Discussion in 'Stringing Techniques / Stringing Machines' started by Ramon, Apr 3, 2012.
You have the same ability on a LO it is just a manual process instead of automatic.
Yes, I saw your video. Nice work.
I decided to buy one after all. Eagnas Smart 909 that is, which is a lock out machine. Assembling it and doing a couple jobs took me the whole day, so I missed a chance to play them today. Will be able to see in a week.
I strung on the alpha pioneer dc plus for a couple years. i think that will work fine for you. Don't worry about this constant pull stuff. Find a tension on your machine that produces a stringbed you like, then repeat it.
I had a chance to hit with the newly strung rackets yesterday. A good news was I could play tennis as same as with those strung by my regular stringer.
It was my first stringing experience ever. It was not perfect. The tension was lower than intended probably because I forgot to stop the clamp bases here and there. Also I couldn't tighten the tie off well. But the operation was pretty easy overall. The machine was solid and strong. I feel I'll be able to get good technique over time.
My goal is to experiment playbility of rackets strung by a lock out. Obviously, it takes time, which I'll enjoy the process of.
I saw the video. Nice. But that will only work with 2way-clamps. Anyway, I think this only shows the drawback of a LO; of course there are "tricks" to overcome this, but the basic way of working with a LO gives unpredictable results. For every string (as they all differ in "creep") you have to find a "new" correction to get ~same result as on a CP.
And as long as the gravity-field of the earth doesn't change, you only have to calibrate a drop-weight once. That working with a standard drop-weight is more time-consuming: yes, it is. But this is only so, because people using a LO turn a blind-eye to the build-in shortcomings.
What do you consider to be the built-in shortcomings of a crank lockout?
I've owned 3 dropweights (Gamma Progression II, Gamma X-2, Alpha Pioneer DC Plus), an automatic drop weight (Stringway MS200TT), a low end electronic (e.Stringer) and 3 Cranks (Eagnas Flex 940, Gamma 6004, Prince Neos 1500). My present machine is the Prince Neos 1500.
We could argue this forever but I get more consistent results with my crank lockout vs any dropweight I've owned save for the Stringway. Drop weight aficionados always argue "gravity" never changes so therefore it's more consistent. To me this is moot since I maintain my crank lockout and check the calibration (which BTW... I've not had to touch since I first purchased my Neos 1500... after ~100 racquets).
My reasoning for a lockout being more consistent is the manner in which the tension is pulled. It's easier for me to start the tensioner in the same position, grip and crank at a consistent pace o a lockout than to grip the string and lower the bar an equal number of cycles starting from the same angle and dropping at the same rate on each pull with a dropweight. It's doable but I just don't want to work that hard. It's like pulling taffy in a single smooth continuous motion and stopping vs pull/hold, pull/hold...
Many folks compare dropweights to high end electronic machines simply because it has the accuracy of gravity and is "constant pull"... Apples/Oranges. a high end electronic pulls in a smooth continuous motion at a constant speed.
Additionally, the Neos 1000 is the reference for stringing machines. I don't have the data to back this up but I suspect that the Neos 1000 and it's earlier Ektelon variants are the most popular, common stringing machine. tennis Warehouse stil uses the NEOS 1000 to string for their customers and playtests. My NEOS 1500 has the same tensioner that is used in the NEOS 1000. Relative to the industry standard,
Discontinuous, you may see the leap-wise change of tension, while pulling 25 kg on a DW is absolutely and continuously maintaining this reading once reached, as seen on electronic tensioner.
I've only ever strung on my Klippermate so I dont know how much more efficient I would be on an electric or crank.
I can say that the Klippermate is a rock solid bulletproof machine that will never need any parts replaced or even maintenance on it (other than standard cleaning of clamps).
I'm willing to bet you cannot say that about a lot of other more complicated machines. (heck the several thousand dollar Prince machine at my local tennis center goes down multiple times per year for something)
Plus with it being a drop weight there is never any tension variance and will be the same every time.
Once I got used to my Klipper I was able to get most of my drops right the first time with the occasional adjustment and re-drop.
Right now it takes me ~45 minutes to do my Pure Aero while watching TV and drinking a beer (this is a must, no beer no stringing )
Nothing is as reliable as a my screwdriver, wrench, rake, etc... But I sure do like my cordless impact driver, ratchet set, backpack blower, etc... Even if I'm doing a small job with hardly any time savings vs using manual tools, I have these tools always nearby, charged and ready to go and use them.
