16 x 10 string pattern in Diablo Mid

Discussion in 'Strings' started by travlerajm, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I had thought about doing this for a long time but never tried it until now. Then last week a fellow TTW poster mentioned that the Tennis Professor had played around with the concept in some recent experiments. So I decided to give it try.

    I had one of my Diablo mids strung up with every other cross string skipped, to give an extremely open and spin-friendly pattern.

    Mains: Ashaway Kevlar 16 @ 35 lbs.
    Crosses: Prince Tournament Poly 16 @ 60 lbs.

    I strung the crosses much tighter than the mains to make sure that the stresses on the frame were distributed evenly to avoid any frame distortion. The Kevlar mains can stretch laterally extremely easily against the slippery poly crosses, while the tight crosses are relatively rigid to give the bed some stiffness.

    My normal setup with 16x20 pattern is the same string combo at 45/44 lbs.
    The 16x10 pattern felt slightly softer than my usual 16x20 setup.

    The frame has about 15g of mass added at 10 and 2, plus about 12g added above the handle about 10" from the butt. The butt is modified to give a grip position that shortens the effective length to 26-5/8". The effective SW is about 360. The frame plays very stiff and stable, but ordinarily not that spin-friendly with this weighting setup.

    I took it out for some serves today. There was a huge difference in rebound angle that took a while to adjust to. My first few serves were almost hitting the back fence in the air. Once I started adjusting by closing the face more, the serves started dropping with significantly more action than usual. It took very little effort to hit hard spin serves that bounce quite high against the fence. Twist serves that kick sideways were much easier to do reliably too.

    The power level is also significantly higher than with my usual setup. I hit a few groudstrokes from dropped balls, and initially had the same issue with the unexpectedly high rebound angle - I was hitting 10 feet long on the forehands from dropped balls until I adjusted by closing the face a lot. My 2hbs from dropped balls felt more natural and controlled, with welcome added grip on the ball.

    I haven't yet taken the time to tune the weight distribution against the wall like I usually do before I hit with a frame - the reduced amount of cross string reduced the SW by about 6kg-cm^2 from how I had it tuned before, so it will take a little rebalancing to get the forehand dialed in.

    I'll get it balanced and hit against a partner this weekend. I really liked this super-open pattern on serves. I'm not yet sure whether I'll like it for the other parts of my game, or whether the extra bite will prove too much of a control issue for volleys.
     
    #1
  2. Soundog

    Soundog Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    163
    Thanks Trav. I've been curious about halving the crosses as well but haven't been game to try it yet.

    the closest I got to it was in this thread : http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=276988

    I noticed the same thing about rebound angle and have found even small differences in string pattern such as exist between my Tour90's and K90's make a noticeable difference where open string patterns rebound higher.
     
    #2
  3. TW Professor

    TW Professor Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    803
    #3
  4. ronalditop

    ronalditop Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    in my room
    I would use lower tensions if the rebound angle wasn't so high. For a while I was stringing at 45lbs, it's ok when you have enough time to set up, but against super fast balls or when on the run, it just doesn't give you enough control and accuracy.
     
    #4
  5. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I hit serves again today before my partner showed, and again I really liked it.

    But then I started out with this frame for my warmup against my partner, but I wasn't adjusting very well to the extreme rebound angle on my groundies while warming up. I switched racquets after about 20 balls to keep my partner from losing patience with my sloppy shots.

    Before I give up on it, I'll take it against the wall and see if I can tune the weighting and find a way to better control the targeting.

    On a separate note, I played extremely well all around today with my highly customized O3 Red. More on this in its own thread...
     
    #5
  6. Buckethead

    Buckethead Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    I am next on trying something different.I had strung my R-22 with one less cross string due to a mistake and noticed no problem at all.So my next step was going to skip a couple of crosses, but now I am going to study this article and see what is best for my rackets.
     
    #6
  7. Larrysümmers

    Larrysümmers Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,990
    Location:
    1313 Mockingbird Lane.
    question. its legal to skip holes whether it be main or cross. as long as its it always over under. correct?
     
    #7
  8. federalprassi

    federalprassi Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    138
    how did one less cross feel?
     
