PDA

View Full Version : Lead application experts. Help please.


PurePrestige
04-03-2006, 09:03 PM
I need some help with setup on my Liquidmetal Prestige Mid. I have a setup I like alot but there are some aspects I need to fix with either different lead locations or different lead amounts, or perhaps both.

Currently my best setup is 8 grams of lead at 12 oclock. In the form of Gamma lead tape in two strips of 8 inch length. This setup gives me the weight of shot that I want and is fine as far as maneuverability for me. But it doesn't respond well to certain shots.

Particularly the 1handed backhand, it seems that the lead at the tip is making it somehow sluggish to come through the ball. It's hard to explain, but shots that involve quick flicks of the wrist, or lots of spin don't workout right.

Any dipping passing shots on forehand or backhand side dont get that proper amount of spin that really brings them dipping down over the net. The ball seems not to respond properly on these shots, it goes too flat without nearly enough spin. I'm not sure why this is, kick serves are just fine and forehands are alright as well.

I'm not sure if moving the lead to 3 & 9 would help or what exactly to do. I'm trying to keep the swingweight for the heavy shots i can generate. But i'd like to find a way to let it impart more spin. My best guess is to make it more headlight, either by adding more weight but counter weighting. Moving the weight ive added lower. Or adding lead in the throat or what.

If anyone's experienced this as well, or knows of a way to fix this problem any help would be very much appreciated.

fishuuuuu
04-03-2006, 09:18 PM
Hey PP,

Have you tried johncauthen's method of applying lead? If not you should search and find out more about it, it seems to work really well for others (and for myself when I tried it).

In a nutshell, try some lead an inch below the apex of the throat, or an approx. an inch below where the top of your grip ends. It doesn't take a lot, but you will definitely feel lots of weight behind every shot and it won't be sluggish like what you're describing. Hope this helps.

PurePrestige
04-03-2006, 09:30 PM
Yeah, i've tried it. As well as the stringing techniques. However I think JohnCauthen's methods are more suited to tweener racquets. Being that they already have alot of weight in the head whereas players racquets not so much. Adding weight in the according location felt nice, but the head felt less stable considerably. I was thinking about giving a try to the weight at that location as well as some lead at 3 & 9 to get the stability back.

However i'm also interested in any other weighting tips people might have that have experienced the same thing possibly.

Davai
04-03-2006, 09:44 PM
Did you try prince Triple Threat weighing system?
It might help, but it's going to bring the SW up,but might give you more feel.


Hey PP,

Have you tried johncauthen's method of applying lead? If not you should search and find out more about it, it seems to work really well for others (and for myself when I tried it).

In a nutshell, try some lead an inch below the apex of the throat, or an approx. an inch below where the top of your grip ends. It doesn't take a lot, but you will definitely feel lots of weight behind every shot and it won't be sluggish like what you're describing. Hope this helps.

When I tried applying it the racket felt strange, very Head Heavy with little maneuverability, any idea what I did wrong, if anything.

fishuuuuu
04-03-2006, 09:47 PM
Yeah, i've tried it. As well as the stringing techniques. However I think JohnCauthen's methods are more suited to tweener racquets. Being that they already have alot of weight in the head whereas players racquets not so much. Adding weight in the according location felt nice, but the head felt less stable considerably. I was thinking about giving a try to the weight at that location as well as some lead at 3 & 9 to get the stability back.

However i'm also interested in any other weighting tips people might have that have experienced the same thing possibly.

Ah well, couldn't hurt to try. Good luck! 3 and 9 is where I would go next.

Midlife crisis
04-03-2006, 10:52 PM
Particularly the 1handed backhand, it seems that the lead at the tip is making it somehow sluggish to come through the ball. It's hard to explain, but shots that involve quick flicks of the wrist, or lots of spin don't workout right.

Any dipping passing shots on forehand or backhand side dont get that proper amount of spin that really brings them dipping down over the net. The ball seems not to respond properly on these shots, it goes too flat without nearly enough spin. I'm not sure why this is, kick serves are just fine and forehands are alright as well.

It sounds like either the swingweight of the racquet is too high for you for those shots you want to hit, or you don't have the technique to hit them. You say that the lead gives you the weight of shot you like, but then you also say you can't hit with the high amounts of spin that usually result in what people say is a "heavy" shot.

