Burn Spin Effect Patterns

[am1899]

So with Wilson Burn spin effect frames, the pattern is 18x16...AND, the 7th and 8th mains are shared holes. Mfg calls for mains to tie off at 6B. Naturally this creates rather long runs of string on the outside of the frame - due to the distance between the main tie off and the outside mains.

More often than not, I find a way to combat this sort of "problem." But with this particular pattern (particularly due to the shared holes)...I've yet to come up with much of a solution. The potential client is requesting the same string mains and crosses - so I *could* string it 1 piece. But, its not obvious to me (at least not at 1:45am) that it would be advantageous. I guess i'm leaning towards stringing it 2 piece and living with the long runs of string. But before i do so, I'd love to hear any ideas that you folks might have. Thanks.

 

[Irvin]

String the 7th mains last, if you're using 2 piece, and you want to avoid the long distance from 9th main to tie off.

 

[am1899]

Good call @Irvin. But wouldnt that tactic end up effectively trading the 2 long runs of string at either side of the throat for 4 slightly shorter lengths of string at either side of the head?

 

[Irvin]

Good call @Irvin. But wouldnt that tactic end up effectively trading the 2 long runs of string at either side of the throat for 4 slightly shorter lengths of string at either side of the head?

Yes but what's your point? It uses the same lengths of string but eliminates the longer runs.

 

[am1899]

I guess my point is...would the Yonex loop variant eliminate long runs of string in this case? Or does it relocate them? No disrespect meant here...just spit-balling.

 

[am1899]

And yes...I do realize that the runs of string would be somewhat shorter at the head but...

 

[am1899]

Just FWIW...WTH was Wilson thinking here? Lol!

 

[Wes]

I'm not sure when you need the frame done by.
I don't have the time, right now, to put the requisite thought into an adequate solution.
However, later today I should have some free time.

Real quick though... do you have 0, 1, or 2 starting clamps?

 

[am1899]

Hey Wes. In the next day or 2. I have 4 starting clamps at my disposal. (Don't judge me).

 

[Wes]

Hey Wes. In the next day or 2. I have 4 starting clamps at my disposal. (Don't judge me).

LMAO
Hey, no judgements here brother... I have 4 too.

 

[Irvin]

I guess my point is...would the Yonex loop variant eliminate long runs of string in this case? Or does it relocate them? No disrespect meant here...just spit-balling.

It eliminates them.

 

[am1899]

It eliminates them.

Indulge me...

In order to string the 7th mains last..seems to me one would go up the 6th main, skip the 7th main to the 8th (now going down toward the throat), up toward the hoop on the 9th, and finally back down to the throat on the 7th main. Right? While cleaning up the throat, does this method not create fairly significant runs of string at the hoop - specifically when navigating from the 6th to the 8th main, and then again from the 9th main to the 7th main?

Pic of the racquet for reference:

 

[Irvin]

@am1899 but there is a shorter distance from 9H to 7H than there is from 9T to 6T. And if you holding the 9th main at 9T there is no way you can get close to the frame so there is a greater distance from the clamp to the knot. If you're hold the 7th main at 7T you can get the clamp closer and the overall distance from the clamp to the knot is smaller giving you less slack to be drawn out after tying the knot when you release the clamp. Even if you use a knot function to remove slack (and you can do that no matter which string you're tying off) it will not make it much better. I think the increase in tension for knots stores more energy for drawback when you release the clamp any way.

 

[am1899]

Yup agreed. Thanks @Irvin.

 

[Irvin]

@am1899 sometimes I wonder what 'thought process' goes into some designs. LOL

EDIT: you have to be careful using that 'Yonex loop' because sometime you end up double blocking holes. But the throats area is pretty clean in this example and the top crosses can be installed before the outer mains are ever tensioned.

 

[Wes]

am1899,

Ok, been trying to work through this for a bit.
Before I go melting my brain any further... couple questions...

Exactly which Burn frame are you working on?

I ask because, it seems, the Burn 100 S and Burn 100 LS both share the exact same pattern (including main tie-offs at 6Throat/Bottom as you previously mentioned).
However, the Burn 100 ULS (according to Klip's site) has the tie-offs for the mains listed as being 8Throat/Bottom. This doesn't even make sense to me, and is probably an error on Klip's part. I tried verifiying this via Wilson's site, but it's vacant. Sheesh.
1. Why would the 100ULS need to be any different than that of the 100S or 100LS? Everything else is exactly the same.
2. IF correct, that would have 8T (which is one of the shared holes) with 3 strings passing through it - the (penultimate/7th main) main, the cross 2nd from bottom (cross #15) AND also the tie-off for the mains??? Seems highly unlikely.

I assume it is a 100S, 100LS, or 100ULS mentioned above, and not one of the Burn FST frames, or you would have said as much.

