Tying off crosses in 2 piece stringing.

[Irvin]

When stringing a racket I like to string 2 piece. When I tie off the crosses I like to tie mains to mains and crosses to crosses. Often the second or third cross from the top and / or bottom that will serve as an anchor without stretching out the grommet. In the picture below you can see this allows you more room to tie off the string because the clamp will never be in the way.

https://imgur.com/bxMuHw6

When tying off the bottom cross, same thing, the clamp is never in the way as can be seen in the picture below.

https://imgur.com/2afY742

When you go to remove the string if the crosses are tie to the main string some times you will have trouble getting the string out.

https://imgur.com/b0Cowzl

What I do in this situation is cut the main string just above the knot. Do not cut too close to the frame because you could cut the grommet. If you pull the string out through the knot without cutting you put a lot of friction tTension on the string and you can damage the grommet.

There are times when you can’t time crosses to crosses without stretching out a grommet. some times I use a starting clamp other times I used a starting knot. A starting knot could be any of several different knots. In the picture below I used a Parnell knot in a well worn grommet. I put a starting clamp on the string to put back pressure on the knot and hold the string up at an angle. You could easily hold back pressure with you hand but it would require a longer tag end. I do not feel it is necessary to apply knot tension on starting knots because there is no drawback.

https://imgur.com/akxJtSF

As you can see in the picture below a Parnell can be used as a starting knot without it being pulled into the grommet. Some times you will need a larger knot. Once it is trimmed up no one can tell if it’s an tie off or starting knot.

https://imgur.com/wAP4WYG

If you’re going to be tying off on an anchor string you don’t want to clamp the string at the point where you knot will be. The picture below shows where I clamp the anchor string for a bottom cross. The anchor for the outer mains is to the left of of that grommet and no clamp will be placed there.
https://imgur.com/omPpZAt
Below picture shows when I tie off the bottom cross on a main some times I don’t clamp the string as close to the frame as possible. I leave a little space so there is plenty of room to tie a Parnell no matter where I’m tying off.
https://imgur.com/5B1Y2KY
Often I like to weave crosses so the anchor string is on top of the intersecting string so the always enough room to tie off.
https://imgur.com/M8vsJZl
Once the bottom cross is tied off again it looks like a normal tie off.
https://imgur.com/zecJL4V

 

[jim e]

Rather than tie mains to mains and crosses to crosses, I like to follow manufacture specifications. Those are typically listed in the URSA digest.
You can not go wrong with following what manufacturer specs are. Even with hybrid stringing with gut, I still tie poly to gut without any issues.

 

[struggle]

Rather than tie mains to mains and crosses to crosses, I like to follow manufacture specifications. Those are typically listed in the URSA digest.
You can not go wrong with following what manufacturer specs are. Even with hybrid stringing with gut, I still tie poly to gut without any issues.

Same here. Never really had an issue with such. Only did this when i was trying the now defunct (to me) practice of
restringing poly crosses only.

 

[esgee48]

Follow USRSA or manufacturer’s info. Unless client wants to be specific about tie off points. I use to accommodate the requests but I will also tell them “it is dumb.” Don’t restring crosses only anymore either unless I get paid the same as a full restring. Won’t guarantee tension.

 

[ey039524]

I like tying off crosses on crosses, just b/c it looks clean. I don't like it if the knot hits the main string or I have to stretch a grommet, though.

 

[Irvin]

I like the clean look of no knot on any of the mains at the top. Seems like many times I hear about a string breaking at or near the knot. I think a lot of that may be a stringer issue. There’s also a lot of shear at the top of the racket. I don’t know if it’s true or not but I think a knot can cause a string to shear off easier.

 

[MZ9526]

I like the clean look of no knot on any of the mains at the top. Seems like many times I hear about a string breaking at or near the knot. I think a lot of that may be a stringer issue. There’s also a lot of shear at the top of the racket. I don’t know if it’s true or not but I think a knot can cause a string to shear off easier.

