One piece or Two piece string job?

[TennisManiac]

Lets say you're going to use the same string for both mains and crosses. Do you prefer a one piece or a two piece string job? I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions on this. I've always performed a one piece string job on my rackets. From what I understand the two piece string job will give the racket a much more evenly tentioned head. But is really worth the hassle? Is it really going to make that much of a difference?

 

[Up&comer]

If you one piece, you need to make sure you are stinging from the top down. You need to do that with a two piece as well. I haven't really ever felt a noticeable difference in how they perform, so for the most part I stick with two piece as that is what I'm comfortable with stringing and because I mostly use hybrids.

 

[MAX PLY]

I don't know about the "more evenly tensioned" theory but I don't find two piece a hassle at all--in fact, I generally find it easier with most frames. To the contrary, I think the time you save while weaving with shorter pieces and not having to worry about altering the recommded pattern (i.e., using ATW instead) more than offsets the 45 seconds it takes to cut a set in half and tie two additonal knots. Plus, in the case of my personal racquets, I use natural gut so two piece saves a little wear.

 

[fortun8son]

One piece may get you an extra set when using a reel, but that's the only advantage that I see.
I would only use it on 'natural' frames like Prince or Dunlop.
Wilson or Babolat would need bottom-up and Head rarely allows it at all.
Unless you want to go ATW.
There are quite a few threads about this in the Stringing Techniques section.

 

[Rabbit]

Makes me no nevermind. I do prefer aesthetically less knots, but I don't see that two piece is any better than one piece from a performance standpoint.

I use hybrids in my frame, so it's always two-piece for now.

 

[cluckcluck]

The other advantage in a two piece is being able to have different tensions in mains vs. crosses. Another advantage is not having to string a piece of string that is 30 feet long for one side of the mains in a one piece.
I haven't noticed the difference at all though.

 

[Rabbit]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You can have differing tensions on mains and crosses with a one-piece. I just finished one for a client, 55/52.

 

[cluckcluck]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You can have differing tensions on mains and crosses with a one-piece. I just finished one for a client, 55/52.

It's just not the same though

 

[BHiC]

I string every single racquet I can 2 piece. I have gotten used to it, to the point that it is easier and quicker for me. Plus, every single racquet (that I know of) can be strung 2 piece, while 1 piece will void the warranty of several popular racquets.

 

[topspin18]

so only Babolat and Wilson and Dunlop rackets can be strung bottom up without voiding the racket warranty?

 

[Ramon]

Some people prefer one-piece for the reason you mentioned in your opening post: more even tension. That's true of most one-piece patterns, but I prefer to reserve an extra foot or two on the short side and weave one or two crosses (depending on the racquet) with the short side. This can be done with either a conventional one-piece pattern or an ATW pattern. Both my tie-offs are at cross strings. By doing this, all the main strings are pulled at true tension, so the tension is actually more evenly distributed than with a two-piece pattern.

 

[Korso]

2 piece is easier to string up in my opinion but I prefer a one piece if the racket allows it without using a around the world pattern. I don't like wasting string. Stringing different tension in main and cross strings is still achievable in a one piece.

 

[brooker]

http://www.protennis.us/ExpertDetail.asp?id=2761

read the quoted "There is no advantage to using 2 pieces of string unless you have some 1/2 sets that would otherwise not be used or the racquet has been poorly designed and using two pieces would avoid some awkward transition from mains to crosses. A disadvantage of 2-piece stringing is that 4 knots are required rather than two and it is much harder to for a stringer to maintain a desired tension in the section of string that is tied. A few pro players do, however, have a preference for 2-piece stringing even though they do not use a hybrid - but none that I asked had a reasonable explanation for doing so... Jeff"

 

[fortun8son]

Yet the Babolat string guru, recently interviewed in RSI recommends 2pc stringing for all racquets.

 

[fortun8son]

so only Babolat and Wilson and Dunlop rackets can be strung bottom up without voiding the racket warranty?

Dunlops are natural top-downers(usually)
Wilson and Babolat allow bottom-up 1pc, but most experts agree that top-down is preferable.
There are many racquets that are specified by the mfgr. as 2pc only.
Head does this even with racquets that tie off the mains at the top.

 

[uk_skippy]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You can have differing tensions on mains and crosses with a one-piece. I just finished one for a client, 55/52.

It's just not the same though

Please explain why.

 

[Ramon]

^^^^^^^^^^^
You can have differing tensions on mains and crosses with a one-piece. I just finished one for a client, 55/52.

Please explain why.

"IMO the differences of tension on the individual strings will not equalise over the whole frame." - Richard Parnell

http://www.******************.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1080332302

This is a link to a discussion about proportional stringing among GSS symposium leaders. If proportional stringing works, then obviously, stringing a one-piece with different tensions on mains and crosses will work.

