Entry, Midrange, High End machines and Consistency...

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Picked up from Wise/Eagnas thread to stay on topic...

DD edit: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=9304627#post9304627
Reference link provided to original thread.

A good end result is *consistency.* A racket comes out of the bag just like the hundreds before it strung by the player/stringer. Klippermate can easily provide this to a skilled player/stringer in a portable package. Compare this to dropping a racket off to an unknown stringer (of vastly different abilities) using perhaps different machines. It's likely why there are about 20 tour players who don't use the us open stringing services and the touted baiardo and use outside racket services. (Although to be honest I have no idea what machine the likes of Murray, Isner, Fed, Monfils, etc. stringers use. These guys clearly value person over machine -- and the personalized service the tour can't provide.)

These discussions invariably leave me wondering.... for those that believe you can only get the best quality for the most expensive machines, how do you take customer money if not using a Wilson Baiardo? Do you convince yourself that whatever machine you have at the time simply the best?? That is; "my gamma is as good as his star 5 but better than her eagnas?!" I'm glad that I don't need to go through the mental gymnastics and believe this stuff is 99% in the hands of the stringer.
Your arguments are all over the place... and you are making additional points/arguments without addressing a basic question I asked...

Let's get back to your first point

There will always be a significant degree of elitism and self-justification for spending large amounts of money to pull and clamp a string.

To be sure the quality is better as you dig deeper into your wallet but you can get just as good an *end result* on a $159 klippermate that uses simple gravity to pull more precisely than anything else money and tech will produce.
Again, in all seriousness... consistency being the key... In order to pull tension on a Klippermate, the string has to be grabbed (stretched a bit), and releases... possibly multiple times to get the bar horizontal. How do you address this to get consistency? I don't want my Monogut ZX pre-stretched an inconsistent number of times each time I pull tension. Without making any additional arguments/points.. How does one go about doing this?

I could never manage this on any of the dropweights I've owned... On my Neos crank, I can grip at the same point and turn the crank at as a constant rate as I can manage each and every time... On a high end electronic, this is even easier as no human can turn the crank as consistently as the machine can pull the tension head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
Picked up from Wise/Eagnas thread to stay on topic...



Your arguments are all over the place... and you are making additional points/arguments without addressing a basic question I asked...

Let's get back to your first point



Again, in all seriousness... consistency being the key... In order to pull tension on a Klippermate, the string has to be grabbed (stretched a bit), and releases... possibly multiple times to get the bar horizontal. How do you address this to get consistency? I don't want my Monogut ZX pre-stretched an inconsistent number of times each time I pull tension. Without making any additional arguments/points.. How does one go about doing this?

I could never manage this on any of the dropweights I've owned... On my Neos crank, I can grip at the same point and turn the crank at as a constant rate as I can manage each and every time... On a high end electronic, this is even easier as no human can turn the crank as consistently as the machine can pull the tension head.
I'm not sure you're going to get any meaningful rebuttals here. tennis_ocd is either intentionally dodging, or is projecting some sort of bias on his opposition's arguments.

No one is arguing about consistency, tennis_ocd. No one is arguing that a competent stringer is less important than a machine (provided all sub-systems of the machine are indeed sound). The argument is that low-end machines have much less "solid" sub-systems than are reported by the users of those machines.

Your assertion that there are "those that believe you can only get the best quality for the most expensive machines..." is completely false. Show me a quote where someone is asserting that you can ONLY get the best quality from the most expensive machines. In fact, most of the people you are pointing fingers at admit that there are diminishing returns! You haven't addressed simple questions about your claims of a Klippermate being as good as providing "end results" as any other machine on the market. While the sub-systems are all similar in concept, the implementations are vastly different.

I'd like to point something out here: If you remove your bias lens from reading these responses, (almost) everyone in the thread is actually saying the exact same thing: Quality of sub-systems increases as cost goes up (with a certain level of diminishing returns accepted by all parties). Your quote below says exactly the same thing...

To be sure the quality is better as you dig deeper into your wallet
The actual topic of discussion that has prevented that thread from dying (and I apologize for personally adding to the off-topicness) is that the end results are just as good. If we are talking from the resolution of a standard human being -- sure, fine, good enough. If we're talking about accuracy and/or precision, I strongly disagree that a Klippermate could or should be considered as accurate OR as precise as a higher end machine. May I suggest you offer a rebuttal to the questions I posed to you earlier in the thread? Otherwise we're splitting hairs, and there's nothing else to discuss.

Anecdotal tests and single DT measurements in a stringbed are not contrary evidence, might I add. If we're talking true (absolute) precision and accuracy, the entire stringbed needs to be measured.



One aside (that might again have all of us saying the exact same thing) is that systematic (machine) variance or differences are going to be dwarfed when comparing/contrasting habits/techniques of individual stringers. If I hand a frame to an inexperienced person on any machine, and compare against myself on the same machine, the technique differences are much more than myself stringing on different machines. This is an obvious claim, and I don't think anyone is excepting (word usage correct) this in their arguments. This should not be the argument for whether or not a machine is accurate or precise, though. They aren't the same topic of discussion. I should point out I've never disagreed with the suggestion that a stringer (person) can be consistent job to job on any given machine, but that's not the point you're arguing. Consistency isn't equivalent to absolute accuracy, although it's (in practice) equivalent to precision.

In fact, this is why experienced stringers will keep pushing the concept of consistency over accuracy. I would argue (on the specific topic being debated here) that yes, there are measurable differences between machines that make machine A better than machine B. These are measured in absolute accuracy, not consistency. (Accuracy and precision are different things, but absolute [repeatable] accuracy supersedes precision).
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Your assertion that there are "those that believe you can only get the best quality for the most expensive machines..." is completely false. Show me a quote where someone is asserting that you can ONLY get the best quality from the most expensive machines. In fact, most of the people you are pointing fingers at admit that there are diminishing returns!
"diminishing returns" is the very acknowledgement of better quality with more expensive machines! Now it's just issues of degree....

The actual topic of discussion that has prevented that thread from dying (and I apologize for personally adding to the off-topicness) is that the end results are just as good. If we are talking from the resolution of a standard human being -- sure, fine, good enough. If we're talking about accuracy and/or precision, I strongly disagree that a Klippermate could or should be considered as accurate OR as precise as a higher end machine.
Well we are talking a game with humans and the end result – consistency from repeated man/machine interface, is just as good. I've stated a klipper or any drop weight will, with the beauty of simplicity, pull a string *every bit as accurate* as any other machine money will buy. Further, stringing being a highly artistic endeavor, a skilled person repeatedly using a klipper (or any maintained machine) will be *more precise* in final product (a consistent racket bed response) than a team of stringers using a very high end machine.

The latest poke at the klipper (or any non-ratcheting dw) is the subtle string pulling and adjustments with the dw. Even in my very limited use on a friend's machine, I found this to be virtually minimal. Even so, even with my lock-out or an elec tensioner, most every segment of string gets fully tensioned 2x in the process of weaving and clamping.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
The latest poke at the klipper (or any non-ratcheting dw) is the subtle string pulling and adjustments with the dw. Even in my very limited use on a friend's machine, I found this to be virtually minimal. Even so, even with my lock-out or an elec tensioner, most every segment of string gets fully tensioned 2x in the process of weaving and clamping.
Not true... This is my point and you still have not answered it.

With a crank or an electronic, a segment of string will be under tension 2x (once between the frame and the tensioner and once inside the string). With a dropweight, the string is tensioned and relaxed an additional number of cycles which may/may not be the same on each pull... Little difference? Tell that to Monogut ZX which stretches like chewing gum in early August.

