**Stringway – information – Questions – answers**

This might seem a bit silly, but I'm having trouble figuring out how much I should be tightening the racquet with the four top arms. I know on a 6 point mount you have to be very careful not to overtighten so I'm a bit wary with how much force I use.
Hi Nostradamus,
Imo asking is never silly.

The function of our “clamp down hooks” is completely different from the function of the outside supports on 6 point machines.
The hooks only take care to keep the racquet behind the white supports, which avoid the deformation of the racquet.

Fixing them very tight is wrong and useless.
When they are too loose that might result in a little sliding of the racquet when most crosses are done, but this has no negative effect at all on the racquet.

Is there a risk of warping the racket if you don't use this machine correctly ?
No risk at all.

One more advise:
To obtain the minimum deformation of the racquet it is important to choose the right tensions for mains and crosses. You can use our online Tension Advisor for this.

Important check: compare length and width of the racquet before and after stringing when they are the same the tensions were right.

The position of the supports must be right when you place the racquet back on the supports after stringing.
 

PrinceYonex

Rookie
Quick question concerning the single action fixed clamps. I'm using a Stringway ML100 with the T92 clamps. I was stringing a Pure Drive with 17g Head Velocity. On the 2R main, I clamped the string, but as I lifted the drop weight, the clamp drew pretty significantly back, along with the string. Not the normal, small amount of drawback, but maybe an inch or more. So the issue here was not about cleaning the clamps or increasing the clamping pressure -- it wasn't about the string slipping through the clamp. It was that the clamp itself was being pulled back with the string.
Fortunately, I also have stringway flying clamps, and was able to use one of those to clamp the string. For the rest of the string job, I went back to using the fixed clamps and didn't have this issue again. But any thoughts on why this might have happened?
My understanding is that the T92 clamps are supposed to lock automatically at the base, and so would there be some reason why they might not have done so at that moment?
 
The T92 single action clamp system is self locking.
The principle is very simple and without any mechanical parts, therefore lasts “for ever”.

In some cases the clamps do slide over the guiding rails and the rails need a very simple service:



Polish the rails with a piece of Scotch Brite by pulling this around the shaft while you move to the other and of the shaft slowly.

The reason for the need of this treatment is not completely clear, all new shafts are treated like this.
 
Quick question concerning the single action fixed clamps. I'm using a Stringway ML100 with the T92 clamps. I was stringing a Pure Drive with 17g Head Velocity. On the 2R main, I clamped the string, but as I lifted the drop weight, the clamp drew pretty significantly back, along with the string. Not the normal, small amount of drawback, but maybe an inch or more. So the issue here was not about cleaning the clamps or increasing the clamping pressure -- it wasn't about the string slipping through the clamp. It was that the clamp itself was being pulled back with the string.
Fortunately, I also have stringway flying clamps, and was able to use one of those to clamp the string. For the rest of the string job, I went back to using the fixed clamps and didn't have this issue again. But any thoughts on why this might have happened?
My understanding is that the T92 clamps are supposed to lock automatically at the base, and so would there be some reason why they might not have done so at that moment?
Hey mate, this is pretty coincidental because I was about to make a post detailing this exact problem I’m having on my brand new machine. For me, the drawback is even worse, about 3 inches, and to the point where tension is completely lost. It’s pretty frustrating this is occurring on a new machine but thankfully there appears to be a simple fix. I’ll go out and purchase some Scotch Brite today and report back.
 
Last edited:

PrinceYonex

Rookie
Hey mate, this is pretty coincidental because I was about to make a post detailing this exact problem I’m having on my brand new machine. For me, the drawback is even worse, about 3 inches, and to the point where tension is completely lost. It’s pretty frustrating this is occurring on a new machine but thankfully there appears to be a simple fix. I’ll go out a purchase some Scotch Brite today and report back.
Great -- let us know whether it works.
 
Hey mate, this is pretty coincidental because I was about to make a post detailing this exact problem I’m having on my brand new machine. For me, the drawback is even worse, about 3 inches, and to the point where tension is completely lost. It’s pretty frustrating this is occurring on a new machine but thankfully there appears to be a simple fix. I’ll go out and purchase some Scotch Brite today and report back.
Hi Nostradamus,

On new machines the locking system is checked when we assemble the table just before shipping. All new shafts are treated with Scotch Brite.

Do you take care of the initial locking by pushing the clamp in the loaded direction before you close it.



