There is no perfect ATW (Around The World) pattern - Discuss

uk_skippy

Hall of Fame
Having just read another post, which I won't refer to, and having thought of starting this thread before it seemed a good time to do so.

So, while there are many variations of the ATW pattern, I don't feel that there is a perfect ATW pattern. While some offer advantages over others, they may well create other problems.

Discuss.
 

kkm

Hall of Fame
Having just read another post, which I won't refer to, and having thought of starting this thread before it seemed a good time to do so.

So, while there are many variations of the ATW pattern, I don't feel that there is a perfect ATW pattern. While some offer advantages over others, they may well create other problems.

Discuss.

Yes. (10 char)
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Interesting topic. I agree that any advantage gained, there is at least some problem in the differing variations.

My favorite ATW is the 3 box, but I mostly use an ATW where I leave out the last main on the long side. Then I string top>down, when I get to the bottom, I string the last main.

would love to hear from others.
 

rich s

Hall of Fame
Interesting topic. I agree that any advantage gained, there is at least some problem in the differing variations.

My favorite ATW is the 3 box, but I mostly use an ATW where I leave out the last main on the long side. Then I string top>down, when I get to the bottom, I string the last main.

would love to hear from others.

I don't know what the variation of ATW I use is called but here it is:

leave out the last main on the short side,
with the long side, string the last main on the long side then do the last (bottom) cross and then the short side main that was omitted.
from there you do the crosses top down.

you have to pay attention when you weave the first (top) cross because the bottom cross is strung already.... if you have an odd number of crosses you weave the top cross same as the bottom cross, if you have an even number of crosses you have to string the top cross opposite of the bottom cross.

hope I described it clearly enough....
 

GPB

Professional
I don't know what the variation of ATW I use is called but here it is:

leave out the last main on the short side,
with the long side, string the last main on the long side then do the last (bottom) cross and then the short side main that was omitted.
from there you do the crosses top down.

you have to pay attention when you weave the first (top) cross because the bottom cross is strung already.... if you have an odd number of crosses you weave the top cross same as the bottom cross, if you have an even number of crosses you have to string the top cross opposite of the bottom cross.

hope I described it clearly enough....

So I suppose the downside with this one is that your short side ends with an inside main, right? Theoretically (if one ties a good knot) this doesn't matter, but it seems that ending on crosses is a good idea. Thoughts anyone?
 

TenniseaWilliams

Professional
I worry about the material between grommets not being designed for some of the loads on ATW patterns, or even some of the tie off derivations.

The lack of symmetry on some of the patterns could also introduce some unusual stresses in the racquet.
 

jim e

Legend
There are more hard weaves with any ATW pattern, but thats the trade off.
There is also some sharp turns where the string crosses a small section of the frame of the racquet, where there is a chance of the string pulling through that small section.Does not happen with the 2 pc.
 
Last edited:

MuscleWeave

Semi-Pro
But there are problems with it.

Regards

Paul

Like I said, "for an even number of crosses". If you use it for a frame with 19 crosses, you will end up having an extra hard weave near the bottom of the stringbed. I don't care for that sort of thing, so I use 2-piece when that comes up.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
I worry about the material between grommets not being designed for some of the loads on ATW patterns, or even some of the tie off derivations.

The lack of symmetry on some of the patterns could also introduce some unusual stresses in the racquet.


This is always a concern. As you said, ATW at times put very heavy loads on very little material.
 

uk_skippy

Hall of Fame
Like I said, "for an even number of crosses". If you use it for a frame with 19 crosses, you will end up having an extra hard weave near the bottom of the stringbed. I don't care for that sort of thing, so I use 2-piece when that comes up.

Even using it for an even number of crosses you have to hard weave the two outside mains before hard weaving the string again to do the top & bottom crosses.
 

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
To the OP, I perfectly agree and think it really depends on the racquet. Some manufacturers are more 'stringer friendly' than others. That said, when doing an ATW, I've really gone back to the basic ATW I learned. Leave the last main on the short side undone. Pull the last long-side main to the bottom, string the bottom three crosses, pull the short side main up and start the long side crosses at the 2nd cross. Finish the crosses and tie off the long side. Go back to the short side and weave the top cross finishing it off as well.

