PDA

View Full Version : Lower Tension for More Power: Translating Lab Results to the Court

travlerajm
01-08-2007, 08:16 PM
One of the common sense rules of tennis is that looser strings give more power than tighter strings.

A recent study (Goodwill and Haake, 2004) has confused many people because the data were presented only with respect to the racquet frame of reference (as opposed the court frame of reference that we actual use on the tennis court). To some people, the data seemed to defy conventional wisdom.

The study showed that decreasing string tension from 70 lbs to 40 lbs gives approximately 2% increase in rebound ball velocity (in the racquet frame of reference).

This has led some posters on this forum to mistakenly believe that this translates to 2% increase in the court frame of reference also, with the difference in perceived power level due mainly instead to the significant difference in rebound angle associated with different string tensions. The purpose of this thread is to put an end to this misconception.

The study showed that with stationary racquet, incoming ball velocity of 31 m/s, and incoming ball angle of 39deg from normal, and incoming ball spin of 300 rad/s, and string tension of 70 lbs, the rebound velocity is 21.5 m/s and the rebound angle is 14deg from normal. When the tension is decreased to 40 lbs, the rebound velocity is 22 m/s and the rebound angle is 10 deg. For both string tensions, the rebound spin was about 220 rad/s.

To translate the power ratio of the two string tensions to the court frame of reference we must use the following equation:

V1’/V2’ = [V1*cos(A1+B1)]/[V2*cos(A2+B2)]

V1’ = rebound ball velocity for low tension in court frame of reference.
V2’ = rebound ball velocity for high tension in court frame of reference.
V1 = rebound ball velocity for low tension in racquet frame of reference.
V2 = rebound ball velocity for high tension in racquet frame of reference.
A1 = incoming angle for low tension
A2 = incoming angle for high tension
B1 = rebound angle for low tension
B2 = rebound angle for high tension

V1’/V2’ = [22*cos(39+10)]/[21.5*cos(39+14)] = 1.115

This suggests that the 40 lb tension produces over 11% more ball rebound velocity than 70 lb tension. But this calculation assumes that none of the extra energy imparted by the lower tension goes into increasing the rebound spin. It has been shown that adjustment in racquet face angle to compensate for the change in rebound angle does in fact increase spin generation (Cross, 2005). However, it can easily be shown that even at high rpm, spin contributes only a very small percentage (typically about 5%) of the total kinetic energy of a tennis ball.

So a string tension of 40 lbs does in fact produce roughly 10% more ball velocity than 70 lb tension if the ball is struck at the oblique angles typically used during the execution of a topspin groundstroke.

It should be noted that only one incoming angle was tested. The magnitude of the effect varies with racquet approach angle, incoming spin, and relative incoming velocity.

01-09-2007, 05:57 AM
So after all that, you're basically saying..."lower tension = more power".

Thanks...

oldguysrule
01-09-2007, 06:56 AM
So, for an almost 50% reduction in tension, we get about an 11% increase in power? (didn't read all the post, and certainly didn't follow all the math)

Would it be logical to assume that for a 10% reduction in tension, we would get an approximately 2% increase in power? In other words, most mortals would not notice a difference in power to reduce tension from say 61 to 55. Not to mention the more typical comments of "I am lowering the tension from 61 to 59 to increase power."

Do you other hackers (like me) really discern a difference in power/control from minor changes in tension? And what about after you have hit for a few weeks? How do you have any idea what the loss of tension has been?

travlerajm
01-09-2007, 07:16 AM
So, for an almost 50% reduction in tension, we get about an 11% increase in power? (didn't read all the post, and certainly didn't follow all the math)

Would it be logical to assume that for a 10% reduction in tension, we would get an approximately 2% increase in power? In other words, most mortals would not notice a difference in power to reduce tension from say 61 to 55. Not to mention the more typical comments of "I am lowering the tension from 61 to 59 to increase power."

Do you other hackers (like me) really discern a difference in power/control from minor changes in tension? And what about after you have hit for a few weeks? How do you have any idea what the loss of tension has been?

The relationship is nonlinear. I would speculate that there is more difference in power between 61 lbs and 55 lbs than there is between 40 lbs and 55 lbs.

The way to tell how much difference the? You can approximate the difference in rebound angle by hitting against a wall with two like racquets strung at different tensions. Every time you switch between the two racquets, the difference in rebound angle will be noticeable. So if you switch from 61 lbs to 55 lbs, the first you hits it will seem like your ball is hitting several feet higher than you aimed. You may be able to approximate the difference in rebound angle by measuring the apparent vertical error on the wall caused by the decrease in tension. After the first few hit or two, your brain will make the adjustment adn your ball will once again hit the target, only with more spin and pace than before.

