***Stringway Machine Users Club***

I assume you mean this.

1) Clamp string L1 and R1 at the throatside.

2) String R2 and R3.

3) Pull tension on R3 at an adjusted 54 lbs.

4) Clamp R2 at the throat and release tension on R3

5) Readjust weight back to 50 lbs and pull tension on R3.

6) Repeat the same steps for L2 and L3, and continue stringing normally.

This is simpler and will certainly not make much difference:

You can also chose to pull all centre mains in the bridge at an average of 53 and because the difference will level out.

You can also level them “by hand” until the tones are about the same.
I'm a little confused. The racquet in my example has six holes in the throat, so why are you not clamping L1 and R1 at the head? Pulling tension on R3 would be triple-pulling since you didn't pull tension and clamp R1 at the head.
 
I'm a little confused. The racquet in my example has six holes in the throat, so why are you not clamping L1 and R1 at the head? Pulling tension on R3 would be triple-pulling since you didn't pull tension and clamp R1 at the head.
1) Clamp string L1 and R1 at the throatside.
This the clamp from where you start to string.
You can not clamp R1 at the head because there is no second string yet.
So you have to tension R1 and R2 towards the throat first and clamp R1 and R2.
Of course you can clamp L1 to R1.
 
Last edited:

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I assume you mean this.

1) Clamp string L1 and R1 at the throatside.

2) String R2 and R3.

3) Pull tension on R3 at an adjusted 54 lbs.

4) Clamp R2 at the throat and release tension on R3

5) Readjust weight back to 50 lbs and pull tension on R3.

6) Repeat the same steps for L2 and L3, and continue stringing normally.

This is simpler and will certainly not make much difference:

You can also chose to pull all centre mains in the bridge at an average of 53 and because the difference will level out.

You can also level them “by hand” until the tones are about the same.
Fred your method is actually confusing if you think about what you're saying. I hope I'm not out of line offering an alternative.
1) if your strings start in the throat, pre weave the center six mains and clamp R2 and R3 about 4" from the frame at the top. I would leave enough Ron so a clamp could be placed on R2 above this first clamp.
2) tension L1, your will have a higher tension on L1 than R1 because of string to frame friction at the bend at T1 on both sides. You can tune R1 and L1 by lightly tugging on L1 until the frequencies of L1 and R1 are the same then clamp L1 and R1 as near the frame as possible.
3) tension L3 and again tune 2nd and 3rd mains before moving clamp.
4) tension R3, remove clamp from R2 and R3 and tune R2 and R3 before clamping.

When all the throat strings are tensioned move to tensioning and clamping 1 string at a time. That 'tuning' is explained by @David 110 in this video where he pulls from the top on and old Prince stringer.
 
This the clamp from where you start to string.
You can not clamp R1 at the head because there is no second string yet.
So you have to tension R1 and R2 towards the throat first and clamp R1 and R2.
Of course you can clamp L1 to R1.
I think I just figured out why I was confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you string is right two mains first. My confusion was stemming from the assumption that you string the way I do, L1 and R1 first. I always start my mains by clamping L1 and R1 at the throat, pulling tension on L1 at the head, clamping L1 outside the frame, pulling tension on R1 at the head, and moving the clamp on L1 and R1 at the throat to the head.

In your method, you are pulling tension on R1, R2, and R3 at the same time, right? From all the reading I've done on this forum and videos I've watched on Youtube, I was under the impression that triple-pulling strings is something that people have legitimate grounds to be angry at you. Is that a wrong impression on my part?
 
Sorry I confused you, I wrote something different as I meant. I do not tension 3 strings in one time I pull tension on R2 towards the head to be able to clamp it to R1.
But your way of first clamping at the outside of the frame is ok also.
It is all about what you prefer most.

This is what I meant.

1) Clamp string L1 and R1 at the throatside.

2) Insert String R2

3) Pull 54 lbs on R2 and R1 towards the throat

4) Clamp R2 to R1.

5) Pull 50 lbs on L1

6) Clamp L1 to R1

7) Insert L2 and L3.

8) Pull 54 lbs on L2 and L3.

9) Clamp L2 to L1.

10) Pull 50 lbs on L3.

