My Review of a New Cross Stringing Tool

[Jerry Seinfeld]

Chotobaka - I would beg to differ with you. It is definitely NOT junk. Yes, it is different, but I personally am finding it more enjoyable to use than the SW Cross Stringing tool, which I think can also be useful in a variety of contexts. I'd be curious to know if you have tried it? I strongly suspect you have not.

When I purchased my String Weaver, I did so out of curiosity. I am a professional stringer/racquet technician and I like to think I am open to seeing, testing and objectively evaluating new products related to the profession; be it stringing equipment, stringing techniques or string. I enjoy new approaches and innovations and prefer to approach them openly. The String Weaver has impressed me more than I expected. It has been a pleasant surprise.

I am still testing and measuring. My goal is to really understand it and put it through the paces before forming final conclusions. What I have found is that it is really easy to use. It goes on easy and for the most part is simple to remove...although I have had an instance where it got stuck for a few minutes before a was able to successfully get it released. I am finding it easily enhances/widens the stringing channel for manual weaving. Essentially it is the same effect as stringing one ahead, but the channel/gap is a little bigger, depending on how far down you turn the adjustment bar on the String Weaver tool. I really like this for shaped polys and today I was stringing a sticky multi and the wider channel made pulling the string through much easier because the friction was greatly minimized. It neither adds nor saves time for me, but it does help me and makes stringing multiple racquets with uncomfortable strings more pleasurable. Is it just a honeymoon effect? Will I still choose to use it in another month, another 6 months or another year? I do not know. I can tell you that currently I am impressed and plan to use it whenever I am stringing stiff, sharp edged polys, sticky synthetics and will most likely use it with natural gut too. It is very easy on the strings. No marks or string damage so far. I am a satisfied customer who is NOT the target demographic for this device, but I found I am appreciating the performance advantages it offers.

 

[norcal]

Played doubles yesterday with Dennis (inventor of stringweaver) and he told me a professional stringer recently posted a review of the product. Apparently he likes it a lot.

Here it is for those of you interested:

http://www.******************.com/blog/2018/02/stringweavers-are-rockin-our-world/

Oops, it is censored, the site is guts and glory tennis. Here is the text of the review:

It is indeed an extremely rare occurance for racquet technicians/stringers to be presented with new tool options. Sure the standard cutters can be improved and premium string clippers and awls can be introduced, but I can not recall the last time a tool was created that generated so much excitement for me when stringing. I am first to admit, I’m a gadget guy. I enjoyed using “The String Thing” to straighten strings, I enjoyed when I purchased my Xuron cutters, my UltraSport tension calibrator, my Craftsman R6265 electric stapler, my Beers ERT 300, my GSS RAB starting clamp, My RAB grommet grinders, my beloved Hansen Tacker, my stethoscope and even my Stringway Cross Stringing Tools. However, none of them, NONE, have gotten as much continual use and have been able to make my job easier and more enjoyable on a daily basis than the new StringWeaver tools.

Quite frankly stringing with the StringWeavers is an unexpected joy. When I set out to first test them, I was skeptical. I had no idea how easy they would be to use nor did I expect that they would quickly become my favorite stringing tool ever. So what exactly are they and why I am so passionate about them?

https://i1.wp.com/www.******************.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/stringweavers.jpg?resize=300%2C156StringWeaver currently makes 3 versions of their device. Each is designed to work in harmony with different density stringbeds. Once the main strings are in place, the StringWeaver tool is placed into the stringbed. It fits easily onto the main strings. Once it is placed onto the strings, the stringer simply slides the plates to latch it into place. If you are familiar with the Stringway Cross Stringing tool, it is infinitely easier and less clunky to install and use.

https://i0.wp.com/www.******************.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sweaver2.jpg?resize=300%2C199What this tool does is to raise and lower alternating strings to create a channel allowing easy installation of the cross strings. It is essentially the same effect that stringers have been using for years with the “one ahead” weaving method, only with the StringWeaver tool engaged, the channel is a little deeper and makes installing the cross strings infinitely easier. While weaving is not necessarily a difficult challenge (or any challenge for that matter) for an experienced stringer, the tool provides some specific advantages in addition to making it easier to get the string in place. Specifically, the larger channel makes it much easier to install stiff strings. Some of the new stiff poly-based strings with sharp profiles can make the fingertips of even the most grizzled stringing professionals numb after just a few frames. Enter the StringWeaver tool. With the enhanced channel, the strings can be placed into the stringbed more freely and easily resulting in less friction and discomfort for the fingertips of the person installing the strings.