    #8
  9. Buckethead

    Buckethead Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,039
    The one I missed was C-19 so it didn't make any difference at all.If you miss C-1 or C-19 nothing is gonna change since nobody hits the ball in that area.
     
    #9
  10. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I did end up stringing a 16x18 as a 16x9 shortly after I wrote the above post in 2010. But I didn't have any kevlar at the time so the experiment was a disaster. To avoid hoop distortion it's necessary to string the mains at a much lower tension than the crosses. Since kevlar is more than twice as stiff as poly, using kevlar mains at about half the tension of the poly crosses would work well - the mains and crosses would be fairly equivalent in stiffness. But I strung the 16 mains at 40 pounds with a copoly and the 9 crosses at 70 with the same copoly. The result was a very high launch angle and no significant increase in spin. About 30 minutes into the playtest I noticed that the mains were getting stuck out of place, they were "moving", a clear indication that they were failing to snapback and generate extra spin. We know, from the research done by Tennis Warehouse University's Professor, exactly why this happens: In this case, the copoly mains were sliding too far out of line and were failing to snapback. This results in poor spin and a very high, uncontrollable, launch angle. The mains were simply not stiff enough and slid way too far out of line.

    Wilson has corrected this problem with their 16x15 pattern racquets by building the frame to handle the strange stress of fewer cross strings without distorting. So the crosses and mains can be strung at the same tensions. I would still think that stiffer or tighter mains in a 16x15 would be a good idea, as Wilson has stated that the mains in a 16x15 pattern slide along the crosses more than twice as far as they do in a 16x19.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
    #10
  11. 2ndServe

    2ndServe Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    981
    Any update on this, seems the steam has employed a similar theory.
     
    #11
  12. UCSF2012

    UCSF2012 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,923
    This thread invalidates Wilson's patent application. It shows that the concept was discovered long before they filed for a patent, so it invalidates the novelty requirement for a new patent.
     
    #12
  13. ART ART

    ART ART Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Where do you think they are getting so many "ideas" this days? ...

    This forum as become one "must see" for all brands these days... not only racket/products, but all other stuff related to tennis ...

    All over the globe, tennis fans are connected here, and guess what?... In the ATP/WTA everyone's talking about this forum, so...
     
    #13
  14. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Are you sure of this?

    And do you know how a person could contact the patent office and inform them of this "prior art"?
     
    #14
  15. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I've got a 20x23 Pro Kennex Micro 95 on the way that I'll string up as an 18 x 13 with kevlar mains and copoly crosses. I'm hoping the large number of mains will provide a consistent response.
     
    #15
  16. UCSF2012

    UCSF2012 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,923
    Leave it up to Bab, Prince, Head, etc to challenge the patent in court.

    The rule is that the invention has to be novel, or new. Section 1.18, if I remember the law correctly. If it existed prior to the patent appliation, the patent is invalid if granted. Actually, you have 1 yr from the date of discovery to patent it. Since this thread is from 2010, it's one indication that the knowledge existed already. Thus, Wilson's Spin Effect technology isn't patentable. Problem is that it'll be about 3 years before the patent will be granted, assuming it gets granted.

    The patent may be granted, but it will likely be deemed invalid if challenged in court.

    You don't need to contact the USPTO. Their patent examiners research through tons of documents to see if the invention is patentable. If they're wrong and grant the patent anyway, then it's up to the other companies to challenge the patent in court. That's how it works.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
    #16
  17. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,302
    That's how its not working.

    Too many specious patent claims and too few examiners equals a system that runs a government backed monopoly for corporate profiteers with the consumer paying for the pleasure.
     
    #17
  18. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Thanks for the explanation! Now, the TW Professor did experiments with various stringing patterns and concluded in this paper that fewer cross strings allowed the main strings to slide and snapback with more vigor, producing more spin. I would have thought that such research would be fair game for another party to patent, if the Professor did not. But it seems that you are saying it would not be.
     
    #18
  19. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Hey Corners

    Thanks for showing me this thread!

    I have 4 options for cross strings that are 16g or larger for my 14x9 pog

    Leona 66
    Gut
    Monogut zx
    Wislon Shockshield

    Oh and I do have some 16g poly that came with the stringer. Gamma stuff.

    And tons of copoly 18g, like Prince Premier, wilson nxt, mosquito bite, etc.

    What is the best choice given what I have?