11) Pull 50 lbs on R3

And so on with 50 lbs.

Hi Irvine.

I think there is a misunderstanding, because Rally is stringing with flying clamps.
 
Sorry I confused you, I wrote something different as I meant. I do not tension 3 strings in one time I pull tension on R2 towards the head to be able to clamp it to R1.
But your way of first clamping at the outside of the frame is ok also.
It is all about what you prefer most.

This is what I meant.

1) Clamp string L1 and R1 at the throatside.

2) Insert String R2

3) Pull 54 lbs on R2 and R1 towards the throat

4) Clamp R2 to R1.

5) Pull 50 lbs on L1

6) Clamp L1 to R1

7) Insert L2 and L3.

8) Pull 54 lbs on L2 and L3.

9) Clamp L2 to L1.

10) Pull 50 lbs on L3.

11) Pull 50 lbs on R3

And so on with 50 lbs.

Hi Irvine.

I think there is a misunderstanding, because Rally is stringing with flying clamps.
Thanks, @Technatic. I trust your calculations and your tests that you conducted. I have one more question if you don't mind. How different would the tension across the strings be if I did it the way I initially interpreted from your earlier comments which was:

1) Clamp L1 and R1 at throat

2) Pull 50 lbs on L1 and clamp outside frame

3) Pull 50 lbs on R1 and clamp L1 and R1 at head

4) String R2 and R3 and pull 54 lbs on R3

5) Clamp R3 to R2

6) String L2 and L3 and pull 54 lbs on L3

7) Clamp L3 to L2

8) Finish mains at 50 lbs

Like I said, I trust your results since you carried out tests and I haven't. I'm going to use the method you suggested and the method Irvin posted a link of and find which one is more comfortable for me. I'm just curious as to how different the tension would be from reference tension if I did it the way I described in this reply.
 
Fred your method is actually confusing if you think about what you're saying. I hope I'm not out of line offering an alternative.
1) if your strings start in the throat, pre weave the center six mains and clamp R2 and R3 about 4" from the frame at the top. I would leave enough Ron so a clamp could be placed on R2 above this first clamp.
2) tension L1, your will have a higher tension on L1 than R1 because of string to frame friction at the bend at T1 on both sides. You can tune R1 and L1 by lightly tugging on L1 until the frequencies of L1 and R1 are the same then clamp L1 and R1 as near the frame as possible.
3) tension L3 and again tune 2nd and 3rd mains before moving clamp.
4) tension R3, remove clamp from R2 and R3 and tune R2 and R3 before clamping.

When all the throat strings are tensioned move to tensioning and clamping 1 string at a time. That 'tuning' is explained by @David 110 in this video where he pulls from the top on and old Prince stringer.
I tried the method in that video, Irvin, but I have a drop weight with flying clamps. Pulling on the string lowers the tension because the drop weight moves upwards.
 
Last edited:

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I tried the method in that video, Irvin, but I have a drop weight with flying clamps. Pulling on the string lowers the tension because the drop weight moves upwards.
Well that is correct. When you pull / tug the string you're creating another tension force (or lengthening the string) and the drop weight should move upward. But when you release the pull the drop should drop back down and if the automatic system works your tension remains constant. This action should break the resistance of the bend between the two mains at the trout and allow tension to equalize. Without the tugging action under a constant pull they will never equalize.
 
Well that is correct. When you pull / tug the string you're creating another tension force (or lengthening the string) and the drop weight should move upward. But when you release the pull the drop should drop back down and if the automatic system works your tension remains constant. This action should break the resistance of the bend between the two mains at the trout and allow tension to equalize. Without the tugging action under a constant pull they will never equalize.
I was stringing with Luxilon 4G. Is the string itself the reason why I didn't get the same pitch across both mains no matter how many times I tugged on the outer main?
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I was stringing with Luxilon 4G. Is the string itself the reason why I didn't get the same pitch across both mains no matter how many times I tugged on the outer main?
Maybe but you may have different lengths also. Another thing that could change the pitch is if there is a clamp on only one of the strings. This is not an exact science, you may get the pitch close to the same on both but not exactly. Plus if you tug too hard and get the tension on the connected string too high you need to go the other way to get them the same.
 
