Results 1 to 17 of 17
02-24-2013, 09:50 AM #1
Skipping a hole to go into it anyway later
In many stringing patterns, for mains, it is said to skip a given hole, and to go into it some strings after. I presume it is like that to maintain a more constant stringing tension through the whole string's life, but I'm not sure. Or it might simply be to be closer to the one you will tie off at.
Can someone tell me more about this?
(source: http://www.yonex.com/_assets/images/...xauto/2746.jpg). It is said `keep on stringing until B9. Go through B12 and [...] and down to B10.'
02-24-2013, 06:55 PM #2
That is the standard Yonex pattern for 2 piece stringing.
You are correct in that it is designed to hold tension, put less stress on the outer most sides of the frame and give you a shorter distance to your tie-off grommet.
You don't have to follow Yonex instructions if you don't want to, though.
I strung a Babolat today whose instructions advised working the mains straight out, without backtracking. Finishes at B12 and ties off at B7. Seemed like a long way for that loose end to go.
02-25-2013, 05:17 PM #3
Thanks for the answer. Well, if I remember correctly, a problem I sometimes encounter is that, following this exact recommendation, I am stuck. Why? Because until B9 everything is great. Next, you go B12, end at A11. Then, you want to string this one (the one from B12 to A11). Good idea, but using flying clamps, you need a second string close to B12-A11; such a string would e.g. be B10-A10, however you had to skip that one. As a result, you cannot string B12-A11.
No problem, you might think: you continue from A11, and go A10, then B10. Okay, you will now string these two ones at a time, putting the flying clamp in the bottom.
However, you suddenly realize your string is `too short,' and you cannot put it into the stringing machine. There are then alternatives, but it is quite tricky for something that could have been way simpler: stringing vertically, as I said, without skipping any hole for going into it after. This way, you can always put your flying clamp between two close strings.
What do you think about this?
02-25-2013, 05:21 PM #4
while not the prettiest, it can be done with flying clamp. take a look at the following video at around 4:30+
02-25-2013, 05:32 PM #5
Effectively, but you can clearly see the problems you then encounter.
Either you string that hard one (B12-A11) or you don't. Considering double flying clamps:
If you string it, you need to attach a string that is way too far as compared to habitually. It necessarily puts extra stress on the frame, or, in the best case, it forces you to put a wrong tension on the next string (B10-A10) as you cannot properly pull the string (e.g. it needs to be ON the flying clamp, as in the video, and that clearly modifies the tension). Well, if you're really good, you can manage to pull the string without making it involved with the flying clamp, but that's extra work.
If you don't string it, you might be too short on the total string length on that side (for B10-A10), as stringing B12-A11 would have clearly given you more length for stringing.
Considering this, I don't really think following the Yonex stringing pattern is that important. But that's only a point of view.
02-25-2013, 05:39 PM #6
it is not perfect. but if one wants to following Yonex pattern. it is better than double pulling (topic of your other thread).
02-25-2013, 05:41 PM #7
the length difference is like an centimeter or two? i can hardly believe that to be of any significance. if it is, then you need to cut the string length properly.
02-25-2013, 06:00 PM #8
My question is then: is there a real interest in following Yonex pattern (i.e. does it worth it in this case, considering the `extra work' for that row)? (Considering you make simple pulling.)
02-25-2013, 06:06 PM #9
as for real advantage when it comes to the feel of the stringjob? i would be very surprised if the side string segment has anything to do with it. they are way away from the sweetspot.
in fact, many manufacturers don't even have this "trick" in their standard stringing pattern.
so my answer to your question would be: no.
02-25-2013, 06:09 PM #10
No brainer for me - the second way will have a lot more tension loss than the first.
02-25-2013, 06:14 PM #11
does it matter?
maybe a few pounds of tension loss at the side of the racket which will have very little influence on the sweetspot strings. aside from us being anal retentive engineers, will it make any significant playability differences?
or alternatively, maybe we can just call it a natural proportional tensioning?
02-25-2013, 06:19 PM #12
02-25-2013, 06:23 PM #13
Yonex pattern on a yonex racket will at least improve your chances of a warranty should anything happen
02-25-2013, 06:23 PM #14
02-25-2013, 06:35 PM #15
02-27-2013, 07:57 PM #16
kwun liked this post
02-28-2013, 04:42 PM #17