IMO Kevlar/Poly >>> Full Poly

[BA10S]

Kevlar/Poly, though an uncommon string setup, has already been discussed a fair bit on these boards. However, there are still many on these boards and of course many more not on these boards who have never tried this setup for a host of reasons most of which are IMO misconceptions. I believe Kevlar/Poly (I have only tried Ashaway Kevlar BTW) offers an extremely unique combination of playing characteristics which would make it perfect for many players who have never even considered it. I have created this thread to allow members to share their experiences with Kevlar/Poly and hopefully encourage more to try this underused and underappreciated setup! I never would have thought kevlar/poly would play the way it does, and to be honest even now I can't fully explain why. It is one of those things that you have to try in order to believe. Below I will describe my own experience.

I will start off by stating that I am an 18 year old playing at the recreational level. I am a right-handed baseliner with a full-western forehand and an eastern one handed topspin backhand (meaning I don't change my grip between FH and BH and use the same side of the racquet). My strongest shot by far is my forehand, particularly the inside-out forehand. I am more comfortable hitting a slice than topspin backhand and usually hit flat first serves and kick second serves.

I first began using Kevlar/Poly after encountering frequent string breakage with full poly (I was using a leaded up Yonex RDS 001 MP 2008 at the time). The switch did help with durability, though not as much as I had hoped. Eventually I switched to my current racquet, the APD original (heavily weighted), and kept on with the Kevlar/Poly for some time before switching to a full bed of Prince Tournament Poly 16 after finding it very durable (more than Kevlar/Poly) in another racquet. For a brief time I also used Prince Tour XC 1.35 in a full bed, which I found to play slightly better than Tournament Poly with equal durability. I used these strings for several months at various low tensions (33-44 lbs) but never felt as comfortable as I did with Kevlar/Poly. Despite the better durability, even when fresh to me they both lacked the spin, control and comfort of Kevlar/Poly and also made a strange buzzing noise at contact (though this was probably the low tension) and soon after getting my own stringer I decided to give Kevlar/Poly another try.

From the first hit I remembered why I loved it so much and I haven't looked back since! Yes, this setup looses significant tension (much more than full poly in my experience), especially when the outer braid on the kevlar breaks, but remarkably for my strokes at least, control does not suffer. I find that as it ages and looses tension it becomes more spin friendly (yes, even when the strings no longer snap back well!) which allows the high rebound angle as well as depth to be easily controlled, though directional control (which I must admit is not that important for my game) does become more difficult. I also find that right before it breaks, the poly crosses are extremely thin (particularly in the sweet spot) and bagged-out (just like jo11yroger's experience) and this is why I use 1.40 mm crosses but that, to my amazement, my playing level is unaffected! About tension, I've found that no matter what tension you start with, by the time it's ready to break the string job will literally be as loose as a net! For or me the strings are 100% playable until breakage, so I prefer to string at a tension I like right away rather than stringing tighter to compensate for tension loss.

In conclusion, Kevlar/Poly is the spinniest, most comfortable, grippiest, most forgiving and best feeling setup I have ever used and I plan on sticking with it for a long time!

What are other members' experiences?

 

[comeback]

It sounds like the same results people are getting with kevlar/zx in other threads

 

[Shroud]

Kevlar/Poly, though an uncommon string setup, has already been discussed a fair bit on these boards. However, there are still many on these boards and of course many more not on these boards who have never tried this setup for a host of reasons most of which are IMO misconceptions. I believe Kevlar/Poly (I have only tried Ashaway Kevlar BTW) offers an extremely unique combination of playing characteristics which would make it perfect for many players who have never even considered it. I have created this thread to allow members to share their experiences with Kevlar/Poly and hopefully encourage more to try this underused and underappreciated setup! I never would have thought kevlar/poly would play the way it does, and to be honest even now I can't fully explain why. It is one of those things that you have to try in order to believe. Below I will describe my own experience.

I will start off by stating that I am an 18 year old playing at the recreational level. I am a right-handed baseliner with a full-western forehand and an eastern one handed topspin backhand (meaning I don't change my grip between FH and BH and use the same side of the racquet). My strongest shot by far is my forehand, particularly the inside-out forehand. I am more comfortable hitting a slice than topspin backhand and usually hit flat first serves and kick second serves.

I first began using Kevlar/Poly after encountering frequent string breakage with full poly (I was using a leaded up Yonex RDS 001 MP 2008 at the time). The switch did help with durability, though not as much as I had hoped. Eventually I switched to my current racquet, the APD original (heavily weighted), and kept on with the Kevlar/Poly for some time before switching to a full bed of Prince Tournament Poly 16 after finding it very durable (more than Kevlar/Poly) in another racquet. For a brief time I also used Prince Tour XC 1.35 in a full bed, which I found to play slightly better than Tournament Poly with equal durability. I used these strings for several months at various low tensions (33-44 lbs) but never felt as comfortable as I did with Kevlar/Poly. Despite the better durability, even when fresh to me they both lacked the spin, control and comfort of Kevlar/Poly and also made a strange buzzing noise at contact (though this was probably the low tension) and soon after getting my own stringer I decided to give Kevlar/Poly another try.

From the first hit I remembered why I loved it so much and I haven't looked back since! Yes, this setup looses significant tension (much more than full poly in my experience), especially when the outer braid on the kevlar breaks, but remarkably for my strokes at least, control does not suffer. I find that as it ages and looses tension it becomes more spin friendly (yes, even when the strings no longer snap back well!) which allows the high rebound angle as well as depth to be easily controlled, though directional control (which I must admit is not that important for my game) does become more difficult. I also find that right before it breaks, the poly crosses are extremely thin (particularly in the sweet spot) and bagged-out (just like jo11yroger's experience) and this is why I use 1.40 mm crosses but that, to my amazement, my playing level is unaffected! About tension, I've found that no matter what tension you start with, by the time it's ready to break the string job will literally be as loose as a net! For or me the strings are 100% playable until breakage, so I prefer to string at a tension I like right away rather than stringing tighter to compensate for tension loss.

