PDA

View Full Version : Three-piece Stringing


Toland
10-24-2006, 01:32 PM
1) With first piece string first two from the left strings, first two from the
right, first two from the bottom, last 3 on the top with very low tension -
24-36 lbs
2) String other mains and crosses as usual two-ppiece stringing

With this setup you will have:

-increased sweet-spot
-you can use different strings for all three pieces
-as last strings almost never damaged you can save time and money and use them for two-three string jobs

I tried this on my PK 5g and like the result very much

tennis-skater
10-24-2006, 02:57 PM
i dont get what your saying to do in the beginning

Mr. Blond
10-24-2006, 03:19 PM
is this for real?

Toland
10-24-2006, 04:31 PM
Ok, with pictures:
1) With first piece string first two from the left strings, first two from the
right, first two from the bottom, last 3 on the top with very low tension -
24-36 lbs It will be like this (red lines):
http://s88441913.onlinehome.us/P5G.jpg
2) String other mains and crosses as usual two-ppiece stringing

tennis_nerd22
10-24-2006, 04:33 PM
i like the idea...... but i think your crazy :D

LoveThisGame
10-24-2006, 05:42 PM
You are stressing your frame differently. I don't know if this is bad. Note that I have never seen stringing instructions like this. I would not do this myself unless the manufacturer approved it for the racquet. You have voided the warrany on your frame, btw.

Some racquetball frames string (mfgr's instructions) a bit like yours as far as the mains are concerned. One starts mains with 3L followed by the last 4 right mains, ending with a tie-off; it is two-piece stringing.

But racquetball frames have a shape different from tennis frames, so the stresses on the frame are different.

LttlElvis
10-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Interesting. I think this is odd, but is there a reason you came up with this method? How can you tell the sweetspot is enlargened?

I do know some stringers who decrease the tension as you get closer to the knots, and this may have the same effect. However they decrease the tension around the last 2 strings only for less pressure on the knots, not to increase sweetspot.

Toland
10-24-2006, 06:19 PM
Interesting. How can you tell the sweetspot is enlargened?


The idea is the same, as in proportional stringing. Stringing at low tension at the edges is giving to strings more freedom. Ball almost never hit last two strings, but strings, close to last two string, where sweet spot is usually ended start to respond better. I feel it with my PK 5g, it definitely become to play more lively

Nuke
10-24-2006, 06:43 PM
It's not at all clear from the instructions how to string this first piece. If I string the two leftmost mains, and then the two rightmost mains, then how do I get across from the left side to the right? Presumably with one of the crosses, and not with a long piece outside the frame. Same thing with the top and bottom crosses -- you don't say how to get from the bottom to the top (the mains are already done at this point in your instructions). Can't be done in the order you gave. So tell us how the string order really ought to be to arrive at your diagram. Seems like it has to alternate mains and crosses to get there, not the order you gave.

psamp14
10-24-2006, 07:05 PM
you really did this?

how long did it take you?

i've never heard of a 3-piece stringjob...before

LttlElvis
10-24-2006, 07:41 PM
The idea is the same, as in proportional stringing. Stringing at low tension at the edges is giving to strings more freedom. Ball almost never hit last two strings, but strings, close to last two string, where sweet spot is usually ended start to respond better. I feel it with my PK 5g, it definitely become to play more lively


If this is the same idea as proportional stringing, then why do 3 piece stringing?

1.) We will be wasting more string.
2.) Have to find new places to make knots.
3.) Greater chance for cross over strings on the frame
4.) 2 piece is much simpler to do proportional stringing
5.) May void racquet warranty.

I string my racquets @ 48 lbs. The 2nd to last mains I decrease to 40 lbs. The last main remains @ 40 lbs., then I make my knots. I know the last mains are less than 40 lbs. due to the slack.

My first cross string I string at 30 lbs. My 2nd cross @ 40. The remaining @ 48. The last 2 crosses are @ 40 lbs, knowing the last cross is less than 40 lbs. due to slack.

That is my method of proportional stringing. I can keep it with 2 pieces and knots in the correct places as per manufacturer.

Would this not be similar to your method yet simpler?

Toland
10-24-2006, 09:35 PM
It's not at all clear from the instructions how to string this first piece.

1) Second from the right
2) First from the right, make a knot
3) Third from the top
4) First from the left
5) First from the bottom
6) Second from the bottom
7) Second from the left
8 ) Second and first from the top

Toland
10-24-2006, 09:37 PM
you really did this?

how long did it take you?

i've never heard of a 3-piece stringjob...before

you really did this?

-Yes

how long did it take you?

