PDA

View Full Version : Why don't compagny try to make thinnier string


benasp
09-15-2008, 06:58 AM
I just wonder, is there a reglementation on string gauge or it's the technologie that don't allow it?

Cause from experience, thin string produce massive spin. I once strung a racquet with ''badminton string'' and the 3 shot i was able to make before it broke were awersome in term of spin.

Nanshiki
09-15-2008, 07:02 AM
Typically you want a string job to last more than three shots.

SlapShot
09-15-2008, 07:12 AM
Because spin is more a function of proper technique than it is a function of string gauge.

Nanshiki
09-15-2008, 08:24 AM
I can make a lot of spin myself but if a string makes spin easier, you can make more spin with less effort, which means:

1. your shots stay in more

2. your shots have more action on them (they jump higher, curve more, drop faster, and feel heavier)

3. the chances of blowing a shot and making an unforced error from trying to use maximum spin is lower

4. you don't get as tired, and there's less fatigue on your arm from doing those hard whipping shots

hoodjem
09-15-2008, 08:54 AM
It's called applied physics.

Satch
09-15-2008, 09:06 AM
why would you want so much spin in your shots anyway... i like flat hitters way more...

NickC
09-15-2008, 09:32 AM
Question: Why don't companies try to make thinner string?

Answer: Because the ITF has done tons research that shows that the guage of the string doesn't make any kind of contribution to spin output whatsoever.

Daycrawler
09-15-2008, 09:42 AM
Question: Why don't companies try to make thinner string?

Answer: Because the ITF has done tons research that shows that the guage of the string doesn't make any kind of contribution to spin output whatsoever.

Can you supply a link to that report?

NickC
09-15-2008, 10:00 AM
Can you supply a link to that report?

Sure.

http://www.itftennis.com/technical/equipment/strings/stringing/


In fact, I'll quote it, for those who are too lazy to follow the link


The diameter of a string is more commonly referred to as its gauge. The more popular gauges lie between 1 and 1.5 mm, or 15 to 18 on the American scale: See table 1.

A thinner gauge makes the string more flexible, but also reduces its durability as less time is needed to saw through the string. Minute movements between the strings tend to abrade them until they eventually snap at the point of intersection. Although thinner strings are believed to impart more spin on the ball, there is little empirical evidence to support this theory. There is also no appreciable difference in spin produced by rough or smooth, low- or high-tension strings.


How's that?

Valjean
09-15-2008, 10:15 AM
Now we'd like the quote from the string companies *themselves* too, since that was the question asked!

NickC
09-15-2008, 10:27 AM
Now we'd like the quote from the string companies *themselves* too, since that was the question asked!

That's a stupid remark. You honestly think string companies would come out and admit that the only difference between 15, 16, 17, 18 and even 19 gauge strings is JUST the playability? Not a chance.

MonkeyMan123
09-15-2008, 10:43 AM
thinner strings do produce a very slight amount of more spin than thicker strings due to larger gaps in the stringbed, although the increase is more noticeable in dense string patterns. Although, with a thinner string, control will be a little bit worse because once again the gap will be bigger. Imagine a ball bouncing on a solid surface like a table and another ball bouncing on a net. I see no need for companies to make thinner strings. Also, texturized strings make no difference in spin, I think this is all bs, and people exaggerating. I get the same amount of spin with alu power rough and alu power , and like the regular better. Also, I believe a lower tension will produce slightly more spin than a higher tension given the same swing for both. Imagine a ball bouncing on a very bouncy trampoline and a ball bouncing on a very less bouncy trampline. On the bouncy trampoline, the ball will literally dwell downwards on teh surface longer before it springs up, producing more rotations on the ball. Poly strings also don't necessarily produce more spin. The player produces more spin with poly strings because he is able to swing faster while letting the ball go in given the player has really sound technique. Poly strings become an advantage i believe only at the very high levels of tennis. The most important thing to remember is that strings will hardly, if at all, change the amount of spin we are hitting with for many of us ( probably 95% of us), but changes in technique will. Sorry for rambling.

