Textured Strings - no effect on ball spin

[Ash_Smith]

The following article raises a few interesting points...

BALL SPIN - It is often assumed that control is linked with the ability to apply spin to the ball. If that is so, then does spin depend on string tension?
Players often say "high tension strings bite into the ball giving more spin." "Biting" is used to mean several things - creating more friction by increasing the space between strings for the ball to sink into; using rougher, textured or shaped strings to "grab" the ball; using thinner strings to dig into the ball; or using higher tension to increase surface contact forces.

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball/racket impact can easily be measured. The lab testing at Sheffield University showed that
The spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension, string type or pattern.
This flies in the face of what we all believed for many years, so you may need to stop now and have a coffee before reading on!
In that lab testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, textured and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

However, the fact remains that players feel that they can achieve more spin with high-tension strings. Three possibilities arise:
(1) the players are simply incorrect;
(2) players feel a difference in some other impact related event like more or less dwell time, string movement, or ball travel across the stringbed and incorrectly interpret that as more spin;
(3) the player, not the racket, does something differently when playing with higher tension strings that, indeed, produces more spin.

The Sheffield study compared two identical tennis rackets, one strung at 40 pounds and one strung at 70 pounds and used a high speed video camera operating at 240 frames/sec. It was found that the measured rebound spin for both rackets was identical.

So textured strings, poly strings and tensions make no difference to ball spin - your thoughts?

Ash

 

[(o)COBRA(o)]

i have never tried a textured string but i would think when u string a hexigonal string, it stretches and that geometry would shift to plain round destroying the texture...also, i think the texture would wear down in time and the texture makes the string less durable. Therefore, i believe there might be a little ball grip in the beginning increasing ball spin...not worth the money for me...
as for tension, i love higher tensions for control but dont know about the spin compared to lower tensions...and i only use hybrids so can't attest to full stringbeds.

 

[GameSetMatch]

The thing with scientific tests is that you can completely pick the methology apart if you have the time, expertise and inclination. I've lost count of the number of clinical studies on drugs for example, that have been peer reviewed and then the conclusions discredited by subsequent meta-analysis.

You also simply cannot replicate playing conditions in a lab with couple of mechanical pivots. It's just unrepresentative because nobody hits like that. There are simply too many unquantifiable variables that you simply cannot replicate, and so many of those variables involve touch and feel on the ball.

There's only so much 'science' you can apply to tennis and I think that trying to distill tennis down to scientific principles is a fool's errand.

Any decent level player with know that the suggestion that "spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension, string type or pattern" is absolute nonsense. Anyone who's played with a thin poly for example will know (as will their opponents) how much more spin that produces compared to say a synthetic gut.

 

[Gene1994]

This is interesting, but I hope it's not true I just ordered a reel of RPM Blast for the exact reason of getting more spin

 

[Xenakis]

Not noticed any more or less spin with textured strings or different gauges but it may be down to playing style to some extent.

The case for textured strings still hasn't been made beyond mere anecdote. It's incumbent upon those who advocate that position to provide some hard evidence.

Still, if someone thinks they get more or less spin from a string then that's still 'real' so to speak (may be placebo though, or something else other than the texture producing the effect).

 

[corners]

The following article raises a few interesting points...

BALL SPIN - It is often assumed that control is linked with the ability to apply spin to the ball. If that is so, then does spin depend on string tension?
Players often say "high tension strings bite into the ball giving more spin." "Biting" is used to mean several things - creating more friction by increasing the space between strings for the ball to sink into; using rougher, textured or shaped strings to "grab" the ball; using thinner strings to dig into the ball; or using higher tension to increase surface contact forces.

Fortunately, the spin generated for a typical ball/racket impact can easily be measured. The lab testing at Sheffield University showed that
The spin on the ball is not dependent on string tension, string type or pattern.
This flies in the face of what we all believed for many years, so you may need to stop now and have a coffee before reading on!
In that lab testing it was concluded that all stringbeds are sufficiently "rough" to achieve maximum spin for the given shot. Therefore, even if thin, textured and tight strings were used in an attempt to increase stringbed "roughness," there would be no actual increase in rebound spin.

However, the fact remains that players feel that they can achieve more spin with high-tension strings. Three possibilities arise:
(1) the players are simply incorrect;
(2) players feel a difference in some other impact related event like more or less dwell time, string movement, or ball travel across the stringbed and incorrectly interpret that as more spin;
(3) the player, not the racket, does something differently when playing with higher tension strings that, indeed, produces more spin.

