New One Piece stringing pattern

I have been using a one piece stringing pattern lately that will work on any racket except for Prince with side O Ports. I made a video that shows how the pattern is done here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUqVqVz0oPk&feature=youtu.be

I don't tie off an outside main with this pattern and I show how I tie off now using a VS Starting knot to reduce drawback to almost nothing. This knot is also very easy to tie on poly string. I don't think this knot is a great starting knot though unless you take some time with it.

This could be fantastic! Watching this eagerly - thanks!

Two questions - will this cause undue stress to the frame? and can this be done with a Klippermate?

I think this will cause less stress on the frame because you are not stringing so many strings in a row at the top and bottom corners of the racket. This could very easily be done on any stringer with flying clamps. If I were to have done this with flying clamps I would have tensioned the first two crosses on theshort side by double pulling, then you have a cross string to clamp the first cross on the long side. But when I finished the long side I would pull tension on each croos on the short side individually.

EDIT: All that is assuming you do not have a starting clamp. I would use the starting clamp if you have one.

Oops the video cut off before you finished the close up of the tie-off knot

Irvin said:

I think this will cause less stress on the frame because you are not stringing so many strings in a row at the top and bottom corners of the racket. This could very easily be done on any stringer with flying clamps. If I were to have done this with flying clamps I would have tensioned the first two crosses on theshort side by double pulling, then you have a cross string to clamp the first cross on the long side. But when I finished the long side I would pull tension on each croos on the short side individually.

Click to expand...

Thanks Irwin - I'll give this a try this week - much appreciated! I do have a starting clamp so I guess I would follow your exact process?

v-verb said:

Oops the video cut off before you finished the close up of the tie-off knot

Click to expand...

Sorry, It was a long video and I have a longer version that shows this pattern on two more rackets. I will make sure I get it fixed up.

no worries - this could help me a ton as I just started stringing and it's not an intuitive process for me at all.

If I can get used to your method it could make things a lot easier!!

And I think it could be a great help to a lot of stringers - esp those who hate tying knots...

I like that this method eliminates the loss of tension on the outside mains.

Hey Irvin, can you give a brief text version of the key points of the pattern? I'll try to get to this video if I can, but spending ~13-15 mins watching a video at work is probably not going to go over well

I haven't seen you post about that unraveling technique at the front of the vid. BRILLIANT!

Sure DD. I start with 7 rackets lengths for the short side and string all the mains on the short and long side. I then use the short side to string from two grommets above the outside main down with the short side and three grommets above the outside main for all the top crosses. If the mains end in the throat I string bottom up with the long side. If the mains end at the head I string top down with the long side.

EDIT: Also if the mains start in the throat I string with a short side of 7.5 racket lengths because I use a starting clamp and start with the two right side crosses. I don't like putting a starting clamp at the top because it may cause shear.

I just watched, but having a hard time figuring out the point. Sure the two outside mains have 'full' tension on them, but you are now string your crosses bottom up....isn't that the cardinal sin of stringing??

There are other ways to keep tension on the outside mains, and as the USRSA stringing guide states, tension loss on the outside mains isn't really big issue.

The racket is a Wilson and as I stated in the video I usually only do this on Wilson and Babolat rackets. Although I don't think bottom up is such a bad idea.

As far as tension loss on mains go, I don't think it is a big deal if the tension on both sides is the same. If you tie off one main and and lose tension it isn't a big deal but it isn't good either.

EDIT: If you tie off the a cross (or two, or three) with the short side you will have a short section of frame going from the outside main to the next cross. Or you end up having a long string outside the frame you tie off. If you use an ATW you have short sections of frame supporting transitions, hard weaves, blocked holes, mis weaves, and a host of other issues to deal with. I would agree two piece is still better but if you want one piece and a simple pattern without all the other usual problems I think this pattern is best.

EDIT: By the way I just strung a racket two piece top down using the same pattern. String all the mains first, then the fifth cross down and end up with the last four crosses. Had this been a racket which only skip one grommet at the head I would have strung the fourth cross down and then end up with the last three. One pattern one piece or two piece for any racket. how simple can you get?

This is pretty exciting for me as I string at low tension - 35 lbs - so for me I think there is no isue on frame stress using this method - although as Irwin stated somewhere above, this method may stress the frame even less than normal

Irvin said:

I think this will cause less stress on the frame because you are not stringing so many strings in a row at the top and bottom corners of the racket.

Click to expand...

I have always been told, and still believe, that stringing bottom up puts more stress on the top of the frame than stringing top down. I have been told this by a couple of folks who string at the top level of the game. The increase in pressure on the frame going bottom up is cumulative with each cross installed. This has and continues to be the "golden rule" for all manufacturers save Babolat.

While it's true Wilson and Babolat allow one-piece bottom up, Wilson stipulates that if two-piece is done, it should be done top down (I have not checked Babolat).

I much prefer stringing my 99S's using ATW. Unfortunately, the frame is not set up for a tie off on the cross at the top of the frame so I tie off on a main. At the bottom, I tie off on a cross. If there were a suitable grommet hole at the top of the frame, I'd just pull a couple of extra lengths of string on the short side and string the first two crosses at the top using one as a tie off.