There will always be a significant degree of elitism and self-justification for spending large amounts of money to pull and clamp a string.

To be sure the quality is better as you dig deeper into your wallet but you can get just as good an *end result* on a $159 klippermate that uses simple gravity to pull more precisely than anything else money and tech will produce.
What I find elitist... is your idea that folks who spend more money on machines with better features and build quality are somehow misguided.
 

barry

Hall of Fame
Not true... This is my point and you still have not answered it.

With a crank or an electronic, a segment of string will be under tension 2x (once between the frame and the tensioner and once inside the string). With a dropweight, the string is tensioned and relaxed an additional number of cycles which may/may not be the same on each pull... Little difference? Tell that to Monogut ZX which stretches like chewing gum in early August.



What I find elitist... is your idea that folks who spend more money on machines with better features and build quality are somehow misguided.
They are misguided. You have yet to prove a high end machine stringer will produce a better quality string job. My hammer drives a nail just as well as your Neman Marcus hammer. Proof is in the result, not in conjecture. So the discussion should be what metrics could be used to determine which produced the best string job?
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
They are misguided. You have yet to prove a high end machine stringer will produce a better quality string job. My hammer drives a nail just as well as your Neman Marcus hammer. Proof is in the result, not in conjecture. So the discussion should be what metrics could be used to determine which produced the best string job?
Therein lies the debate... If one with skill, care and time get a consistent string bed with a Klippermate... fine, but don't go insulting those with higher end machines as Elitist. Again... I just don't see how the tension pulled with a drop weight could be as consistent. Does it have a net affect on the resulting stringbed? Different debate..

This is a better analogy.... I can drive a finish nail with a hammer and a nail set... but I am faster and much more consistent with my pneumatic nail gun. Does it have an effect on the quality and function of the bookcase I build? Who knows... But I'm glad I have a compressor and a nail gun.... and I'm not an elitist for buying them.
 

struggle

Legend
A hand driven nail holds Better than a gun driven nail, but is slower. I've done plenty of high end trim work. When you need holding power you break out the hammer and real nails.

poor analogy in this case, but I get your point.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
A hand driven nail holds Better than a gun driven nail, but is slower. I've done plenty of high end trim work. When you need holding power you break out the hammer and real nails.

poor analogy in this case, but I get your point.
Not in my experience... I get the adhesive coated nails and the heat caused by driving the nail sets the nail in and holds better over time.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Not true... This is my point and you still have not answered it.

With a crank or an electronic, a segment of string will be under tension 2x (once between the frame and the tensioner and once inside the string). With a dropweight, the string is tensioned and relaxed an additional number of cycles which may/may not be the same on each pull... Little difference? Tell that to Monogut ZX which stretches like chewing gum in early August.



What I find elitist... is your idea that folks who spend more money on machines with better features and build quality are somehow misguided.
It never sees more than full tension with either system. The chewing gum does get an extra squeeze or two from the tensioner clamp....

As far as elitist I think you need to go back and re-read the original thread (and a basic definition of the word.) What was intended as an informative post on tension head pricing turned quickly into "lower end" machine bashing despite an owner or two being fully satisfied with their purchase. There is absolutely no evidence that higher end machines produce a better stringbed and indeed, a least on pro that I posted in the us open main draw, uses a very basic machine. I love to read what the 20 or so pros that didn't use the open stringing services use.
 

struggle

Legend
Not in my experience... I get the adhesive coated nails and the heat caused by driving the nail sets the nail in and holds better over time.
Yeah the glue helps, but a nail gun won't drive a board into place. I bigger normal finish nail will.

I do agree about a better stringing system, but not convinced a simple DW tensioner doesn't do just as well as other types. I've also never strung ZX, so there's that.....
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
It never sees more than full tension with either system. The chewing gum does get an extra squeeze or two from the tensioner clamp....

As far as elitist I think you need to go back and re-read the original thread (and a basic definition of the word.) What was intended as an informative post on tension head pricing turned quickly into "lower end" machine bashing despite an owner or two being fully satisfied with their purchase. There is absolutely no evidence that higher end machines produce a better stringbed and indeed, a least on pro that I posted in the us open main draw, uses a very basic machine. I love to read what the 20 or so pros that didn't use the open stringing services use.
Yes it does not see more than full tension... but the net effect of the pull-release cycles at lower tension is essentially a bunch of pre-stretch cycles.

I never trashed any low end machine... just there are features and qualities of a more expensive machine that IMO was worth the money I paid... Given my skills ad the time I want to spend stringing, it does a better job.

Oh that player who strings her own racquets? I think it's great too.. BTW i think the spring based lockout tensioner she uses does not have the problem of the mini pre-stretching cycles... Too bad she went from being ranked 63 in 2003 when the article came out to 149 now. Most of the top ranked players are using P1 service. Does it have anything to do with the machine being used? Absolutely not... but for the guys who can afford P1 service, it's not a waste of money.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Most of the top ranked players are using P1 service. Does it have anything to do with the machine being used? Absolutely not... but for the guys who can afford P1 service, it's not a waste of money.
Cool. Made this thread worthwhile....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/stringing-roger-federers-nine-rackets

Apparently they use the star 4. I've read that at the us open all but perhaps 2 dozen use the us open string service. P1 must work off-site in a hotel room. These guys just want consistency and to get personalization (requested time from stringer to court) that the us open can't guarantee....
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
"diminishing returns" is the very acknowledgement of better quality with more expensive machines! Now it's just issues of degree....

Well we are talking a game with humans and the end result – consistency from repeated man/machine interface, is just as good. I've stated a klipper or any drop weight will, with the beauty of simplicity, pull a string *every bit as accurate* as any other machine money will buy. Further, stringing being a highly artistic endeavor, a skilled person repeatedly using a klipper (or any maintained machine) will be *more precise* in final product (a consistent racket bed response) than a team of stringers using a very high end machine.

The latest poke at the klipper (or any non-ratcheting dw) is the subtle string pulling and adjustments with the dw. Even in my very limited use on a friend's machine, I found this to be virtually minimal. Even so, even with my lock-out or an elec tensioner, most every segment of string gets fully tensioned 2x in the process of weaving and clamping.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your first statement. Was my previous assessment wrong? Are we not ALL talking about the exact same thing? Your quote confirms my statement, thus... are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Let's not appeal to the emotional side of this argument. Beauty, simplicity, artistry...? Yeah, those are pleasant words, of course, but they are irrelevant. String pull isn't actually the point, here. I absolutely disagree that a Klippermate as a system is more precise than a higher end machine. Flying clamps torque more, and they are fixed width, AND they depend on an anchor string. The anchor string is a variable tension, so the torque will change depending on the string gauge, stiffness, tension. This doesn't even account for turn table flexion, warping of the frame, tensioner angle, clamp width, re-pumps. I think what you're trying to argue is that the drop weight is more accurate, but that can also be argued against (did you ever address my point about what happens when you release the clamp on a cross?)

Consistency is not being questioned (by me). Accuracy is being questioned. When you squeeze strings together on the periphery of the string bed, you are absolutely affecting accuracy. You can remain consistent while doing this, but you are no longer accurate. It doesn't matter if the tensioner pulls "as true" as another system if you are not clamping "as true" as another system. There are diminishing returns even in higher end clamps. Any level of slop and/or drawback contributes to inaccuracy. The practitioner can still be consistent, but they are not accurate.

I actually agree with you, though, that the re-pulling argument is overplayed, but it still exists. It's relatively minor all things considered, though. Virtually minimal does not mean "non-existent," if we're going to be arguing minutiae.