I know I prefer a higher swingweight on my forehand than my backhand, and I prefer a more headlight balance for volleys than for groundies. You have to compromise somewhere and reach a happy medium that doesn't kill your weakest shot yet take away from your best shots. It sounds like you've just got a little too heavy and it's hurting your backhand.

travlerajm
04-04-2006, 12:29 AM
Adding weight to the shot is not possible without reducing some spin generation. But there is a better way to maximize the efficiency of the weight:

Adding weight to the entire length of the handle is the way to go if you want to add weight to the shot without sacrificing as much spin. But It will take a lot more weight to achieve the desired effect, perhaps an ounce or 2.

PurePrestige
04-04-2006, 06:47 AM
Well see, that's why i'm kind of at a loss for what to do next in weighting. I don't think its a technique issue as I have no problem hitting those types of shots when I don't add any lead to the racquet only when I add lead.
Also, I can generate the spin for groundstrokes to hit heavy, its just when I wanna really put alot of spin on the ball that it kinda has a falling out.
The ball kinda glances off the racquet more when I try to add more spin. It feels like havng it setup this way really gives it only a certain maximum capacity for spin or something.

I'll have to give a try to 3&9, and i'll also tryout adding some weight to the handle. I'll just have to mess around with it till I find something that works.

Midlife crisis
04-04-2006, 07:06 AM
Well see, that's why i'm kind of at a loss for what to do next in weighting. I don't think its a technique issue as I have no problem hitting those types of shots when I don't add any lead to the racquet only when I add lead.
Also, I can generate the spin for groundstrokes to hit heavy, its just when I wanna really put alot of spin on the ball that it kinda has a falling out.
The ball kinda glances off the racquet more when I try to add more spin. It feels like havng it setup this way really gives it only a certain maximum capacity for spin or something.

I'll have to give a try to 3&9, and i'll also tryout adding some weight to the handle. I'll just have to mess around with it till I find something that works.

Then clearly the swingweight is too high for your capabilities on that kind of shot, and by a pretty significant margin. If the swingweight were just on the high side of your capabilities, you'd at least be able to hit the shot when you're fresh and lose that ability as you tire. Since you don't seem to be able to hit it at all, the swingweight is clearly not in the right range.

Changing from 12 o'clock to 3 and 9 o'clock will lower the swingweight, but from your description that still won't be enough, especially since you're only talking about 8 grams of weight and moving it four or five inches closer to your handle. You then also increase the rotational moment of inertia (twistweight) so if you don't have your stringbed on the same plane throughout the swing, you'll have to work harder to rotate the racquet even though it might be then easier to swing.

rocket
04-04-2006, 07:12 AM
Also, I can generate the spin for groundstrokes to hit heavy, its just when I wanna really put alot of spin on the ball that it kinda has a falling out.

When you add lead @ 12 o'clock, you are affecting the racquet balance, making it head-heavy, that's why you're having trouble brushing the ball. Remove the lead & apply it @ 6 o'clock (throat) instead. You will add more swingweight, without affecting the racquet overall balance too much.

Read this:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/Customizing/customize.html

PurePrestige
04-04-2006, 08:10 AM
I dunno really about the swingweight being the right issue. I can swing both the racquet without lead and the racquet with at the same speed. It's just the reaction when it comes into contact with the stringbed is off somehow.

I added the weight so that I could hit deep with more spin, this way I wouldnt have to sacrifice power to hit with more spin. It works great for most shots. It's just that now, it can only hit deep. Not that the racquet speed is too slow or whatnot, it just seems that the ball always goes deep into the court. Not that it goes long, just its always hit deep.

The reverse forehand even works and that requires alot of just flicking the racquet around. So i'm not exactly sure. Adding weight at 6 oclock might work, i'll give that a try too in addition to 3&9.

What about adding weight at 12 and counter weighting at the butt cap. What kind of effect would that have?

ask1ed
04-04-2006, 08:30 AM
You've got too much lead on, hence the deep shots only. TAke most of it off, go to 3-9, and put some on top of grip, so the total is cut by 1/2 what you're using now.

Midlife crisis
04-04-2006, 09:15 AM
I dunno really about the swingweight being the right issue. I can swing both the racquet without lead and the racquet with at the same speed. It's just the reaction when it comes into contact with the stringbed is off somehow.

I added the weight so that I could hit deep with more spin, this way I wouldnt have to sacrifice power to hit with more spin. It works great for most shots. It's just that now, it can only hit deep. Not that the racquet speed is too slow or whatnot, it just seems that the ball always goes deep into the court. Not that it goes long, just its always hit deep.