So, I don't think this method puts less stress on the frame given that frames are recommended to be strung top down in nearly all cases (save Babolat). That said, as I've noted before stringing at a professional tournament, I see frames that have been strung so much, the paint is worn off where the string is pulled across the frame at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. I know these frames have not been handled with kit gloves by stringers and have been strung 7 ways to Sunday and still hold up. I also see more and more stringers stringing bottom up because they see it as convenient. As for me, I'll do top down using either one-piece, ATW, or two-piece.

Babolat also prefers two piece top down stringing. But I have not always been told bottom up stringing is bad for the frame. Prince just recently told me the 2 piece 50/50 is better for the frame. At one time Babolat came out with a one piece 50/50 which was approved by the USRSA for ALL Rackets! The problem with the 1 piece 50/50 method though was you blocked several holes going up the racket on each side of the frame and that long section of string on the outside of the frame caused a lot of tension loss so at one point they recommended upping the tension on the first two center crosses which caused other problems.

I too prefer (two piece) top down stringing and with all the hybrid stringing being done today you can't always use one piece. But still I am using a variation of this pattern for stringing two piece which employs top down stringing except for the top 3 or 4 crosses.

But there are many stringers that prefer one piece string patterns and a one piece pattern that works for any racket (except Prince) is worth a look.

Let me know when the fixed video is up. I watch all your videos Irvin, they're cool!

bbulla said:

I just watched, but having a hard time figuring out the point. Sure the two outside mains have 'full' tension on them, but you are now string your crosses bottom up....isn't that the cardinal sin of stringing??

There are other ways to keep tension on the outside mains, and as the USRSA stringing guide states, tension loss on the outside mains isn't really big issue.

Click to expand...

Like Irvin said, i think the main concern here is having tension symmetry across the center of the frame. If both outside are loose (due to tie off tension loss [2 pc]), it's fine as long as it's consistent.

Irvin said:

Sure DD. I start with 7 rackets lengths for the short side and string all the mains on the short and long side. I then use the short side to string from two grommets above the outside main down with the short side and three grommets above the outside main for all the top crosses. If the mains end in the throat I string bottom up with the long side. If the mains end at the head I string top down with the long side.

EDIT: Also if the mains start in the throat I string with a short side of 7.5 racket lengths because I use a starting clamp and start with the two right side crosses. I don't like putting a starting clamp at the top because it may cause shear.

Click to expand...

Thanks, this helped me consume the information much more quickly

Rabbit said:

I have always been told, and still believe, that stringing bottom up puts more stress on the top of the frame than stringing top down. I have been told this by a couple of folks who string at the top level of the game. The increase in pressure on the frame going bottom up is cumulative with each cross installed. This has and continues to be the "golden rule" for all manufacturers save Babolat.

While it's true Wilson and Babolat allow one-piece bottom up, Wilson stipulates that if two-piece is done, it should be done top down (I have not checked Babolat).

I much prefer stringing my 99S's using ATW. Unfortunately, the frame is not set up for a tie off on the cross at the top of the frame so I tie off on a main. At the bottom, I tie off on a cross. If there were a suitable grommet hole at the top of the frame, I'd just pull a couple of extra lengths of string on the short side and string the first two crosses at the top using one as a tie off.

So, I don't think this method puts less stress on the frame given that frames are recommended to be strung top down in nearly all cases (save Babolat). That said, as I've noted before stringing at a professional tournament, I see frames that have been strung so much, the paint is worn off where the string is pulled across the frame at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. I know these frames have not been handled with kit gloves by stringers and have been strung 7 ways to Sunday and still hold up. I also see more and more stringers stringing bottom up because they see it as convenient. As for me, I'll do top down using either one-piece, ATW, or two-piece.

Click to expand...

I think from a theoretical standpoint all the above is correct. It'd be exaggerated on a 2 point mount, too, I think. There indeed is less direct stress put on the 10/2 with this method... there's no string (at first) on these areas! The issue we run into is when the string compresses the horizontal axis, stretching the frame (towards 12/6). If you look at the way the outside mounts are designed, there is actually no support IF the frame gets stretched. This indeed is the worst case for the exaggerated bends at 10/2. This is extremely unlikely to happen, though, as you likely mounted the frame in its "resting" state/shape, and the frame is pre-compressed (within limits of mounting movement) prior to cross strings going in. Long story short (combined with friction loss in woven cross strings), it's unlikely to ever be exaggerated enough to where the 10/2 is truly an issue. It's friendlier (theoretically) to string top down, and I will continue to do so, but I see no immediate issues with any non-standard patterns -- we can dissect them and take the best out of every non-standard pattern, as far as I'm concerned

Short story: Most racquets are extremely tough as it is, and a properly mounted frame shouldn't ever REALLY be at risk. The purpose of manufacturer warranties is really to cover gross manufacturing defects, and gross defects should show themselves even properly strung. I consider stringing a 'craft' though, and experimentation like this is always interesting to see. I don't always stick to 'standard' patterns, myself.

diredesire said:

... There indeed is less direct stress put on the 10/2 with this method... there's no string (at first) on these areas! The issue we run into is when the string compresses the horizontal axis, stretching the frame (towards 12/6). If you look at the way the outside mounts are designed, there is actually no support IF the frame gets stretched. This indeed is the worst case for the exaggerated bends at 10/2...

