1 piece vs 2 piece stringing

#1
Typically I prefer the feel of a one piece stringing, however when I got a new Pure Drive racket it came with a 2 piece stringing. I looked at Babolat's stringing instructions and they do recommend a 2 piece stringing and it plays very well that way, but I'm wondering if it might play even better with a 1 piece stringing.

I did some reading and discovered that it's not a good idea to string a 1 piece if the crosses weave towards the head, because it will cause hoop deflection, since the head is not as stable as the throat.

So, are there 1 piece stringing instructions for this racket? Is it a good or bad idea to string this racket 1 piece with starting the mains in the throat, instead of the head, so that the crosses wind up weaving towards the throat?
 
#2
The best way to do a one piece on that racket is to do an around the world commonly called a box pattern. Basically your short side would do the first 7 mains and the first cross. Your long side would do all 8 mains, bottom cross, go back up for 8th main on the short side, then start at 2nd cross and go down. Having said that, Babolat frames are strong, you won't have any problems stringing bottom up. Yes, it's not recommended but unless you're stringing at like 80+ pounds and stringing everyday, it won't be a problem.
 
#4
If the mains start in the throat (as this racket does) you can’t switch the starting point to the head. If I were stringing this racket with an ATW pattern, I would tie off the 7th main on the short side at 6H. Use the long side to run all the mains on the long side, the bottom cross, the 8th main on the short side, and the remaining crosses top down. Because this racket has 19 crosses make sure you weave the top and bottom crosses the same.
 
Last edited:
#5
I always do a two-piece string job unless the racquet or player specifically requires a one-piece. Two-piece is simpler and puts less stress on the strings.

But like it was already mentioned, if you want to string it one-piece, follow the instructions for the Around-The-World method Irvin said. You can also look for videos or other explanations for it online with a simple search.

And to reiterate Irvin again, you cannot switch the starting point from the throat to the head. The holes won't allow for that, especially at the throat. There are no normal one-piece stringing instructions, but using an Around-The-World pattern is completely safe and the only recommended way to string a one-piece on racquets like yours. They just don't provide them in the basic stringing instructions because it's more complicated and takes explaining in detail how to do it compared to their normal instructions.
 
#6
I prefer one-piece. From a playing standpoint it makes no difference; 1 vs 2 piece. My ATWs always tie off the short side after running the first cross I’ve always tried to never tie off on a main. Of course with a hybrid that can’t be done. On a one piece it does help maintain tension on the next to last main.
 
#7
I use 1 piece stringing because I pull strings normally from reels. Use an ATW if needed to do crosses top down. If crosses bottom up are allowed, that's what I would do. Hybrids or client request for 2 piece are done as requested. Use tie off holes as per instructions though I might swap main/cross tie offs depending on circumstances. Do not like to enlarge grommet holes for tie offs. 3¢
 
#8
@NE1for10is one more point I might add. That ATW pattern was for a 107 PD not the 110 PD. I would not string the 110 with an ATW pattern unless it was requested. The 110 skips only 8H which put a short section of the frame supporting the transition from the outside main to the top cross.
 
#10
@NE1for10is one more point I might add. That ATW pattern was for a 107 PD not the 110 PD. I would not string the 110 with an ATW pattern unless it was requested. The 110 skips only 8H which put a short section of the frame supporting the transition from the outside main to the top cross.
Irvin, just curious...
If the OP never mentioned either racquet (the PD 107 or the PD 110), why would you be making recommendations for those??? :confused:
I just have a hard time understanding how it's germane to the conversation. Maybe you can help me understand better.

If someone asked you about bike racks to fit on a Corolla, would you give them information regarding bike racks for a Camry? :rolleyes:
 
#11
Irvin, just curious...
If the OP never mentioned either racquet (the PD 107 or the PD 110), why would you be making recommendations for those??? :confused:
I just have a hard time understanding how it's germane to the conversation. Maybe you can help me understand better.

If someone asked you about bike racks to fit on a Corolla, would you give them information regarding bike racks for a Camry? :rolleyes:
Because all PDs and not the same, I assumed a PD 107 to begin with but later thought he could have been talking about a PD 110 or one of the other PDs.
 
#12
Because all PDs and not the same, I assumed a PD 107 to begin with but later thought he could have been talking about a PD 110 or one of the other PDs.
Yes, I realize that not all Pure Drives are the same. However, the OP referenced the Pure Drive (100"). Not the 107". Not the 110".
Why did/would you assume the OP was talking about the 107" in the first place? :confused:

Call me crazy, but it seems unnecessary to confuse the issue by bringing other frames into the discussion.
If someone had chimed in regarding the 107", or the 110", I'd understand the relevance.
Since that's not the case here, it's confounding.
 