This is why I prefer my PS97s rather than my Head Radicals. Both are 16x19, but the mains for the Radicals tie off at the top of the frame as opposed to the PS97 that finishes at the bottom.

The main tie offs at the top of the frame just looks goofy.

I've never broken a string around any knots at the top, but I suppose it can probably happen due to the added stress of having a knot tightened around the string.

I might try a Parnell starting knot like yours next time I string one of my sticks. My usual knot is the fishing knot and I've never had an issue or damaged a grommet in my 10 years of stringing. I only do the fishing knot because I learned to string from a TW video with Andy.

 

[Irvin]

I might try a Parnell starting knot like yours next time I string one of my sticks. My usual knot is the fishing knot and I've never had an issue or damaged a grommet in my 10 years of stringing. I only do the fishing knot because I learned to string from a TW video with Andy.

I was not trying to advocate using a Parnell knot for a starting knot, but it can easily be done. If I had a knot I’d been using for 10 years and never had an issue I doubt I would switch. Why fix something that isn’t broken?

 

[Rabbit]

I like the clean look of no knot on any of the mains at the top. Seems like many times I hear about a string breaking at or near the knot. I think a lot of that may be a stringer issue. There’s also a lot of shear at the top of the racket. I don’t know if it’s true or not but I think a knot can cause a string to shear off easier.

what does it matter? It is certainly less of an issue tha stringing bottom up or double pulling tension.

In my experience, the benefit from stringing the first two or sometimes 3 crosses using the short side enables you to tie off on a cross which is always preferred. This also helps with an even tension on both outside mains. The long side most times starts the 3rd cross (sometimes the 4th).

From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, stringing the first one, two, or three crosses and tying off on a cross is gives the string job a very clean look as well IMO.

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.



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.

Well it took you 10 years, but I'm glad you came around.

 

[struggle]

Never BEFORE have I heard a single person mention knot location as an aesthetic issue.

Now I’ve heard it all.

 

[Rabbit]

Never BEFORE have I heard a single person mention knot location as an aesthetic issue.

Now I’ve heard it all.

Guilty!

 

[Irvin]

Guilty!

I believe @Richard Parnell was but but not positive. P1 stringing has not said it, to my knowledge, but that’s their SOP.

 

[Irvin]

This is why I prefer my PS97s rather than my Head Radicals. Both are 16x19, but the mains for the Radicals tie off at the top of the frame as opposed to the PS97 that finishes at the bottom.

The main tie offs at the top of the frame just looks goofy.

I've never broken a string around any knots at the top, but I suppose it can probably happen due to the added stress of having a knot tightened around the string.

I might try a Parnell starting knot like yours next time I string one of my sticks. My usual knot is the fishing knot and I've never had an issue or damaged a grommet in my 10 years of stringing. I only do the fishing knot because I learned to string from a TW video with Andy.

Here is a Head Radical MP

https://imgur.com/liwC3rD

7H is designated as the MAIN tie of and 6H is designated are tie off. Notice that 11H, third cross, is the same size grommet at 6&7H. I tied the mains at 6H after a Yonex tennis loop and the top cross at 11H

https://imgur.com/c2vofFO

7T is designated as the CROSS tie off but I used 11T to tie off the bottom cross.

https://imgur.com/OhZrxNb

If there would have not been a tie off grommet on the second or third cross, I would have opened up a grommet to tie off but in this case there was.

EDIT: Some stringers would consider these rackets ‘natural 1 piece. I string Head frame 2 piece unless requested otherwise on it is a 1 piece frame like a blue light special.

 

[LOBALOT]

I like the clean look of no knot on any of the mains at the top. Seems like many times I hear about a string breaking at or near the knot. I think a lot of that may be a stringer issue. There’s also a lot of shear at the top of the racket. I don’t know if it’s true or not but I think a knot can cause a string to shear off easier.

What do you do then with 8 in the throat with a 16 main racquet ie blade 16x19?

 

[Rabbit]

I believe @Richard Parnell was but but not positive. P1 stringing has not said it, to my knowledge, but that’s their SOP.

