Stringway Stringlab 2
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
Hi, from the Netherlands:
- using it now for one year 2 month
- can't imagine ever have stringed without the control of the StrinLab2
- "real" measurement. Measure-disc is simulating real bal-impact, and the SL2 translates the power needed to move the disc a fixed distance into kg/cm.
- you can measure this DT in kg/cm on every spot in the stringbed.
- with the extension-set you also can measure the frame-flex and the balance
- the only thing you can't measure is the swingweight; but this can be calculated with the balance and the weight.
- using it now for one year 2 month
- can't imagine ever have stringed without the control of the StrinLab2
- "real" measurement. Measure-disc is simulating real bal-impact, and the SL2 translates the power needed to move the disc a fixed distance into kg/cm.
- you can measure this DT in kg/cm on every spot in the stringbed.
- with the extension-set you also can measure the frame-flex and the balance
- the only thing you can't measure is the swingweight; but this can be calculated with the balance and the weight.
Do you know how fast the disc moves? I'm skeptical that it moves fast enough to provide anything but a measure of static stiffness, which correlates poorly with dynamic stiffness.
Balance, weight and swing interval.
The frame and frame+string bending stiffness functions look very cool.
Last edited:
If you're more interested in the dynamic stringbed stiffness, maybe the ERT300 is a better suited tool for you. It measure the DT (Dynamic Tension) which is the required force in kilopond to deflect the stringbed 1cm.
The ERT300 does it by creating a vibration after it's attached to the stringbed and measures the frequency response from the stringbed due to this vibration for its calculation.
To know approximately what kind of stringbed tension from this DT value, it has a little wheelie chart (similar to the one that comes with the Stringlab) to convert from the DT value to the tension value based on the size of the racket (in 3 groupings, up to 95 sq.in, between 95-105, and above 105).
I own an ERT300 and from my experience with it, the DT reading is fairly accurate. Meaning that if I take the DT reading right after I'm done stringing a racket, it converts back pretty accurately to the tension I've strung the racket with, within just a couple of lbs.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
In addition:
- the SL2 (StringLab2) measures the DT with same procedure as a rdc. Ádvantage of the SL2: you can measure on every spot in.the stringbad, so you can "map" the responsiveness on impact for the whole stringbed, and this way see the result of different stringing strategies.
- the SL2 can easily be transported. You can take it with you to the club. Perfect for demanding players, and even more perfect for coaches.h
- no stringjob without controll!!! (If you don't have a SL2, what method áre you using. The "I guess my result is correct"- method, like I did all these years myself )
- the SL2 (StringLab2) measures the DT with same procedure as a rdc. Ádvantage of the SL2: you can measure on every spot in.the stringbad, so you can "map" the responsiveness on impact for the whole stringbed, and this way see the result of different stringing strategies.
- the SL2 can easily be transported. You can take it with you to the club. Perfect for demanding players, and even more perfect for coaches.h
- no stringjob without controll!!! (If you don't have a SL2, what method áre you using. The "I guess my result is correct"- method, like I did all these years myself )
The rate at which the disc moves depends on how quickly you flip the lever. The Stringlab 2 is somewhat crudely built, just as most of the other Stringway devices. It is not so light/compact that you would likely ever take it with you to the tennis club.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
And sorry for the possible confusion with my "real measurement". "Real" in the meaning that the stringbed is really pressed. In contrast with the ERT300 measurement, were the DT is indirectly calculated.
The ERT300 can only calculate "one" DT, and does not give you any clue on the DT diversity of the stringbed! Ánd the ERT is gives erratic resulrs (or just plain "error") right after stringing. (But the beauty of the ERT: it is super-compact)
The ERT300 can only calculate "one" DT, and does not give you any clue on the DT diversity of the stringbed! Ánd the ERT is gives erratic resulrs (or just plain "error") right after stringing. (But the beauty of the ERT: it is super-compact)
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
" The Stringlab 2 is somewhat crudely built"
I would prefer to call it "solidly build". It is build to last for many years of service. Indeed, like all the StringWay devices (I use a SW- stringing-machine which is ~27 years old; working perfectly, and still spareparts available
)
I would prefer to call it "solidly build". It is build to last for many years of service. Indeed, like all the StringWay devices (I use a SW- stringing-machine which is ~27 years old; working perfectly, and still spareparts available
)^^^MathieuR: I use a Beers ERT300.
