One Piece vs. Two Piece for specific racquets?

[elga]

Hey all, I've done my fair share of searching around to find answers to this, new to stringing. My regular stringers have always used a one piece method on my racquets.

1) How do I know if a particular racquet does not allow a one-piece ATW? Are there such racquets that can only "accept" a two-piece job without damaging the integrity of the frame?
2) On the other side of it, are there racquets that only accept a one-piece method and would be damaged by using two-piece method?

For example, my Prince racquet string specs on TW states "One Piece", but there are 4 tie-off holes on it implying to me that a two-piece method is okay. Can all racquets accept a two-piece method but not all can accept one-piece? I can't imagine a racquet wouldn't allow a two-piece method being as a hybrid string setup is so common...

Thanks for your expertise in advance

 

[esgee48]

Any racquet can be done one piece ATW if the mains end at the throat. Any racquet can be done one piece even if the mains end at the throat and the maker says it is OK in their instructions for bottom up crosses. Any racquet can be done two piece excepting those that do not have enough tie off holes. Even so, judicious widening of a few grommets will allow two piece (opinions vary.) I will always do one piece unless hybriding or asked to do two piece.

 

[elga]

Any racquet can be done one piece ATW if the mains end at the throat. Any racquet can be done one piece even if the mains end at the throat and the maker says it is OK in their instructions for bottom up crosses. Any racquet can be done two piece excepting those that do not have enough tie off holes. Even so, judicious widening of a few grommets will allow two piece (opinions vary.) I will always do one piece unless hybriding or asked to do two piece.

Thank you so much esgee! So the only thing I would need to verify is that a racquet allows for bottom-up crosses and I'm good to go ATW.

Is there a reason you always do one piece unless requested otherwise? Is it only because it is faster / more time efficient for you, or is there a difference in racquet performance? (obvioulsy opinions will vary as usual)

 

[MathieuR]

As esgee48 stated: any racket can be strung one piece.

For "2-piece" the frame needs 6 ty-off grommets ( of which 4 at the headside if the mains ty-off at the headside, else 2 at the headside, 4 at the throat)

 

[MathieuR]

and I always string 2piece (even if using same string). My thought: more symmetry

 

[Irvin]

Hey all, I've done my fair share of searching around to find answers to this, new to stringing. My regular stringers have always used a one piece method on my racquets.

1) How do I know if a particular racquet does not allow a one-piece ATW? Are there such racquets that can only "accept" a two-piece job without damaging the integrity of the frame?
2) On the other side of it, are there racquets that only accept a one-piece method and would be damaged by using two-piece method?

For example, my Prince racquet string specs on TW states "One Piece", but there are 4 tie-off holes on it implying to me that a two-piece method is okay. Can all racquets accept a two-piece method but not all can accept one-piece? I can't imagine a racquet wouldn't allow a two-piece method being as a hybrid string setup is so common...

Thanks for your expertise in advance

Best to look up the manufacturer stringing spec and not go with TW's. The last time I seen a manufacturer specify an ATW pattern was on the original ProStaffs in the 80s.

As far as damaging the integrity of the frame I doubt an ATW pattern will damage the frame.

 

[elga]

Great thanks all, much appreciated!!

 

[esgee48]

OP: It is more efficient for me to do 1 piece. I will do ATW if needed. If the frame allows bottom up crosses (manufacturer says it is OK), then it is 1 piece bottom up crosses.

 

[yan.v]

How is 1pc more efficient ? It saves more string if you use reels but that's about it.

As for 1pc vs 2pc, this is how I see it. 2pc is always good if the racket has enough tie off grommets. Standard 1pc (not ATW) is only good when the pattern allows to do crosses the way they are recommended by the manufacturer (top down vs bottom up).

 

[MathieuR]

As said I like 2-piece. If needed I will enlarge a grommet to make it possible (on some "horrible" Babolat-frames and thelike).
2-piece allows me to bring symmetry in the left/right mainstrings-tension.

 

[Rabbit]

OP: It is more efficient for me to do 1 piece. I will do ATW if needed. If the frame allows bottom up crosses (manufacturer says it is OK), then it is 1 piece bottom up crosses.

I agree.

How is 1pc more efficient ? It saves more string if you use reels but that's about it.

As for 1pc vs 2pc, this is how I see it. 2pc is always good if the racket has enough tie off grommets. Standard 1pc (not ATW) is only good when the pattern allows to do crosses the way they are recommended by the manufacturer (top down vs bottom up).

I prefer a one-piece. I also like using an ATW as, IMO, it allows more even tension as you can tie off crosses rather than mains. When stringing an ATW, I always pull the first two crosses on the short-side which allows me to tie off on a cross. The long-side then is for the remaining crosses and you tie off on a cross there too. The outside mains have more even tension.

