Dear BCBF Members, I have notice something interesting. I would like to run a little experiments with your help. As most of stringers know by now, Yonex has changed stringing cross pattern from top to throat to throat to top. I have been stringing both way for the last 2 years now. An interesting pattern shows up. For the same player, same model racquet, same string and same tension, when I string top to throat, the racquet has better playability and string break faster on main vs throat to top last longer but little less control. Here is what I suspect. When you string from top to throat, it is easier to displace main strings and cross can be pulled straighter during tensioning. This give more up and down on the mains on the top. ie. Better control on the net shots and slice. It also give more movement when smash, more bounce. When strung from throat to top, it makes top mains hard to displace during tensioning. This gives definition to the mains and not as good on the slice and net tumble shot. Also, the mains have less movement makes it wear out slower. These are my observation and theory. Please help me verify them. Thanks. PS: Master Panda, can help me to test it out for the next week or so? Thanks!
Interesting experiment, this. There must have been a reason for Yonex changing from head->throat to throat->head, which I had always assumed to be due to there being more strength at the throat for the initial cross stages. The theory definitely sounds plausible - in my experience, when doing throat to head, the mains are rock hard by the end and it's difficult to straighten everything out. Given the fact that deliberate off-sweetspot shots invariably come off nearer the top of the frame, bouncier crosses in this area would probably lead to better playability. The fact that strings apparently last longer with t->h stringings can't have escaped Yonex's attention either. I've got an old Carlton that uses a one piece pattern: I think I could use it as a test bed with some cheapo BG-65 over the next few weeks. Ideally, though, we need someone with two identical rackets that can be quickly alternated between.
Hi Mark, Thanks for considering to help. It does not have to be 2 id racquets. For big smashers who break strings in few days, 1 racquet is enough because they just string 1 way on first try and the other way on the second try. Player should be able to tell after 4 string jobs. Also, please string the racquet with 2 pieces method. Thanks
Don't want to be sounded negatively. However, I think there are way too many factors in string breakage, rather than simple factors as string pattern, tension, type, etc. How accurate we can count on the # of mis-hits during the usage? How hard each hit and point of impact? Any sharp edge things scratch string bed in the bag? How many time you try to pick up shuttles using racket, therefore, scratch the string? Even besides all such factors, I believe each machine has a small margin of errors. I think Klipper M140 claim it has +/- 0.5lbs. Therefore, even if the same stringer, set to have the same tension, the end product could be 1lbs difference in tension. I know the margin is small, but combine with tons of other factors, I don't know how accurate the test result will be.
Hi LB, Thanks for the advice. However, here is my take on this. For advanced player like you, the frequency of you miss hit is pretty small and they are distributed uniformally. I have to make that assumption. For the Big Panda Baby, A miss hit is a miss hit, no string can withstand that exept the G string on the piano (usually sounds good when he hit it right). I feel, unless youchange your playing style completlythe clear shot is usually same as for smash. I agree with you there is an margin of error for every machine and stringer. That is why I request 4 string jobs to be on the safe side. Yes, for stat purpose, I would say 30 string job per stringer pser player will be better. However, I would like to see if there is a pattern emerge here. Your constructive advice is always welcome.
Here are some "positive" thinkings: 1. From Top to throat, the throat area got tensioned at last. In theory, by doing so, the top portion got expanded, therefore, higher tension as the outcome. Higher tension usually means better control + less durable, if that's within a reasonable range. 2. From throat to top, the top got tensioned at the last. Therefore, it stays as it suppose to, or even less (tension loss when knotting). Therefore, lower tension means less control + more durable. Just some crazy guesses.
Well for all us unmodified (PeteLSD) laserfibre/stringway machine owners...we have no choice but to string from head to throat due to the location of the hold down clamps.
Hey, I'll take any advantage, be it the possible 0.5% advantage from a stringing experiment or the 95% advantage of playing an opponent with the flu (which I have, shamefully, done quite recently). Also, I think it would take a really keen sense to be able to play a top-down racket for a few sessions, then a bottom-up racket for another few, and be able to tell the difference post facto. Since that ain't me, I'll try resonating between my old Carltons if I ever get some inferior opponents (which is decreasingly likely nowadays). I'm optimistic, though, as my miss-hit count is still atrocious. Unfortunately, my 900P won't respond well to high miss-hits, as there's one cross too few for my liking. (By the way, Steven, it's good to hear that Yonex are finally going to up their "recommended" tensions - not that I ever paid them any heed anyway - their materials boffins must be growing in confidence.)
Hi Mark, Actually, I did the experiment on a player here without telling him. He has 2 AT900-t. That is what I have seen and that is why I post the question to Yonex. Hi LB, I think the issue is when you string a racquet throat to top, the cross on the top weave more while the main is straighter. That puts less stress on the top mains. That will take a little more miss hit. That is what I guessing.
I've just done both my primary and backup rackets (900P and 800O, resp.) with the top-down method, and I have noticed that drives and clears are slightly "crisper", while my net play (particularly spinners) have improved yet more. The miss-hit count is relatively high, though. Another unexpected effect was the change of knotting - my starter socked nicely into A5, but my tie-off almost slipped through B6 before I realised what was happening - it was too wide after having had starter knots there before. Since I have no access to replacement grommets at the moment, I think next time I'll tie the crosses off at B7, as it's closer to the B9 cross let-out and the grommet hasn't been gaped open by previous starter knots.
Mark A, Thats just what i wanted to hear. What string/tension did you use? Have you noticed anything different regarding tension loss since your last post etc? I've just strung my first top to bottom string with the new nbg95 at 27x28 on an original UK Ti-10. Cant wait to play with it later. I normally use BG65Ti using the center outwards method. I just spent 20 mins writing a post about stringing with the NBG95 but it vanished when i went to preview it Basically i found the string to be stiffer, gripier/rougher to the touch, and had less stretch, just during stringing
I used Ashaway MicroPower 0.70: 24.5 x 26 on the 900 and 26.5 x 28 on the 800. Also, I made sure I jammed the awl in especially hard when knotting up. I always pre-stretch as well. I can't really see any difference in tension loss (thankfully), but that might just be because I concentrated extra hard on the job.
Don't worry, I always pull out before it's too late. The awl is also sprayed with WD40 during every job. I widen grommets incrementally until the string just squeaks through, and no more (especially with £120+ YYs).
I thought I was sailing dangerously close to the wind with "pull out before it's too late", so I decided not to veer any further into Carry On territory.
Update I've just completed another top-down job - NBG-95 @ 27/28.5. A lot smoother this time, since I knew what to expect regarding enlarged grommets. I tried tying the crosses off in a different place, but I heard a slight grinding noise when I tried to awl B7 open - I stopped immediately. Then, in a sort of brainwave, I tried a Parnell knot at the usual B6: bullseye. All knots are now neat and tidy, but B6 has been virtually torn to shreds. Also, I tried a new graded crossing technique, whereby I added 3lbs for the top cross, 1.5lb for the 2nd, normal until penultimate cross (to which I added 1.5lb), then 3lb on last cross. The bottom cross is now noticeably less wobbly, while the top cross is rock solid thanks to my starting knot. I'll take a loose bottom cross over a loose top one any day.
enlarged grommets Did you use tooth floss to get the cross string through those shared grommets? Parnell knots Yes, the Parnell knot works very well and it works even better with the addition of a single half-hitch knot. graded crossing technique Ah, you finally tried out the constant string bed stiffness technique. Good stuff!!!