The reverse forehand even works and that requires alot of just flicking the racquet around. So i'm not exactly sure. Adding weight at 6 oclock might work, i'll give that a try too in addition to 3&9.

What about adding weight at 12 and counter weighting at the butt cap. What kind of effect would that have?

You can't have the same swingpath for a deep ball as a short ball. If you're trying to dip the ball with heavy topspin, you have to have a more vertical racquet path and a less horizontal one, and the opposite for a deeper groundstroke. If swinging your racquet at the weight it is, is not a problem, then alter your swingpath and see if you can make it work.

Bungalo Bill
04-04-2006, 07:51 PM
Adding weight to the shot is not possible without reducing some spin generation. But there is a better way to maximize the efficiency of the weight:

What in the world are you talking about? :confused: A player who increases the mass of their racquet and swing weight of their racquet will INDEED increase their ability to put more spin on the ball. This is because the racquet crushes through the ball and the strings grab the ball better.

A player simply needs to understand how he wants to balance the racquet. In many cases, players with head heavy racquets want to add weight on the tail to rebalance or even out the balance of their racquet. Players with head light racquets usually want to add weight to the head of the racquet like Sampras.

Adding weight to the entire length of the handle is the way to go if you want to add weight to the shot without sacrificing as much spin. But It will take a lot more weight to achieve the desired effect, perhaps an ounce or 2.

This is sad, I am not even going to comment on this, read and learn Einstein.
The Effect of Mass and of Swingweight
More mass is definitely better. More swingweight (moment of inertia) is also definitely better. The touring pros, in customizing their racquets, add mass and increase swingweight, because they know from personal experience what really works. Their customized racquets bite on the ball more, so they are able to generate heavy spin on their forehands (http://muttley.ucdavis.edu/Tennis/Project/usspin-04.html) and serves (http://muttley.ucdavis.edu/Tennis/Project/usspin-07.html). Pete Sampras' heavily customized Wilson Pro Staff 85 (a modification of the legendary St. Vincent ProStaff, which is no longer in production) weighs 14 ounces, about the same as the old woodies, but much heavier than the heaviest racquets marketed to the public these days.

See the full article here: http://www.racquetresearch.com/

Midlife crisis
04-04-2006, 09:29 PM
What in the world are you talking about? :confused: A player who increases the mass of their racquet and swing weight of their racquet will INDEED increase their ability to put more spin on the ball. This is because the racquet crushes through the ball and the strings grab the ball better.

RSI published this article:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200501/200501tension.html

of which the second paragraph under the section titled "Spin" says:

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball-racquet impact can easily be measured. This has been done at the University of Sheffield in England, and the results showed that the spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension or string type. In that testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, sticky, and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

Besides, if it were simply a matter of crushing the balls against the string, that can be accomplished with the lightest of racquets by swinging it fast enough. As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.

travlerajm
04-04-2006, 10:07 PM
I agree with you, midlife. That article about string type vs spin proves that it's a myth that strings make a difference in the bite. Thinner gauge does increase spin noticeably, but that's only because it lightens the stringbed by a few grams - not because the strings bite the ball more. The lighter swingweight results in faster acceleration of the racquet head. The tests on the strings were done with a rigidly clamped racquet, so changes in swingweight could not be noticed by the test.

And I agree that the racquetresearch.com paragraph quoted by Bungalo is BS. There is good information to be mined on racquetresearch.com, but you need to be able to filter out the stuff the guy pulls out of his *** without testing it on practice.

jonolau
04-04-2006, 10:16 PM
Besides, if it were simply a matter of crushing the balls against the string, that can be accomplished with the lightest of racquets by swinging it fast enough. As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.
Hmmm .... quite a dangerous statement.

You will have to swing an extremely light racquet significantly harder and faster in order to achieve the same amount of contact pressure as compared to a heavier racquet ....

Imagine doing that for 1-2 hours in a tournament - you'd be totally wasted and probably need medical treatment for arm injury and exhaustion!

Midlife crisis
04-04-2006, 10:35 PM
I agree with you, midlife. That article about string type vs spin proves that it's a myth that strings make a difference in the bite. Thinner gauge does increase spin noticeably, but that's only because it lightens the stringbed by a few grams - not because the strings bite the ball more. The lighter swingweight results in faster acceleration of the racquet head. The tests on the strings were done with a rigidly clamped racquet, so changes in swingweight could not be noticed by the test.