I do not like devices which deflect the stringbed since the deflection will loosen the stringbed, and if you would check "DT diversity," as you refer to it, you could loosen the stringbed quite a bit. I do like that the Babolat RDC seems to be a better measure of SBS than alternatives, and that it deflects the stringbed at a fixed rate. However, I will not use a device which deflects the stringbed for customers' just-strung racquets.
I do not check each and every racquet which I string. Historically I have been a very consistent stringer from customer feedback, and just to check some time ago I strung various series of racquets same strings same tensions same pattern with the SBS readings identical. Good enough for me - and my customers.
I do not like devices which deflect the stringbed since the deflection will loosen the stringbed, and if you would check "DT diversity," as you refer to it, you could loosen the stringbed quite a bit. I do like that the Babolat RDC seems to be a better measure of SBS than alternatives, and that it deflects the stringbed at a fixed rate. However, I will not use a device which deflects the stringbed for customers' just-strung racquets.
I do not check each and every racquet which I string. Historically I have been a very consistent stringer from customer feedback, and just to check some time ago I strung various series of racquets same strings same tensions same pattern with the SBS readings identical. Good enough for me - and my customers.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
@KKM: " I do not like devices which deflect the stringbed since the deflection will loosen the stringbed"
This is correct, from a pure theoretical point of view. I have to check, but I think the deflection caused by the SL2 is ~3mm (1/8"). First balcontact gives a larger deflection!
And if you would be right, 10 subsequent measurements with the SL2 would give subsequent lower readings. And this is not the case. The 10 readings are within 0.05 when performed correctly.
This is correct, from a pure theoretical point of view
. I have to check, but I think the deflection caused by the SL2 is ~3mm (1/8"). First balcontact gives a larger deflection!And if you would be right, 10 subsequent measurements with the SL2 would give subsequent lower readings. And this is not the case. The 10 readings are within 0.05 when performed correctly.
Most people don't care about DT variations at different spots across a stringbed because it takes a lot of time to map these variations on the stringbed and in the end they probably just want to know the single "average" number anyway. Or they're more interested in the number right in the middle of the sweet spot only. A pro stringer is not going to bother wasting time doing this for every string job because his clients are not going to want to spend extra money to pay him to get this information. Most clients only want to get 1 DT number for reference to track tension loss so 1 DT measurement is good enough for them.
Regarding mapping DT readings all over the stringbed to evaluate different stringing strategies, maybe an academic person writing a research paper on stringing strategies may be interested in doing this. But your average stringer probably couldn't care less. Their stringing strategies will be more about whether they do 1 piece or 2 piece, and if 1 piece, whether they need to do some kind of ATW stringing pattern or not, and which ATW pattern they want to use, etc.
For the reasons above, the Beers ERT300 is a much more practical DT measurement device in my opinion. You take 1 DT reading only because you only care about 1 reading (the stringing strategy was already decided by and executed by the stringer). This initial DT reading will be recorded by the stringer for reference, and subsequent single DT readings are all that's needed to track tension loss on the racket to help determine when the racket should be restrung again, if the string is not broken already.
My ERT300 gives DT reading pretty consistently right after stringing and the DT reading translates back to the tension strung pretty accurately. If you get "error" when using the ERT, maybe you haven't clamped the 3 legs of the device onto the string properly. Try reclamping or maybe move the device around a little bit to find a spot (still in the middle) that gives more secure footing on the string. Then you should be able to get rid of the "error".
Last edited:
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
@KKM: " The Stringway clamps were finicky and would not hold/adjust well. Additionally the build/finish of the Stringlab 2 were disappointing, what I saw up close vs what one sees in photos and videos."
Well well, looks you are a bit sour with SW
I must confess: I am a big fan of StringWay. They are not the cheapest, but they deliver "solid" quality. And with respect the quality o their clamps: take a look at the different threads where the machine and the clamps are discussed. But of course, everyone is entitled to have his deviating opinion.