In conclusion, Kevlar/Poly is the spinniest, most comfortable, grippiest, most forgiving and best feeling setup I have ever used and I plan on sticking with it for a long time!

What are other members' experiences?

Since moving to a 110" racket i have switched from kev/zx to kev/poly because i need to string the crosses over 80lbs and zx wont do that

Agree with comeback

My fave combo is probably
Kev/ prince pro poly
Kev/ mosquitobite

Kev/mb has more bite and kev/ppp has more snapback i think.

Looking foward to kev/4g

Also a fantastic combo on the softer side if you need higher tensions than zx allows is kev/nylon. That would be the consumer reports winner as they tend to pock the cheapest options

Hard to say if i would ditch the kev/zx if i didnt have to do high tensions

Though tw had 2 for 1 pricing on prince pro poly so that pretty much decided what i will be using

I always prestretch kev and any cross i use with it to minimize tension loss

 

[BreakPoint]

Kevlar produces more spin due to its high stiffness, not because it "snaps back". It certainly doesn't "snap back" any faster nor better than poly does. Stiff strings will produce more spin due to the ball compressing (flattening) more against it, thereby allowing more strings to dig deeper or "grab" a greater amount of the surface area of the ball, so that when you brush up on the ball it adds up and puts more rotational energy on the ball resulting in more spin. This is why people feel more "bite" when they hit the ball with stiff strings like poly (more strings digging deeper into more of the surface nap of the ball as it flattens against the stringbed), and also why people hear a louder "pop" when they hit the ball with a stiff string like poly (that's the sound of the air inside the ball compressing more as the ball flattens more against the stringbed). None of this happens due to "snap back".

 

[Booger]

I will start off by stating that I am an 18 year old playing at the recreational level.

Then why play with ultra stiff strings at all?

 

[Sander001]

Kevlar/Poly, though an uncommon string setup, has already been discussed a fair bit on these boards. However, there are still many on these boards and of course many more not on these boards who have never tried this setup for a host of reasons most of which are IMO misconceptions. I believe Kevlar/Poly (I have only tried Ashaway Kevlar BTW) offers an extremely unique combination of playing characteristics which would make it perfect for many players who have never even considered it. I have created this thread to allow members to share their experiences with Kevlar/Poly and hopefully encourage more to try this underused and underappreciated setup! I never would have thought kevlar/poly would play the way it does, and to be honest even now I can't fully explain why. It is one of those things that you have to try in order to believe. Below I will describe my own experience.

I will start off by stating that I am an 18 year old playing at the recreational level. I am a right-handed baseliner with a full-western forehand and an eastern one handed topspin backhand (meaning I don't change my grip between FH and BH and use the same side of the racquet). My strongest shot by far is my forehand, particularly the inside-out forehand. I am more comfortable hitting a slice than topspin backhand and usually hit flat first serves and kick second serves.

I first began using Kevlar/Poly after encountering frequent string breakage with full poly (I was using a leaded up Yonex RDS 001 MP 2008 at the time). The switch did help with durability, though not as much as I had hoped. Eventually I switched to my current racquet, the APD original (heavily weighted), and kept on with the Kevlar/Poly for some time before switching to a full bed of Prince Tournament Poly 16 after finding it very durable (more than Kevlar/Poly) in another racquet. For a brief time I also used Prince Tour XC 1.35 in a full bed, which I found to play slightly better than Tournament Poly with equal durability. I used these strings for several months at various low tensions (33-44 lbs) but never felt as comfortable as I did with Kevlar/Poly. Despite the better durability, even when fresh to me they both lacked the spin, control and comfort of Kevlar/Poly and also made a strange buzzing noise at contact (though this was probably the low tension) and soon after getting my own stringer I decided to give Kevlar/Poly another try.

From the first hit I remembered why I loved it so much and I haven't looked back since! Yes, this setup looses significant tension (much more than full poly in my experience), especially when the outer braid on the kevlar breaks, but remarkably for my strokes at least, control does not suffer. I find that as it ages and looses tension it becomes more spin friendly (yes, even when the strings no longer snap back well!) which allows the high rebound angle as well as depth to be easily controlled, though directional control (which I must admit is not that important for my game) does become more difficult. I also find that right before it breaks, the poly crosses are extremely thin (particularly in the sweet spot) and bagged-out (just like jo11yroger's experience) and this is why I use 1.40 mm crosses but that, to my amazement, my playing level is unaffected! About tension, I've found that no matter what tension you start with, by the time it's ready to break the string job will literally be as loose as a net! For or me the strings are 100% playable until breakage, so I prefer to string at a tension I like right away rather than stringing tighter to compensate for tension loss.

In conclusion, Kevlar/Poly is the spinniest, most comfortable, grippiest, most forgiving and best feeling setup I have ever used and I plan on sticking with it for a long time!

What are other members' experiences?

After 45min or so, Ash becomes very slick and the snap back is wicked, especially with a poly cross. The tension loss is manageable due to the high stiffness so although fresh full poly gives more spin, Ash/poly gives more spin over a much longer period.

Watch your arm though, it took months for my arm to begin hurting but since it has, the pain is taking its sweet arse time in going away lol

 

[Shroud]

Kevlar produces more spin due to its high stiffness, not because it "snaps back". It certainly doesn't "snap back" any faster nor better than poly does. Stiff strings will produce more spin due to the ball compressing (flattening) more against it, thereby allowing more strings to dig deeper or "grab" a greater amount of the surface area of the ball, so that when you brush up on the ball it adds up and puts more rotational energy on the ball resulting in more spin. This is why people feel more "bite" when they hit the ball with stiff strings like poly (more strings digging deeper into more of the surface nap of the ball as it flattens against the stringbed), and also why people hear a louder "pop" when they hit the ball with a stiff string like poly (that's the sound of the air inside the ball compressing more as the ball flattens more against the stringbed). None of this happens due to "snap back".