You can also email me with questions that you have (stringway.fred@gmail.com).
 

struggle

Legend
^^^ Pre-loading the clamp is always a good idea to remove "drawback", BUT no solid machine should see the bases moving ANY amount. At. All.
EVEN IF NOT PRE-LOADED.

1-3 inches is absurd and is not what is considered "drawback". That indicates slippage of the bases which should never occur on any machine
when properly adjusted.
 
Last edited:
1-3 inches is absurd and is not what is considered "drawback". That indicates slippage of the bases which should never occur on any machine
when properly adjusted.
1-3 inches is not drawback, it means that the self locking system did not lock. By pushing the clamp to one side the locking system locks immediately with minimum drawback of the clamp.

The fact that there is no mechanism at all means that the self locking system “lasts for ever” without any service.
Sometimes the action with the Skotch Brite is needed clean the surface of the main shafts.
 
Interesting that a brand new machine would fail in this respect. Or maybe not?
Yes very interesting, but I do not think that there is much wrong. Maybe a shaft that was not treated with Skotch Brite.

When we test the system during assembly we test the locking system at 50 % of the height so we should have noticed when it did not lock.

For your information:
The system locks because Tension in the string pulls the clamp over and because of the relation between the height of the string and the length of the guiding block, the system locks.
Apart from the surface of the shaft there are no variables with influence.
 

struggle

Legend
Yes, same reason (one, anyhow) that the NEOS 1000 has been the industry standard for decades.

It works on most occasions. I've never used a new Ektelon/Neos with this issue. Interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkm
There are quite a lot of very old SW machines still in use.
Sometimes someone buys a machine including the old Cross stringing tool and we get a question about it.

Therefore a little more about this tool, because we started Stringway with that tool in 1982.

At that time there were 2 sizes of racquets small and oversize.

So we had 2 options, making 2 different tools or making one tool with 2 combs.

We choose the last option, which was a mistake





The sparkelectrodes used to make the mould.



The mould



The mk2 cross stringers are an example of how a tool can become much better by simplifying it. We also made 2 different tools for different sizes.

 

eagle

Hall of Fame
I was suffering from trigger finger on both hands in the past couple of years.

It had gotten really bad last year that made stringing painful. Stringing the mains was fine but weaving the crosses was a different story.

So, I plunked the $ to get the cross stringing kit (LD and HD).

What a difference it made.

I have since gotten the trigger finger fixed through surgery and am completely healed but I still use the cross stringing tool.

It is especially helpful in weaving poly.

Thanks.
 
Hi Tennis in Hawaii.
Good to hear that the cross stringing tools helped you to save your fingers.

I think that the gain in convenience is the major advantage of the cross stringing tools.

And once you are used to them the gain in speed is the added advantage.
 

villis

New User
Regarding the racquet support. If you cut out the crosses on your racquet, it will become shorter. So it seems to me that racquet is *designed* to be held to shape by the "indirect" support of the crosses. How does it not make sense to mimic this by the outside support of some kind?

Reading Stringway info here and elsewhere, I see that initially it was 2 point support, racquet was getting shorter and nobody imagined to make the frame stronger, so "they" decided to add outside supports. But maybe it was not that stupid after all? Also, one could imagine that by now racquet manufacturers would have noticed how their racquets are being strung (6-point support) and adjust the design accordingly?

I do not have computer models to argue, but a while ago, after few of my wooden racquets were broken by the stringers (at 65 pounds), I started to string them myself, supported only by a non-stretch strings wrapped around the racquet at 3 and 9, and din't have any problems since.

So, while 5-point internal support may be better at something, traditional 6-point does not seem a stupid design at all. And, IMO the discussion should be more about what stresses are introduced while only part of the mains are strung.
 

villis

New User
The outside support (6 point) is created because stringers noticed that the width of the racquet increases during stringing the main strings.
What I am saying is that in the strung racquet there is no inside support, crosses are outside support!! Therefore, 6-point system with outside supports makes sense, because racquet is obviously designed for outside support.

And, I have nothing against your 5-point inside support, only against the demeaning of competing design.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kkm
What I am saying is that in the strung racquet there is no inside support, crosses are outside support!! Therefore, 6-point system with outside supports makes sense, because racquet is obviously designed for outside support.
I think that this is a misunderstanding:
Outside supports have nothing to do with the cross strings.

