What's better for spin: stiff or soft?

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by fuzz nation

Funky business...

My NXG mids took my assumptions regarding racquet types, string patterns, and spin production and planted them all firmly on their ear. While those have probably the most dense pattern in any graphite frame I've owned, they probably also rank among the greatest spin-factories I've ever used.

The NXG frames have a lot features that make them extra spin friendly:

1. The NXG has a lot of tailweighting (part of the triple-threat technology). It has a buttcap that weighs about twice as heavy as typical frame due to the thickened see-through base. It also has a silcone rubber insert underneath the butt cap that adds another 4g. And on top of that, the handle is much heavier than most frames due to the 4-tube design. If anyone doubts the spin effects of tailweighting - try an experiment of tacking 2-3 ounces of weight to the end of the butt - the increase in dwell time and softness of impact will be very noticeable.

2. The NXG is polarized - the added mass in the hoop is added at the 11 and 1 positions - the other part of the "triple-threat" technology. This gives the NXG low dynamic stiffness. If you add mass the throat, the NXG stiffens a lot, and its spin potential goes down.

3. The NXG is flexible.

4. The NXG is stiffened in the plane of the stringbed with the crossbar.

5. The NXG sports the More technology (molded in two parts like the O3 frames). This also stiffens the frame in the plane of the stringbed, adding to spin potential.

6. The NXG is grommetless. This also effectively stiffens the frame in the plane of the stringbed to cause more lateral stringbed stretching, adding to spin potential.

I have not hit with the NXG mid, but I played the NXG OS for a couple of years. It is the most naturally spin-friendly frame I own.

[Anton]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

The racquet that gave me the most amazing spin while still having low launch angle was the BLX Pro Tour. I had it strung with kevlar/poly in the low 40s.
It has just about the densest patterned you can buy. Unfortunately, I had to return the one I bought from TW because it had a misaligned pallet, and they had no more in stock to replace it.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had to move on from the O3 Red because the extremely open pattern was not a good match for the extremely spin-friendly stiffness ratio. The launch angle was just too extreme, especially with spin-friendly string setups. That's why I'm not really tempted by the Steam 99s at all.

I just ordered a BLX Blade to replace my BLX Pro Tour to have something similar to play around with, but I don't think the Blade has as dense a pattern as the Pro Tour though.

I really hated the BLX Blade for some reason, didn't like the balance, it felt like a club and the feel was very dead from the stringbed.

I'm getting a lot of "good spin" out of Graphine Speed Pro right now, but I figured it had to do more with dense string pattern to keep the trajectory low and massive polarization for easy head speeds (and 100" head gives more brush up margin)

[corners]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

After much experimentation with a variety of string types and patterns, I currently advocate using a stringbed that is dense and stiff in the center, but open and deformable at the periphery. I skip the top and bottom cross and the outer mains on my current racquet to turn an 18x20 into a 16x18 that is dense in the center. The stiffness in the center where the ball meets the strings is important for control - if the center of the stringbed is soft, the ball will dent into it, causing launch angle to be more dependent on swingpath and incoming spin. You don't want that - if the stringbed does not dent, the launch angle is more independent of the incoming spin and swingpath, so the launch angle is determined mostly by racquetface angle, giving optimal control. Having a more open periphery lets the center of the stringbed deflect more to increase spin and power.

Trav, what do you think of the setup Lendl has been using lately as a way to produce this type of stringbed? (Center mains and crosses copoly, peripheral mains and crosses gut.)

[corners]

Originally Posted by Anton

Problem remains - Wilson nSix-One 95 also had a very high stiffness rating (and feel)

TW had N95 at 65, the most flexible of all the 6.1s.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by corners

Trav, what do you think of the setup Lendl has been using lately as a way to produce this type of stringbed? (Center mains and crosses copoly, peripheral mains and crosses gut.)

Analogous evolution.

I actually did quite a bit of experimenting with dividing the stringjob up into multiple separately tied off sections (in order to vary the tension for more even power level distribution without risk of tension equilibration, but I never tried varying the string type too). In the end, I came back to simply omitting the outer strings. It is more reproducible and less of a pain to string, and gives me a well-rounded stringbed that does everything well.

[marosmith]

Traverjam, have you ever experimented with a pro tour 280 or pt57a? Mine seem to be very spin friendly despite the dense pattern could you explain why specifically those frames take to spin so well?