Not true... This is my point and you still have not answered it.

With a crank or an electronic, a segment of string will be under tension 2x (once between the frame and the tensioner and once inside the string). With a dropweight, the string is tensioned and relaxed an additional number of cycles which may/may not be the same on each pull... Little difference? Tell that to Monogut ZX which stretches like chewing gum in early August.



What I find elitist... is your idea that folks who spend more money on machines with better features and build quality are somehow misguided.
I think you've already admitted in the previous thread that you don't have (much?) experience on the klippermate. The fact is that a very experienced operator will have very, very few re-pulls, provided the string doesn't bottom out your tensioner. Yes, it still does happen from time to time, but you're making it a little more dramatic sounding than it needs to be. Your argument is still valid, but having this issue be the crux of your argument is not the strongest approach, IMO.

They are misguided. You have yet to prove a high end machine stringer will produce a better quality string job. My hammer drives a nail just as well as your Neman Marcus hammer. Proof is in the result, not in conjecture. So the discussion should be what metrics could be used to determine which produced the best string job?
Define your metrics on quality and then we'll have something interesting to discuss. Offer a rebuttal to the systematic drawbacks that are being discussed, then we'll have something interesting to discuss. Your assertion is that IF (hypothetical) all of your systems are doing the same thing to the same degree, then the string job will be the same at the end. This is actually a duh statement. If you'd like to end this argument, all you have to say is that your definition of quality is whether or not a statistically significant sample of test subjects would be able to discern between two separate string jobs on two separate machines. I would agree with you that most players in general probably couldn't tell -- most players are un(der)educated and don't know what the difference is in the first place. If we're talking about strict accuracy, I would argue that your sub-systems actually aren't "good enough" as compared to higher end machines, but I won't attempt to move any goal-posts on you if you're not arguing the same thing.

As far as your (silly) analogy, note that it is not a good tool (pun intended) for rhetorical debate, especially when it's such a weak comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

I should also point out anecdotal evidence is another logical fallacy. Just because you seem to have lucked out with your Eagnas machines does not make it a fact that cheaper machines are just as good as higher end ones. I claim that there is less slop in the clamping system of a Babolat Sensor than your Eagnas machines, and I claim that the manufacturing tolerances are tighter. If you'd like to dispute the claim we can set up empirical measurements to quantify the differences. Otherwise you're creating an argument that will never be proven or disproven, and it's a waste of time to participate in this discussion (IMO)

Therein lies the debate... If one with skill, care and time get a consistent string bed with a Klippermate... fine, but don't go insulting those with higher end machines as Elitist. Again... I just don't see how the tension pulled with a drop weight could be as consistent. Does it have a net affect on the resulting stringbed? Different debate..

This is a better analogy.... I can drive a finish nail with a hammer and a nail set... but I am faster and much more consistent with my pneumatic nail gun. Does it have an effect on the quality and function of the bookcase I build? Who knows... But I'm glad I have a compressor and a nail gun.... and I'm not an elitist for buying them.
No, I disagree. I don't think that's the topic of discussion here. Don't get caught up in all of this wishy-washy discussion and stick to the point. Experienced human operators can definitely provide (over time) a consistent string bed given enough time on a machine and string setup. There is systematic variability on the Klippermate, true, but this (over time) is relatively minute. You ARE correct with the concept of having issues with re-pulls, etc., it's LESS consistent than a nicer machine, sure, but you have little mistakes all the time that requires a repull, etc. Getting your string accidentally caught in the gripper the wrong way, etc. Keep in mind consistency is always measured over time.

Also, I recommend not falling prey to silly arguments like this nail gun thing. It doesn't move the discussion forward.

Not in my experience... I get the adhesive coated nails and the heat caused by driving the nail sets the nail in and holds better over time.
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
It never sees more than full tension with either system. The chewing gum does get an extra squeeze or two from the tensioner clamp....

As far as elitist I think you need to go back and re-read the original thread (and a basic definition of the word.) What was intended as an informative post on tension head pricing turned quickly into "lower end" machine bashing despite an owner or two being fully satisfied with their purchase. There is absolutely no evidence that higher end machines produce a better stringbed and indeed, a least on pro that I posted in the us open main draw, uses a very basic machine. I love to read what the 20 or so pros that didn't use the open stringing services use.
Eh, don't project your personal opinion on what that thread actually was about. The OP was actually pretty pointless besides "Hey, look. Neato." I'd say that (within reason) the thread stayed mostly on topic as the discussion revolved around Eagnas. If YOU re-read the original thread, you'll see that the nasty remarks started as a criticism of Eagnas as a company, not about the quality of the machines (my personal bias projection, here).

I won't comment on your evidence claim, tell me what you mean by "better," then we'll have a basis of stuff to talk about. If you can't define "better," then again, the discussion is a waste of time. I'm referring to accuracy, which is measurable. If your metric is "consistency," then it's actually a subjective measurement, AND requires historical data. The metric has a gigantic margin for error as well as "standard deviation." I'm not very interested in deep-diving into consistency, since everyone has a different tolerance to it.

Yes it does not see more than full tension... but the net effect of the pull-release cycles at lower tension is essentially a bunch of pre-stretch cycles.

I never trashed any low end machine... just there are features and qualities of a more expensive machine that IMO was worth the money I paid... Given my skills ad the time I want to spend stringing, it does a better job.

Oh that player who strings her own racquets? I think it's great too.. BTW i think the spring based lockout tensioner she uses does not have the problem of the mini pre-stretching cycles... Too bad she went from being ranked 63 in 2003 when the article came out to 149 now. Most of the top ranked players are using P1 service. Does it have anything to do with the machine being used? Absolutely not... but for the guys who can afford P1 service, it's not a waste of money.
Again, don't fall prey to fallacious arguments. Anecdotal and one-off examples do not (dis)prove anything. Perhaps that player simply doesn't care about tension accuracy. Why do you think there are so many misconceptions about "reference" tension? Maybe that operator is consistent enough on their equipment for their own purposes. This doesn't actually say anything about whether or not a machine is more or less accurate than another. If we are defining things based on consistency, then fine. Let's not continually talk about two topics and assert they are one in the same... they're not.

Cool. Made this thread worthwhile....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/stringing-roger-federers-nine-rackets

Apparently they use the star 4. I've read that at the us open all but perhaps 2 dozen use the us open string service. P1 must work off-site in a hotel room. These guys just want consistency and to get personalization (requested time from stringer to court) that the us open can't guarantee....
So... what? Are you arguing about consistency here? This isn't supporting your claims whatsoever, unless you suggest to P1 that they can switch out their machines for Klippermates because they can give the same end-result. I dare say that this actually weakens your argument regarding stringing machine price to (perceived) quality and absolute value... no?
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
I have been stringing for 30+ years. My machine history

  1. Tremont TR-45 (in college)
  2. Gamma Drop weight with flying clamps
  3. Neos 1000
  4. Neos 1000/purchased Wise tension head
  5. Neos 1500/Wise tension head

I can categorically say that I produce better results with the last two iterations of my equipment than i did with the previous three. I can also say that I enjoy stringing more with the last two than I ever did with the first three even when I strung just for myself.