 

[Ramon]

"IMO the differences of tension on the individual strings will not equalise over the whole frame." - Richard Parnell

http://www.******************.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1080332302

This is a link to a discussion about proportional stringing among GSS symposium leaders. If proportional stringing works, then obviously, stringing a one-piece with different tensions on mains and crosses will work.

Hmm...the link is blocked on this forum, but you get the gist of it. If you Google it, you can find it.

 

[Valjean]

http://www.protennis.us/ExpertDetail.asp?id=2761

read the quoted "There is no advantage to using 2 pieces of string unless you have some 1/2 sets that would otherwise not be used or the racquet has been poorly designed and using two pieces would avoid some awkward transition from mains to crosses. A disadvantage of 2-piece stringing is that 4 knots are required rather than two and it is much harder to for a stringer to maintain a desired tension in the section of string that is tied. A few pro players do, however, have a preference for 2-piece stringing even though they do not use a hybrid - but none that I asked had a reasonable explanation for doing so... Jeff"

There is an obvious, simple way to determine which produces a more consistent, evenly-tensioned stringjob, and that's to measure the outcome.

How come no one does it.

 

[drummerdan]

Another advantage is not having to string a piece of string that is 30 feet long for one side of the mains in a one piece.

That's why I string almost everything 2 piece. I hate having to fool with the extra long string. No complaints from customers and they never ask for 1 piece vs 2 piece (well, maybe a couple of times).

Sometimes racquetball frames require that you use 1 piece only because of the wacky patterns they use. Sometimes I really hate seeing certain frames come in (EForce). Ughhh!

 

[drakulie]

There is an obvious, simple way to determine which produces a more consistent, evenly-tensioned stringjob, and that's to measure the outcome.

How come no one does it.

One piece holds tension better. I've posted about it before.

 

[fortun8son]

I'm convinced that the 'E' in E-Force stands for Evil.

 

[Valjean]

One piece holds tension better. I've posted about it before.

That's odd when my own measurements have shown that two-piece produces a more consistent tension across the stringbed, particularly if combined with a 50-50 method with the crosses, and when a two-piece stringjob can also avoid a tension difference in the two last mains. It's also counter-intuitive to think so.

 

[Ramon]

That's odd when my own measurements have shown that two-piece does, particularly if combined with a 50-50 method with the crosses, and when a two-piece stringjob can also avoid a tension difference in the two last mains. It's also counter-intuitive to think so.

If you do a 2-piece with 50/50 crosses, you already have 4 strings that are loose, so it's counter-intuitive for me to think that would help avoid tension loss. You also don't have to have any tension difference between any of the mains with certain 1-piece patterns (like the ones I described earlier).

 

[Valjean]

If you do a 2-piece with 50/50 crosses, you already have 4 strings that are loose, so it's counter-intuitive for me to think that would help avoid tension loss. You also don't have to have any tension difference between any of the mains with certain 1-piece patterns (like the ones I described earlier).

Four strings that are "loose"...how? By your assertion? And as far as the claim of no tension difference among those mains done one-piece a certain way--how does that happen with actual tension in the strung racquet, given the way the strings get shorter, and thereby tighter when strung at the same reference tension, the closer you get to the frame?

And given that evidently you won't measure the actual tension. My bottom line is, like Greg Raven recently wrote recently in RSI, one-piece stringing is, well, innately asymmetrical; that's what makes it counter-intuitive to maintain that tensioning is better by its means...

I also find it difficult to accept the claim that what can set one- or two-piece stringing apart is an ability to hold tension. Now, it's accepted that alternating mains will assist that, and that pre-stretching and slowing the pulling speed will. But until now I thought the one- versus two-piece debate was supposed to turn on which one produced the most consistent stringbed, not which holds tension better. For one thing, I wonder how one is supposed to tell...

 

[Ramon]

Four strings that are "loose"...how? By your assertion? And as far as the claim of no tension difference among those mains done one-piece a certain way--how does that happen with actual tension in the strung racquet, given the way the strings get shorter, and thereby tighter when strung at the same reference tension, the closer you get to the frame?

And given that you don't measure the actual tension at all. My bottom line is, like Greg Raven recently wrote recently in RSI, one-piece stringing is, well, innately asymmetrical; that's what makes it counter-intuitive to maintain that tensioning is better by its means...

I also find it difficult to accept the claim that what can set one- or two-piece stringing apart is an ability to hold tension. Now, it's accepted that alternating mains will do that, and that pre-stretching and slowing the pulling speed will. But until now I thought the one- versus two-piece debate was supposed to turn on which one produced the most consistent stringbed, not which holds tension better. For one thing, I wonder how one is supposed to tell...