    Kevlar will be the mains at 32 and crosses at say 50. Are those tensions OK? Normally do 32/32 so 50+ for the crosses should counterbalance skipping crosses.

    DO those tensions sound right to you.?
     
    #19
  20. g4driver

    g4driver Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,728
    Corners,

    Thanks for your post.

    It seems if Wilson is using 18x16 in the Six.One 95 and the Blade 98S, they might consider doing that with a Steam 99S & 105S.

    I had two Steam 99S frames this spring. I add leather grips to both of them, and hit with them for over 20 hours one four day weekend when I first bought them.

    I thought a better option (hoping for more control with these options)would have been to:
    A) add another cross so it was a 16x16 frame
    B) lower the stiffness on the Steam 99S
    C) A&B (What I really wanted)

    The Steam 99S does lack the desired control for many players. I am guessing due the chaotic, and inconsistence launch angles. ????

    What would be the affect on a Wilson Steam 99S if :
    A) It had a 16x16 pattern
    B) Wilson reduced the frame stiffness to mid sixty range (64-66)?

    Would both a and b would increase the control aspect of the frame?

    I get that Wilson has some type of patent on "fewer crosses than mains", but that wouldn't stop Wilson from producing a 16x16 unless someone unless had a patent on the 16 x16 would it? Prince sold 14x18 patterns in the 80s, so does someone hold a patent on a 16x16 Pattern. Prince is using 16x16 in their ESP frames coming out next week, but are they the only company who can sell 16x16 frames?

    On a sidenote: I hit with a Blade 98S demo today. Unfortunately it was strung with Volky Cyclone Mains and Natural Gut crosses. :( I have no idea why anyone puts gut in the crosses as it seem a like a complete waste. The poly main / gut cross hybrid was horrible. The Cyclone Mains moved and stayed. No snapped back, just gut fraying left and right. I put it back in my bag and played the rest of the day with a Blade 98. Much better results with a Blade 98 16x19 pattern strung with poly/multi.
     
    #20
  21. drak

    drak Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,255
    good discussion guys. I posted maybe 6-8 weeks ago how I modded an older BLX Blade 98 (black/gold model). I simply skipped every 4th cross string so the final pattern was 18X15. I had played with a 99S for a while but it bothered my arm. Having played with both I prefer my modded Blade 98 - more control, modestly less stiff, and very good spin. The spin is not 99S levels but is still very good (noticeably better than stock), the string bed is softened nicely and another benefit is with the 18 mains the strings last a lot longer in my experience.
    I am still messing with string combos but this racket plays very, very nicely like this.
     
    #21
  22. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I'm going to try this on a PDR 2012.

    However, instead of skipping every other cross from head to throat - I'll skip every other cross near the center of the frame, where the ball impacts the stringbed. So, it will be closer to 16x14.

    The additional crosses should stiffen the stringbed a bit and reduce the rebound angle.
     
    #22
  23. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    If I read that right it will be illegal. IIRC you have to be consistent through the whole frame and that is why people skip from top or bottom.
     
    #23
  24. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I don't play tournaments so I'm sure it will be fine ;)
     
    #24
  25. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Good.

    I have a different circle I think and some of the people I know would hassle me about that if they figured it out. I can see it now. One of my buddys would go on and on about how I had to resort to using an ILLEGAL racket in hopes of beating him...:)
     
    #25
  26. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I would go with the thickest poly you have. The cross must have a hard and slippery surface, ruling out all the nylon strings you've got. Zx would be interesting, as it has such a surface, but it's so flexible I think it would suck in such an open pattern.

    As far as tension, I'd take a close look at what travlerajm did with his very similar Diablo. He plays with heavy sticks with very high swingweights, though, so unless you play with similar you might want to drop tension a little bit from what he did.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2013
    #26
  27. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    I think one extra cross string wouldn't have a great effect, but that effect would be to increase the total friction on the mains by about 1/16th, which would slow down their sideways sliding ever so slightly. At very low tensions this might be a good thing, but at high tensions it might disable the snapback mechanism.
    [QUOTE/]B) Wilson reduced the frame stiffness to mid sixty range (64-66)?