Its a great theory but it doesnt explain the feeling of more spin from kev/ prince pro poly vs kev/ mosquitobite. Kev/mb should get more spin due to the thinner gauge (18vs16) grabbing the ball more especially if the the ert reports the same dt of 52. Yet the prince is smoother and certainly feels spinnier.

And iirc one of the spinniest setups is gut/ poly which imho blows your theory out of the water

 

[BreakPoint]

Its a great theory but it doesnt explain the feeling of more spin from kev/ prince pro poly vs kev/ mosquitobite. Kev/mb should get more spin due to the thinner gauge (18vs16) grabbing the ball more especially if the the ert reports the same dt of 52. Yet the prince is smoother and certainly feels spinnier.

And iirc one of the spinniest setups is gut/ poly which imho blows your theory out of the water

If gut/poly produces spin, it's because gut is so much more powerful than poly that it forces you to put more spin on the ball to keep it inside the court. Just like the low power of poly makes one swing harder and faster to get the ball deep, but by swinging harder and faster you also put more spin on the ball. These are also factors that add to the spin.

Thicker gauge strings are usually stiffer than thinner gauge strings (all else being equal), which causes the ball to flatten even more against the stringbed. Look at Nadal. He puts more spin on the ball than anyone and he uses a thick 15 gauge string. Besides, Prince Poly Pro and WC Mosquito Bite are not even the same string. What's the difference in stiffness between the two? And does "feel spinnier" translate to actually being spinnier?

 

[comeback]

interesting opinions on what really cause more spin..in my case Gut mains/zx crosses is the least amount of spin behind #1 Kevlar/zx and#2 poly/zx..One more thing i just discovered is that using 18g ashaway kevlar mains is significantly less weight than Gut or poly mains..So i think my manuverability and racket head speed is better thus possibly producing more spin..

 

[BreakPoint]

interesting opinions on what really cause more spin..in my case Gut mains/zx crosses is the least amount of spin behind #1 Kevlar/zx and#2 poly/zx..One more thing i just discovered is that using 18g ashaway kevlar mains is significantly less weight than Gut or poly mains..So i think my manuverability and racket head speed is better thus possibly producing more spin..

That makes total sense as you are using the same cross string so that you can make a fair comparison. Kevlar is stiffer than poly which is stiffer than gut, so that it make sense that you get the most spin from Kevlar, then from poly, then the least from gut.

Zx is a very slippery cross, so if the spin came from "snap back", you should get as much spin from gut/zx as from gut/poly, but you don't because the poly cross is much stiffer than the zx cross. It's the stiffness of the poly cross that's giving you more spin.

 

[2ndServe]

Why do people consider kevlar a stiff string. It's a board like feeling string (dead feeling) but it's pretty soft after the first hour. Just stringing it, it's the softest string I've handled. Super flexible and you can barely push it through the last tie off strings without it bending completely.

 

[BreakPoint]

Why do people consider kevlar a stiff string. It's a board like feeling string (dead feeling) but it's pretty soft after the first hour. Just stringing it, it's the softest string I've handled. Super flexible and you can barely push it through the last tie off strings without it bending completely.

Look at Kevlar's stiffness ratings (at bottom of chart). They are more than twice as stiff as poly.

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2012/01/string_selector_2012.html

 

[2ndServe]

Source seems ok but as a Kevlar user for over 20 and real world use I have some qualms about that. At what tension? Kevlar at 30 lbs is among the softest, 40's also. Just pick it up and string it. It's easily the most pliable string and people who have strung it and tried getting it through a tie off hole might concur.

 

[njhmusicman]

Kevlar/Poly, though an uncommon string setup, has already been discussed a fair bit on these boards. However, there are still many on these boards and of course many more not on these boards who have never tried this setup for a host of reasons most of which are IMO misconceptions. I believe Kevlar/Poly (I have only tried Ashaway Kevlar BTW) offers an extremely unique combination of playing characteristics which would make it perfect for many players who have never even considered it. I have created this thread to allow members to share their experiences with Kevlar/Poly and hopefully encourage more to try this underused and underappreciated setup! I never would have thought kevlar/poly would play the way it does, and to be honest even now I can't fully explain why. It is one of those things that you have to try in order to believe. Below I will describe my own experience.

I will start off by stating that I am an 18 year old playing at the recreational level. I am a right-handed baseliner with a full-western forehand and an eastern one handed topspin backhand (meaning I don't change my grip between FH and BH and use the same side of the racquet). My strongest shot by far is my forehand, particularly the inside-out forehand. I am more comfortable hitting a slice than topspin backhand and usually hit flat first serves and kick second serves.

I first began using Kevlar/Poly after encountering frequent string breakage with full poly (I was using a leaded up Yonex RDS 001 MP 2008 at the time). The switch did help with durability, though not as much as I had hoped. Eventually I switched to my current racquet, the APD original (heavily weighted), and kept on with the Kevlar/Poly for some time before switching to a full bed of Prince Tournament Poly 16 after finding it very durable (more than Kevlar/Poly) in another racquet. For a brief time I also used Prince Tour XC 1.35 in a full bed, which I found to play slightly better than Tournament Poly with equal durability. I used these strings for several months at various low tensions (33-44 lbs) but never felt as comfortable as I did with Kevlar/Poly. Despite the better durability, even when fresh to me they both lacked the spin, control and comfort of Kevlar/Poly and also made a strange buzzing noise at contact (though this was probably the low tension) and soon after getting my own stringer I decided to give Kevlar/Poly another try.

