# Only have 18 Feet of string to work with in the mains

Discussion in 'Stringing Techniques / Stringing Machines' started by OldFedIsOld, Jul 1, 2012.

1. ### OldFedIsOldProfessional

Joined:
Sep 7, 2011
Messages:
855
Location:
2D plane of existence
Hey guys, I recently was given a frame by a friend to string for him. He was using Tourna Big hitter rough in the mains, but he only gave me about 18 feet to work with. He said that was the last part of the reel and he didn't really want to wait for a new one.

He is using a 100" head size frame. I was thinking of skipping one main before the end main so instead of stringing 16x19, it would be 14x19.

Here's what I'm talking about if I didn't say it clearly enough.
| |||||||||||| | <------------- Mains
---------------- <------------- Crosses
| |||||||||||| |
----------------
| |||||||||||| |

I was wondering if this is a legal string job and if it would somehow damage the frame, it's being strung at 60 lbs.

Last edited: Jul 1, 2012

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
Which frame is it, and what machine are you working on? If you can get it through the last hole, and there's enough left over to actually tie off with, you can use a string bridge to tension it. This can be done with a starting clamp or with some creative knotting.

If you aren't able to do that, you can leave one main off, but I wouldn't do the 14xXX, i'd do a 15. Leave a few extra inches of slack on one side. Tie off as normal on that side, and tie off at the opposite end with the other. Start the crosses at the BOTTOM side of the frame on the side of the frame with the full mains, and weave the bottom cross. Loop the string up the last main, and continue down the frame from top to bottom as normal. Make sure you start the top cross in the correct orientation so the bottom cross that you already wove isn't woven the same as the second to last...

Sounds complicated, but it's simple. You can also start at the top provided you have a tie off hole AND you're able to start off on the correct side so that your last string is able to be looped up back to the top. This is more unlikely than scenario one, though, as it's unusual to have 2 enlarged holes up top unless you're using a frame that can be ("naturally") strung top down one piece...

Kind of convoluted, but hope this helps. I'd try the string bridge first if I had no other options.

3. ### OldFedIsOldProfessional

Joined:
Sep 7, 2011
Messages:
855
Location:
2D plane of existence
Thanks for the advice it's brilliant using the cross string to also string one of the mains, i'm using the Gamma Progression II 602 model and the racquet is a Dunlop 500 tour. So if I do have to leave out a main or two, is the string job illegal for tournament play?

Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
4. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
17,845
Location:
Marietta, Ga
You could also do the 14 mains and use the cross string to string the two outside mains and bottom cross at the end.

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
No, it's not. It's weird, but not illegal. It's also not illegal to have different strings in the mains (specifically in this case the outside mains). Agassi played ATP tournaments in the 90s (maybe early 2000s?) with gut mains on the outside mains (you can see it on the cover of a tennis magazine, actually).

Yes, but leave off one of the top crosses so you can loop back down, unless you string bottom to top.

6. ### Hornet83New User

Joined:
May 31, 2012
Messages:
23
I think you should never try the 14x19, its 5 strings more on the crosses each one pulling 60lbs, that will be 300lbs squeezing the frame without counter balance.

Sorry for my english, not my first language.
Cheers

7. ### azn_lefty_roddick_jrRookie

Joined:
Dec 28, 2006
Messages:
265
Location:
Arlington, Texas
Is it possible to reverse the strings, and use whatever you were going to use in the cross, on the mains instead?

Stringing Dunlop 500s requires 19' for the mains, and only 16' for the crosses for me... But granted, that's on a crank, where you need noticeably less string to reach the gripper.

Also, the 500 has a 16x18 pattern, unless there is a 16x19 Dunlop 500 that I am not aware of.

8. ### OldFedIsOldProfessional

Joined:
Sep 7, 2011
Messages:
855
Location:
2D plane of existence
The person whom I'm stringing for hates having syn gut in the mains, needs the poly in the mains. Also, yeah I messed up the string pattern my bad.

9. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
17,845
Location:
Marietta, Ga
You don,t need to. Leave a tail long enough to run in the two outside mains and a bottom cross.

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
How do you do this? If you populate 14 mains, string top to bottom, you'll run up the racquet on one main, and then run into a dead end?

I might not be visualizing your method correctly, though.

11. ### SwankPeRFectionHall of Fame

Joined:
Apr 30, 2012
Messages:
1,507
18 should be plenty to do it. Generally on a 100 racquet you have a few feet left after doing a two piece which is generally 20 and 20 cuts if you don't look up the exact specs. Just pull the string equally on the first two mains and see where you are. Going the split crap on a two piece where you don't pull one main is ghetto. That Gamma head is close enough to the frame where you don't need a ton left over to pull tension.

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
Have you worked on this machine before? The amount of string required to reach the tensioner, wrap, and thread is pretty significant. I'm not saying it can't be done, but alternative methods may be required. I never said you don't pull one main, you would leave one blank (and repopulate it later). I'm not sure where this "ghetto" argument is coming from.

13. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
17,845
Location:
Marietta, Ga
You run in 14 mains and tie off. Then start you mains at the top with a tail long enough to run the two outside mains and a bottom cross. Run the crosses down the racket leaving one cross open at the bottom and tie off. Easy now to take that tail at the top and gown across and up to finish the two outside mains and bottom cross.

The problem is finding two more tie offs on the opposite where you tied off the mains.