Sure, I can get to work driving a Yugo, question is why would I want to? ;)
 
I think OCD is right......take Irvin for instance. In one of his early videos he trashes the Babolat starting clamp basically claiming it is no better than the Gamma one, then after he got his Star 5 the Babolat clamp is the only one he uses in his videos and now its the best. It is human nature to try to validate the purchase of a expensive machine or any other new toy you spend to much money on. Yes, I believe it is easier to get consistent results with a higher end machine and usually faster, but if you take your time (which by the way doesn't bother me) I firmly believe you can get just as good of a string job if you have the skill. The reason P1 and other pro stringers use the machines they do is 1) the company sponsors the tournament 2) Its easier and faster to string on the high end machine compared to the drop weight 3) customers feel nice and warm inside when they see a big computerized machine being used to string there racquets. Desire, most of the ammo you use against this guy is invalid and your big words just make you come off as an elitist.....lol
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
...The reason P1 and other pro stringers use the machines they do is 1) the company sponsors the tournament...
actually, according to Priority 1, the reason they continue to use the Star 4 which has been out of production for quite some years is because it's light and easy to travel with - not because they are sponsored.
 
Last edited:

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
I think OCD is right......take Irvin for instance. In one of his early videos he trashes the Babolat starting clamp basically claiming it is no better than the Gamma one, then after he got his Star 5 the Babolat clamp is the only one he uses in his videos and now its the best. It is human nature to try to validate the purchase of a expensive machine or any other new toy you spend to much money on...
i had the gamma, eagnas, and babolat starting clamp. i preferred to use my cheap eagnas starting clamp over my gamma because the gamma did not grip well. the springs did not apply enough force. for 60# and under, the eagnas holds just fine. but when tension exceeds 60#, my babolat clamp holds more securely. since i never string in excess of 60#s, i usually just use the eagnas.
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
I think OCD is right......take Irvin for instance. In one of his early videos he trashes the Babolat starting clamp basically claiming it is no better than the Gamma one, then after he got his Star 5 the Babolat clamp is the only one he uses in his videos and now its the best. It is human nature to try to validate the purchase of a expensive machine or any other new toy you spend to much money on. Yes, I believe it is easier to get consistent results with a higher end machine and usually faster, but if you take your time (which by the way doesn't bother me) I firmly believe you can get just as good of a string job if you have the skill. The reason P1 and other pro stringers use the machines they do is 1) the company sponsors the tournament 2) Its easier and faster to string on the high end machine compared to the drop weight 3) customers feel nice and warm inside when they see a big computerized machine being used to string there racquets. Desire, most of the ammo you use against this guy is invalid and your big words just make you come off as an elitist.....lol
I'll let Irvin discuss why he changed his mind, but I've argued with him on the effectiveness of the Gamma starter for years now ;) Edit2: If we're accepting anecdotal evidence as relevant, I've also stated that the holding power of all Gamma clamps I've used are >20 lbs less than other starting clamps. I have many, many clamps, as well.

I have a question for you: If you spend more time than is absolutely necessary, how are you maintaining consistency in your craft? Your arguments don't make any sense from even a consistency standpoint, nevertheless an accuracy one. Skill has nothing to do with it, and I assure you both of the reasons you state are factually incorrect. 3 has some basis in reality, I'll admit, but it's not the only reason.

Please explain to me what ammo is invalid, and explain why? Otherwise calling me elitist serves no purpose other than to irritate me, which is a silly strategy in a debate if you're actually trying to get somewhere. :roll:

Edit: Actually, thinking about what you said, could you explain to me what exactly would be considered elitist about my arguments? I'm not making any negative remarks about inexpensive machines. I completely understand they serve their purpose in the industry/craft, etc. My claim is that they are less accurate and I've stated why... I'm not sure you're comprehending any of what I'm saying. If my arguments are too long for you to read, you could just ignore them altogether rather than making silly remarks.
 
Last edited:

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Perhaps those who think that a Klippermate will produce just as consistent string job as a Sensor/Bairdo in the hands of a good stringer will never be convinced otherwise.. OK so no need to beat a dead horse...

But to argue that the higher end machines are somehow an elitist ego thing is really silly... The higher end machines help stringers at any reasonably experienced level produce more consistent stringers with less fuss... Also what about time it takes to string, the convenience of better features and the joy of working with your hands on a well engineered piece of machinery? I have no problem paying extra for it... It doesn't make me an elitist...
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
Perhaps those who think that a Klippermate will produce just as consistent string job as a Sensor/Bairdo in the hands of a good stringer will never be convinced otherwise.. OK so no need to beat a dead horse...

But to argue that the higher end machines are somehow an elitist ego thing is really silly... The higher end machines help stringers at any reasonably experienced level produce more consistent stringers with less fuss... Also what about time it takes to string, the convenience of better features and the joy of working with your hands on a well engineered piece of machinery? I have no problem paying extra for it... It doesn't make me an elitist...
i say let people believe what they want to believe.
 

yan.v

Rookie
It is human nature to try to validate the purchase of a expensive machine or any other new toy you spend to much money on.
I actually wanted to point this out in the other thread.

People who own expensive machines try to justify their substantial purchase (come to me, my machine is better) and people who own cheap machines say they are just as good as the best machines (my machine is terribly cheap, but I assure you it's just as good). Both behaviors are human nature.

There's however a major flaw in the second group's opinion/experimentation. In the first case, people who are using expensive machines are all people who have tried cheaper machines and have the experience to see what is different and why the most expensive machine is better. In the latter case, people who use cheap machines haven't tried the more expensive machines and can't really know why they're better. Both groups are probably biased, but I'd have to say the second one is the most biased.

Moreover, most of the heat in the other thread also came from the fact that some people are defending Eagnas machines and not just "cheaper machines". You guys were lucky to get a working Eagnas, but the fact is most of the Eagnas machines are not accurate even when calibrated (they might be calibrated at 50lbs, but not anymore at 55lbs), offer very bad support for the racket putting huge stress on the racket while stringing, have the cheapest parts around that can either damage the frame or the string and that's just a few problems. Add that to the fact that the company offers the worst customer service on this continent and just blatantly copies designs from other companies and put their name on it, it's just normal that everyone is going to come hating on them whenever they can.

To be more on topic though, I wouldn't mind having someone with a Gamma, Alpha or Pro's Pro machine stringing my racket, because I know that as long as the stringer is good, I won't have any problem with the string job or with my racket. I wouldn't say the same of an Eagnas machine owner, sorry. The result will probably not be the same, but it should be good enough.

Lastly, like Dire said multiple times, this debate will probably never end because there are no metrics to measure how good a string job is. I'll however quote a friend on badminton central:
being consistent is definitely a must. However, I would also like to add that it must be consistently good, and not consistently bad
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
this debate will probably never end because there are no metrics to measure how good a string job is.
That in part drives these screeds on "how much better my machine is" defending money spent. Regardless of length, big words, debating skills or passion, they inevitably end with no measurable string bed metrics to validate. (Of course there are tons of machine quality/value/speed/etc metrics that can justify the dollars ... but two that don't exist are that a crank or motor tensions more accurately than gravity and, perhaps painful for the neiman marcus guys, is that a final string bed is better.)

That said, perhaps there is some, admittedly subjective metric -- is the end customer content with product? Showed one pro who made it to #59 in world using what most would consider an inexpensive portable machine. Safe to assume she's had access to all types of machines and stringers but is content with the home depot hammer. Which leads me to question; does anyone admit to needing the neiman marcus to drive nails? Not that a better machine (or hammer) is built better, lasts longer, is easier to use, learn, quicker, etc. but, using the metric of customer satisfaction, are there examples of not being able to do so on a klipper??? One can read pages and pages of stringer machine reviews and good reasons to upgrade but I haven't come across the stringer or end user who states that the end quality of job wasn't sufficient or that my new star 5 raised my NTRP from 3.5 to 4.0. In pages of comments, never read any experienced stringer state he couldn't produce a quality job on a dw.