Well well, looks you are a bit sour with SW
I must confess: I am a big fan of StringWay. They are not the cheapest, but they deliver "solid" quality. And with respect the quality o their clamps: take a look at the different threads where the machine and the clamps are discussed. But of course, everyone is entitled to have his deviating opinion.
I'm also a big fan of Stringway and I have the LaserFibre MS200 DX.@KKM: " The Stringway clamps were finicky and would not hold/adjust well. Additionally the build/finish of the Stringlab 2 were disappointing, what I saw up close vs what one sees in photos and videos."
Well well, looks you are a bit sour with SW
I must confess: I am a big fan of StringWay. They are not the cheapest, but they deliver "solid" quality. And with respect the quality o their clamps: take a look at the different threads where the machine and the clamps are discussed. But of course, everyone is entitled to have his deviating opinion.
I have the double action clamps and you do have to make some adjustment when you go from 1 type of string to another. Also when you go from 1 tension value to another. But it doesn't mean the clamps are finicky. You need to make that adjustment for any clamp from any other brand anyway, since strings vary in thickness and in softness, and higher tension will require the clamp to grab tighter than lower tension, etc. Clamp adjustment is a fact of life.
@KKM: " I do not like devices which deflect the stringbed since the deflection will loosen the stringbed"
This is correct, from a pure theoretical point of view
And if you would be right, 10 subsequent measurements with the SL2 would give subsequent lower readings. And this is not the case. The 10 readings are within 0.05 when performed correctly.
What is important to me is not by how much the stringbed is deflected but that it is deflected. I consider the finished stringbed the customer's property and so I leave it alone and do not use any device to deflect it. Yes the first ball strike probably does as much to deflect the stringbed, but again it is the customer's to do with it whatever he or she wants. Trust me, better players may feel the difference, and at the least if a better player especially tournament player knew that I deflect the stringed to measure it, or saw me doing it, it may unsettle the player, and you know that so much in tennis is between the ears.
" Trust me, better players may feel the difference" I would like to make this a challenge
And by the way: did you ever use the StringLab2 yourself, or did you just see the video?
Did you not see what I wrote about "...between the ears?"
:roll:I did take the opportunity to try out the Stringlab 2, by the way. I did not like it.
I think the Racquet Tune app made the ERT300 obsolete.
@KKM: " I do not like devices which deflect the stringbed since the deflection will loosen the stringbed"
This is correct, from a pure theoretical point of view
And if you would be right, 10 subsequent measurements with the SL2 would give subsequent lower readings. And this is not the case. The 10 readings are within 0.05 when performed correctly.
Yeah, I don't think this machine is going to cause tension loss of any significance.
It seems to me that the real value of this machine lies in the ability to measure frame stiffness at multiple locations.
Measuring static (slow) deflection of the stringbed is not very analogous to the dynamic stiffness the ball encounters at realistic impact speeds. Each string material (poly, nylon (polyamide), gut, kevlar, zyex, etc.) will respond differently to fast impacts as opposed to slow ones. Having the ability to measure only slow deflections of the stringbed provides limited, and probably misleading, information about how stiff that stringbed will be during play.
I've always been confused by the writings of Stringway on string characteristics and behavior. I don't think they really understand the physics of it. I get the impression that they have kind of made up their own "physics" as they went along.
Last edited:
You're probably right. I bought the ERT300 more than 10 years ago and at the time Racquet Tune wasn't available.
There was an earlier software called Freqmess for the PC back in those days before smart phones became popular. I tried it and it just wasn't very accurate at the time and I got different tension values all over the map for the same racket string job depending on how I strike the stringbed, and most of these values were not consistent with the tension I used when stringing, so I bought the ERT300 instead.
Last edited:
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
@Corners:
"Having the ability to measure only slow deflections of the stringbed provides limited, and probably misleading, information about how stiff that stringbed will be during play."