Hi, All - I have a Stringway MS200 T92 machine that I absolutely love. I have only strung my own rackets using it so it is in showroom condition. Along with the cross string machine, it makes fast, efficient and precise work of stringing a racket and the results are fantastic, especially using the JET method and good quality strings like L-Tec, MSV, etc. Unfortunately, for health reasons my tennis days are limited so I am ready to sell this great machine.

Is this the appropriate place to list it, or should I go to a general <for sale> type forum? If it is OK to list here I will upload pics, details, price, location, etc.

Thanks
Is this the foot operated model? Have you sold it?
 
Hello Guys,

Maybe you can help us with the following.

As you may know we organize seminars in cooperation with the Dutch Tennis ass. for coaches, to inform them about the influence of the different racquet specs on the playability of the racquet.

The intention is that the coaches can judge if the racquet and string bed “fit” the type of play, the body built and the age of the player.

To support this activity we are going to cooperate with the Dutch lady talent of 2016.

The name of this cooperation is “Every detail counts”, meaning that you can not ignore any detail if you want to reach the highest level.

We want to use the letter type of the Stringway for trademark of the project, but we can not find it anywhere.

Because the designer is not alive anymore we can not ask him, the only thing that we know is that he used a Apple computer.


Is there anybody of you who can tell us which letter type this is? I know that a lot of Americans use Apple computers.

Thanks

Fred
 

Dags

Hall of Fame
@Technatic

Some close matches to that font are:

vanberg
van dijk
OPTIVanilla

None of these are an exact match - there are differences, most notably in the spacing between characters and tails of the g and y. Given that the S is clearly custom, it's quite likely your designer used a font as a base and altered these when typesetting.
 
What this thing is for? It blocks the turntable to face the tension unit by one of the sides. I've loosen the bolt and moved it so now the turntable rotates freely.
 
What this thing is for? It blocks the turntable to face the tension unit by one of the sides. I've loosen the bolt and moved it so now the turntable rotates freely.
It is a table block to prevent that the handle of the racquet hits the tensioner.

Handle can not make a 360 degrees turn anyway because the handle of the racquet can not turn over the tensioner.

But you can remove it without consequences.

If you want to remove the nut that is inside you can loosen the nut inside the cross leg ON THE SIDE OF THE TENSIONER and remove that leg.
 
Hi, is the difference of the automatic tensioner release between the ML100 and the ML90 significant enough to choose the ML100 over the ML90? (assuming same configurations; T92, concorde system)
 
I got a babolat pure drive racket and the throat area seems thinner than the rest of the frame, is the babolat retainer the only way to string this or can it be done using the regular mounts?
 
Hi count me in!

I've been on and off this forum since 2013, but started stringing since 2012. Stringway ML100 with a T92 fixed clamp system is my tool of choice. It was the machine that I learned about stringing, taught by a close friend of mine, also a proud Stringway owner for more than a decade.

ML100 has been so reliable and solid. I string both badminton and tennis racquets. I must confess, I've been trying to purchase a Wise2086 to up my games in stringing to the electronic era. However, I worry too much about the maintenance and calibration of a digital device. The pure and elegant mechanical design of Stringway is just impeccable.

Anyway, as long as I stay passionate about stringing, my Stringway ML100 will always be my loyal partner.
 
My trusty ML120 is almost seven years old. I'm self taught - learned from watching yulitle videos on youtube. Only string for myself and my kids however my good friend who is a really good player and been nationally ranked in the 5.0s asked if I could string his stick so I did and he told me it was perfect. The stringway is so consistent. I will not move to an electronic machine because of this.
 
Thanks guys,

What could be nicer for a designer than this kind of compliments from users for his creations?
Your stringing machines look incredible. (If I ever need another machine, I will probably purchase one.)

But your Cross Stringing Tool is a Work of ART and one of the most under-rated inventions of all time.
 
But your Cross Stringing Tool is a Work of ART and one of the most under-rated inventions of all time.
The cross stringers are our most successful products during the 35 years that we are doing this.

Our major question about them is:

Why do tournament stringers prefer to hurt their fingers and back by struggling even stiff monos through by hand?

And being faster is impossible also imo.
 