(Note that this isn't the same as those who've strung for years on progressively better machines and understandably love stringing even more on their baiardo over the klipper they had as a kid. In fact this would be the ideal group to ask if they would admit to needing the neiman marcus hammer to drive a nail or could they hang a picture just as securely to the wall if the home depot hammer was all they had.)

Lastly, if anyone needs the most expensive machine to produce the best, most accurate product and doesn't have it -- do you have trouble taking a customer's money for a string job?
 

yan.v

Rookie
I think you're dodging a few of our arguments and caveats. No one ever said that rackets should only be strung with 10000$ machines, especially when 95% of the players wouldn't be able to tell the difference (there is a difference, not many people can feel it). No one ever said you couldn't do a quality string job on a cheaper machine. You're pretty much arguing with yourself, putting words in our posts and counter arguing against your own words.

Regarding drop weight machines accuracy, any other engineer will confirm that while gravity is consistent, the angle at which you pull is not and will never be. There is no such thing as perfectly horizontal. An excellent drop weight stringer will get a very small variation in pull tensions, but there will still be some variation. Will it matter in the end ? Probably not for most people. But claiming a drop weight is more accurate than a high end electronic machine is like saying the sun revolves around the Earth. It makes no physical sense. We've explained this to you like 4 times now, if you still can't figure it out, there's nothing we can do for you. (To be fair, there is also a variation in tension with electronic machines, it is just extremely small, much smaller than drop weights)

As for your pro, some of them string their rackets on their own because it is like a therapy before/after playing and some of them just find it enjoyable to play with something they've made. In any case, it is very safe to assume that they can't be travelling all the time with a huge electronic machine and that the machine she has can be easily carried around everywhere she goes. It has nothing to do with low end vs high end, but everything to do with how well it can be carried.

Lastly, I don't play tennis much. I'm not good enough to feel those variations and I don't even know if they can be felt by better players and pros. However, I've played badminton for a very long time and I string for some of the best players here and I can easily feel the difference between a racket I've strung on a crank/drop weight and one I've strung on a high end machine. And I'm not saying this just for the sake of arguing here, it's simply true, there's a big difference. Is it possible to replicate the high end machine string job on the crank or at least come close to it? Yeah, I could have pulled every string 3 times to pull most of the slack out, pulled a couple lbs higher and provided the machine is good enough, the racket should be supported well enough to not be damaged. In the end though, it'll take me 40 minutes instead of 15, and I know no stringer would go through that pain. They'd just do it in 12 minutes and be done with it.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
tennis_ocd said:
A racket comes out of the bag just like the hundreds before it strung by the player/stringer.
If you're stringing hundreds of frames, you will not want to do it on a Klippermate. Just sayin.

Don't discount this argument as it is a major reason "elitists" purchase higher end machines.

tennis_ocd said:
Klippermate can easily provide this to a skilled player/stringer in a portable package.
The ability of the user as a player has little to no relevance to his ability as a stringer.

tennis_ocd said:
Compare this to dropping a racket off to an unknown stringer (of vastly different abilities) using perhaps different machines.
Take 20 unknown stringers who use Klippermates and compare their results to 20 unknown stringers who use high end electronic pull machines. I guarantee you the results from the latter will be more consistent than the results from the former. The entire reason for using a higher end machine is eliminating variables.

Any machine with flying clamps will not produce as good as a result as a machine with fixed clamps. That's not opinion, that's experience. You seem hung up on the tensioner, but it's much more than that.

tennis_ocd said:
It's likely why there are about 20 tour players who don't use the us open stringing services and the touted baiardo and use outside racket services.
They all use P1 (see below).

tennis_ocd said:
(Although to be honest I have no idea what machine the likes of Murray, Isner, Fed, Monfils, etc. stringers use. These guys clearly value person over machine -- and the personalized service the tour can't provide.)
They all use the (much touted) and legendary Babolat Star 4 as the players you mentioned are all clients of P1. The Star 4 was the top of the line stringing machine to have when it was produced. It's viability for P1 rests in its portability.
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
That in part drives these screeds on "how much better my machine is" defending money spent. Regardless of length, big words, debating skills or passion, they inevitably end with no measurable string bed metrics to validate. (Of course there are tons of machine quality/value/speed/etc metrics that can justify the dollars ... but two that don't exist are that a crank or motor tensions more accurately than gravity and, perhaps painful for the neiman marcus guys, is that a final string bed is better.)

That said, perhaps there is some, admittedly subjective metric -- is the end customer content with product? Showed one pro who made it to #59 in world using what most would consider an inexpensive portable machine. Safe to assume she's had access to all types of machines and stringers but is content with the home depot hammer. Which leads me to question; does anyone admit to needing the neiman marcus to drive nails? Not that a better machine (or hammer) is built better, lasts longer, is easier to use, learn, quicker, etc. but, using the metric of customer satisfaction, are there examples of not being able to do so on a klipper??? One can read pages and pages of stringer machine reviews and good reasons to upgrade but I haven't come across the stringer or end user who states that the end quality of job wasn't sufficient or that my new star 5 raised my NTRP from 3.5 to 4.0. In pages of comments, never read any experienced stringer state he couldn't produce a quality job on a dw.

(Note that this isn't the same as those who've strung for years on progressively better machines and understandably love stringing even more on their baiardo over the klipper they had as a kid. In fact this would be the ideal group to ask if they would admit to needing the neiman marcus hammer to drive a nail or could they hang a picture just as securely to the wall if the home depot hammer was all they had.)

Lastly, if anyone needs the most expensive machine to produce the best, most accurate product and doesn't have it -- do you have trouble taking a customer's money for a string job?
No offense, but suggesting that I have a weak point because I am capable of engaging in reasonable debate is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not fluffing up my argument with longer arguments or bigger words, I am paying respect to all parties by attempting to communicate effectively. Your suggestion that I'm somehow obscuring the point of all this is a soft-version of an ad-hominem attack. Because my writing style is different than other peoples', I'm somehow less credible? Please.

You're taking my own point (regarding measurable stringbed metrics) and turning it around? If I'm referring to (absolute) accuracy, then my metrics are (by definition) measurable! I'm not sure whether or not I should continue contributing to this thread because I'm arguing with ostriches, apparently.

In the spirit of truth-finding, I'll comment on a few things:

Gravity isn't constant in the way you romanticize it. At extremely high altitudes, the pull of gravity is weaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#/media/File:Erdgvarp.png - viewing things from this perspective, electronic constant pull machines are actually more accurate, although, admittedly - discrete in operation.

You are correct that there is some level of discrete operation to any electrical (or electronic, they're different) stringing machine. The question then becomes whether or not the discrete steps are effectively equivalent to a drop weight stringing machine. I would offer that if we're nitpicking, the effective difference between a "constant pull" electronic machine is much closer than the effective difference between standard, simple floating clamp design variations. You still have not addressed any of the systematic issues (relating to accuracy) of floating clamps and/or the limitations of a dropweight machine -- even assuming standard gravity calculations, the tension is only (truly) accurate at horizontal. You'll notice that the bar will drop from horizontal on the crosses once you've popped the previous clamp. I'll add on that I personally don't even consider this that big of a deal! Look up the calculations, they've been done before.

Finally (and again): The #59 in the world argument is anecdotal, and does not apply to anyone here. We have the top players in the game working with P1 for the reasons you state. This (again) actually weakens your position. If your argument is that the top players have a level of skill and/or talent that excepts them from this statement, the same can be applied to #59 in the world example. The argument doesn't hold water!

The hammer analogy isn't relevant, as it's not even a reasonable analogy to begin with - continually insisting on bringing this up is telling enough, IMHO.

