the USRSA item, and their "parlance" doesn't necessarily relate AT ALL with the distinctions Laserfibre is trying to make.

The USRSA can call a Klippermate a constant pull machine based on what I've already conceded.

But what I've conceded is a technical point, because in fact it requires a whole bunch of stuff of the operator in order to actually happen, whereas the other machines they term constant pull require nothing more from the operator than performing the string insertion sequence and initiating the pull and ensuring there's no end of travel problem.

And the technical point on the other side is equally important: AT EVERY ANGLE OF THE DROP WEIGHT ARM YOU ARE PULLING A DIFFERENT WEIGHT. AND EVERY OPERATOR HAS A DIFFERENT, SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF THE ANGLE OF THE ARM.

You could call this nitpicking or not, but I don't think it's nitpicking to say a Klippermate does not seem to me to be a fairly realistic constant pull when that outcome is a mere possibility, perhaps even a remote possibility given the hoops needing to be gone through across string types, machine tensions.

Whether nitpicking or not, the reader can decide from the following chart showing behavior of a regular drop weight based on arm angle. The particular point I'd note that Rich S, who says he tolerates 10 degrees or so in his string jobs, does not bring out is that each passing degree IS WORSE THAN THE PREVIOUS DEGREE in terms of loss of tensioning. And you get into a FAIRLY SHEER DROP AFTER 10 degrees. Anyone using a very subjective 10 or 15 degrees with these machines is clearly not getting a result really comparable to high-end electronics.

Also, the above chart looks worse and worse of course as you increase tensions, because the tension deviation on a drop weight operates like a percentage at each angle, whereas again with the other machines, there just isn't any issue present as shown in the above chart.

 

[fwtennis]

Thanks mortgageguy. You make my point exactly. Here you show the USRSA saying one thing and the actual manufacturers of the stringing machines saying something opposite. If you go to the websites of manufacturers of both electric and drop weight machines like Gamma, Silent Partner even Eagnas for God sake, you will see that they specifically describe their electric machines as true constant pull. They DO NOT describe, refer to or even remotely suggest their drop weight machines as constant pull.

The term constant pull can be misleading because there is the literal 15th century Newtonian definition that describes and applies to the physical gravitational effect on any simple falling object such as a dropping weight or a sack of potatoes and what the manufacturers define as maintaining a precise and known set reference tension on a given string at all times. Drop weight machines do not do that.

Babolat uses the term “Fully Electronic Static” tensioning. How about it physics guys? Does that phrase define the differences between what the makers of electric machines are referring to? What is a better descriptive term?

 

[barry]

Thanks mortgageguy. You make my point exactly. Here you show the USRSA saying one thing and the actual manufacturers of the stringing machines saying something opposite. If you go to the websites of manufacturers of both electric and drop weight machines like Gamma, Silent Partner even Eagnas for God sake, you will see that they specifically describe their electric machines as true constant pull. They DO NOT describe, refer to or even remotely suggest their drop weight machines as constant pull.

The term constant pull can be misleading because there is the literal 15th century Newtonian definition that describes and applies to the physical gravitational effect on any simple falling object such as a dropping weight or a sack of potatoes and what the manufacturers define as maintaining a precise and known set reference tension on a given string at all times. Drop weight machines do not do that.

Babolat uses the term “Fully Electronic Static” tensioning. How about it physics guys? Does that phrase define the differences between what the makers of electric machines are referring to? What is a better descriptive term?

Do you agree with the definition, or do you think there is something magical with the LF machines? If so tell us what that magic is. By the way an LF machine is a drop weight machine.

A “constant pull” type uses either gravity or electric tensioning and continues to pull tension as the string stretches, and, until the tensioning head has been “deactivated”.

Lets break in down further.

Drop weight uses gravity, and pulls tension until the head is deactivated, pretty straight forward to me.

 

[wonder_wall]

Do you agree with the definition, or do you think there is something magical with the LF machines? If so tell us what that magic is. By the way an LF machine is a drop weight machine.