From the first hit I remembered why I loved it so much and I haven't looked back since! Yes, this setup looses significant tension (much more than full poly in my experience), especially when the outer braid on the kevlar breaks, but remarkably for my strokes at least, control does not suffer. I find that as it ages and looses tension it becomes more spin friendly (yes, even when the strings no longer snap back well!) which allows the high rebound angle as well as depth to be easily controlled, though directional control (which I must admit is not that important for my game) does become more difficult. I also find that right before it breaks, the poly crosses are extremely thin (particularly in the sweet spot) and bagged-out (just like jo11yroger's experience) and this is why I use 1.40 mm crosses but that, to my amazement, my playing level is unaffected! About tension, I've found that no matter what tension you start with, by the time it's ready to break the string job will literally be as loose as a net! For or me the strings are 100% playable until breakage, so I prefer to string at a tension I like right away rather than stringing tighter to compensate for tension loss.

In conclusion, Kevlar/Poly is the spinniest, most comfortable, grippiest, most forgiving and best feeling setup I have ever used and I plan on sticking with it for a long time!

What are other members' experiences?

What Kevlar/Poly setup are you using now? And at what tension?

 

[BA10S]

Thanks for the responses everyone!

What Kevlar/Poly setup are you using now? And at what tension?

Hi,

I am using the setup currently in my signature: Ashaway Kevlar 1.30/Prince Tour XC 1.40 (Yellow) @ 40 lbs. I string it on a Klippermate and do not pre-stretch either the mains or crosses.

 

[Sander001]

Its a great theory but it doesnt explain the feeling of more spin from kev/ prince pro poly vs kev/ mosquitobite. Kev/mb should get more spin due to the thinner gauge (18vs16) grabbing the ball more especially if the the ert reports the same dt of 52. Yet the prince is smoother and certainly feels spinnier.

And iirc one of the spinniest setups is gut/ poly which imho blows your theory out of the water

Correct. The highest spin ever measured was from a gut/poly combo.

 

[BA10S]

Source seems ok but as a Kevlar user for over 20 and real world use I have some qualms about that. At what tension? Kevlar at 30 lbs is among the softest, 40's also. Just pick it up and string it. It's easily the most pliable string and people who have strung it and tried getting it through a tie off hole might concur.

You're definitely correct about Ashaway Kevlar being very pliable/floppy. Other Kevlars which don't have a braided structure and have thicker nylon coatings are probably less so.

However, the stiffness measurements (in lbs per inch) attempt to show how much a string stretches longitudinally when impacted. This is independent of how pliable a string is. Of course, these measurements depend on multiple factors, so the results shown are for a 12 inch long piece of string tensioned at 62 lbs and subjected to conditions equivalent to a 120 mph serve. Different strings will behave very similarly relative to one another with other tensions, string lengths, swing speeds etc., so the results are perfectly valid for comparison purposes. The final measurement describes how many pounds of longitudinal force (measured by tension increase during impact) are needed in order to stretch a string one inch longitudinally under the conditions above (strings measure stiffer at higher swingspeeds).

 

[BreakPoint]

You're definitely correct about Ashaway Kevlar being very pliable/floppy. Other Kevlars which don't have a braided structure and have thicker nylon coatings are probably less so.

However, the stiffness measurements (in lbs per inch) attempt to show how much a string stretches longitudinally when impacted. This is independent of how pliable a string is. Of course, these measurements depend on multiple factors, so the results shown are for a 12 inch long piece of string tensioned at 62 lbs and subjected to conditions equivalent to a 120 mph serve. Different strings will behave very similarly relative to one another with other tensions, string lengths, swing speeds etc., so the results are perfectly valid for comparison purposes. The final measurement describes how many pounds of longitudinal force (measured by tension increase during impact) are needed in order to stretch a string one inch longitudinally under the conditions above (strings measure stiffer at higher swingspeeds).

Yup. Ashaway Kevlar 1.30mm has a stiffness rating of 764 lbs/in, which is crazy stiff. Compare that to poly strings, which have an average stiffness of around 250 lbs/in. That makes Kevlar more than 3 times as stiff as poly!

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2012/01/string_selector_2012.html

 

[BreakPoint]

Source seems ok but as a Kevlar user for over 20 and real world use I have some qualms about that. At what tension? Kevlar at 30 lbs is among the softest, 40's also. Just pick it up and string it. It's easily the most pliable string and people who have strung it and tried getting it through a tie off hole might concur.

But stringbed stiffness is what's relevant, not how pliable it is when stringing. And Kevlar stringbeds are VERY stiff. Lots of people developing arm problems from playing with Kevlar strings would attest to that. That's one reason why they never became all that popular.

 

[BreakPoint]

Correct. The highest spin ever measured was from a gut/poly combo.

Then why doesn't gut/zx produce just as much spin as gut/poly? Isn't zx just as slippery as poly as a cross?

 

[travlerajm]

I'm convinced that both stiffness and freedom for mains to slide with low friction in the plane of the stringbed are significant factors to spin potential. But having long dwell time is probably more important than both of these factors (tho I personally advocate a setup with short dwell time).

Interesting aside: Probably the closest thing to spaghetti-string level spin I've ever gotten was old broken-in kevlar/poly, where the kevlar had lost a lot of tension, but the Prince Tournament Poly crosses had dropped in tension a whole lot more than the kevlar. It was kind of a novelty item - so much spin that it was impossible to hit a flat shot - even volleys came off the stringbed greasy and curving:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-supergrippy-racquet-feels-a-bit-unfair.279680/

Another fun way to create amazing spin (with super long dwell time) is to start with a low static weight 9.5-oz. hammer weighted type frame, then tailweight it up to 12 or 13 ounces so the balance point is super-duper headlight (around 11 inches). This can take a racquet that ordinarily is crisp and very un-spin-friendly (my Wilson Hammer Titanium 5.0 OS, for example) and turn it into a racquet that spins the ball like the super-grippy one described above, even when strung with a very conventional stringbed (like kevlar/nylon and low-mid tension). Another novelty item I stumbled into 10 years ago with lead tape experimentation. It proved to me that weight distribution can trump everything (including string type) when it comes to spin-potential factors if you take it to the extremes.