I wouldn't trade my spring assisted, swivel, fixed clamps for your floating ones.
Nailing the tension with the bar horizontal on the first drop every time will result in a consistent stringbed. IMO this is key to getting a consistent stringbed with a dropweight. The no tension variance because it's a drop weight, gravity, etc... not so much so.
As Irvin showed in his instruction-video: the immediate tension-loss due to creep the moment the LO "locks". You can turn a blind eye to this, and you can think you can correct this by adding 5# to the reference tension, but that's only a clumsy way to try to correct a build-in shortcoming.
And I am fully aware that you can achieve a repeatable, reliable, client-satisfaction-guaranteed result on a LO. But the shortcoming is there to stay!
I always thought that if you string a racquet, that as a stringer you should get rid of the creep at reference-tension. That is the somewhat time-consuming part when stringing with a manual cp like a dropweight. If you ignore this on a LO, your result will vary with every different string you use, as every string has different "creep". If you use a kevlar, or a pre-stretched Luxilon, your SBS will be much higher as if you use a stretchy copolymer polyester. And of course you can argue, that you can implement all this in the XX extra pounds, but most LO-users don't do that.
( and then I am not even mentioning the fact that you get totally different results depending on the speed of cranking)
I am using an almost 30 year old Stringway (with single action glidebar-clamps), still going strong. So dropweight, but extremely easy to use, and cp. More reliable as an electric for sure.
I would like to check if floating clamps may be used to help fixed clamps hold the cross strings and prevent them from drawback. Unfortunately, I don't have one.
It would be better to get a machine with fixed clamps that have neglible drawback.
That is NOT a shortcoming. Yes, once a LO tensioner locks at reference tension, the string will no longer stretch and settle whereas on a good electronic CP, the tensioner will continue to pull at the reference tension and an a dropweight the bar will continue to pull but not at the exact reference tension since the bar will continue to drop slightly below horizontal as the string stretches before clamping off.
What you are arguing is that once a LO tensioner, the string loses tension after the lockout. This is true.... and it will continue to lose tension (at a different pace/rate) through the stringing, after the stringing is completed, through play... until it is cut out (as with on a CP). On a CP, the tension is held a little longer (basically between the time it is pulled and clamped off) resulting in a tighter stringbed to start. This is a difference, not a shortcoming.
To start his video Irvin says "I'm gonna show you how to use a crank stringer to produce the same tension that you'll get on a constant pull machine" and the video description is "If you have a crank aka lockout stringing machine use this method to duplicate the tension of a constant pull machine". He made no assessment in video wrt to one being superior over the other. At the time he made this video he had a Wise for his Gamma 6004. I consider this video to be the the stringer who has a lockout that someone comes to with a racquet that had been strung on a CP with a tension they would like replicated.
What matters is that one sets the reference tension on each type of machine that results in the desired stringbed. On a lockout, this will be a higher number. So what? It's not a deficiency.
Your Stringway pulls tension in a very different manner than a regular dropweight (with/without a ratchet) with a single, smooth and continuous drop of the weight and is closer to a good electronic. I know, I had an MS200TT. I would leave the Stringway out of any discussion that involves other types of dropweights. My argument is that how the tension is pulled, continuous smooth motion vs a drop-stop, raise-drop-stop... is more important than the relative difference in tension which can just be adjusted with a simple turn of a dial.
What's nice about my Neos 1500 is that it's the same tensioner that TW uses (they string all their frames - playtest/customer with a NEOS 1000) and what probably is the most common stringing machine (no data to back this up but the NEOS and Ektelon machines have been around a LONG time and I see more of them than any other machine). So when the tension that TW playtesters use matches up exactly to the tension on my machine and all the other players who get their racquets strung on a Neos.
Well, agree to disagree
Plus/minus 5(?) degree has very little influence on the tension
As said, this "higher number" has to be different for every type of string to get same SBS, as all strings have different "creep". Therefore, in an ideal world, you have to adjust when you change stringtype; and who does that?? (and how do you quantify this "extra" weight)
agree 100% (and never ever needs re-calibrating ( as long as the earth gravetanional field doesn't change ))
That's nice, but only shows that a lot of people keep on their bad habits
I would expect it to be mandatory, that a stringing-machine helps the stringer to elimenate as much as possible creep at the reference tension.