The reason for the above is in 99% of the cases, it eliminates a couple of things. First, it pretty much takes care of any hard angles that come from doing one cross at the bottom. Second, you don't tie off on a main pull, only on crosses which helps preserve tension.
 
Last edited:

nacolo

New User
Interesting topic. I agree that any advantage gained, there is at least some problem in the differing variations.

My favorite ATW is the 3 box, but I mostly use an ATW where I leave out the last main on the long side. Then I string top>down, when I get to the bottom, I string the last main.

would love to hear from others.

Should you concern about the tie off grommet may be too far away for the last main not being too loose after tie off ?
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
^^^No. I use a cam action on the last main to pull tension with. But again, like all other ATW's, there is always a trade off. In my case, this is one of them.
 

MuscleWeave

Semi-Pro
What do you mean, "There are no perfect ATW patterns?" They are all perfect, along with everything else.

Om Shanti
MW
 
Last edited:

Rabbit

G.O.A.T.
^^^No. I use a cam action on the last main to pull tension with. But again, like all other ATW's, there is always a trade off. In my case, this is one of them.

BTW, the cam action pliers I purchased from Brand X turned out to be just fine and about 1/2 the price of Bab's.
 

nacolo

New User
Why bother with ATW patterns ?
Starting 1st cross from bottom (hoop) if the last main happens to end there,
and just string the crosses from bottom to top, is a bad, very bad practice ?
Can you Pro Stringers out there prove it is really a very bad practice scientificly ?

Thanks.
 

sman789

Rookie
Why bother with ATW patterns ?
Starting 1st cross from bottom (hoop) if the last main happens to end there,
and just string the crosses from bottom to top, is a bad, very bad practice ?
Can you Pro Stringers out there prove it is really a very bad practice scientificly ?

Thanks.

Head states to always string their rackets head to throat. That being said, a teaching pro I strung for never cared about his Prestige being strung one piece (mains going throat to head). He never has had a problem with his sticks either AND they were strung at 69#!
 

MuscleWeave

Semi-Pro
Head states to always string their rackets head to throat. That being said, a teaching pro I strung for never cared about his Prestige being strung one piece (mains going throat to head). He never has had a problem with his sticks either AND they were strung at 69#!

How does T to H, ATW stringing affect how a racquet plays?
 

jim e

Legend
Head states to always string their rackets head to throat. That being said, a teaching pro I strung for never cared about his Prestige being strung one piece (mains going throat to head). He never has had a problem with his sticks either AND they were strung at 69#!

You can cross a road without looking for traffic and most likely make it to the other side a % of times, but it still does not mean its the right thing to do.
 

sman789

Rookie
How does T to H, ATW stringing affect how a racquet plays?
I am not qualified to answer this, haha. I've only recently learned about ATW and done it 3 times in the past month. From what I've gathered it ensures no warping when stringing the racket; you get minimal overlapping of the strings outside the grommets; and it looks nice.
 

diredesire

Moderator
How does T to H, ATW stringing affect how a racquet plays?
The point of ATW is to string top to bottom, there'd be no point in stringing a throat to head ATW.

A throat to head one piece pattern is just a standard one piece. To string throat to head "ATW," you'd need to string an ATW on a racquet that has the mains ending at the tip, which would eliminate the need for ATW to begin with. Hope this makes sense...


As far as the OP, agree, every ATW has a given weakness, which is why I rarely, rarely string them. I like tying my mains off on a cross (when stringing one piece), to even out the tension loss (side to side), so I have to factor that into the "hassle" that is ATW.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
...I like tying my mains off on a cross (when stringing one piece), to even out the tension loss (side to side), so I have to factor that into the "hassle" that is ATW.

I have been trying to avoid this thread but that comment above has me scratching my head. I like to tie off the top and bottom crosses so one piece is always an option I consider even if I have to string the racket ATW. I would NEVER string a racket contrary to the manufacturer's spec without discussing it with the customer though.

