errrm...dunno If you try to stretch all the strings at the same time, I could go for multiplying it by the number of strings (crosses+mains) so 0.02% x (22+22) = 0.88% so getting close to 1/4 lb
yes, people will bang it on their hand and say "that feels tight|" or "that feels loose" but we both know that at exactly the same tension, different strings can feel tighter or looser (more or less stiff), eg BG66 will be stiffer than BG65. To me BG66 at 24-26 BG68Ti at 26-28 BG65 at 28-30 feel about the same stiffness
open question you guys see any difference in frame shape? left is AT700, right is AT limited edition, both 3UG3, both strung at 24 lbs
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm this is my take. at limited edition looks roundish now that ive taken a better look. at 700 looks like it has been stretched longer a little more than it normally should be. no offence to stringer. also at ltd cross strung from b7 onwards and at 700 crosses strung from b8 onwards. im guessing that one was strung ala yonex pattern (+ crosses top to bottom) and the other crosses bottom to top.. will post more findings later. chao.
yes, the limited editon has 1 extra cross at the bottom but i'm focusing on frame shape difference. Too bad i dont have a new unstrung armortec to compare with. My gut feel is that a new armortec frame shape would be closer to the LE than the AT700.
Very interesting debate between two obviously experienced stringers. I have a question: why should the 10% difference increase deformation at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions? I know isometric frames are weaker in those areas because of their shape, it can't be helped, but if the 10% difference results in a racket with main and cross strings at the same tension, why would that cause a deformation in a particular spot the frame? Curious
becoz that's a mighty big 'if'. 1) the truth is im not really againts the 10% rule but im just not very fond of 'generalizing rules' that are suppose to cure all / must do kind of things. so my point is that this rule only applies if it does achieves 'same tension' between cross and mains..... which depends alot on the frame properties which i have ellaborated a bit in this thread: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=186943#post186943 2) that 10 & 2 oclock refer to string crosses bottom up. same effect on 8 & 4 oclock using top to bottom method.... which im not fond of. 3) for a deeper thought... can we really say that 'same tension' on crosses and mains is 'really' optimum? why not crosses a little higher at original shape or perhaps longer... modyfying racquets shape and balance and even weight has been done for ??? years. why not crosses a little lower if you can sustain shape and minimize stress using diff method? all these are possible in experienced and imaginative stringer. 4) the purpose of the 10% rule is to maintain the original shape of the frame. therefore it should be used to achieve such desired results when needed and not as a simple blind rule of thumb. 5) perhaps i myself have made a mistake of generalizing rules.... ah how it all comes back at ourselves doesnt it.....
4) it had been stated by yonex is that the ~10% extra on cross is to reshape the racket frame. If one has a 4, 6, 8 or n*2(n>0) points machine, you should make necessary adjustments to the blind rule of thumb +10% rule. It's common sense to me (and jug8man too). 3) beside the point of reshaping the frame, what other argurment for the +10% rule?? KDM has his 27-21 on main-cross someone wrote. As i have said before, many stringer follows the generalized hand me down rule of thumbs. If you're stringing under 24lb using a simple 2 pt machine, it's ok. Beyond that routine, rule changes. LOL I agree with Jug's 5 points.
I don't think the 10% higher cross string tension for Yonex racquets is intended to re-shape the racquet frame. Neither will multiple-point machines have any bearing. What Yonex says is that on their newer racquets, which use new composites that are different from older racquets, it is recommended that you use 10% higher tension on the crosses-here it must be emphasised that the total tension (22 strings x 22lb cross, 22 strings x 20lb main) is what the 10% means, not individual string tension-than on the mains. The reason given is to try to come as close as possible as an unstrung racquet frame where there is no stress on the frame. So, if you string 22 main strings and 21 or 23 cross strings, you must use the total 10% higher tension, not tension per se. You must also consider that the same tension on the mains and crosses have different dynamic values. The mains are strung across empty space in a straight line. The crosses are strung up and down over the mains, resulting in friction, very different from the almost friction free mains. After stringing the crosses, you have effectively increased the tension of the mains by stretching them with the weaving of the crosses. Sometimes, you have to think small to find out what the hell is going on with those strings.
my memory isnt 100% but i thot i believed that someone wrote to yonex and yonex replied that the extra 10% tension on cross is to restore the frame shape. What u said above (underlined) is just a rephrase of my argument. Oh, i have given lots of thots before i have adopted my stringing methods.
Wasn't there a thread by Kwun starting with his thougts on the +10% and eggroll replied saying that he (eggroll) had asked other people in Yonex and the answer he (eggroll) got was that the +10% was to restore the frame shape ? (no mention was made of 2,4,6 supports on stringing machine though)
It is possible to make a racquet frame rounder or longer when stringing, usually due to mistakes made by the stringer when mounting the racquet frame. In such cases whether you increase the cross string tension by 10% or not, it will not re-shape your racquet. At best, it will make your frame a bit less round if the stringing job had produced rounder frame, or a bit longer if the stringing job had produced a longer frame, over time.
It was me. What Yonex said was basically about the need for the 10% higher cross tension on their newer racquets, which have different materials, was to "keep the racquet shape", not to reshape.
I first use the term 'reshape' because I was reluctant to use the term 'restore' because u can't never restore the frame shape to unstrung orginal using a 2 pt machine. I said 'restore' afterward so u would kinda understood what i'm trying to say. Therefore, i'm going back to the word 'reshape'. are you saying older yonex rackets don't need 10% highter cross tension?. Isn't it newer material should be even stronger than older racket materials?If not, then yonex is going backward.
Yonex did not provide too much details about their newer racquets requiring a 10% higher tension for the crosses, other than the new materials used in their newer racquets require this to "keep the frame shape". Insofar as older Yonex racquets are concerned, I don't really know how old is old. Maybe, old means the days of aluminium frame.