(and again, don't forget the diffences that are caused by different cranking speeds)
A lot of interesting points, but after a while, my eyes glaze over reading these "which is better" threads. I got consistent results with the Klippermate and Eagnas drop weights I used to have and I get consistent results with my P200 pneumatic constant pull. If I had a lockout, I would guess I could get consistent results with that. Don't most of you say it's the stringer not the machine?
Now I also understand the ridiculous high refence-tensions that are given on racquets as advise, eg 25 +/- 2kg. When I string such a racquet at ~19kg, I already have a SBS of 36!
When I would use 25kg, I would end with a stringbed as stiff as a plank. But this advise is of course for LO users that need this imaginary high tensions (cause they do not reach this in reality).
Problem is only if you want to compare results of different stringers, using same string, same reference tension, but different machines.
You mean on a LO I set the tension ~5-10% higher than I would on a CP? Well on a LO initially the tension would be higher than the tension on a CP until after a short break in period. I agree after the break in the DT would be the same.
You work around a problem, and still you claim it is not a deficiency The fact is, so many people in the US (NOT in Europe) use LO's; this makes it such a standard that people tend to believe this deficiency is "normal".
How would you call a kitchen-balance for which you have to add every time 135gram to get a correct reading; yes, you can get good result, but that balance has clearly a deficiency
I assume you mean "after using the +5-10% higher tension" . First of all, 5-10% is quit a margin. Second: you can not use the same "extra tension" as this depends on the type of string. Even if you use the same reference-tension with another string (same frame), your resulting SBS will be different.
MathieuR... We will disagree but calling it a deficiency is really misleading. It's your opinion...
Different strings having different creep so the tension has to be readjusted? Moot... Different strings have different playing characteristics at different tensions so regardless of what machine one uses this has to be done. I wouldn't use Cyclone tension as a reference when stringing Monogut ZX for example.
Your comment about your stringway never needing calibration. My NEOS 1500 has not needed calibration in over 100+ racquets. I check each time (takes less than a minute) and it's spot on. Stringway also makes a machine that uses a Spring rather than gravity for the tension.
Neos 1000 a bad habit... Care to rethink this (even with tongue in cheek)? You're basically saying TW does disservice to their customers with a bad habit stringing machine.
Also... you have an older Stringway without the Concorde system, correct? How do you tension the center mains and account for the added friction of the strings going over the throat of the racquet?
We already know that Europeans are superior in every way so no need to go there....
if I hand a player 2 racquets... 1 strung on a lockout, the other on a dropweight, but the stringbed is the same (because the lockout was set at a higher tension) so it plays the same, what difference does it make? Not a deficiency.
only thing the player needs to be aware of is that what tension each was strung at and the next time he/she restrings, to be aware what type of machine the stringer is using so it can done at the same tension. Good Electronic machines have a lockout option so a player who got their racquets strung on a lockout previously can get the same playing characteristic.
No, as said, you can get excellent results with a LO. But you have to make adjustments that are not necessary on a CP (and still you will not get same results; but it can be very good results )
I cheat. I pull only on the headside, 2 L-strings at the same time. And I let the lever "bounce" a little to overcome the resistance of the grommets. I compared this method with "one string at the time", by doing 2 strings in one pull on the left-side, single-pull on the right side. Symmetrical strings had the same pitch when plucked. (used a slick string, and little bounces in both ways)
Top 10 in the man ATP-rankings: 9 from Europe, one Japanese. Maybe we have better stringers ( but I doubt that is the reason)
I mean using both clamps when pulling crosses.
Judging by my resulting tension, I would use the other way around, because my far left side is always by 2 kg "lighter" than my far right side. Thanks for the tip.
Yes... but given a better machine, the same stringer could do better. Just like Fed could beat us with a prestrung box store special but will do even better with his racquet.
I think Priority One is a US based...
Man, you guys are pros. I've only had my NEOS for 18months and it is my first stringing machine. Here in the hinterlands you either go to one of three guys who string as a hobby, but charge pro prices. I picked up my own used machine from TM so I can experiment at will. I looked at a lot of machines and watched the college players string on their electronic. I've probably watched every youtube video on stringing.
Someone on this thread or one just lately mentioned nudging the bottom of the clamps on the NEOs to eliminate most of the drawback. Wow! I've probably only strung 100 rackets in 18months but this little tidbit seems to be worth its weight. Tonight I cut out the Nat Gut and Zyex in one of my rackets and restrung it with Ashaway Kevlar x Zyex at 60lbs. Drawback from using "the nudge" was minimal. I'll be interested in how this translates on how the racket plays vs its bag mates with same reference tension and strings. I prestretch the Zyex.
