(K)Four FX tie offs

[Toad]

Does anyone know what the tie offs on a Wilson (K)Four FX (107 sq in) are supposed to be...I can't find it anywhere. The previous (K)Four had tie offs at 6B for mains, 4T and 5B for the crosses (http://www.klipperusa.com/stringing/viewpattern.php?mfg=TWIL). The last person that strung this tied off at 8B for mains, and 6B and 8T for crosses. I found a couple pictures of it strung online, but the only thing I can tell from those is that they all tied off the cross at 5T.

 

[PimpMyGame]

You can usually tell by the enlarged holes where the tie-offs are. Wilson have a habit of designing the tie-offs onto the crosses at the throat.

 

[Toad]

Yeah...I can normally tell from that, but I honestly can't really tell on this racket.

 

[Irvin]

Why go to Klippermate to find out how to string a Wilson racket? This this site:

http://media.wilson.com/media/wilso...tsNov242008-kfourfx_v3_m56577569830801500.pdf

Irvin

 

[Irvin]

You can usually get the stringing instructions for Wilson racket at this link but not this one yet.

http://www.wilson.com/wilson/racq/string_instr.jsp

Irvin

 

[jim e]

Wilson K Four FX
Tie off M's: 6T
Tie 1 Pc X: 5H
Tie 2 Pc X: 5H, 9T
Hope this helps. Jim (BTW T is Throat, H is Head of racquet for these listings.)

 

[Lsmkenpo]

Tie offs- Mains 6B, Crosses 5T,9B

 

[Irvin]

Tie offs- Mains 6B, Crosses 5T,9B

That is what's on the Wilson site. It would be nice to know if 'jim e' was right with his USRSA data or this.

Irvin

 

[Lsmkenpo]

That is what's on the Wilson site. It would be nice to know if 'jim e' was right with his USRSA data or this.

Irvin

His data is the same I posted, just different terms.

 

[Toad]

@ Irvin

Thanks for the link, I had no idea.


I submitted this question to Wilson Customer Service and their response was:

Start M's at throat

Main skips 7T, 9T, &h and 9H. Tie off mains at 6T.

one piece stringing Start X's at bottom at 7T. Tie off X's at 5H.

two piece stringing Start X's at top at 7H. tie off X's at 5H & 11T.

So, they told me the same as jim e except they said the last tie off for two piece is at 11T not 9T (so the link Irvin had was right). I am doing one piece anyways, but find the discrepancy odd since 11T would be a pain to tie off on...9T looks like a more logical/much better place...but I would have to go with what Wilson told me if I did a two piece on this.

 

[jim e]

You asked and I just posted what the USRSA listed on the site for your racquet. They usually get their infor. from the manuf. and update it for new racquets, and/or changes. I double checked and what I posted is exactly as listed.
Since 7T is the last X string on the bottom, it makes sense that 9T would be a tie off point, as long as the grommet is large enough, but to be honest with you, I cannot tell you the # of racquets I have come my way, where different tie offs were done than where it should be, and you know , I'm sure that they all worked well. It's not like it matters that much. Anyways the USRSA lists everything and usually it is accurate, up to date, and so convienent being all in one place to find any pattern out there.

 

[Toad]

You asked and I just posted what the USRSA listed on the site for your racquet. They usually get their infor. from the manuf. and update it for new racquets, and/or changes. I double checked and what I posted is exactly as listed.

That's fine, no worries...thank you for posting it. My guess is stringing it with either of those as the tie off would be fine...using 9T would just be a lot easier/better since the main string wouldn't be riding up on the knot (which it would be with a tie off at 11T).

 

[Irvin]

His data is the same I posted, just different terms.

It is now since he edited it. He had 11T instead of 9T.

Irvin

 

[Irvin]

@ Irvin

Thanks for the link, I had no idea.


I submitted this question to Wilson Customer Service and their response was:

Start M's at throat

Main skips 7T, 9T, &h and 9H. Tie off mains at 6T.

one piece stringing Start X's at bottom at 7T. Tie off X's at 5H.

two piece stringing Start X's at top at 7H. tie off X's at 5H & 11T.

So, they told me the same as jim e except they said the last tie off for two piece is at 11T not 9T (so the link Irvin had was right). I am doing one piece anyways, but find the discrepancy odd since 11T would be a pain to tie off on...9T looks like a more logical/much better place...but I would have to go with what Wilson told me if I did a two piece on this.

Unless you string the racket ATW you won't be tying off the crosses in the throat anyway so it does not matter.

Irvin

 

[Irvin]

You asked and I just posted what the USRSA listed on the site for your racquet. They usually get their infor. from the manuf. and update it for new racquets, and/or changes. I double checked and what I posted is exactly as listed.
Since 7T is the last X string on the bottom, it makes sense that 9T would be a tie off point, as long as the grommet is large enough, but to be honest with you, I cannot tell you the # of racquets I have come my way, where different tie offs were done than where it should be, and you know , I'm sure that they all worked well. It's not like it matters that much. Anyways the USRSA lists everything and usually it is accurate, up to date, and so convienent being all in one place to find any pattern out there.