#13
Yes, I realize that not all Pure Drives are the same. However, the OP referenced the Pure Drive (100"). Not the 107". Not the 110".
Why did/would you assume the OP was talking about the 107" in the first place? :confused:

Call me crazy, but it seems unnecessary to confuse the issue by bringing other frames into the discussion.
If someone had chimed in regarding the 107", or the 110", I'd understand the relevance.
Since that's not the case here, it's confounding.
He just said Pure Drive, he didn't specify which one. While I would assume he meant just the normal Pure Drive with a 100" head, Irvin assumed the 107. I've heard people just say "Pure Drive" in reference to the Lite, the normal, the Tour, the +, etc. There was no way of knowing for sure which one the OP was talking about.
 
#14
He just said Pure Drive, he didn't specify which one. While I would assume he meant just the normal Pure Drive with a 100" head, Irvin assumed the 107. I've heard people just say "Pure Drive" in reference to the Lite, the normal, the Tour, the +, etc. There was no way of knowing for sure which one the OP was talking about.
That may be true, but we have to go by what he said.
To me, when he said "Pure Drive" he did specify. The absence of "107", "110", "Lite", "Team", "Tour", "Plus" etc. implies that he is referring to a standard Pure Drive.

If you order a "Pure Drive" online (or over the phone, for that matter) what are you going to actually receive in the mail?

A "Pure Drive" is a 100" racquet.
A "Pure Drive" is not a "Pure Drive 107".
A "Pure Drive" is not a "Pure Drive 110".

Things have names for a reason.
 
#15
That may be true, but we have to go by what he said.
To me, when he said "Pure Drive" he did specify. The absence of "107", "110", "Lite", "Team", "Tour", "Plus" etc. implies that he is referring to a standard Pure Drive.

If you order a "Pure Drive" online (or over the phone, for that matter) what are you going to actually receive in the mail?

A "Pure Drive" is a 100" racquet.
A "Pure Drive" is not a "Pure Drive 107".
A "Pure Drive" is not a "Pure Drive 110".

Things have names for a reason.
If I need a Something for my Jeep Cherokee, you know roughly what kind of vehicle I have. It's good enough to just say Jeep Cherokee, or even just Cherokee if you know you're talking about vehicles. It's reasonable for one person to assume I have a Cherokee Sport, while another person my think I have a Cherokee Trailhawk, or a Latitude, etc. They are all Cherokees but there are subsets that get more specific.

If you say "Pure Drive" then you are not being specific. It is reasonable to assume that they mean it's the 100" version. But, if I know it is an older, less-experienced player, it would also be reasonable to assume it's the 107 or 110 version. Or if I know they are a very high level player, it's reasonable to assume it's the Tour version. There is no context to tell us whether or not he meant to be specific or not when saying "Pure Drive," therefore Irvin had just as much reason to assume the 107 as you did to assume the 100. Unless he specified "the normal Pure Drive" or "the 100" Pure Drive," you have no reason to have a better assumption than Irvin does.
 
#16
There is no context to tell us whether or not he meant to be specific or not when saying "Pure Drive," therefore Irvin had just as much reason to assume the 107 as you did to assume the 100. Unless he specified "the normal Pure Drive" or "the 100" Pure Drive," you have no reason to have a better assumption than Irvin does.
You didn't bother to answer the question I posed. In case you missed it...
If you order a "Pure Drive" online (or over the phone, for that matter) what are you going to actually receive in the mail?
 
#17
You didn't bother to answer the question I posed. In case you missed it...
If you order a "Pure Drive" online (or over the phone, for that matter) what are you going to actually receive in the mail?
The only Pure Drive 100 frame left on TW is the 2015 and it is on clearance. Are you trying to order a clearance racket or a current model?
 
#18
You didn't bother to answer the question I posed. In case you missed it...
If you order a "Pure Drive" online (or over the phone, for that matter) what are you going to actually receive in the mail?
They will ask you which one, that's what's going to happen. Then once you clarify, whatever you specified will be sent to you.
 
#20
The only Pure Drive 100 frame left on TW is the 2015.
Bullsh*t.

If you go to TW’s site and search for Pure Drive here is what you get
https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive/descpageRCBAB-BPD1H.html
Exactly - and THAT is a 100" frame.

They will ask you which one, that's what's going to happen. Then once you clarify, whatever you specified will be sent to you.
Over the phone, they MIGHT ask for clarification (more than 50% of the time, probably not). However, when you order a "Pure Drive" online there is zero clarification.
You will be shipped a standard 100" Pure Drive. Period.
 
