PDA

View Full Version : Can head racquets be strung throat up?


hoons
08-30-2007, 04:05 PM
Just a quick question, can they be strung throat up, particularly the Ti "comfort zone" series?

I could try ATW, but i just dont see where i can tie off the shorter side. ANy ideas otherwise?

Richie Rich
08-30-2007, 04:28 PM
ever hear of 2 piece stringing?

no, for most racquets you shouldn't string from the throat up. creates too much stress on the upper hoop.

some manufacturers do allow for bottom up stringing on certain frames but i wouldn't chance it

hoons
08-30-2007, 05:17 PM
ever hear of 2 piece stringing?

Sorry, forgot to mention that the grommets on this thing are ridiculouusly small. I tried on a similar racquet anout a week ago and nearly tore all my hair out. The previous stringer (professional i gather) somehow threaded the string back through one of the twisty holes.

I know wilson and dunlop allow for bottom up. Just need the word for head

hoons
08-30-2007, 05:18 PM
ever hear of 2 piece stringing?

Sorry, forgot to mention that the grommets on this thing are ridiculouusly small. I tried on a similar racquet anout a week ago and nearly tore all my hair out trying to get the string back through. The previous stringer (professional i gather) somehow threaded the string back through one of the twisty holes.

I know wilson and dunlop allow for bottom up. Just need the word for head

knasty131
08-30-2007, 06:08 PM
Sorry, forgot to mention that the grommets on this thing are ridiculouusly small. I tried on a similar racquet anout a week ago and nearly tore all my hair out. The previous stringer (professional i gather) somehow threaded the string back through one of the twisty holes.

I know wilson and dunlop allow for bottom up. Just need the word for head

I thought that wilson didn't allow bottom up....

tbini87
08-30-2007, 06:41 PM
wilson allows bottom up and say that their racquets are strong enough for 1 piece stringing. but head racquets should be done top to bottom.

Steve Huff
08-30-2007, 07:38 PM
NO racket should be strung bottom to top (except the Prince Ring). You need to use an ATW pattern if you're going to string 1-piece, but Head recommends using a 2-piece pattern. Why they cover up the bottom holes is a mystery to me.

hoons
08-30-2007, 08:13 PM
ok. noted. any ideas on how im going to string this thing. Anyone know the racquets in talking about? I'll try to post up a pic, but it tell you the holes are so small that even getting 2 17g strings through is a struggle.

MooreTennis
08-31-2007, 04:52 AM
matt, if you want I can lend you my pathfinder - ive used it for all ive done so far and havent had a problem.

otherwise just get a nice sharp edge on the end of the string and feed it through there. or, give it to me and i'll do it :D

onkystomper
08-31-2007, 06:48 AM
Head Rackets are strong enoug to be strung bottom up. it may not be reccomended but you will not ruin the frame if it needs to be done

Richie Rich
08-31-2007, 06:53 AM
Head Rackets are strong enoug to be strung bottom up. it may not be reccomended but you will not ruin the frame if it needs to be done

just make sure you mount and secure the frame properly so you minimize the risk of warping the frame.

i still wouldn't string bottom to top though. maybe enlarge the small holes with your awl first?

tbini87
08-31-2007, 09:33 AM
Head Rackets are strong enoug to be strung bottom up. it may not be reccomended but you will not ruin the frame if it needs to be done

i think that voids the warranty or any chance of having it replaced if you brake it, so i don't think it is a good idea.

onkystomper
08-31-2007, 12:21 PM
did not say it was a good idea, just that it can be done. I know for a fact that my head racket was ok when i strung it bottom up. 6 point mounting. Also if it cracked how would anyone know how it was strung if you sent it back under warranty?? (not that it would crack if mounted correctly)

tbini87
08-31-2007, 12:45 PM
they might take your word for it... you would lie to them and tell them you did it top to bottom? and it won't just crack the first time, but you will slowly warp the frame until it cracks one day. the frame goes through a lot of warping even if you do it right, so you definately should not do it wrong.

onkystomper
08-31-2007, 12:51 PM
Again i am not suggesting it is a great idea or that lying to anyone is a good idea. Just that i strung up a head racket today and messed up with the ATW stringing, could not be bothered to start again so just did it bottom up. It was my own racket. It did not implode and the world did not stop spinning

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 01:04 PM
How many have strung rackets bottom-to-top and had them break because of it?

This seems to be one of those things that started out as a theory, where top-to-bottom stringing seems to be slightly preferable, and through word of mouth, eventually morphed into a law, that will cause your racket to be destroyed the moment you disobey it.

Wilson doesn't have any problems with people stringing the crosses from bottom-to-top, and I doubt they specifically designed some sort of "bottom-to-top-resistant-technology" into their rackets.