I first learned it, about 15 years ago, from Tom Parry, a pro level stringer. To be explicit, I'm referring to the practice of stringing 1, 2, or 3 crosses using the short side of a one-piece and then tying off on a cross and doing the same when finishing the crosses on a one-piece to keep knots on the crosses rather than in either the top or bottom arc of the frame. For the top of the string job, you maintain tension better when stringing at least one cross and then tying off on a cross rather than stringing the last cross and tying off on the designated main.

I believe P1 has mentioned expressly tying off crosses on crosses when there's a hybrid involving gut/polyester. Richard Parnell follows that practice as well.

 

[am1899]

Yeah, but P1, RP, etc. are generally stringing for professional tennis players.

In a retail environment, stringing (mostly) for recreational players the considerations are not necessarily the same.

For one, I have not observed any definitive adverse effects of tying off crosses on mains (even tying gut off on a poly main). So, I don’t think it’s a huge leap to hypothesize that the jury is still out on whether or not this tactic is really physically better for the string, racquet, etc.

Now, do I think the main on main cross on cross looks better? In a lot of cases, yes it does look cleaner to me. But in a retail environment: is that relatively minute aesthetic improvement worth a “come-back” from a picky customer who notices mfg recommended tie-off holes were not used? To me, it is not worth taking that chance. But of course, to each their own.

 

[Wes]

I string Head frame 2 piece unless requested otherwise on it is a 1 piece frame like a blue light special.

Can someone (other than Irvin) please translate this sentence for me?
I can't understand what it's supposed to mean.

 

[MZ9526]

Can someone (other than Irvin) please translate this sentence for me?
I can't understand what it's supposed to mean.

I think he's referring to cheap racquets that are made only to be strung one piece because they come with small grommets that only allow tie offs in fewer locations than more expensive racquets.

 

[Irvin]

I have not observed any definitive adverse effects of tying off crosses on mains

If you tie the bottom cross off on a main, more often than not, you tie 2 main grommets together. As can be seen in the 3rd picture in the 1st post. Then what I usually do is cut the outer main just above the knot Being careful not to cut the grommet.

if you’ve ever had a clamp in the way of tying off the bottom cross tying off a cross on a cross get rid of that problem. the clamp is never in the way. In the picture below I moved the clamp farther in from the frame to have room to tie the knot. Otherwise I would have had to stretch out a grommet to tie off on the 17th / 18th cross.

https://imgur.com/oEFh1sf

 

[am1899]

If you tie the bottom cross off on a main, more often than not, you tie 2 main grommets together. As can be seen in the 3rd picture in the 1st post. Then what I usually do is cut the outer main just above the knot Being careful not to cut the grommet.

if you’ve ever had a clamp in the way of tying off the bottom cross tying off a cross on a cross get rid of that problem. the clamp is never in the way. In the picture below I moved the clamp farther in from the frame to have room to tie the knot. Otherwise I would have had to stretch out a grommet to tie off on the 17th / 18th cross.

https://imgur.com/oEFh1sf

Yup, I get it. And those are compelling reasons to proceed in that fashion.

That said, for me those issues don’t rise to trump my concerns about tying off in alternate tie off locations - at least in a retail environment, for most customers. (Especially if the mfg tie off holes are labeled on the racquet). Now, most customers probably won’t notice (or even care). But I’m fairly certain some “special” customer would eventually come along to take issue with it. Me, I’d rather avoid that all together.

Edit: I would also think that using alternate tie off holes *could* raise an issue in the case of a warranty claim with a mfg. Obviously, I wouldn’t be so foolish to send a racquet in with string still in it if it were strung in such a fashion. But the layman might not give something like that a second thought. Not saying that it is likely. But I wouldn’t put it past some mfg’s to deny a claim on something “ticky tacky” like that.

But again, to each their own. I do think it’s an interesting debate.

 

[graycrait]

1 piece stringing is an abomination that only leads to dog hair sticking out from all sorts of places with all that string lying about unless you string in a server farm clean room.