Anyway long story short if the top and bottom crosses are tied off you will have less drawback 99.44% of the time.

What I have problems with is understanding how you tie off a main on a cross. The mains go in first and you then you put in the crosses. So if you tie off the mains on a cross and the crosses end at the bottom you will have to hold your main string tails with two starting clamps while you sting all the crosses down to the bottom so you can tie off the mains. Changes are there are some skipped holes down on the bottom of the frame so now those starting clamps are really going to cause problem working around them.

I started a thread a long time ago about never tying off a main string and many people had problems understanding that. They thought I was tying the mains tails off on a cross string (and when you finish the mains there are no crosses.) What I was trying to say is that I run one main's tail for the top cross and then tie off wherever the tie off is located.

Let me give you an example. I string my racket one piece and the mains end at the top so I take the short side and tie off at the proper tie off hole for the short side. Since my rackets are Prince O-Ports in order to make that work I start the short side on the long side. Then I use the long side to string the second cross and string down to the bottom cross which I then tie off. If I do not start the short side on the long side the strings will not go through the O-Ports properly.

Irvin
 
Last edited:

diredesire

Moderator
Yep, less drawback is why I like to tie the mains off "on a cross" (aka weaving the top or bottom cross using the main string). You still have drawback, it's just on a cross instead of the outermost main(s). I should have said "as a cross," to clarify. Just poor wording on my part, you do the same thing I do ;)

I do the same on prince O port frames, too. I always start my short side on the wrong "end" of the frame, and people freak out, and try to correct me. I don't have traditional "customers" though, as I string for a team (at least, used to..).

I have been trying to avoid this thread but that comment above has me scratching my head. I like to tie off the top and bottom crosses so one piece is always an option I consider even if I have to string the racket ATW. I would NEVER string a racket contrary to the manufacturer's spec without discussing it with the customer though.

Anyway long story short if the top and bottom crosses are tied off you will have less drawback 99.44% of the time.

What I have problems with is understanding how you tie off a main on a cross. The mains go in first and you then you put in the crosses. So if you tie off the mains on a cross and the crosses end at the bottom you will have to hold your main string tails with two starting clamps while you sting all the crosses down to the bottom so you can tie off the mains. Changes are there are some skipped holes down on the bottom of the frame so now those starting clamps are really going to cause problem working around them.

I started a thread a long time ago about never tying off a main string and many people had problems understanding that. They thought I was tying the mains tails off on a cross string (and when you finish the mains there are no crosses.) What I was trying to say is that I run one main's tail for the top cross and then tie off wherever the tie off is located.

Let me give you an example. I string my racket one piece and the mains end at the top so I take the short side and tie off at the proper tie off hole for the short side. Since my rackets are Prince O-Ports in order to make that work I start the short side on the long side. Then I use the long side to string the second cross and string down to the bottom cross which I then tie off. If I do not start the short side on the long side the strings will not go through the O-Ports properly.

Irvin
 

its_me_leon

New User
Having just read another post, which I won't refer to, and having thought of starting this thread before it seemed a good time to do so.

So, while there are many variations of the ATW pattern, I don't feel that there is a perfect ATW pattern. While some offer advantages over others, they may well create other problems.

Discuss.

True, but neither is there a perfect 2 piece stringjob. A perfect job could be where the main strings end at the top, but then you would see that the manufacturer did put the tie off holes on akward places :)

When ATW, I always use the UKRSA methode. The reason why is, I have only hard weaves on my outer strings and my tie offs are on my last crosses. So if I would loose some tension it is on outer strings which is fine.
 

uk_skippy

Hall of Fame
I started a thread a long time ago about never tying off a main string and many people had problems understanding that. They thought I was tying the mains tails off on a cross string (and when you finish the mains there are no crosses.) What I was trying to say is that I run one main's tail for the top cross and then tie off wherever the tie off is located.

Let me give you an example. I string my racket one piece and the mains end at the top so I take the short side and tie off at the proper tie off hole for the short side. Since my rackets are Prince O-Ports in order to make that work I start the short side on the long side. Then I use the long side to string the second cross and string down to the bottom cross which I then tie off. If I do not start the short side on the long side the strings will not go through the O-Ports properly.