Click to expand...

Well I sort of agree but there is stress on the frame initially at the four corners (10, 2, 4, and 8 o'clock.) in the racket I strung it was a 16 main racket that skipped 7 and 9 head and throat those four corners are from about grommet hole 6 to 11 at the head and throat. If you use a normal pattern you string grommets 6 to 11 (either at the head or throat) consecutively. Tis put a lot of stress on two of the four weakest points in the frame. If I string it two pie normally I would tension 6, 8, and 10 strininging the mains followed immediately by 7, 9, and 11 for the first three crosses. 6 strings in 6 grommets within about 2" of frame space. That's a lot of pressure on those corners.

I you use my this new method (strininging two piece) you will tension strings in grommets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 etc gradually moving the stress down the racket. At the end you tension 11, 9, and 7. I agree top down is better but not necessarily from the top cross down.

I need to make another video showing the knot and the two piece pattern using this method. I will do that tonight.

EDIT: Won't get a chance to finish that video tonight will be at least tomorrow.

Hi Irvin, your pattern is remind me to my own string pattern. it pretty the same with your new string pattern. only the different is your string pattern is started at 4th cross from bottom (in your video) or from top if the last main finish at the top of the racket.

my own string pattern for the short side is only 1st at the bottom or the top (depend on where the last main end). and the long side is the rest of the cross.

my pattern is more simple but it take much stress of the racket at 8 and 4 a clock... I would like to make a video of it but my english is not good. I am from Indonesia. if I use my bahasa I don't think anyone would understand.

I use this pattern to avoid last main tie off. so the tie off string would be at cross string.

BTW thank's for the new insight. I will try it the next my string broke.

I never thought would start the cross at 4th cross. and your new pattern answer the problem with new graphene speed and instinct that last 2 main is shared grommet with 2 first cross.

Thanks again Irvin.

I used to do just what you are talking about for rackets that end at the top. use the short side for the top one or two crosses. But I believe that presents a problem when there is a short section of frame supporting the bend from the long side to the crosses. Your long side goes from (with the racket I used) grommet 10 to 9 or 10 to 11. 9 and 11 are cross grommet holes spaced a normal distance apart while 10 has short spacing to either. But I got this ides doing just what you're talking abut and wondered how I could avoid that short transition, keep the tie off lengths of string on the outside of the frame as short as possible, and avoid all hard weaves.

I added another video that shows a close up of how I tighten knots to reduce drawback. I also show my preferred pattern (two piece) that uses the same technique as the one piece except I always string two piece from top to bottom. The video is loading now and should be available shortly at the url below.

http://youtu.be/b12dZZimCE0

Two piece top down has always been my preferred method, but I shared the one piece pattern for those who want to have fewer knots and string one piece, and do not like to use ATW patterns.

Hi Irvin.

This is an interesting pattern.

The issue with the short section of frame supporting the bend from the long side to the crosses is also interesting. I will comment on this once I have seen more members opinions.

At the moment I think that there is a tiny problem with the starting method though.

At 02:16, you do address the issue that the second main on the right is not at reference tension. However it is a bit more complicated than just having 3 strings (2L, 1L & 1R) at reference tension and 2R at something less than reference tension.

You have remarked that there will be friction between 1R and 2R at the head of the frame. This is definitely correct. However, this grommet/string friction/sliding is not enough to stop zero tension loss on string 1R.

Instead of (2L, 1L & 1R) being at reference and 2R at less than reference, it will be:

2R is less than reference. In fact it is actually at less than reference plus whatever tension is gained from the string sliding back towards 2R from 1R.
1R is at reference minus whatever tension is lost through friction/sliding between 1R and 2R.
1L is at reference minus whatever tension is lost through friction/sliding between 1R and 1L.
2L is at reference minus whatever tension is lost through friction/sliding between 1L and 2L.

Obviously as you install more mains on the left, the tension gets closer and closer to reference. The fact that you are also using a constant pull machine will make the above observations even smaller. Also, the type, shape and surface coating of the string will have an effect.

One simple solution to counteract this is to set the right hand side fixed clamp on the 2R string at the head of the racket before pulling tension on the 1R string from the throat.

This is something you have already addressed in previous videos of yours. You describe it well in your Yusuki method / Starting clamp video at 01:50.

I know that this is an incredibly minor thing, which probably in practice has very little effect on the overall stringjob, however the very same thing was pointed out to me by stringers that have decades of knowledge on me.

Please do not take the above as a criticism, it is something I thought would be interesting to share.

Also, when I get more time, I will make a video of my starting method which I have not seen posted on TT yet.

ProStringing

Prostringing you said a mouthful but you comments are based on a bad assumption I think. many times stringer pull tension on two mains where both mains are in the gripper and 1/2 tension is supported by each string. I did not do that. I clamped 2RM with a starting clamp outside the frame and pulled only 1RM. Therefore 1RM has full reference tension.