The outside supports are meant to minimize the widening of the racquet caused by the forces of the main strings.

By tensioning the cross strings, the force on the outer supports is reduced again.
The cross strings create balance in the racket.

And, I have nothing against your 5-point inside support, only against the demeaning of competing design.
I just tell about our opinion about both systems based on our calculations.
 

villis

New User
I think that this is a misunderstanding:
Outside supports have nothing to do with the cross strings.
No, the misunderstanding is elsewhere. Outside support has everything to do with cross strings, as cross strings are essentially an outside support when racquet is fully strung. Cross strings are applying forces to the frame in the same direction as outside support would.
When the racquet is not yet fully strung, outside supports do the job of the missing cross strings.

Stringway Website said:
To make the choice easier, we compare the racket with a beam in the wall.
Racquet has nothing to do with beam. Compare racquet with an arch, designed to support weights G1 and G2. "Cross string" is preventing arch from getting wider.
S1 and S2 are temporary external supports as in 6-point stringer.


Now, if you have to install weights while the "cross string" is missing, you can either support the beam at the points H1 and H2 with an internal support, or support it with external supports S1 and S2.

You are saying that with internal support there is less stress in the arch. I say that while with the external support there is stress in the arch, my arch is specifically designed to withstand that stress!
"Cross string" and supports S1 and S2 are essentially the same thing for the arch!!


Stringway Website said:
MAIN TASK: To keep the stress in the racket material as low as possible.
NO. The main task is to keep stress within the design limits. "Low" or "High" stress means nothing without a context. "High" stress in the racquet material will do no harm IF racquet is designed to withstand that stress. "Low" stress that racquet is not designed for can destroy the racquet.

Finally, to repeat, I am not saying that 5 point system is "wrong". What I am saying is that explanations in the website (and even posted calculations) look more like marketing material than science. Probably you have a proper science done, but it is not obvious where it is posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkm
When the racquet is not yet fully strung, outside supports do the job of the missing cross strings.
If you put it this way I fully agree with this, it means the same as what I said.
By tensioning the cross strings, the force on the outer supports is reduced again.
The cross strings create balance in the racket.

Now, if you have to install weights while the "cross string" is missing, you can either support the beam at the points H1 and H2 with an internal support, or support it with external supports S1 and S2.
I agree.
The bad thing about S1 and S2 is that the force from H1 and H2 has to be transferred to S1 and S2.
This causes a bending stress in the arc between H1 and S1 and H2 and S2.
There is no bending stress with a direct support in H1 and H2.

This is what we try to illustrate with the beam in the wall



This is how it works in the racquet.
The graph in post #33 shows this stress.

 
Last edited:

villis

New User
As any arch, racquet beam is supposed to resolve those bending forces into harmless compressive stress. If that is not the case, it should be relatively easy to equip racquet with strain gauges and measure the actual impact of stringing on the racquet and compare different mounts.

I would trust such measurement way more than simple calculations with too many variables. That bending stress will in one or another form be present in a fully strung racquet anyway, so the exact benefit of protecting racquet against that stress during stringing is not completely obvious.

It would be also very interesting to find out if the racquet "aging (getting softer)" that pro's experience is caused by stresses during hitting the ball, or maybe by frequent abuse during stringing. If it's stringing, you may have a better advertising point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kkm

kkm

Professional
As any arch, racquet beam is supposed to resolve those bending forces into harmless compressive stress. If that is not the case, it should be relatively easy to equip racquet with strain gauges and measure the actual impact of stringing on the racquet and compare different mounts.

I would trust such measurement way more than simple calculations with too many variables. That bending stress will in one or another form be present in a fully strung racquet anyway, so the exact benefit of protecting racquet against that stress during stringing is not completely obvious.

It would be also very interesting to find out if the racquet "aging (getting softer)" that pro's experience is caused by stresses during hitting the ball, or maybe by frequent abuse during stringing. If it's stringing, you may have a better advertising point.
 
Because we get many questions about measuring the racquet stiffness (RA value) on our Stringlab 2 + RS frame hereby more information.





This video shows the stiffness test of a tennis and badminton racquet with the Stringlab 2 together with the RS frame (optional).
The Stringlab measures the force needed to deflect the racquet a certain distance.
From this test result the Stringlab shows the stiffness in Kg/ cm.
The test result shows the force needed to deflect the racquet 1 cm.


How the tests work.
To understand the conversion of the test results it is good to know the difference between both tests.