If you are able to determine that there is a 2% in rebound angle, then you can substitute into the equation I provided (use 11deg and 13deg perhaps) Of course, this procedure will be difficult to perform accurately unless you are at least a 4.0 skill level.

Kevo
01-09-2007, 07:26 AM
What do you mean by court frame of reference. Is that somehow taking into account the swing of the racquet, player motion, or something else?

travlerajm
01-09-2007, 08:15 AM
What do you mean by court frame of reference. Is that somehow taking into account the swing of the racquet, player motion, or something else?

You need to rotate the coordinate system to the court by assuming that the player makes the adjustment to racquet angle so that the ball goes where he aims (he's aiming at the court, right?).

Then you take the component of the ball's velocity vector in the direction that the ball is going. Lower strings are more efficient at transfering the racquet's linear momentum to the ball because the effective coefficient of friction is higher. That is, the stringbed grabs the ball better.

The effect would be minimized for a perfectly flat shot with zero incoming spin. That's another reason why lab results can be misleading.

paulfreda
01-09-2007, 01:59 PM
Thanks Trav
Nice informative post.

I would have expected at larger increase in power going from 70 to 40 lbs, but the data says otherwise apparently. And 2% was certainly couterintuitive and hard to believe.

tennismike33
01-09-2007, 02:11 PM
Who was it that said you would never use math after school!!!!! Reading some of this post read like a math problem to me, which it was. Thanks for the information, I will keep my racket strung at 58lbs and live with the results. Then when I go to Eastern Washington where the air is a little thinner, tighten up to 62lbs for a little more control, after that all the equations in the world would just confuse me even more!

WhiteSox05CA
01-09-2007, 02:24 PM
I thought string tension vs. power level was a parabola? So what about a racquet strung at 5 lbs.? Wouldn't that have like no power in reality?

travlerajm
01-09-2007, 07:28 PM
I thought string tension vs. power level was a parabola? So what about a racquet strung at 5 lbs.? Wouldn't that have like no power in reality?

Not quite a parabola, but yes, there is a tension that gives you maximum power. For some strings its about 55 lbs, for others it's closer to 50 lbs.

superstition
01-10-2007, 07:30 AM
All I know is that with my Prostaff 85, the tighter it's strung, the better I play. I haven't gone over 60 lbs with the 17 gauge gut I normally use, but keeping the trampoline effect low gives me better results. Sure, my shots are more powerful with lower tension, but I've found that it's much harder to return serve with a low tension and volley with a low tension, because of excessive ball pocketing/string deformation.

With my tiny-headed Wilson Ultra II (standard head size), I had trouble with 17 gauge gut strung at 55. It had less control than the poly that the racquet came with from the auction site. I tend to hit quite flat and have a very large forehand stroke. The poly wasn't good for the elbow, although it felt fairly soft. I did better with it than with the gut, though. The gut never felt solid/stable. Maybe it was a mediocre string job? Perhaps the stringer decided not to follow my tension request and strung it a lot lower?

jackson vile
01-10-2007, 08:04 AM
Not quite a parabola, but yes, there is a tension that gives you maximum power. For some strings its about 55 lbs, for others it's closer to 50 lbs.

Do we have to also consider head size also, ie 50lbs in a 125sqin frame is nothing like 50lbs in an 85sqin frame, also we have to consider tension loss that will accour, so this will only aply to perfectly fresh strings?

I really like where you are going with this though, just say what you want to "string like Roger, Hewitt ect" We see a lot of the new players with much lower string tensions than in the past Berdych Gasquet ect, and those are large headed rackets.

bluegrasser
01-10-2007, 08:09 AM
So, for an almost 50% reduction in tension, we get about an 11% increase in power? (didn't read all the post, and certainly didn't follow all the math)

Would it be logical to assume that for a 10% reduction in tension, we would get an approximately 2% increase in power? In other words, most mortals would not notice a difference in power to reduce tension from say 61 to 55. Not to mention the more typical comments of "I am lowering the tension from 61 to 59 to increase power."

Do you other hackers (like me) really discern a difference in power/control from minor changes in tension? And what about after you have hit for a few weeks? How do you have any idea what the loss of tension has been?