Irvin

I do the same with regards to running the short side onto the 1st cross where the mains finish at the head, although if the frame can accommodate 2 crosses I'll do 2 crossess i.e Wilson K Zen team

I do the same on prince O port frames, too. I always start my short side on the wrong "end" of the frame, and people freak out, and try to correct me. I don't have traditional "customers" though, as I string for a team (at least, used to..).

Again, I'd do the same. There was a saying in the Wimby stringing room - the right side is the wrong side. But again as mentioned above, if the frame can accommodate 2 crosses I'd do 2 crosses. Then the right side is the right side.

True, but neither is there a perfect 2 piece stringjob. A perfect job could be where the main strings end at the top, but then you would see that the manufacturer did put the tie off holes on akward places :)

When ATW, I always use the UKRSA methode. The reason why is, I have only hard weaves on my outer strings and my tie offs are on my last crosses. So if I would loose some tension it is on outer strings which is fine.

I guess the nearest to a perfect 2 piece job with regards to tie-off placement is having the outside mains tied-off onto the 2nd from last main.

I agree that the only hard weaves you'll get will be on the outside (and the top & bottom crosses) but you may not get the true tension on the outer mains. An advantage of using most other ATW, especially the universal ATW, is that tension loss on the outer mains is reduced as long as you run the shortside to either the top 1 or 2 crosses. The method you use means that you're pulling the outer mains against the crosses currently in place.

It's also a bit nervy string gut at very high tensions using that method especially on a 16 x 19 frame!!
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I do the same with regards to running the short side onto the 1st cross where the mains finish at the head, although if the frame can accommodate 2 crosses I'll do 2 crossess i.e Wilson K Zen team...

I string with fixed clamps and used a starting clamp to hold the top cross. Stringing the top two crosses creates new problems I would not want to deal with and will put the tie off hole farther from the cross string.

I guess the nearest to a perfect 2 piece job with regards to tie-off placement is having the outside mains tied-off onto the 2nd from last main...

Then you will have the 2nd to last outside main going into the grommet on the inside of the racket and coming out on the outside. That makes it a little more difficult unless of course unless the mains end at the head.

An example of what you are talking about is a common Wilson pattern where the mains end in the throat, where the mains skip 7T and 9T, and your tie offs are 6T and 8T (original Wilson ProStaff.) If you tie off the mains at 8T it is difficult to get some soft strings in the hole. If you tie off the mains at 6T you have two mains blocking hole 7T.

If you ever come up with a PERFECT string pattern keep it a secret until you get your patent on it. The best I have seen that comes close to perfect is the pattern for the T2000. But then again that had some problems too didn't it? LOL

Irvin
 

uk_skippy

Hall of Fame
I do the same with regards to running the short side onto the 1st cross where the mains finish at the head, although if the frame can accommodate 2 crosses I'll do 2 crossess i.e Wilson K Zen team

I string with fixed clamps and used a starting clamp to hold the top cross. Stringing the top two crosses creates new problems I would not want to deal with and will put the tie off hole farther from the cross string.

The tie-off I'd use would be the same as you'd use. I string outside main to 2nd from top cross to top cross. I use a starting clamp to hold the long side main string while i use both fixed clamps to string the top 2 crosses. Once I've strung the top 2 crosses I can then use the fixed clamps to run the long side mains to the 3rd from top cross downwards. If you were to run only the short side main to the top cross there would be a longer string in the bumper groove. Couple this with the long side main the going to the 2nd from top cross, there would be more string in the same place when it turns into the 3rd from top cross. Too much string in 1 place. My method also means that the 'loosest' strings are the top & bottom crosses.

Irvin, I'm only writing this as I'm not sure you understood my methodology.


If you ever come up with a PERFECT string pattern keep it a secret until you get your patent on it. The best I have seen that comes close to perfect is the pattern for the T2000. But then again that had some problems too didn't it? LOL

Irvin

If I came up with the perfect pattern I think I would let on. After all there'd be no money in it :). If there were a patent on it, it would difficult trying to get people to cough up for using it.