Because of the frame section grommet friction between 1RM and 2 RM the 2RM sting is something less than reference tension, how much will depend on the string, friction, and reference tension. But as when 1RM was pulled at reference tension there was an equilibrium (per sy) between 1RM and 2RM and unless 1RM or 2RM is subsequently pulled at something more than the initial reference tension that friction will stop any bleeding or tension loss between those two strings (1RM and 2RM.) I hope that makes sense to you if not let me know.

if I were to have started the mains with the Yusuki method where two strings are pulled at the same time you would be correct.

EDIT:

ProStringing said:

...Also, when I get more time, I will make a video of my starting method which I have not seen posted on TT yet.

ProStringing

Click to expand...

I would interested in seeing any new methods of stringing.

Irvin,

Thank you for taking the time to produce your videos. I find them informative.

A couple of questions, not necessarily related to your pattern but, rather, your technique.

1. Why do you use the fastest speed pull setting on your Wise and not the slowest or medium?

2. What is the importance of holding tension on the tail of the knot until after you've released the near and far (second) clamp? Is is simply to reduce tension loss on the final tie-off due to the knot sliding down the anchor string?

3. In the last video you posted with the Babolat frame, what is the purpose of the last tool you removed from sitting on your completed stringbed at the very end of the video? I have one, but I've never used it.

Thanks!

JetFlyr said:

Irvin,

Thank you for taking the time to produce your videos. I find them informative.

A couple of questions, not necessarily related to your pattern but, rather, your technique.

1. Why do you use the fastest speed pull setting on your Wise and not the slowest or medium?

2. What is the importance of holding tension on the tail of the knot until after you've released the near and far (second) clamp? Is is simply to reduce tension loss on the final tie-off due to the knot sliding down the anchor string?

3. In the last video you posted with the Babolat frame, what is the purpose of the last tool you removed from sitting on your completed stringbed at the very end of the video? I have one, but I've never used it.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Easy questions.

1) I do use the slowest speed not the fastest. I do this because I think a slower speed works better at stretching the string.

2) I find that when holding the tag end up while removing the clamp helps to eliminate drawback.

3) I should have explained that tool but I was trying to keep my time down. It is called a string puller. I had Hurricane Tour string in the crosses and natural gut mains and I half pre ran in the top crosses. I did not have any slack built into the outside of the frame and it is difficult to pull that poly with nothing to pull with. So I used the hook on the string puller to snag and pull the poly through one main at a time for each top cross then pulled tension and moved on to the next string doing the same for each string. In hind sight it would have been better to not run in those top crosses but weave then one at a time and pull them through just like I do at the bottom.

EDIT: Sorry my mistake that tool is a string mover not a string puller.

Irvin

I can agree with what Prostringing has said. And here's my explanation:-

You (starting) clamp on the outside of 2RM at the throat. You then pull tension on 1 RM from the throat. This means you pull tension on 2 strings, 1RM & 2RM and full reference tension is not applied to 1RM. So when you re-tension 2RM (to remove the starting clamp), you're simply pulling tension of the same 2 strings you tensioned at the beginning.

From what you've said to prostringing, the method you used means that 1RM will be at reference, while 2RM will be less. This isn't right as what you did is double pull i.e. pull 2 strings at once which will give a lower (required) tension. In fact you did this twice.

Regards

Paul

uk_skippy said:

Irvin

I can agree with what Prostringing has said. And here's my explanation:-

You (starting) clamp on the outside of 2RM at the throat. You then pull tension on 1 RM from the throat. This means you pull tension on 2 strings, 1RM & 2RM and full reference tension is not applied to 1RM. So when you re-tension 2RM (to remove the starting clamp), you're simply pulling tension of the same 2 strings you tensioned at the beginning.

From what you've said to prostringing, the method you used means that 1RM will be at reference, while 2RM will be less. This isn't right as what you did is double pull i.e. pull 2 strings at once which will give a lower (required) tension. In fact you did this twice.

Regards

Paul

Click to expand...

beg to differ with you Paul. Let's say I am pulling 60 lbs of tension on a string. At what point on that string do you think the tension will drop to 30 lbs?

EDIT: Before you and Prostringing start arguing this point make you should take another look at the video at 1:05 where I tension 1RM. I believe both of you think I am pulling two strings but I only pull one. When I pull tension on 2RM again I am only pulling one string.

Irvin said:

beg to differ with you Paul. Let's say I am pulling 60 lbs of tension on a string. At what point on that string do you think the tension will drop to 30 lbs?

EDIT: Before you and Prostringing start arguing this point make you should take another look at the video at 1:05 where I tension 1RM. I believe both of you think I am pulling two strings but I only pull one. When I pull tension on 2RM again I am only pulling one string.

Click to expand...

I have watched the pull at 1:05 and I don't see how you are not pulling tension on both 1RM and 2RM with this pull. You have only 1 string in your gripper, the one from 1RM, but tension is being pulled on it and on 2RM isn't it? What am I missing?