This is not just an argument about LF versus drop weight. The USRSA is obviously taking one side of a debatable point when they call drop weights constant pull. I don't fault them for it, it's understandable, they have to come down on one or the other side of a point that has merits on either side.

The point is though, the USRSA too would acknowledge THERE IS AN IMPORTANT TENSIONER DISTINCTION STILL TO BE MADE between a Klippermate and a high-end electronic!

And yes, there's something magical in the LF machines, namely you see that purple line that looks almost like a waterfall dropping off in tension as angle increases - that's your "constant pull" regular drop weight and there IS NO SUCH WATERFALL PURPLE LINE on the Laserfibre machines. It's a pretty "constant" line going across the top.

 

[barry]

This is not just an argument about LF versus drop weight. The USRSA is obviously taking one side of a debatable point when they call drop weights constant pull. I don't fault them for it, it's understandable, they have to come down on one or the other side of a point that has merits on either side.

The point is though, the USRSA too would acknowledge THERE IS AN IMPORTANT TENSIONER DISTINCTION STILL TO BE MADE between a Klippermate and a high-end electronic!

And yes, there's something magical in the LF machines, namely you see that purple line that looks almost like a waterfall dropping off in tension as angle increases - that's your "constant pull" regular drop weight and there IS NO SUCH WATERFALL PURPLE LINE on the Laserfibre machines. It's a pretty "constant" line going across the top.

So you are saying the USRSA is wrong and drop weight systems are not constant pull. Then by definition an LF is not a constant pull machine because it is a drop weight system.
The definition is pretty obvious to me, and my constant pull drop weight machine does not require a waterfall purple line, it just uses plain old gravity.
When the bar is horizontal it has achieved the desired tension.
What more can you say, leave it overnight and it will probably move a little more, sure meets the definition.

 

[hangzhou]

Regarding crank machines, I believe the string is being pulled, i.e. there is tension on the string all the time, but this tension will decrease as string will creep or yield in. Image you pull a rubber band with two hands to a fixed distance, your hands are pulling the rubber band all the time to keep this fixed distance, however the tension will decrease. If you don't clamp the string, the string will elongate and the tension will drop all the way.

Same would happen to drop weight machine. The real tension on the string will be different when the weight arm at different angle, and this actual tension will drop nolinearly as string elongates.

These two types of machine do not have mechanism to maintain tension within designed tolerance, while electronic machines such as sensor has load cell to detect such variance and compensate the drop.

LF machines are different than regular drop weight machines as explained by myself in another thread. Its design provides consistant tension at any weight arm angle, i.e. the tension deviation is extreme small, less than 0.0129% without considering grommet friction. In another word, the pulling tension on string will be within designed tolerance regardless of weight arm angle.

 

[Audiodude]

Regarding crank machines, I believe the string is being pulled, i.e. there is tension on the string all the time, but this tension will decrease as string will creep or yield in. Image you pull a rubber band with two hands to a fixed distance, your hands are pulling the rubber band all the time to keep this fixed distance, however the tension will decrease. If you don't clamp the string, the string will elongate and the tension will drop all the way.

Same would happen to drop weight machine. The real tension on the string will be different when the weight arm at different angle, and this actual tension will drop nolinearly as string elongates.

These two types of machine do not have mechanism to maintain tension within designed tolerance, while electronic machines such as sensor has load cell to detect such variance and compensate the drop.

LF machines are different than regular drop weight machines as explained by myself in another thread. Its design provides consistant tension at any weight arm angle, i.e. the tension deviation is extreme small, less than 0.0129% without considering grommet friction. In another word, the pulling tension on string will be within designed tolerance regardless of weight arm angle.