 

[MathieuR]

Rabbit, and if you do a "straight" one-piece: you also pull the first two crosses on the short side, and start long side on the third cross?

 

[yan.v]

I prefer a one-piece. I also like using an ATW as, IMO, it allows more even tension as you can tie off crosses rather than mains. When stringing an ATW, I always pull the first two crosses on the short-side which allows me to tie off on a cross. The long-side then is for the remaining crosses and you tie off on a cross there too. The outside mains have more even tension.

The number and placement of knots (crosses vs mains) having any effect on overall tension and playability is a myth, this point is moot imo.

I'm trying to find the advantages of 1pc vs 2pc not to convince people to do 2pc exclusively, but to convince myself to do 1pc. For now though, I can only find (small) disadvantages in doing 1pc vs 2pc.

 

[Irvin]

About the only advantages I've seen for ATW are tension maintenance and two fewer knots to tie. The tension maintenance comes from less drawback on the two extra knots. If you use a starting knot to start your top cross there is no drawback on the top. The drawback on the bottom and two sides can be countered by increasing tension on the tie off strings. So I can't see tension maintenance as a big issue.

Si it all comes down to preference. I doubt good ATW patterns are going to damage a frame. So if you prefer 1 piece over 2 piece (or 2 piece over 1 piece) go for it. It is not that big a deal. Just do it the same every time over and over again don't switch back and forth.

EDIT: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-atw-around-the-world-pattern-discuss.355777/

 

[Rabbit]

Rabbit, and if you do a "straight" one-piece: you also pull the first two crosses on the short side, and start long side on the third cross?

I sure do. When I was using one string in my C10s, I'd pull the first two crosses on the short side and the start the 3rd with the long. The other nice thing is purely aesthetic, no knots in the arc at the top or the bottom.

The number and placement of knots (crosses vs mains) having any effect on overall tension and playability is a myth, this point is moot imo.

I disagree. If you pull tension on the outside mains then string a cross string (or two), you will have more even tension on the string bed. The old rule of thumb for stringers was to always tie off on a cross. I will agree that playabilty is not affected (at least that I can tell) by two string, but if we pick fly dookie out of pepper, you'll get a more consistent string bed with a one-piece tying off on crosses.

 

[yan.v]

I disagree. If you pull tension on the outside mains then string a cross string (or two), you will have more even tension on the string bed. The old rule of thumb for stringers was to always tie off on a cross. I will agree that playabilty is not affected (at least that I can tell) by two string, but if we pick fly dookie out of pepper, you'll get a more consistent string bed with a one-piece tying off on crosses.

To be honest, this sounds like an old childhood tale. It makes as much sense as having to string a regular racket with a specific face up in order to have better performance. 1pc vs 2pc result in the same exact tension (or dynamic tension) in the stringbed. The only true test I've seen that advantages 1pc was that tension maintenance is better when using 1pc vs 2pc, but even then this does not make much sense either. It's one of the tests I want to do one day to (hopefully) bust the myth.

 

[Rabbit]

To be honest, this sounds like an old childhood tale. It makes as much sense as having to string a regular racket with a specific face up in order to have better performance. 1pc vs 2pc result in the same exact tension (or dynamic tension) in the stringbed. The only true test I've seen that advantages 1pc was that tension maintenance is better when using 1pc vs 2pc, but even then this does not make much sense either. It's one of the tests I want to do one day to (hopefully) bust the myth.

So then you agree that a one-piece has better tension maintenance which was the point I was making. Sorry, but my childhood tales had nothing to do with racquet stringing. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[yan.v]

So then you agree that a one-piece has better tension maintenance which was the point I was making. Sorry, but my childhood tales had nothing to do with racquet stringing. Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it isn't true.

No, I said some experiments made by some forum members have shown that tension maintenance was better for them. I do not trust these results and will be trying it myself sometime because it actually makes no sense. The one knot difference (the other extra knot is a starting knot, which effectively does not really factor into tension loss) cannot make such a big difference on tension maintenance.

I agree that if it doesn't make sense to me it doesn't mean it's not true. However, it's the best argument of the debate right now, because you haven't explained why you think 1pc is better, you're only claiming it is better because you think it is better. The only point you were trying to make was that tension is "more even" on the stringbed (and not that it maintains tension better), which implies that you went ahead and calculated DT all over the stringbed with both 2pc and 1pc and compared the results ? Possible, but hard to believe. Also, even if the tension was more even, which I highly doubt, It pretty much means nothing imo. You will never ever get the same tension / DT everywhere over the stringbed, and the fact that the strings can be softer near the frame is usually appreciated because it helps on off center hits which could actually mean that this hypothetical more even string bed is worse.