TL;DR (since there are many apparently that are unwilling to read my arguments): Accuracy is absolutely measurable without further definition. Consistency is not measurable without additional definition. I'm 100% fine with your arguments if you take the stance that you are only interested in what an average human being would be able to (accurately) differentiate in real-world use. You should stop supporting your arguments with anecdotal evidence and appeals to emotion. They do not serve any purpose in supplementing your arguments.


___________________
Ninja edit: I'm not going to contribute to this discussion any further until someone addresses the issues of systematic deficiencies. Otherwise I am literally rephrasing what I've been saying this entire time over and over.

Clamp deficiency: look at the mechanical string manipulation with floating clamps here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE9dtDVEh2w&feature=youtu.be&t=19m25s

Tensioner deficiency (although this is tightly coupled with clamps):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adMW3mARDV4
Note the weight drops when clamps are released. No longer horizontal, no longer accurate! (Again, note I'm not arguing about consistency)
 
Last edited:

eelhc

Hall of Fame
(Note that this isn't the same as those who've strung for years on progressively better machines and understandably love stringing even more on their baiardo over the klipper they had as a kid. In fact this would be the ideal group to ask if they would admit to needing the neiman marcus hammer to drive a nail or could they hang a picture just as securely to the wall if the home depot hammer was all they had.)

Lastly, if anyone needs the most expensive machine to produce the best, most accurate product and doesn't have it -- do you have trouble taking a customer's money for a string job?
I am maybe on my way to being in that ideal group... I've had a Gamma X-2, Progression II 602, Silent partner e.Stringer, Alpha Pioneer DC+, Laserfibre/Stringway MS200TT, Gamma 6004 and now a Neos 1500 (which will probably be the last machine I own). Along the way I've acquired several starting clamps, stringbed cutters, needle nose pliers, diagonal cutters, awls...and a few Stringway floating clamps.

The Neos 1500 is in the range of machines that I would consider the "sweet spot"... where the best "bang for the buck" can be had and price points beyond that result in significant diminishing returns.

Having strung on all of these machines, I certainly appreciate the features of the machines I've upgraded to over the years and I wouldn't know about taking any customers money since I don't string for money (just for myself, family and friends)... But it's certainly true that better, more experienced stringers who are likely to own a better machine + tools charge more... From the $10 craigslist guy all the way up to P1.

As for consistency... we'll never agree but IMO the crank lockout is far more consistent than a dropweight. Even the Eagnas crank I owned (I set the tension each time I string with a weight scale/calibrator) so cranks are worth the extra cost to me... as are solid clamps with little/no drawback, a solid turntable... Even upgrading the Gamma composite clamps with Stringways will result in a more consistent string job.
 

lew750

Rookie
Gravity isn't constant in the way you romanticize it. At extremely high altitudes, the pull of gravity is weaker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#/media/File:Erdgvarp.png - viewing things from this perspective, electronic constant pull machines are actually more accurate, although, admittedly - discrete in operation.
This meaningless debate has been mildly entertaining, but really? If you're drop weight pulls 50lbs at sea level, it will pull 49.98lbs in Denver. If you take it to the extreme and drag it to the top of Mount Everest (over 29,000 feet), it will still pull 49.86lbs. You've made a lot of good points in this thread, but I don't think this is one is relevant.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
This meaningless debate has been mildly entertaining, but really? If you're drop weight pulls 50lbs at sea level, it will pull 49.98lbs in Denver. If you take it to the extreme and drag it to the top of Mount Everest (over 29,000 feet), it will still pull 49.86lbs. You've made a lot of good points in this thread, but I don't think this is one is relevant.
His overall point is valid though... I too was at one time of the mind set that a drop weight was best... as reliable as gravity, never needs to be calibrated...

But having strung on a drop weight... I realized over time given how tension is pulled with a drop weight, it can never be as consistent as a good lockout or electronic (unless the drop weight is a stringway).
 

seekay

Semi-Pro
(Note that this isn't the same as those who've strung for years on progressively better machines and understandably love stringing even more on their baiardo over the klipper they had as a kid. In fact this would be the ideal group to ask if they would admit to needing the neiman marcus hammer to drive a nail or could they hang a picture just as securely to the wall if the home depot hammer was all they had.)
That pretty well describes me. My machine history:

  1. Gamma X-2 (my sister had a KlipperMate during the same time period)
  2. Eagnas Hawk (added on a Wise 2086 later)
  3. Gamma 6004 + Wise 2086
  4. Wilson Baiardo

When I bought each of those machines, it was a good fit for my skill level and a good value. I have no regrets in that progression.

There's no doubt in my mind that every machine upgrade provided me with new tools and capabilities. Those improved not only the quality of my stringing, but also more speed and increased comfort.

That said, it's clearly a game with diminishing returns. The Baiardo costs more than double the 6004+Wise combination and it doesn't string twice as well. But it provides enough value to justify its cost. It keeps the racquet at a comfortable height and angle for me all the time. It has clean lines, with nothing for the string to snag on. The tensioner and clamps are just as good as any other professional-level machine out there.

To answer your basic question: I could still go back to the X-2 or a KlipperMate and put together a passable stringjob. I could do pretty well on a crank machine. Those wouldn't be bad stringjobs in any sense, and many of my customers wouldn't notice a difference, but those machines have larger error margins than the more expensive models, which limits the degree to which I can guarantee consistency.

Based on my personal experience with the machines listed above, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable charging anyone for a stringjob if I didn't have an electronic constant-pull tensioner and fixed clamps. That's become the minimum set of tools that I personally need to feel confident that I'm providing a professional level of service.

This is where I start to sound elitist, and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to put anyone down. If you're stringing for yourself, or a small group of friends, any machine will do. But as business grows, values change, and those high-end machines start to look a lot more reasonable.
 

lew750

Rookie
His overall point is valid though... I too was at one time of the mind set that a drop weight was best... as reliable as gravity, never needs to be calibrated...

But having strung on a drop weight... I realized over time given how tension is pulled with a drop weight, it can never be as consistent as a good lockout or electronic (unless the drop weight is a stringway).
I wasn't saying a drop weight was best, just that decreasing gravity at altitude was an irrelevant factor in deciding. I've had drop weights in the past and they worked fine, but I would rather string on a crank or electronic constant pull given the choice.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
No offense, but suggesting that I have a weak point because I am capable of engaging in reasonable debate is absolutely ridiculous....
Ignoring the fact that you continue to build these silly strawmen to knock down -- I never stated your point was weak because of reasonable debate; no, you have a weak point because you debate the ridiculous -- inaccuracies in dw string pull tension because of local variations in the earth's gravitational pull? Gravitational differenced due to centrifugal forces at latitude? Altitude? Really?! That's your stuff???

It's as if I bring in the quality of household power supply in various locations and times of day -- variation in peak rms, freq, harmonics, impedance from other power draws, etc. and it's impact on high end tensioning motors. It's present but equally ridiculous.

To specifics;
Clamp deficiency: look at the mechanical string manipulation with floating clamps here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE9d...tu.be&t=19m25s
He's using a tensioner to pull for tie-off (and actually tighten tie-off). This is purely technique (poor imo) and utterly irrelevant to type of machine used.


Tensioner deficiency (although this is tightly coupled with clamps):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adMW3mARDV4
Note the weight drops when clamps are released. No longer horizontal, no longer accurate! (Again, note I'm not arguing about consistency)
I'm not certain what the point is here; if it's that there is some, non-zero loss in tension when a clamp is released this would be true for virtually any machine.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Ignoring the fact that you continue to build these silly strawmen to knock down -- I never stated your point was weak because of reasonable debate; no, you have a weak point because you debate the ridiculous -- inaccuracies in dw string pull tension because of local variations in the earth's gravitational pull? Gravitational differenced due to centrifugal forces at latitude? Altitude? Really?! That's your stuff???