#22
The only Pure Drive 100 frame left on TW is the 2015 and it is on clearance. Are you trying to order a clearance racket or a current model?
Can I say bullsh*t too? :)

Gee, when I searched TW for Pure Drive, I got this page complete with a the video described below. Maybe you should spend some time watching it.... Seems like six (6) of those frames are 100's.

https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive_Racquets/catpage-BABPDRACS.html

If you go to TW’s site and search for Pure Drive here is what you get
https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive/descpageRCBAB-BPD1H.html
Horsesh!t, I got the page above.

https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive_Racquets/catpage-BABPDRACS.html

Except for the Pure Drive 107 and Pure Drive 110 all the others (10 of 12) are 100 sq in. of those currently available on that page via TW.
To boot, all are 16 X 19 string pattern....all. There are 8 models of the Pure Drive, 6 of those are 100 sq in, 1 is 107 and 1 is 110. Of the 6 PD's, the biggest difference in them is the weight. Just like wood rackets of yore, they've finally figured out they can sell the same racket, same paint just in different weights. It's a win/win for beginners through pros. Everybody can play with the same frame.

TW has a video explaining this blast from the past and it covers the differences in all the frames.

But, I agree with @Wes if you ask for a Pure Drive, you're asking for the original Pure Drive 100 square inch in the "regular" weight. If you want a different flavor, you need to specify.
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
#25
The best way to do a one piece on that racket is to do an around the world commonly called a box pattern. Basically your short side would do the first 7 mains and the first cross.
When the racket allows I go 3 times ATW, clamping the short side on the 5th hole. Here I forgot to skip the first main so had to tie off the short side "overhead", on the 5th main to the right. Hate to enlarge the holes, esp. when the mains are NG.

 
#26
^^^
This is a Box Pattern.
It works well for certain racquets, and not so well for many racquets.

Personally, I would not use/recommend this pattern for the frame pictured in the photo above.
The reason being - there is very little graphite to support the transitions between 10H and 11H, as well as 10T and 11T.
Not to mention that the string is making a 270° turn at these transition points (which, by the way, probably isn't great for natural gut).

I know that some people think that modern frames are strong enough to withstand this pressure and, therefore, have their doubts that the graphite would actually collapse.
Think twice about that. I've seen it happen.

Any time one is considering a Box Pattern, or a particular ATW pattern, careful consideration must be given to exactly where the main string/cross string transitions will occur and whether or not there is sufficient graphite at those locations to truly be strong enough.
This is the very reason why you can not simply use the same ATW/box pattern all the time for any/all frames.

Each ATW pattern has pros/cons and these transition areas are the very first thing I take into consideration before deciding exactly which ATW/box pattern will be best suited for a given frame..
I'm familiar with at least 6 different ATW patterns (not counting the Box pattern shown above).
In my mind, I have them in an order of preference. I look at the frame (mentally routing where each string will go) to see if any transitions would be weak, whilst using my first ATW preference. If there would be a transition issue, I then look at the frame once again using my second preference... and so on... until I ultimately arrive at an ATW pattern that doesn't have a weak area between neighboring grommets.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#27
I would not string it the way @Irvin suggested because the short side 7th main would go directly to be tied off - and would potentially be looser than the long side 7th main.

I would do (and have done many times) the universal ATW on the pure drive. This way your short side outside main goes to the top cross before tying off. Which, should result in the short side mains having very close to the same tension applied as the long side mains.

Also, I agree with @Wes about that box pattern. There is a small segment of racquets where such a pattern would work quite nicely. But there is a larger segment of racquets that to string in such a fashion would be dangerous with respect to the integrity of the frame. If you’re not positive the pattern is safe, whatever benefits there are to stringing it that way (if any) do not outweigh the risks.
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
#28
There is no risk in this particular case of proportional stringing. The said weak points are strung at < 40 lbs. OTOH, there are rackets with 8 double holes out there...
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#30
There is no risk in this particular case of proportional stringing. The said weak points are strung at < 40 lbs. OTOH, there are rackets with 8 double holes out there...
There is always risk when you have a transition from a main to a cross or vise versa. There is significant risk when those transitions are supported by very small portions of frame material - as illustrated in your picture. Reference tension below 40 lbs may well mitigate some of that risk...but it doesn’t eliminate it.
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
#31
I don't even know what this means/is in reference to.
Can someone please interpret that for me?
A number of Head rackets have double (shared) holes at H and T. So there are 6 or even 8 holes with no supporting frame between C and M on the inner side. It is true that initially, there were cases of severe frame breakage at these weak points, but 3 years now I didn't witness any.