For me it would take a 3lb drop to notice the power difference, but when you drop the tension in the 40's the dwell time is so much longer that the power difference is nullified IMO.

travlerajm
01-10-2007, 09:03 AM
Do we have to also consider head size also, ie 50lbs in a 125sqin frame is nothing like 50lbs in an 85sqin frame, also we have to consider tension loss that will accour, so this will only aply to perfectly fresh strings?

I really like where you are going with this though, just say what you want to "string like Roger, Hewitt ect" We see a lot of the new players with much lower string tensions than in the past Berdych Gasquet ect, and those are large headed rackets.

If a given string at 55 lbs is more powerful at 60 lbs in an 85-sqin frame, then 55 lbs will be more powerful than 60 lbs in a 125-sqin frame also by about the ratio.

But with all other things equal, the 125-sqin frame at 55 lbs will have about 21% higher normal coefficient of restitution than the 85-sqin frame, because the stringlength will be sqrt(125/85) - 1 = 21% longer.

---

I believe that the lower string tensions we see in pro setups relative to 10 years ago are a combination of three factors:

The first (and obvious) reason is the trend toward lubricated polyester strings, which are both lower powered than gut, and spinnier that gut (compared to the higher gut tension required to produce the same rebound speed).

The second reason is the trend toward tensions that are lower than the max-power tension, rather than higher than the max-tension, for players wishing to reduce the power level of the stringbed. This is likely a result of the increased importance of spin potential coupled with the decreased importance of precision on volleys.

The third reason is the increased number of players who use polarized weighting schemes to tune the power level of their frames. These players tend to string at or slightly above the max-power tension. These players reduce power level by adding substantial weight to the upper hoop. Some of these players still tune their frames by adjusting the tension (e.g., Agassi, according to his interviews), while others prefer to tune their frames by adjusting the added mass at 12 (e.g., Safin, according to anecdotal evidence from his stringers).

Supernatural_Serve
01-10-2007, 09:37 AM
What is the relationship of lower tension to "pocketing effect" and "bite" on the ball?

And what is the relationship between "pocketing effect", "bite", and spin on the ball.

I am curious about whether a relationship exists at all even though it feels like lower tension causes more "pocketing effect"

travlerajm
01-10-2007, 09:58 AM
What is the relationship of lower tension to "pocketing effect" and "bite" on the ball?

And what is the relationship between "pocketing effect", "bite", and spin on the ball.

I am curious about whether a relationship exists at all even though it feels like lower tension causes more "pocketing effect"

"Bite" can be defined as the coefficient of restitution of the stringbed in the lateral direction (i.e., the ratio of the incoming lateral velocity of the surface of the ball to the rebound lateral velocity of the surface of the ball).

So bite = (Vx1 - Rw1)/(Vx2 - Rw2)

Vx1 = lateral component of incoming ball velocity in racquet frame of reference
Vx2 = lateral component of rebound velocity in racquet frame of reference
w1 = incoming angular velocity of ball
w2 = rebound angular velocity of ball

Lab results prove that lower tensions have more "bite."

The equation shows that increasing bite increases spin potential, so bite is important.

The "pocketing effect" means different things to different people. Some people think of it as the normal deflection of the stringbed. Some people think of it as the lateral deflection of the stringbed. In either case, lower tensions lead to increased "pocketing effect." In the latter case, ball pocketing is directly proportional to bite.

jackson vile
01-10-2007, 10:46 AM
Ok so now we need some formulas which I know you have already been working on.

For basline we are look for spin and ect

We already know Roger and Hewitt have the max spin string setups. and we know they string higher for hard courts and softer for soft courts

The real question I have is how are the clay courters stringing,

Supernatural_Serve
01-10-2007, 05:08 PM
"Bite" can be defined as the coefficient of restitution of the stringbed in the lateral direction (i.e., the ratio of the incoming lateral velocity of the surface of the ball to the rebound lateral velocity of the surface of the ball).

So bite = (Vx1 - Rw1)/(Vx2 - Rw2)

Vx1 = lateral component of incoming ball velocity in racquet frame of reference
Vx2 = lateral component of rebound velocity in racquet frame of reference
w1 = incoming angular velocity of ball
w2 = rebound angular velocity of ball

Lab results prove that lower tensions have more "bite."

The equation shows that increasing bite increases spin potential, so bite is important.

The "pocketing effect" means different things to different people. Some people think of it as the normal deflection of the stringbed. Some people think of it as the lateral deflection of the stringbed. In either case, lower tensions lead to increased "pocketing effect." In the latter case, ball pocketing is directly proportional to bite.Thank you. That's informative.

