A new tool for weaving crosses

S

StringWeaver

New Member
This is to inform the badminton racquet stringing community that there is now a new tool available for weaving the crosses. Called the StringWeaver for Badminton, it is small tool which mounts on the main strings in seconds and creates a passage through which the cross strings easily pass and can be pulled with almost no friction. It greatly reduces twisting, burning, and notching of the strings as the crosses are pulled through the mains. The chances of misweaving the crosses are also reduced.

The StringWeaver for Badminton is based on the design of our successful line of tools used for tennis racquets and was developed in response to requests from stringers to make a similar tool for badminton racquets. Here are some photos of the tool:
BD SW on Mains Front View compressed.jpgBD SW Edgewise on Racquet compressed.jpg
If you would like more information about the StringWeaver for Badminton or StringWeavers for Tennis, please visit the website: www.StringWeavers.com
 
Looks like a great idea, however with limited space when doing badminton rackets as opposed to tennis rackets, having this piece of equipment on the string bed whilst stringing, you'll probably find that it gets in the way more than it helps....just a thought.
 
Actually, because the Badminton StringWeaver is significantly smaller than the Tennis version, it only takes up about 3% of the available racquet head area. This is the same percentage as for tennis racquets. Also, stringers prefer to mount the StringWeaver near the tip of the racquet so it is out of the way during the weaving of the majority of the crosses.
 
It does look like a hefty little tool. If this tool really works as intended, it will help save a lot of time in stringing crosses. However, I'm just curious if this tool would create tension loss for the mains due to the nature of how this tool works.
 
I'm all for innovation but as it has been said here previously here, that would only be suitable for newbies who should probably be learning to weave anyway. Weave one ahead and there's no need for a special tool as the tension on the previous string makes the weaves easier anyway.
 
When the StringWeaver for tennis was first introduced, many of these same concerns were raised. Indeed, the tool was designed with the new or casual stringer in mind as a way to make weaving crosses easier. However, out of curiosity some professional stringers purchased the tool and began to use it. Since they were already highly proficient at weaving they found that the StringWeaver did not significantly increase their speed nor did it slow them down. The major benefits that they like are (1) greatly reduced friction when pulling the crosses results in less damage to the strings and (2) weaving is much easier on their fingers, particularly when using the newer stiff or textured polyester strings. Some stringers have fancy test equipment and took careful measurements to see if the tool was affecting the tension and stiffness of the string bed. It does not.

The StringWeaver does not eliminate the need to develop good weaving technique. You still have to weave, but the tool makes it much easier. For new or casual stringers it will make weaving go faster. For experienced stringers it may not make any difference speedwise, but it does make stringing more comfortable and is better for the strings.
 
I agree. this is more useful in tennis when the strings are under much higher tension and harder to even soft weave.

However, for badminton, knowing how to weave one ahead and do softweave is more than enough. This will just be a hindrance.
 
Last edited:
Stringway has since a decade and more such a tool in there product portfolio. To me nothing ground shaking. There was a few years ago a tool to stitch the string...IMO stringing is a handmade workmanship. Nothing is so precise and accurate like a human who knows to do something very well. I would never place any tool on a string bed except my hands. Good luck with the product sales, but I'm not an interested customer. There are so many options for the stringbed (e.g. Babolat, Oliver and Forza) some racket which have a narrow stringbed in the middle and a wide one outside the sweet spot, so it won't work for some cases properly.
 
Having a curious mind -- and having 2 kids who need to learn to string their own rackets -- I bought one of these StringWeavers.

Have used it only once, but here is first impression:

It is not a heavy or complicated device. I don't think it will damage strings at all. And it is not time consuming to adjust.
The closer to the cross you string, the better the gap it opens to help you weave. But too close and it just gets in your way.
I don't think that it helped me weave any faster. At least not on this first go-round.

But what I liked about using the StringWeaver was the decrease in friction while pulling through the slack and while tensioning.
I tend to tension slowly and often pull twice and fiddle in various ways to try to ensure a low-friction, proper-tension pull. The weaver really reduces the friction. By reducing my neuroses about friction, the string job took no longer than normal... in fact, the total time was even a little faster than usual.:)

In summary, this is not a tool required by most experienced stringers. But if you have fears of stripping string coatings (l'm looking at you, BG85!), this can definitely help.
 