Babolat RA test.
The first RA test system was created in the 80’s



It works as follows:
- The “push down unit” is positioned on the head of the racquet.
- The displacement clock is adjusted at “100” with the knob.
- The weight is moved to the end of the lever.
- The clock shows the RA value now. The bigger the deflection the lower the RA value.

Stringlab 2 + RS frame.
The stiffness of the racquet can be compared to the “spring constant” of a spring.
It shows the "spring back force" at a given deflection.
Because there is a lot of creep when bending a racket, the "return stroke principle" gives the most accurate test results.

It works as follows:
- Switch the lever of the Stringlab to the end position.
- Zero the display.
- Switch the lever immediately back to the middle position.
- The display shows the stiffness in kg/cm now.

Stringlab >> RA test conversion.

The graph / table shows the conversion of the Stringlab test to the RA value measured on the initial RA test system and the Babolat RDC.

The relation between kg/cm and RA value is not lineair because the RA value is not lineair with the stiffness of the racquet:
- For a stiffness of 70, the deflection is 30.
- For a stiffness of 60, the deflection is 40.

The RA value is 70/60=1,17 is 17 % higher while the stiffness is 40/30= 33 % higher.




 
Sometimes we get the question if the clamps for our fixed clamp system are available separately because they are not on our website.



Of course these clamps are available.

But although our clamp system exists since 1992 and lot of very old machines are still in use we seldom sell new clamps for it.

We advise to give the clamp an overhaul and we have a manual for that.

I will put this description in the Stringway user club.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
Because we get many questions about measuring the racquet stiffness (RA value) on our Stringlab 2 + RS frame hereby more information.





This video shows the stiffness test of a tennis and badminton racquet with the Stringlab 2 together with the RS frame (optional).
The Stringlab measures the force needed to deflect the racquet a certain distance.
From this test result the Stringlab shows the stiffness in Kg/ cm.
The test result shows the force needed to deflect the racquet 1 cm.


How the tests work.
To understand the conversion of the test results it is good to know the difference between both tests.

Babolat RA test.
The first RA test system was created in the 80’s



It works as follows:
- The “push down unit” is positioned on the head of the racquet.
- The displacement clock is adjusted at “100” with the knob.
- The weight is moved to the end of the lever.
- The clock shows the RA value now. The bigger the deflection the lower the RA value.

Stringlab 2 + RS frame.
The stiffness of the racquet can be compared to the “spring constant” of a spring.
It shows the "spring back force" at a given deflection.
Because there is a lot of creep when bending a racket, the "return stroke principle" gives the most accurate test results.

It works as follows:
- Switch the lever of the Stringlab to the end position.
- Zero the display.
- Switch the lever immediately back to the middle position.
- The display shows the stiffness in kg/cm now.

Stringlab >> RA test conversion.

The graph / table shows the conversion of the Stringlab test to the RA value measured on the initial RA test system and the Babolat RDC.

The relation between kg/cm and RA value is not lineair because the RA value is not lineair with the stiffness of the racquet:
- For a stiffness of 70, the deflection is 30.
- For a stiffness of 60, the deflection is 40.

The RA value is 70/60=1,17 is 17 % higher while the stiffness is 40/30= 33 % higher.




@Stringway Official - thanks for posting that graph. Very interesting. I have a question, or two.
If I read that graph properly it says that, for example, if a racket is ~63RA then it takes a weight of 9.5kg to flex it 1 cm (because 9.5kg/cm == 63RA). Are you sure about those numbers? I have a few rackets and measured a flex myself using a self made rig with a nanometer and force gauge. What I got was, for example:
for a Yonex VCore pro 97 racket, which according to TW data is about 64RA, it took only a weight of about 4.0kg to flex it 1 cm.
for a Yonex eZone DR 98 racket, which according to TW data is about 62RA, it took only about 3.5kg to flex it 1cm. Per your numbers it should take as much as ~9.2kg

any ideas/comments?

Also, that historical Babolat RA machine that you are showing in the picture. Would you happen to know what is the weight used on that machine, the one that is placed at the end of the lever? And what are the dimensions: the distance from the pivot point to where the 'pushdown unit' is positioned, and the distance between the pivot point and the end of the lever where the weight is placed.
 
Hi jmnk,

The Stringlab is calibrated in kg/ cm so and we compared the stiffness results with the RDC when we developed it.