Thanks TW for the forum. You can't get this kind of stuff out here in the sticks.
The nudge adds tension to the string.
You've had a crank lockout, a good electronic and now a high end electronic.. I am not comparing any of those. It's a comparison between a crank lockout and a dropweight. Not sure whether you've had a dropweight.
Could be 5-10%, could be more/less. I wouldn't know or care because I have a lockout (NEOS) and I string for myself and friends and I know what tensions are preferred. My NEOS calibration is spot on but if it was off 10 lbs all the time for some reason (like a drop with a misplaced scale label) it would still not matter because we would just prefer a different number on the tension setting and end up with a racquet that plays the same.
Where it would matter is if someone switches stringers with different machine types.
The 2 local pro shops have lockouts (NEOS, Gamma) and the local big box sporting goods store has a Lockout (Gamma). The pro shop in the next town over has an electronic (Gamma). For the person who gets their racquets locally, my NEOS tension would correlate. Not so for the person who goes to the next town over. What's your experience (since you've had the different machine types)?
I'm also looking at this scientifically... I have a piece of material (string) that needs to fill a space (gap between the grommets). There are many factors that come into play but the 2 most important IMO are the amount of material (amount of stretch to fill the space) and how the material was worked in getting there (manner in which the tension was pulled). Those who think that a dropweight is compatible to a high end electronic because it's CP is ignoring how the string has been worked. I only have a couple of semesters of Mat Sci from years ago but how a material is worked will have a huge affect in its characteristics.
Irvin, the nudge seems to have added some tension. My perception is that at the same reference tension the "nudged" racket strings seem firmer. I'm thinking I need an ERT but instead I'll just nudge all further rackets and throttle back the tension if necessary. I wonder if the nudge produces tension closer to reference - I would suspect that it does.
Weaving one ahead before clamping makes the drawback negligible on DW. Though I heard Parnell saying that one should clamp ASAP for getting consistent results.
This makes no sense... Drawback is a function of the clamp and not the tensioner. Weaving one ahead makes no difference.
Taking out the play in the clamp by pushing it away from the tensioner will minimize drawback. Better quality machines will have less drawback as well. Also clamping as close to the grommet as possible will minimize the effects of drawback. On the next pull, the drawback will somewhat be accounted for minus the friction in the grommets.
The nudge would produce something higher than reference. How much would depend on how much play is in you clamps and just how much that nudge is. For you nudge to be consistent you would have to vary the pressure on the nudge depending on the length of string you tensioning and whether it is a main or a cross.
You may want to rethink that, it is exactly the opposite depending on whether you're pushing on the top of the clamp or the base of the clamp.
My pre-nudge stringing produced more drawback than what I thought might be "normal" but even with pre-stretched zyex you get a lot of stretch and with Ashaway Kevlar nearly zero. I thought it might be my technique or something to do with the glide bars and clamps, as this is a used Neos 1000. Seeing as I only string for myself and two of my friends I'll just goof around a while to see if there is merit in "nudgin'."
I found that nudging the base of the clamp toward the grommet greatly reduced the drawback on my Neos. As this aspect is new to me and I have reels of string I do not use and more than a couple of rackets I don't use, I'll mess around with nudging, top and bottom, away and towards the grommet.
This is practical observation, not hypothesis. Other observations include:
1. Stabilized tension reduces drawback (probably because COR is of lower value);
2. Turning the clamp to 2 hours towards the tensioner with the fixing handle to us reduces drawback; hence the circular rails of Babolat as a palliative
3. Using changeable rods (glidebars) instead of rails minimizes drawback;
4. High-end electronic stringers do not exclude drawback.
True. Hoop deformation is much more essential than drawback in terms of tension loss while stringing the crosses down to the throat.
I assume with "nudge" the push is meant against the bottem-side of the clamp (clampbase) so that the clamp is in a more "fixed" position, and that the pulling force of the tensioned string can not move the clamp that much anymore (as the tolerance in that direction is already minimized by the "nudge").
- the nudge does not "add tension"; it minimizes tensionloss
- the nudge can NEVER produce a tension higher than reference ( as the "nudge" is applied BEFORE the clamp is closed)
I have glidebars (single action clamps), and even when using "the nudge" I have some drawback; I compensate this for L and W-strings the next string-pull by little bounces of the lever.
another advantage of the drop-weight, which I only recently discovered on my Stringway: you can have a machine-prestretch of the string. I don't think that can easily be done on a crank.