Regards


Paul
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
...If I came up with the perfect pattern I think I would let on. After all there'd be no money in it :). If there were a patent on it, it would difficult trying to get people to cough up for using it.

Regards


Paul

Hey you are probably right Wilson, Babolat, Volkl, Dunlop, Head, Prince, etc... would never be interested in a PERFECT pattern. So if you ever come up with one just pass it on to everyone. That way no one could patent it and all the manufacturers could use it to make money on your idea.

I am not so sure about the rest of the world but here in the US only the inventor can get a patent. Contrary to popular belief it is not the first one to apply for a patent that gets it. So if you invented that pattern here in the US and told the world no one could patent (here in the US) because they were not the inventor. And since you let the cat out of the bag and told everyone you can't either, because you can't turn around now and stop them from following your instructions.

That perfect pattern will probably require some new technology like the T2000 tennis racket did. Don't you think Henri Lacoste got some money from Wilson when he sold his T2000 patent to Wilson?

Irvin
 

its_me_leon

New User
Also, pretend there would be a perfect and even universal pattern.
It would make the stringers life boring. Imagine the stringing machine vendors would come with a machine that does everything automatic for us. Would we buy it? NO!!!!! At least not me!!
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
Just an idea

There are more hard weaves with any ATW pattern, but thats the trade off.
There is also some sharp turns where the string crosses a small section of the frame of the racquet, where there is a chance of the string pulling through that small section.Does not happen with the 2 pc.

'jim e' you are absolutely right as usual. So here is one idea that may be food for thought. If you have one of those 18 x X string jobs that end at the throat why not leave out to two outside mains and string it one piece. No hard weaves and none of those sharp turns where the string crosses a small section of frame.

Makes me wonder why the manufacturer ever came up with the tight pattern anyway. If you are in for softening up the string bed this may be a option. OH just in case someone took me serious I am sure there is a reason the manufacturer came up with those patterns.

Irvin
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
^^ Maybe the reason is if you don't like the 18 x 20 you have the option of 18x18, 18x19, 16x20, 16x19, or 16x18. Oh yes you do have the option of voiding your warranty with any of those options too.

Irvin
 

Carolina Racquet

Professional
I've always preferred doing a one-piece stringing and when I started using the Prince TT Warrior OS with mains that tied off on the bottom, I figured I had to do a two-piece job.

Then I thought about an ATW approach and I like it. The PTTWOS is a 16x19 pattern with two shared holes at Mains 7&8 Top with the Crosses of 1&2.

I strung the 7 mains on each side and tied off my short side at 5 top (where starting knot would go for the crosses). After my 7th long main, I started my first cross at 2, strung to the last cross then did the 8th long main, 1st cross at the top then my last (8th) short main and tied off at 3rd cross from bottom (where crosses tie).

Here's the advantages I see...

1. Fewer knots will allow me to rotate my tie-off holes - Helps my grommet set last longer and I believe poly strings are tougher to knot than other strings.

2. Fewer mains to weave with my crosses. Only weaving across 14 mains rather than 16. String pulls through very easily.

3. 3 of 4 shared holes are first strung with better angles. Helps to feed the second string through the shared holes.

So I'm asking more experienced stringers out there for feedback... Does ATW done like this ok with 16 x 19 patterns that tie off at the bottom? I should also work on most 18x20 frames since the number of crosses shouldn't matter. It will be dependent on grommet location.

Thanks...
 
Last edited:

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I would not suggest an ATW pattern to anyone but if one suggested it that is a different story. Some rackets are good prospects to string ATW while others are not. It also depends a lot on the pattern you usee also.

As far as reducing the knots I like that if your grommets wear out at the tie off holes. Replacing the grommet is better though. Poly string is no more difficult to tie off that any other string. It is a little stiffer but that is not a problem.

Fewer mains to weave crosses? If you use the long side to weave the outside mains and bottom cross first there is no advantage here.