The Sheffield study compared two identical tennis rackets, one strung at 40 pounds and one strung at 70 pounds and used a high speed video camera operating at 240 frames/sec. It was found that the measured rebound spin for both rackets was identical.

So textured strings, poly strings and tensions make no difference to ball spin - your thoughts?

Ash

Your name appears at the bottom. Did you write this 'article'?

 

[Xenakis]

Oh and another thing, why do so few pros use textured strings if they produce more spin?

See the recently posted IW 2010 string log.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Your name appears at the bottom. Did you write this 'article'?

Nope, thats just how I sign off my posts!

I think the placebo affect is definately possible - the article goes on to state that the increased spin may be casued by the player compensating for the stiffness of the stringbed by accelerating more through the swing, thus creating a greater spin potential (where their technique allows the creation of spin in the first place). In other words the ball drops shorter so they swing faster to bring the septh back and therefore get more spin - the strings haven't imparted more spin, the racquet speed increase has.

Whether this is correct or not I don't know, but it makes some sense.

Ash

(I wrote this )

 

[ethebull]

Personally I haven't found textured strings to increase spin potential. I do perceive spin enhancement when using lower powered strings and higher tensions. My theory is that low powered "control" string set-ups allow me to take a fuller more aggressive swings, thus increasing spin. Texture seems irrelevant.

 

[GameSetMatch]

The thing with textured strings is that you can only compare like for like, when all factors are equal, to assess whether or not it generates extra spin ie testing using the same manufacturer, same manufacturing process (apart from the shape) and the same chemical composition. I don't know what strings they used in that test but I would hazard a guess that the strings are not identical, which is a flaw in the testing methodology already.

What they should be doing for example, is comparing 'textured' BlackCode with non-textured BlackCode. But there's no such thing as 'round' BlackCode.

Therefore, I don't see how you can compare a differently constructed string from different manufacturers made using different materials, chemical and manufacturing processes because they're going to perform differently anyway irrespective of surface texture. You haven't 'isolated' the 'texture factor' as part of the testing methodology.

For example, I play extensively with Pro Line II in 1.20 gauge and Black Code in 1.18. The non-textured Pro Line II produces more spin and bite on the ball. I hit the same hard and flat strokes with the Pro Line II and rarely do I net the ball. The string seems to bite and lift the ball over the net perfectly in terms of my game. Hitting the same strokes hard and flat during the pressure of match play with BlackCode slightly increases my frequency of netting the ball. I adjust my strokes fractionally to try and produce the same result. But you can't conclude from that that texture is no good because they're different strings to begin with. Then if I use MSV Focus Hex 1.17 that produces more spin that any of them, but could be due to any number of other factors such as the proportion of chemicals/materials in that string, stiffness, possibly shape...who knows.

I think the full scientific study needs to be posted in order that a proper assessment can be made as to its validity. They also need to identify precisely what strings they used. Until then, the jury's still out on the benefit of texture.

 

[Frank Silbermann]

The only way texture can help is if, without it, the ball would slide across the string bed rather than rolling across it. Of course, if that happened you would not merely get less spin -- you would blow the shot completely.

Some might say that more static friction would let you spin more vigorously without causing the ball to lose its grip and slide, but it seems pretty apparent to me that the effect of string texture or thickness is insignificant compared with the effect of the ball sinking into the holes between the strings. All other things being equal (but they're not), an open string pattern would let the ball sink in deeper, and therefore, would have more leverage to apply towards spinning the ball. But to make the rebound effect similar you'd need stiffer, tighter strings to compensate for the open string pattern.

 

[XFactorer]

A link to this article/study?

 

[aimr75]

You also simply cannot replicate playing conditions in a lab with couple of mechanical pivots. It's just unrepresentative because nobody hits like that. There are simply too many unquantifiable variables that you simply cannot replicate, and so many of those variables involve touch and feel on the ball

But the study was focussing just on spin potential, not on touch/feel and other unquantifiable variables.. the purpose of the study was on how much spin does a string produce, and if its done in a controlled environment.. cant see why its not a legitimate method to determine whether different strings/tensions produce more spin

 

[wrxtotoro]

Not to hijack the thread. Textured TWISTED string do not increase spin too much either. A few weeks ago I strung up a full bed of MSV Heptatwist on one racket. On the other racket, I manually twisted up the Heptatwist even more before I pulled tension. Both the racket were strung at the same tension at 48 lb.