BTW... trying to work this all out, without having the actual frame in front of me, is like some form of sadistic mental anguish that reminds me of those chess problem books... or perhaps those advanced Super Sudoku problems. Brain melt.

I do have a plan that I think may be a viable solution, but want to verify the exact frame and it's actual tie-off holes - before putting the cart before the horse.

So, actually check the frame itself and please verify...
Are 6T, 6H and 11T the correct tie-offs?

 

[am1899]

@Wes - racquet in question is the Burn 100LS.

I can verify that 6t is the intended main tie off, and that the top cross is intended to tie off at 6h.

The bottom cross appears to tie off at the third to last cross (counting from the top). Honestly I'm not sure how the counting works when there are shared holes - does each shared hole count as 2 holes, or just 1?

 

[Wes]

@Wes - racquet in question is the Burn 100LS.

The bottom cross appears to tie off at the third to last cross (counting from the top). Honestly I'm not sure how the counting works when there are shared holes - does each shared hole count as 2 holes, or just 1?

Counts as just 1 hole.

To clarify...
7T is shared.
8T is shared too.
9T is skipped (when doing mains). Later, this is where cross #14 (3rd from bottom) will be. Is this where you see a bigger tie-off hole?
10T gets the last/outer main.
11T would be cross #13 (fourth from bottom) and, according to Klip's site, is the bottom cross tie-off.

Also, is it the 1st gen. Burn 100LS or the newer Countervail version (like the photo in post #12)?

 

[am1899]

It's the Countervail variety.

There's really no way for me to differentiate between 9t and 11t - both of them accept 2 strings with very little effort. For that matter, I was able to pass 2 strings through several other cross grommets further up the hoop. Just no way to tell for sure.

Let's put it this way...my hunch is that the "published" mfg bottom cross tie off is 11t. But, there not much chance I would follow that anyway, considering I can tie off closer to the bottom cross at 9t.

 

[am1899]

Actually, looks to me like the UKRSA ATW may be a plausible option as well...

 

[Wes]

If you're open to using an ATW, I can already tell you that the Universal ATW and the DireDesire ATW will both work (with the DireDesire ATW being the better option in this particular case).
As far as ATW's go... for THIS racquet I would go with the DireDesire ATW.
Universal ATW would be my 2nd choice (with a slight modification on this frame for better final result).

The Parnell ATW will not work - because of the shared holes (and the transitions involved).

I didn't bother looking into the UKRSA ATW at all, but I can take a look and see what I think of using it on this particular frame.

Initially, you mentioned trying to stick to a 2pc. job, so that's what I focused on.
Had I known, from the outset, that you were open to an ATW approach, I would have done that. LOL

 

[am1899]

Frankly, I wonder if UKRSA ATW might actually look a little cleaner aesthetically on the outside of the frame - than the diredesire and certainly the universal ATW.

UKRSA would call for the long side to tie off at 6h (after 8 mains, crosses 2-15, 9th main). But I think I'd modify that to tie off closer to the outside main...perhaps 9h. Short side handles 8 mains (hold w starting clamp), then after the long side is done, the 9th main, followed by the bottom cross, tie off at 6t.

 

[Irvin]

I would prefer not to use an ATW pattern because at some point your would have to transition from 8-9H or 10-11H on one side or the other.

 

[Wes]

Yep... looks as if the UKRSA ATW would fit the bill also.

Frankly, I wonder if UKRSA ATW might actually look a little cleaner aesthetically on the outside of the frame - than the diredesire and certainly the universal ATW.

However, I don't think it will be as clean on the outside of the frame as the DireDesire will be.

UKRSA would call for the long side to tie off at 6h (after 8 mains, crosses 2-15, 9th main).

I think you may have forgotten to include the top cross in that sequence.
Didn't you likely mean "8 mains, crosses 2-15, 9th main on the long side, and then... the top cross (at 8H) gets tied off at 6H (back over on the short side of the frame)"?

But I think I'd modify that to tie off closer to the outside main...perhaps 9h.

No need to modify it.
If you finish the long side with the top cross (after that 9th long side main), you'll be coming out 8H (very close to 6H) as opposed to coming out of 11H and going all the way up to 6H for the tie-off.
Again, you probably just forgot about that top cross being the last string, rather than the outside main being the last one. I'm sure just an oversight.
After all, I doubt you'd be choosing to tie off only ONE outside main and only ONE cross (bottom) anyway, right?

BTW, the tie-offs locations would be exactly the same for either the UKRSA or DireDesire ATWs pattern.
In both cases, the top cross would get tied at 6H and the bottom cross would get tied at 6T - both of which will work out very well.
Top cross comes out 8H and ties at 6H.
Bottom cross comes out 7T and ties at 6T.
Regarding tie-off locations, kind of ideal.