Valjean
09-15-2008, 10:54 AM
That's a stupid remark. You honestly think string companies would come out and admit that the only difference between 15, 16, 17, 18 and even 19 gauge strings is JUST the playability? Not a chance.
I just wonder what other hidden truths--like the one above about everyone else's hidden motives--you'd like us to bow down to here, that just you claim to know. And you've misrepresented that research as well.

gsquicksilver
09-15-2008, 11:25 AM
Typically you want a string job to last more than three shots.

ROFLMAO :)

NickC
09-15-2008, 11:32 AM
I just wonder what other hidden truths--like the one above about everyone else's hidden motives--you'd like us to bow down to here, that just you claim to know.

This.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


And you've misrepresented that research as well.

False. Just because I only used one source doesn't mean there isn't more. A simple google search will provide many more results. Besides, the ITF is THE source for info on such topics as this. They do tons of research and pour lots of money into things like this. They're the head tennis body, so if they say something, chances are, they're right.

Valjean
09-15-2008, 11:52 AM
This.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.
You show a considerable familiarity with it, which I suppose is your point as well, to intimidate us all here too.

Then: "You honestly think string companies would come out and admit that the only difference between 15, 16, 17, 18 and even 19 gauge strings is JUST the playability? Not a chance."

This statement, your statement, is nothing but a prejudice you hold to, embodying a naive cynicism that leaves you less than credible. Why not ask these people you loathe so and are so bitter over just what it is that "motivates" them to do this???

False. Just because I only used one source doesn't mean there isn't more. A simple google search will provide many more results. Besides, the ITF is THE source for info on such topics as this. They do tons of research and pour lots of money into things like this. They're the head tennis body, so if they say something, chances are, they're right.
And you've misrepresented what they've said, how much they've claimed to do. Their search for sources of spin doesn't exclude so much as you have, you just haven't bothered to read all of their work.

NickC
09-15-2008, 01:36 PM
And you've misrepresented what they've said, how much they've claimed to do. Their search for sources of spin doesn't exclude so much as you have, you just haven't bothered to read all of their work.

No, I read all of it, it's just all of you were too lazy to follow my link, or do a search on google.

As for the Ad Hominem, this person who hasn't bothered to contribute to the discussion, only to attack me at every turn, is guilty of it. In this case, that person is YOU. You're the only poster here going on the offensive instead of helping out the OP. Instead of contributing anything, you attack me. That, my friend, is Ad Hominem.

Lloyd Barcenilla
09-15-2008, 02:49 PM
Thing is, they also say that the roughness of a string does not influence anything, but i think most people who have used blue gear would agree that blue gear imparts a lot more spin.

Valjean
09-15-2008, 02:55 PM
No, I read all of it, it's just all of you were too lazy to follow my link, or do a search on google.

As for the Ad Hominem, this person who hasn't bothered to contribute to the discussion, only to attack me at every turn, is guilty of it. In this case, that person is YOU. You're the only poster here going on the offensive instead of helping out the OP. Instead of contributing anything, you attack me. That, my friend, is Ad Hominem.
You can't merely abuse me and get away with that. You've misrepresented the research and what it intends to do. And you've maintained without proof that the string manufacturers have conspired to conceal that. Now you've even complained that everyone in here, who needn't agree too, is just too ignorant to join with you. What I've done is not let you complain for others who can't agree with your opinions, few of which even appear to matter to you. You've "contributed" nothing but seeming malice here. Opinion, anyone's, is not above question in here, particularly when it misleads others and is designed to. FWIW to you--the USRSA, the USTA's technical arm and verifying body, produces, and produced, original research on the subject you complain of, and that is very likely where what you found originated. Two of its recent tomes, Technical Tennis and The Physics and Technology of Tennis, contain it and many in here read both carefully and well before you even thought to bring in half-baked reinterpretations of what it did.

Max Winther
09-15-2008, 03:05 PM
I can't find a date on that site, NicholasCole. Do you know when that research was conducted?

miniRafa386
09-15-2008, 05:04 PM
idc if it produces more spin, as long as i feel that the thinner strings produce more spin, im gonna use it. 1/2 of everything in tennis is phychological, string gauge being one of them.

TenniseaWilliams
09-15-2008, 07:47 PM
Generally, the thinner the string, the softer and less durable. For a very thin string to be usable, it would need to be made of a very durable and stiff material. Kevlar in 20g? If people would buy it, it would get made.