Maybe you can make a recommendation. I want strings for my Head LM MP that:

1.) Give tons of pocketing effect - I like that feel
2.) Do not generate too much power or sling shot effect - I don't want balls sailing long, so I've tried more control oriented strings but lose pocketing effect
3.) Do not feel stiff - I really dislike that feeling that the strings are "stiff"
4.) Can generate a lot of spin, especially on various kick serves with a ton of racquet head speed

I currently use Klip Screamer (Gut mains, titanium synth crosses) strung at the mid-point of the LM recommended range. I like these strings but they do

a.) "move around" a lot after a couple of weeks or take on any moisture whatsoever (humidity, a little dampness on the court/ball), so I consider them "winter indoor strings". b.) lose tension (which is ok for a little while), yet eventually, one giant forehand or forehand return (once they start moving around) breaks one of the center mains near the sweet spot.

Every time I try more "control" oriented strings that allow one to "hit out" with "spin", I get no pocket effect, give up feel, and actually lose spin.

Feel is as important as any variable for me, then pocket effect, then not too much power, then spin, and if I can get some durability/consistency of tension, then that's fine, but I know you can't get everything.

Also are those so called "ruff" or "textured" strings actually creating more bite? I tried them years ago, and I couldn't tell. Have they improved and are they worth looking into in light of the above objectives.

psamp14
01-10-2007, 05:41 PM
quite some math and physics involved there...:)

very informative, but again, why do you speculate a greater difference in power from 61 to 55lbs rather than 55 to 40 lbs?

travlerajm
01-10-2007, 05:53 PM
Thank you. That's informative.

Maybe you can make a recommendation. I want strings for my Head LM MP that:

1.) Give tons of pocketing effect - I like that feel
2.) Do not generate too much power or sling shot effect - I don't want balls sailing long, so I've tried more control oriented strings but lose pocketing effect
3.) Do not feel stiff - I really dislike that feeling that the strings are "stiff"
4.) Can generate a lot of spin, especially on various kick serves with a ton of racquet head speed

I currently use Klip Screamer (Gut mains, titanium synth crosses) strung at the mid-point of the LM recommended range. I like these strings but they do

a.) "move around" a lot after a couple of weeks or take on any moisture whatsoever (humidity, a little dampness on the court/ball), so I consider them "winter indoor strings". b.) lose tension (which is ok for a little while), yet eventually, one giant forehand or forehand return (once they start moving around) breaks one of the center mains near the sweet spot.

Every time I try more "control" oriented strings that allow one to "hit out" with "spin", I get no pocket effect, give up feel, and actually lose spin.

Feel is as important as any variable for me, then pocket effect, then not too much power, then spin, and if I can get some durability/consistency of tension, then that's fine, but I know you can't get everything.

Also are those so called "ruff" or "textured" strings actually creating more bite? I tried them years ago, and I couldn't tell. Have they improved and are they worth looking into in light of the above objectives.

You sound like a good candidate to try an ultralow tension. The tension that gives maximum power is usually around 50 to 55 lbs. The stringbed can start to feel more dead when you string in the 40s. My disclaimer is that I have not personally experimented with ultralow tensions, so this advice is based only on anecdotes from other posters as well as lab results.

A tension in the high 40s should give you less power than a tension in the low 50s, but the spin potential will likely be similar. For your checklist, I'd recommend using a teflon-doped poly cross like Lux ALU or Ashaway monogut (which are most effective for spin at low tensions) and a synthetic gut main.

jackson vile
01-11-2007, 09:38 AM
You sound like a good candidate to try an ultralow tension. The tension that gives maximum power is usually around 50 to 55 lbs. The stringbed can start to feel more dead when you string in the 40s. My disclaimer is that I have not personally experimented with ultralow tensions, so this advice is based only on anecdotes from other posters as well as lab results.

A tension in the high 40s should give you less power than a tension in the low 50s, but the spin potential will likely be similar. For your checklist, I'd recommend using a teflon-doped poly cross like Lux ALU or Ashaway monogut (which are most effective for spin at low tensions) and a synthetic gut main.

I would recomend prokennex IQ as it is a much newer poly with the better characteristics and the same resin.

Also if the spin production is the same what is the point? Also if Roger is at SW2 then why would he go so low on tension?

#1 Roger changes between SW2 and string tension
#2 Roger not at SW2
#3 Something is wrong with your formula (which is least likely)

travlerajm
01-11-2007, 04:56 PM
I would recomend prokennex IQ as it is a much newer poly with the better characteristics and the same resin.

