User Tag List

Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Liège
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Skipping a hole to go into it anyway later

    Hello,

    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?

    Example:
    Name:  2746.jpg
Views: 360
Size:  192.5 KB
    (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.'

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,768
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Liège
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?

  4. #4
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    while not the prettiest, it can be done with flying clamp. take a look at the following video at around 4:30+


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Liège
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    it is not perfect. but if one wants to following Yonex pattern. it is better than double pulling (topic of your other thread).

  7. #7
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Liège
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.)

  9. #9
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by merciadriluca View Post
    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.)
    the biggest advantage is what has been pointed out, and that's a shorter string segment going from the "last" string to the knot. which results in less tension loss.

    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    3,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    the biggest advantage is what has been pointed out, and that's a shorter string segment going from the "last" string to the knot. which results in less tension loss.

    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.
    With the 9-12-10-8 path, the long 9-12 loop is under active (machine) tension and the 10-8 loop to the knot is short; with the 9-10-12 path, the 12-8 loop is under passive (knot) tension only.

    No brainer for me - the second way will have a lot more tension loss than the first.

  11. #11
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    With the 9-12-10-8 path, the long 9-12 loop is under active (machine) tension and the 10-8 loop to the knot is short; with the 9-10-12 path, the 12-8 loop is under passive (knot) tension only.

    No brainer for me - the second way will have a lot more tension loss than the first.
    not disagreeing, but for the purpose of understanding and discussion..

    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?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    3,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    not disagreeing, but for the purpose of understanding and discussion..

    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?
    The tension loss will crawl into the middle of the bed eventually, but as there are 11 mains on each side, even a 25% loss on the outer main will "normalize" to a 2% loss over the entire bed...

    Probably doesn't make a difference to playability, if I'm honest.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yonex pattern on a yonex racket will at least improve your chances of a warranty should anything happen

  14. #14
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    35,339
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    The tension loss will crawl into the middle of the bed eventually, but as there are 11 mains on each side, even a 25% loss on the outer main will "normalize" to a 2% loss over the entire bed...

    Probably doesn't make a difference to playability, if I'm honest.
    if the creep can pass through the friction of all the grommets that is. and we know that tension loss is in the region of pounds. so i believe a 25% creep will not even register.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    3,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    if the creep can pass through the friction of all the grommets that is. and we know that tension loss is in the region of pounds. so i believe a 25% creep will not even register.
    Indeed. And it has to overcome the friction from the crosses as well...

    Quote Originally Posted by kingzzz View Post
    Yonex pattern on a yonex racket will at least improve your chances of a warranty should anything happen
    Have any Yonex warranty claims been bounced because of this? I wouldn't put it past them.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwun View Post
    while not the prettiest, it can be done with flying clamp. take a look at the following video at around 4:30+

    Or if you're a nutter like me you can buy two extra flying clamps and bolt them together...

    Name:  c1.jpg
Views: 179
Size:  82.3 KB

    Name:  c2.jpg
Views: 181
Size:  92.9 KB

    Name:  c3.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  89.8 KB

  17. Likes kwun liked this post
  18. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Liège
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Nice idea!!!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •