box pattern question

Hi

Not sure if anyone has tried the box pattern
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leF-1wZeEeM

My question is if you have flying clamps you are forced to pull the top & bottom cross and a main at the same time since there is no string to clamp on to. Should I put tension on to the bottom cross just to get slack out that way when i put tension on main it doesn't have to pull the slack out of bottom main?



Thanks,
Phil

Phil:

Not sure why you would desire a box pattern if you only use floating clamps.
You would definately want to clamp each string individually or there would be no purpose to use this pattern, so if it must be used....

I would at least have 2 starting clamps to have a tensioned scrap string next to each beginning cross when you start the box procedure, ( A scrap string tensioned with a starting clamp on each end placed on adjacent cross position) , as this way you will have a string to clamp the floating clamp to. Once the top and bottom cross is in place you will then have an adjacent string to clamp to from that point on.

Still puzzled as to why do it that way as normal patterns work so well?

I really do not like that box pattern in that video, as the tie off strings are more important strings where you hit the ball a lot, where some other patterns just have end strings tied off.

If you want a one piece job, why not an ATW pattern? If an ATW is planned properly, you can have the top and bottom cross strings as tie offs. Try Irvin's ATW as you can use your flying clamps and also have no blocked holes. He has a nice pattern that uses the short side to go ATW.

Jim E

Thanks for the response. The main reason for the box pattern is so there is no overlapping strings. I tried the box pattern it seemed to work well. As stated in the video you would do this box pattern on a racquet where mains end at head.

It was nice not having to get strings though blocked grommets

One piece jobs where mains end at head are nice.
I usually string the top cross with the short side and tie off, as that way both top and bottom cross strings are the tie off strings.No box pattern needed.
With that box pattern, the tie off strings are at the top 1/3 of racquet right where a good % of the hitting occurs, and with all tie offs there is some drawback even with a good cinch up knot.
I rather have the parallel outside strings (never cross over them), and have tie offs in an area that never gets hit with.
In otherwords, I rather have strings at optimum preformance rather than have string job look good with no parallel strings on outside of racquet like the box pattern gives.It's a matter of preference I guess.One of the advantages of stringing your own, as you can do as you please.

I'm mainly doing it to try it out on because one way is better then another way just something new to try

i3602u said:

Jim E

Thanks for the response. The main reason for the box pattern is so there is no overlapping strings. I tried the box pattern it seemed to work well. As stated in the video you would do this box pattern on a racquet where mains end at head.

It was nice not having to get strings though blocked grommets

Click to expand...

If you use the box pattern you will have a hard weave for your last cross. If you use a short side ATW you will not have a hard weave or a blocked hole.

EDIT: And it is a little easier to string because you only have 14 tensioned mains you weave your crosses through instead of 16.

Irvin said:

If you use the box pattern you will have a hard weave for your last cross. If you use a short side ATW you will not have a hard weave or a blocked hole.

EDIT: And it is a little easier to string because you only have 14 tensioned mains you weave your crosses through instead of 16.

Click to expand...

Irvin,

Have you used this method on the prince o3 hybrid tour? Just wondering as that is what I have and I'll be stringing it on my Alpha Pioneer DC Plus.

kabrac said:

Irvin,

Have you used this method on the prince o3 hybrid tour? Just wondering as that is what I have and I'll be stringing it on my Alpha Pioneer DC Plus.

Click to expand...

Not sure what method you are talking about but if it is the box pattern the Wilson starts and ends the mains at the throat and you string the crosses from the top down. The Prince in backwards so you will end up stringing the crosses from the bottom up if you start on the correct side with your short side. Start wrong and you can't string the racket.

If you are talking about the ATW pattern the Prince's mains end at the head. The only reason to use the ATW is when the mains end at the throat so you can string the crosses top down. Start the ATW wrong and again you can't string the racket.

No matter what I prefer 2 piece stringing so I would not use the box or ATW unless it was specifically requested and then I would try my best to talk them out of it.

Irvin, were you just getting in from another night of heavy drinking, womanizing and gambling or did you just finish a racquet at 4am?

Clintspin said:

Irvin, were you just getting in from another night of heavy drinking, womanizing and gambling or did you just finish a racquet at 4am?

Click to expand...

Just got in from gambling in Tunica, ms. One out of three isn't bad for me. LOL

Irvin said:

Not sure what method you are talking about but if it is the box pattern the Wilson starts and ends the mains at the throat and you string the crosses from the top down. The Prince in backwards so you will end up stringing the crosses from the bottom up if you start on the correct side with your short side. Start wrong and you can't string the racket.

If you are talking about the ATW pattern the Prince's mains end at the head. The only reason to use the ATW is when the mains end at the throat so you can string the crosses top down. Start the ATW wrong and again you can't string the racket.

No matter what I prefer 2 piece stringing so I would not use the box or ATW unless it was specifically requested and then I would try my best to talk them out of it.

Click to expand...

The box pattern looks better(no strings overlapping each other) and I am convinced that everytime you have to overlap you will have slight tension slippage and inconsistient stringbed tension. On one of your videos, you used a one piece stringing method on an old oversized frame where you had to overlap from the bottom of the throat to almost halfway up in the stringbed. You cant tell me you will have consistient tension all along the stringbed when stringing a racquet like that?

I'm just looking for consistiency. Your thoughts? And i'm talking about the 3x3 box method. The only time I wouldn't use this method is if I were stringing natural gut at high tensions and having to deal with the sharp angles at the sides of the throat.

kabrac said:

The box pattern looks better(no strings overlapping each other) and I am convinced that everytime you have to overlap you will have slight tension slippage and inconsistient stringbed tension. On one of your videos, you used a one piece stringing method on an old oversized frame where you had to overlap from the bottom of the throat to almost halfway up in the stringbed. You cant tell me you will have consistient tension all along the stringbed when stringing a racquet like that?

I'm just looking for consistiency. Your thoughts? And i'm talking about the 3x3 box method. The only time I wouldn't use this method is if I were stringing natural gut at high tensions and having to deal with the sharp angles at the sides of the throat.

Click to expand...

That was on a 50/50 pattern. You will not have consistent tension that way. When that pattern first came out they would increase the tension on the four center crosses when doing that.

Overlaps will not lower your tension. You will lose more tension from grommet friction on the outside mains and crosses that you will overlaps. How much tension do you think is lost pulling a cross through tension mains?

I'm talking about using 1 piece. Not two seperate.

kabrac said:

I'm talking about using 1 piece. Not two seperate.

Click to expand...

It won't work if you are talking about the 50/50 method