I don' consider it as "misleading". It is "a" factor, an important factor. All other variables you mentioned are important. Would be nice to have them.all in a formula. But you can't deny the importance of the stringbed-stifness (for starters as a control on the quality and consistentie of the stringjob)
I've always been confused by the writings of Stringway on string characteristics and behavior. I don't think they really understand the physics of it. I get the impression that they have kind of made up their own "physics" as they went along.
Interesting, can you give an example where they are in the wrong, preferably with the correct description/explanation
"Having the ability to measure only slow deflections of the stringbed provides limited, and probably misleading, information about how stiff that stringbed will be during play."
I don' consider it as "misleading". It is "a" factor, an important factor. All other variables you mentioned are important. Would be nice to have them.all in a formula. But you can't deny the importance of the stringbed-stifness (for starters as a control on the quality and consistentie of the stringjob)
I've always been confused by the writings of Stringway on string characteristics and behavior. I don't think they really understand the physics of it. I get the impression that they have kind of made up their own "physics" as they went along.
Interesting, can you give an example where they are in the wrong, preferably with the correct description/explanation
Technatic
Professional
Our ideas
This sounds very inviting and because we are very open minded to learn hereby more fundamental information about our thinking so that you all can correct these.
I think that there may be a confusion about Dynamic and static stiffness.
The static stiffness is one factor of the dynamic behavior of the string bed. Another one is the damping which influence grows when the string bed is deflected faster.
Damping plus static stiffness decide together about the dynamic behavior, like in a suspension of a car.
In a string bed the damping is mainly caused by the friction between the strings and inside the string.
The friction in the string can occur between the filaments of the multi or between the molecules in the monos.
The stringer can control the playability of the string bed with the choice of the string and the static stiffness.
So the SBS is a control figure of his product, much more than the applied tensions.
There may be a wrong idea about the dynamic tension as measured by the Stringlab 1, the ERT and racquet tune.
There is nothing dynamic about it except that it uses the vibration to calculate the static stiffness.
Therefore the measured values of a static system as the ST2 are the same as measured with the vibration systems, only more accurate because it is a direct test without a calculation.
The tests that we do with strings are based on normal material knowledge as used for all materials from steel to all kind of fibres. We simply measure the remaining and elastic elongation of the strings.
The next step was to test the influence of these figures on playability and loss of tension during play,
A string with more elongation plays more convenient and a stiffer stringer is more suitable for spin.
We classify the strings in 4 classes based on the elongation figures to make it easier for stringers to chose the right string for different players.
There is really not much of an own "physics" about that, it is just basic mechanical knowledge.
So it is certainly not our own idea about physical knowledge as described in dr Cross’ book.
This sounds very inviting and because we are very open minded to learn hereby more fundamental information about our thinking so that you all can correct these.
I think that there may be a confusion about Dynamic and static stiffness.
The static stiffness is one factor of the dynamic behavior of the string bed. Another one is the damping which influence grows when the string bed is deflected faster.
Damping plus static stiffness decide together about the dynamic behavior, like in a suspension of a car.
In a string bed the damping is mainly caused by the friction between the strings and inside the string.
The friction in the string can occur between the filaments of the multi or between the molecules in the monos.
The stringer can control the playability of the string bed with the choice of the string and the static stiffness.
So the SBS is a control figure of his product, much more than the applied tensions.
There may be a wrong idea about the dynamic tension as measured by the Stringlab 1, the ERT and racquet tune.
There is nothing dynamic about it except that it uses the vibration to calculate the static stiffness.
Therefore the measured values of a static system as the ST2 are the same as measured with the vibration systems, only more accurate because it is a direct test without a calculation.
The tests that we do with strings are based on normal material knowledge as used for all materials from steel to all kind of fibres. We simply measure the remaining and elastic elongation of the strings.
The next step was to test the influence of these figures on playability and loss of tension during play,
A string with more elongation plays more convenient and a stiffer stringer is more suitable for spin.
We classify the strings in 4 classes based on the elongation figures to make it easier for stringers to chose the right string for different players.
There is really not much of an own "physics" about that, it is just basic mechanical knowledge.
So it is certainly not our own idea about physical knowledge as described in dr Cross’ book.