There are really no shared holes on the TT rackets. There are individual paths through the grommet for each string unless you have torn the grommet.

There is a obvious advantage to stringing the racket as the manufacturer recommends and not too many manufacturers recommends ATW.

Irvin
 
Last edited:

uk_skippy

Hall of Fame
Irvin

while I tend to agree that the pattern in your new video is good (I do like the idea of leaving the outer mains and bottom and top crosses to the last) so that they dont get in the way. The problem comes with i) tensioning the outer mains thru the already weaved crosses, and ii) leaving out the outer mains until the end.

In i) the tension pulled will not be the same as other mains. If you pull 55lbs on the centre 16 mains, and then you pull 55lbs on the outer 2 when doing last bit, the outer 2 mains won't be 55lbs as they're being pulled thru the rest of the string bed.

In ii), the frame was designed to have all its mains strung (generally) 1st, and that leaving out mains may not be good for the frame especially if stringing high tensions.

I have discussed these point previous with a well-renowned stringer who brought this points to my attention. These are generally the same reason why the "UKRSA" pattern isn't perfect. Both of the patterns discussed help relieve the problem of the hard-weave for the crosses by missing out the bottom cross, but other issues as mentioned arise.

If one were to use this pattern with gut, then the short side end would become very tired, very quickly. Strangely enough, I think using the universal ATW pattern allows the string to work the gut better to protect it. At this point I'd mentioned that both Serena and Venus had their rqts strung in full gut, using the universal ATW pattern at 65 & 68 respectively at Wimby with no issues.

This is also the reason why I didn't add to the other thread where ATW patterns are mention and the suggestions included string the short side main as normal, and subsequently leaving out the opposite main until the end. Again and especially with higher tensions, there'll could be more stress on the frame, and the last weave(s) would be thru the rest of the stringbed. Indeed I use to use this pattern many years ago when stringing PC600. As this is a soft frame, distortion to it would be easy to do if 1 main is missed out.

Regards

Paul
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I am not saying this is a perfect pattern

^^thanks Paul all good and valid points but, ...

I tend to agree that the tension on the outside mains MAY be less but for the same reason the tension is the crosses is higher for the opposite reason - less friction. As bad as I play tennis I don't use the outside mains anyway. LOL This issue could easily be resolved by double pulling (pulling one string twice not two strings once) or if you have a prestretch option on your tensioner using that.

If I were to use gut with this pattern I would not pull the strings as in the video. I would make a loop so there is less friction on the string as I pull the pre-woven strings at the end thereby reducing friction. Also using this pattern with gut is a good idea because the main string is shorter and used to string fewer crosses and one main. Since there are two fewer tensioned mains to weave your gut throught there is less wear on the crosses you do weave.

But I value your input and I would not normally use an ATW pattern unless two knots or an ATW were requested. If I do use an ATW this is the one I now use. Like I said in the video, if I were to have strung the racket properly I would have used the two piece method.

Irvin
 
Last edited:

jim e

Legend
I think this ATW pattern covers all the disadvantages for using ATW patterns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNalVXcros

Irvin

Nice video Irvin! A question for you.
When you make the transition from the main to the top 2 cross strings, you clamp the 2nd to last main for this,and then weave the top 2 cross strings, and because the need for space that clamp that is on the 2nd to last main is about 2 inches away from the inside edge of the frame. When you pull tension on the cross string I bet that those 2 inches of string does not get the proper tension, as the pull goes around 2 grommets, so the 2nd from the end main can have its tension compromised will it not?
I like stringing the majority of racquets as 2 piece as any ATW is not without problems.
 

GlenK

Professional
I don't understand any advantage to the ATW pattern. What is it supposed to accomplish vs. a regular two piece job?
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
Nice video Irvin! A question for you.
When you make the transition from the main to the top 2 cross strings, you clamp the 2nd to last main for this,and then weave the top 2 cross strings, and because the need for space that clamp that is on the 2nd to last main is about 2 inches away from the inside edge of the frame. When you pull tension on the cross string I bet that those 2 inches of string does not get the proper tension, as the pull goes around 2 grommets, so the 2nd from the end main can have its tension compromised will it not?
I like stringing the majority of racquets as 2 piece as any ATW is not without problems.