https://i0.wp.com/www.******************.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sweaver3.jpg?resize=300%2C199But wait, there’s more! In addition to less friction while weaving, you can use the tool to create a nearly friction free channel for pulling the crosses. This reduces the chances of notching and actually allows the stringer to gain some time in the stringing process as they can pull more rapidly with no fear of notching or burning. I really appreciate this option when stringing natural gut. Pulling the natural gut through a practically friction free channel is the best possible scenario for this living, breathing, somewhat fragile string. Professional stringers know that all the passes through the channels, no matter how careful, can twist the gut a little and wear on the protective coating. These issues, common to pulling/properly installing natural gut crosses, are all but eliminated when incorporating the StringWeaver tool into the stringing process.

In my business I string a significant amount of sharp profiled poly-based strings. This tool saves a tremendous amount of wear and tear on my fingertips. After receiving the tool and thoroughly testing it, I found myself using it more and more in many scenarios, not just for poly-based offerings. For instance, I found it useful/helpful when installing sticky multifilaments. It made pulling crosses much easier with no fear of notching. As mentioned above, using with natural gut is now essential for me as there are just too many advantages to ignore. I also enjoy using it with most synthetic gut at 58 jobs, just because it has now become part of how I string.

Initially I was concerned the tool may alter the results of my stringing. I was afraid that continually pushing down on the mains to create a channel would possibly stretch them out and perhaps create a looser stringbed. Then I wondered if pulling tension on the crosses while using the tool would alter the stringbed stiffness, perhaps making it tighter? So, I put it to the test. I strung the same racquet multiple ways and measured my results. My testing period lasted approximately two weeks. What I found was when I incorporated the tool into my stringing routine a certain way, the results were 100% identical to the method I use without the StringWeaver tool. I used my Babolat RDC to measure stringbed stiffness and I also used an ERT 300 to measure Dynamic Tension and my trusty String Meter so I could measure individual strings. Bottom line was I could create differing stringbed outcomes using the StringWeaver in some ways, but I could create identical outcomes to what I always get, using the method I describe below.

The next paragraph describes the process I use. It is difficult to follow, but for those interested in the process, it provides detail. I hope to someday soon produce a video which will be a far better way to demonstrate how I use it.

I always install and tension the first two cross strings and have the 3rd string in place, but not tensioned. At that point I insert the StringWeaver. I then trigger the switch on the tool to open the channel and then weave the 4th cross string into place through the open channel. Next, I pull tension on the 3rd cross string. (Note: I am essentially using the one ahead stringing method for crosses that I always use) After clamping off, I then pull the rest of the string through the channel. Once the string is all pulled through I switch the trigger on the StringWeaver and reverse the channel. I then push string number 4, which is installed but not yet tensioned, up against string #3. (Note that because the channel has been reversed string #4 is now in a hard weave environment.) I go ahead and install cross string number 5. I pull through the string leaving enough to reach the tensioner. I then tension string #4, (the string that is now in a hard weave environment) pull the rest of the string through, switch the trigger to reverse the channel and repeat the process. I have found the results using this method and sequencing changes nothing in my stringing results, but makes stringing much more pleasant for me.

It should be noted that when I was pulling tension with an open channel, my results varied from my norm. The stringbed was measuring tighter, but not by as much as I initially projected. I strung several rounds with the open method and it did produce identical results, but these results did not match the results I get when not using the StringWeaver.

 

[norcal]

Did it save me time? Honestly, I am not sure. In some cases I may have shaved a minute or two off of my stringing time and in some cases I may have added a couple of minutes. Time was not a factor one way or the other for me. However, for someone who does not string often or is learning, the StringWeaver may indeed save a significant amount of time. Weaving is just easier with this tool.