 

[Sander001]

Then why doesn't gut/zx produce just as much spin as gut/poly? Isn't zx just as slippery as poly as a cross?

Nope, not even close.

 

[BA10S]

I'm convinced that both stiffness and freedom for mains to slide with low friction in the plane of the stringbed are significant factors to spin potential. But having long dwell time is probably more important than both of these factors (tho I personally advocate a setup with short dwell time).

Interesting aside: Probably the closest thing to spaghetti-string level spin I've ever gotten was old broken-in kevlar/poly, where the kevlar had lost a lot of tension, but the Prince Tournament Poly crosses had dropped in tension a whole lot more than the kevlar. It was kind of a novelty item - so much spin that it was impossible to hit a flat shot - even volleys came off the stringbed greasy and curving:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-supergrippy-racquet-feels-a-bit-unfair.279680/

Another fun way to create amazing spin (with super long dwell time) is to start with a low static weight 9.5-oz. hammer weighted type frame, then tailweight it up to 12 or 13 ounces so the balance point is super-duper headlight (around 11 inches). This can take a racquet that ordinarily is crisp and very un-spin-friendly (my Wilson Hammer Titanium 5.0 OS, for example) and turn it into a racquet that spins the ball like the super-grippy one described above, even when strung with a very conventional stringbed (like kevlar/nylon and low-mid tension). Another novelty item I stumbled into 10 years ago with lead tape experimentation. It proved to me that weight distribution can trump everything (including string type) when it comes to spin-potential factors if you take it to the extremes.

Agree with everything here. Especially the comment about dwell time. Well-worn Kevlar/Poly which has lost a lot of tension has a greater feeling of dwell time than anything else I've tried. I can't explain why, given how stiff Kevlar and Poly are, but what amazes me is even though the snap-back effect has reduced significantly, the spin level is undoubtedly greater than when fresh.

I also have my frame setup (though not quite as extreme as your example) to increase dwell with a highly polarized weight distribution with lots of mass on the buttcap and bottom half of the handle as well as the upper hoop. This, in addition to my high swingweight (388 kg*cm^2), recoil weight (208 kg*cm^2), twistweight and grippy Kevlar mains in a high dwell string setup, produces a racquet that grabs and spins the ball wonderfully even with ultra steep swings and off centre shots. This is IMO where the "forgiveness" comes from. I love the feeling of high dwell, though its benefits certainly come at the expense of directional control. Since I rarely volley and my game certainly isn't based on pinpoint accuracy, for me this trade off is well worth it. As a player you need to decide what level of dwell time works for your game and set your racquet up accordingly.

 

[BA10S]

One thing I have noticed is that both the Kevlar and Poly strings attract a fair bit of dirt after play. My thinking is that this is a result of the braided structure of the Kevlar and the static produced by the poly crosses during play. While this does not seem to have a huge impact on performance, it does appear to affect snap-back and reduce comfort slightly.

Also, the same thing happened with both mains and crosses when I was using full poly (though the negative impact this had at the time was far greater, I suspect due to the high reliance on snap-back and lateral string movement for spin and comfort).

I was just wondering whether anyone else here had experienced the same thing?

 

[BreakPoint]

Nope, not even close.

Then where does all the spin from Kevlar/zx come from? We all know Kevlar is not slippery, especially compared to poly. In fact, full Kevlar will give you very crooked stringbeds.

 

[BreakPoint]

Agree with everything here. Especially the comment about dwell time. Well-worn Kevlar/Poly which has lost a lot of tension has a greater feeling of dwell time than anything else I've tried. I can't explain why, given how stiff Kevlar and Poly are, but what amazes me is even though the snap-back effect has reduced significantly, the spin level is undoubtedly greater than when fresh.

I also have my frame setup (though not quite as extreme as your example) to increase dwell with a highly polarized weight distribution with lots of mass on the buttcap and bottom half of the handle as well as the upper hoop. This, in addition to my high swingweight (388 kg*cm^2), recoil weight (208 kg*cm^2), twistweight and grippy Kevlar mains in a high dwell string setup, produces a racquet that grabs and spins the ball wonderfully even with ultra steep swings and off centre shots. This is IMO where the "forgiveness" comes from. I love the feeling of high dwell, though its benefits certainly come at the expense of directional control. Since I rarely volley and my game certainly isn't based on pinpoint accuracy, for me this trade off is well worth it. As a player you need to decide what level of dwell time works for your game and set your racquet up accordingly.

Well, since I'm not a big believer that "snap back" produces spin (too much force from the ball in the opposite direction, and the ball stays on strings for too short of a time and leaves before strings can fully snap back), my theory is that as a string wears and becomes less slippery, the strings lock in place and are able to "grab" the ball better, since they are not being pushed aside by the ball as easily. So as you brush upwards on the ball, the strings stay in place to dig into and grab the ball to put rotational force on the ball as the strings move upwards along with your swing instead of sliding out of the way downwards from the force of the ball pushing down from you upwards swing. Strings being pushed aside (down) by the ball cannot dig into and grab the entire back surface area of the flattened ball because they're no longer there behind the ball. The ball then leaves the stringbed before the strings can fully "snap back". The other thing that might increase spin is that when a string becomes less slippery, its coefficient of friction increases so that there's more frictional force between the strings and the ball so that it becomes easier for the strings to grip the ball and impart spin to it.

I think dwell time increasing spin is a very different phenomenon. I think what's happening there is that when the strings are very loose and you increase dwell time substantially, you're no longer "hitting" the ball but instead you're "catching" the ball on your stringbed and then "throwing" the ball back with spin. So more of the spin is actually coming from your throwing motion than from the strings themselves. It's like how a quarterback puts spiral spin on the football using his throwing motion.

 

[Sander001]

Then where does all the spin from Kevlar/zx come from?