 
Last edited:
#33
There is always risk when you have a transition from a main to a cross or vise versa. There is significant risk when those transitions are supported by very small portions of frame material - as illustrated in your picture. Reference tension below 40 lbs may well mitigate some of that risk...but it doesn’t eliminate it.
Most major manufacturers recommend 2 piece stringing even though some allow 1 piece stringing. When you do 1 piece stringing there is one thing you cannot eliminate a transition from a main to cross. When you transition from main to cross or vice versa and there is a short section of frame it is even worse, you have reference tension from the main and the cross pulling on that short section.Double the tension in a very small space. Chances are you will not damage the frame. I've done it thousands of times and never broke one. There are manufacturers that have seen many of their frames brake and they say don't do it.

EDIT: When you use the short side (and long side) main to transiton to a cross you’re doing it twice.

EDIT: All of these transitions are in a area of the frame that is subject to heavy wear. Weaken the racket by wearing off the grommet (and racket) and it will be easier to cave in. Not saying it will but why chance it.
 
Last edited:
#34
I have yet to see, in 40+ years of stringing, a frame fail at the "point of transition". I have strung my C10s one-piece repeatedly and often in this manner over ten years of use. I invite anyone to post pictures of a frame manufactured in the last 15 years that has failed in this manner.

@Irvin, a stringer who strung for the pro tour and at one point the number 1 player in the world (full time) taught me this technique. Somehow I think his experience and techniques are superior to the Grand Old Master of Marietta. Can you provide evidence that "most manufacturers recommend 2 piece stringing"? To my knowledge, Head and Yonex are the main proponents of two-piece stringing and they still allow ATW. Your warning bells on this topic are braggadocios should go unheeded.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#35
Guys. I think we’re all effectively saying the same thing. If you transition from main to cross or cross to main, the less material there is to support the transition, the greater the risk.

If one understands and respects the above, and chooses the appropriate pattern given the racquet, then the risk of breaking the frame can be mostly mitigated. I’ve strung hundreds of racquets using ATW patterns, and I’ve never had a problem.
 
#36
Well said @am1899. Which begs the question, if there is no advantage of 1 piece over 2 piece to the player why string 1 piece? It’s harder on the frame and harder on the string.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#37
@Irvin agree 100%. Unless I’m told otherwise, I string almost every retail racquet 2pc. We string mostly with sets of string, so there is little if any advantage to stringing 1pc (for the most part).

My personal racquets OTOH, i string ATW. For those I string off reels, so I like to save as much string as possible. I also like the feel of the 1pc stringbed better than if i string it 2pc. Is it harder on my frames? Undoubtedly. I figure I replace them every couple years anyway, so it’s not that big a deal to me.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#40
You can have a Box Pattern without going ATW
Yes, but why would anyone want to?

so the term is too general in our particular case of 3xATW.
Whatever it’s called - other that it looking aesthetically pleasing on the outside of the frame potentially, I see little if any benefit to doing such a thing en masse. You can spare me all the “it holds tension longer” anecdotes - they’ve been around since the days of Jay Schweid (and probably long before). Bottom line, the average tennis player isn’t going to feel the difference between a racquet strung by some elaborate pattern, vs. one strung 2pc.
 
Last edited:
#41
Guys. I think we’re all effectively saying the same thing. If you transition from main to cross or cross to main, the less material there is to support the transition, the greater the risk.
No, with all due respect, I don't think we are. I'm saying there is no risk. I've never seen or heard of a frame failing in the manner described; hence my invitation for anyone to post pictures of such a failure. In short, I'm saying there is no risk.

I've seen @Irvin parrot this time and time again as fact. I've even seen him "invent" a special pattern for Wilson and Babolat frames that involved stringing from the bottom up all to avoid the dreaded "transition". It's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. A quite frankly his "solution" was much much riskier and worse for frames.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
#42
Sorry @Rabbit for putting words in your mouth. Most frequently I agree with your sentiments. In this case though, you are right - it would appear that you and I at least differ on this subject (likewise, all due respect).

I’ve come to my opinion on this based largely upon those who mentored me. Yes, I have seen that @Irvin has raised this subject on these boards before. But it’s not the first I’ve heard of it - far from it. I had been taught long ago by an MRT to be mindful of avoiding transitions where a small portion of frame material would support it. Maybe those who mentored me are full of it. Who knows. And I will concede that my experiences are consistent with your opinion - maybe this is fear mongering, and there is nothing to worry about.
 