All true. But, the pragmatist in me knows that the string under tension will be clamped off long before a conventional dropweight has the time to settle to the point where tension has decreased in any significant way. To me, that renders most of the "true" constant pull argument specious. If you were to replace a Laserfibre dropweight system with a convention dropweight system and everything else remained the same, and the user was reasonably competent, the difference in tension would likely be fractions of a percent. Since using a conventional dropweight correctly is relatively easy, I'm not sure what the big deal is. I do appreciate the build quality and the design of the Laserfibre dropweight system, but I never really considered it to be a significant advance over conventional dropweights. I guess, that's what makes the price of the Laserfibres so hard for me to swallow. But, that's just a value judgement on my part, and certainly no reflection on someone elses perception of value.

 

[wonder_wall]

All true. But, the pragmatist in me knows that the string under tension will be clamped off long before a conventional dropweight has the time to settle to the point where tension has decreased in any significant way. To me, that renders most of the "true" constant pull argument specious. If you were to replace a Laserfibre dropweight system with a convention dropweight system and everything else remained the same, and the user was reasonably competent, the difference in tension would likely be fractions of a percent. Since using a conventional dropweight correctly is relatively easy, I'm not sure what the big deal is. I do appreciate the build quality and the design of the Laserfibre dropweight system, but I never really considered it to be a significant advance over conventional dropweights. I guess, that's what makes the price of the Laserfibres so hard for me to swallow. But, that's just a value judgement on my part, and certainly no reflection on someone elses perception of value.

Then I guess you don't see the value of a high-end electronic machine over a drop weight either. In either case, you get a constant pull result GUARANTEED not MERELY POSSIBLE and you get it all the time without extra work.

You find a Klippermate type machine easy to use and easy to get horizontal? I've used a similar type of drop weight - an Eagnas Hawk 80, ratchetless, clutchless - and it was a fair bit of torture dealing with the arm. I did one full string job on it, and I was obviously dying to get off the machine by the end of it. I certainly wouldn't even be stringing if I had to go through that torture every time, e.g. a Klippermate would be an unconscionable torture in my eyes.

Perhaps you mean a ratchet system is easy - I agree those would make it significantly easier. Still, I'd argue a high-end electronic or Laserfibre is quite a bit preferable to a drop weight with ratchet. I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that one either...

If you don't see any advantage to not having to re-pull, re-ratchet and stuff, then why the heck do you use a crank instead of a drop weight? I can do a string job just as fast on my machine as with a crank and get guaranteed constant pull, I'd say that's a fair difference from a Klippermate, but maybe I'm just nuts.

 

[Audiodude]

Then I guess you don't see the value of a high-end electronic machine over a drop weight either. In either case, you get a constant pull result GUARANTEED not MERELY POSSIBLE and you get it all the time without extra work.

You find a Klippermate type machine easy to use and easy to get horizontal? I've used a similar type of drop weight - an Eagnas Hawk 80, ratchetless, clutchless - and it was a fair bit of torture dealing with the arm. I did one full string job on it, and I was obviously dying to get off the machine by the end of it. I certainly wouldn't even be stringing if I had to go through that torture every time, e.g. a Klippermate would be an unconscionable torture in my eyes.


Perhaps you mean a ratchet system is easy - I agree those would make it significantly easier. Still, I'd argue a high-end electronic or Laserfibre is quite a bit preferable to a drop weight with ratchet. I don't think I'm going out on a limb with that one either...


If you don't see any advantage to not having to re-pull, re-ratchet and stuff, then why the heck do you use a crank instead of a drop weight? I can do a string job just as fast on my machine as with a crank and get guaranteed constant pull, I'd say that's a fair difference from a Klippermate, but maybe I'm just nuts.

My post did not mention specific machines. For the record, let's assume a reasonably good quality dropweight with fixed clamps. Say, for instance, a Gamm 602FC.

Obviously a system with a clutch is easier to use. Although, I have owned a Klippermate and found it fairly easy to get the bar level. It seemed like a skill most people could attain.

I owned a Hawk 80 for two days. I'm in complete agreement with you. A poorly designed and executed machine is not really relevant to the specific issue, though.