Last edited:
Since the ERT labels their reading Dynamic Tension (DT value), I always assumed that its calculation factors in other dynamic components beside the static tension somehow. But I think you're probably right that it really doesn't, because if you can use a look up table to translate from the DT value back to the tension value being strung, then there's probably no dynamic component in their calculation except for the static tension. If that's the case, then the ERT Dynamic Tension name is a misnomer.
Come to think of it, has anyone ever really come up with the definition of what Dynamic Tension really is and provide the mathematics to support this Dynamic Tension definition? I'm not aware of any white paper of the sort.
Here you mention "damping" as another factor that adds to "dynamic tension", but that's just a word you use. And while it makes sense qualitatively, if it can't be defined clearly, just as "dynamic tension" is not defined clearly yet either, with a system of mathematical equation to help support and calculate it, then it's only a qualitative abstract for now with no clear quantitative data to describe and show "cause and effect".
Actually, dynamic "tension" is probably not even the right term we're looking for here if we're talking about "damping (or dampening?)" and "stringbed deflection". "Elasticity" is probably another factor that's intertwined with the others. Many people also use the word "pop" to characterize the responsiveness of their stringbed. Maybe that's the holy grail here, to come up with a definition and mathematical system that can describe and quantity and calculate the "pop" value of a stringbed.
Last edited:
Technatic
Professional
I think you are very right, but what is in a name.
When we define the dynamic force between the ball and the stringbed it could not be too complicated when we use a common calculation model.
In our lecture about tuning we use this model.
With this model you can calculate the force on the stringbed at any moment depending on the speed of the movement.
The total force = The force of the spring + the force of the damper.
To get the right figures is a different much more difficult matter.
The USRSA measures this kind of things by dropping a hammer on a tensioned string.
The practical question is: What is the use of knowing this complicated figures for the stringer.
The SBS is an more understandable figure which is also easier to measure
I'm curious. What do they measure when they drop a hammer on a tensioned string? String deflection? And it's just on a single string and not a whole stringbed? I also question how useful that result is because a hammer is not a ball travelling at high speed. A tennis ball will deform greatly upon impact with the stringbed and will have a different result than a hard hammer which wouldn't deform anyway.
I agree that if you come up with a metric that's too complicated, it won't mean anything to the stringer and player anyway.
Technatic
Professional
I think they measure the tension in the string and the height the hammer bounces back.
So it tells them something about power generated by the string and the loss of tension in the string caused by the impact.
This test is meant to qualify the individual string, without the influence of the friction and string density in the racquet and the behavior of the ball.
They do tests with complete stringbeds also.
I looked if I could find more on their site but couldn’t.
Technatic
Professional
More information about stringing
For those who are interested in more information:
We created an info centre on the English and US Stringway sites,
This centre contains pdf files about stringing, strings and stringing machines, including manuals of all SW products.
Just click on the “info sign” in the middle of the front page.
For those who are interested in more information:
We created an info centre on the English and US Stringway sites,
This centre contains pdf files about stringing, strings and stringing machines, including manuals of all SW products.
Just click on the “info sign” in the middle of the front page.
Geoff
Hall of Fame
@Geoff: and, did you find the info you were looking for between all these postings
This was great information! I have a surprise in the works. Stay tuned!
yan.v
Rookie
MathieuR posts like he's part of the Stringway team, just saying.
I've had the Stringlab 2 for more than a year and I think it's decent.
It's much cheaper than most of the other diagnostic tools and offers a nice set of features, so kudos for that.
However, with the current way it works, it is not very reliable. It is definitely and easily possible to obtain 2 different results for the same test on the same racket, which is my biggest gripe against it. When that happens, you can't really trust the results you get and you can't really compare different combinations of strings/tensions/patterns against each other. You have to be creative and fiddle around with things to be able to get some meaningful results, especially when the values are close together. So if you're looking for a one button one result device, this isn't it.
I've had the Stringlab 2 for more than a year and I think it's decent.
It's much cheaper than most of the other diagnostic tools and offers a nice set of features, so kudos for that.