And I agree that the racquetresearch.com paragraph quoted by Bungalo is BS. There is good information to be mined on racquetresearch.com, but you need to be able to filter out the stuff the guy pulls out of his *** without testing it on practice.

I don't know how racquetresearch.com came up with their conclusions, but I understand that the research done at Sheffield University and quoted in the RSI article I cited used high speed video equipment. Since you have known frame rates with that kind of equipment, it's not hard to determine spin rates to high degrees of accuracy.

I purchased the book "Technical Tennis" hoping it would have more information, but it only glosses over ths subject by stating it as fact without any citations to back it up (it's on pages 130 and 131 of the book).

Personally, I believe there is one time when highly textured strings can provide increased spin, but it seems to only be on extreme, skimming type shots where you have maximum racquet head speed but only generate very low ball speeds. When I used the Aramid Gear strings, it seemed to produce quite a bit more spin on this shot than with Problend or any other poly, nylon, or multifilament string I've used. I could still be doing something with that one string to have made that so, but for me the difference was quite significant, as was the amount of fuzz that would get sheared off the ball with that string.

Midlife crisis
04-04-2006, 10:39 PM
Hmmm .... quite a dangerous statement.

You will have to swing an extremely light racquet significantly harder and faster in order to achieve the same amount of contact pressure as compared to a heavier racquet ....

Imagine doing that for 1-2 hours in a tournament - you'd be totally wasted and probably need medical treatment for arm injury and exhaustion!

Not really. If you take a 9 ounce racquet that is several points head heavy, it is basically equivalent in weight in the hoop as about an 11 ounce, slightly headlight racquet. Compared to a 12 1/2 ounce, even more headlight "player's" racquet, the difference in mass at the hoop may be as little as 10%, which means that it only needs to be moving 10% faster to have the same kinetic energy. I don't think swinging 10% hard in and of itself is dangerous. Bad technique, yes. More vibrations/shock, possibly yes. Swinging 10% hard, not likely, or at least not as likely as the first two.

monologuist
04-04-2006, 10:41 PM
RSI published this article:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200501/200501tension.html

of which the second paragraph under the section titled "Spin" says:

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball-racquet impact can easily be measured. This has been done at the University of Sheffield in England, and the results showed that the spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension or string type. In that testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, sticky, and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

Besides, if it were simply a matter of crushing the balls against the string, that can be accomplished with the lightest of racquets by swinging it fast enough. As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.

well, there are two things being overlooked here:
1. String movement : strings are believed to have an effect on the amount of spin imparted b/c some strings move more than others upon impact...That's one of the reason why the pros have been switching to Luxilon...they hardly move at all.
2. While this is more of an indirect effect of using a stiffer string, some people feel that the reduction in power encourage the player to generate greater racquet-head speed and hence hit with more spin...as is the case with overly powerful frames, players tend to be afraid to swing their racquets as fast for fear of loss of control over their shots (usually that they will go long). Of course, the converse argument is that players using more powerful frames or strings learn to impart greater spin on their shots in order to prevent hitting long...

regarding the original post, I would have to agree that it is basically a matter of having tipped the swingweight of your racquet too high to the point that you are not used to swinging it early or fast enough to not hit the ball late..also the increase in swingweight is probably making it more difficult for you to generate the necessary racquet-head speed to impart the amount of spin you are used to....

there is also the issue of weight distribution, and by adding weight directly at the tip, the racquet is just going to swing differently and flex differently.

bottom line is, you can either try moving the lead tape lower on the head like 10 and 2 oclock or 3 and 9 oclock (any lower and it won't have much of an impact on the stability or power of the frame, since it will be lower than where you make contact with the ball), or you can keep it the way you have it and see if you can adapt to it through practice or working out...you're probably going to have to just get used to preparing earlier or exerting more to get the racquet moving the speed it normally does, and your footwork is going to have to be better, as is usually the case when moving to a heavier-swinging frame.

jonolau
04-04-2006, 11:33 PM
Not really. If you take a 9 ounce racquet that is several points head heavy, it is basically equivalent in weight in the hoop as about an 11 ounce, slightly headlight racquet. Compared to a 12 1/2 ounce, even more headlight "player's" racquet, the difference in mass at the hoop may be as little as 10%, which means that it only needs to be moving 10% faster to have the same kinetic energy. I don't think swinging 10% hard in and of itself is dangerous. Bad technique, yes. More vibrations/shock, possibly yes. Swinging 10% hard, not likely, or at least not as likely as the first two.
Yes, you are right, I did not consider that the weight in a HH racquet is moved to the end. I was working on the assumption that the racquet balance remains and total weight is reduced.

travlerajm
04-05-2006, 12:10 AM
We all know that the ATP pros generally use heavy, headlight, and flexible racquets. But how many people actually know why? There are a couple of myths going around, so I hope this helps set the record straight.