 

[am1899]

1 piece stringing is an abomination that only leads to dog hair sticking out from all sorts of places with all that string lying about unless you string in a server farm clean room.

LOL absolutely true about the hair!

A former colleague of mine would pre-lace the long side mains on a one piece. The rest of us all made fun of him for it, joked about not being able to watch him do it, etc. Well it turns out that doing so pretty much eliminates the dog hair (well, in my case cat hair) problem, as it keeps most of the string off the floor. Still, I can’t bring myself to do it. Instead I vacuum the area frequently.

 

[Wes]

1 piece stringing is an abomination that only leads to dog hair sticking out from all sorts of places with all that string lying about unless you string in a server farm clean room.

First, that's BS.

Second, even when doing 2pc. stringing, the string lengths are still long enough to touch the floor anyway (unless one's machine sits atop a totem pole, or step ladder).

 

[graycrait]

First, that's BS.

@Wes ,
Aw come on, don't be so vulgar Leave that sort of thing to the posters on the GOAT threads...even if it is sort of a "stretch"

 

[colan5934]

Yup, I get it. And those are compelling reasons to proceed in that fashion.

That said, for me those issues don’t rise to trump my concerns about tying off in alternate tie off locations - at least in a retail environment, for most customers. (Especially if the mfg tie off holes are labeled on the racquet). Now, most customers probably won’t notice (or even care). But I’m fairly certain some “special” customer would eventually come along to take issue with it. Me, I’d rather avoid that all together.

Edit: I would also think that using alternate tie off holes *could* raise an issue in the case of a warranty claim with a mfg. Obviously, I wouldn’t be so foolish to send a racquet in with string still in it if it were strung in such a fashion. But the layman might not give something like that a second thought. Not saying that it is likely. But I wouldn’t put it past some mfg’s to deny a claim on something “ticky tacky” like that.

But again, to each their own. I do think it’s an interesting debate.

I mean yeah he has a point, as rule of thumb is you should clamp as close to the frame as possible when pulling tension.

Plenty of things can impact stringbed stiffness, though. Not just whether the clamp is in the way or if you can’t get close to the frame without having the clamp in the way: distance to tie-off, hard weaves, how much slack is left/how snug the knot is, etc can all impact. Really as long as it’s done the same every time, it shouldn’t matter. You want a consistent outcome. Barring any wildly inefficient or out there methods of course.

So is he right? I guess you could make that case. Does it matter? Not necessarily.

And yes, I’ll use a starting clamp to tie poly on poly for gut main hybrids, and so do all my MRT colleagues. But gut nowadays is so well-coated that you can almost always get away with tying poly onto gut. It’s just safer to do poly/poly.

On the manufacturer, it depends…knots put the most stress on the frame, so it’s probably good practice to use the suggested tie-offs if it’s a racquet under warranty. I mean, they did design the racquet, so they would know. But that would only apply if it breaks at a tie-off hole which often requires an impact which wouldn’t be covered.

 

[LOBALOT]

I am not sure I really gained anything from this entire thread. Not sure of the intent of the OP but not a lot of information here for one to learn from other than an opportunity to post a thread of some sort.

 

[Irvin]

I would also think that using alternate tie off holes *could* raise an issue in the case of a warranty claim with a mfg.

I once called Head about string a racket 1 piece instead of 2 piece, because of the tie off locations. I was told defects are for defects in materials and workmanship for a period of 1 year to the original purchaser. Whether I string the racket with1 or 2 pieces of string didn’t matter, but if I was concerned about that I could remove the string.

 

[Wes]

I was told defects are for defects...

Once again, can someone (other than Irvin) please translate this?

 

[Irvin]

Once again, can someone (other than Irvin) please translate this?

RIF

 

[Irvin]

What do you do then with 8 in the throat with a 16 main racquet ie blade 16x19?

See post #13 that Head Radical MP is a 16x19 racket with 8 throat grommets. If the mains end at the head I tie off the mains at the head. I’m not sure what your asking.