Any finishing tie-off string will be looser than the other strings. Isn't that what you implied when you asserted that a two-piece string job avoids a tension difference in the last two mains? Yes, the two-piece does avoid the tension difference because two perimeter mains are both "loose", which is more symmetrical than just one perimeter main being "loose". I'd rather have no mains be "loose".

Yes, I understand how shorter strings are "tighter" when pulled at the same tension setting. I'm simply saying that on my one-piece pattern the mains are pulled at the same tension setting, and none of them lose tension due to a tie-off. This is different from the standard one-piece pattern that the RSI guys are talking about. I never use the standard one-piece pattern for the same reason you brought up; it's asymmetrical, and for that reason I prefer a two-piece pattern over the standard one-piece. I got my idea for my non-standard one-piece pattern from the gg website.

Anyway, it's no big deal to me if people prefer two-piece. I like to experiment with hybrids anyway, but when I can do a one-piece I'll do it. It saves wear on the grommets, uses less string if you use a reel, and since I pull every main string without a tie-off, I feel that the stringbed is more consistent.

 

[Valjean]

Any finishing tie-off string will be looser than the other strings. Isn't that what you implied when you asserted that a two-piece string job avoids a tension difference in the last two mains? Yes, the two-piece does avoid the tension difference because two perimeter mains are both "loose", which is more symmetrical than just one perimeter main being "loose". I'd rather have no mains be "loose".

Yes, I understand how shorter strings are "tighter" when pulled at the same tension setting. I'm simply saying that on my one-piece pattern the mains are pulled at the same tension setting, and none of them lose tension due to a tie-off. This is different from the standard one-piece pattern that the RSI guys are talking about. I never use the standard one-piece pattern for the same reason you brought up; it's asymmetrical, and for that reason I prefer a two-piece pattern over the standard one-piece. I got my idea for my non-standard one-piece pattern from the gg website.

Anyway, it's no big deal to me if people prefer two-piece. I like to experiment with hybrids anyway, but when I can do a one-piece I'll do it. It saves wear on the grommets, uses less string if you use a reel, and since I pull every main string without a tie-off, I feel that the stringbed is more consistent.

No, actually I meant a two-piece stringjob can avoid a tension discrepancy between the last two mains. What the pulled tension for those last two mains, and so their resulting tension, can be is another question, as is whether to ignore a difference in actual tension(s) within the stringbed when shorter strings are pulled at the same tension as the center mains.

In my tests, incidentally, pulling particularly that last, shortest string of all, either main or cross, at full reference tension (or increased by the 10% the USRSA permits) impacts the two previous strings, tightening them somewhat as well. This is how the sweetspot can shrink when the outer strings are, in effect, inadvertently over-tensioned.

 

[drakulie]

I thought the one- versus two-piece debate was supposed to turn on which one produced the most consistent stringbed, not which holds tension better. For one thing, I wonder how one is supposed to tell...

Thru my own testing, one piece, especially when utilizing atw patterns holds tension better and provides a more consistent string bed throughout, than a two piece.

Using an ERT the tension has shown to hold longer, and using a simple stringmeter, it has shown not to have the same dramatic "pockets" of tension loss that is more pronounced in a two piece string bed. That is, when placing the string meter in different locations on the string bed, a two piece has more pockets of tension loss and/or higher number of pockets of tension loss throughout the stringbed than a one piece ATW.

Now, I will acknowledge that my sampe size is surely not going to be as large as the guys at RSI, but I would be curious to read the Raven article.

 

[levy1]

I don't know about the "more evenly tensioned" theory but I don't find two piece a hassle at all--in fact, I generally find it easier with most frames. To the contrary, I think the time you save while weaving with shorter pieces and not having to worry about altering the recommded pattern (i.e., using ATW instead) more than offsets the 45 seconds it takes to cut a set in half and tie two additonal knots. Plus, in the case of my personal racquets, I use natural gut so two piece saves a little wear.

I agree. In addition I can play around with a little less tension on the crosses which for me gives better feel and pocketing not to mention arm saving qualities. The polys seem to shine at lower tensions.

 

[beepee1972]

Only in case of hybrid do I tie 2-piece. In all other cases I use 1 piece. And ATW where needed ofcourse, I always tie the crosses top down

 

[heartattack]

One piece holds tension better. I've posted about it before.

I'm with you Drakulie. two piece are for those lazy stringer...

 

[drakulie]

I have never identified any "pockets of tension loss" such as you describe when using my Stringmeter; in fact I wouldn't know how you would know one. And, in a racquet actually played with, why wouldn't it just be the consequence of hitting the ball over time at the same location, which is known of? No, Raven wasn't addressing the topic we have, it was just an aside as he answered someone else.