However, I'm nearly certain the DireDesire is still going to be the cleaner option regarding the outside of the frame.

 

[Wes]

I would prefer not to use an ATW pattern because at some point your would have to transition from 8-9H or 10-11H on one side or the other.

I know your concerns regarding short/small sections of frame supporting transitions, however it's not really an issue on this frame.
The transitions involved would be across substantial portions of frame (certainly no shorter than other areas/sections - the center 6 mains have similar spacing).

Only a transition spanning between 7H and 8H, 11H and 12H, or 10T and 11T would go across a shorter section of frame and possibly be of concern... none of which would occur using the ATWs previously mentioned.
Non-issue in this particular case.

 

[am1899]

Yup...Wes I was forgetting about the top cross with UKRSA.

I ended up having to string it today. I do appreciate all of your thoughts and ideas.

In the end, once the racquet was mounted...the KISS philosophy began to weigh on me. I concluded that most (if not all) of the modifications considered involved some kind of consequence. So, i just strung it traditional 2 piece without any modifications. The throat area of the racquet is busier than I'd like. But that's about the only complaint I have. Thanks again all.

 

[Wes]

It's the Countervail variety.

There's really no way for me to differentiate between 9t and 11t - both of them accept 2 strings with very little effort. For that matter, I was able to pass 2 strings through several other cross grommets further up the hoop. Just no way to tell for sure.

Let's put it this way...my hunch is that the "published" mfg bottom cross tie off is 11t. But, there not much chance I would follow that anyway, considering I can tie off closer to the bottom cross at 9t.

Ok, so here's the plan for doing the "clean" 2pc. job (note: at least 2 starting clamps required)...
H=Head
T=Throat

After stringing all 9 mains on both sides, hold each of the outer/9th mains with a starting clamp on the outside of the frame (for clarity, these mains are exiting grommet 10T). Protect the frames' finish with a piece of old overgrip if you'd like. Later, at the very end of the job, you will tie off these mains just one grommet away at 9T.
Note: place these starting clamps with their handles oriented directly down, or directly up (I'd suggest down) - because, later on, you will need to "rock" one of the starting clamps just a little bit, in order to allow the cross string loop (spanning from 11T down to 9T on the outside of the frame) to be able to lay where it needs to be.

Next, install all the crosses- top down.
Top cross comes out 8H and ties off at 6H. (Use a 3rd starting clamp to hold the top cross or use a starting knot on the top cross if you don't have a 3rd starting clamp).
Bottom cross comes out 7T and ties off right next door at 6T.

Now that all the crosses are in place and have been tied off at 6H and 6T, those outer mains (that have patiently been waiting) may finally get tied off at 9T on each side.
Obviously, to do this, re-pull each outer/9th main. While the string is being held by the gripper/tensioner, remove the starting clamp and then re-clamp each main with your machine's fixed clamps. Now the string can be released from the gripper/tensioner and tied off at 9T on each side.

This solution greatly cleans up all the crazy runs of string near the throat shoulders.
No long runs. Both the mains AND the bottom cross get tied off immediately "next door".
No longer will there be any places on the outside of the frame where there are three strings side by side.
In fact, the only places you'll even have two strings side by side will be between 6H & 7H (but only on one side of the frame), between 9H & 10H (only on one side of the frame), between 7T & 8T (only on one side of the frame) and 9T & 10T (only on one side of the frame). Other than these 4 very small areas, it'll have only single loops everywhere else on the outside of the frame.

Class dismissed.

 

[am1899]

@Wes I'm going to try this next time on this frame. The only thing that makes me wonder is those starting clamps holding the mains- having to get by one of them on one side to continue the crosses.

 

[Wes]

@Wes I'm going to try this next time on this frame. The only thing that makes me wonder is those starting clamps holding the mains- having to get by one of them on one side to continue the crosses.

@am1899,
That should be a non-issue & you'll only have to deal with that on one side of the frame (specifically - the side opposite from where the top cross gets tied off).

Did you see the part about where you "rock" the starting clamp just a little bit, in order to get that string to lay where you need it?

 

[am1899]

Yup, conceptually it makes sense to me @Wes.

 

[chrisingrassia]

Has anyone come up with a unique ATW pattern so that there's no long runs and no overlap/block of holes?

I've been trying to think of one....

 

[Irvin]

Deleted post

 

[chrisingrassia]

Deleted post

Tease

 

[Wes]

Has anyone come up with a unique ATW pattern so that there's no long runs and no overlap/block of holes?

I've been trying to think of one....

Are you speaking in general terms... or specifically regarding the Burn spin effect frames?

Better yet, specify exactly what frame you ARE interested in doing.

 

[Irvin]

Tease

Deleted

 

[chrisingrassia]

Are you speaking in general terms... or specifically regarding the Burn spin effect frames?