 

[LOBALOT]

See post #13 that Head Radical MP is a 16x19 racket with 8 throat grommets. If the mains end at the head I tie off the mains at the head. I’m not sure what your asking.

Well if you look at your post I replied to (Your post #6) you indicate you attempt to have no tie offs on the mains. I am not clear how one would avoid any tie offs on the mains in the situation I am questioning so I thought you have some special approach you are proposing to do that. Go look at your post #6 and either translate or restate more clearly.

Every other thread out here someone is posting about wanting to restring their crosses in a gut/poly hybrid so tying mains to mains and crosses to crosses is well documented as a potential approach to stringing a racquet.

Again, I am not really clear on the purpose or item you are proposing in this thread. Yes, we know about the potential of tying off poly crosses to poly. Is there something else ground breaking you are attempting to elaborate on with this?

 

[am1899]

I mean yeah he has a point, as rule of thumb is you should clamp as close to the frame as possible when pulling tension.

Plenty of things can impact stringbed stiffness, though. Not just whether the clamp is in the way or if you can’t get close to the frame without having the clamp in the way: distance to tie-off, hard weaves, how much slack is left/how snug the knot is, etc can all impact. Really as long as it’s done the same every time, it shouldn’t matter. You want a consistent outcome. Barring any wildly inefficient or out there methods of course.

So is he right? I guess you could make that case. Does it matter? Not necessarily.

And yes, I’ll use a starting clamp to tie poly on poly for gut main hybrids, and so do all my MRT colleagues. But gut nowadays is so well-coated that you can almost always get away with tying poly onto gut. It’s just safer to do poly/poly.

On the manufacturer, it depends…knots put the most stress on the frame, so it’s probably good practice to use the suggested tie-offs if it’s a racquet under warranty. I mean, they did design the racquet, so they would know. But that would only apply if it breaks at a tie-off hole which often requires an impact which wouldn’t be covered.

For me it’s a reminder that there is more than one way to achieve the desired result consistently. Also think it’s a testament to the “part science, part art” nature of our craft.

 

[Irvin]

Well if you look at your post I replied to (Your post #6) you indicate you attempt to have no tie offs on the mains. I am not clear how one would avoid any tie offs on the mains in the situation I am questioning so I thought you have some special approach you are proposing to do that. Go look at your post #6 and either translate or restate more clearly.

Every other thread out here someone is posting about wanting to restring their crosses in a gut/poly hybrid so tying mains to mains and crosses to crosses is well documented as a potential approach to stringing a racquet.

Again, I am not really clear on the purpose or item you are proposing in this thread. Yes, we know about the potential of tying off poly crosses to poly. Is there something else ground breaking you are attempting to elaborate on with this?

Now I see. In post #6 the only time you can get no knot on the mains at the top is when the mains tie at the throat of the racket. If you have 8 grommets in the throat of a 16 main your mains will end at the head and you can avoid knots at the head.

 

[LOBALOT]

Now I see. In post #6 the only time you can get no knot on the mains at the top is when the mains tie at the throat of the racket. If you have 8 grommets in the throat of a 16 main your mains will end at the head and you can avoid knots at the head.

Exactly so what you meant was that you try to minimize tying the crosses to the mains so that will help with 1 of the 3 tie offs that would take place on the mains in this situation. The other 2 by default will have to remain main-on-main and unfortunately in the case of full gut, fully multi, gut/poly, or multi/poly the 2 remaining strings are the softer strings and more likely to snap if someone shanks a ball off the top of the hoop thus your previous recommendations about hand-tightening for gut and the delicate nature of these knots. While tying the cross to the cross minimizes the potential it does not eliminate it.

I do like your point about getting the knot away from the clamp as I have noticed that is a benefit for example with how Volkl racquets tie off at the bottom by using a cross as an anchor.

 

[colan5934]

For me it’s a reminder that there is more than one way to achieve the desired result consistently. Also think it’s a testament to the “part science, part art” nature of our craft.

Yeah as long as you keep it the same it doesn’t matter much unless you’re doing stuff that’s outside of the realm of standard. If you like it, and it doesn’t make a negative impact then go for it.