As much as I love the StringWeavers and fully endorse and embrace them, there are a couple of areas which new users will want to be aware. Currently the tool needs to be removed anywhere from the last 2 – 5 cross strings. (Using my preferred method) This is the area of the stringbed where weaving is the most difficult/challenging. With some frames the unit is too big/long to operate reasonably in the lower parts of the head. Also on some frames the StringWeaver can become stuck. The sliding process that allows the tool to disengage from the stringbed becomes extremely tight and difficult to implement. It needs to be cajoled in order to disengage and this can slow things down and become disconcerting if the tool decides to be obstinate about removal. This occurs mostly when, using my method, the tool is pushed to the very limits for working during the installation of cross strings. I now take it out a string earlier so as not to have to wrestle with it, but it means I do have to endure an extra weave or two in the most difficult part of the frame. It should be noted that the manufacturer does recommend a different process, but he does suggest removing the tool before tensioning the final cross strings.

Finally, some readers may wonder how the StringWeavers compare to the StringWay cross stringing tool. In my estimation there is no real comparison. The StringWeavers are infinitely easier to use. With the Stringway tool, the user just slides the string through the device rather than weaving. It is nifty and works, but I find when using the StringWeaver I am far less likely to produce a misweave error and it is faster and fits much better with my established stringing rhythm.

Guts and Glory Tennis does not sell or profit from this tool. We just discovered it works great for us and wanted to share our experiences. The device can be purchased online directly through the manufacturer who is USA based. Buy American! http://stringweavers.com/

 

[graycrait]

All this talk sort of makes me want one of these gadgets just to see. But like my Cam Pliers I don't see me using it much. I am not a fast cross weaver but I can string my PCG 100s in 15 - 20 minutes not including a leisurely cutting out old strings, measuring out strings and examining grommets. Which takes what - 3 minutes maybe at most? For me it is a hobby, I have time and if it takes me 45 minutes for a different racket so be it. I do a ported racket once or twice a year and use the brake, so that takes a bit longer. But my friend who uses those particular abominations doesn't pay me so who cares about the speed?

However, my cross stringing issue is not in the middle of the bed where both the SW and this device seems to provide the most support. It is in the last couple of crosses and even then it is not an issue of sorts it is just the way things are. I usually, if not using syn gut, just push a loop through the last two, takes a bit longer but who cares if I am not on the clock?

I would like to see a two piece stringing contest using a 98" 18x20 racket and 16g Ashaway Kevlar x 16G Ashaway Zyex in the crosses. I have resorted to pulling the Zyex, once "woven" through the grommet on the last couple of crosses using a starting clamp or needle nose.

These days I also wrap a bit of cheap tape around the middle knuckle of my right hand little finger before I do any crosses so when I pull them I do not continue to cut my finger. Not an issue with most string but if I don't do it every time the one time I 'should' have is too late. Also I found that if I spray some Dupont silicone with teflon on a rag and wipe the mains (when stringing some polys) making My weaving and pulling easier. The little bit of silicone residue on my fingers doesn't seem to interfere with My weaving.

Just me and my NEOS....

 

[chrisingrassia]

This tool still baffles me. I wonder how much longer it would take me to string a racquet using it

 

[bobtodd]

I bought this tool 6 weeks ago, and used it 4 or 5 times. It does not increase the speed of weaving the crosses, but it does decrease the wear and tear on my fingers. You still need to guide the string through the tool, and the strings gets hung up on the tool, slowing down the process. I would use it more, but I noticed that due to the lack of friction when pulling the crosses, the overall tension has increased. I cannot determine how many pounds to decrease in the crosses to off-set this phenomenom. Did anyone else experience this?

 

[Ronaldo]

I bought this tool 6 weeks ago, and used it 4 or 5 times. It does not increase the speed of weaving the crosses, but it does decrease the wear and tear on my fingers. You still need to guide the string through the tool, and the strings gets hung up on the tool, slowing down the process. I would use it more, but I noticed that due to the lack of friction when pulling the crosses, the overall tension has increased. I cannot determine how many pounds to decrease in the crosses to off-set this phenomenom. Did anyone else experience this?

Do you tension the string with the tool in place?

