better? I doubt it, it is important to put the inside supporta at a distance where the racquet moves inwards. outside points A the racquet moves outwards and it is no use to position inside supports there. I think that the outside supports on the 3 point For reaching the last cross strings the option of 2 head support plates is certainly not better. We do not have to agree as long as we have a nice discussion. Stringtechno
That T press-down device was originally meant for the throat. It had almost zero grip and almost no contact area with the badminton frame: the frame would slide and twist. I wouldn't trust it. The setup with two-head plates locks down the frame and provides solid & even support to the head area. The machine isn't designed for badminton in the first place. No matter how we muck around with it, the last and frist cross strings will be impossible for the fixed clamps to get to. What I do is to unscrew the press down when I have the last cross under tension and clamp it with the flying clamps.
design It feels a little funny that you tell the designer where it was designed for. But the T-bar is not meant to clamp with the bar and the central piece at the same time, the bar was meant for Y-shaped racquets. What machines are specially meant for badminton? Certainly not all those with outside support so close to the middle of the frame, because that is technically rather wrong. Stringtechno
Then why show the photos with the T press-down device if it is not meant for the average badminton frames with the traditional t joint? In 2006, I actually used the T press-down device when it came with the LaserFibre MS-200. The contraception did not prevent the frame from movement and twisting. As stated previously, Exthree AM-600 and Victor C-7030 are designed specifically for badminton.
Pete please, The T-bar piece is a universal piece, the bar is not in the way at all. And we just took a quick picture with an old racquet to show the system. About the 2 machines: It seems obvious that designers have different opinions about the best solutions in this case. I thought that it was you who explained that a direct support is better.
I did not say that the bar is in the way. The device does not prevent the frame from twisting or moving. Direct vertical supports, in addition to side supports, are better. Both electronic badminton machines offer those features.
i am using the method ST is proposed for about 5 racket 23 to 26 lb with no problem. i do order an extra headplate to follow Pete's setup but mike run out off the badminton set when i order, expect delivery b4 Friday this week. i can not say which is better because i did not try both but for the last string problem i already have a idea to mod the headplate. picture attached. cut those red cross part off.
adjustments Thanks Yanansi for the advise. A special badminton centre piece is on our list. We first have to get the cross stringers on the market.
I might have some problems with the post at 12 o'clock. 1) Is the screw in direct contact of the frame? If not, is there a chance to the screw contacting? It might damage the paint job the best, damage the frame the worse. 2) Also, is there some give on the 2 side supports on top because they are padded with rubber? If so, what is the chance of frame change shape? 3) The diagram is for Oval shaped racquet. The 4 side supports might not be enough or in wrong position for ISO. Need to have a clear instruction on how to mount the racquet for the user when this implemented. These are just suggestions.
1, no there is about 5mm gap. 2, so far i have no problem with it, tension under 26lb. But i would like to try out pete's setup and see how is that when i get the badminton set. 3, the top two support is adjustable. but i do not have any ISO racket in hand. BTW i am a newbie for ML100
I first mount the throat side, tighten the hold down clamp half way. and them loose the top side support arm, set the top side racket on, screw the T hold down half way, generally rail the support arm outward until the racket is completely support by the supporter(red). tighten all three hold down.
any updates on this mounting system? i was looking to purchase a stringway machine but there seems to be various potential problems with the mounting system for badminton rackets...
Best mounting of badminton on Stringway machine. What are the problems you heard of? We advise to use the other way around method for badminton so that the wide side of the badminton frame is supported by 3 and the narrow side by 2 supports. This also makes it easier to clamp the first strings from the head. Please understand that outside supports introduce bending stress, the closer they get to 3 and 9 o’clock the higher the stress. You can compare this with the beam in the wall as shown below; It is not true that no deformation means no stress in the racquet material!
do you have any photos with a more square/isometric head shape? there aren't that many oval head badminton rackets anymore...
I do not have these photos but it is easy to make some. We have some Yonex ones on stock. For those who are technically interested, this is the other page of the "beam-story"
no disagreement that having internal support is a good thing. but isn't it just a matter of making a really wide load spreader like the load spreader we can buy today? granted there are a few different head shape, but with the understanding that these load spreaders do flex under load, then we should be able to cover pretty much all head shapes with 3 or at most 4 shapes. current load spreader we can buy are 5 fingers. we can make a 9 or even 11 fingers ones.
The outside supports causes the bending force! The load spreader is a very good part because it reduces the pressure between the frame and the centre support. But the bad thing with outside supports is the fact that the outside support causes a bending stress in the frame were there is hardly stress without the support. Compared to the beam in the wall: - Without a support there is no stress between point C and A. - With the support in A, there occurs a bending stress between C and A because the supporting force in A has to be transferred to the position of the load [C]. - With the support in C (direct support) there is no stress at all between C and A. In the racquet. - Lets say that the main strings pull the frame inwards between 12 and 1.30 average in 12.45. When the support is at 2.30, the supporting force has to be transferred to 12.45 causing a bending stress that is not there at all with inside supports. - With a direct (inside) support, the supports against the inside directly generate a “contra force” against the force of the mains. Because there is no distance between the position of the main strings and the supports there is no bending force. So it would be much better to use a very wide load Spreader without the outside supports then a narrow load spreader with outside supports. Forgot to take the pictures will do it now.
The other way around on SW machines. Hereby some pictures of a modern frame on the SW support with the “other way around” method.
can you take a photo of those red supports without the racket? i am curious what shape they are and how they support racket.