I played a game last week and both racket produce about the same spin. The "manually twisted" string bed appeared a lot more powerful though.

 

[MattPrevidi]

textured string

So here is the bottom line: Textured string simply does not alone produce more spin.

I run a stringing company that strings many national tournaments out here in SoCal. The other stringers and I will often "test" a big shot who comes into the stringing room spouting crazy garbage about "ball-pocketing" and "spin potential" and other nonsense like that. The second they say something like "I play with luxilon rough because it gives me more spin" we all look at each other and laugh inside, knowing this person has just lost all credibility.
Anyone who plays into the MYTH of textured string DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. Read the book technical tennis and you will see what I am talking about. In it, they describe the perception of more spin being very different from actually hitting more spin. Whoever said the below quote was right on the money:
"the article goes on to state that the increased spin may be caused by the player compensating for the stiffness of the stringbed by accelerating more through the swing, thus creating a greater spin potential (where their technique allows the creation of spin in the first place). In other words the ball drops shorter so they swing faster to bring the depth back and therefore get more spin - the strings haven't imparted more spin, the racquet speed increase has.".
This quote highlights the EXACT reason why polyester strings have changed the game - they allow pros to hit as hard as they can, and produce more spin, while still keeping the ball in the court.

Textured string is a marketing ploy.

 

[Sublime]

Matt,

The authors of "Technical Tennis" have recently done more research into strings and spin and published this report:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php

It shows that given the same swing a poly will produce more spin than a synthetic gut.

The tests also show that ALU Rough does in fact produce more spin than ALU Power. Is it the texture? Is it the formula of the poly different between the two?

I think that the texture on a string allows it to slide across one another more freely than none textured, especially after some light notching. I believe a twisted texture or the texture used on ALU Rough also helps in this reduction of friction in the angle that the strings slide relative to one another (which is not 90 degrees).

 

[scotus]

Matt,

The authors of "Technical Tennis" have recently done more research into strings and spin and published this report:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php

It shows that given the same swing a poly will produce more spin than a synthetic gut.

The tests also show that ALU Rough does in fact produce more spin than ALU Power. Is it the texture? Is it the formula of the poly different between the two?

I think that the texture on a string allows it to slide across one another more freely than none textured, especially after some light notching. I believe a twisted texture or the texture used on ALU Rough also helps in this reduction of friction in the angle that the strings slide relative to one another (which is not 90 degrees).

Thanks for bringing this up.

We certainly need more studies on this subject.

I actually find it laughable how some people point to one study and consider it the truth that dispels all myths.

There are certain posters on this board who have read one book on the subject and think they have learned all the truths about the physics of tennis.

 

[iammh]

Just from personal experience. I tried Luxilon ALU Rough for a while. Shots that used to clear the net were now spinning into the net. To hit the ball where I used to I had to change my stroke and aim point. I eventually gave up on it because I didn't want to change the way I hit the ball to adjust for the string.

 

[Pusher 1]

So here is the bottom line:
Textured string is a marketing ploy.

I think many people are looking for a technical fix to a physical problem-producing more spin. Technique and racquet speed trump any string technology.

It seems many players are obsessed with the spin issue-how do I get more. Maybe they don't need more. More spin doesn't necessarily mean better results

Spend more time on the court is the answer.

 

[ODYSSEY Mk.4]

Matt,

The authors of "Technical Tennis" have recently done more research into strings and spin and published this report:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php

It shows that given the same swing a poly will produce more spin than a synthetic gut.

The tests also show that ALU Rough does in fact produce more spin than ALU Power. Is it the texture? Is it the formula of the poly different between the two?

I think that the texture on a string allows it to slide across one another more freely than none textured, especially after some light notching. I believe a twisted texture or the texture used on ALU Rough also helps in this reduction of friction in the angle that the strings slide relative to one another (which is not 90 degrees).

wasnt there mention of rough strings having more surface area having the potential to increase spin in the book?

 

[decades]

shhhhhhh...keep this under you hat. If the tennis public were led to believe that any ole string will do, the tennis industry would suffer a massive recession.

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^I believe the theory is that the contact time between ball and strings is so short that the amount of friction created is more or less the same regardless of string texture.

Ash

 

[Danstevens]

In my experiences testing strings, I've used Solinco's Revolution 17 and Tour Bite 17. I was under the impression that these strings are made almost the same way, except that Tour Bite is textured to be square.