Myth #1: Pros use heavy racquets in order to get more power and spin.

Truth #1: Pros use heavy racquets for more control. And to be more specific, pros use heavy racquets for more control when returning an opponent's shot with heavy pace and/or spin.

Explanation of Truth #1: To have good control of any shot, it is important that the ratio of the momentum of the ball to the momentum of the racquet is very small. From Physics 101, Momentum = mass x velocity. Since a slow-moving ball has low mass and low velocity, its momentum is very small. So the weight of your racquet hardly affects the ratio. So it doesn't really matter how heavy your racquet is if you play against players who never hit the ball hard.

But when the ball is coming at you at more than 100 mph, the ball has a lot of momentum. In order to make sure that your racquet has more momentum than the incoming ball, it helps to add lead to your racquet. Racquet weight is most important on volleys and returns of hard serves (where the ball's momentum is usually greater than that of the racquet). This is why doubles specialists on the tour generally play with slightly heavier racquets than baseliners who rarely come to net.


Myth #2: Pros use flexible racquets because the power level is lower, allowing them to swing faster and still keep the ball in. (I think Wilson's current SI swing speed index is to blame for this myth.)

Truth #2: Pros use flexible racquets because they can generate more topspin without having to take a steeper trajectory swingpath (assuming weight, balance, and string tension are equal.) The naturally added spin increases margin for error.

Explanation of Truth #2: Flexible racquets allow the ball to remain in contact with the stringbed for a longer period of time. That is, the dwell time is increased. Since the dwell time is longer, the racquet has more time in which to accelerate the rotation of the ball. From Physics 101, we know that change in velocity = acceleration x time. So the angular velocity of the ball is directly proportional to the dwell time. (yes, I know that this is simplied and assumes constant coefficient of friction etc.). This means that a 20% increase in dwell time will result in 20% more spin.

A good example of Truth #2 in practice is to compare the forehands of Federer and Roddick. Roddick uses a much stiffer racquet than Federer, but his forehand still has similar amount of spin. Roddick generates his heavy spin by using a very steep uppercut at the ball, while Federer is able to generate just as much spin even when his racquet never drops more than 6 inches below the contact point. Because Federer's swingpath is less steep, his forehand is much easier to time when returning high-velocity shots. It's no secret that Roddick's forehand works fine when the ball is moving slowly, but it breaks down when he needs to deal with pace. Because of his steep swingpath, he prefers to play 10 ft behind the baseline, where the ball has slowed down a lot by the time it gets to him. And Roddick's return is inferior mainly for the same reason.

travlerajm
04-05-2006, 12:30 AM
Personally, I believe there is one time when highly textured strings can provide increased spin, but it seems to only be on extreme, skimming type shots where you have maximum racquet head speed but only generate very low ball speeds. When I used the Aramid Gear strings, it seemed to produce quite a bit more spin on this shot than with Problend or any other poly, nylon, or multifilament string I've used. I could still be doing something with that one string to have made that so, but for me the difference was quite significant, as was the amount of fuzz that would get sheared off the ball with that string.

I agree with you that string surface texture can make a difference, but I'd say that the difference is small compared to the effects of throat flex and swingweight. I can't comment on Aramid Gear, since I haven't tried it, but I have indeed found that some of the polyester strings that have especially smooth surfaces have a negative impact on spin generation, to the point that the ball seems to slide right on past without any bite, requiring the addition of string-savers to add bite. I've heard that the newer polyester strings have improved rougher surfaces, but I haven't tried them. I usually stick with 16 gauge Kevlar (either Problend or Ashaway), which I find gets nice and rough once it's broken in and the outer sheath gets worn.