 

[StringWeaver]

The professional racquet technician who has been using the StringWeaver for many months has several different tension testing tools. He’s kept records of the dozens (hundreds?) of racquets he has strung with and without the tool and with different techniques. He has written quite a bit about string tension in his blog. Do a search on “Guts and Glory Blog” to read his findings.
Personally, I prefer to tension my crosses with the mains still separated by the StringWeaver. I feel I get a more uniformly tensioned string bed, and I’ve reduced friction and potential damage to the strings to a minimum.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Personally, I prefer to tension my crosses with the mains still separated by the StringWeaver. I feel I get a more uniformly tensioned string bed, and I’ve reduced friction and potential damage to the strings to a minimum.

Do you use the same tension on your crosses as you do on your mains? (Assuming full bed of same string)

Also do you measure the length of the frame before and after stringing to confirm that it is the same?

 

[Ronaldo]

The professional racquet technician who has been using the StringWeaver for many months has several different tension testing tools. He’s kept records of the dozens (hundreds?) of racquets he has strung with and without the tool and with different techniques. He has written quite a bit about string tension in his blog. Do a search on “Guts and Glory Blog” to read his findings.
Personally, I prefer to tension my crosses with the mains still separated by the StringWeaver. I feel I get a more uniformly tensioned string bed, and I’ve reduced friction and potential damage to the strings to a minimum.

Recall many years ago Stringway recommended stringing crosses 8# less when separated.

 

[bobtodd]

Do you tension the string with the tool in place?

Yes, my goal was to reduce the friction on the mains and get a more uniform stringbed. Based your later post, I will reduce the tension on the crosses, however 8 #'s seems like alot. Maybe I'll do 4# first. Thanks Ronaldo.

 

[Irvin]

Yes, my goal was to reduce the friction on the mains and get a more uniform stringbed. Based your later post, I will reduce the tension on the crosses, however 8 #'s seems like alot. Maybe I'll do 4# first. Thanks Ronaldo.

 

[bobtodd]

Thanks Irvin for the information.

 

[jim e]

Nice video Irvin!
Goes to show you that with all those angled pulls, the only strings that would be close to reference tension would be the center mains as they would have more a straight shot.
So most string jobs are basically proportional by default due to friction and angled pulls. therefore it makes no sense to string a proportional job, as it is basically already done.

 

[Irvin]

So most string jobs are basically proportional by default due to friction and angled pulls. therefore it makes no sense to string a proportional job, as it is basically already done.

What you are saying is somewhat true but with proportional string I wold be looking to have the same amount of deflection on all strings. For instance If the deflection on the cross point of a 32 cm main and a 20 cm cross were 20 lbs/cm I would want the deflection I would want the deflection on a 27 cm main and a 19 cm cross to be the same.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Any update on this?
Can anyone who actually has purchased and used this tool comment?

 

[eelhc]

Any update on this?
Can anyone who actually has purchased and used this tool comment?

The OP has provided a decent review.

Some folks may be looking for an easier was to weave crosses with potentially less wear while pulling. Works for them... fine, but for me it's a tool that's solving a problem that I don't have.

It's $35.... So about the cost of a starting clamp. I would certainly purchase a starting clamp before I purchase this tool.... that's saying something... You can ask my wife how resistant I am to buying new tools (hint.. not very).

 

[Irvin]

The OP has provided a decent review.

Some folks may be looking for an easier was to weave crosses with potentially less wear while pulling. Works for them... fine, but for me it's a tool that's solving a problem that I don't have.

It's $35.... So about the cost of a starting clamp. I would certainly purchase a starting clamp before I purchase this tool.... that's saying something... You can ask my wife how resistant I am to buying new tools (hint.. not very).

If it would help me weave crosses faster I would buy it. Somehow I can't see how the it takes to setup and operate will save me $35.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Do you string Poly? The "one ahead" method barely makes any difference with Poly strings.
Do you push the loose cross string towards the tight strings?

 

[eelhc]

Do you string Poly? The "one ahead" method barely makes any difference with Poly strings.
Do you push the loose cross string towards the tight strings?

One ahead makes the biggest difference with Poly strings. Soft multi, SG, or NG is easy enough without weaving 1 ahead.