Just a quick note what I am referring to with the use of the string meter.

After frame is strung, I take 6 readings,,,,,, one with an ert and 5 with a string meter. In the case of the string meter, I take a reading at the:

center,
left top of string bed,
right top of string bed,
left bottom of string bed,
right bottom of string bed.

I do the readings again after 24 hours.
Then, after I hit, and so on, each time after I hit until the string breaks.

Typically, with a two piece, there will be "pockets" of tension loss not as severe as with a one piece ATW. For example, say I got a reading of 60 on the bottom left with a string meter after stringing. With a two piece it will drop to say 52 after 24 hours, whereas with a one piece it will drop to 58?

Hope I explained that well.

Now that I got an RDC, I will be conducting similar test with the added SBS.

 

[zapvor]

That's why I string almost everything 2 piece. I hate having to fool with the extra long string. No complaints from customers and they never ask for 1 piece vs 2 piece (well, maybe a couple of times).

Sometimes racquetball frames require that you use 1 piece only because of the wacky patterns they use. Sometimes I really hate seeing certain frames come in (EForce). Ughhh!

i just did my first eforce a couple weeks ago. wow! brutal

 

[Rabbit]

Well, I just strung one of mine all poly 24/23. Didn't have a single issue and it's two different tensions on one piece of string. And it looks lovely.

 

[brooker]

I'm with you Drakulie. two piece are for those lazy stringer...

I agree. two piece are for those lazy stringer (except stringing hybrids.)

 

[Valjean]

Just a quick note what I am referring to with the use of the string meter.

After frame is strung, I take 6 readings,,,,,, one with an ert and 5 with a string meter. In the case of the string meter, I take a reading at the:

center,
left top of string bed,
right top of string bed,
left bottom of string bed,
right bottom of string bed.

I do the readings again after 24 hours.
Then, after I hit, and so on, each time after I hit until the string breaks.

Typically, with a two piece, there will be "pockets" of tension loss not as severe as with a one piece ATW. For example, say I got a reading of 60 on the bottom left with a string meter after stringing. With a two piece it will drop to say 52 after 24 hours, whereas with a one piece it will drop to 58?

Hope I explained that well.

Now that I got an RDC, I will be conducting similar test with the added SBS.

That's still a lot to claim. I use a dynamic tension measurement as well. I wonder if you have experimented well enough. Doesn't pre-stretching eliminate these "pockets" you have claimed to find? There are some strings out there today that, due to a relatively high rate of tension loss, literally beg to be pre-stretched, like PPA and Wilson's Hollow Core Pro. What about 50-50, starting the crosses at the center of the racquet? And proportional tensioning which, by relaxing the strings in the racquet "corners," results in more even stress across the stringbed?

 

[levy1]

Well, I just strung one of mine all poly 24/23. Didn't have a single issue and it's two different tensions on one piece of string. And it looks lovely.

You can do two different tensions on a 1 piece string job?

 

[drakulie]

I wonder if you have experimented well enough.

How much more should I do? I'm not sending someone to the moon.

Doesn't pre-stretching eliminate these "pockets" you have claimed to find?

Perhaps. However, if it eliminates and/or diminishes the variance of tension loss of one pattern, then it will do the same to the other, and we could assume it would still be a larger variance in tension drop with a two piece vs the other. So there really wouldn't be a benefit in doing this, although I could be wrong.

Secondly, I don't pre-stretch string unless specifically instructed to do so. For starters, it "kills" the string, especially with poly, which already has very little elasticity.

In addition, it would be near impossible to pre-stretch string, especially for testing, consistently from one set to another.

Lastly, pre-stretching the string does not give me a a true test result of how the string performs in it's natural state in a given pattern.

What about 50-50, starting the crosses at the center of the racquet?

haven't tested it, although I don't really like using this pattern in anyone's racquets. Perhaps it will give me different results from a regular two piece, so may try it one day.

And proportional tensioning which, by relaxing the strings in the racquet "corners," results in more even stress across the stringbed?

I have done testing on proportional (both one and two piece). The one piece holds tension longer (yes even using the JET method).

 

[drakulie]

You can do two different tensions on a 1 piece string job?

Of course. string the mains at say 58 lbs, and when beginning the crosses, set your machine to 55.

 

[mikeler]

I'm with you Drakulie. two piece are for those lazy stringer...

I'm a lazy home stringer and I love me some 2 piece! Seriously, this is a pretty interesting discussion, so I'm looking forward to following along.

 

[topspin18]

I was looking at Klipper Usa web site about the stringing information on rackets and almost all of them they said to do a two piece.

Some of the rackets i know are strung top down and they still recommended to to a two piece.

Not sure if i am reading the information wrong.

here is the web site http://www.klipperusa.com/stringing/manufacturers.php