 

[Irvin]

Exactly so what you meant was that you try to minimize tying the crosses to the mains so that will help with 1 of the 3 tie offs that would take place on the mains in this situation. The other 2 by default will have to remain main-on-main and unfortunately in the case of full gut, fully multi, gut/poly, or multi/poly the 2 remaining strings are the softer strings and more likely to snap if someone shanks a ball off the top of the hoop thus your previous recommendations about hand-tightening for gut and the delicate nature of these knots. While tying the cross to the cross minimizes the potential it does not eliminate it.

I do like your point about getting the knot away from the clamp as I have noticed that is a benefit for example with how Volkl racquets tie off at the bottom by using a cross as an anchor.

I’m not sure which string is more prone to shearing I would think poly more than any other. I do string a lot of gut but I’ve never seen gut shear. I have seen people say gut does shear.

When tying off mains the clamp is never in the way only on the crosses. A good reason to tie crosses to crosses is then the clamp is never in the way. You can get the clamp as close to the frame as possible, the clamp is closer to the knot, and the clamp is never in the way.

 

[LOBALOT]

I’m not sure which string is more prone to shearing I would think poly more than any other. I do string a lot of gut but I’ve never seen gut shear. I have seen people say gut does shear.

When tying off mains the clamp is never in the way only on the crosses. A good reason to tie crosses to crosses is then the clamp is never in the way. You can get the clamp as close to the frame as possible, the clamp is closer to the knot, and the clamp is never in the way.

I mean I have no evidence myself. I have read here though people posting about hand pulling knots with gut so there is some concern expressed about vulnerability at the knot.

Yes, of course with the mains the clamp is not in the way and good point on the cross-to-cross and the clamp being out of the way.

 

[g4driver]

Once again, can someone (other than Irvin) please translate this?

I got you Wes...

https://imgur.com/RYVAiE2

 

[jim e]

delete

 

[dgdawg]

I got you Wes...

https://imgur.com/RYVAiE2

My policy is typically, tie off to the closest grommet that'll accept two strings. The further you go, the more tension you lose

 

[graycrait]

Starting knot, Parnell, Wilson PK, DHH and/or Starting clamp with finish knot (pick 1 of 3). Am I missing the complexity of stringing a tennis racket. Tennis racket stringing is kindergarten stuff compared to this:

Persian Rug Weaving

A step-by-step view of the Persian Rug Weaving process. Weaving includes tying knots by hand one row at a time followed by a row(s) of wefts to keep them secure and repeating the process.

bofandeh.com

Come on! Tie off knots are about as complex as tying a lure to a fishing line, probably less so. Flame on!!!!

 

[Stefanm]

When stringing a racket I like to string 2 piece. When I tie off the crosses I like to tie mains to mains

When tying 2 piece, it would be awfully complicated not to tie off mains to mains

 

[Carson]

I prefer to tie off mains to mains and crosses to crosses, however on some frames this is not possible, especially tying off crosses to crosses. It could be due to grommet size or the direction (angle) of the other cross string through the grommet.
This is the case for my RF 97 v.13.
I have no problem tying off crosses to crosses on a vcore 100.

 

[ryushen21]

I don't know if it's technically correct or not, but I usually go for the closest tie off possible.

I'm not a fan of having a knot above the top cross, but if that's how it goes then so be it.

 

[devoker]

Good idea to avoid clamp getting in the way for crosses. but do you enlarge the holes? With some racquets, I find very hard to push 2 strings unless it is a larger tie off grommet.

 

[Irvin]

Good idea to avoid clamp getting in the way for crosses. but do you enlarge the holes? With some racquets, I find very hard to push 2 strings unless it is a larger tie off grommet.

Some rackets must have a grommet stretched out in order to accept a second string. I don’t enlarge grommets holes to fabricate tie off. Many rackets have larger tie off holes for the second or third crosses.

 

[vokazu]

I just follow the racquet manufacturer's stringing guide for the racquet.