I think the difference will be caused by a difference in distance of the support because of the high influence of the length (L^3) on the deflection.
These are the dimensions of the positions they are the same as on the original Babolat tool.



A stiffness of 4 kg/cm would also be very low compared to the stiffness of the stringbed which would cause an enormous deflection of the racquet on impact.

Because here counts the “2 spring model”.


Let me know if you have further thoughts.

I do not know the weight of the weight. but that is not relevant, when you just devide the weight by the measured deflection.
 
Last edited:
Hi, when will you stock for the double flying clamps back?.
Just send me an email.
We still have some stock, only set them on "out of stock" to slow down sales and to keep stock for the machines with flying clamps.
Delivery time of the new castings is 18 weeks (normally 8).
 
UPGRADE TO SINGLE ACTION FIXED CLAMS.

A user of a Stringway machines with flying clamps can easily upgrade his machine to single action fixed clamps



This goes as follows:
- The glide bar system is glued into the main beam with epoxy glue.
- Apply glue in the holes and around the cross pin.
- Loosen the bolts that connect the cross pins to the guiding rails a little.
- Slide the cross pins into the holes.
- Hook the hook into the T-slot.
- Position the pins on both end with a 1 mm wire of string between the hook and the slot.


- Let the glue harden 24 hours.

It is important that beam has the T-slot and that the distance between the holes is 400 mm.
 
Sorry Fred -the dimensions of the RDC are quite different from your unit - so not the same.
Would like to know that mentioned for the sake of good order.........! 326mm and 279 mm is 605 mm.
Hi Fritz,

Thanks for your Alertness.

Obviously I took the dimensions from a wrong picture.

So hereby the dimensions directly out of the design system, which are much closer to your measurements.

 
We had 3 exceptional issues last week.
We received 3 defect Stringlabs 2 in one week and problems with Stringlabs are very rare.



After communication with the users it seemed that the cause of the problem was the same on all 3 units………………………….wrong batteries.

There is a 12 V battery with the same dimensions as the 1,5 volt one that should be used.

This is the battery that should be used type LR1/N/ Lady

 

bluey

New User
We had 3 exceptional issues last week.
We received 3 defect Stringlabs 2 in one week and problems with Stringlabs are very rare.



After communication with the users it seemed that the cause of the problem was the same on all 3 units………………………….wrong batteries.

There is a 12 V battery with the same dimensions as the 1,5 volt one that should be used.

This is the battery that should be used type LR1/N/ Lady

That is a real example of Murphy’s law. A better design would use a common battery that is impossible to get wrong.

Alkaline battery leaks damage too many things. NiMH batteries have much more stable voltage as long as the circuit can function with 1.2V cells.

3V lithium button batteries are commonly used in electronic scales,
 
Side step
I would like to inform you about a “side step” that we made.A
part from manufacturer of stringing equipment we are also soccer fanatics.

In 2014 we were very unhappy with our club's game and transfer policy.

The idea came up during a European Cup match against Redbull Salzburg:
Ajax had to score but didn't shoot on the goal once in the 2nd half.
Apparently there were no players who were confident in their shot at goal.

This is the idea we got:
There should be a checklist so that the trainer can check whether he has entered all components of the sport into his setup.


Since 2014 we have worked on an online digital tool called the “Teamway team calculator”.


We talked to a lot of trainers in different sports and supplied a lot of protos for testing.
Based on the feed back we perfected the system.

As far as we know now there is no such tool available.

Basic principles of the tool are:
- A trainer or scout can only judge a player when he is split into components.
- A trainer has to check if all necessary components are built into his lineup.

What does the tool do:
- The trainer enters his score for every player for the components he wants to use.
- The tool “calculates” the quality of a certain line up based on the score of every player divided in maximum of 22 components.
( The result is based on the opinion of the trainer himself)

The components are divided in Technic, tactics, mentality and physical strength.

The different tables can be chosen above.

This is the table “Technics”.


And the table “Tactics”


And the table “Mentality and physical strength”.


This table shows the score of a line up.
The lineup is made by moving the slide switches to the right.


There are 2 line ups so that the influence of different players can be compared.

Because there has not been any negative feed back on the principles of the system we have decided to make a next step.

Overall: The system is only a tool for a trainer which does something that a trainer can impossibly do by him self (because a human being is not a computer).

The tool adds systematics and overview to the trainer's working method.


The tool can be made for every team sport, up till now we created one for soccer, field hockey and volleyball.