Irvin said:

beg to differ with you Paul. Let's say I am pulling 60 lbs of tension on a string. At what point on that string do you think the tension will drop to 30 lbs?

EDIT: Before you and Prostringing start arguing this point make you should take another look at the video at 1:05 where I tension 1RM. I believe both of you think I am pulling two strings but I only pull one. When I pull tension on 2RM again I am only pulling one string.

Click to expand...

Irvin

re: point above - I've not said that you'll get half of the tension over 2 strings. So you example of 60lbs etc is moot. Were a stringer to double pull 2 strings i.e. 2 strings at once with 1 piece of string in the tensionhead, I think it's been agreed that each string won't have 1/2 the tension. It'll be near the reference tension, but not the reference tension. While pulling 2 strings at once with both ends in the tensionhead still won't have half the reference tension, I would summise that it would lower than the previous method I've described.


re : point 2 - having looked again at your vid, and 1:05 as requested, you are pulling tension on 1RM. With that I agree. But the anchor for 1RM is on 2RM at the throat. So inbetween the starting clamp you have the string for 2RM, which goes around the grommets at the head of the rqt, and the string for 1RM. When you tension 1RM you are pulling all the string between the tension head and the starting clamp, i.e. 2 complete strings. If you think you're only applying tension to 1RM only, then you are mistaken. But you know that when you make that initial pull on 1RM tension is being applied to 2RM as you mention in your vid that "1RM has reference tension, but 2RM has less than reference tension"

When you apply tension to 2RM, again, I agree that you're only pulling on 1 string. But there's no direct anchor clamp for it so you'll be pulling 2RM & 1RM (at least).

Looking at the way you've used your fixed clamps, there seems to be no reason to use the L clamp onto R strings. If you used R clamp initially, then the pull to 2RM would be better that it currently is, but you'd still be pulling on 2RM & 1RM.


While the intention of this thread maybe to show a different 1 piece pattern, the starting procedure is flawed.

Regards

paul

Beernutz you are correct I am pulling tension on both strings but the 180 degree turn at 1H & 2H creates some friction and reduces the tension on 2RM. I don't know what the tension is on 2RM bit it's is something less than reference. I could measure it if you want but don't see any real reason. 1RM is the only string that is pulled at reference tension.

When using the Yusuki method for starting mains you pull two strings at the same time. When this is done, and I think that's what Paul and Prostringing believe I am doing, each string will have 50% of reference tension.

I've gone back and watched the video again and agree that the starting pulls are not going to yield proper tension.

I also think you're solving a problem which simply doesn't exist. What empirical data do you have that indicates more stress is placed on the 10 & 2 o'clock grommets and that a bottom up stringing would yield less? I think you've made a supposition that really has no foundation.

Stringing top down is done because the throat of the frame has more structural rigidity than the crown of the head due to the throat of the frame. Starting the strings at the top of the frame and stringing toward the throat pushes all the stress of stringing toward the throat. So, stringing top down yields less pressure on the top of the frame than stringing throat up.

I fully understand that today's frames are stronger, better, etc. But, there is a reason every manufacturer prefers top down stringing. Head & Yonex void warranties for improper stringing and stick by that.

Finally, in all endeavors, I subscribe to the KISS method. I think a one-piece, ATW, or two-piece are much simpler solutions and exact much less stress on the frame.

I'm not trying to be negative, but I really don't see a problem with undue stress when stringing a racquet in the recommended top down method.

Irvin said:

Beernutz you are correct I am pulling tension on both strings but the 180 degree turn at 1H & 2H creates some friction and reduces the tension on 2RM. I don't know what the tension is on 2RM bit it's is something less than reference. I could measure it if you want but don't see any real reason. 1RM is the only string that is pulled at reference tension.

When using the Yusuki method for starting mains you pull two strings at the same time. When this is done, and I think that's what Paul and Prostringing believe I am doing, each string will have 50% of reference tension.

Click to expand...

I'll jump in here, No, neither of them said that. What they did say was that pulling two mains at the same time ---- even though you only pull one string end in the gripper ---- will yield less than reference tension. It will be more than pulled tension / 2 (Yusuki), but it will not be 100% pulled tension. This is the flaw in your start.

Paul Prostrining said the strings would have 1/2 reference tension and you said you agreed so I guess I was just confused. What you just said for the most part is somewhat true so I will just let it drop.

Irvin said:

Paul Prostrining said the strings would have 1/2 reference tension and you said you agreed so I guess I was just confused. What you just said for the most part is somewhat true so I will just let it drop.

Click to expand...

Irvin, Prostringing said that the strings would be less than reference not 1/2 reference. I started my post by saying I agreed as I didn't what to quote his whole post.

While I hadn't commented on the method outlined here, I would have to agree with Rabbit about the pattern. Wilson frames like this can be strung bottom up, but it's easier to run the SS outside main to the bottom 2 crosses, and the LS to the 3rd cross. This will have the same affect of maintaining tension on the outside mains. With Babolats I'd run just the bottom cross off the SS main. This should still hold tension.

However, for clarity, I would only string this way if I absolutely had to. I'd normally string ATW.

