It does seem logical that the center track would be close to the flat. However, my perception in play is that the CT is much closer to the KonKave.
I do like those Ripples!
I think bearing choices can be like strings. Sometimes it’s all about finding the right combo.
My Night’nGale didn’t seem to get a tight enough bind. I put a KonKave in it, and it made all the difference in the world! Not sure why?
There’s a lot of difference. Those little edges really do help to keep the strings away from the sides.
The CT bearing is probably the best string centering bearing for binds,I think.
Someone please explain: A centering bearing moves the string away from the response. Ideally, right in the center of the bearing so that the response is as far away from the string, both sides, as possible. How does this make binding better? Are binds more or less snappy or immediate/delayed?
I think the thing about the CT bearing is that the center bit is actually flat and kinda wide, just not as wide as a full flat bearing. This allows the string to wander closer to one response or the other during play. Contrast with a DS, Whipple, or Ripple bearing which more aggressively centers the string.
I’d agree that the CT is basically a flat bearing with slopped edges allowing the string to wander. However, some of the posts seem to suggest that centering bearings are better for binding.
Without getting into the debate flat v.s. centering, it’s been my experience that the greatest determining factor on binding is on the opposite end of the string from the yoyo. Just saying there was a time, not trying to carbon date anyone, that some metals only had a response pad on one side.
I assumed that they were suggesting that Center Trac bearings specifically are better at binding than other, more aggressive styles of centering bearings. But maybe I’m misunderstanding.
I skip read many threads to save time so I might be missing something. However I just wanted to make clear to those new to bearings/ response, that flat bearings allow the string to come into contact more easily, unintentionally, with the response, it’s the nature of the bearing. Whether one sees this as beneficial or not depends on style and ones own perspective and experience.
I’m saying that I think flat bearings a better for binds, but if a string centering bearing (I define this as anything designed to keep the string from wall contact) is used, the best one for binds is a CT bearing.
Okay, long post…
Well I was mostly talking about differences in the “plane management” as codinghorror labeled it.
I feel pretty sure of those differences from my experience.
However binding is another story. There are just so many variables, that I think it’s hard to compile any kind of empirical evidence:
Just think about the discussions here about lube and bearing shields. “I have bearings that I took the shields off and never lubed”, or any other combination, “and they have lasted 20 years!” Well, I’m sure someones grandmother smoked cigars and dipped snuff all their life, and lived to be 100 too.
And these variables, can combine into characteristics that are often unpredictable.
Also, there are 2 performance aspects relating to binds:
Those 2 things don’t necessarily always correlate. I remember Dust once commented that his thin strings seemed to not initiate as easily, but seemed to bind tighter. I think we came to the conclusion that it was because of the material, rather than the thickness. The thinner strings were nylon.
Once I started trying to do more flyaway and laceration binds, Angel Hair strings were kind of ruined for me. For me they work great for everything except riskier binds, so I got frustrated with them on most yo-yos.
I haven’t been able to tell the difference much with binds from the bearing shape alone, but I do a lot of backspin binds, and I think those are easier to get consistent. However, I do use some other types of binds, and I’d be hard pressed to pin down the differences to a particular type of bearing.
Here’s another story with that same Nignt&Gale: I had watched Tom’s (Throws 'n Brews) review on it, and that sold me on it. He said that one negative was that the bearing seat was a bit sharp, so watch out for string wear. Well, another knock in my mind is that it shipped with what looked like a Kitty string. Whatever, it seemed like a cheap bulk poly, and I just didn’t want my first experience with it to be with a string like that (not trying to flame up here, just personal preference).
I strung it up with a brand new Cloud string (another string that since fell out of favor with me due to binding qualities), and threw it and was enjoying it for literally 8 throws, when WHAM! It came off the string hit the ground, and like a top fuel dragster took off across the room. It rolled under a cabinet, and I could hear it spinning under there for what seemed like an eternity!
Fortunately, it hit the rug, and the floor under the cabinet is hardwood. I couldn’t find any damage. I decided to try a poly string (Venom), and it’s been fine ever since!? Never even seems to chew strings. It seemed like it ate right through the nylon string. I briefly tried another nylon and a blend, and it seemed to be chewing those too. Why on earth…?
Anyway I thought that story kinda illustrates the mysteries we’re so often faced with, with these toys, and how it can be so hard to come to a consensus on so many aspects of them.
CT is my preference, but concave (or whichever doesn’t have the groove) is ok also. Flat as well. I just don’t like snagging when I’ve got layers of string in the gap. Whatever alleviates that is good in my book
That pretty much says it all…
I have gotten to that point recently myself. When i first started i decided i didnt like flats and shunned them. A month or so ago i threw a flat in a diffusion just because i was behind on bearing maintanance. To my surprise, i really like the feel. I dont even have a problem with tilt any more using a flat. I went and popped flats back into all my throws the came with them stock.
Yo-yoing is such a tactile experience, that I think many of us look to change things up; seeking new, often subtle little differences.
Yes, we like to try to find what works best, but often it matters very little if it works best, as long as it feels nice, or even just different.
Please define this. I’ve never heard the term before.
Ummm, ok, why the modifier “trapeze?” All yoyos have a gap, which really has nothing to do with “trapeze.” The gap is the gap, period.
p.s. what is the unit of measure? 4.7 what?
I’ve seen different sites refer it to both gap width and trapeze width. YYE uses gap width in millimeters.
I guess I just don’t get out much. Never seen it referred to anything more than a “gap” in some 20 years and numerous yoyo sites/forums.
Yeah agreed I think gap width is the common term.
Same here. I’ve even seen trapeze width on another site. (I’m mentioning some other yoyo stores.)