Better yet, specify exactly what frame you ARE interested in doing.

Burn frames, bro. That's what the thread here is about.

I hate super long runs, and I hate double blocked holes. I'm tinkering with ideas for an ATW on these style sticks. I just don't have any in front me currently, so not sure which holes are enlarged/available for tie-offs.

 

[am1899]

Ok string 8 mains on the SS and tie off, string 9 mains on the LS, 15th cross, outer main, on SS and remaining crosses.

You'd still have a long run from the SS outside main to the top cross.

I suppose that could be mitigated if the top cross were added to the SS - 8 mains on the SS, top cross, tie off, 9 mains on the LS, 15th cross, outer SS main, remaining crosses. But, having the 8th main transition to the 1st cross, and the 9th main transition to the 2nd cross...on the same corner of the racquet...not sure it's worth the risk.

 

[am1899]

If stringing crosses bottom up doesn't turn your stomach, you could string 9 mains on the SS, crosses 15 and 16, tie off. On the LS string 9 mains and remaining crosses - 14 up to the top cross, tie off.

 

[Irvin]

You'd still have a long run from the SS outside main to the top cross.

Yes it's probably 1/4" longer than the run from the top cross to the second cross. I don't think that's anything to worry about.

EDIT: you could use the SS to run the top cross, but then you would end up with short sections of frame supporting a transition. I'd be more worried about that.

 

[am1899]

EDIT: you could use the SS to run the top cross, but then you would end up with short sections of frame supporting a transition. I'd be more worried about that.

Which is why I said:

But, having the 8th main transition to the 1st cross, and the 9th main transition to the 2nd cross...on the same corner of the racquet...not sure it's worth the risk.

 

[Dustin Cropsboy]

Yep... looks as if the UKRSA ATW would fit the bill also. However, I don't think it will be as clean on the outside of the frame as the DireDesire will be.
...
I'm nearly certain the DireDesire is still going to be the cleaner option regarding the outside of the frame.

I have found the link to @YULitle 's

video but when I try to load the @diredesire instructions from http://students.washington.edu/jdeng/ATW/index.html I just get an old "requested resource does not exist on this server" message. Does anyone have a copy of the original content from http://students.washington.edu/jdeng/ATW/index.html ?

 

[Dustin Cropsboy]

Ok string 8 mains on the SS and tie off, string 9 mains on the LS, 15th cross, outer main, on SS and remaining crosses.

Just curious. Would things like this thread has been discussing... using a DireDesireATW or a Reverse-Triple-Clamp-Hybrid, etc. on such a racquet void the warranty?

 

[Irvin]

Just curious. Would things like this thread has been discussing... using a DireDesireATW or a Reverse-Triple-Clamp-Hybrid, etc. on such a racquet void the warranty?

I’m not going to read and address posts over 4 years old if you have a question ask.

Manufacturer warranties are for defects in materials and workmanship. Stringing patterns don’t change that.

 

[Rabbit]

I’m not going to read and address posts over 4 years old if you have a question ask.

Not very helpful.

Manufacturer warranties are for defects in materials and workmanship. Stringing patterns don’t change that.

Oh but stringing patterns do. If you string some frames bottom up, the manufacturer will void the warranty because it might cause breakage. Yonex, Volkl and Head come to mind. I'm sure there are more. From memory the only two which expressly permit bottom up are Wilson and Babolat.

 

[Dustin Cropsboy]

stringing patterns do. If you string some frames bottom up, the manufacturer will void the warranty because it might cause breakage. Yonex, Volkl and Head come to mind. I'm sure there are more. From memory the only two which expressly permit bottom up are Wilson and Babolat.

Thanks. As far as I can tell, (and Iknow nothing about any of this), the pattern that @Wes described (for the for doing the "clean" 2pc. job) is top down, as is the @diredesire ATW, those patterns just deviate from the manufacturer's published recommendations?

 

[Rabbit]

@Dustin Cropsboy - I believe that is correct. The @diredesire pattern would fall in line with manufacturer's recommendation. You could also use @Richard Parnell 's around the world. It's on youtube

It's a great guide.

 

[esgee48]

No, using an ATW of any type where mains tie off at the throat DOES NOT void warranty or endanger the frame. Of course, you cannot do a hybrid with it. You can do 100% Velocity, Bab SG or Volkl SG.

Look at

Stringing two piece on a one piece

Hi all, I am still pretty new to stringing but I recently tried winging a racquet I found lying around, which was originally one piece strung. I will attach a photo below of the original. I tried to string two piece, however, when finishing the crosses, I could not find a spot to insert the...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

for a simple ATW example. The BURN 100LS is an 18x16, so it is easy to do. With a Yonex loop, you can also shorten the length of the last main's tie off.