Bungalo Bill
04-05-2006, 11:14 AM
RSI published this article:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200501/200501tension.html

of which the second paragraph under the section titled "Spin" says:

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball-racquet impact can easily be measured. This has been done at the University of Sheffield in England, and the results showed that the spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension or string type. In that testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, sticky, and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

Besides, if it were simply a matter of crushing the balls against the string, that can be accomplished with the lightest of racquets by swinging it fast enough. As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.

KEY WORDS: As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.

NoBadMojo
04-05-2006, 12:14 PM
RSI published this article:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200501/200501tension.html

of which the second paragraph under the section titled "Spin" says:

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball-racquet impact can easily be measured. This has been done at the University of Sheffield in England, and the results showed that the spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension or string type. In that testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, sticky, and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

Besides, if it were simply a matter of crushing the balls against the string, that can be accomplished with the lightest of racquets by swinging it fast enough. As long as both the ball and racquet meet with the same energy levels and the stringbed is identical, the ball will deform identically.

I dont know if anyone saw results of a recent study where it was determined that slippery strings actually spin the ball more. this was done by putting an oily substance on the strings..it only lasted a hit or two, but did increase the spin rate. there is now talk of materials like teflon being added to strings in an effort to make them slicker and thus increase spinrate.

Midlife crisis
04-06-2006, 12:15 AM
well, there are two things being overlooked here:
1. String movement : strings are believed to have an effect on the amount of spin imparted b/c some strings move more than others upon impact...That's one of the reason why the pros have been switching to Luxilon...they hardly move at all.

The university used high frame rate cameras to measure the spin, so if string movement affects the ball (which I think it does at the initial contact but overall has no or insignificant effect) it should have been seen pretty easily. However, I don't know that they used strings which move a lot. Most likely, they used new strings which tend not to move.

Always a lot of questions to be answered by future grad students. . .

Midlife crisis
04-06-2006, 12:17 AM
I dont know if anyone saw results of a recent study where it was determined that slippery strings actually spin the ball more. this was done by putting an oily substance on the strings..it only lasted a hit or two, but did increase the spin rate. there is now talk of materials like teflon being added to strings in an effort to make them slicker and thus increase spinrate.

I'd love to see that if you can find a link for it. I don't understand the mechanism by which this might work so this finding would be interesting in that it could probably shed some light on other aspects of spin generation.

Midlife crisis
04-06-2006, 12:22 AM
I agree with you that string surface texture can make a difference, but I'd say that the difference is small compared to the effects of throat flex and swingweight. I can't comment on Aramid Gear, since I haven't tried it, but I have indeed found that some of the polyester strings that have especially smooth surfaces have a negative impact on spin generation, to the point that the ball seems to slide right on past without any bite, requiring the addition of string-savers to add bite. I've heard that the newer polyester strings have improved rougher surfaces, but I haven't tried them. I usually stick with 16 gauge Kevlar (either Problend or Ashaway), which I find gets nice and rough once it's broken in and the outer sheath gets worn.

I use Pro Poly Plasma, which is about as slick as they come, and also about as low powered as they come. This probably masks how much spin difference there might be between any types of strings, but for identical swings, it seems to produce as much spin as any other string, with ball speed and angle off the stringbed as the primary variables. I feel I can say this with a fair amount of confidence since I play fairly often with those multi-colored tennis balls, which I use to help my son get a better understanding of how much and what spin is on a ball.

NoBadMojo
04-06-2006, 06:36 AM
I'd love to see that if you can find a link for it. I don't understand the mechanism by which this might work so this finding would be interesting in that it could probably shed some light on other aspects of spin generation.

I have no link for this. I read it one of the Tennis Rags....Tennis Pro Magazine I think it was.

Kaptain Karl
04-06-2006, 10:35 AM
Remove the lead & apply it @ 6 o'clock (throat) instead. You will add more swingweight, without affecting the racquet overall balance too much.Agreed. PP - I was pretty much thinking this very thing, when reading your OP.

Through "trial & error" most of my lead has ended up inside the hoop, but at the throat, not the top of the hoop. (Also, be flexible about your top of hoop placement of lead. I have "a little" starting at 9:00 and stopping at about 11:00. This was also discovered through trial & error.)

- KK

Midlife crisis
04-06-2006, 11:57 PM
I have no link for this. I read it one of the Tennis Rags....Tennis Pro Magazine I think it was.

That's not a magazine I'm familiar with, but I'll take a look around on the 'net. It's pretty hard to imagine that if there is real science behind this (rather than it being a scam), that there's not something out there.

Thanks.