#43
All due respect to everyone here (truly).
I'd prefer to stay out of the crossfire (and avoid World War III), I will just politely reiterate what I said in post #26 above. I've actually seen it happen.
The possibility of graphite failure, at these transitions, isn't merely theoretical, hypothetical, or speculation.
However rare/unlikely the occurrence may be... I've witnessed it happen. Just sayin'.

Yes, it was a modern frame made within the past 15 years (in fact, less than 10) and it was at a main/cross transition point (he was using an ill-suited ATW pattern).
The tension wasn't unusually high and the string wasn't unusually thin (16g syn. gut at #60)
My apologies, I didn't take photos to prove whatever needs to be proven (I'm sure he felt bad enough as is - so why make the guy feel even worse by busting out my camera to well document his mistake?).
Come to think of it... even if a photo had been taken of the collapsed graphite - would that really prove anything? Nah... there would really need to be video clip of the failure actually happening - in order to prove that's what truly caused the damage.

My stance isn't based on what any person told me, it's based on what I've seen can happen with my own eyes.
Now... does this make me completely avoid all main/cross transitions? No.
Does this make me cautious & prudent about when/where I will allow such transitions? Yes.

I'm not trying to change any minds, I'm simply sharing information.
I'm merely trying to put "all the cards on the table" for any fledgling stringers out there (for current and, especially for, future readers of this thread months/years from now).
 

R15

New User
#44
Yes, it was a modern frame made within the past 15 years (in fact, less than 10) and it was at a main/cross transition point (he was using an ill-suited ATW pattern).
Do you recall what the racket was and what pattern was being used?...it would be useful information and provide context for those of us who have never experienced such a failure.
 
#45
@R15 personally I’ve never experienced such a failure. I’ve only heard it could happen. I actually could care less how anyone strings a racket. I know @RJYU prefers one piece stringing (don’t know which pattern) and I’ve seen the Richard Parnell video where he uses the short side to string the top cross.
 
Last edited:
#47
I've seen the collapse on a racket from a 3.5 level player not a string breaker but who knows where the
racket had been prior. I've also had one of my fairly new PK5G collapsed at the throat while waiting to return a serve.
Both likely freak occurrences. Credit to PK, one email and they sent me a new one.
 
#48
All due respect to everyone here (truly).
I'd prefer to stay out of the crossfire (and avoid World War III), I will just politely reiterate what I said in post #26 above. I've actually seen it happen.
The possibility of graphite failure, at these transitions, isn't merely theoretical, hypothetical, or speculation.
However rare/unlikely the occurrence may be... I've witnessed it happen. Just sayin'.

Yes, it was a modern frame made within the past 15 years (in fact, less than 10) and it was at a main/cross transition point (he was using an ill-suited ATW pattern).
The tension wasn't unusually high and the string wasn't unusually thin (16g syn. gut at #60)
My apologies, I didn't take photos to prove whatever needs to be proven (I'm sure he felt bad enough as is - so why make the guy feel even worse by busting out my camera to well document his mistake?).
Come to think of it... even if a photo had been taken of the collapsed graphite - would that really prove anything? Nah... there would really need to be video clip of the failure actually happening - in order to prove that's what truly caused the damage.

My stance isn't based on what any person told me, it's based on what I've seen can happen with my own eyes.
Now... does this make me completely avoid all main/cross transitions? No.
Does this make me cautious & prudent about when/where I will allow such transitions? Yes.

I'm not trying to change any minds, I'm simply sharing information.
I'm merely trying to put "all the cards on the table" for any fledgling stringers out there (for current and, especially for, future readers of this thread months/years from now).
The frame was probably already damaged if it broke that way

I've seen racquets crack while being strung as a 2-piece. But it doesn't mean that 2-piece was ill-suited for it
 
#50
Typically I prefer the feel of a one piece stringing, however when I got a new Pure Drive racket it came with a 2 piece stringing. I looked at Babolat's stringing instructions and they do recommend a 2 piece stringing and it plays very well that way, but I'm wondering if it might play even better with a 1 piece stringing.

I did some reading and discovered that it's not a good idea to string a 1 piece if the crosses weave towards the head, because it will cause hoop deflection, since the head is not as stable as the throat.

So, are there 1 piece stringing instructions for this racket? Is it a good or bad idea to string this racket 1 piece with starting the mains in the throat, instead of the head, so that the crosses wind up weaving towards the throat?
I can't believe you can feel the difference between the two. I bet a proper blind test you wouldn't be able to, assumingo fo course you can tie off properly
 
Top