"Spin Rule #2: The strings don't make much difference."
Physics and Technology of Tennis, Chapter 41: Bounce Off A Racquet, p370

Valjean
09-16-2008, 05:23 AM
The claim isn't the broader one that installing a thinner (or stiffer, or more elastic, string for that matter) won't result in more of just what you bought it for, is it? And that's what some people in here have taken it to mean. How exactly specific equipment, any equipment, factors in, is what the research is for, not saying that there aren't real added effects that turn up when it's been adopted.

So you can buy thinner string now and expect to get some added spin, just as we used to. You just can't be certain yet quite where that added spin comes in too, and, as before, just how much you personally will benefit from that string change then. But without that thinner string installed--thinner to you, for what you're used to--you might see you get less spin, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong, too.

Their research, in other words, is incomplete from a player's standpoint, and it's been carefully acknowledged to be in various places in the work done so far.

The USRSA board consists of major *equipment* manufacturers, and if there's a legitimate complaint now, it's that their supplied research just isn't curious *enough* in your behalf today. My question is, will it become that? If it does, who will supply it too...

Years ago, Gamma produced its Edge 20, an original hybrid which had semi-metallic mains, so-called. It broke as rapidly as anything could, and was soon withdrawn. There have been, and still are, nineteen gauge hybrids using kevlar available; currently TW is carrying Wilson Hyperlast Spin 19 string employing Stamina crosses for example. Eighteen gauge is apparently nylon's limit, but when anything more durable is substituted, it soon doesn't market well enough to be retained. Traditionally the known target group for 19-20 gauge strings has been women, who usually don't hit hard enough to break them as fast.

1012007
09-16-2008, 07:10 AM
Thing is, they also say that the roughness of a string does not influence anything, but i think most people who have used blue gear would agree that blue gear imparts a lot more spin.

Bought any WC SS??

TenniseaWilliams
09-16-2008, 08:33 AM
The claim isn't the broader one that installing a thinner (or stiffer, or more elastic, string for that matter) won't result in more of just what you bought it for, is it? And that's what some people in here have taken it to mean.

I am not sure what you mean, but I am curious.

How exactly specific equipment, any equipment, factors in, is what the research is for, not saying that there aren't real added effects that turn up when it's been adopted.

I tend to think the opposite. It would be hard to predict every possible effect of changing anything, no matter how rare or small. It is more possible to focus on specific things that are quantifiable, and see if they are effected in controlled situations, and by how much.


So you can buy thinner string now and expect to get some added spin, just as we used to. You just can't be certain yet quite where that added spin comes in too, and, as before, just how much you personally will benefit from that string change then. But without that thinner string installed--thinner to you, for what you're used to--you might see you get less spin, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong, too.

Their research, in other words, is incomplete from a player's standpoint, and it's been carefully acknowledged to be in various places in the work done so far.


I have seen comments by people like USRSA's Greg Raven who point out that more work needs to be done, and who use terms like "access to spin". That is not a denial of the data, and doesn't make the data less applicable. I don't think you should buy thinner/textured/shaped/stiff string and expect more spin as a direct result. I believe players can control ball spin incoming and outgoing better with some equipment more than others.


The USRSA board consists of major *equipment* manufacturers, and if there's a legitimate complaint now, it's that their supplied research just isn't curious *enough* in your behalf today. My question is, will it become that? If it does, who will supply it too...

The objective data for tension loss, stiffness, and diameter info the RSI (USRSA) puts out every year is great. It doesn't seem to offend manufacturers with conflicting claims. (an example would be Wilson/Luxilon's claim that the 10% less stringing tension recommendation is due to Luxilon's great tension holding abilities vs natural gut) I believe they would enjoy any opportunity to move columns for power and spin from the subjective section.

The objective data concerning string and spin is more ITF sponsored than USRSA. In 1996 (R. Bower, Sydney University) lab spin increased a measured 5% for a 50% tension increase, not a large effect. In 2001 (Goodwill & Haake, University of Sheffield) used high speed photography in this setup (http://www.itftennis.com/technical/research/lab/spin/) with the results summarized on p373 of PToT
"(a) rebound spin of the ball does not depend significantly on string tension, string type, string gauge, or spacing between the strings"

The same testing noted that rebound speed lowered only slightly as tension was lowered, and that rebound angle is effected by string tension, string type, and the spacing between the strings.