If I'm not mistaken... you've just recently started to string. Give it some time... After ~100 racquets, you'll think crosses are not so tough after all.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

All I am saying is that I barely see any difference in heights of the strings.
The tool described in this thread makes an alternating gap that is 10000x larger.

 

[Irvin]

Do you string Poly? The "one ahead" method barely makes any difference with Poly strings.
Do you push the loose cross string towards the tight strings?

Yes I do and poly does take much longer than multi

 

[eelhc]

All I am saying is that I barely see any difference in heights of the strings.
The tool described in this thread makes an alternating gap that is 10000x larger.

You just broke the 2Hr mark a couple of months ago...

There are a lot of experienced stringers here who have been stringing for years on anything from a Klippermate to a Bairdo. They managed to get good and fast without the use of a cross stringing tool. Stringing ain't exactly brain surgery. unless you have issues with motor control, arthritis, etc... you're just better off stringing more racquets than buying a new gadget. Tools/gadgets will not make you better/faster stringer. Willingness to learn and practice does.

 

[v-verb]

I wish the String Weaver inventor much success. I'm a slooooow stringer and for my purposes the Stringways tool seems best for me. Will purchase it this week. Weaving crosses is the devil IMO

 

[am1899]

Give it time. Full bed poly used to take me way longer than anything else. Now, usually it takes me 5-7 min longer.

Try to continue to improve your technique, and with more repetition, you’ll get the time down (assuming your fingers are healthy).

 

[v-verb]

Give it time. Full bed poly used to take me way longer than anything else. Now, usually it takes me 5-7 min longer.

Try to continue to improve your technique, and with more repetition, you’ll get the time down (assuming your fingers are healthy).

Thanks! Encouraging...something to think about

 

[R15]

I bought a set of these a while back because I was intrigued...though I had not got round to using them (similar to others I have a method that works for me).

So context first, I am not a speedy stringer, from cutting out to removing racket from the machine is usually about 30-35 minutes.

Last week I had a racket in that needed an ATW pattern, I do not do many of these and as a result the hard weaves disrupt my rhythm (I assume if I did more ATWs I would get used to it, but I don't). So I figured this might be a good time to give the StringWeaver a go.

I normally weave diagonally across the string bed, but with the tool in place I had to adjust my technique. However with the way the tool separates the strings it was fairly easy to adjust.
The hard weaves were no longer hard weaves, which was the main thing I was hoping for, these were therefore much easier and probably a tad quicker. Overall stringing time seemed about the same, but it was a more 'relaxed' job. Overall I was pleased with it in this use case.

I doubt it is something I will use regularly, but for some scenarios it will be a useful tool (for me) to have in the box:

• ATW - to counteract hard weaves
• Shaped poly - to minimise twisting/corkscrewing
• Gut - to minimise wear on dense patterns

[I am not endorsing or otherwise, just sharing some observations and thoughts.]

 

[brickvolley]

Picked up a HD version for 18X20 pattern. Works like a charm. Less stressful weaving/pulling/straightening the poly cross before tensioning. I don't think using the tool saved me much time, but it did make stringing poly cross more enjoyable. BTW, I don't use this tool for syn or multi cross.

 

[norcal]

Here's a review from a badminton stringer. I have never strung a badminton racket (thank god, it looks like a pain) but the stringweaver helps this guy. Interestingly he also uses a leader line too (which I have never seen before). Hopefully badminton never 'progresses' to poly strings, that would seem incredibly difficult even for the tough finger tipped crew around here!

Anyone try the leader line technique? Kinda cool to see these ideas to make stringing easier.

 

[dsp9753]

I have been using this tool for almost a year now? But I love it, it does make stringing much easier. The time I need to use to setup the tool is offset by the amount of time I save from stringing. The difference if any is in like 2-3 minutes. It takes me about 20-25 minutes to string a racquet. But it does make stringing poly's and 18x20 pattern a breeze.

I only string for myself so I can't speak if the tool makes the racquet feel different or not. There may have been a slight difference in the beginning? Can't remember but it does not affect my tennis game in any way.

