[New Video] Haribito Professional Pattern - plus added modification!

[s_mair]

Knowing how many crosses there are, and then correcting accordingly, probably

That's my point. If you want to be on the safe side, you would have to count the mains on every single racket. And who wants to do that every time?! At least I don't.

 

[j4ckie]

That's my point. If you want to be on the safe side, you would have to count the mains on every single racket. And who wants to do that every time?! At least I don't.

Crosses, not mains. Standard patterns have a standard nber of them though, I guess you would start remembering them after a while. It only matters if it's an even or uneven number, iirc most rackets should have an uneven number of crosses.

 

[s_mair]

Crosses, not mains. Standard patterns have a standard nber of them though, I guess you would start remembering them after a while. It only matters if it's an even or uneven number, iirc most rackets should have an uneven number of crosses.

ooops... of course I meant crosses. Note to myself: Don't write BC-posts while attending (boring) business meetings...

 

[xZhongCheng]

It has some things in common, sure. But that added around-the-world bit on the short side is a whole new part.


Actually, I start the crosses one hole lower - so with the lowest available upper shared hole.

And I wonder, how do you know which direction to start the weaving for the lower first cross? Is there a rule like "if you start the top one with going over the main string, then do the same on the lower one"?

I always start weaving the crosses on the long side with over first. Depending on the racket, I know by the number of crosses above the start of the long side crosses, i know whether to start under or over on the bottom cross on the "around the world" =D

 

[s_mair]

An interesting one, if I read it correctly...

long side - half mains, middle third downwards, jump to top third upwards.
short side - half mains, bottom third downwards.

The #3 loop is the longest but that one's under tension.

I experimented with one-piece myself for a while but abandoned it after some frequency testing (no chance of placebo effect) told me it made no appreciable difference (apart from two fewer knots making it look a lot neater).

Question to the guru of side support placement (you!) - what would you think about moving the lower side supports down another hole on my current setup and pattern from the video? So they would sit right below the highest of the lower shared grommets.

 

[Mark A]

Question to the guru of side support placement (you!) - what would you think about moving the lower side supports down another hole on my current setup and pattern from the video? So they would sit right below the highest of the lower shared grommets.

Anywhere "past" the outermost shared holes is correct, in my book, and there's no real reason to "bias" them because it's neither top-down nor bottom-up.

 

[s_mair]

Anywhere "past" the outermost shared holes is correct, in my book, and there's no real reason to "bias" them because it's neither top-down nor bottom-up.

So in other words, you would not go below the outermost lower shared hole and just leave it where it is. Okay, that's fine with me.

 

[s_mair]

Finally, a bonus tip - if you forget a scrap string, as I did, use a small cable tie to rescue it.

Awesome tip by the way. Took the smallest ones I could find and it works like a charm! And since you can hold and pull them better with you fingers, you mostly don't need a clamp or pliers to unblock the covered holes. So I'm definitely going to throw away that piece of scrap string with the stripped end now!

 

[mater]

I first learnt the Haribito method from the owner of badmintonian.com and Kwun's video. It's the only method I use and I really like how it separates essentially the top crosses from the sweet spot crosses. I use it exclusively and only make minor changes dependent on different rackets as needed. I'm not a professionaly stringer so I don't have any concerns with needing to string as fast as possible, etc.

 

[endFX]

Nice video.
The outside looks really clean. I'll try to do this next time I string my racket.

One question though, when looking at the 3rd picture of your racket it seems there is an empty grommet with a string going over it but not thru it. What's the reason behind that?

 

[s_mair]

One question though, when looking at the 3rd picture of your racket it seems there is an empty grommet with a string going over it but not thru it. What's the reason behind that?

It only appears as if that hole is empty since there are two strings running exactly on top of each other. So don't mind, there is a string in each and every grommet.

 

[endFX]

It only appears as if that hole is empty since there are two strings running exactly on top of each other. So don't mind, there is a string in each and every grommet.

Makes sense. Thx.
Wouldn't guessed that they stay exactly on top of each other. But eventually the string on top will slip down after a few sessions of playing.

 

[Dekkert]

Going to answer these one by one since that crappy Tapatalk doesn't allow multi replies.

Yeah, you summarized it correctly. I'm completely with you regarding different feels of different pattern. With same tensions and and same stringer, there's no way anyone can tell apart a 1-piece job from a 2-piece. Tension retention should (in theory) be better with less string on the outside, although this highly depends on the quality of the knots.

Also, you could argument that this pattern has a lot of string between knots and the sweet spot so it should take some time until the tension loss from the knot reaches the sweet spot strings. But in relation to the overall tension loss coming from the string elasticity, this should be negligible too.

What I liked about the pattern from the beginning is that you start the crosses more from the center of the racket. And besides, something just felt right about it.

It is a nice patttern. I tried the Haribito pattern from the Kwun video briefly a long time ago and compared it with my usual 2PTD. I can't remember if the feeling was very different. However, in my experience the Haribito pattern lost its tension more quickly than the 2PTD. So since then I always go with the 2PTD 32/32 BG80. Can't have it any other way.