14. ### SwankPeRFectionHall of Fame

Joined:
Apr 30, 2012
Messages:
1,507
Because you're doing a two piece. Repopulating a main and a cross should be done when you do one piece around the world string jobs. Do it the right way! Do it with 18 feet and if you run short, then it's not your fault, it's the fact that he didn't give you enough string. You should have enough though. People tell me all the time that there's no way to string a 90 with 33 feet of string, but I do it all the time and have about 3 feet left when done. I even start with 9 feet on the short side.

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
Aha! Nice solution, I misunderstood what you meant by "tail [I imagined the other end of the string]." I like it. I don't expect any tie off problems with that solution, most racquets will have 2 tie offs (per side) on the bottom, so you should be safe.

ATW isn't officially recognized as a "proper" job by any manufacturer that I know of. We as stringers understand that the pattern is proper and "friendly," but what makes this any different? The OP is asking for a specific solution, and we're providing one. We're not doing anything nasty here. He's working within a relatively limited set of criteria, and this is a one-off job. He's not asking how to do this every single time. I think it's OK to let it slide

I agree that he should have enough string to populate all the mains, but I wouldn't be surprised if he runs barely short of the tensioner. I'm also fully aware that string lengths required in patterns are generally pretty generous, but I have no idea what machine you're using. The OP's machine requires an above average length of string to tension, so the 14xXX pattern is an alternative solution.

16. ### SwankPeRFectionHall of Fame

Joined:
Apr 30, 2012
Messages:
1,507
Maybe I should have said that ATW and skipping mains/crosses is more acceptable in terms of string/tension/frame stress continuity if you will. It's also going to be super nasty in terms of tie-offs and cleanliness of the job if he does it like you guys want him to. 18 will be enough. If not, then it'll be enough to tie-off, but maybe not tension fully, in which case you'd use a bridge/starting clamp solution. Bottom line, the job would be done properly and cleanly. If I gave someone 18 feet of string which would have been enough to do my mains and they fugged around with a bullsnot job like this, I'd make them redo it, regardless of what their reasoning was. It's nasty and sloppy... that's my point. If it would be fine, then there would be no reason why we couldn't just string two mains at a time and tie off at every single grommet while stringing with 2 foot lengths of string for every main and cross.

Do it right or don't do it at all. Geez.

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
I challenge you to explain why it's more proper in terms of "string/tension/frame stress continuity." It's cool if your opinion is that this is less than desirable, but there should be a legitimate reason why. In terms of tie offs, this will be ugly if there's only one tie off hole (per half) at the top (if you do it Irvin's way).

Like I said in my first post, 18 is probably enough to get outside of the last main, but a bridge will likely be required. No one is arguing that point. We are proposing alternative solutions in the case this isn't an option (for whatever reason). If you were to give string to a stringer, chances are it'd be an appropriate length. If you made assumptions based on their string length requirements and came up short, they should be discussing it with you before proceeding. I assume OP has done this (since he knows it was the leftovers from a reel). This is the first solution presented to OP, and it should be the first thing he's trying.

You're trying to assert sloppiness on a stop-gap solution. I'd say IF the mains can't be completed, this is the best way if it needs to be done. If you don't like solutions being proposed to problems that are asked, you could just avoid these threads...

I think if you read post histories of either Irvin or I, you could come to the conclusion that we're not weekend hack stringers... I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with your last few sentences.

18. ### SwankPeRFectionHall of Fame

Joined:
Apr 30, 2012
Messages:
1,507
I'm going to leave it at the last sentence I wrote. The fact that you don't consider yourselves "weekend hack stringers" should dictate to you that you don't suggest such ghetto rigged solutions as you have so far. It's bs and it's improper... something a "hack" would do.

That is all.

19. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
17,845
Location:
Marietta, Ga
If a pro asked you to string the two outside mains differently from the center 16 would you do it? Or would you run him off?

20. ### tballSemi-Pro

Joined:
Sep 3, 2004
Messages:
784
You can use a pattern like the following:

This one is not the most succesful, because mains tie off on crosses. It can be adjusted so that mains tie off on mains. Unfortunately, I do not have a picture of that.

And since mains are tied off in unusual holes, remember to enlarge those holes beforehand!

Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
Messages:
6,870
I can see pretty clearly you're not here to help others that ask specific questions, so I agree, you should leave it at that. I already gave the exact answer you did in your first post, gave alternatives, and you don't seem keen to justify your abrasive reasoning, so not much left to say.

Furthermore, If we as stringers never decided to branch out of our comfort zones, we wouldn't HAVE things like ATW, Box patterns, 50/50, Parnell Knots, JCS/Jaycee methods. There's never only a single way to do things. Did I recommend doing this type of job on every frame OP does? No.

Edit: Nice pic, Irvin. I believe in that period of Agassi's career, he was actually playing with a 20x21 pattern :shock::shock:

22. ### IrvinG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Mar 15, 2007
Messages:
17,845
Location:
Marietta, Ga
That is true he was Using Kevlar and the Kevlar he played only came in half sets of 20'. The 20' lengths would not fit the 20 main racket so he had the two outside mains strung with the same gut he had in the crosses.

This is the same issue the OP has Andre wanted a string in the mains that did not come in long enough lengths to complete all the mains. So the two outside mains was strung with the string used for the crosses.

Last edited: Jul 3, 2012