Actually 9T does not make sense to me because the second to last cross string would go through that grommet hole from top to bottom and partially block the grommet hole. If the OP is doing ATW and stringing top to bottom I would tie off in 5T, IF that hole is closer or just as close to 7T as 9T is. Much easier to get the string through 5T.

Irvin

 

[jim e]

Actually 9T does not make sense to me because the second to last cross string would go through that grommet hole from top to bottom and partially block the grommet hole. If the OP is doing ATW and stringing top to bottom I would tie off in 5T, IF that hole is closer or just as close to 7T as 9T is. Much easier to get the string through 5T.

Irvin

Theres a # of racquets that have a cross string where a tie off goes, its not that unusual.Sometimes when that happens, the end mains are so close it does not give enough space to use a Parnell knot, and on those I use the PC knot. Anyways, 9T is in the USRSA web site as the 2 pc tie off, and its also listed in their digest as 9T as well.I have not seen very many errors listed in the digest.(only once on an obscure racquet, it listed the s.s a foot shorter than it should have been, thats been the only error I ever came across).

 

[Irvin]

'jim e,' You are correct many rackets have a tie off on a cross string that does not present a problem. But the OP is stringing this racket as 1 piece. If he goes bottom to top he ties off at the head of the racket. If he uses ATW then he has an option of using 9T or 5T (where the mains tie off.) All I was trying to say is that 5T would be the easiest hole of the two.

Irvin

 

[jim e]

'jim e,' You are correct many rackets have a tie off on a cross string that does not present a problem. But the OP is stringing this racket as 1 piece. If he goes bottom to top he ties off at the head of the racket. If he uses ATW then he has an option of using 9T or 5T (where the mains tie off.) All I was trying to say is that 5T would be the easiest hole of the two.

Irvin

Okay,
I see what you mean now, and yes that makes perfect sense, with an ATW is best to utilize the easiest hole to use.I usually string most racquets as 2 piece. I string a decent amount of nat. gut, along with all the hybrids, and no one ever specifies 1 or 2 piece, so the majority gets done as 2 piece. I will string an ATW every so often just to keep in the habit of stringing it, but not that much in comparison.

 

[Toad]

I went ahead and just strung it up throat to head as recommended by Wilson, but I much prefer to string head to throat... In the interest of learning I was hoping you might elaborate a little on this, Irvin, since it confused me a bit.

If he goes bottom to top he ties off at the head of the racket. If he uses ATW then he has an option of using 9T or 5T (where the mains tie off.) All I was trying to say is that 5T would be the easiest hole of the two.

From what I have seen in YuLitle's video, on this racket I would string ATW by leaving out the last main on one side and starting at the second cross at top. I would string all the crosses down and then come back up through the last main and end with the top cross. This would leave me at the head of the racket, and I would tie off at 5H. I am thinking this is not what you are indicating...but not sure. Could you possibly try to clarify a bit?

 

[Irvin]

'Toad,' there are many ATW patterns, but the one I am going to describe to you should work.

String all but the last outside mains on each side. At this point you will have 14 mains strung and the short side and long side string will be at the top of the racket. Tie off the short side at 5H. Use the long side to string the 2nd cross to the 16th cross (make sure you skip over 10H on both sides of the racket where the last mains will go.) The 16th cross is the one above the last outside main which has not be strung at 10T. Now you will go up the racket stringing the outside main on one side, then across the top cross, and back down the racket for the last outside main. Now all strings are in the racket except for the bottom two crosses finish them and you are done.

I assumed you were using floating clamps and have no starting clamp. This method should work for you. Also you may want to look at your racket and try to visualize this in your head before you start and make sure you have got it.

Irvin

 

[Toad]

Thanks a lot, that clears it up a bit. Why would you use this over something like what I suggested. Does it minimize string overlap and blocked holes or is there another reason?

Yeah don't have a starting clamp, but my machine has fixed clamps (Alpha Pioneer DC Plus), don't know if that would change it any.

 

[jim e]

ATW patterns like the one Irvin described to you is primarily done so that when the end main strings end at the throat of the racquet, it allows you to string the cross strings from the head to the throat, instead of the throat to head while stringing a one piece pattern.
Your racquet , since it is a Wilson allows stringing from throat to head, but there are a good # of racquets that do not allow that,(example Head, Prince, Yonex), as that places more stress on the racquet and the manuf. specifically does not allow the cross strings to be strung bottom up, and that can effect your warranty if problems arise like breakage.
That said, many stringers either string as 2 piece top down on crosses, or an ATW pattern top down, on all racquets as it is a safer way to string.There are many ATW patterns, and variances of the major ones out there, as they all accomplish the same thing, some of them like the one Irvin described has one tie off on a main, and one tie off on a cross. The ATW patterns I do,(the few I do, as most of my stringing is done 2 piece), ends the tie offs on a top cross, and a bottom cross, so things are a little more symmetrical, but they all accomplish the same goal , which is to allow the cross strings to be strung top down.

 

[Toad]

ATW patterns like the one Irvin described to you is primarily done so that when the end main strings end at the throat of the racquet, it allows you to string the cross strings from the head to the throat, instead of the throat to head while stringing a one piece pattern.