However, with the current way it works, it is not very reliable. It is definitely and easily possible to obtain 2 different results for the same test on the same racket, which is my biggest gripe against it. When that happens, you can't really trust the results you get and you can't really compare different combinations of strings/tensions/patterns against each other. You have to be creative and fiddle around with things to be able to get some meaningful results, especially when the values are close together. So if you're looking for a one button one result device, this isn't it.
7zero
Semi-Pro
I have ordered one of the first SL2 and I use it. Trying to build a database of my work and re-work continually. I put DT value on the label after stringing, but my customers are stone age, they hardly recognize poly from Nylon, so this is more information for me than for them. SL2 is solid build, I will be more clever when rackets start to return for restring (if unbroken strings) to see how strings are losing tension.
yan.v
Rookie
I'm actually curious to see if the results are more stable for tennis than for badminton. I have recorded hundreds of results for badminton rackets using the standard method and my method with the SL2 and my method is definitely a lot more consistent. That might be caused by the fact that SBS numbers are lower than they are for tennis though.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
@yan.v: I'm a "huge" SW-fan. I use an almost 30 year old SW-machine, and since a year I use the SL2, which opened my eyes how I can improve my stringing results.
Before we start argueing about reliability and repeatability, we should agree on "what do we want to measure". We want to measure thé StringBedStifness, as DT, in kilo's/cm; we want to know the force (in kilo's) to deflect the stringbed one centimeter. (Yes folks, no lb's or inches in this definition, just plain modern dimensions; allthough not really true, we should use "Newton" for force ).
But there you immediately see the problem: the more you deflect the stringbed, the more relative force you need to push for the next cm.
You need to use the SL2 with care. Important is the positioning of the measuring-disc. What also helps is to note the "zero-force", the value you read doing the pre-stretching; you should aim to get this value in a small range.
Before we start argueing about reliability and repeatability, we should agree on "what do we want to measure". We want to measure thé StringBedStifness, as DT, in kilo's/cm; we want to know the force (in kilo's) to deflect the stringbed one centimeter. (Yes folks, no lb's or inches in this definition, just plain modern dimensions; allthough not really true, we should use "Newton" for force
).But there you immediately see the problem: the more you deflect the stringbed, the more relative force you need to push for the next cm.
You need to use the SL2 with care. Important is the positioning of the measuring-disc. What also helps is to note the "zero-force", the value you read doing the pre-stretching; you should aim to get this value in a small range.
yan.v
Rookie
@yan.v: I'm a "huge" SW-fan. I use an almost 30 year old SW-machine, and since a year I use the SL2, which opened my eyes how I can improve my stringing results.
Before we start argueing about reliability and repeatability, we should agree on "what do we want to measure". We want to measure thé StringBedStifness, as DT, in kilo's/cm; we want to know the force (in kilo's) to deflect the stringbed one centimeter. (Yes folks, no lb's or inches in this definition, just plain modern dimensions; allthough not really true, we should use "Newton" for force
But there you immediately see the problem: the more you deflect the stringbed, the more relative force you need to push for the next cm.
You need to use the SL2 with care. Important is the positioning of the measuring-disc. What also helps is to note the "zero-force", the value you read doing the pre-stretching; you should aim to get this value in a small range.
I totally agree, which is why I think it's not a one button one result machine. Because of the way the machine works, it is extremely hard to have the disc at the exact same position relative to the string bed every test. As such, you could obtain 2 different results for the same string, tension and racket and obtain 5-10% variation.
I was able to somewhat solve that problem by using a disc with a full threaded hole. This way, my zero pressure is the same every time and I can directly compare all my results with a maximum variation of about 1% (which is explainable by the machine, stringer, time, temperature and technique variables)
I don't agree. I tried the app and it works ok, but I'm much more pleased with the results from my ERT, which i bought after i decided the app wasn't for me.
String factors and hybrids etc, i just like the stand alone device. It tells me what i need to know, yes at much greater expense. Sometimes my curiosity gets me and i want more than just a baseline and the ERT gives me more piece of mind.
RT is still a good app, no doubt.
Technatic
Professional
Hi Yan
Do you think that we should supply the disc with the full thread, that we supplied to you, instead of the disc with the “fast lock system”?
Or only as an extra?
