Gamma 2 Point vs 6 Point Mounting System

[nbalagu]

Recently Gamma released a 2 point mounting system for number of their machines including the 6004 machine. Apparently they are stating that there are number of advantages to 2 point mounting system compared to 6 points:

1. 2 point mount system is easier to work with since there are only 2 point to deal with.
2. Less chance of blocking racquet holes while stringing racquets.
3. There is not true advantage of using 6 point vs 2 points mounting.

It seems that Prince Stringing machines also use 2 points mounting system in their machines. What do you think about this new/old 2 point mount implementation?

 

[rich s]

while 1 and 2 may be true and if executed properly a 2 point could be just as effective as a 6 point mount....as in the example you give of the Prince machines....

But, I still prefer and I still think that a 6 point supports the frame better and distributes the load on the frame better than a 2 point.

a question to ponder: Why isn't the Babolat Sensor offered with a 2 point mount?

 

[Davai]

Do they have some data to back up their claims? I would like to see some numbers.
I do agree with rich s, there is probably a good reason why babolat uses a 6 point mount, and yes Prince uses a 2 point mount-good advertising and PR.

 

[jj300]

Rich S and Davai,
That is exactly what I have been asking all along and Gamma Tech seemed to omit my questions. They a big company so they should have done research and I would like to do the research. But last time I checked all the machines used in the grand slams of tennis were 6 point, electric, babolat, tecnifiber, or luxilon machines. The blocking of holes is very easy to fix on a 6 point and almost never becomes and issue, especially on better designed machines like the babolats and etc.

 

[rich s]

I have never seen Gamma's 2 point mount but I have seen their machines and their 6 point mounts................I think if Gamma's approach to their new 2 point is along the same vein (sp?) as what they have produced in the past it will be a solid piece of equipment.....

with the 2 point having fewer parts you would have to believe that it is cheaper to produce than a 6 pt set-up.... and.... with the 2 point being new it is easy to set whatever price they (Gamma) want so there is a high potential for profit if marketed properly.

just my thoughts...

 

[Steve Huff]

The 2-point machine has parts that the 6-point machine doesn't. Looking at their mounting system, it seems that Ektelon (now Prince) must have sold their patent or that their patent ran out. The clamp down mechanism has what is called a "dog" that rachets down the top mount to hold the frame secure. But, as all you long-time Ektelon owners can attest, they eventually wear out. As they wear, the clamp doesn't hold the racket as secure. I found that when I had my Ektelon, some oversized frames would slide back and forth some when finishing the last 1/3 of the crosses. I had to come up with ways to secure the racket better. Also, some rackets with very thin throat pieces are hard to mount on this type of machine. The main advantage is avoiding the blocked holes. Even though 6-point systems rarely keep you from getting a string into the hole, they can block the use of an awl when you need to enlarge a hole. Personally, I'd rather have the security of the 6-point system.

 

[LMW]

Just curious...has anyone here destroyed a racquet using the 2-point mounting system of a Prince/Ektelon machine? It seems to me that the forces generated on a racket employing a 2-point mounting system pales in comparison with hitting a serve, overhead, or occasional angry toss at the fence.

 

[Gaines Hillix]

Just curious...has anyone here destroyed a racquet using the 2-point mounting system of a Prince/Ektelon machine? It seems to me that the forces generated on a racket employing a 2-point mounting system pales in comparison with hitting a serve, overhead, or occasional angry toss at the fence.

I never destroyed or even cracked one with the 2-point mount ATS SS II that I had, but you could hear the racquet "groan" during the stringing process. I have never heard that same sound on my Alpha Apex. I've observed racquets moving in the mount on the Neos type machines when watching other stringers. IMO, they have a good system, but they are harder to operate for beginners. It's more difficult to get the racquet mounted properly, in other words.

 

[nbalagu]

I have been using a Gamma 4000 machine for about 10 years or so, and it is a 2 point mount machine. I do hear some racquets "groan" during stringing the mains. However, I never broke or cracked a racquet. I did experience at times the racquet sliding, when pulling the crosses. One thing to keep in mind is this machine is quiet old. That is why I am looking to upgrade. I do feel that Gamma machines are quite reliable, variety of upgrades are available. Everytime I call ATSSPORTS which I believe is owned by Gamma, they very helpfull and take time to explain and assist. Their catalog contains a great selection of machines, parts and add-ons. I do wish other companies had similar options to have better competion on the market.
One thing to note about the price of the 2 point system Gamma introduced is that most of the machines with 2 points cost more then 6 points. Gamma 6004 price however, is same for 2 or 6 points mounting.