 

[s_mair]

It is a nice patttern. I tried the Haribito pattern from the Kwun video briefly a long time ago and compared it with my usual 2PTD. I can't remember if the feeling was very different. However, in my experience the Haribito pattern lost its tension more quickly than the 2PTD. So since then I always go with the 2PTD 32/32 BG80. Can't have it any other way.

That's the great thing about stringing - there are so many options and possibilities that you will hardly find two stringers who are doing the exact same thing.

Regarding tension loss, I don't see any reason why it should be higher with Haribito. You have less knots and less slack string running on the outside of the frame. I don't have any measured data though to give any comparison based on numbers. I judge the playability of my strings by feel alone and never measure pings after the initial measurement right after stringing. And IMO, the string itself is by far the biggest factor when it comes to tension retention (or better call it playability).

 

[s_mair]

Since I shot the OP video, I kept on experimenting with some modifications to the original pattern.

The goals:
- neatest possible look with as little string as possible running on the outside of the frame
- optimized process flow

I've come up with a version that so far seems to check both boxes for most standard rackets. But before disclosing more details about it, here is a first teaser to see what you guys think of it.

Here's how it looks on a 76-hole 3+2 pattern (Voltric 80):


and on a 72-hole OSP racket:


So the longest loop is skipping one hole only (except right before the tie-off at the top on the VT80...) which imo won't be possible to reduce any further. There are some improvements on the process flow which especially make the moments right after releasing the fixed strings smoother.

However, it doesn't turn out to be that neat for 76-hole 2+4 rackets like a JS10 cause it will have one loop skipping two holes there (it's only one hole with the original version), but still there are some minor improvements on the stringing flow.

What do you guys think? Are those pictures reason enough to dig deeper into that topic?

 

[endFX]

Since I shot the OP video, I kept on experimenting with some modifications to the original pattern.

The goals:
- neatest possible look with as little string as possible running on the outside of the frame
- optimized process flow

I've come up with a version that so far seems to check both boxes for most standard rackets. But before disclosing more details about it, here is a first teaser to see what you guys think of it.

Here's how it looks on a 76-hole 3+2 pattern (Voltric 80):
View attachment 190667 View attachment 190668 View attachment 190669 View attachment 190670

and on a 72-hole OSP racket:
View attachment 190671 View attachment 190672 View attachment 190673 View attachment 190674

So the longest loop is skipping one hole only (except right before the tie-off at the top on the VT80...) which imo won't be possible to reduce any further. There are some improvements on the process flow which especially make the moments right after releasing the fixed strings smoother.

However, it doesn't turn out to be that neat for 76-hole 2+4 rackets like a JS10 cause it will have one loop skipping two holes there (it's only one hole with the original version), but still there are some minor improvements on the stringing flow.

What do you guys think? Are those pictures reason enough to dig deeper into that topic?

Looks nice and smooth to me.

Once had my racket strung at a local shop and he went from the 7th bottom cross directly to the tie off at B6. It was really ugly (but played alright after all...)
Since then I really appreciate those patterns with less outside string.

I would be interested in the changes you applied.

 

[Kaelhdris]

It looks very neat ! Are you going short side to B10 for the bottom 2 crosses and long side to B11 and then all the way to the top ?

 

[s_mair]

I would be interested in the changes you applied.

It looks very neat ! Are you going short side to B10 for the bottom 2 crosses and long side to B11 and then all the way to the top ?

I still wanted to stick to the basic idea of the original Haribito Professional pattern to start with the sweet spot crosses going downwards.

So here's what I did:
- start identical to the normal Haribito Professional until the short side is fixed
- long side then starts with the crosses at the same hole as before and only does 4 additional crosses downwards (so 14 crosses on that VT80 and 16 on a OSP racket), meaning you will end up one hole below the topmost lower shared hole, looking like this:


- finish final main on the long side and fix it at 10 o'clock
- short side finishes final main and then final 2 crosses at the bottom
- long side finishes top crosses same as before
*)

It improves the following things flow wise:
- you have a bigger batch of crosses in one go (that wouldn't be a crucial thing though)
- on my setup, it fixes an issue that came up when I started doing the final main on the long side before fixing it at 10 o'clock as suggested by @Kaelhdris. With the standard pattern, this caused me to have another scrap string at 8 o'clock which then later still ended up in some trouble with the side support being in the way.
- last but almost most important, there won't be any clamps in the way when you have to thread the ugly shared holes at the bottom. Makes it very convenient to have more space to work in case you need it.

I will do some further testing and then there will be another videoshoot on my to do list I guess. Let's see if it will take another year to do it as last time.

*)
EDIT: Make sure to adjust the lengths for short/long side accordingly!

 

[endFX]

So for the long side you actually stop the crosses at the bottom in the same way as you started them (one hole next to the inner shared holes).
I like how this makes it pretty symmetrical and convenient.

- last but almost most important, there won't be any clamps in the way when you have to thread the ugly shared holes at the bottom. Makes it very convenient to have more space to work in case you need it.

One more reason to go for it.

Looking forward to the video if you got the time for it.
I find it really relaxing to watch someone string a badminton racket.

 

[s_mair]

So for the long side you actually stop the crosses at the bottom in the same way as you started them (one hole next to the inner shared holes).

Sadly no. I start the crosses through the inner shared holes but end them one hole below at the bottom. Starting (and ending) one hole higher should be possible but I don't see an advantage there.