Does this not show how accurate the system measures?
The difference in DT value on different depth is also actually as it is.
Perhaps we should add more information about the many DT values of a string bed in the manual?
Do you think that we should supply the disc with the full thread, that we supplied to you, instead of the disc with the “fast lock system”?
Or only as an extra?
Does this not show how accurate the system measures?
The difference in DT value on different depth is also actually as it is.
Perhaps we should add more information about the many DT values of a string bed in the manual?
yan.v
Rookie
Yeah I think the full thread disc was a very nice addition. Maybe send both with the device, let people choose ? The first disc is faster, but the full thread one is definitely better if you're looking to directly compare strings together.
Extra information about DT values and different possible measurements would definitely help people understand what they're trying to measure.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
Most people "just want a number". What units/dimension it has, or how it is derived: they couldn't care less!
A perfect example is the TA, the racket-stiffness. "A number", and nobody can tell me how the measurent is done. The RDC spits out "a number" , and everybody is happy ( of course I know that a low number means more flex, and that you can compare/classify frames with the TA. But the exact meaning is a mystery)
Therefore the ERT is perfect for most people: a nice gadget, that spits out "a number".
The SL2 is a totally different measuring device. Actually it is in the same category as the Babolat/Prince RDC's.
edit1: TA should read RA
A perfect example is the TA, the racket-stiffness. "A number", and nobody can tell me how the measurent is done. The RDC spits out "a number" , and everybody is happy ( of course I know that a low number means more flex, and that you can compare/classify frames with the TA. But the exact meaning is a mystery)
Therefore the ERT is perfect for most people: a nice gadget, that spits out "a number".
The SL2 is a totally different measuring device. Actually it is in the same category as the Babolat/Prince RDC's.
edit1: TA should read RA
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
I remember seeing exactly what the DT number represents in at least a few threads in the last month.
EDIT: Just so you don't have to go look it up this may help you http://www.stringforum.net/dtdb.php. The Kg/cm is a common term used.
Last edited:
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
As you might read in my earlier postings I am aware of the dimensions . But even then, how many realize the SBS is a function of the deflection (will increase when the deflection is larger).
But the fact that you and I are aware (ánd a lot of fellow-posters) doesn't mean that the majority of the stringers and players are aware.
But maybe as side- line you can explain the TA?
edit1: TA should read RA
. But even then, how many realize the SBS is a function of the deflection (will increase when the deflection is larger).But the fact that you and I are aware (ánd a lot of fellow-posters) doesn't mean that the majority of the stringers and players are aware.
But maybe as side- line you can explain the TA?
edit1: TA should read RA
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
If TA is the Stringway TA Technatic could best describe that.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
Maybe I'm a bit too direct; typically Dutch.
I mean to say: an RDC measures the flex of a frame. And the flex is given "a" number, the TA. But this figur has no dimension, and no one can tell how it is derived.
With the SL2 the flex is also measured, but in kg/cm. With a graph you can "translate" this value to the mystery TA
edit1: TA should read RA
I mean to say: an RDC measures the flex of a frame. And the flex is given "a" number, the TA. But this figur has no dimension, and no one can tell how it is derived.
With the SL2 the flex is also measured, but in kg/cm. With a graph you can "translate" this value to the mystery TA
edit1: TA should read RA
Last edited:
Stringway Official
Semi-Pro
STRINGLAB 2 ACCURACY
Yesterday we got a question about the accuracy of the Stringlab 2 in relation to other string bed tests.
Hereby an explanation:
The answer in one line is simple: “Accuracy and reliability through simplicity”
Yesterday we got a question about the accuracy of the Stringlab 2 in relation to other string bed tests.
Hereby an explanation:
The answer in one line is simple: “Accuracy and reliability through simplicity”
By switching the lever the system creates a certain deflection of the string bed.
The force transducer measures the force needed to create that deflection.
The system is calibrated to translate the test result into string bed stiffness.
The electronic system is the same simple system as in a digital scale.
The Stringlab can be recalibrated mechanically with a screw but that is never necessary because the electronic system does not shift at all.
If you have questions let me know.
Similar threads