 

[aarenes]

Here's a review from a badminton stringer. I have never strung a badminton racket (thank god, it looks like a pain) but the stringweaver helps this guy. Interestingly he also uses a leader line too (which I have never seen before). Hopefully badminton never 'progresses' to poly strings, that would seem incredibly difficult even for the tough finger tipped crew around here!

Anyone try the leader line technique? Kinda cool to see these ideas to make stringing easier.

I love the leader line technique...I think the American tennis stringer the video refers to is Mr Stringers videos...but this gentleman's use of shoe laces is even simpler.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Irvin]

I love the leader line technique...I think the American tennis stringer the video refers to is Mr Stringers videos...but this gentleman's use of shoe laces is even simpler.

Have you seen that dummy’s pony bead video? Or the one when he pulls the next to be tensioned cross up against the last tensioned cross? That method keeps the string path open for weaving one ahead.

 

[kkm]

Here is a video including use of a similar tool, by someone who really knows what he’s doing:

Our Standard Stringing Process

After seeing “After the String is Strung” some of you wanted to see a “While the String is Being Strung” video. I have several videos of the stringing process but I us…

racquetquest.tennis

 

[Karma Tennis]

Here is a video including use of a similar tool, by someone who really knows what he’s doing:

The Stringway Cross Stringing tool would allow the threading of the crosses at a much faster speed because the string is actually threaded via a channel in the tool. This also means that the cross string being threaded does not rub against the main strings so there is no friction and no potential damage to the mains or crosses during the threading process. And as the string is not being handled very much, there is less chance of the string being kinked.

With the Stringway tool, it is possible to pull tension on the cross strings through the tool so that no friction or pressure is placed on the main strings during the tensioning process leading to more accurate tension pulls.

Finally, it is possible to use the Stringway tool in the same manner as the tool being used in the video simply to spread the main strings. Not that I would recommend using it in that manner except for strings that are in tight areas - perhaps the last couple of cross strings.

 

[StringWeaver]

The stringer in the video posted by kkm is John Gugel, the Racquet Sports Industry 2012 Stringer of the Year. He's been stringing for over 40 years and he's a huge proponent of minimizing friction when stringing, which is why he uses a string spreading tool. The particular tools he uses have not been available for many years, but there are two similar tools available: the StringWeaver and the Stringway MK2. Notice that the tool in the video must be lifted off the mains and repositioned slightly after each cross. The MK2 also requires repositioning the upper portion after each cross. The StringWeaver does not--you simply turn the lever to the opposite side and the spreading of the mains is reversed. The StringWeaver is also thinner than the MK2 and John's tools.

It's obvious from the video that John is extremely meticulous and uses nifty tools and equipment to ensure that every string job is consistent while minimizing damage to the strings and the frame. Nice to see an internationally renowned stringer advocating for the use of some type of string spreader.

 

[kkm]

					The stringer in the video posted by kkm is John Gugel, the Racquet Sports Industry 2012 Stringer of the Year. He's been stringing for over 40 years and he's a huge proponent of minimizing friction when stringing, which is why he uses a string spreading tool. The particular tools he uses have not been available for many years, but there are two similar tools available: the StringWeaver and the Stringway MK2. Notice that the tool in the video must be lifted off the mains and repositioned slightly after each cross. The MK2 also requires repositioning the upper portion after each cross. The StringWeaver does not--you simply turn the lever to the opposite side and the spreading of the mains is reversed. The StringWeaver is also thinner than the MK2 and John's tools. It's obvious from the video that John is extremely meticulous and uses nifty tools and equipment to ensure that every string job is consistent while minimizing damage to the strings and the frame. Nice to see an internationally renowned stringer advocating for the use of some type of string spreader. There was the Babolat P.A.S.S. tool years ago. Not having to reposition is something different in a good way.

 

[Karma Tennis]

The Stringweaver requires the stringer to use their fingers to weave the cross strings through the most or all of the intersecting main strings.

The Stringway tool doesn't. In most instances only a very few intersecting strings require some manual intervention. Otherwise, the cross string is simply fed through the bed. IMO(!) this is a huge advantage when threading certain types of strings (eg. slippery strings, sharp strings, and very thin gauge strings.). Also the Stringway tool is engineered from aluminium and some type of high strength plastic. (@Technatic may wish to clarify.) I've been using the Stringway tool for several years and it is still as good as the day I got it.