I've never heard anyone say that Revolution had tons of spin, but I've heard nothing but praise for the spin (as well as 'bite' and power) that Tour Bite imparts on the ball. I don't know if this is because of the texture or not, but it seems that this contrast would serve as evidence that textured strings do have some effect.

I mean, even if textured strings don't give more spin, they have to have some effect, right?

That's what I'm thinking too. The vast majority of strings rated top for spin on "the forum of strings" (I think the name is blocked) are textured or twisted in some way. I can't imagine this being coincidence or perhaps, as has been suggested, texture just gives strings the feeling of giving more spin as opposed to actually giving you more access to it.

 

[borg number one]

Matt,

The authors of "Technical Tennis" have recently done more research into strings and spin and published this report:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php

It shows that given the same swing a poly will produce more spin than a synthetic gut.

The tests also show that ALU Rough does in fact produce more spin than ALU Power. Is it the texture? Is it the formula of the poly different between the two?

I think that the texture on a string allows it to slide across one another more freely than none textured, especially after some light notching. I believe a twisted texture or the texture used on ALU Rough also helps in this reduction of friction in the angle that the strings slide relative to one another (which is not 90 degrees).

This thread, http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=275155, talks about a ITF study that concluded that:

Polyester monofilament strings do generate "slightly more" spin than older generation strings, according to the International Tennis Federation (ITF), which started testing the playing characteristics of strings three years ago, but ITF head of science Stuart Miller says he's not sure why.

 

[fgs]

my little experience with textured strings (a pentagonal, a hexagonal, a twisted and a rough) can be summed up as follows: for between 30 minutes and 1 hour i think i get more rpm's on the ball, probably due to the texture and also possible due to adjustment of my stroke mechanics. my trouble with them is that latest after on hitting hour, the texture, whichever it happened to be, wore down and i ended up playing the rest of the time with a "round" string. my time window is around 8 hitting hours until they break. some last less, none lasted more - i have to say that i usually employ 1.25mm gauges as maximum and have not gone below 1.18 as some makers sport.
while some strings had good playing characteristics even after the first "shaped" hour, they basically were just ANOTHER ROUND STRING! therefore, personally, i don't really care much for textured strings as my time window by far exceeds the period where they have a shape other than round.
recently i have switched to mantis power polyester, coming from the kirschbaum competition, and i must say that this string doesn't go dead within my time window and provides me with pure hitting pleasure AND enough rpm's (i'm playing a heavy topspin based game) for as long as it lasts at a more than reasonable cost.

 

[scotus]

^^^I believe the theory is that the contact time between ball and strings is so short that the amount of friction created is more or less the same regardless of string texture.

Ash

I believe a lot can happen in a split, micro, nano second.

In that same split second, some string setup can send the ball farther than another setup, send more feedback than another setup, create more shock and vibration than another setup.

So it is not far fetched to believe that one setup could create more friction and impart more spin than another.

 

[nickarnold2000]

It's an interesting theory but only players will really know what string setup gives them more spin. When my serve is kicking up higher or I'm able to whip a ball into the corner and not have it just go out - that's proof enough for me that I'm getting extra spin from a certain string.
Fed's not reading all of these tech string articles(and probably doesn't care because he's out practicing ), he's using what works for him.

 

[WilsonPlayer101]

I hit top spin just fine without textured strings but I did like the Babolat Fine Play Rough back in the '90s. I bought a bunch of packs of them once and can not find them now. Maybe they wear off after awhile but before the wear they grip the ball really well. I know some people say that maybe lack of spin when hitting the ball is a players lack of ability and that might be so but if you have a good ability to hit the ball with top spin even without textured strings then the texture just enhances that. You literally feel the ball on the strings at the moment of contact and you feel that the strings are gripping the ball. I did like Fine Play Rough very much and wish Babolat did not stop making them. I know a lot of players didn't like that string but to me it was great. I did try Gamma back in the '90s and I didn't like the one I was trying. It was not a fine texture to them but very pronounced and bumpy. Not good. I forget what model Gamma string that was. Maybe they have others that are better but I did not like that particular one. I normally play using gut. Expensive but I like it. That's on my main racquet then on my backup I have some other type of string like a synthetic gut or something.

 

[spacediver]

A link to this article/study?

seriously, can you provide a reference? Seems like this is coming out of work from 2005, and from what I can gather, they compared string tension, not string type.

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2005/01/does_higher_string_tension_giv.html

http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cses/sp_simon_goodwill.html