Thanks 'jim e.' I too prefer to do two piece but for that racket I strung I had a specific request to do 1 piece so I did the ATW. The only exception to that is for Wilson rackets where the mains normally end at the throat and the recommended pattern is 1 piece. Then I string the racket ATW and tension the crosses top to bottom.

I am not sure I am following your questions. When I transitioned from the last main to the top two crosses I used the short side tail routed ATW to the 8th main on the long side (right side of racket clamped.) First I pre-weave the short side outside main, then the bottom cross, then the long side outside main, and finally the top two crosses. After all those strings are ran I clamp the 2nd to last outside main on the short side with a starting clamp. In the video when the third cross to the bottom cross were all completed I go back and tension all the short side strings.

Really don't understand what you mean when you are talking about the 2" of string. The 7th mains on each side are two inches in from the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on the racket maybe but when I tension them they will have the same tension as when you string them because the only other strings tensioned are the 12 mains between them.

Sorry I am not understanding you can you try to clarify.

Irvin
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't understand any advantage to the ATW pattern. What is it supposed to accomplish vs. a regular two piece job?

Let take the racket I strung a LM Radical MP. The 7th and 8th mains link over grommet hole 10h on both sides of the racket and when you tension those outside mains you block both grommet holes. No big deal but with this ATW pattern there are no blocked holes.

Again when you tie off the mains at the bottom your outside mains goes over 9t and blocks 9t on both sides at the bottom.

With this pattern you never tie off an outside main. I feel tying off the outside mains because of drawback makes them move more. When you tie off cross strings instead of mains the string bed is stiffer because the crosses are in and tensioned producing less drawback.

This ATW pattern produces a symmetrical pattern with no hard weaves.

I will have a short side of 15' when doing this pattern. If you are stringing a string like gut that means you will have less string on the long side getting more wear and tear and if you had a longer string. Also there are fewer crosses to weave on the long side. This is much like the 50/50 pattern VS adopted to say wear and tear on gut string.

Also as I said in the previous post I normally only do this on Wilson rackets where the mains end in the throat and Wilson suggest 1 piece stringing. When using the ATW pattern you weave the crosses top down instead of bottom up.

Irvin
 

jim e

Legend
Thanks 'jim e.' I too prefer to do two piece but for that racket I strung I had a specific request to do 1 piece so I did the ATW. The only exception to that is for Wilson rackets where the mains normally end at the throat and the recommended pattern is 1 piece. Then I string the racket ATW and tension the crosses top to bottom.

I am not sure I am following your questions. When I transitioned from the last main to the top two crosses I used the short side tail routed ATW to the 8th main on the long side (right side of racket clamped.) First I pre-weave the short side outside main, then the bottom cross, then the long side outside main, and finally the top two crosses. After all those strings are ran I clamp the 2nd to last outside main on the short side with a starting clamp. In the video when the third cross to the bottom cross were all completed I go back and tension all the short side strings.

Really don't understand what you mean when you are talking about the 2" of string. The 7th mains on each side are two inches in from the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on the racket maybe but when I tension them they will have the same tension as when you string them because the only other strings tensioned are the 12 mains between them.

Sorry I am not understanding you can you try to clarify.

Irvin

Okay Irvin. At the beginning of your video, the clamp that is at the head of the racquet on the very beginning, which is the short side that you run the 2 top cross strings. look at that clamp, it is at least 2 inches from the inside edge of the racquet from the head end, ( I normally try and place the clamp as close to the frame as possible) , as there needs to be space to weave and pull the top 2 cross strings. that 2 inches of string on the end gets pulled when you tension the 2nd cross string does it not? As a result that 2 inches of string should not be as tight as loss from friction across the grommets, resulting in the 2nd from the end main being a little less tensioned, or am I missing something?
 

GlenK

Professional
OK, thanks. I was only doing std one piece jobs on the racquets that called for it. (only Wilson so far) But that makes a lot of sense. Thanks...
 
Top