Regards

Paul

Prostringing said, "2R is less than reference. In fact it is actually at 1/2 reference plus whatever tension is gained from the string sliding back towards 2R from 1R." You agreed so tell me 2R gets to 1/2 reference to start and how the string slides back from 1R towards 2R. I am at a loss here trying to understand what you're saying.

I do agree the methods you use will keep tension on the outside mains. I'm suggesting and sharing a simple pattern that will work on any racket (not recommending although I prefer it over ATW) and easy to use with any type of stringer whether it be swivel, flying or a glide bar clamp machine.

EDIT: Actually I took Prostringing's quote a little out of context. I believe he was talking about at the 2:16 point in the video when only the four center strings had some tension whatever that tension may be.

Rabbit said:

I'll jump in here, No, neither of them said that. What they did say was that pulling two mains at the same time ---- even though you only pull one string end in the gripper ---- will yield less than reference tension. It will be more than pulled tension / 2 (Yusuki), but it will not be 100% pulled tension. This is the flaw in your start.

Click to expand...

Ok if there is a flaw I you have my interest. I conced 2RM will have less tension than 1RM when I start. I concede because of friction at string bends 1RM will be less than reference tension as well as any other string you pull. But When I am pulling directly on a string connected to the tensioner I am considering that tension being pulled on the string to be reference tension. Actually made a video that proved as your angle increases there is more friction and less tension being pulled. But when I pull directly on a string I considere that tension to be reference.

I believe the angles for 1RM and 1LM are the same so if each is pulled directly they will each be the same tension.

I believe the angles for 2LM and 2RM are the same and if each is pulled directly they will each be the same tension although they may be different from other strings.

So tell me more about this flaw I am all ears.

EDIT: Also I first pulled 1RM to reference tension and clamped At that point in time the string started relaxing and losing tension because the tensioner was disconnected. Then I pulled 1LM to reference tension which will now be more than 1RM because of the relax but you will always see that. Then 2LM followed by 2RM, if they are each individually pulled the same, where is the noticeable difference in tensions other than the normal stretching.

EDIT: Also pulling no more than one string ahead on either side equalizes the tension loss in adjacent strings and provides a more equalized tension on like strings on bothe sides of the racket as opposed to the 3-6 main pulling method which is fine too if you prefer that method. I showed that in one of my videos too.

Interesting pattern. Reminiscent of a 50/50.

Thanks for posting.

drakulie said:

Interesting pattern. Reminiscent of a 50/50.

Thanks for posting.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that is where I got the idea nothing is original any more. Guess I could call this a 60/40. The problem with the old 50/50 was the long strings on the outside of the frame and the blocked holes this gets around those issues.

Irvin said:

Ok if there is a flaw I you have my interest. I conced 2RM will have less tension than 1RM when I start. I concede because of friction at string bends 1RM will be less than reference tension as well as any other string you pull. But When I am pulling directly on a string connected to the tensioner I am considering that tension being pulled on the string to be reference tension. Actually made a video that proved as your angle increases there is more friction and less tension being pulled. But when I pull directly on a string I considere that tension to be reference.

I believe the angles for 1RM and 1LM are the same so if each is pulled directly they will each be the same tension.

I believe the angles for 2LM and 2RM are the same and if each is pulled directly they will each be the same tension although they may be different from other strings.

So tell me more about this flaw I am all ears.

EDIT: Also I first pulled 1RM to reference tension and clamped At that point in time the string started relaxing and losing tension because the tensioner was disconnected. Then I pulled 1LM to reference tension which will now be more than 1RM because of the relax but you will always see that. Then 2LM followed by 2RM, if they are each individually pulled the same, where is the noticeable difference in tensions other than the normal stretching.

EDIT: Also pulling no more than one string ahead on either side equalizes the tension loss in adjacent strings and provides a more equalized tension on like strings on bothe sides of the racket as opposed to the 3-6 main pulling method which is fine too if you prefer that method. I showed that in one of my videos too.

Click to expand...

I give, you're right, the whole stringing world to this point has been putting too much stress on the 10 & 2, pulling one string at a time is stupid. I am glad that I string my own frames.

Rabbit said:

I give, you're right, the whole stringing world to this point has been putting too much stress on the 10 & 2, pulling one string at a time is stupid. I am glad that I string my own frames.

Click to expand...

LOL - Never ever not even once have I ever said you should double pull to tension two strings at a time with the exception of using a starting knot to start crosses when using flying clamps and that is a bad idea (but better than some alternatives.)

Irvin said:

LOL - Never ever not even once have I ever said you should double pull to tension two strings at a time with the exception of using a starting knot to start crosses when using flying clamps and that is a bad idea (but better than some alternatives.)

Click to expand...

Just once more, cause I'm a glutton for punishment, and then I'm done.

In the provided video, at 1:04 in, you put a starting clamp on a main string; 2R I believe you refer to it as.. On the adjacent main string 1R, you pull tension. Prior to this, I think everyone will agree that neither 1R or 2R have tension on them.

To recap: 2R has a starting clamp. 1R is in the tensioner. Neither have tension on them. You push the activation button on the Wise 2086 and it pulls tension.