If you are going to teach your children to string I would not use this at all, teach them how to string properly, get them to learn the feel of stringing, this is just a gimmick for the sake of it.
 
gilesports said:
If you are going to teach your children to string I would not use this at all, teach them how to string properly, get them to learn the feel of stringing, this is just a gimmick for the sake of it.
Click to expand...

If by “teach them how to string properly” you mean in the customary way using only current methods and tools, are you not precluding innovations that may improve the stringing process or the end result? For example, at one time proper stringing technique required stringers to pull tension and then wedge an awl into the same hole with the string in order to maintain tension while they put in the next string. Then string clamps were invented and that technique disappeared. Why? Because the string clamp was a superior tool which caused far less damage to the string than pinching it in the hole with an awl. If a tool serves a purpose such as significantly reducing friction when pulling the crosses or makes it easier to weave the crosses with less chance for error, then that tool is not “just a gimmick for the sake of it.” Rather it is a useful innovation in the evolution of racquet stringing and may one day be as commonly used as the string clamp is now.
 
StringWeaver said:
If by “teach them how to string properly” you mean in the customary way using only current methods and tools, are you not precluding innovations that may improve the stringing process or the end result? For example, at one time proper stringing technique required stringers to pull tension and then wedge an awl into the same hole with the string in order to maintain tension while they put in the next string. Then string clamps were invented and that technique disappeared. Why? Because the string clamp was a superior tool which caused far less damage to the string than pinching it in the hole with an awl. If a tool serves a purpose such as significantly reducing friction when pulling the crosses or makes it easier to weave the crosses with less chance for error, then that tool is not “just a gimmick for the sake of it.” Rather it is a useful innovation in the evolution of racquet stringing and may one day be as commonly used as the string clamp is now.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges.

As badminton rackets got smaller, holes got smaller, it's become necessity to change how the tools work. It would be borderline impossible to string any racket made in the last 20 years with that method.

There's nothing about stringing that makes this tool an absolute necessity compared with something like clamps. It's a tool to make the job easier. To the contrary, I'd actually avoid using this tool at higher tensions, as it looks like the string is deviated by a significant amount using this tool. If the string is already at a high tension, you'd only be applying more tension to it with the device.

I think this tool is good for people starting out, but I don't think it's a revolutionary breakthrough for regular stringers.

Maybe something like this would be more useful for a completely automatic setup for stringing rackets out of the factory.
 
so StringWeaver is sending me one to test out. I will post my impression on it when I have done a few rackets.

now both my kids are training 3 times a week, they are breaking strings left and right (and top and bottom, but rarely in the center... :cool: ). it probably won't take me long to get enough string time on them!
 
I have previously already string 5 with the weaver and have gotten good understanding how to best utilize it.

With the generous cooperation from my boys, I now have 4 identical stringless rackets which I will string 2 with and 2 without the string weaver. They will be with same string and tension. I will try to and tape and time the process.20190117_222414.jpeg20190110_225140.jpeg
 
Last edited:
As we await Kwun's review of the StringWeaver cross stringing tool, perhaps you'd like to see a video posted on YouTube by a customer who apparently really likes the StringWeaver. At 16 minutes it's a bit lengthy, but at the 6 minute mark the stringer demonstrates a pretty nifty trick to weave half the crosses at an amazing speed. Without the tool you would just burn the strings, but the gap created by the StringWeaver allows this technique to be used without causing damage to the strings.
Here's a link to the video:
 
Hi,

Apologies about the review and video. I did make a video but the production quality isn't very good so I am reluctant to release it and I have been very busy with other things and thus no time to redo the editing However, I did spend the time stringing the 4 rackets, 2 with and 2 without the string weaver. After some time analyzing the video and the results, my summary was as follows.

I did an experiment with stringing the middle 12 cross strings, the ones that are in the middle of the racket. this is done to isolate the strings at the shared or blocked holes, which the stringweaver do not help. this is to make a better and fair comparison.