The cross stringers are our most successful products during the 35 years that we are doing this.

Our major question about them is:

Why do tournament stringers prefer to hurt their fingers and back by struggling even stiff monos through by hand?

And being faster is impossible also imo.
I'm not tournament stringer but I have done stringing for 3 ITF pro circuit tournaments and beginning of August I will do my 4th. About 100 frames per tournament week.

My right wrist have been operated due to carpal syndrome and ENMG shows similar stuff to my left wrist so last year tried to use cross stringer during tournament to save my wrists. But I pretty soon gave up using it as specially with dense pattern rackets I could observe some marks in the strings. I have both high and low density versions of the tool. Specially when the spacing between the center mains is small it is difficult to get the comb in and moving the tool may peel the string surface. And for example with Head Speed 18x20 (I have to say that doing that frame with Solinco tour bite 1.35 mm or Head gravity hybrid is not fun) the spacing between center mains is so small that it is impossible to get the comb in place so you can't use the tool at all with that racket

I'm also several minutes faster per racket WITHOUT the tool and I think that there is no way I could be faster with the tool. My typical time per racket is about 20 minutes including everything i.e cutting out old strings, wiping the frame clean, mounting, measuring strings, stringing, final cross straightening and unmounting the frame.

With cross stringing tool you have to count the time to mount and unmount the tool and you can't do the last 2-3 crosses with the tool which are the most time consuming. When using the tool you also need to move and operate the tool, not just push the string through.

I had used the tool also before for a while after starting stringing again after my right should rotator cuff operation when I was stringing left handed only. So during the tournament I was already used to the tool, that was not the problem. And there is no way I can be faster with the tool. I spend average 25 seconds per cross string total where the actual weaving time is less than 5 seconds and just to move and operate the tool to be ready for the next cross takes about that.

Where you gain some time with to tool is when pulling the string through the crosses as there is no need to fan the string. Using the tool there are of course no misweaves through the center mains but you can still screw up with the outer mains. And sometimes when pushing the string through the tool the string tip may get caught and you need to pull string back, check the tip and push it through again

So I think that tool have some benefits for someone who makes his/her own racket every now and then is thus not very proficient at manual weaving. But it is not that good for tournament stringing due to facts I listed above.

My cross string tools are several years old but I'm pretty sure the current versions are exactly the same.
I think that tool should be further developed to handle better rackets with closed string patters. Probably then it would be better suited for tournament stringing. Excluding Babolats most rackets used by pros are anyway with very closed 18x20 string patterns
 
Still about cross stringing tool tournament usage.

So currently there are "low density" and "high density" versions of the tool. If there were a third "ultra high density" version of the tool then I would use it at least during the first days of the main draw where the work load is the highest, even if I would be a few minutes slower per racket

But the paradox with the tool is that it works better with open pattern rackets where there is really not that much need for the tool
 
@occational stringer.

I am happy that your opinion does not match the feed back from users. Many of them buy one unit first and the other one later, so they must like them

If there were a third "ultra high density" version of the tool then I would use it at least during the first days of the main draw where the work load is the highest,
Is this not a little in contradiction with your opinion about the system?

How could it be ok for the first days and not good for later?


………..even if I would be a few minutes slower per racket
We organize big stringing happenings every year.

And we are always asked by experienced stringers to demonstrate the speed and they always tell that they are faster without.

Until we do the “contest” of weaving through some crosses.

They never win, it is impossible to weave the string through so fast and also pull the whole length of string through so fast without.
I think that the video clearly shows how fast the string goes through.

And even if the speed would be the same it is much more convenient for fingers and back.

OF course you are free to have your own opinion.
 
Last edited:
The cross stringers are our most successful products during the 35 years that we are doing this.

Our major question about them is:

Why do tournament stringers prefer to hurt their fingers and back by struggling even stiff monos through by hand?

And being faster is impossible also imo.
@occational stringer.

I am happy that your opinion does not match the feed back from users. Many of them buy one unit first and the other one later, so they must like them



Is this not a little in contradiction with your opinion about the system?

How could it be ok for the first days and not good for later?




We organize big stringing happenings every year.

And we are always asked by experienced stringers to demonstrate the speed and they always tell that they are faster without.

