No need to say sorry. you weren't rude. Let me explain, pinching would loosen the second main(the main that is being pull), On a crank, push back the break mecanism(the little pin) , but you still hold on to the crank(tensionner). That way the string is still on tension and crank it again until it reach the desired tension. I have try it before and it works. how much tension do I get on the first main after the pinch? I don't know, maybe same as the second main maybe more, depends on how the pinch is perform??? Maybe I didn't see clearly, but it's seems that he is pulling two times, doing what I've described. If he does the tension of both string will be equalize. Maybe not even but not halve like kwun have shown since the technique is different. Anyway we all agree, except 6pieces, that there's no need to do that. At least to me it's doesn't make sense. Only reason I see is maybe doing this for the first 4 main because throat of the racket is kinda on the way of the tensionner and you have no choice to tension from the head. Or clamping would be difficult and not choice to double pull.
I think that yan.v made a good point. Alot people don't know what they get. The request of the customer is important to me and I always try to give an advice to find the best selection for her or him. Regardless if somebody asks for 22lbs or 32lbs, if beginner or advanced or if somebody never did a request for a restring. I keep everything as transparent as possible for each customer. I never lowered a job by my own. If the request is X, my customer should get X. It's IMO the 101 in service. If I think that X don't fit his liking or will not be the right for her/him I try to convince once. If it fails, he get 100% that what he/she order. If I don't do the service he/she requests, I cheat him/her. People pay for what they get and should also get what they want. If I think that I don't earn enough for my spended time, I rise my price. If I order a well done steak and get a rare one, because it makes the process easier and speed it up, I would be angry.
"For a 24lb job, the range of progression is 20-26lbs. Highest tension is below the sweetspot while the area around the sweetspot is softer to average 24lbs. Excellent mix of Control and power on a single racquet face." I was trying to understand this progressive tensioning method. Seems to me its like the opposite of what I've been reading in BC ie. the longer strings should be 26lbs and progressively reduce to 24 lbs as the string gets shorter at the sides. Here he uses 24lbs at the sweet spot meaning the longer strings... then increase to 26lbs below the sweet spot meaning as the string gets shorter towards the frame? Can the sifus help me with this? Secondly, I have been using the Paizhaun pattern and I cant avoid double pulls during the string going from main to cross and vice versa ... about 8 times in this pattern. Wonder if id dialled up the tension 1 to 2 lbs higher during this transition it would compensate the tension loss of double pull? .
Hi there, for your paizhuan, the top 4 strings and bottom 2 strings should be a double pull. You can also double pull the two very outside mains, but this isn't as effective on the 72 hole. On the 76 hole you clamp so near the middle on the outside main it wouldn't make a lick of difference anyway. I will make a guide on this when I have to string a 72 hole racket. The strings you double pull are so short, it shouldn't create a problem. There is a way to single pull them with juggling clamps, but I would be more worried about the tension loss from juggling clamps.
Thanks Charlie... I can understand Paizhuan double pull for a cross and a main is 90 degree... so its not so bad as a 180 degree double pull on the mains here. Guess what? I managed to improvise a 4 knot Paizhuan pattern using starting knots and finishing tie off knots at the bottom and the main sides. Not that I advocate 4 knots for Paizhuan, its more of experimental mode. It takes me a while to pre-weave the entire racket because this pattern requires cautious sequencing on weaving the crosses. Apologies for gotten out of topic here, but if its anything to do a fast stringing as the title says, Paizhaun is not going to be it or perhaps Im a slow stringer.
Paizhuan isn't fast, it has to be said. It has its perks, and but expediency isn't one of them. Oh well, the machine I use is a dropweight with bolting clamp towers, so it's already slow.
Can't help but notice that in your blog, you call the Paizhuan superior because it maintains tension better since it ties off with the last main. Yet the facts that you have to double pull multiple strings makes it so the overall tension will be lower (lower than with a tie off at the standard position). Props to you for trying it out though! (now that was really off topic)
It still does have those perks Realistically you would only need to pull the very top 2 and bottom 2 strings, or you can overcome this with juggling a bunch of flying clamps. Either way you have no linear path to a knot. That said, I don't know how loose these strings would be if I did a very low tension. I'm always stringing at 27 and above. I am still confident in the method.
Hi Yan V... My thoughts then was a superior pattern not because of its double pulls but the fact that the tie-offs are away from the sweet spot.. until this double pull thread resurface. Having said that Paizhuan double pull is still not so bad in that its a 90 degree pull... I think. I use 25lbs main and 27lbs cross but Im dying to string my next Paizhuan racket with 25 lbs at the sweet strings and higher at the sleeping strings. My apologies for Im hopelessly stubborn at trying out stuffs that I read in this great forum here. <wide smile>...
IMO there are other options with less hassle compared to the doubtful occult magic of the Paizhuan pattern to move the knots away from the sweet spot. E.g. tie-off at B9, starter B8. But I think the interests of a stringer who runs a real business are different and the quantity of strung rackets per week make a difference. I don't want to spend more time for a racket with a pattern whose difference is not noticeable for a customer, break warranties with a mystical pattern, whose advantages are not understandable. As a stringer you don't get paid like a king. Most people use a Yonex racket and I don't trap my customers into a dilemma. The standard YY pattern is for me the fastest pattern with my flow and routine. It produces a decent playable stringbed, is a safe bet at high tensions, holds tension well (PS can be switched on for the known strings with a huge drop) and will never makes trouble, even on other brands with a slightly different hole design. For me a stringing job is a hair cut. Awesome for some weeks/month and that it is. Wear of the string and material issues of the string which change it's characteristics can't be eliminated with a magical pattern. Just my 2 cents.
I couldn't agree more. What's more important to me and my customers is consistency. County, uni and national development level players all come to me because of consistency. I can do a 2pbu string job in under 25 minutes, the highest i've strung is 34lb and that is fast enough and consistent enough for everyone I have ever strung from. The only time I've lost a customer is because I didn't want to string for them. I've never seen a need for anything more complicated.
IMO consistency is IMO the most important, too. I don't want to gamble my jobs and routine. With 2 piece BU YY style you can make nearly 90% of all rackets which I get. Let's imagine a player use 2 different rackets with different hole design. Paizhuan is really strict and limited to the holes. Why should he get on his first racket a different job compared to the second racket? Same with Haribito on a Babolat. If a solid 2-piece don't work for your racket, e.g. MX, you get a solid 1-piece job. Nothing else.
I would the same if the owner needs the racket back fast... I'd just follow instruction... do a quick check on the frame and grommets and carry on with straight forward conventional pattern, no thinking required. Unless, he wants a Paizhuan, I would request for more time...
I'd take a random tension "wow this is amazing" that takes time to adjust to, over a consistently bad result every time. Consistent is no good if you're doing it wrong.
An inconsistent idiot is bound to get it right once in a while. A consistent idiot never gets it right.
We can play this game with exceptions and implications for every argument and property to a philosophic level. Nevertheless if nothing is wrong, regular base and consistency >>>> random results. Your argument is only valid if something is crap, but also the gambling wouldn't lead to a win. Can't remember but how often did you hit lottery, yet? And if you talk about adjustment, why isn't it possible to be adjusted to a bad job?
