View Full Version : String Backwards
07-12-2008, 03:15 PM
Has anybody ever strung a racket backwards? (Crosses first and then mains?) It seems that it could be a little bit faster than the regular way, now that I'm thinking about it because most rackets have less mains than crosses and the different direction of the weaving could make it easier. Any thoughts?
07-12-2008, 03:19 PM
can the frame handle it ?thats the question...when u start the mains in the middle ,that is the strongest area of the racket in my mind....try it and tell us lol
also ...i dont think i can do that with a klippermate stringer because u have to thread the first main before u clamp the frame down..
You can't. Well, you have to even out the pressure on the racket by stringing the middle mains out.
Just it is not a good idea period.
07-12-2008, 03:20 PM
lol. thanks for the replies. I dont want to find out if the the frame can handle it though, thanks
07-12-2008, 07:25 PM
Q: Wouldn't it take LONGER to weave the crosses rather than the mains? However, in all of my years of stringing this concept never crossed my mind. Good call, I must admit, though.
Take care and have a good weekend-
07-12-2008, 07:33 PM
There may be less mains than crosses to weave, but you would typically have a further distance to weave (head to throat, or vice versa) and the amount of frictions added by the additional strings to cross (compare to the traditional way) could negate any time saved by having less strings to weave.
07-12-2008, 08:01 PM
Stringing backwards won't change the number of main/cross intersections - that remains the same no matter what you do. So the number of weaves over and under will not change. All stringing machines are setup to do mains first - that's why the main mounts are at 6 and 12 o'clock to prevent the frame from collapsing after the mains are installed. If you want to do the crosses first, then you must provide supports at 3 and 9 o'clock or mount your racquet turned 90 degrees.
07-12-2008, 08:03 PM
Stringing backwards won't change the number of main/cross intersections - that remains the same no matter what you do.
Maybe that's what I was trying to say. :D ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.