 

[MathieuR]

I sure do. When I was using one string in my C10s, I'd pull the first two crosses on the short side and the start the 3rd with the long. The other nice thing is purely aesthetic, no knots in the arc at the top or the bottom.

Rabbit, thanks for this eye-opener. Never thought about this option; IMO this is indeed the best way for a one-piece stringjob if the mains end at the head-side.

 

[Rabbit]

You will never ever get the same tension / DT everywhere over the stringbed, and the fact that the strings can be softer near the frame is usually appreciated because it helps on off center hits which could actually mean that this hypothetical more even string bed is worse.

Speaking of making stuff up and not making sense.....come on. You're saying that losing tension on outside mains due to tying off makes the string bed "appreciated"? So we are to believe #1 that losing tension on the outside mains helps on off center hits and #2 that not keeping equal and uniform tension is a good thing? This is far from a convincing argument or reason to use a two-piece versus a one-piece. Do a search of the boards for ATW. Ron Yu of P1 is a proponent of ATW string patterns.

Personally, I prefer a one-piece for the reasons I listed. I have been requested by players for both. I do what the player requests. When I strung recently at a WTA event, there were players who wanted two or four knots and specified it on their tickets. I will go on to say that the main difference between the two is all between the player's ears.

 

[Irvin]

Softer near the frame means lowering tension on outer most strings. But most of the softness is countered though because the center strings are at normal tension which at the frame intersect the lower tensioned strings.

Outer strings naturally are at lower tensions because of a greater bend at the frame creating more friction (unless a brake is used to align the string to lower friction.) If lowering tension makes one think it feels better or 1 piece vs 2 piece or whatever then go for it. I think it's all in ones head.

 

[yan.v]

Speaking of making stuff up and not making sense.....come on. You're saying that losing tension on outside mains due to tying off makes the string bed "appreciated"? So we are to believe #1 that losing tension on the outside mains helps on off center hits and #2 that not keeping equal and uniform tension is a good thing? This is far from a convincing argument or reason to use a two-piece versus a one-piece. Do a search of the boards for ATW. Ron Yu of P1 is a proponent of ATW string patterns.

The problem is you haven't given many reasons yet, and the reasons you gave you refused to explain.

I think you're just maliciously overinterpreting my arguments to try to make your (lack of) arguments better. All it meant is "having even tension" on all of the frame is meaningless because it's impossible anyways. And IF ever it had an impact, who's to know if it would be positive or negative. The main point you have to understand though is that the tension loss on the one tie off where you lose tension should be minimal, will not impact performance at all and should not impact tension maintenance.

Personally, I prefer a one-piece for the reasons I listed. I have been requested by players for both. I do what the player requests. When I strung recently at a WTA event, there were players who wanted two or four knots and specified it on their tickets.

I'm talking about regular 1pc vs regular 2pc, not ATW stuff. ATW vs 2pc is a whole other debate.

I will go on to say that the main difference between the two is all between the player's ears.

Finally something that makes sense.

 

[Rabbit]

The problem is you haven't given many reasons yet, and the reasons you gave you refused to explain.

Just as you gave no reasons for your claim that less tension on the two outside mains resulted in a more forgiving string bed on off center hits. I thought my reasoning was self-evident. If you use a two-piece and you do not compensate for lost tension on the knots, you will have less tension on the outside mains than if you use an ATW. If you do compensate, how do you know that you've made the compensation correctly; i.e. that you've accurately added the tension you would've lost by tying off the knots on the mains? The result then, as I said, is a string bed with more even tension.

I think you're just maliciously overinterpreting my arguments to try to make your (lack of) arguments better.

My interpretation is no more malicious than yours. Malicious is in the eyes of the reader.

All it meant is "having even tension" on all of the frame is meaningless because it's impossible anyways. And IF ever it had an impact, who's to know if it would be positive or negative. The main point you have to understand though is that the tension loss on the one tie off where you lose tension should be minimal, will not impact performance at all and should not impact tension maintenance.

I agree 100% and as much as said so when I said "if you want to pick fly dookie out of pepper"... which is the basis for 99% of these discussions, nit picking.

I'm talking about regular 1pc vs regular 2pc, not ATW stuff. ATW vs 2pc is a whole other debate.

?????? I'll take your word for it although I could have sworn an ATW was just a one-piece that had a weave at the bottom.

Finally something that makes sense.

Comments like this is what causes "malicious overinterpretation".