Note, it is NOT my intention to criticise the Stringweaver tool. There is a significant difference in cost between the two tools.

The Stringweaver is a good tool and I can see it being very useful for many stringers - especially those who mastered manual weaving but just want a little bit of help. I started using the Stringway tool after stringing my 3rd racquet so as a very slow manual weaver, the Stringway tool is perfect for me. (In my case, I estimate using the tool saves me about 30 minutes on a 16x19 job.)

 

[struggle]

Dudes........

 

[fritzhimself]

I built some cross stringing tools myself and collected others - also the p.a.a.s. But don't use any of these pieces, because I can string much faster without inverseur.

 

[Ronaldo]

I built some cross stringing tools myself and collected others - also the p.a.a.s. But don't use any of these pieces, because I can string much faster without inverseur.

Ty for the images!

 

[Irvin]

I built some cross stringing tools myself and collected others - also the p.a.a.s. But don't use any of these pieces, because I can string much faster without inverseur.

@fritzhimself i agree with you but the spreaders You made work on the same principle as the ones in John’s video and you must move them every time you string a cross. Nice work on the spreaders though.

 

[graycrait]

Please pity me for my ignorance, but is the machine John is using in the video called a GoPro stringing machine? How old is it? Also I am leaning heavily towards getting one of these "spread the mains" gadgets but wonder - "Can you string the last 3 crosses on a 93" 18x20 with one of these?"

 

[fritzhimself]

Yes of course - that was a 600 Prestige mid.
I built this thing about 12 years ago to string gut strings without friction up to the last string.
Maybe I'll make a new video and show it.

 

[fritzhimself]

………………….. and you must move them every time you string a cross. Nice work on the spreaders though.

Thanks a lot - yes you have to turn the tool 180 degrees with every new string.

 

[PBODY99]

Please pity me for my ignorance, but is the machine John is using in the video called a GoPro stringing machine? How old is it? Also I am leaning heavily towards getting one of these "spread the mains" gadgets but wonder - "Can you string the last 3 crosses on a 93" 18x20 with one of these?"

No, that is just a sticker. The machine ia a rare True Tension machine that was on the market in the 1980's

 

[Irvin]

Thanks a lot - yes you have to turn the tool 180 degrees with every new string.

I assumed you’d have to turn the tool when I said you have to move them every time you string a cross. Just like in the video John G made.

 

[StringWeaver]

Also I am leaning heavily towards getting one of these "spread the mains" gadgets but wonder - "Can you string the last 3 crosses on a 93" 18x20 with one of these?"

How close you can get to the throat of the racquet with a string spreader depends upon the width of the spreader and the shape of the head. The StringWeaver is thinner than the spacing between the crosses, so it is possible to weave all the crosses if you use the technique of stringing behind the tool for the last few crosses. Basically it's like stringing 3 or 4 crosses ahead with the last few crosses behind the tool, then remove the tool and pull tension on each of the crosses. And, as I pointed out earlier, you do not need to shift the tool or turn it around after each cross. You just flip the lever and the gap reverses.

 

[Ronaldo]

So never tension while the string is within the tool?

 

[Karma Tennis]

"Can you string the last 3 crosses on a 93" 18x20 with one of these?"

I imagine you can with any of these tools. One certainly can with the Stringway tool.

So never tension while the string is within the tool?

You certainly can. Keep in mind that doing it this way is similar to tensioning Main strings. There will be little to no friction when the cross string is being pulled. This will lead to a string bed with a higher DT. One can compensate for this by pulling the cross strings at a lower tension but YMMV.

Pulling tension with the string in the tool makes it much less likely that the either the main string or the cross string will be burned or damaged.

 

[StringWeaver]

So never tension while the string is within the tool?

I prefer to tension while the gap is still open. As Karma Tennis pointed out, it is less likely to damage the strings and I get a more consistent tension. It is only on the last few crosses that one may have to tension without the tool being on the racquet.

Also, at the request of some professional stringers, I have customized StringWeavers to make them narrower and thus allow them to get closer to the throat. Similar to John Gugel switching to a narrower string spreader as he got near the throat in the video.