It's as if I bring in the quality of household power supply in various locations and times of day -- variation in peak rms, freq, harmonics, impedance from other power draws, etc. and it's impact on high end tensioning motors. It's present but equally ridiculous.

To specifics;
He's using a tensioner to pull for tie-off (and actually tighten tie-off). This is purely technique (poor imo) and utterly irrelevant to type of machine used.


I'm not certain what the point is here; if it's that there is some, non-zero loss in tension when a clamp is released this would be true for virtually any machine.
Actually.. High end stringing machines would have a brushless dc motor with feedback/servo comtrols since it would have to work for worldwide input voltages.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
If you're stringing hundreds of frames, you will not want to do it on a Klippermate. Just sayin.

Don't discount this argument as it is a major reason "elitists" purchase higher end machines.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of reasons to purchase higher end machines. Most eventually find their sweet spot.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
I am maybe on my way to being in that ideal group... I've had a Gamma X-2, Progression II 602, Silent partner e.Stringer, Alpha Pioneer DC+, Laserfibre/Stringway MS200TT, Gamma 6004 and now a Neos 1500 (which will probably be the last machine I own).
At the risk of yet more debate; what were your pros/cons with 2-pt vs 6-pt mounting?
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
At the risk of yet more debate; what were your pros/cons with 2-pt vs 6-pt mounting?
The Klippermate and Gamma X2 2 point mounts are "true" 2 point mounts since there is just a single compression support on either end.

The Neos 1500 is actually a 6 point mount as there are 2 inside supports and a center clamp/compression support on each end. Similarly, Other higher end 2 point machines like the Gamma 6004 and the Stringway have more than 1 support in either end.

Of course, the machines referred to as "6 point mount" have outside support outriggers.

I've strung racquets as large as 135 on all of my machines without issues.

I went to a 2 point mount Neos 1500 from a 6 point Gamma 6004 because of the ease of mounting and to have no outriggers or blocked grommets in the way.Many higher end 6 point mounts come with a c support on the outriggers that don't block any grommets.

The thinking is that 6 point mounts protect the frame better and all of the high end machines are 6 point mount. Maybe... but none of my 2 point point mount machines (x2, Neos...) has had an issue with damage. I've strung frames as large as 135 and I never string frames I suspect to have structural damage.

I don't have any data to back this up but I suspect that more racquets are strung on a Neos 1000 than any other. I think if frame damage was an issue with these machines we would know about it and they would have changed the design years ago.

To get back to your question... pros/cons/ I think it's just preference... that's all. I like the 2 point mount on the Neos because it's simple, quick and doesn't block any grommets.
 

barry

Hall of Fame
i say let people believe what they want to believe.


Quote for the day.

In this day an age, perception is reality! Or maybe there is no truth only perception.

I believe I am creating a quality string job on my low end stringer; other than my customers who really knows.


EELHC
I asked about tennis warehouse using Neos's for all those years, may still use them, but they are the original and best crank ever produced.
 
Last edited:

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
This meaningless debate has been mildly entertaining, but really? If you're drop weight pulls 50lbs at sea level, it will pull 49.98lbs in Denver. If you take it to the extreme and drag it to the top of Mount Everest (over 29,000 feet), it will still pull 49.86lbs. You've made a lot of good points in this thread, but I don't think this is one is relevant.
I wasn't saying a drop weight was best, just that decreasing gravity at altitude was an irrelevant factor in deciding. I've had drop weights in the past and they worked fine, but I would rather string on a crank or electronic constant pull given the choice.
Fair statements, no rebuttal. I actually completely misread these scales when I glanced at the plot, no excuse on my side.

Ignoring the fact that you continue to build these silly strawmen to knock down -- I never stated your point was weak because of reasonable debate; no, you have a weak point because you debate the ridiculous -- inaccuracies in dw string pull tension because of local variations in the earth's gravitational pull? Gravitational differenced due to centrifugal forces at latitude? Altitude? Really?! That's your stuff???

It's as if I bring in the quality of household power supply in various locations and times of day -- variation in peak rms, freq, harmonics, impedance from other power draws, etc. and it's impact on high end tensioning motors. It's present but equally ridiculous.

To specifics;
He's using a tensioner to pull for tie-off (and actually tighten tie-off). This is purely technique (poor imo) and utterly irrelevant to type of machine used.

I'm not certain what the point is here; if it's that there is some, non-zero loss in tension when a clamp is released this would be true for virtually any machine.
I'm not building any strawmen -- I don't believe I've misrepresented any of your claims...?

I concede the gravitational pull argument, see above. Please indicate what other items i've debated which are ridiculous.

Your argument about power supplies is rather curious, though. Household power supply is going to affect simple electric tensioners much more than properly designed electronic tensioners, but I'll leave in some fudge factor there. I can happily admit the complexity of a properly designed system is much higher, but I wouldn't say the accuracy is any less. I disagree on the sources of error that you've stated, but I would agree that there are more potential sources (sensor temperature drift is more likely than "impedance from other power draws, etc.") that can affect your overall system. (I suppose in the end we agree on this point)

Regarding your specific rebuttals: You've completely ignored the point of the posting of the video. The clamps with a fixed clamping distance will deform the strings. It's irrelevant whether or not the person in the video has good or bad knot tying technique. :confused:

As for the non-zero tension loss, I disagree with your assessment. If we're arguing strict accuracy (which it seems like we're still not all discussing this), the source of this drop is actually related to the above. The tension head drops, you're no longer pulling at reference tension (In all fairness, I already stated earlier in the thread that this is not actually that big of a deal). I understand this magnitude is within margin for error (of reproduce-ability), but this is a systematic issue that is not present on a fixed clamp machine. Whether or not this is actually noteworthy is something I have no opinion on. Like I mentioned - if the criteria is whether or not someone could actually tell the difference or not, I can't say. I personally probably couldn't, but that doesn't make it more accurate.

Actually.. High end stringing machines would have a brushless dc motor with feedback/servo comtrols since it would have to work for worldwide input voltages.
Feedback, yes, servo... maybe, maybe not. Worldwide input voltages would be more the responsibility of the rectifying side of the power supply, not the motor control. These would typically be designed independent of one another.
 
Desire....I was only joking about the elitist part hence the lol! Apparently it is you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to write 10 paragraphs and get into a pooping contest with the moderator of tennis talk. I wasn't aware that this was an official debate and I have no desire (lol) to spend the time researching how the polar vortex affects the pulling of a drop weight or how electrical surges might cause inconsistency with electric machines, I could go on and on......yawn. Oh and by the way, when commenting to a wide range of people it is better to use simplistic grammar.......I know you can do it as I have seen you stringing on the internet and talking with your friends and you did not talk like this. And lastly, just because I touched a nerve because I was joking and you where super serious it is immature to imply that I can't read your long and boring explanations as well as understand them. I have nothing to prove to you and I simply stated my opinion......live with it!!!!
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
Desire....I was only joking about the elitist part hence the lol! Apparently it is you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to write 10 paragraphs and get into a pooping contest with the moderator of tennis talk. I wasn't aware that this was an official debate and I have no desire (lol) to spend the time researching how the polar vortex affects the pulling of a drop weight or how electrical surges might cause inconsistency with electric machines, I could go on and on......yawn. Oh and by the way, when commenting to a wide range of people it is better to use simplistic grammar.......I know you can do it as I have seen you stringing on the internet and talking with your friends and you did not talk like this. And lastly, just because I touched a nerve because I was joking and you where super serious it is immature to imply that I can't read your long and boring explanations as well as understand them. I have nothing to prove to you and I simply stated my opinion......live with it!!!!
Simplistic grammar isn't the same thing as correct grammar. I'm sure you can agree that sarcasm and inflection aren't communicated easily in written text? I can accept the spirit of your post, thanks for the feedback. (I respectfully disagree, though)

Edit: I'd still appreciate an answer to why you think my "ammo is invalid."