I assume most purchases of high end electronic machines are for commercial use and again, I don't really see the relevance.

The peace of mind that you get from using your machine doesn't really change anything.

For the record I own a Gamma 5003 which uses a crank tensioner. Personally, I think a reasonably skilled individual could get good, consistent results with a well designed machine that uses a dropweight system, crank tensioner, or electronic tensioner. This assumes, of course, a good mounting system and good clamps. I'm not knocking the Laserfibre machines, mind you. Just the "true" constant tension argument and its implications.

 

[wonder_wall]

My post did not mention specific machines. For the record, let's assume a reasonably good quality dropweight with fixed clamps. Say, for instance, a Gamm 602FC.

If the item now under discussion is that the USRSA calls all drop weight machines "constant pull," I'd prefer to discuss the minimum item they call that, a Klippermate. I say minimal because it has no clutch and no ratchet (and not b/c it's floating clamps or anything like that which is obviously irrelevant to this discussion).

If your point is valid about regular drop weight machines being very obviously constant pull, and no more discussion is necessary, you shouldn't mind discussing the Klippermate.

...I owned a Hawk 80 for two days. I'm in complete agreement with you. A poorly designed and executed machine is not really relevant to the specific issue, though.

I'm not bashing Eagnas and the only thing relevant to this discussion about that model is the drop weight arm, and that's the only thing I was talking about.

I think that arm on that model works essentially the same as a Klippermate or any other clutchless and ratchetless model. (A somewhat unrelated plus, it happens to have a simpler string insertion sequence than most of the drop weights out there as well.)

You're saying the Eagnas drop weight arm is somehow extremely different and inferior? It's my impression they all use pretty much the exact same engineering, no?

Obviously I pointed out it didn't have a ratchet or clutch, but other than that, why are you saying the Eagnas arm is inferior and irrelevant because apparently you think it's so bad?

I assume most purchases of high end electronic machines are for commercial use and again, I don't really see the relevance.

The relevance I think I pointed out:

You have machines that GUARANTEE constant pull, and machines that offer a capability of constant pull only after jumping through hoops and engaging in subjective, operator independent tasks IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE INCONSTANT aspects of the puller. Obviously one of those types of machine would fit the word "constant" much better than the other.

Drop weight machines like a Klippermate in real world use even with a somewhat diligent operator are just as likely to be several pounds off of the previous pull on at least some or many pulls. That it seems to me is a relevant fact, maybe I'm nuts.

The peace of mind that you get from using your machine doesn't really change anything.

In the case of the regular drop weight the fact that the arm is so annoying and cumbersome directly bears on the fact that it is NOT REALLY CONSTANT, varies by wherever the arm happens to drop to. So the point here is not about "peace of mind."

The point is regular drop weights involve an arm that pulls at different tension at every single location they drop to and it is a certainty that it will never drop to the same place twice. AND WHILE I AGREE THAT IF THE ARM ALWAYS STAYS WITHIN 5 DEGREES OF HORIZONTAL, this can be ignored, that outcome is not particularly likely across all pulls during a stringjob on let's say especially a Klippermate, even for a moderately diligent operator.

If the term is "constant pull" shouldn't part of that refer to constancy from one pull to the next, i.e. a general aspect that a CRANK is generally considered to be good at.

I'd argue yes, that the term constant pull SHOULD MEAN a machine that operates just like a crank initially and then MAINTAINS that same exact level of pulling power. So, like a crank, but whereas a crank is instantaneous, constant pull operates across time.

The fact with a Klippermate is that there's a great likelihood that on some or many pulls you will be several pounds off because the arm won't be close enough to horizontal.

How "constant" is the pull if you can't even say it starts off always the same as the previous pull like on a crank?

For the record I own a Gamma 5003 which uses a crank tensioner. Personally, I think a reasonably skilled individual could get good, consistent results with a well designed machine that uses a dropweight system, crank tensioner, or electronic tensioner. This assumes, of course, a good mounting system and good clamps. I'm not knocking the Laserfibre machines, mind you. Just the "true" constant tension argument and its implications.