For example, this is from their website:
Pro Staff 6.0 Original Midsize 85
String Tension : 50-60 lbs.
String Length : 34' (ss:9') or (18'M's and 16' X's)
String Pattern : 16 x 18
Start Main : at Throat. Mains skip 7H, 9H, 7T and 9T. Tie off M's at 6T.
One Piece : Start X's at Bottom at 7T. Top X: 7H. Tie off X's at 5H.
Two Piece : Start X's at Top at 7H. Bottom X: 7T. Tie off X's at 5H and 8T.

gjoc
08-31-2007, 03:19 PM
Wilson doesn't have any problems with people stringing the crosses from bottom-to-top, and I doubt they specifically designed some sort of "bottom-to-top-resistant-technology" into their rackets.

Then why is their recommendation for two-piece (where they can choose either direction just as easily) top-down?

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 03:27 PM
Then why is their recommendation for two-piece (where they can choose either direction just as easily) top-down?
Someone flipped a coin? I don't know, you'd have to ask them. They are obviously not concerned about bottom-to-top stringing or else they wouldn't instruct you to do it when stringing one-piece.

gjoc
08-31-2007, 03:34 PM
did not say it was a good idea, just that it can be done. I know for a fact that my head racket was ok when i strung it bottom up. 6 point mounting. Also if it cracked how would anyone know how it was strung if you sent it back under warranty?? (not that it would crack if mounted correctly)

They would know by the way that it was cracked, actually.

Also, may I just point out that, “your racquet not exploding in your face on the machine,” doesn’t necessarily translate to “knowing for a fact that everything is okay.”

Only the most egregious damage will ever be visible externally.

Most structural damage that occurs to frames is strictly internal, and is only apparent as a degradation of feel in the racquet when hitting with it.

gjoc
08-31-2007, 03:40 PM
Someone flipped a coin? I don't know, you'd have to ask them. They are obviously not concerned about bottom-to-top stringing or else they wouldn't instruct you to do it when stringing one-piece.

The fact that “they allow it” is a far cry from “they are not concerned about it.”

They obviously prefer top-down or they wouldn’t specify it that way when they have the opportunity to choose either way.

Obviously, the racquet manufacturer has only one interest is specifying a preferred direction, and that’s the health of the racquet.

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 03:51 PM
They would know by the way that it was cracked, actually.

Also, may I just point out that, “your racquet not exploding in your face on the machine,” doesn’t necessarily translate to “knowing for a fact that everything is okay.”

Only the most egregious damage will ever be visible externally.

Most structural damage that occurs to frames is strictly internal, and is only apparent as a degradation of feel in the racquet when hitting with it.
I'd trust an x-ray showing internal damage, not someone claiming a degradation of feel.

There is a lot of talk of all this alleged internal damage that happens every time you string a racket, or even every time you hit a ball. I haven't seen a shred of hard evidence to support such notions.

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 04:00 PM
The fact that “they allow it” is a far cry from “they are not concerned about it.”No, I believe that the correct quote would be "they instruct you to do it".

They obviously prefer top-down or they wouldn’t specify it that way when they have the opportunity to choose either way.Oh, you asked them already? That was quick. Care to post their response?

In any event, even if they do prefer one method to the other, it is obviously not a particularly strong preference, or else they would not instruct people to string bottom-to-top when stringing one-piece.
Obviously, the racquet manufacturer has only one interest is specifying a preferred direction, and that’s the health of the racquet.They specified two preferred directions. They could just as easily have said that one-piece stringing is not recommended, or it is only recommended with an ATW pattern, or they could have designed their rackets so that the mains finish at the top to allow for easy top-to-bottom stringing when doing it one-piece.

gjoc
08-31-2007, 04:42 PM
They could just as easily have said that one-piece stringing is not recommended

They could have, like other companies do (Head, Prince, etc.), but they’d rather just appease the stringers out there who are too lazy to do it right.

or they could have designed their rackets so that the mains finish at the top to allow for easy top-to-bottom stringing when doing it one-piece.

That would mean they’d end up there for two-piece stringing too, which would be a less than preferable arrangement for the otherwise preferred, and required for hybrid, two-piece configuration.

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 04:52 PM
They could have, like other companies do (Head, Prince, etc.), but they’d rather just appease the stringers out there who are too lazy to do it right.So you are an official Wilson spokesman are you?
That would mean they’d end up there for two-piece stringing too, which would be a less than preferable arrangement for the otherwise preferred, and required for hybrid, two-piece configuration.What difference does it make where the mains end up for two-piece stringing?

gjoc
08-31-2007, 05:05 PM
So you are an official Wilson spokesman are you?

Oh, that reminds me, you also shouldn’t stick your finger into the electical outlet, and you shouldn’t touch the burner on the stove when it’s on.

(I’m also the spokesman for Virginia Power and for GE.)

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 05:22 PM
Oh, that reminds me, you also shouldn’t stick your finger into the electical outlet, and you shouldn’t touch the burner on the stove when it’s on.

(I’m also the spokesman for Virginia Power and for GE.)
This is a meaningless post if there ever was one. You claimed to know why Wilson instructed people to string from bottom-to-top with one-piece stringing. In order for you to be able to proclaim such a thing, you would either have to have been informed by someone who is authorized to speak for Wilson, or be authorized to speak for Wilson yourself.

If you think your electrical outlet post is even remotely analogous; it is not.

