Max. tension for NS9000X on 2 point spring stringing machine

1) The stringer is not experienced with standard Yonex pattern. I would rethink before I return to him.
2) If a stringer is experienced enough, you can go up to 27X30 lb on a NS9000. I did a AT900p on a 2 pt mounting machine at 24.5X27 lb not too long ago. Do nottry this if you are a beginner to stringing.
3) If you want to tension anything highter than 25X27.5 lb, go to someone with 6 pt mount machine. It is better to be safe than sorry.

 

I agree.

Even though, I read that some ppl posted that they did 28lb on a 2 point machine, personally I still consider it's kinda risky especially if you are not very experienced or the racket is not in perfect condition. I will say 25-26lb is the max I will go on a 2 point machine, unless I know the player very well personally, and s/he gives me the permission to go with special requested higher tension.

 

i've strung several 9000x at 26 x 28 on an 2 point machine (ektelon h). There's only been minimal deflection when stringing and no probs with holding tension.

 

I have done 33 lbs X 36 lbs on a crank last week. The racquet is a NS-9000 X SP 2U G5.

 

It is possible, the clamp is tennis only and they do not have badminton fix clamp...

 

I don't think in one-piece stringing or in any stringing pattern you can tie the end knot on any cross string, whether its the first or the third. All knots are tied on the main strings, irrespective of whether you use one or two piece stringing. That means all knots are anchored on main strings that do not share grommets with cross strings. This is fundamental to stringing.
One piece stringing, because of its inability to use a starting knot when tensioning the first cross string, and two piece stringing that use the first cross string as the end knot, with its unavoidable use of a tie-off knot instead of a starting knot, produce poor crispness in shots initially which get worse over time.

 

This doesn't look right. One piece stringing will always do the crosses from throat to top. Technically, with one piece stringing it is impossible to string the crosses from top to bottom.
To get the best out of your racquet-remember your racquet is your weapon-you must use 2-piece stringing and also use the mandatory starting knot at the first cross stringing at the top and then continuing towards the throat end. Any other method will degrade the performance your racquet is capable of. Surely, being your weapon in court you don't want to "blunt" your racquet for that battle you are going into.
For god's sake, forget about one piece stringing and even two piece stringing that does not use a starting knot at the first cross string at the top.
Do it right and you will realize your maximum potential.

 

Six point Gamma 6004 machine.

 

Count the number of main strings in your racquet. If you have 22, I cannot visualize how he can start the cross from the top with one piece stringing.
Another thing is that he would have his end knot of the crosses anchored at the 3rd cross string from the top with his one piece stringing. If you look at your racquet carefully, the grommets at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th crosses from the top have two strings sharing, a main and a cross. How is it possible to insert another string into the top 3rd cross? Three strings in one grommet?

 

-it's an around-the-world-pattern,
or you only have 20 mains...

-three strings in one grommet is possible..but not pleasant (awl)

 

Dink it! Just wait for Master SH's commentary about that, Master Jerby .

 

Since you ask for it. I have no comment.
It really hurt when you have 3 already in the hole and still need to stick an awl through it. Even a tight hole will be a loosie now...

 

For what it's worth...

I propose 3 scenarios:

SCENARIO 1
This other customer's racket was;
(a) NOT a NS9K, and
(b) POSSIBLY a '72-grommet' frame

- It IS possible that for some (unfathomable) reason, the stringer in question 'skipped' the outermost mains (hence making 20 x mains), placing the starter/tie-off knot for the mains at the top of the frame.
I've even had requests from people to 'lace' only 18 x mains (never entertained them, though)
- Hence, the crosses would (in the said 1-piece pattern) run from top to throat.
- The starter & tie-off knots (or 02 x tie-offs, whichever the case) could be in the same grommets as they would've been (except that the mains' would be in the crosses' & vice-versa).
- This is physically feasible/plausible/possible (although I personally don't subscribe to the notions of whatever gain it yields).

A possible explanation for wanting (so desperately) to tie-off the crosses at the throat of the racket (as opposed to the top) is that it is so much easier to clamp the last cross there (there's less space at the top, yes ?). I know stringers who deliberately do so (they claim that it doesn't affect racket performance).

SCENARIO 2
This other customer's racket was;
(a) NOT a NS9K, and
(b) had a 'lace-pattern' with 20 x mains
rackets that come to mind are Wilson's N-series (like the N2, NOT the n90) & Hart's Nano range (eg. Hart Nano Oversize)

- The crosses (in 1-piece stringing) would run from top to throat ('nuff said).

in this case, the stringer would appear to be far less controversial than he appears at present
SCENARIO 3
This other customer's racket was;
(a) a NS9K, or
(b) other similar '76-grommet' frame with 'single-pass lace-pattern'

- Counting from L-R (on the mains), stringer starts 'tensioning' mains #1 thru' 21 (this main exits a grommet at top of frame) and clamps. Grommets 'facilitating' 22nd main are vacant (for now)
- Stringer then threads running end of string through grommets for top-most cross & 'laces' a total of 22 x crosses (running end of string is now on RHS of frame).
- Stringer threads running end of string through 'available' grommets for the 22nd main, completed by tie-off at top of frame.
- This is physically feasible/plausible/possible...PLUS it explains the "...same tension for crosses & mains.." or something to that effect (although I personally don't subscribe to the notions of whatever gain it yields).

It is utterly difficult to understand why anyone would take a premium piece of equipment (NS9K) and apply the hypothesis put forth under SCENARIO 3 when it would clearly be far easier to just follow YONEX's string pattern for the NS9K. In short,
(a) SCENARIO 1 = Stringer 'cutting corners' (pun intended)
(b) SCENARIO 2 = Stringer not given credit for knowing his stuff
(c) SCENARIO 3 = I dunno why anyone would, really...

Cheers,
punchclear
Aspiring Stringer
(and sometimes player)

 

I think there is a pattern to do 1 piece with crosses from top to throat. Let me do some research on it. However, if if I laced it up on my NS9000-x this weekend, I will still ask no one to use this pattern because I really have no idea on the performance and effect on racquet's life. Also, I will just lace it, not tensioning the racquet.