I wouldn't mind trying out a drop weight with ratchet, I agree with you that I think I could produce a very good string job with it. That's quite irrelevant to the point I'm making, which here could be called "Klippermates and constant pull."

There are good reasons that few people who string as a business where customers expect a certain standard of professionalism don't use a Klippermate, and these reasons have to do with its inconstancy one pull to the next, and that inconstancy directly bears on whether the term "constant pull" is properly applied to a Klippermate.

Here's some ideas for a new term for drop weights if the term "constant pull" simply refers to a machine that keeps pulling, albeit at a non-guaranteed weight:

"Variable constant pull": If the term constant pull just refers to a machine that keeps pulling IN A CONSTANT WAY, but THE STARTING POINT OF POUNDS PULLED IS NOT GUARANTEED, then the proper term for a drop weight would be "Variable constant pull." The "constant pull" capturing the point that it operates across time and the "variable" pointing out how the starting point is known to vary by arm angle.

"Variable variable constant pull": Since if there's some ACTUAL SLACK IN THE LINE of string not only the starting point of pounds pulled is not guaranteed, but also the ending point, the second word "variable" is also added.

Or alternatively, the machines that guarantee constant pull could be called "constant constant pull" because the term "constant pull" doesn't have anything to do with how much weight is being pulled at the start and end points, just that there is a start and end point.

These moronic terms would be consistent with the use of the words "constant pull" evident on these boards.

Anyone know the history here? Was this term hijacked by drop weight owners like the people out here on this board? Obviously the Laserfibre company wouldn't emblazon "constant pull" on their machines if they though it included regular drop weights. Who did invent the term?

 

[mortgageguy]

Drop weight machines like a Klippermate in real world use even with a somewhat diligent operator are just as likely to be several pounds off of the previous pull on at least some or many pulls. That it seems to me is a relevant fact, maybe I'm nuts.

There are good reasons that few people who string as a business where customers expect a certain standard of professionalism don't use a Klippermate, and these reasons have to do with its inconstancy one pull to the next, and that inconstancy directly bears on whether the term "constant pull" is properly applied to a Klippermate.

I would disagree that the reason professional stringers don't use them(Klippermates). I don't think it is because of their inconsistency from one pull to the next but rather their two point mounting system and the overall time it takes to string a racquet. A diligent operator familiar with the Klippermate is going to deliver consistant results just as they will with any other higher priced machine. Most of the stringers out there are stringing for club players who can't tell the difference in a couple of pounds in tension anyway. I will bet you that you take two stringers working for Dick's Sporting Goods or any other mass chain using the exact same machine with the exact same racquet will be several pounds apart. I would predict as much as 5lbs.

 

[wonder_wall]

I would disagree that the reason professional stringers don't use them(Klippermates). I don't think it is because of their inconsistency from one pull to the next but rather their two point mounting system and the overall time it takes to string a racquet...

The "time it takes to string a racket" on a Klippermate versus other machines is directly related to the tensioner's inaccuracy, or non-constancy. So while you supposedly disagree, your point of contention is related or identical to the point I've already made.

How can a machine be called constant pull if it is well known that you will have to re-do pulls numerous times in order to get a result that is "constant" with the desired tension? And where the frequency of this is based on operator experience with different strings and tensions in that machine?

Quite obviously, any such use of the term "constant pull" is referring just as much to the operator as to the machine, and the purpose of these terms is to distinguish between machines, not operators. A machine maker shouldn't be able to hop among types of machine by adding instructions to the manual!

I admit I've gone over to the other side on this one, I think it's stupid and misleading to call a regular drop weight like a Klippermate constant pull, whether the USRSA calls them that or not.

 

[SW Stringer]

wonder_wall says: "The "time it takes to string a racket" on a Klippermate versus other machines is directly related to the tensioner's inaccuracy, or non-constancy."

The time it takes to string on ANY machine is directly related to the experience of the operator. The more experience he gets with his machine (whichever one), the more experience he gets with the different frames, and the more experience he gets with weaving the crosses translates into reduced stringing times. By far the two biggest factors are weaving experience and frame experience. Not having to check the reference book for skipped holes, string length, tie-offs dtc., saves a lot of time. And weaving experience just takes practice and using the technique that works for you.

For dropweight machines in particular learning the correct amount of slack to use to get the arm horizontal (within acceptable tolerances) on the first pull may be the largest factor for a rank beginner, but the skill is rapidly learned if one has the patience for it. This applies to either ratchet machines or otherwise. A skilled drop-weight operator would be able to match or beat the tensioning times of a Wise tensioning head on most pulls for example.

 

[mortgageguy]

I admit I've gone over to the other side on this one, I think it's stupid and misleading to call a regular drop weight like a Klippermate constant pull, whether the USRSA calls them that or not.

I would agree on this one. The term "constant pull" is very ambiguous and misleading. I've have both a Klippermate and just bought the
MS200tt about 2 months ago. There really is no comparison. If the are both going to be considered constant pull machines they should rename them constant 2,3,4, or sometimes 5 pulls for the Klippermate and constant 1 pull for the Laserfibre.

 

[barry]

I would agree on this one. The term "constant pull" is very ambiguous and misleading. I've have both a Klippermate and just bought the
MS200tt about 2 months ago. There really is no comparison. If the are both going to be considered constant pull machines they should rename them constant 2,3,4, or sometimes 5 pulls for the Klippermate and constant 1 pull for the Laserfibre.

Constant pull has nothing to do with brand of machine, or implementation, only the machines tension mechanism. Drop weights of either LF or Klippermate brand can both produce the same desired tension; gravity does not lie or know which brand you are using.

To think otherwise, is ludicrous. To put it simpler, a counterweight system is defined as a weight that is as heavy as something else, so that the two objects can balance. A counterbalance is defined as a force or influence equally counteracting another. A drop weight machine does both.

Now if we go back to the original definition of Constant pull A “constant pull” machine uses either gravity or electric tensioning and continues to pull tension as the string stretches, and, until the tensioning head has been “deactivated”. Deactivated is the key, otherwise the pulling force is constant, thus the phrase “constant pull”.

Both the klippermate and the LF machines meet this criteria, therefore we can conclude all drop weights are constant pull.

Kind of hard to argue with reason, now isn’t it.

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

Geez. This continuing saga of misinformation is disappointing on many levels. More outpourings of a derranged mind to dispel. One more time for the unenlightened...In the very simplest/most basic terms, the phrase "constant pull" was developed to describe a stringing machine that pulls to a consistent tension and maintains that tension. Period. That is all it is. Plain and simple. Do not allow yourself to be confused.

Some crazy marketing people at Klippermate or wherever decided to twist the term and also use it to describe their hobby drop weights. Shame on them because some folks obviously are naive enough to buy it. In the industry, the insiders know exactly how the term is used. We have tried to educate those on this board, but those without any insight or reasonable perspective continue to miss the message. Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. To think and argue otherwise is utterly foolish. Again, I give my best attempt to set the record straight and make it perfectly clear.

 

[Jeff488]

Geez. This continuing saga of misinformation is disappointing on many levels.
Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. To think and argue otherwise is utterly foolish. Again, I give my best attempt to set the record straight and make it perfectly clear.

I think that herein lies the crux of the problem. The terminology is what needs improvement; to distinguish between a machine that pulls to a set tension and maintains that tension(such as the LF and other electronic machines that do this also) as opposed to a machine that does not.

(Barry, I am not saying that LF drop weight is an electronic machine, however they do make one - the EM450)

I offer these terms in a bid for clarity:
Constant pull ---- Any machine that does not "lock out" but doesn't do what is described in the following.

