PDA

View Full Version : another stringing method

jim e
01-05-2009, 10:02 AM
Check out this site, http://s w e e t s p o t -o p t i m i s e r.c o m /
No spaces, between the letters that are listed. You can also find this under sostab typed into a search engine.
This seems to be a proportional stringing method, also taking into consideration of cross string friction and lengths, and main strings strung as a proportional stringing, as they list it as uniform deflection, and the only way to accomplish that is to string the longer strings at a higher tension than the shorter lengths. As you all know longer strings will deflect more than a shorter one at same tension, this is just an elaborate system to determine the tensions, nothing that new but taking it more elaborate is all, and categorizing each racquet out there.Seems like an elaborate proportional stringing method is all.
On another forum, someone posted that it is hundreds of \$ for one card of tensions for 1 racquet, I really doubt that many players out there even have their racquets strung with the proportional type stringing, yet alone this.
They probably programed the different racquet patterns into a computer program, and after they determined the optimum tensions for one racquets individual pattern with respectable tensions, the others were probably then derived.
Sounds very bogus for what is charged and what you would get.
The USRSA even has a proportional stringing calculator on its web site to make a similar type of stringing on your own, so this ad does not look like anything revolutionary as it states.It is just that they are attempting to cash in on a proportional system that has been around for a while.

BTW, has anyone here ever strung and used a racquet strung with the proportional method?

bad_call
01-05-2009, 10:05 AM
i'll pass on this one thanks. the JC method works (with tweaks for strings, etc) for me. :)

drummerdan
01-05-2009, 10:19 AM
Interesting, but I would think that over time, the overall tension would work its way back to the same tension (roughly) for each string. There's no way, with this system, that each string can remain at the individual tension in which it was originally strung.

Richard Parnell
01-05-2009, 10:30 AM
I have only ever strung proportional for one player. It was used at the Madrid Masters a few years ago. Roger Federer was the player. Apparently he liked it......

jmverdugo
01-05-2009, 10:39 AM
^^ thanks for the info Mr Richard, my cristal ball says that many TW forum members will start to string their rackets this way...

AR15
01-05-2009, 11:40 AM
I don't guess that works too well with Prince o3 or Speedport frames.

SoCal10s
01-05-2009, 12:15 PM
I have only ever strung proportional for one player. It was used at the Madrid Masters a few years ago. Roger Federer was the player. Apparently he liked it......

how does this work.. can you give example? -- mains stay the same and cross strings are tensioned differently according to specs? like how?

A Defenseless Creature
01-05-2009, 12:36 PM
What I find most interesting about this is the testimonials (last two) dated March 1, 2009. Ooops! Looks like the website went live a couple of months earlier than expected and that foils the bogus testimonials...DRAT.

YULitle
01-05-2009, 12:47 PM
What I find most interesting about this is the testimonials (last two) dated March 1, 2009. Ooops! Looks like the website went live a couple of months earlier than expected and that foils the bogus testimonials...DRAT.

He's from Canada. I'm not from there, but I've heard that countries that ARE NOT the US list the date first, then the month. So, 03/01/09 is Jan. 3 '09. :D

Dags
01-05-2009, 01:08 PM
He's from Canada. I'm not from there, but I've heard that countries that ARE NOT the US list the date first, then the month. So, 03/01/09 is Jan. 3 '09. :D

Certainly in the UK 03/01/2009 is shorthand for:

The third day of the first month of the two-thousand and ninth year.

Day-Month-Year seems very natural, as it retains the units in order of size. In everyday language, we would say 'the third of January', not 'January third'.

I've never found out the origins of why it's the opposite in the US, but would be interested if anyone knows.

[/threadjack]

william7gr
01-05-2009, 02:59 PM
Couldn't this be bad for a frame?

Valjean
01-05-2009, 03:07 PM
....BTW, has anyone here ever strung and used a racquet strung with the proportional method?
I do mine that way; why?

jim e
01-05-2009, 03:24 PM
I do mine that way; why?

I was wondering if it really makes that much of a difference. I guess I wanted to hear from someone who uses it, or used it at some point, to get an input if it would be worth the effort or not.I know someone on another board "Flash9", said it got very loose and sloppy in a short amount of time, when he used it.
Seems like on the "other board" someone else devised their own type of proportional stringing, and commented how all the mains sounded the same when plucked, which can be done I'm sure with a little trial and error, he also used different formulas with different type of strings as well. Seems klie this so stab company just found a way to market the idea.

Cruzer
01-05-2009, 03:29 PM
He's from Canada. I'm not from there, but I've heard that countries that ARE NOT the US list the date first, then the month. So, 03/01/09 is Jan. 3 '09. :D

Actually the Canucks write their dates exactly the same as in the US of A. Canucks do almost everything the same as those in the US of A except they play hockey waaaaay better.

BTW, has anyone here ever strung and used a racquet strung with the proportional method?:D

Proportional stringing got quite a bit attention on these boards a few years ago and someone posted a bunch of excel spreadsheets with tension by string for proportional stringing. A tried it with a few different strings and it I didn't notice proportional stringing was signifiicantly better than the traditional method. It was different but I wouldn't say it was better from my perspective.

jim e
01-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Thanks for the input Cruzer. It was the response that I thought that I would get, as if it was worth while I'm sure there would be a great deal of this going on, especially with the pros.

Richard Parnell
01-06-2009, 04:04 AM
SOCAL10S,
If I remember correctly it was 22-23-24-25-24-23-22 (With the 25 kg mains being the 4 centre mains and working outwards). The crosses were the same decreasing tensions and the same idea working from the centre up wards and downwards. Please don't quote me on the numbers, I have got it written down somewhere, as these are from memory.

Bud
01-06-2009, 01:14 PM
i'll pass on this one thanks. the JC method works (with tweaks for strings, etc) for me. :)

What is the JC Method? :)

AR15
01-19-2009, 10:20 AM
Can anyone share the proportional string tensions for a Wilson N4 110? I'd like to try it on my wife's racquet, with a center main tension of 56lbs.

Thanks in advance.