I appreciate everyone's feedback. Regards. ~Neal

 

[gregraven]

IMHO, the question should be "does the mounting system hold the racquet well enough that the finish racquet is within 3/32-inches of the unstrung frame?" If so, then it doesn't matter how many points the mounting system has. Likewise, if it doesn't, the number of points doesn't matter -- you need a different machine. I've heard of stringers who use machines that don't support the frame properly, and they have developed all kinds of wacky work-arounds to keep the frame dimensions correct, including different tensions for mains and crosses. It seems to me that if you have to crank up the tension on the mains to get the head shape back to normal, you've already lost the battle.

 

[wksoh]

I have 3 units of 2 point stringing machine. Recently bought a 6 pt machine. I can't tell the difference. The racquets all measured 1-2mm shorter than 27inch after stringing.

 

[MAX PLY]

I've been stringing on Eketelon/Prince machines for over 40 years--in all of that time, only had one frame issue--collapsed a Wilson Profile 110 in the late 80s that had a big crack in it--warned the owner that it probably couldn't be safely restrung and I was correct. Haven't strung a cracked racquet since. Honestly, the mounting system on those machines is my favorite.

 

[AceyMan]

Well,

The 6-point style is revered & trusted, but engineering says it's not doing what you think it's doing.

Fred Timmer ("Mr. Stringway") has a paper on the forces involved in racquet support systems here .

I'm using a Stringway ML120 now, but when I need to move to an electronic machine I'm looking at the Gamma 7900 ELS 2-point.

/Acey

 

[kabrac]

Use to own a Prince Neos 1000 and would have kept it if times hadn't gotten hard and I had to sell it to pay rent. I use a Gamma 2pt Progression II. Basically same mounting principle as the Neos, alot less heavy, transportable. Just takes me 10 minutes longer. I don't mind. If I had to bang out racquets all day, I'd definitely want the Neos or any other 2pt. Never had a frame deform or crack. 6pt mounting....the racquet is essentially "hovering" if you will. The racquets always move (had knobs tightened, everything so let's not go there) plus the arms get in the way. Also, the supports are hard plastic. I'd rather see manufacturers come out with heavy duty rubber at the K mounts and 12-6 pieces rather than hard plastic. And I have seen a frame implode on a 6pt mount, by a certified stringer who has been stringing for years. I think it all comes down to personal preference and it's a shame people on these boards think 6pt is superior. 2pt holds everything secure, is faster, and also allows the frame to "breathe" when stringing. Every frame stretches or contracts when being strung. Everytime you string, you are lightly stressing the frame. It's why alot of frames go "soft" after repeated use and restringing. No one will ever change my opinion. Ever. I've used both.

 

[kabrac]

6pt K supports are basically the same thing as putting a stick against your knee and cracking it. The K support is the point of contact...the racquet is the stick if you will..every frame I've seen implode was at the 10-2 Top K support. Weakest part of the racquet. 2pt allows this area to stretch with no point of contact. No one can tell me otherwise. You also have the physics issue like I mentioned with the knee/stick point of contact stress. Also account for how fast/slow the stringer is pulling tension. But if I got someone's arm and put my knee in the middle ( K support arm with hard plastic at the contact point) it's likely to break in half at the point of contact.

 

[am1899]

Well,

The 6-point style is revered & trusted, but engineering says it's not doing what you think it's doing.

Fred Timmer ("Mr. Stringway") has a paper on the forces involved in racquet support systems here .

I'm using a Stringway ML120 now, but when I need to move to an electronic machine I'm looking at the Gamma 7900 ELS 2-point.

/Acey

If this was a real problem, as Fred Timmer claims it is, surely by now his competitors would have realized it and 6pt would be a thing of the past.

 

[Rabbit]

@am1899 - I am going to say that my favorite mounting system thus far was the Prince 1500. That said, I would caution anybody that Fred Timmer is a salesman first and he has something to sell.

 

[loosegroove]

@am1899 - I am going to say that my favorite mounting system thus far was the Prince 1500. That said, I would caution anybody that Fred Timmer is a salesman first and he has something to sell.

Big fan of the Prince 1500 mounting system for sure (also agree on the Fred Timmer component)! I imagine I'd like the Gamma 2pt self centering mounts even a smidge more, as they seem quite similar but the one knob function would be dandy.

 

[Rabbit]

@loosegroove - I didn't comment on the Gamma as I've never used one unlike some other "experts" around here.

 

[AceyMan]

I would caution anybody that Fred Timmer is a salesman first

Actually, he's an engineer first. #ftfy

@kabrac has it right with the knee-stick thought experiment.

Maybe the manufacturers (lol, we all know there are two or three makers of all the "different" machines) don't see a de facto problem with 6-pt, and customers like them, so they sell.

As the t-shirt says, the great thing about science is science doesn't care if you believe it or not.