The same place where most spin comes from.
Seriously, with basic questions like these I now understand why most people on this board wonder if you've ever played tennis a day in your life.

 

[BreakPoint]

The same place where most spin comes from.
Seriously, with basic questions like these I now understand why most people on this board wonder if you've ever played tennis a day in your life.

I've already explained in detail above where spin comes from. But you don't seem to know and seem to think spin comes from "snap back".

So if "snap back" is so much faster with a poly cross than with a zx cross, as you stated, why does Kevlar/zx produce so much spin, especially since Kevlar is not slippery? And why does Kevlar/zx produce even more spin than poly/zx when poly is so much more slippery than Kevlar? The answer is that, contrary to your belief, it's not the "snap back" that's producing the spin.

 

[Shroud]

I've already explained in detail above where spin comes from. But you don't seem to know and seem to think spin comes from "snap back".

So if "snap back" is so much faster with a poly cross than with a zx cross, as you stated, why does Kevlar/zx produce so much spin, especially since Kevlar is not slippery? And why does Kevlar/zx produce even more spin than poly/zx when poly is so much more slippery than Kevlar? The answer is that, contrary to your belief, it's not the "snap back" that's producing the spin.

Take a ps85 reissue string with kev/zx at 60/40. Then tell me you dont believe in snapback. You can actually feel the stringbed move and then hit a brick wall. The frame flexes on contact and then it stops suddenly and sends the ball on its way. It the archer's bow effect as unorthodox stringing calls it.

 

[BreakPoint]

Take a ps85 reissue string with kev/zx at 60/40. Then tell me you dont believe in snapback. You can actually feel the stringbed move and then hit a brick wall. The frame flexes on contact and then it stops suddenly and sends the ball on its way. It the archer's bow effect as unorthodox stringing calls it.

Oh, I believe in "snap back". I just don't believe that's what puts spin on the ball. The ball is only on the strings for less than 5ms. It takes longer than that for the main strings to snap back laterally back into their original positions (in the plane of the stringbed). Thus, the ball is long gone from the stringbed before the strings fully snap back.

Take a stopwatch and then pull your main strings to the side with your fingers as far as they will go, then let go and time how long it takes for the strings to go back to their original positions. I'd bet it's longer than 5ms (0.005 seconds). And this is without any force from the ball since as soon as you let your fingers go there's no more force being applied by your fingers. OTOH, when you hit the ball, the ball's weight and downward force on the strings from your aggressive upward swing will prevent, or at least significantly slow down the mains from snapping back laterally since the snap back force comes from the tensile force of the string which is way too small to overcome the overwhelming force from the ball.

 

[Sander001]

Take a ps85 reissue string with kev/zx at 60/40. Then tell me you dont believe in snapback. You can actually feel the stringbed move and then hit a brick wall. The frame flexes on contact and then it stops suddenly and sends the ball on its way. It the archer's bow effect as unorthodox stringing calls it.

Yup, you can definitely feel it more in some configurations. I've tried 18x10 patterns and the resulting spin is far, far beyond input.You could describe it as auto-spin. Just an incredible amount of spin, the most by far I've ever seen. Felt so soft too.

So much snapback that the strings sawed straight through in fewer than 15min. This was a real experiment, not some laughably useless finger pulling exercise.

 

[BreakPoint]

Yup, you can definitely feel it more in some configurations. I've tried 18x10 patterns and the resulting spin is far, far beyond input.You could describe it as auto-spin. Just an incredible amount of spin, the most by far I've ever seen. Felt so soft too.

So much snapback that the strings sawed straight through in fewer than 15min. This was a real experiment, not some laughably useless finger pulling exercise.

Was it a surprise to you that a more open string pattern produces more spin? Have you heard of Wilson's Spin Effect racquets? What's different about them from normal racquets?

Use a string with zero snap back, like nylon syn gut, and you'll still get more spin from an 18x10 string pattern than from an 18x20 string pattern. A more open pattern allows each string to dig deeper into the nap surface of the ball, thereby, gripping the ball better and thus imparting more rotational force to the ball as you swing the stringbed upwards.

So timing how fast a string snaps back is "useless"? Hmmm...isn't that the entire theory behind "snap back" producing spin? If the string doesn't "snap back" quickly enough before the ball leaves the stringbed, how can it put spin on the ball?

 

[Sander001]

Was it a surprise to you that a more open string pattern produces more spin? Have you heard of Wilson's Spin Effect racquets? What's different about them from normal racquets?

Use a string with zero snap back, like nylon syn gut, and you'll still get more spin from an 18x10 string pattern than from an 18x20 string pattern. A more open pattern allows each string to dig deeper into the nap surface of the ball, thereby, gripping the ball better and thus imparting more rotational force to the ball as you swing the stringbed upwards.

So timing how fast a string snaps back is "useless"? Hmmm...isn't that the entire theory behind "snap back" producing spin? If the string doesn't "snap back" quickly enough before the ball leaves the stringbed, how can it put spin on the ball?

You are very, very wrong about that. A really open pattern will not automagically produce spin as you incorrectly believe http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinandstiffness.php

Notice how the lowest spin production is from 16x10 30lbs almost always. More spin, often much more spin from 16x19 patterns, but the most spin is from a 16x10 60lbs high velocity snap back setup.

These are real experiments. Your finger pulling exercises are not.

 

[travlerajm]

Breakpoint: you are making invalid assumptions about how snapback helps generate spin.

It's been shown in the lab that a stringbed that allows freedom for the mains to slide laterally with minimal interstring friction produces more spin. But the reason is not how you seem to think.

It has to do with ball flattening. When the ball gets flattened against the stringbed, the length of the torque moment arm becomes much smaller than the radius of the ball. As the ball decompresses while the stringbed is gripping it, a significant amount of momentum is converted into rotational inertia of the ball. The decompression of the ball, combined with the rotational inertia, eventually causes the surface to the ball to move upward (for a topspin shot) faster than the surface of the stringbed during the last phase of the impact. This excess vertical ball surface velocity relative to the surface of the stringbed is called "overspin."