Have you ever stopped to consider why stringing from top-to-bottom is generally considered preferable? The usual answer is that it puts less stress on the top of the head, and the top of the head isn't as strong because it isn't reinforced by the throat.

So what is the exact difference in stress levels? Have you ever measured it? Has anyone? How much stress can a typical frame handle before failure?

What if it is something like this for a typical racket?

Stress to upper hoop when stringing from top to bottom = 1.0
Stress to upper hoop when stringing from bottom to top = 1.1
Stress that upper hoop can handle before failure = 10

So then what?

I look at it like this: no one seems to have any hard data, people string rackets from bottom to top all the time without damage, and Wilson, who is probably the #1 racket manufacturer in the world (correct me if I'm wrong) actually instructs folks to string from bottom to top when doing a one-piece stringing.

gjoc
08-31-2007, 05:35 PM
What if it is something like this for a typical racket?

Stress to upper hoop when stringing from top to bottom = 1.0
Stress to upper hoop when stringing from bottom to top = 1.1
Stress that upper hoop can handle before failure = 10

So then what?

And given that scenario, what would be your rationale for willfully, albeit needlessly, selecting the worst possible choice?

Do you just hate your customers?

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 05:48 PM
And given that scenario, what would be your rationale for willfully, albeit needlessly, selecting the worst possible choice?

Do you just hate your customers?
Given that scenario, the difference is negligible. I would base my decision regarding how to string the racket on things that were not negligible.

Do you think that people should try to hit the ball as lightly as possible, given that the harder you hit the ball, the more stress you are placing on the racket? If someone has the choice between hitting a 25 MPH serve and a 100 MPH serve and they choose the 100 MPH serve, what is their "rationale for willfully, albeit needlessly, selecting the worst possible choice?"

gjoc
08-31-2007, 06:00 PM
If someone has the choice between hitting a 25 MPH serve and a 100 MPH serve and they choose the 100 MPH serve, what is their "rationale for willfully, albeit needlessly, selecting the worst possible choice?"

You’re not following--A 25 mph serve and a 100 mph serve aren’t the same thing.

If you like, how about hitting the 100 mph serve off the sweet spot of the strings, versus hitting a 100 mph serve by shanking it and shearing the strings.

Why would you deliberately choose the latter, if you were given a choice?

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 06:09 PM
You’re not following--A 25 mph serve and a 100 mph serve aren’t the same thing.No, it is you who is not following. Here are the points of the analogy:

Hitting the ball harder places more stress on the frame, but still generally well within the upper limits of what the frame can handle.

Stringing the crosses from bottom to top places more stress on the frame, but still generally well within the upper limits of what the frame can handle.

If you like, how about hitting the 100 mph serve off the sweet spot of the strings, versus hitting a 100 mph serve by shanking it and shearing the strings.

Why would you deliberately choose the latter, if you were given a choice?In both cases you are hitting with the same or close to the same amount of force. See above for an explanation of the analogy.

hoons
08-31-2007, 10:59 PM
What a heated debate. So much fuss over little old me..

matt, if you want I can lend you my pathfinder - ive used it for all ive done so far and havent had a problem.

otherwise just get a nice sharp edge on the end of the string and feed it through there. or, give it to me and i'll do it :D

I wouldn't trust myself, i completely ruined my awl because i jammed it in last time, and it came out for the worse. No amount of bending it back is going to fix it.

ANd i don't think so...i saw your ad next to mine....IN COLOUR. how am i gonna compete with that???

Masamusou
08-31-2007, 11:35 PM
Someone mind telling me what Wilson's position on stringing has to do with Head's instructions? The simple matter is, Head WILL void the warranty if you string it throat up and send it back to them cracked strung that way. Head frames are known for distorting more than Wilson frames (look at Ti. or LM radical OS or something like the i.S6 for example, those things distort like crazy). Prince instructs top to bottom on almost, if not all, of their frames. Same with Head. Part of the issue is the head shape itself. Wilson's head shape is a bit more symmetric than either Prince or Head. I've seen Head and Prince frames both strung bottom to top and sometimes they survived, other times they didn't. I haven't seen frames from either of those companies break while being strung top to bottom unless it was already cracked and likely to break anyway though. Head is the one making the frames, I would hope they have some kind of justified reasoning for choosing to require top to bottom. Then again, I take pride in my work, and part of that pride includes doing the job in a manner that places the least possible amount of stress on the frame during stringing. If you don't care about it, then by all means, do whatever the hell you want, doesn't hurt my feelings any. Just gives people reason to eventually take their frames to a real stringer that actually cares about the product he is giving back.

gjoc
09-01-2007, 01:46 AM
Stringing the crosses from bottom to top places more stress on the frame.

Well, at least you seem to understand that it’s worse for the frame, even if you don’t seem to care...

Steve Huff
09-01-2007, 09:42 PM
I strung one bottom-to-top and had it break on me. Fortunately, it was mine. It was in 86 or 87. I called Pro Kennex and they explained the physics of what had happened. Their customer service explained a "box" pattern and the reason why it should be used. I haven't strung another graphite racket except the Prince Ring from bottom-to-top since.