Also if the spin production is the same what is the point? Also if Roger is at SW2 then why would he go so low on tension?

#1 Roger changes between SW2 and string tension
#2 Roger not at SW2
#3 Something is wrong with your formula (which is least likely)

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Roger varies his string tension based on conditions, but he always stays on the under side of the max-power tension.

In other words, I speculate that for higher temperature, Roger might use 48 lbs, but for lower temp, he might use 52 lbs. So the 48 lbs is not for more spin, it's for lower power compared to 52 lbs.

jackson vile
01-12-2007, 10:53 AM
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Roger varies his string tension based on conditions, but he always stays on the under side of the max-power tension.

In other words, I speculate that for higher temperature, Roger might use 48 lbs, but for lower temp, he might use 52 lbs. So the 48 lbs is not for more spin, it's for lower power compared to 52 lbs.

If it is not for more spin or power where does all the extra engery go, and if he is at SW2 then why does he have to worry about stay below in power level for string?

The problem I had with lower string tensions when I did so on my LMprestige MP was that the ball would go weight directions and I would have to hit absolutely perfect in the sweet spot, and this was with gut VS tonic 16g.

So is this why Roger and others use poly as a cross or main?

And what tenion did Roger use before when he played full gut in the PS85?

I just don't want to have the same problems.

StunLock
01-12-2007, 12:47 PM
found some good read here and thought I'd share:

The Effect of String Tension

The variables affected in the formulas by string tension are dwell time (t) and coefficient of restitution (c). Dwell time (t) is the length of time the ball stays on the strings. Coefficient of restitution (c) is the measure of the elasticity of the collision between the ball and the racquet (high c means more elastic, livelier bounce).

Longer dwell time (high t) means lower Torque and Impulse Reaction on impact, which means better accuracy. Dwell time decreases with increasing string tension, which is bad. And, after a point, as string tension increases, coefficient of restitution goes down. Lower coefficient of restitution (low c) means higher Shock, Work, Shoulder Pull, Elbow Crunch, and Shoulder Crunch.

The conventional thinking is that loose strings give more "power" (presumably, this means higher c) and tight strings give better "control" (presumably, higher t and therefore less resultant forces from impact). Dr. Jack Groppel, in his interesting book, High Tech Tennis (available from the USPTA bookstore), has shown that these variables are not affected as presumed. See pp. 25-27. Although one might think that the ball would stay on the strings longer when the tension is higher (because it is flattened more), dwell time decreases with increasing string tension, which is not good for accuracy. And the relationship between string tension and coefficient of restitution (c, or racquet bounce) is not linear, especially with midsized racquets, where there is a pronounced peak of bounciness at 60 pounds for gut and at 50 pounds for nylon. For oversized racquets, it is true up to 70 pounds of tension that lower tensions mean higher bounce for both gut and nylon. There seems to be no consensus among the pros. Borg strung as tight as possible (85 lb.) on specially fortified racquets with two extra plies, while McEnroe preferred very low tension (44 lb).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is truth in the rule that tight strings give better control, but it isn't for the reason that dwell time increases. With a loose racquet, especially a big head racquet, an off-center hit will deform the string bed more severely than it would a tight, small-head racquet (like Pete Sampras uses), and therefore there will be less certainty as to the path of the rebounding ball. Thanks to Greg Raven for pointing this out. And Ronald Yepp points out that with a tight racquet, the ball is flattened more, so topspin is easier to produce. This would be particularly true where the head is small. Pete Sampras is a case in point: he can generate amazing topspin on his second serve using his heavy, small-head, tightly strung (75 lb.) racquet. Bjorn Borg is another. Spin gives greater control, and greater spin is possible with tight strings.

http://www.racquetresearch.com/sevencri.htm

jackson vile
01-12-2007, 12:56 PM
Thank you very much StunLock that explains a lot,

StunLock
01-12-2007, 01:15 PM
My pleasure : )

EricW
01-12-2007, 05:14 PM
Then how does federer get such amazing topspin on his forehand, when he strings at 48? Why would he string so low when it seems like 55-70 is the best bet?

jackson vile
01-13-2007, 06:47 AM
Then how does federer get such amazing topspin on his forehand, when he strings at 48? Why would he string so low when it seems like 55-70 is the best bet?

As stated the 55+ is the power zone so you would end up hitting the ball out unless your racket was very low powered, you use a stiff poly, or you use a lot of spin ect.

IMO the 48- has to be giving more spin, if it is lower powered it should allow more force to be applied and that energy has to go some where, especially considering the VS gut in the mains.