The more overspin remaining when the ball leaves the stringbed, the more spin.

If the stringbed is "locked", then the mainstrings will lose their grip on the ball during the overspin stage of the impact, and the sliding friction between the strings and ball will act to counter the overspin of the ball. But if the mains are free to move, then they can ride along with the surface of the ball without coutneracting the overspin. It doesn't matter how fast they "snapback" -- it just matters that they are freed to move without much friction.

So for maximum spin, you want a stringbed that is both stiff (for good ball flattening to generate overspin) AND one that allows unimpeded freedom for mainstring lateral movement (to to avoid countering the overspin effect).

 

[BreakPoint]

You are very, very wrong about that. A really open pattern will not automagically produce spin as you incorrectly believe http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinandstiffness.php

Notice how the lowest spin production is from 16x10 30lbs almost always. More spin, often much more spin from 16x19 patterns, but the most spin is from a 16x10 60lbs high velocity snap back setup.

These are real experiments. Your finger pulling exercises are not.

A 16x10 stringbed at 30lbs would make for a very soft stringbed. And like I said, what produces spin is a stiff stringbed. A 16x10 stringbed at 60lbs would make for a stiffer stringbed and that's why you get more spin from it. Even a 16x19 stringbed at 30lbs would make for a stiffer stringbed than the 16x10 stringbed at the same 30lbs. The more the ball flattens against the stringbed, the more spin you should be able to produce (all else being equal). In addition, the 16x10 stringbed is so loose and so open with such big holes in between strings that I'm surprised that the ball doesn't go right through the stringbed. LOL Being so loose and open, the ball can easily push so many strings aside that probably so few strings are left behind the ball to dig into and impart spin to the ball.

Pulling the strings with your fingers is a real experiment because it replicates both the downward lateral force on the strings and the displacement of the strings by BOTH the ball impacting the strings AND by your aggressive upward swing of your racquet. And how much force and how quickly the string snaps back is directly related to how much the string is displaced. OTOH, the experiments by TWU are actually invalid because the racquet is fixed so that the stringbed itself is completely stationary during the time the ball is on the stringbed. This means they have completely neglected the tremendous downward lateral force on the strings that comes from aggressively swinging the racquet upwards, a force that would hinder or at least significantly slow down the main strings from snapping back upwards while this force is present (ball on the strings). This additional force and displacement can be easily replicated by using your fingers to pull the strings to the side.

 

[BreakPoint]

Breakpoint: you are making invalid assumptions about how snapback helps generate spin.

It's been shown in the lab that a stringbed that allows freedom for the mains to slide laterally with minimal interstring friction produces more spin. But the reason is not how you seem to think.

It has to do with ball flattening. When the ball gets flattened against the stringbed, the length of the torque moment arm becomes much smaller than the radius of the ball. As the ball decompresses while the stringbed is gripping it, a significant amount of momentum is converted into rotational inertia of the ball. The decompression of the ball, combined with the rotational inertia, eventually causes the surface to the ball to move upward (for a topspin shot) faster than the surface of the stringbed during the last phase of the impact. This excess vertical ball surface velocity relative to the surface of the stringbed is called "overspin."

The more overspin remaining when the ball leaves the stringbed, the more spin.

If the stringbed is "locked", then the mainstrings will lose their grip on the ball during the overspin stage of the impact, and the sliding friction between the strings and ball will act to counter the overspin of the ball. But if the mains are free to move, then they can ride along with the surface of the ball without coutneracting the overspin. It doesn't matter how fast they "snapback" -- it just matters that they are freed to move without much friction.

So for maximum spin, you want a stringbed that is both stiff (for good ball flattening to generate overspin) AND one that allows unimpeded freedom for mainstring lateral movement (to to avoid countering the overspin effect).

Why would the friction between the strings and the ball act to counter the spin on the ball when both are moving in the same direction that you want (topspin). Without the friction between the strings and the ball, the strings cannot "grip" the ball to impart spin on it when you swing. And if the speed of the "snap back" does not matter, then how could "snap back" that occurs long after the ball has left the stringbed have any effect on the ball? The ball is no longer there for the "snap back" to do anything to it because the "snap back" was too slow and the ball is gone in under 5ms.

But I agree that spin has to do with the flattening of the ball on the stringbed (as I explained in detail above). And the stiffer the stringbed, the more the ball flattens, and thus the greater the spin. This is why stiff strings like Kevlar and poly produce more spin than soft strings like gut and multis do (all else being equal).

 

[Sander001]

A 16x10 stringbed at 30lbs would make for a very soft stringbed. And like I said, what produces spin is a stiff stringbed. A 16x10 stringed at 60lbs would make for a stiffer stringbed and that's why you get more spin from it. Even a 16x19 stringbed at 30lbs would make for a stiffer stringbed than the 16x10 stringbed at the same 30lbs. The more the ball flattens against the stringbed, the more spin you should be able to produce (all else being equal). In addition, the 16x10 stringbed is so loose and so open with such big holes in between strings that I'm surprised that the ball doesn't go right through the stringbed. LOL Being so loose and open, the ball can easily push so many strings aside that probably so few strings are left behind the ball to dig into and impart spin to the ball.

Pulling the strings with your fingers is a real experiment because it replicates both the downward lateral force on the strings and the displacement of the strings by BOTH the ball impacting the strings AND by your aggressive upward swing of your racquet. And how much force and how quickly the string snaps back is directly related to how much the string is displaced. OTOH, the experiments by TWU are actually invalid because the racquet is fixed so that the stringbed itself is completely stationary during the time the ball is on the stringbed. This means they have completely neglected the tremendous downward lateral force on the strings that comes from aggressively swinging the racquet upwards, a force that would hinder or at least significantly slow down the main strings from snapping back upwards while this force is present (ball on the strings). This additional force and displacement can be easily replicated by using your fingers to pull the strings to the side.