If you want more info or a link of the Ajax demo so that you can test how it works please send me a pm or email.
 
The calculator is multi-functional:



- Optimal selection where all "components" are "built-in".

- Optimal team where all "components" are built in.

- Optimal substitute for certain match situation.

- Targeted scouting.

- To determine the required training effort.
 
We are so glad that we have nothing to do with container freight, now that these prices have increased by a factor of 10.

It is nice to notice that having it made "around the corner" not only has the advantage of easy communication and good quality.
 
Amazing:

Sometimes you can not predict what the result will be of certain solution:

We needed a solution on our websites during our holiday period to avoid that customers order and pay and we can not deliver.

Now we are back from holiday and we never had so many orders at the same time.

“Waiting discount” seems to be a good idea. :)
 
This is the best messages about our cross stringing tool that we ever received. Therefore we want to share it with you.
It comes from a Dutch stringer who wanted to return the tool at first after doing some racquets.

This is the automatic translation:
After my previous email and your answer to it, I watched the instruction video a few times again and then started stringing with the video next to it.
You are absolutely right.
I've been on it for 2 months now and it's a great tool.
Especially with my osteoarthritis hands.
On busy days, I am much less tired in the evening, because I have to perform far fewer actions.
What you wrote is absolutely correct: "Once you get used to it, you never want anything else."
In Dutch:
Na mijn vorige mail en jouw antwoord daarop, heb ik de instructievideo nogmaals een paar keer bekeken en ben daarna met de video ernaast gaan bespannen.
Je hebt helemaal gelijk.
Ik ben er nu 2 maanden mee bezig en het is een geweldig hulpmiddel.
Zeker met mijn artrosehanden.
Op drukke dagen, ben ik 's avonds veel minder moe, omdat ik veel minder handelingen hoef te verrichten.
Wat je schreef klopt helemaal: "Eens er aan gewend wil je nooit meer anders."
This the tool where it is all about:

 
I think Richard Parnell was the 1st to start adding 4kgs (not lbs) to the last 2 mains & crosses
I would like to add my to cents to this remark:
When a knot is made it is the intention that elastic elongation of the string maintains the tension on the knot.

The elastic elongation of strings is very different and about 2 times higher with multis as with monos.
Therefore my advise is to adjust the “knot tension” to the type of string.

For a stretchy strings 4 -5 lbs may be enough for monos you need considerably more.
 
With the red lever on the MS140 the tension can be raised in 4 steps of 1 lbs.



This handle is meant to make it easy to create exact differences between the tension in the mains and in the crosses.

The Knot tension does not need to be very accurate.

On the MS 140 it is very easy to obtain higher knot tensions: Just put your finger on the end of the bar and clamp the string.
 

AceyMan

Semi-Pro
Therefore my advise is to adjust the “knot tension” to the type of string.
fwiw,

The USRSA now advises to skip adding knot tension on the tie-off string, as it's already the shortest string and needs relatively less tension for equivalent DT (on that string).

I think what matters most is to do ~the same thing every time~ and you'll produce consistent results.

Since I do in fact use a Stringway ML120 I'm enjoying not having to loosen and index the tension weight just for one daggum string (=> yes, I've adopted this practice as of 1 Oct 2021).

/Acey
 
The USRSA now advises to skip adding knot tension on the tie-off string, as it's already the shortest string and needs relatively less tension for equivalent DT (on that string).
I do not know.

Other issue with the last crosses is that the friction with the mains is huge, and this lowers the actual tension in the string already.
This loss of tension also works against the final tension on the knot.
 

AceyMan

Semi-Pro
Other issue with the last crosses is that the friction with the mains is huge
True, which is why balanced tension usually requires crosses at a higher tension than people usually string (=> often higher than the mains, which also get tighter when the crosses are pulled due to the zig-zag displacement).

/Acey

I know @Stringway Official knows these details but it's unlikely everyone reading this thread does.
 
We get questions about our “automatic” Concorde system regularly, therefore some more info:

Basic principle of our stringing machines is that the string is tensioned horizontal to avoid friction in the grommet.



The Concorde system is meant to make it possible to pull tension on the mains in the bridge with minimum friction.



When the handle of the racquet is pushed towards the tension system the cam under the turntable meets the wheel on the frame and the table lifts.
When the cam passed the wheel the heavy springs will push the table back to horizontal.

 
Top