The $64,000 question is, would that be deemed as pulling tension on two main strings at once? I understand what you've said and I should not believe my lying eyes, but damned if it doesn't look like you are pulling tension on two strings at once. These two strings do not have the tension set on the Wise, they have something less than that.

You then install the mains and pull tension on 1L. You release the clamp that was holding 1R to set it on 1L. At that point in time, in my feeble mind, tension will equalize somewhat on those two strings and neither will have the same tension they would have had they been pulled --- one at a time -- and clamped.

Yet you say that you are not pulling tension on two strings at once? What am I missing? The fact that you go back and pull tension on 2R to release the starting clamp does not negate the lack of proper tension on 1R and subsequent loss of tension on 1L.

And to end my participation, I still haven't seen proof that there is less stress on 10 & 2 stringing top down than stringing bottom up which is exactly what you do. Every manufacturer prefers top down due to the fact that top down provides the least amount of stress on the frame. Bottom up yields more cumulative pressure on the frame in a spot where it has less support; i.e. the top of the frame has a less supported arc than the bottom of the frame which has the two shoulders of the frame supporting it and less area in the arc.

Yet somehow you've decided that there's too much stress doing it this way and I've yet to see any proof of that which is your whole basis in doing this in the first place. Again, where are your measurements of stress on the frame going in either direction? I can only assume that manufacturers who prefer or mandate top down have done studies because of warranty failures and have used machines to test the limits of their frames. Hence their recommendation or mandate of stringing top down, ATW, or two-piece.

Personally, I don't play around with client's racquets when stringing them. I string them using the safest and most proven way regardless of convenience. I don't look to reinvent the wheel or build a watch simply because someone asked me what time it was.

Sorry if this seems brusque, but your "all ears" was confrontational and your post indicating that you "never ever not even once" said pulling two mains is good when you did it on camera just got the old dorsal fin up. And again, I am glad I string my own.

Irvin said:

Prostringing said, "2R is less than reference. In fact it is actually at 1/2 reference plus whatever tension is gained from the string sliding back towards 2R from 1R." You agreed so tell me 2R gets to 1/2 reference to start and how the string slides back from 1R towards 2R. I am at a loss here trying to understand what you're saying.

Click to expand...

Irvin, I missed that bit, sorry. But my general statement of "I agree with Prostringing" (in general) stands. What I'm trying to say, and thought I had is that the tension on that 1st pull of 1RM & 2RM is not going to be a reference because you are pulling 2 strings at the same time. Furthermore you said that "1RM is the only string pulled at reference tension", clearly it isn't as, and again I raise the point, you are pulling 2 strings at once.

So in general terms, I agree in essence what Prostringing is saying even if his actual specifics aren't quite right; and to argue semantics when clearly the method is flawed and inaccurate, is pointless.

Rabbit

I'm with you on this one. All good points, well made.

Let me also make this suggestion:-

I have a piece of string 6" long which I tension to 50lbs. The string will give a certain pitch when plucked.

I now have a piece of string 12". If I tension it also to 50lbs, will it have the same pitch as the 1st string? No. Basic physics says I need a higher tension (X l bs) to get the same pitch.

I now take my 12" piece of string and put a small tube in the middle of it, so the string forms a U shape. What tension do I apply to 1 end to get the same pitch as the 1st string? 50lbs? Xlbs? You could say 50lbs as I'm dealing with 2 x 6". But I'm actually pulling the full length of 12"; plus the tube will create friction.

This is what we have here.

Rabbit said:

Just once more, cause I'm a glutton for punishment, and then I'm done. ... To recap: 2R has a starting clamp. 1R is in the tensioner. Neither have tension on them. You push the activation button on the Wise 2086 and it pulls tension.

The $64,000 question is, would that be deemed as pulling tension on two main strings at once? ...

Click to expand...

had I stopped at that point yes but I would only have reference tension on 1RM and something less n 2RM.

Rabbit said:

I understand what you've said and I should not believe my lying eyes, ... You then install the mains and pull tension on 1L. You release the clamp that was holding 1R to set it on 1L. At that point in time, in my feeble mind, tension will equalize somewhat on those two strings ...

Click to expand...

I think this will happen: because 1RM has reference tenion and the combination of the friction between 1RM and 2RM and unknown tension on 2RM there will be no sliding action at the friction point (1RM & 2RM.) When tension is pulled on 1LM and the clamp is released still no sliding action between 1RM and 2RM. and when I pull tension on 2LM still nothing. But don't just take my word for it. I ran a little test and marked the string 2RM at the top grommet after pulling 1RM and the mark never moved. Try it for yourself.

uk_skippy said:

Irvin, I missed that bit, sorry. But my general statement of "I agree with Prostringing" (in general) stands. What I'm trying to say, and thought I had is that the tension on that 1st pull of 1RM & 2RM is not going to be a reference because you are pulling 2 strings at the same time. Furthermore you said that "1RM is the only string pulled at reference tension", clearly it isn't as, and again I raise the point, you are pulling 2 strings at once.

So in general terms, I agree in essence what Prostringing is saying even if his actual specifics aren't quite right; and to argue semantics when clearly the method is flawed and inaccurate, is pointless.