Constant maintained tension ---- Any machine that keeps automatically adjusting its pull so as to maintain a preselected tension.

 

[Audiodude]

I think that herein lies the crux of the problem. The terminology is what needs improvement; to distinguish between a machine that pulls to a set tension and maintains that tension(such as the LF and other electronic machines that do this also) as opposed to a machine that does not.

(Barry, I am not saying that LF drop weight is an electronic machine, however they do make one - the EM450)

I offer these terms in a bid for clarity:
Constant pull ---- Any machine that does not "lock out" but doesn't do what is described in the following.

Constant maintained tension ---- Any machine that keeps automatically adjusting its pull so as to maintain a preselected tension.

I guess my only issue with the definitions is that a regular dropweight, operated by a reasonably skilled individual, will still offer an almost identical result. Most stringers clamp off within 2 or three seconds of getting the tensioning bar level. Assuming thr bar is within + or - 5% of level, a fairly easy thing to do, then the difference between a conventional dropweight and a constant maintained tension dropweight will be negligible. It really does come down to nothing more than semantics. I will concede that the Laserfibre method requires less skill to get consistent results. But I would also say that anyone who has difficulty geting the bar level on a properly functioning dropweight should be seriously discouraged from using power tools.

 

[wonder_wall]

...anyone who has difficulty geting the bar level on a properly functioning dropweight should be seriously discouraged from using power tools.

Yes, operating a Klippermate within a 5 degree angle is simple joy and only morons think otherwise. Okey doke.

RE: terminology, If the drop weight owners are the ones who have "hijacked" the name "constant pull," which it's becoming apparent is the case, then there's no reason to believe they won't hijack the next term that people try to invent, e.g. "static pull." What's the difference between "constant pull" and "static pull"? The drop weight owners will hijack "static pull" as well.

What people should do therefore in my opinion is shut these people up. Also, tell the USRSA to stop helping foment the nonsense!

Simple fact about drop weight machines, and not operators: THEY OFFER A DROP, nothing more. The drop can easily land 5, 10, 15, 20 degrees off. At each angle you get a different result.

Furthermore, the machine is so lame and inconstant, it doesn't even offer a drop, sometimes the arm will not tip over! This is directly due to the waterfall plot, the "INCONSTANCY" plot.

That's the machine drop weight owners have. I'm not saying you can't do a good stringing job on it, but that's the machine itself apart from the operator.

By the drop weight owners specious reasoning, if machines were put into categories of ACCURACY, they could improve their standing in such a ranking SIMPLY BY CHANGING THE ANGLE TOLERANCE RECOMMENDED IN THE MANUAL!

Does company X want to claim it has the most accurate machine in the entire world? Simply tell the manual writers at company X to change the 5 degree angle deviation recommendation to 1 or 2 degrees!

VOILA! Babolat Sensor beater! Number one accuracy ranking in the entire world!

DOWN THAT PATH LIES INSANITY. Thanks drop weight owners.

 

[barry]

Geez. This continuing saga of misinformation is disappointing on many levels. More outpourings of a derranged mind to dispel. One more time for the unenlightened...In the very simplest/most basic terms, the phrase "constant pull" was developed to describe a stringing machine that pulls to a consistent tension and maintains that tension. Period. That is all it is. Plain and simple. Do not allow yourself to be confused.

Some crazy marketing people at Klippermate or wherever decided to twist the term and also use it to describe their hobby drop weights. Shame on them because some folks obviously are naive enough to buy it. In the industry, the insiders know exactly how the term is used. We have tried to educate those on this board, but those without any insight or reasonable perspective continue to miss the message. Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. To think and argue otherwise is utterly foolish. Again, I give my best attempt to set the record straight and make it perfectly clear.

Yes you are correct:
"Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. "

And that is how all drop weight machines work.

I guess you have never used any drop weight machine other than an LF, so you obviously do not know how they work.

 

[wonder_wall]

Yes you are correct:
"Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. "

And that is how all drop weight machines work.