Until we do the “contest” of weaving through some crosses.

They never win, it is impossible to weave the string through so fast and also pull the whole length of string through so fast without.
I think that the video clearly shows how fast the string goes through.

And even if the speed would be the same it is much more convenient for fingers and back.

OF course you are free to have your own opinion.
"I am happy that your opinion does not match the feed back from users"

I was answering to your question : "Why do tournament stringers prefer to hurt their fingers and back by struggling even stiff monos through by hand?"

So how many users that you get feedback from have made any pro tour tournament stringing? What kind of exact feedback do you get from them ? Like I said I have done a few pro tournaments and I gave some true feedback based on my own experience. Why don't you give any comments on /answers to the problems I described in my post ?

"Many of them buy one unit first and the other one later, so they must like them"

Again, have these customers done pro tour stringing ? Like I said there are some benefits to an occasional stringer (LOL) stringing a frame every now and then. On the other hand, I have seen some people selling their cross stringers on German stringing forum.

"Until we do the “contest” of weaving through some crosses."

Weaving through some crosses ? Come on, doing some crosses is not the point, what counts is how much time it takes complete the whole racket, including all the phases.

Related to this, what was missing from my earlier post was that when preparing the tool for the next cross you may accidentally drop the lower part if you are not careful. Putting it back futher slows you down.

"Is this not a little in contradiction with your opinion about the system?

How could it be ok for the first days and not good for later?"


I said the I would use the tool if a version that works well with tight mains spacing were availabe but unfortunately there is not such. Currently I'm not happy to force the plastic comb in on those frames and take risk that it shaves off the string surface when I move the tool

Like I said I symptoms of carpal syndrome in my left wrist so doing 20-30 frames for the following morning puts a lot strain on my wrist. So in those days I would prefer something that does reduces the strain, even if I have to spend more time stringing. Later days on the tournament number of frames reduces significantly so there is not that strain anymore so I would like to complete the frames faster to be able to watch the matches more. But really, if that ultra high density version were availbale I would not see that big problem using it throughout the whole tournament

"I think that the video clearly shows how fast the string goes through."

Why don't you post a video how you string that aforementioned Head Speed 18x20 or similar frame with tight center mains spacing with the tool, and I mean completing all the crosses.
 
I think that the comparison between by hand and with the cross stringer is only fair when you compare someone who weaves fast by hand compared with someone who is completely “automated” with the tool.

It is our experience that experienced stringers think that they should be able to handle the tool after “2 racquets”, while it took them “10” years to become a fast weaver by hand.

Of course there are some racquets which can not be done with the either tool.

But you can be sure that we would have added a third one if we would have received enough signals about racquets like the Head Speed 18x20.

Because we have the CNC milling program we only have to change a number of dimensions.
 
I think that the comparison between by hand and with the cross stringer is only fair when you compare someone who weaves fast by hand compared with someone who is completely “automated” with the tool.

It is our experience that experienced stringers think that they should be able to handle the tool after “2 racquets”, while it took them “10” years to become a fast weaver by hand.

Of course there are some racquets which can not be done with the either tool.

But you can be sure that we would have added a third one if we would have received enough signals about racquets like the Head Speed 18x20.

Because we have the CNC milling program we only have to change a number of dimensions.
"I think that the comparison between by hand and with the cross stringer is only fair when you compare someone who weaves fast by hand compared with someone who is completely “automated” with the tool."

I agree on this, of course

"It is our experience that experienced stringers think that they should be able to handle the tool after “2 racquets”, while it took them “10” years to become a fast weaver by hand."

I have done tens of frames with the tool and I think I'm quite fluent using it. But or course using it more I could get little faster with it but I do not see that much improvement that I would be faster with that than with hand weaving thinking all the "overhead". Like said the actual weaving time is only 10-15 % of time spent on doing the crosses.

One thing still, because with the tool you do not go one ahead it leaves the crosses little bit more curved and you need to spend more time straightening the crosses afterwards. But that is not that big issue.

"But you can be sure that we would have added a third one if we would have received enough signals about racquets like the Head Speed 18x20.

Because we have the CNC milling program we only have to change a number of dimensions."