I measure the total time it took me to complete the 12 strings. start timer, 12 strings, stop timer. the string weaver one includes attaching the weaver into the string bed, and then also to remove it. i believe that's a fair comparison as it measure the whole process and not just part of it.

i averaged out the 4 attempts and found out that with the string weaver, it took me 25 seconds LONGER to weave those strings. the analysis boils down to 3 things.

1. with 12 cross strings, each time engaging and disengaging the string weaver may take 1-2 seconds. that's just moving the device in place and flipping the lever. however, 1-2 second 12 times results in a lot.
2. the stringweaver does not speed up the weaving process. at least not for me. disclaimer is that I am avg 20-23 minutes stringer. so the weaving process is pretty streamlined. While it is possible to be faster, that's just purely finger dexterity and the string weaver do no help there. in fact, i find that it took more effort when the strings are spread out by the string weaver. p.s. I am not claiming it won't help for someone who say, take 1 hour to string, but I can only speak from my own experience.
3. a couple of seconds to get the tool, and then attach it to the string bed, that's another few seconds but still part of the process.

the part to take home is that, maybe it will speed up part of the process, but it is the total time that matters, if it take 1-2 second to setup the device and 1-2 seconds extra for each weave, in the end there is not a net speedup, it is not worth the extra effort.

there is also the claim that it reduces string burn. this maybe true if ppl try to pull the string perpendicularly. however, any decent stringers will pull the string over while pulling it towards the top of the racket head. the amount of force (and thus resistance/friction) needed is very small. and since it is done with the other hand/arm, the time cost is zero.

so my conclusion is the same, it is a nice idea, but in practice, it slowed down my stringing process with extra effort put in (to use the device)

ps. as for that video, the pulling/weaving part of it look impressive, however, it is only speeding up part of the process. you need to add up the time to put the string into the rope, pull it over, and then take the string off the rope, and then put the string into the frame hole. and you will also have to add the time to weave that ROPE through the stringbed too. and then it works only for the strings in one direction, ie half the strings. i think you will find out that it doesn't save any total time if the stringer is decent.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate Kwun taking the time to evaluate the StringWeaver and share his results. However, a strict time trial as described is a bit biased in that he has likely strung hundreds of racquets over the years without the tool and has highly developed rhythm, technique, and muscle memory. To then string two racquets with an unfamiliar tool could disrupt one's rhythm. If the situation were reversed, that is, one had spent years stringing with a tool and then was told to do it without, it would be unrealistic to expect the times required to string to be comparable. With a bit of practice, using the tool will become automatic and speed would improve. Also, 25 seconds difference over a 20 minute string job is not a large amount, and would only be a minor inconvenience if one had to string one racquet after another non-stop all day long. If positioned properly, the StringWeaver does not need to be moved after each cross--only the lever gets flipped, which can be done in under a second. In addition, because of the greater height difference between adjacent mains when using the tool, one is less likely to mis-weave a cross. If it prevents having to restring a mis-woven racquet, it saves a lot of time.

I also disagree with the statement that the StringWeaver doesn't reduce the chance of burning or notching the strings. Without the tool, even if one perfectly fans the cross towards the tip of the head, it will always rub against the mains because the height difference between adjacent mains will always be less than the diameter of the string. With the tool the height difference is greater than the string diameter, so there is far less rubbing. Badminton racquets are strung much more loosely than tennis racquets, so it may not take much force to pull the crosses in a badminton racquet, but that doesn't mean rubbing of strings isn't occurring. Since badminton strings are much thinner than tennis strings, even a small amount of abrasion will weaken the string.

I invented the StringWeaver with the less experienced stringer in mind, and there is little doubt it will benefit the occasional stringer. However, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of professional stringers who have adopted the tool not because it's necessarily faster for them but because they enjoy the other benefits offered by the StringWeaver. Less painful fingers, better for the strings, reduced chance of mis-weaving, and easier to teach new employees how to weave the crosses.

Clearly the StringWeaver has its fans and you can read some of the testimonials I've received on the StringWeavers.com website. I don't know if my response will change anyone's mind, but I do ask that folks keep an open mind and not disparage a device they have not personally tried.

Happy stringing, everyone!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top