PDA

View Full Version : Quick DireDesire ATW pattern question?


FuZz07
03-11-2008, 08:10 AM
This question is for anyone with knowledge of the DireDesire ATW. I wanted to know if I skipped the last cross at the throat and did a main, 2nd cross at the head, main, and then last cross at throat, then tie-off, would it be a little more consistent? I was thinking it would be since you would now be tying off after a cross on both the short and long side. Instead of a cross on the short side, and a main on the long side. Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.

YULitle
03-11-2008, 08:12 AM
I'm not sure about consistent entirely, but it would definitely make the two outer mains more consistent. :D It sound like a good idea to me. What I would do instead, is do the second cross at the top with the short side. And then start on the third with the long. This may only work well (crossover wise) on racquets with two skips on top and bottom.

FuZz07
03-11-2008, 09:15 AM
Yeah thats what I'm looking for, more cosistency on the outer mains. I don't know why it bothers me so much to have just a tiny bit less tension on that one outer main. Thanks for you input I will give that a try tonight.

ohplease
03-11-2008, 09:30 AM
I was under the impression that was what diredesire was suggesting in the first place.

In fact, I just restrung using the method he described yesterday. I'm not sure how it plays yet, but for sure his suggested pattern is way easier and way less annoying than the standard JCS 3x3 box pattern. Fewer long runs of string on the outside, and far fewer hard weaves.

YULitle
03-11-2008, 09:33 AM
I was under the impression that was what diredesire was suggesting in the first place.

In fact, I just restrung using the method he described yesterday. I'm not sure how it plays yet, but for sure his suggested pattern is way easier and way less annoying than the standard JCS 3x3 box pattern. Fewer long runs of string on the outside, and far fewer hard weaves.

What the OP is suggesting is not the JCS 3x3 box pattern, and only has one more hard weave than the DireDesire ATW. This altered version allows for tying off both ends on a cross instead of the original which was a cross and a main.

ohplease
03-11-2008, 09:39 AM
What the OP is suggesting is not the JCS 3x3 box pattern, and only has one more hard weave than the DireDesire ATW. This altered version allows for tying off both ends on a cross instead of the original which was a cross and a main.

Aren't diredesire's set of instructions at http://students.washington.edu/jdeng/ATW/finish.html?

"This pattern is great because the two tie offs are on the top and bottom cross."

Did he have an earlier version that tied off on one of the mains?

ohplease
03-13-2008, 08:10 AM
BTW, now that I've played with the restring, it needs to be said that diredesire's version of ATW seems less error prone and more likely to produce consistent tensions. At least in my hands.

I think it's got to do with the minimization of the hard weaves on the crosses, and the consistent tension on the outer mains - but that's just a guess.

YULitle
03-13-2008, 08:13 AM
Aren't diredesire's set of instructions at http://students.washington.edu/jdeng/ATW/finish.html?

"This pattern is great because the two tie offs are on the top and bottom cross."

Did he have an earlier version that tied off on one of the mains?

Sorry I missed this one the other day. It is ideal to have tie-offs on crosses because you have a better chance at consistent mains this way.

BTW, now that I've played with the restring, it needs to be said that diredesire's version of ATW seems less error prone and more likely to produce consistent tensions. At least in my hands.

I think it's got to do with the minimization of the hard weaves on the crosses, and the consistent tension on the outer mains - but that's just a guess.

I think most people would find it easier. :D

FuZz07
03-13-2008, 04:25 PM
I'm just woundering why in this pattern you do the 3rd cross instead of the 2nd with the short side? It would just seem to make sence to do the 2nd cross instead so you can just continue with the 3rd cross with the long side the rest of the way. Then the last mains and crosses would be all on the outside. Is their a reason why its the 3rd cross that you do with the short side?

FuZz07
03-13-2008, 04:31 PM
"I'm just woundering why in this pattern you do the 3rd cross instead of the 2nd with the short side?"

*I ment 1st cross with the short side.

YULitle
03-13-2008, 05:25 PM
This, I think, is what I suggested above.

FuZz07
03-13-2008, 05:32 PM
Yes, it is. I was talking about your idea, I think its better, and I was woundering why it wasn't like that in the first place.

YULitle
03-13-2008, 05:36 PM
Well, I think that it involves a bit of overlap around the shoulders. When you come back around at the end and "box" the racquet, going from main to top cross puts you across at least two maybe four grommets. It's probably not very attractive.

FuZz07
03-13-2008, 05:43 PM
Yeah, thats probably why then. I was trying to think of all the possibilities why it wouldn't work out good. That makes sence though.

diredesire
03-13-2008, 08:11 PM
It will work either way, I like using the third cross because I like to tie off on the top cross, because if a string should be looser (if not compensated for) it should be the top, not the second, in my mind. If you are compensating for tension loss, it doesn't matter either way. Although, technically it wouldn't really hurt if you tied off on the second cross. It might make weaving considerably easier on the hard weave.

Also, the original proposed method does suggest tying off the entire pattern on a cross (i.e. skip one at the bottom while going around, and finishing the pattern on the bottom cross).

All in all, it is just a modified ATW pattern, you can make minor adjustments to suit your style, there's nothing set in stone! It's just a guide to help people unfamiliar to the ATW style what can and can't be done, why, and how things work.

FuZz07
03-14-2008, 04:12 AM
Thanks Dire, it makes sence about having the tie offs in the right place. I didn't think of that. I love this pattern and use it all the time. I have recieved a lot of good feedback from my customers on how consistent it seems to feel. Well looks like I got the answers I was looking for, thanks YULitle and Dire.