So now you have received some signals about Head Speed 18x20 and there also other tight frames and you have the milling programs and tools so are you going to do that ultra high density version ? I think that you do not need to make any expensive molds for another version.

Actually I would do it so that only 8-12 mains are displaced by the tool. The space between outer mains is always bigger so they are easier to weave anyway

By having less mains displaced you would have shorter tool and I think that it would be easier to cover larger number of rackets. And with shorter you might be able to do all the crosses, even the difficult last ones. You could name this as a pro version.

One of top juniors at our club plays with that Head Speed 18x20 and he just received a new set frames from the local Head agent. I was doing those frames the other night and it felt like the center mains spacing was even tighter in the new version of the frame. But it could be that I was just tired after playing for 3 hours myself and doing some stretching and going to sauna afterwards. After sauna it seems to be always more difficult to weave as your finger tips dont grip the string well. Sauna seems to remove some grease or some other stuff that improves the grip of your finger tips. I push weave my self except the last 2-3 crosses which I pull weave to reduce string twisting.
 
Because we have the CNC milling program we only have to change a number of dimensions."

So now you have received some signals about Head Speed 18x20 and there also other tight frames and you have the milling programs and tools so are you going to do that ultra high density version ? I think that you do not need to make any expensive molds for another version.
Both versions that we have are CNC milled so we do not use molds at all.
But no we did not get any more Head Speed 18x20 requests.

What is the distance between the 14 mains?
 
Last edited:
Both versions that we have are CNC milled so we do not use molds at all.
But no we did not get any more Head Speed 18x20 requests.

What is the distance between the 14 mains?
I'm doing the ITF tournament stringing just now. Qualies and 1st round of the main draw are now over, 70 rackets strung so far.

At least one player still left in the tournament is using the latest version of Head Speed Pro 18x20.

Propably tomorrow I hava a chance to measure this distance
 
One thing still, because with the tool you do not go one ahead it leaves the crosses little bit more curved and you need to spend more time straightening the crosses afterwards. But that is not that big issue.
I always use the tool and I always weave crosses one ahead. Never had a problem with curved cross strings with either of the combs regardless of string type.
 
What is the distance between the 14 mains?

Measured this Head Speed Pro with vernier caliber, the distances center to center

2 mains: 8,75 mm
4 mains: 25,50 mm
6 mains: 45,10 mm
8 mains: 63,85 mm
10 mains: 83,75 mm
12 mains: 107.15
14 mains 131.25

the same for Head Prestige Pro 18x20

2 mains: 10,25
4 mains: 28,8 mm
6 mains: 48,75 mm
8 mains: 68,7 mm
10 mains : 92.25
12 mains: 116.2
14 mains: 136.75

I have the tools here (not been using them) but I placed the comb in the prestige pro after doing the mains and took a picture. The problem is that the comb will not stay perpendicular with the mains but wants to make an angle. Then when you move the tool sharp edges of the slots in the comb shave the main string when you move the tool.The slot edges should be rounded.

I will post the picture later with better time
 
I have the tools here (not been using them) but I placed the comb in the prestige pro after doing the mains and took a picture. The problem is that the comb will not stay perpendicular with the mains but wants to make an angle. Then when you move the tool sharp edges of the slots in the comb shave the main string when you move the tool.The slot edges should be rounded.
When I first saw the tool I did think there was a possibility that it might mark, shave, or cut certain strings. I imagined I could remedy that situation if it was a problem simply by lining the edges of the tool and combs with pvc electrical tape. That would soften any sharp edges without changing the functionality of the tool.

I am yet to have any problems with the stock tool and accessories possibly because I only use a limited range of strings. But if I do, I will certainly try my potential "fix" and see how it goes.
 
I put the dimensions of the Head Prestrige into our Excel sheet:



The white line shows the position of the strings in the racquet measured from the centre.

The blue line shows the positions in the HD unit.

The green line shows the difference in positions between the HD unit and the racquet.

The purple line shows the positions in the LD unit.

The green line shows the difference in positions between the LD unit and the racquet.

The difference between positions should be less than 4 mm

As you can see there is only one string close to that difference in the HD unit.

The advice is the HD unit with the short 14 slot comb.


The HD unit can not be used on the Head speed Pro.
 
Top