Click to expand...

Paul I agree with one exception the tensioner pulls (reference) tension on 1RM. 1RM pulls through a friction point and pulls some unknown tension on 2RM.

I just made another little test. I pulled tension on 1RM connect to digital scale connected to the standard on and read 58 lbs. I then moved the scale to the lower standard and pulled tension on 1RM connect through the two grommets 1 & 2 at the top the scale read 46.5 lbs. therefor, that friction point reduced the tension on the second main by about 25% but that does not matter. I then tied the scale with a string on each end. One string ran through 1T to the tensioner and the string on the other end of the string went through grommets 1H - 2H - 2T - starting clamp. Then pulled tension. If 1RM does not get reference tension why did the scale read 58 lbs again?

uk_skippy said:

Rabbit

I'm with you on this one. All good points, well made.

Let me also make this suggestion:-

I have a piece of string 6" long which I tension to 50lbs. The string will give a certain pitch when plucked.

I now have a piece of string 12". If I tension it also to 50lbs, will it have the same pitch as the 1st string? No. Basic physics says I need a higher tension (X l bs) to get the same pitch.

I now take my 12" piece of string and put a small tube in the middle of it, so the string forms a U shape. What tension do I apply to 1 end to get the same pitch as the 1st string? 50lbs? Xlbs? You could say 50lbs as I'm dealing with 2 x 6". But I'm actually pulling the full length of 12"; plus the tube will create friction.

This is what we have here.

Click to expand...

You're comparing oranges and apples here now. The length of 1RM and 2RM in a tennis should never double or be cut in half unless you want to seriously damage the racket.

Let me ask a more relative question. If I want to tension a string to 50 lbs (no matter how long it is) how much weight do I need to hang on the string? If 50 lbs pulls 50 lbs of force on a 6" string do you think i would need 100 lbs to pull 50 lbs of force on a 12" string? - LOL I don't think so.

Irvin said:

had I stopped at that point yes but I would only have reference tension on 1RM and something less n 2RM.

Click to expand...

Irvin said:

Paul I agree with one exception the tensioner pulls (reference) tension on 1RM. 1RM pulls through a friction point and pulls some unknown tension on 2RM.

Click to expand...

So the (individual 1RM) string nearest the tensionhead comes out at the reference tension, but the (individual 2RM) string nearest the anchor point of the starting clamp is less than reference?

Irvin said:

I just made another little test. I pulled tension on 1RM connect to digital scale connected to the standard on and read 58 lbs. I then moved the scale to the lower standard and pulled tension on 1RM connect through the two grommets 1 & 2 at the top the scale read 46.5 lbs. therefor, that friction point reduced the tension on the second main by about 25% but that does not matter. I then tied the scale with a string on each end. One string ran through 1T to the tensioner and the string on the other end of the string went through grommets 1H - 2H - 2T - starting clamp. Then pulled tension. If 1RM does not get reference tension why did the scale read 58 lbs again?

Click to expand...

Really don't know what you talking about here.

Irvin said:

You're comparing oranges and apples here now. The length of 1RM and 2RM in a tennis should never double or be cut in half unless you want to seriously damage the racket.

Click to expand...

Again, really dont know what you're talking about? When did I mention cutting string in half. I merely gave a example of physics relating tensions, lengths and pitch of strings. In fact I didn't even say those strings where in a racquet. The strings could be outside of the tennis world, on a jig on a work bench.

Irvin said:

Let me ask a more relative question. If I want to tension a string to 50 lbs (no matter how long it is) how much weight do I need to hang on the string? If 50 lbs pulls 50 lbs of force on a 6" string do you think i would need 100 lbs to pull 50 lbs of force on a 12" string? - LOL I don't think so.

Click to expand...

If i have a 6" piece of string and a pull it with a tension of 50lbs; and then I have a 12" piece of string and a pull it with a tension of 50lbs - both strings obviously have a tension of 50lbs applied. The difference you will have is a different pitch if you twang it. And in tennis term, you'll have a different string stiffness. For the 12" string to achieve the same pitch and string stiffness it will need to be pulled using a higher tension. And this physics theory is the basis of proportional stringing; using different tensions on different length string to achieve a uniformed stringbed stiffness

So, When one strings a rqt, tension is applied to a string between to fixed points, where those points can be a starting clamp, a fixed clamp or floating clamps. Your fixed points are at either end of 2 adjoining strings. What you are implying is that the 2 fixed points that 1RM is being correctly & accurately being tension between is the tensionhead and the top of the frame where 2RM enters the grommet (or as near as).

I know what you're talking about but it does not make any sense.

Irvin said:

I know what you're talking about but it does not make any sense.

Click to expand...

Which bit can't you understand??

uk_skippy said:

Which bit can't you understand??

Click to expand...

skippy dont bother with Irvin. for whatever reason he wants to be the 'string guru authority' on TW boards even though clearly theres much more competent and able stringers such as yourself. i always appreciate your posts here when you do find the time. i agree competely with you here.

did you see that other thread where irvin claimed he could string a racket in 4min? that was pretty funny