I guess you have never used any drop weight machine other than an LF, so you obviously do not know how they work.

Yes, Barry, and YOU DON'T NEED NO STINKIN CHART to explain things to you either, we know.

After that bit of inanity I think I can only point out that based on the content in this thread as well as a post by one of their ilk on another thread, we may already know on which side the USRSA stands: RIGHT NEXT TO BARRY!

 

[David Pavlich]

Geez. This continuing saga of misinformation is disappointing on many levels. More outpourings of a derranged mind to dispel. One more time for the unenlightened...In the very simplest/most basic terms, the phrase "constant pull" was developed to describe a stringing machine that pulls to a consistent tension and maintains that tension. Period. That is all it is. Plain and simple. Do not allow yourself to be confused.

Some crazy marketing people at Klippermate or wherever decided to twist the term and also use it to describe their hobby drop weights. Shame on them because some folks obviously are naive enough to buy it. In the industry, the insiders know exactly how the term is used. We have tried to educate those on this board, but those without any insight or reasonable perspective continue to miss the message. Constant pull refers to a mechanism that pulls to a set tension and CONSTANTLY HOLDS at that tension. To think and argue otherwise is utterly foolish. Again, I give my best attempt to set the record straight and make it perfectly clear.

Question: What is your source for the following: "the phrase "constant pull" was developed to describe a stringing machine that pulls to a consistent tension and maintains that tension."

David

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

No single source. Common knowledge.

 

[barry]

Yes, Barry, and YOU DON'T NEED NO STINKIN CHART to explain things to you either, we know.

After that bit of inanity I think I can only point out that based on the content in this thread as well as a post by one of their ilk on another thread, we may already know on which side the USRSA stands: RIGHT NEXT TO BARRY!

Yes, and that makes it official! All drop weight machines are constant pull. USRSA is the foremost authority. Sometimes sales information is incorrect or bias.

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

Or perhaps the USRSA is serving the interest of the manufacturers who associate with them and fund them. I'd suspect they know the claims are skewed and choose not to address it in the interest of their own existence. Are they going to tell Eagnas, or other machine manufaturers who provide the information and advertsing revenue the claims are technically not correct. No way! Get real. The USRSA is not an unbiased organization. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the USRSA and the fine resource of information they are, BUT they are not the foremost authority and they are not always accurate. I would argue their printed information in this regard is incorrect.

 

[Audiodude]

Or perhaps the USRSA is serving the interest of the manufacturers who associate with them and fund them. I'd suspect they know the claims are skewed and choose not to address it in the interest of their own existence. Are they going to tell Eagnas, or other machine manufaturers who provide the information and advertsing revenue the claims are technically not correct. No way! Get real. The USRSA is not an unbiased organization. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the USRSA and the fine resource of information they are, BUT they are not the foremost authority and they are not always accurate. I would argue their printed information in this regard is incorrect.

A conspiracy among stringing machine manufacturers and a racquet stringing association regarding the definition of constant pull and how it relates to drop weight stringing machines? Sounds feasible.

 

[David Pavlich]

No single source. Common knowledge.

So, in other words, conjecture.

David

 

[A Defenseless Creature]

No. Not conjecture. Those in the industry who read the trade publications just accept it as common knowledge. Try asking Ken at Babolat or Albert over at GSS and see what they say. You'll learn what I am stating is not just "conjecture." There is substance behind the point I am trying to make. Since you prefer for me to locate a source, how about the USRSA? They say "Constant-pull machines pull the string to the desired tension, but when the string starts to equalize and lose tension, it pulls a little more again to stay at reference tension." It's in the 2004 String Machine Selection Guide. http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200409/200409machine_guide.html This is obviously an adjustment that is more complex than a hobby drop weight machine continuing to pull because of gravity.

Still, I believe they put an asterisk in the constant pull column of the guide because the manufacturers want it that way. It sounds better. The USRSA knows where the truth lies.