Also you will notice that people who hit flatter will tend to like much stiffer string beds, ie Blake, and as mention the vollyers.

Further more as pointed out in the study post by StunLock the lower tension give better directional control.

Finally lower power would allow for sharper angles also

Squid
01-13-2007, 05:34 PM
quick question, for this theory, would there have to be a certain type of string needed? like it has to be multis, gut, or polys?

reason being, i normally string wilson staminas at around 60, and after about several weeks, it gets loose and the string start to move. becuase of this, im afraid to go ultra low becuase of string movement and uncontrollable power.

paulfreda
01-13-2007, 11:40 PM
found some good read here and thought I'd share:
The Effect of String Tension
And Ronald Yepp points out that with a tight racquet, the ball is flattened more, so topspin is easier to produce.

Spin gives greater control, and greater spin is possible with tight strings.
http://www.racquetresearch.com/sevencri.htm

Lest we forget, tighter strings [higher tension] usually yeild lower power
[above 60lbs, for example, whereas increasing tension from 45 lbs will likely yeild more power] and that means the player needs to apply the power which results in greater control ....... depth control.

Mutant Hippo
01-14-2007, 07:28 PM
if strings generate less power, it takes a faster swing to get the ball to fly the same distance. faster swing speed yields more spin and more control. also, strings in the low 50's are less consistent, sometimes, when hitting heavy topspin, the ball is launched off the stringbed, high over the net, and other times, the ball slides off the strings, into the frame and dumps into the net. this is only what i have expierienced. i play with 18g gosen og sheep micro strung at 90 lb crosses, 84 lb mains, on babolat APD

jackson vile
01-15-2007, 12:57 PM
if strings generate less power, it takes a faster swing to get the ball to fly the same distance. faster swing speed yields more spin and more control. also, strings in the low 50's are less consistent, sometimes, when hitting heavy topspin, the ball is launched off the stringbed, high over the net, and other times, the ball slides off the strings, into the frame and dumps into the net. this is only what i have expierienced. i play with 18g gosen og sheep micro strung at 90 lb crosses, 84 lb mains, on babolat APD

That is why you use smaller head rackets and poly crosses.

For the larger rackets you use a full poly setup and string in max power zone.

heycal
01-31-2007, 11:36 PM
Lest we forget, tighter strings [higher tension] usually yeild lower power
[above 60lbs, for example, whereas increasing tension from 45 lbs will likely yeild more power] and that means the player needs to apply the power which results in greater control ....... depth control.

Were you the guy who conquered his TE by stringing his racket in the 40's, or was that someone else?

EricW
02-01-2007, 12:04 PM
if strings generate less power, it takes a faster swing to get the ball to fly the same distance. faster swing speed yields more spin and more control. also, strings in the low 50's are less consistent, sometimes, when hitting heavy topspin, the ball is launched off the stringbed, high over the net, and other times, the ball slides off the strings, into the frame and dumps into the net. this is only what i have expierienced. i play with 18g gosen og sheep micro strung at 90 lb crosses, 84 lb mains, on babolat APD

......wtf?

paulfreda
02-02-2007, 12:20 AM
Were you the guy who conquered his TE by stringing his racket in the 40's, or was that someone else?

Yes I did. That was 3-4 years ago. Tension reduction was what worked for me. I now have worked my way back to about 53-54 lbs without problems.

heycal
02-02-2007, 07:57 AM
Yes I did. That was 3-4 years ago. Tension reduction was what worked for me. I now have worked my way back to about 53-54 lbs without problems.

How low did you go, and with what kind of strings/racket? What was the experience like?

paulfreda
02-03-2007, 01:16 AM
How low did you go, and with what kind of strings/racket? What was the experience like?

Well the inspiration came from learning that Mac played at 46 lbs and I relaized I had not tried that solution for my TE. I was actually considering surgery. I had a flexible frame and it was over 12 oz. I went right to 45 lbs with syn gut nylon and the TE vanished.

I hated the slow way the ball came off the strings at first but eventually adjusted to it. Playing was soooooooooo much better than taking 2 weeks off every month to let the pain die down.

I hit with a NXT OS this morning at 60 lbs and it felt great, but after 7 minutes my elbow was talking to me and I had to put it down.

It seems lots of weight is good too. I have been fooling with my nCTour90 and put 60 grams in the handle making it nearly a 16 oz frame that measures some 15 pts HL. It has huge power and hitting for 90 minutes had no problems with my elbow. This is overkill of course, but weight in the handle will kill TE for many people I believe.