Priority One, Stringing & Customizing, and The Hall Of Fame

[Irvin]

Originally Posted by kkm

Drak, is there a particular reason why the lower cross tieoff grommet is #11 and not #9?

It is much harder to get a second string in 9H because it is a blocked hole by the string going from 8H to 10H.

[kkm]

Originally Posted by Irvin

It is much harder to get a second string in 9H because it is a blocked hole by the string going from 8H to 10H.

I enlarge and use 8T to tie the mains. I enlarge and use 9H and 9T to tie the crosses, and enlarge both the rightside and leftside 9H and 9T, along with both 7T, so that blocked holes are not an issue.

And actually I asked why in the picture the lower cross tieoff was 11T and not 9T, not why 9H is not a tieoff (it is). If you look at the picture you will see that 9H is used as the upper cross tieoff.

[andtapes]

post error

[uk_skippy]

Unless my eyes deceive me, Dimitrov's string is gut mains/4g crosses. Other than points raised above re:tie-off positions I believe P1 tie-off poly onto poly crosses, and not poly crosses on gut mains.

Regards

Paul

[kkm]

Originally Posted by uk_skippy

Unless my eyes deceive me, Dimitrov's string is gut mains/4g crosses. Other than points raised above re:tie-off positions I believe P1 tie-off poly onto poly crosses, and not poly crosses on gut mains.

Regards

Paul

Thank you for the reply, Paul, and yes, in the racquet in the photo, the mains are gut and the crosses poly.

When stringing 2-piece I tie mains to mains and crosses to crosses.

But if the lower cross tieoff in the racquet in the photo were 9T instead of 11T it would still be poly tied onto poly, with a shorter distance from the bottom cross to the tieoff, and 9T still offers plenty of space to tie a knot.

[uk_skippy]

^^Of that I don't know, unless it was strung 3rd cross to btm cross to 2nd cross which would reduce distance to tie-off hole.

Regards

Paul

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by uk_skippy

^^Of that I don't know, unless it was strung 3rd cross to btm cross to 2nd cross which would reduce distance to tie-off hole.

Regards

Paul

kkm, this is the method I used to string Dimitrov's frames, and many other wilson frames. Main reason is to shorten distance to the tie-off.

cheers!!

[kkm]

Originally Posted by drakulie

kkm, this is the method I used to string Dimitrov's frames, and many other wilson frames. Main reason is to shorten distance to the tie-off.

cheers!!

ah ok, Wilson/RPNY-style, 3rd cross to bottom cross and 2nd cross last, thanks for explaining!

[pauliewa]

Originally Posted by kkm

ah ok, Wilson/RPNY-style, 3rd cross to bottom cross and 2nd cross last, thanks for explaining!

I just learned a few of the atw patterns and am confused by this. Anyone care to enlighten me? The ss does 3rd cross, long side main, to bottom cross, then ties off? Long side does the rest?

[kkm]

Originally Posted by pauliewa

I just learned a few of the atw patterns and am confused by this. Anyone care to enlighten me? The ss does 3rd cross, long side main, to bottom cross, then ties off? Long side does the rest?

In this case it's not a reference to any atw pattern, ss, or ls; it's just the way that the lowest crosses are done. The 3rd cross is done, then the bottom cross (skipping the 2nd cross), and last of all the 2nd cross before tying off.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by kkm

ah ok, Wilson/RPNY-style, 3rd cross to bottom cross and 2nd cross last, thanks for explaining!

Not sure what you mean by "wilson/rpny" style????? I suppose you mean they do this as well?? (sorry for confusion)

[pauliewa]

Originally Posted by kkm

In this case it's not a reference to any atw pattern, ss, or ls; it's just the way that the lowest crosses are done. The 3rd cross is done, then the bottom cross (skipping the 2nd cross), and last of all the 2nd cross before tying off.

Thanks kkm.

I realized I've strung the blx 6.1 95 and iirc the mains end at the hoop. So wasn't this racquet (strung by drakulie) using one of the atw patterns? If so, what would that pattern be exactly that does the throat the "Wilson/rpny" way?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by pauliewa

Thanks kkm.

I realized I've strung the blx 6.1 95 and iirc the mains end at the hoop. So wasn't this racquet (strung by drakulie) using one of the atw patterns?

No, it does not have an ATW pattern. It is strung two piece. (gut and poly)

Originally Posted by pauliewa

If so, what would that pattern be exactly that does the throat the "Wilson/rpny" way?

I simply skipped the second to last cross and went to the last cross, then came back up and completed the second to last cross and tied off.

I suppose wilson and rpny also use this method??

[pauliewa]

Originally Posted by drakulie

No, it does not have an ATW pattern. It is strung two piece. (gut and poly)



I simply skipped the second to last cross and went to the last cross, then came back up and completed the second to last cross and tied off.

I suppose wilson and rpny also use this method??

Hah please excuse the rook mistake! Two different color strings, and four knots and I somehow wanted to believe it was an atw with a special Wilson and RPNY take on finishing crosses...

I guess my curiosity still has me asking if this could be applied to an atw -- skip 3rd to last, do the 2nd, finish on the 3rd. If there's merit to this technique on a two piece could the same be true for this?

[kkm]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Not sure what you mean by "wilson/rpny" style????? I suppose you mean they do this as well?? (sorry for confusion)

Yup, exactly!

[kkm]

Originally Posted by pauliewa

Hah please excuse the rook mistake! Two different color strings, and four knots and I somehow wanted to believe it was an atw with a special Wilson and RPNY take on finishing crosses...

I guess my curiosity still has me asking if this could be applied to an atw -- skip 3rd to last, do the 2nd, finish on the 3rd. If there's merit to this technique on a two piece could the same be true for this?

Depends on the atw, but for simplicity let's say it's a frame with mains ending at the hoop (and doesn't need to be strung atw). For a frame like that you could do the same with the last few crosses, doing the third, skipping to the bottom, and doing the 2nd last and tying off.

I don't use this technique though, on the racquet in question, shown in the picture, "I enlarge and use 8T to tie the mains. I enlarge and use 9H and 9T to tie the crosses, and enlarge both the rightside and leftside 9H and 9T, along with both 7T, so that blocked holes are not an issue."

I just don't see the need to create a hard weave (the second cross from bottom) where not absolutely necessary.

Plus, the way I do it, going from the bottom cross, grommet #7, to the second cross, grommet #9, to tie off, it's a very short distance anyway.

[sixone90]

Originally Posted by RJYU

Since we don't have an RDC, that information would be incorrect. We use Prince machines to measure swingweight. We don't need to take an average of 10 because they are quite accurate if used and maintained properly.

Sorry my bad, I meant the Alpha not the Babolat RDC

[geekydeveloper]

Please post more pictures

[Trippisthebest]

Originally Posted by drakulie

stop by any time. Would be great to see you and catch up. Hope all is well.

Hello Drakulie, is your shop called Match Point Tennis?

[rqtguy]

Super Thread Drakulie!
Spent the last hour and a half reading it from start to finish.

Have read many articles about P1 and several in depth interviews with Nate.
You still managed to cover different ground and from a great perspective.

Just two questions:

"Every racquet I string, I keep a running log of tension, string, pattern, ERT and SBD immediately after taking the racquet off the machine. I have noticed that most times, the ERT and SBD are nearly identical regardless of machine."

Can you clarify what ERT stands for and what equip you use to measure it?

Same goes for SBD?

PS I read stuff like this whenever I can and yet none of my non stringing tennis friends believe any of it. Go figure!