 

[elga]

On the same topic, I've already successfully strung up 3 racquets now (yay!) Two of them were One-Piece and One of them was Two-Piece.

Again, I know that everyone has their personal opinions, but I'm looking for guidance here as I'm having trouble finding answers to my following questions:

1. What would be a benefit of ATW (skipping last long main then top-down crosses then finishing the last main) vs a One-Piece with bottom up crosses? Is one better in theory than the other?
2. Can most modern racquets be strung one-piece bottom up crosses?
3. Can most racquets be strung ATW top down crosses?

Thanks all.

 

[Irvin]

On the same topic, I've already successfully strung up 3 racquets now (yay!) Two of them were One-Piece and One of them was Two-Piece.

Again, I know that everyone has their personal opinions, but I'm looking for guidance here as I'm having trouble finding answers to my following questions:

1. What would be a benefit of ATW (skipping last long main then top-down crosses then finishing the last main) vs a One-Piece with bottom up crosses? Is one better in theory than the other?
2. Can most modern racquets be strung one-piece bottom up crosses?
3. Can most racquets be strung ATW top down crosses?

Thanks all.

1. That would depend on how you plan to finish up that outside main. IMO there are quite a few disadvantages there depending on your method and the number of crosses.
2. Any racket can be strung bottom up but when you do pressure on the frame builds up in the direction you string the crosses. It is usually considered best to string toward the throat as that is the strongest part of the head.
3. If the mains end at the throat you can use an ATW pattern to string the crosses top to bottom. But some manufacturers do not like the practice.

 

[yan.v]

Just as you gave no reasons for your claim that less tension on the two outside mains resulted in a more forgiving string bed on off center hits. I thought my reasoning was self-evident. If you use a two-piece and you do not compensate for lost tension on the knots, you will have less tension on the outside mains than if you use an ATW. If you do compensate, how do you know that you've made the compensation correctly; i.e. that you've accurately added the tension you would've lost by tying off the knots on the mains? The result then, as I said, is a string bed with more even tension.

It is common knowledge amongst pro stringers that less tension on outside strings leads to more forgiving string bed on off center hits. Anyways, I thought it was. I did not pull that out of my hat, it's actually a common claim. I don't really believe it makes that much of an impact, but if you're looking for the extra 0,01%, the impact is probably there. As for even tension, like I said, doesn't matter. If you aim for even tension, do it for real. You should calculate the pull angle for every string as well as the length of the string to change your pull tension accordingly. Doing that would be insane imo.

My interpretation is no more malicious than yours. Malicious is in the eyes of the reader.

Except I'm not over interpreting what you're saying. While saying that something makes no sense might sound malicious, I am not turning your posts into different ones to try to make you look bad.

I agree 100% and as much as said so when I said "if you want to pick fly dookie out of pepper"... which is the basis for 99% of these discussions, nit picking.

"pick fly dookie out of pepper" is something I've never heard before. I probably completely ignored that sentence if/when I read it.

?????? I'll take your word for it although I could have sworn an ATW was just a one-piece that had a weave at the bottom.

There's like a million different ATW patterns.

Comments like this is what causes "malicious overinterpretation".

I'm sorry if you think I'm being malicious when I say something makes no sense, I don't mean to be malicious, but I guess I should be saying "it doesn't make sense to me" to be less blunt.

 

[Rabbit]

Irvin posted this in another thread, maybe it will help:

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2011/05/18_standard_practices_28.html

 

[Irvin]

Here is another tennis industry article on ATW and Box patterns.

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2015/07/20_racquet_tech_atw_and_box_pa.html

 

[yan.v]

Yeah I read those, but it always seem to boil down to the same things. It looks better, and two less knots. I do agree, but I wouldn't really call them clear advantages. In reality, you only end up with tension loss on one of those extra knots because the other one is a starting knot, and the tension loss is minimized (but existent) with a good knot. It doesn't impact performance though as it has already be agreed, so is it a real advantage ?

The Standard Practices mentionned that it contributed to better longevity of the frame, which is a real advantage. However I have a very hard time to believe it does (unless you do 2pc bottom up).

 

[jim e]

Tim Strawn from the GSS who is one of the orig. Wilson String team and also runs the stringers symposium each year wrote an interesting article in RSI magazine it was April 2013 issue page 20 where he talked of advantages of 0ne or 2 piece stringing, and he preferred the 2 piece.
Other articles shows you there are famous stringers that prefer one and two, so it seems a moot point. There are more important issues of stringing whether one or two piece jobs.
I typically string 2 piece unless I have a request for a one piece and that has yet to happen, or if a racquet is a natural 1 piece racquet to string, I will do the one piece.

Article is on page 20.
http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/issues/201304/index.html