I understand this, but I was wondering what benefits the pattern Irvin suggested had over the one I described. Both have tie offs in the same holes (*I think...mine would tie off at 5H and the normal main tie off 6T). Both string the crosses from top to bottom. The only difference I see is that the one I described ties the short side off on the bottom and long side off at top while Irvin's does the opposite. Irvin's pattern seems more complicated to me, but I figure there is some method to his madness and I'm trying to understand it so I can be a better stringer.

*edit

 

[jim e]

I understand this, but I was wondering what benefits the pattern Irvin suggested had over the one I described. Both have tie offs in the same holes (*I think...mine would tie off at 5H and the normal main tie off 6T). Both string the crosses from top to bottom. The only difference I see is that the one I described ties the short side off on the bottom and long side off at top while Irvin's does the opposite. Irvin's pattern seems more complicated to me, but I figure there is some method to his madness and I'm trying to understand it so I can be a better stringer.

*edit

Both gets the job done. There are many ATW patterns,and variances of the major ones popular, and some like one type over another. Who is correct, there is no perfect answer. Best thing to do is over time, try out different ones and see what you like the best.
One of my favorites is to string the mains, except for the end ones, s.s. go across the top cross, then go to long side, start on 3rd cross, go to bottom, except for last one or 2 crosses, does not matter, then go ATW back down to bottom, finish crosses, and tie off. This way you have a top cross, and bottom cross as tie off, and is more symetrical than a main tie off and cross tie off. Personally I don't care much for ATW patterns, with all the hard weaves to do, along with all the hybrid stringing and gut stringing I do I usually stick with 2 piece.As well as the paragraph below which convinced me to string all Head racquets as 2 piece. This article came from Aug. 2008 RSI mag. from the USRSA:

HEAD requires that every performance racquet they sell must be strung two-piece, period. With a properly-done two-piece string job, you avoid not only having the crosses installed from the throat to the head, but also any potential problem that might occur with an around-the-world or box pattern, where you might have a 90- or 270-degree turn between a main and a cross, which could break through a section of the frame where the grommets are close together. Because of this, in the unlikely event there was a problem with this frame, Head would have the option of denying the warranty claim due to the one-piece string job.

 

[Irvin]

Thanks a lot, that clears it up a bit. Why would you use this over something like what I suggested. Does it minimize string overlap and blocked holes or is there another reason?

Yeah don't have a starting clamp, but my machine has fixed clamps (Alpha Pioneer DC Plus), don't know if that would change it any.

I am going to love this answer to your questions - YES. LOL

Doing ATW patterns does minimize string overlap and also allows you to tie off the string so that you are not tying off an outside main. Like 'jim e' said his preferred pattern allows him to tie off on the top and bottom cross. I do that too but it requires a starting clamp. If you skip a grommet hole in the top of the frame the top cross is usually closer to the tie off hole than the last main, and I can get my clamp closer to the frame on the top cross than I can on the last main. Primarily because of these two reasons the clamp is closer to the knot when you tie it off. The closer the clamp is to the knot the less drawback you will have and the less the drawback the more uniform the racket pattern.

If you tie off the two outside mains you lose tension when the clamps are released. This means you outside mains will move more since they are not as tight. Nothing wrong with that but no matter what you do those mains will move more. Now you will see on this forum many people say they correct for this by ... Does not matter how they correct for it the outside mains are still going to move.

Now to address you clamp question. It makes a big difference. I like to use a pattern when I tie off the short side main after I use it to run the top cross. Then I use the long side to run my third cross. When I get down to the bottom of the racket I string up one side the second cross and back down to finish my crosses. This way the two outside mains are not on a tie off and the tension is higher. If you use flying clamp and ran the top and third cross the clamp would not hold the two strings because they are too far apart. There is a way to do it but I don't want to go there right now.

Hope that cleared it up.

Irvin

 

[Irvin]

I understand this, but I was wondering what benefits the pattern Irvin suggested had over the one I described. Both have tie offs in the same holes (*I think...mine would tie off at 5H and the normal main tie off 6T). Both string the crosses from top to bottom. The only difference I see is that the one I described ties the short side off on the bottom and long side off at top while Irvin's does the opposite. Irvin's pattern seems more complicated to me, but I figure there is some method to his madness and I'm trying to understand it so I can be a better stringer.

*edit

One benefit (maybe) is you are stringing the racket top to bottom instead of bottom to top. It could be argued which is best but look at it this way. Even Wilson say when doing two piece you must string top down. Only one sure thing in tennis stringing. When doing two piece it is always top down.

Another advantage is fewer blocked holes.

IMHO the biggest benefit (in the pattern 'jim e' and I prefer) only the top and bottom crosses are tied off. The clamps are closer to the knot for less drawback, and a more uniform tension over the racket. In the pattern you used you had to tie off an outside main and a cross.

Also I did not tie off an outside main which keeps the tension on that string. Don't really know if that is a benefit or not.

Also IMHO you could argue your pattern is just as good as ours and less confusing. I would not argue with you on that one.

Irvin