Good to see you changing your theory from just 2 posts ago, big step! A little ways to go; you're almost there!

 

[BreakPoint]

Good to see you changing your theory from just 2 posts ago, big step! A little ways to go; you're almost there!

I haven't changed my theory. I've always maintained that a stiffer stringbed produces more spin (all else being equal) and that a more open string pattern (up to a point) with the same stringbed stiffness will produce more spin (all else being equal). And what I mean by "up to a point" is that, for example, a 2x4 string pattern is not going to produce much spin because the ball will go right through the stringbed! LOL

 

[BA10S]

Breakpoint: you are making invalid assumptions about how snapback helps generate spin.

It's been shown in the lab that a stringbed that allows freedom for the mains to slide laterally with minimal interstring friction produces more spin. But the reason is not how you seem to think.

It has to do with ball flattening. When the ball gets flattened against the stringbed, the length of the torque moment arm becomes much smaller than the radius of the ball. As the ball decompresses while the stringbed is gripping it, a significant amount of momentum is converted into rotational inertia of the ball. The decompression of the ball, combined with the rotational inertia, eventually causes the surface to the ball to move upward (for a topspin shot) faster than the surface of the stringbed during the last phase of the impact. This excess vertical ball surface velocity relative to the surface of the stringbed is called "overspin."

The more overspin remaining when the ball leaves the stringbed, the more spin.

If the stringbed is "locked", then the mainstrings will lose their grip on the ball during the overspin stage of the impact, and the sliding friction between the strings and ball will act to counter the overspin of the ball. But if the mains are free to move, then they can ride along with the surface of the ball without coutneracting the overspin. It doesn't matter how fast they "snapback" -- it just matters that they are freed to move without much friction.

So for maximum spin, you want a stringbed that is both stiff (for good ball flattening to generate overspin) AND one that allows unimpeded freedom for mainstring lateral movement (to to avoid countering the overspin effect).

Very, very good explanation. This is definitely 100% consistent with my experience. While well-worn Kevlar/poly often does not "snap back" fully, this is due to the mains not having enough tension and not too high inter-string friction. While I could definitely always feel an increase in spin with low inter-string friction setups, I always found the idea of strings "snapping back" and supplying the ball with extra torque difficult to believe, for the same reasons BreakPoint mentioned. Up until now though, unable to think of a better explanation and influenced by the TWU research, I had accept the theory.

 

[travlerajm]

Why would the friction between the strings and the ball act to counter the spin on the ball when both are moving in the same direction that you want (topspin)?

There are four distinct phases of the impact, all occuring within the ~5mm span of the the impact.

Phase 1: Racquet stringbed surface is moving upward faster than the surface of the ball. The stringbed exerts an upward vertical force on the ball via sliding friction.

Phase 2: Racquet stringbed surface is gripping the surface of the ball and thus moving upward at the same velocity as the surface of the ball as the ball continues to compress. The stringbed exerts an upward vertical force on the ball via static "gripping" friction.

Phase 3: Racqquet stringbed surface is gripping the surface of the ball and thus moving upward at the same velocity as the surface of the ball as the ball starts to decompress. The stringbed now exerts a downward vertical force on the ball via static "gripping" friction, counteracting the ball's rotational inertia.

Phase 4: Racquet stringbed surface is now moving upward at a slower rate than the surface of the ball (overspin phase). The stringbed exerts a downward vertical force on the ball via sliding friction.

A stringbed like Kevlar/poly that allows good freedom for mains to move within the stringbed will improve spin mostly by minimizing the downward forces acting during the final 2 phases.

 

[travlerajm]

double post

 

[BreakPoint]

Phase 3: Racqquet stringbed surface is gripping the surface of the ball and thus moving upward at the same velocity as the surface of the ball as the ball starts to decompress. The stringbed now exerts a downward vertical force on the ball via static "gripping" friction, counteracting the ball's rotational inertia.

Phase 4: Racquet stringbed surface is now moving upward at a slower rate than the surface of the ball (overspin phase). The stringbed exerts a downward vertical force on the ball via sliding friction.

A stringbed like Kevlar/poly that allows good freedom for mains to move within the stringbed will improve spin mostly by minimizing the downward forces acting during the final 2 phases.

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still having a hard time imagining where this "downward vertical force exerted by the stringbed" comes from? In my opinion, the stringbed exerts an UPWARD vertical force on the ball due to the strings "gripping" the ball (since you're swinging your racquet upwards) for the entire time that the ball is in contact with the strings and that force only disappears once the ball is no longer in contact with the stringbed (leaves the stringbed).

BTW, if the strings move so easily and thus get pushed aside by the force of the ball impact so easily, wouldn't there be less frictional forces between the strings and the ball since there would be fewer strings behind the ball and in contact with the ball (since they've been pushed aside) to "grip" the ball and thus impart spin to the ball as you swing up and result in less spin? And if more of the energy of your vertical swing is lost to the ball moving the strings down (i.e., pushing strings aside) (as is the case when strings slide easily) rather than the strings moving the ball up (i.e., putting spin on the ball) (as is the case when strings are locked), I would think that would result in overall less spin on the ball. Basically, it's the difference between the ball pushing the strings around versus the strings pushing the ball around, the latter of which should put more spin on the ball.

 

[Sander001]

I haven't changed my theory. I've always maintained that a stiffer stringbed produces more spin (all else being equal) and that a more open string pattern (up to a point) with the same stringbed stiffness will produce more spin (all else being equal). And what I mean by "up to a point" is that, for example, a 2x4 string pattern is not going to produce much spin because the ball will go right through the stringbed! LOL

Read what you wrote, you definitely backtracked!☺

 

[BreakPoint]

Read what you wrote, you definitely backtracked!☺

Nope, I haven't. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. Or else point out EXACTLY where I backtracked.