Edit 2: Understood about the "pooping contest," but if you're not directly insulting me, don't worry about it. I am actually more relaxed about moderation when things are directed at me -- I make extra effort not to abuse power for my benefit, that's simply unfair if I'm trying to have a rational discussion.
 
Last edited:
One of your comments was about the twisting of floating clamps and the loss of tension. In my opinion the twisting is due to lack of support by the non tensioned adjoining string, if that makes sense. My theory is that this minor twist is taken out on your next pull so it is irrelevant in my opinion. As far as me "taking my time" I wasn't talking about hours I was talking about maybe 10 to 15 minutes longer to insure clamps are placed just so, crosses are straightened while tension is on them, and knots are tied so as not to lose undue tension on them. Also my drop weight has a line which is exactly level so my tension should be right on because I do not live in altitude. I would love to have a Babolat sensor or Wilson Baarido as they are "cool" and look fun to string on, but that doesn't mean I feel they are more accurate.:) I would agree that the average Joe will have a better and easier string job using the more expensive machines.
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
One of your comments was about the twisting of floating clamps and the loss of tension. In my opinion the twisting is due to lack of support by the non tensioned adjoining string, if that makes sense. My theory is that this minor twist is taken out on your next pull so it is irrelevant in my opinion. As far as me "taking my time" I wasn't talking about hours I was talking about maybe 10 to 15 minutes longer to insure clamps are placed just so, crosses are straightened while tension is on them, and knots are tied so as not to lose undue tension on them. Also my drop weight has a line which is exactly level so my tension should be right on because I do not live in altitude. I would love to have a Babolat sensor or Wilson Baarido as they are "cool" and look fun to string on, but that doesn't mean I feel they are more accurate.:) I would agree that the average Joe will have a better and easier string job using the more expensive machines.
due to the friction created by the bend around the grommet, the next pull does not recover the tension lost due to the twisting. this loss occurs on every string so over the course of 16 mains, the loss is compounded.
 
Ok then how do your explain the clamp straightening out the same when I pull the next string. If your point was valid the clamp would never twist because of the friction of the grommet and don't forget that even though the clamp twist there is still tension on the string.
 

Tennis_dude101

Semi-Pro
Ok then how do your explain the clamp straightening out the same when I pull the next string. If your point was valid the clamp would never twist because of the friction of the grommet and don't forget that even though the clamp twist there is still tension on the string.
I see the same thing happening with the flying clamps used on my Pro Stringer. The clamp does twist a bit when I release tension on the string, on the next pull the clamp straightens up as tension is applied. This happens more so on the mains, as when your tensioning the crosses the clamp is on the previous string that is woven through the mains thus doesn't move as much.

Before I bought my Pro Stringer I used to get my racquets strung at my local pro shop(they use Wilson Baiardo's). At my level I can't tell the difference between them, although I now restring my racquets more often as its not costing me $50 a restring. :)

TD
 

diredesire

Adjunct Moderator
One of your comments was about the twisting of floating clamps and the loss of tension. In my opinion the twisting is due to lack of support by the non tensioned adjoining string, if that makes sense. My theory is that this minor twist is taken out on your next pull so it is irrelevant in my opinion. As far as me "taking my time" I wasn't talking about hours I was talking about maybe 10 to 15 minutes longer to insure clamps are placed just so, crosses are straightened while tension is on them, and knots are tied so as not to lose undue tension on them. Also my drop weight has a line which is exactly level so my tension should be right on because I do not live in altitude. I would love to have a Babolat sensor or Wilson Baarido as they are "cool" and look fun to string on, but that doesn't mean I feel they are more accurate.:) I would agree that the average Joe will have a better and easier string job using the more expensive machines.
Thanks for the response. Just a few thoughts:

There's a parallel effect on (all) fixed clamps, regardless of price and/or manufacturing precision. It's commonly referred to as clamp drawback. While clamp drawback is (in general) a secondary (read as: minor) concern in terms of consistency, there's a key difference (IMO) when it comes to floating clamps. When you twist a string, you actually stretch it. Regardless of what happens on the next pull, I would question/suggest (since I don't have a true tension meter (http://img.directindustry.com/image...r-low-fiber-thread-tensions-34081-3341907.jpg) that the string is actually looser after a floating clamp is used as compared to a fixed clamp. Yes, the effect will be minor, but this will absolutely impact stringbed accuracy (relative to reference). I'd like to highlight that I'm still not arguing about consistency -- I agree that consistency can be achieved with a dropweight... I used a LF MS200TT for several years.

Edit: I didn't really flesh my thought out: Strings are elastic, when you twist them, they'll stretch. You don't see the stretch from the clamp twisting in a standard fixed clamp machine.

Besides the point about overcoming friction that mad dog1 pointed out (which is even more minor, but still present), drawback and clamp twisting stay relevant even if we ignore these effects. If we examine your argument about this effect being irrelevant, let's (for the sake of argument) look at a more extreme example: What if your drawback lost 20 lbs of tension every time, BUT you pulled it all back out on the next pull? No big deal, right?

Well, there's always a few pulls per string job that you never recover the drawback from. This would be all the final pulls prior to tying off. With fixed clamps, you can further reduce this effect by "pre-loading" clamps -- basically scooting the base of the clamp in the direction of tensioning prior to affixing the base (clamp the clamp head first). Obviously, we're not losing 20 lbs per drawback pull, but with any less-than-slight drawback issues, we'll lose (absolute) accuracy on those isolated pulls. Different tensioning methods on different strings of the stringbed = inconsistency within a single frame. If you stay overall consistent in your methods, though, maybe it all doesn't matter (which I'm fine with, if that's the definition).

To your second point about the time, even a 10-15 minute longer-than-necessary time makes me wonder where the time goes? If you are super-efficient in your time usage in your process, you have less variability in how much time you can spend on each given step. I ask because if you're inconsistent with how long you tension your strings, there's an immediate consistency improvement you can be making. The speed discussion can be a whole 'nother poop-contest with the same overall feel. Those who have achieved a high degree of speed (of course, the assumption is that the process is still a good one, and no corners are being cut) will have their claims undermined by those who have not. When you're spending 45-60 minutes on a string job and someone claims 15 minute jobs day in, day out, you'll obviously have some incredulous thoughts. My immediate impression of someone spending 45-60 minutes on a job is a few things:

1) They probably haven't strung as many frames as I have, OR with the degree of regularity I have. Muscle memory makes major differences.
2) They are inefficient with their process. Inefficiencies allow for inconsistency creeping (IMHO, like I said, a whole 'nother thread). The time has to go somewhere.
3) Preemptively: Yes, I absolutely believe that you can string world-class quality jobs at a very rapid pace. There's a difference between rushing a job out and speed stringing. I'm not actually referring to speed stringing [competition] (which has a bit of a built in assumption that the frame will not be used for play and good stringing practices do not need to be followed). The highest level of stringers out there tend to cruise around 3 frames an hour, many at 4 (if we're talking a pinnacle-level stringing room, this doesn't tend to include prep).
 
Last edited:
Top