/Acey

=> it's worth mentioning that high-quality graphite as used in tennis racquets is hella strong so things really have to go wrong (aka, pre-existing damage) for the hoop to get hurt in any kind of mounting system, but that doesn't mean 6-pt is doing it right.

 

[am1899]

Actually, he's an engineer first. #ftfy

@kabrac has it right with the knee-stick thought experiment.

Maybe the manufacturers (lol, we all know there are two or three makers of all the "different" machines) don't see a de facto problem with 6-pt, and customers like them, so they sell.

As the t-shirt says, the great thing about science is science doesn't care if you believe it or not.

/Acey

=> it's worth mentioning that high-quality graphite as used in tennis racquets is hella strong so things really have to go wrong (aka, pre-existing damage) for the hoop to get hurt in any kind of mounting system, but that doesn't mean 6-pt is doing it right.

Just because Fred Timmer is an engineer doesn’t mean that his conclusions are correct. And when I consider Fred’s conclusions along with his business, for me his credibility is out the window.

 

[Irvin]

Just because Fred Timmer is an engineer doesn’t mean that his conclusions are correct. And when I consider Fred’s conclusions along with his business, for me his credibility is out the window.

I can’t imagine an engineer believing one can determine the SW from the weight and balance of a racket.

 

[am1899]

I can’t imagine an engineer believing one can determine the SW from the weight and balance of a racket.

Beats me. Seems to me the racquet needs to be put in motion to measure such a thing.

 

[AceyMan]

Just because Fred Timmer is an engineer doesn’t mean that his conclusions are correct. And when I consider Fred’s conclusions along with his business, for me his credibility is out the window.

So,

I read this as basically conceding that you yourself don't have the tools to evaluate this theory on your own—fair enough.

I studied physics, the calculus, differential equations and so forth in university, so I don't have such a problem.

His 'theory' is based on facts of the world as I understand them; the fact that you may not be equipped to evaluate their merits yourself is not relevant to their being correct.

I feel this is worth pointing out to others who might be swayed by the shade you're throwing.

Just saying.

 

[am1899]

So,

I read this as basically conceding that you yourself don't have the tools to evaluate this theory on your own—fair enough.

I studied physics, the calculus, differential equations and so forth in university, so I don't have such a problem.

His 'theory' is based on facts of the world as I understand them; the fact that you may not be equipped to evaluate their merits yourself is not relevant to their being correct.

I feel this is worth pointing out to others who might be swayed by the shade you're throwing.

Just saying.

Well, your reading of my statement is completely wrong.

Just saying.

 

[struggle]

Are we to believe that Stringway is the only machine maker to ever employ an engineer in the design of their machines?

That would be quite interesting.

 

[am1899]

Are we to believe that Stringway is the only machine maker to ever employ an engineer in the design of their machines?

That would be quite interesting.

…or that the engineers at other mfg’s are all idiots…

Fred always seems to be telling the world that the sky is falling with his competitors’ products and their features. I’m amazed that some people can’t see through some of his statements.

 

[AceyMan]

Are we to believe that Stringway is the only machine maker to ever employ an engineer in the design of their machines?

That would be quite interesting.

You would be amazed in the history of engineering how many poor designs have survived because they still just worked.

Remember, as the saying goes, anyone can design a building that won't collapse—but it takes _an architect_ to design one that *barely* stays up ...

The tennis frame is so strong relative to the repeated stresses and this is such a tiny, niche segment of the world of machinery, it's entirely plausible that other machines are built around misconceptions, but they still do the job.

It doesn't make it the right design.

 

[am1899]

You would be amazed in the history of engineering how many poor designs have survived because they still just worked.

Remember, as the saying goes, anyone can design a building that won't collapse—but it takes _an architect_ to design one that *barely* stays up ...

The tennis frame is so strong relative to the repeated stresses and this is such a tiny, niche segment of the world of machinery, it's entirely plausible that other machines are built around misconceptions, but they still do the job.

It doesn't make it the right design.

What is more believable? Every other stringing machine manufacturer has it “wrong” and Fred is the sole voice of reason? Or a man is fear mongering to sell more of his products?

 

[struggle]

What is more believable? Every other stringing machine manufacturer has it “wrong” and Fred is the sole voice of reason? Or a man is fear mongering to sell more of his products?

This is the most plausible scenario. It would be absurd to think that engineers haven't had their hands on all of the nicer machines. It would also be absurd to put the designer of the white lion to be far superior in his design.

"All airplanes that fly (99%) look roughly alike".

Let's face it. He failed terribly at every other aspect of mounting and clamping if so. If "2" point is superior, he didn't invent that, but

The only thing I see that is great/original is the tensioning mechanism, everything else seems a compromise.