I believe the subjective spin and power heuristics can be explained as secondary effects of rebound angle, and some secondary effects of marketing.

Lloyd Barcenilla
09-16-2008, 12:18 PM
Bought any WC SS??

Not yet,
Fancy trading any?

Valjean
09-16-2008, 12:50 PM
And your whole point is, TenniseaWilliams? And you allege it affects mine how, now???

TenniseaWilliams
09-16-2008, 09:01 PM
Do you believe thinner gauge string adds spin to the ball Valjean?

protege
09-17-2008, 12:37 AM
The objective data concerning string and spin is more ITF sponsored than USRSA. In 1996 (R. Bower, Sydney University) lab spin increased a measured 5% for a 50% tension increase, not a large effect. In 2001 (Goodwill & Haake, University of Sheffield) used high speed photography in this setup (http://www.itftennis.com/technical/research/lab/spin/) with the results summarized on p373 of PToT
"(a) rebound spin of the ball does not depend significantly on string tension, string type, string gauge, or spacing between the strings"

The same testing noted that rebound speed lowered only slightly as tension was lowered, and that rebound angle is effected by string tension, string type, and the spacing between the strings.

I believe the subjective spin and power heuristics can be explained as secondary effects of rebound angle, and some secondary effects of marketing.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the experiment only tested (for lack of a better term) "resultant" spin from a non-moving (clamped) racket.

It would've been great if they could simulate different kinds of swings and swing speeds to simulate different kinds of stroke techniques - which I think is the real factor in determining spin and power.

I'm in the middle of selecting a bunch of strings to playtest and I am thoroughly confused as to which string to get because different folks have different strokes, rackets, tensions, playing styles, fitness levels, playing surfaces, etc. and therefore have different experiences and opinions.

slice bh compliment
09-17-2008, 01:06 AM
I just wonder, is there a reglementation on string gauge or it's the technologie that don't allow it?

Cause from experience, thin string produce massive spin. I once strung a racquet with ''badminton string'' and the 3 shot i was able to make before it broke were awersome in term of spin.

I'm with the Frenchman, despite what the book says. I use the thinnest gut mains avec the thinnest poly crosses. Durability is not as much a concern as the feel/playabilitie. I love the spin and control I get from thin strings.

A beintot,
-sbc

lethalfang
09-17-2008, 01:16 AM
Typically you want a string job to last more than three shots.

Or at least, it doesn't snap every time you try to pull 60 lb of tension.

Bud
09-17-2008, 02:27 AM
Thing is, they also say that the roughness of a string does not influence anything, but i think most people who have used blue gear would agree that blue gear imparts a lot more spin.

They have a healthy imagination :)

Bud
09-17-2008, 02:34 AM
I'm with the Frenchman, despite what the book says. I use the thinnest gut mains avec the thinnest poly crosses. Durability is not as much a concern as the feel/playabilitie. I love the spin and control I get from thin strings.

A beintot,
-sbc

That blue font is really annoying.

Valjean
09-17-2008, 04:29 AM
Do you believe thinner gauge string adds spin to the ball Valjean?
You can't have read what I've written, then--and that's the whole point of what I did.

TenniseaWilliams
09-17-2008, 07:40 AM
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the experiment only tested (for lack of a better term) "resultant" spin from a non-moving (clamped) racket.

It would've been great if they could simulate different kinds of swings and swing speeds to simulate different kinds of stroke techniques - which I think is the real factor in determining spin and power.

I'm in the middle of selecting a bunch of strings to playtest and I am thoroughly confused as to which string to get because different folks have different strokes, rackets, tensions, playing styles, fitness levels, playing surfaces, etc. and therefore have different experiences and opinions.

True, clamping the head is not the same as a player hitting the ball, but not because of the lack of a racquet swing. Clamped at the head, the racquet appears to have infinite mass and stiffness, which should accentuate string characteristics like dwell time, dampen vibrations, and eliminate secondary racquet effects. (such as stiffer string making the racquet head slightly more flexible) It is possible, although unlikely that the experimental setup hides a direct major contributor of spin.