And: the accuracy of my dropweight Stringway: I can set the tension to an accuracy of 0.1kg. What I saw on the setting-options of a LO, you can be glad if you can make steps of 0.5kg.
I would not attempt machine prestretch on anything other than a high end electronic.
Have you actually owned or used a crank lockout? Seems to me like you have not. I have OWNED and strung on 4 dropweight including a more modern Stringway that yours, a low end electronic and 3 crank lockouts.
I can set the the tension to any increment/resolution with a calibrator in about the time it takes you to install the bar and weight.
That's what I meant... Those who've used fixed clamp machines for a while know to do this.
My Gamma 6004 had and NEOS 1500 has much less drawback than my Eagnas Flex 940 as they are built to tighter tolerances. It's impossible to design a machine that eliminates drawback altogether and still have clamps that swivel and move well.
I don't think it is impossible as my Babolat has 1/3 the drawback my Gamma had. I attribute it to less bending in the turntable, the area of the base/turntable contact, the closer tolerances between the shaft/hostile, and the vertices reach of the clamps to the stringbed. But on the other hand I don't think drawback is bad. If you eliminate drawback you're going to put more stress on the string. The drawback is all pulled out (for the most part) on the very next pull anyway except for the tie off strings.
I've compared the drawback and Overpull on the string when using the knot function. The default knot function (4#) on my machine just about counterbalances the other. So I guess there is something to be said for a knot function. But if you're hitting the ball on the other main(s) you're going to have more problems than a few pounds can cure so I can see the agruement for not using the knot function too.
A lot of the arguments you hear from stringers are solutions to an unreal issue. Not matter how inferior or superior your stringing machine is if it is clean and calibrated it is far better than stringing with you thumb pressing a few extra pounds.
What machine would offer two stringers the ability to string one particular racket with one particular string setup nearly the same? Just curious.
I'll stick with my NEOS as it works for me. But it would be interesting to know which machine takes out the most of the human element.
Pretty much all of them
None. If you remove the human factor from the stringing equation you will get the worst stringbed ever. It is you who decide how to dynamically account for any particular combination of frame and string.
If the two stringers follow exact same procedure/timing, the result will be same if they use same machine. First of all: same order of tensioning should be used (eg for the L-strings not more then 2 tensioned strings difference between left/right). Yes/no tying-compensation, same procedure of "nudging", same knots
- On a LO the cranking-speed is critical (not so much the speed of clamping the string, as the LO already "clamps", and from that moment the string looses tension, if you use the machine-clamps or not)
- on a dropweight/cp clamping-time is critical
Why? I put the weight on the bar on the correct spot, and then I can add a weight on such position to get the required pre-stretch. Then I remove the extra weight, relax the string, and tension on the reference-tension. No big deal.
Well, I would love to challenge you doing this in parallel with me putting the weight in the correct position . And how do you calibrate the different force needed for the X-strings?
I do have a brandless LO, used it years ago. The size of the scale for adjusting the tension is ~1" for a range of 36kilo! That same 1" gives a diffence of 1 kg on my Stringway-bar.
No, not correct. If you eliminate drawback you eliminate tension loss. There is NO WAY this can increase the stress on the string
Not familiar with your Lockout but on every lockout I have owned had 2 scales (as in the photo below), a rough linear scale (needle on a ruler type) and a fine adjustment scale on the setting knob (5lbs o2 2.26kilos is a full rotation on mine). There are markers so it's easy to adjust in 1/2 lb (0.23 kilo) or even 1/4 lb (0.11 kilo) increments.
I have a digital scale with kevlar strings on the tool tray. Dial the setting near the desired tension, clamp the digital scale and pull.. read the digital scale and adjust up down. 5lbs (2.26 kilos) is a full rotation of the setting dial so the granularity is more than sufficient for smaller increments. It probably takes me less than 30 seconds to do this now. Additionally, since my machine calibration has been spot on, I can just turn the dial to the desired setting inbetween the markers and the tension will be spot on.
I would have kept my Stringway MS200TT as it was a good machine, but I have several racquets with bottom and top crosses close to the hoop and the Stringway mounting system did not allow the fixed clamps to reach these crosses so I had to use floating clamps from the top. You could say I'm misguided along with all of those including TW who use lockout machines but I can tell you I get just as quick and consistent a string job on either machine. Also, putting other dropweight machines in the same class as the Stringway is just plain wrong.
Separate names with a comma.