- not longer, than regular stringing

i've never heard of a 3-piece stringjob...before

- now you do

Steve Huff
10-24-2006, 09:49 PM
Toland, actually, I can see your reasoning in trying this. But, why did it take 2 pieces. You should have been able to do the center mains and all the crosses with 1 piece. Then, you would need only 2 pieces. The 5g ties of the mains at the top, so if you strung the outer 2 mains on each side, your mains would still end at the top, and allow you to string the rest of the crosses from the top down. For someone looking for added power, maybe more spin, this setup would actually work. For control, you'd lose most of what you had.

Toland
10-24-2006, 09:53 PM
If this is the same idea as proportional stringing, then why do 3 piece stringing?

1.) We will be wasting more string.
2.) Have to find new places to make knots.
3.) Greater chance for cross over strings on the frame
4.) 2 piece is much simpler to do proportional stringing
5.) May void racquet warranty.


This is better, than proportional stringing, because pieces of strings are separated, so relative tension doesn't change during explotation. In proportion stringing all this effect will disappear after several hours of play, as strings are moving and tension slowly become equal all over a racket

1.) We will be wasting more string.

-No, we will save strings. For example in PK 5g I need 3m to string first piece
and 4.6m to string mains. So I can string from regular 12.2 string set 2 mains and one first piece. To string crosses I will need 4m, so I can use one regular 12.2 string set for 3 string jobs. Additionaly for first piece of strings you can use cheap strings, as they are not very important

2.) Have to find new places to make knots.

-No, at least for PK 5g

3.) Greater chance for cross over strings on the frame

-I don't notice any difference

4.) 2 piece is much simpler to do proportional stringing

- I found this way is much faster

5.) May void racquet warranty.

- I don't care, it is mine racket and warraty expired long time ago

migjam
10-24-2006, 11:00 PM
You can do the same thing with one-piece stringing. It's called a 3x2 box pattern.

Toland
10-25-2006, 12:30 AM
You can do the same thing with one-piece stringing. It's called a 3x2 box pattern.

No, I can not. Most advantagies are coming from using really separate string pieces with different tension and different string types with different characteristics for each piece

Koz
10-25-2006, 02:43 PM
Hmmmm...this is very interesting. I can see the advantages of stringing this way. However for me personally, they aren't apparent enough to ever try doing it this way. (pro's outweigh the potential problems I'd have...messing up a weave on the crosses, measuring wrong and wasting string, possibly stressing my frame in a bad manner). I don't proportionally string my racquet, so I think the end result wouldn't net me much of an improvement. For those that do, it may be worthwhile to try!

I must applaud your innovation though! Did you come up with this idea all by yourself?

Could you potentially do more than the 4 mains and 5 crosses this way? Maybe do 3 mains on each side...3 on top and 4 on bottom, or something like that? Just curious

Toland
10-25-2006, 03:22 PM
... measuring wrong and wasting string, possibly stressing my frame in a bad manner).


You shouldn't waste a strings, but in opposite, for example, if you string VS nat. gut for crosses only, you will save $9 for each string job


I must applaud your innovation though! Did you come up with this idea all by yourself?


Thank you. Yes, by myself


Could you potentially do more than the 4 mains and 5 crosses this way? Maybe do 3 mains on each side...3 on top and 4 on bottom, or something like that? Just curious

No, I didn't try it yet, may be

looseswing
10-25-2006, 03:53 PM
Toland, why not simply, as Elvis stated before, reduce tensions on those strings which you have put in red. Wouldn't this have the same effect?

Steve Huff
10-27-2006, 03:41 PM
Another disadvantage is the strings will break a lot faster. If you're not a stringbreaker, this may not be a concern. But I've used rackets with modified spaghetti jobs and that's the main reason they use Kevlar or Aramid strings in them--they have to be strong. With the outer strings strung so loosely, you'd get the same effect.

Toland, if you're really up for an experiment, try stringing 4 separate box patterns with 4 separate strings. Use the 1st string to do the outer 2 strings around the racket. The next to do the 3rd and 4th inner strings around the racket. The 3rd to do the 5th and 6th inner strings around the racket. Then the last to do the middle 4 mains and middle 8 crosses. You can make each string progressively tighter or looser, depending on whether you want a larger or a more defined sweetspot. You'll have to make some more holes, and you'll undoubtedly lose some tension with so many tie-offs, but you can compensate for those.

Toland
10-27-2006, 11:15 PM
Another disadvantage is the strings will break a lot faster. ...
Toland, if you're really up for an experiment, try stringing 4 separate box patterns with 4 separate strings.

Even in theory I don't see how this setup will reduce strings durability, as striings dencity here is remaining the same. In practice as well, no difference in strings durability.
As for suggestion to try 4 separate box patterns, it will require more big holes
for strings in a racket, which is, I think is not good