    I don't know if this would have a big effect. I believe that stiffer frames actually direct more energy into stretching the strings than do flexible frames, and I think this is why Wilson went with a stiff frame in their first Spin Effect racquet. They wanted to make sure that snapback happened for their customers, that they could really experience the whole point of the technology. I think this is also why they went with pretty hefty swingweights in both the Steam 99S and Steam 105S, as higher swingweight also results in more stretching of the strings. I think they also reckoned that the reduced stringbed stiffness that comes with having fewer strings in the pattern would offset the stiffness, and result in a frame that was comfortable enough for most players. But how much of a difference, really, is there between 69 and 64 stiffness? Can be a pretty big difference in terms of feel, but I'm not sure how important it is in terms of stringbed dynamics.

    Maybe, but it really depends on a whole bunch of things, to my mind. Anyone interested in these patterns should really read this paper by the TW Professor: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinandstiffness.php

    Especially pay attention to the Conclusion where the Prof breaks down the "Goldilocks Principles" of extremely open patterns and slippery strings. This paper was very important to the history of Wilson's development of the Spin Effect racquets, in my opinion. And a good understanding of this paper will help a player in learning how to optimize the performance of such racquets, particularly in regards to figuring out which strings and which tensions result in stringbeds where the mains move freely, but also don't move too much. It's good to keep in mind what these patterns really are: they are attempts to replicate spaghetti strings within the current Rules of Tennis. Spaghetti strings were superior, as 1) the crosses and mains were unwoven, so interstring friction was essentially zero, and 2) the mains were tied together so that no gaps between them form. These gaps, which appear when the mains move too much, as explained in the above paper, result in a counter-topspin torque that also increases the rebound angle. Matching the right strings at the right tensions for a particular very open pattern is key to finding the Goldilocks sweetspot of just enough string movement, but not too much.

    As far as I know, Wilson has not got this patent yet, and according to the poster above, they are unlikely to. I think it will end up being an "everything goes" scenario in this space until the ITF limits it someday.

    Yeah, you experienced the reason why gut crosses is not a good idea if you want a freely moving stringed - those frays just constrain the mains, no matter how slippery they are.
     
    #27
  28. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ha I KNEW you were going to say that! Thanks. But man if I get hooked on Poly I'll be stringing every hour...
     
    #28
  29. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    ONe last question. If I skip the crosses I need to up the tension to compensate. Poly is pretty stiff and compared to syngut for instance do I need to up the tension as much? Or is it still a good idea?
     
    #29
  30. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Remember that with half the number of crosses you've reduced the total stringbed stiffness by at least 1/4. So 9 poly crosses will probably be less stiff than 16 nylon syngut crosses. That's one of the beauties of reducing the number of crosses - you can use full poly and not feel the sting as you would in a tight pattern.

    And yes, you've got to string the crosses tight! In such an open pattern, the crosses MUST be stiff enough to somewhat constrain the mains. With so few crosses the interstring friction is reduced so much that the mains will slide and stretch sideways very freely. If they slide too far they won't have time to snapback into position while the ball is still on the strings. If that happens, you'll get crap spin and a very high rebound angle - experiment failure, in other words. Take a look at this paper at TW University: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinandstiffness.php

    The last section of that paper, "The Role of Cross Strings", documents an experiment with a 16x10 pattern that directly relates to, and probably answers your question. See that doubling the tension of the cross strings (from 60/30 to 60/60) resulted in 40% more spin. In a conventional pattern, this might be the opposite, as with a normal number of cross stings the mains will move better if the crosses as looser. 60/60 would probably work in your 14x9 POG as well, but as we've discussed, you'd probably end up with a distorted frame, because with only 9 crosses the total main string tension will be twice as great as the total cross string tension. So going 35/60 or 40/65 is the way to go to get 1)enough stiffness in the mains (kevlar is so stiff, even at those tensions), 2) enough tension in the crosses.
     
    #30
  31. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Thanks Corners!! It makes sense.
     
    #31
  32. henman_fan

    henman_fan New User

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    93
    So multi's or gut woudn't work in a Wilson S racket, because the stringbed stiffness would be too low?
     
    #32
  33. henman_fan

    henman_fan New User

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    93
    Either as a full bed or in a hybrid.
     
    #33
  34. Shroud

    Shroud Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,347
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #34

Share This Page