The frame of reference simplifications are easier to defend; from the balls point of view it doesn't really matter what's moving relative to the observer, as long as the motion path relative to the racquet is identical.


And your whole point is, TenniseaWilliams? And you allege it affects mine how, now???
Do you believe thinner gauge string adds spin to the ball Valjean?
You can't have read what I've written, then--and that's the whole point of what I did.

I will admit to having trouble comprehending the subtleties of this whole point thing. The more of your recent posts I read, the more confused I get. Posters seeking spin can use smaller gauge, 15L textured, gauge unspecified and surface textured, the whole point is everything and nothing? :cry:


...
So you can buy thinner string now and expect to get some added spin, just as we used to.
...


Good control and spin-generated string? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=221554) thread.
09-15-2008, 12:54 PM
Prince's Topspin 15L, the one with Duraflex.

Looking For Topspin (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=221231) thread
Hi i play with an oversize 110 sq inch racquet--i would like some string recommendations for the highest topspin string you can possibly get...i have problems hitting the ball flat i need something with extreme topspin..thank you for your responses

09-13-2008, 06:35 AM
When you can't find any of Toa's Twister around, try out Gamma's Ruff.

Valjean
09-17-2008, 11:42 AM
I wasn't referring to all I've said, everywhere else I've written too, but to what has gone before in this--lowly, to be sure--little thread. Surely you didn't think so to start with. Hence I don't know quite how you could have suddenly felt that. But, off recent experience, mine and others, I'd have to guess sincerity isn't what you're in here today to provide. I think I'll have to stop with this one.

2nd_Serve
09-17-2008, 06:49 PM
Some people like thicker strings, and personally, for some weird reason, I could make more spin with thicker strings than thinner.

topspin2
09-17-2008, 06:56 PM
I just wonder, is there a reglementation on string gauge or it's the technologie that don't allow it?

Cause from experience, thin string produce massive spin. I once strung a racquet with ''badminton string'' and the 3 shot i was able to make before it broke were awersome in term of spin.

Skip class at all?:)

benasp
09-27-2008, 09:26 PM
I'm with the Frenchman, despite what the book says. I use the thinnest gut mains avec the thinnest poly crosses. Durability is not as much a concern as the feel/playabilitie. I love the spin and control I get from thin strings.

A beintot,
-sbc

Sorry for the bad english and others typing mistake.

From a pure theorical point, there should be a difference between different type of string, maybe i'm wrong with the thin give more spin.
But let's say we drop a ball next to a sheet of sandpaper, letting the ball barely touching it and check the resulting spin. And after, we do the same with a plastic sheet. I'm pretty sure there will be more spin imparted with the sandpaper. Maybe the difference between string type arn't noticable but there should still be one. Don't you think?

equinox
09-27-2008, 10:41 PM
Tried luxilon Timo? Ashaway Kevlar?

TenniseaWilliams
09-28-2008, 05:50 PM
... But let's say we drop a ball next to a sheet of sandpaper, letting the ball barely touching it and check the resulting spin. And after, we do the same with a plastic sheet. I'm pretty sure there will be more spin imparted with the sandpaper...

Surface friction is an important factor for spin at lower impact angles, as demonstrated by different court surfaces. Most court vs ball impacts have a low incident angle (< 30 degree) allowing the ball to slide throughout the (shorter than ball vs racquet) impact, making the ball spin faster on surfaces with higher sliding friction coefficients.

If the ball grips the surface (stops relative to the surface) at any point in the impact, increasing the surface friction further doesn't help. How soon the ball stops sliding after contact doesn't have much effect on post contact spin, as long as it stops sliding at some time during the contact.

... Maybe the difference between string type arn't noticable but there should still be one. Don't you think?

Racquet vs ball collisions are fairly perpendicular, (> 50 degree) and the ball appears to "bite" the string bed and come to rest early on during impact, at incident angles above 30 degrees. From Gamma Rough to Prince Recoil, all strings seem to have enough friction to bring the ball to a stop within dwell time at normal ball/racquet angles.