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by marosmith

Traverjam, have you ever experimented with a pro tour 280 or pt57a? Mine seem to be very spin friendly despite the dense pattern could you explain why specifically those frames take to spin so well?

Sorry, I've never tried those, and I can't comment on them without knowing anything about their specs.

However, I would say that in general, weight distribution and stiffness ratio are biggest determinants to spin potential (in that order), followed by string type, with string pattern/tension a distant fourth. For some reason everybody gives too much credit to strings and string pattern.

[marosmith]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

Sorry, I've never tried those, and I can't comment on them without knowing anything about their specs.

However, I would say that in general, weight distribution and stiffness ratio are biggest determinants to spin potential (in that order), followed by string type, with string pattern/tension a distant fourth. For some reason everybody gives too much credit to strings and string pattern.

They are very soft, they flex in the hoop I believe. Stiffness in the 55-58 range, they are very light so require customization. In my case silicone is in the handle, and a good amount of lead under the bumper making them very polarized. Most of the lead is at 12. This makes them 12.6 oz and about 8.5-9 oz head light.

I string with gut in the mains between 50-55 lbs and poly in the cross at 45-50.

[corners]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

Analogous evolution.

Seems convergent too. But...

I actually did quite a bit of experimenting with dividing the stringjob up into multiple separately tied off sections (in order to vary the tension for more even power level distribution without risk of tension equilibration, but I never tried varying the string type too). In the end, I came back to simply omitting the outer strings. It is more reproducible and less of a pain to string, and gives me a well-rounded stringbed that does everything well.

Any risk of frame damage with omitting crosses and mains?

Speaking of frame flex in various planes, what do you make of Yonex's new approach with their 3D Vector shafts? Their marketing says it's meant to improve "face stability", but I wonder what it is really all about. They definitely seem to have moved away from their old MO of stiff head/flexible throat hinge.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by corners

Seems convergent too. But...



Any risk of frame damage with omitting crosses and mains?

I don't think this makes much difference to the stresses on the frame. There is no dramatic stress differential like in the Steam 99s, for example.

Originally Posted by corners

Speaking of frame flex in various planes, what do you make of Yonex's new approach with their 3D Vector shafts? Their marketing says it's meant to improve "face stability", but I wonder what it is really all about. They definitely seem to have moved away from their old MO of stiff head/flexible throat hinge.

Interesting. They seem mostly concerned with torsional stability. The most efficient way to increase torsional stability would be to increase beam width in the throat. But increased beam width stiffens the frame and reduces spin. I think the main effect of the 3D Vector shaft is to increase throat stiffness in the plane of the stringbed, just as the AeroPro Drive throat design or POG crossbar does. So it probably does increase spin a bit.

One thing I noticed about my O3 Tour OS frames (which have only 18mm beam in the throat), is that it has terribly torsion stability on volleys (but very spin-friendly). It seems to twist in my hand even with lots of weight at 3 and 9. My RDS001mp had the same issue, almost as bad.

[corners]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

I don't think this makes much difference to the stresses on the frame. There is no dramatic stress differential like in the Steam 99s, for example.

Interesting. They seem mostly concerned with torsional stability. The most efficient way to increase torsional stability would be to increase beam width in the throat. But increased beam width stiffens the frame and reduces spin. I think the main effect of the 3D Vector shaft is to increase throat stiffness in the plane of the stringbed, just as the AeroPro Drive throat design or POG crossbar does. So it probably does increase spin a bit.

You might be right. Aside from the grooves, all the VCores have noticeably thicker-beamed throats, in the plane of the stringbed, compared to Yonex's previous lines. Also, the introduction of the 3D Vector shaft coincided with an almost wholesale switch from 16x19 to 16x20. I wonder if they felt the new shafts granted enough spin to warrant prioritizing control over spin with the string pattern.

One thing I noticed about my O3 Tour OS frames (which have only 18mm beam in the throat), is that it has terribly torsion stability on volleys (but very spin-friendly). It seems to twist in my hand even with lots of weight at 3 and 9. My RDS001mp had the same issue, almost as bad.

Hmm, I've been looking at some older Yonex frames lately. Read a lot of reviews about the RDS 002 Tour, which looks very nice on paper, but quite a few posters described it as erratic on groundies. I wonder if it shared the 001 MP's torsional instability. Recently I've been leaning toward thinking that frame stiffness is relatively unimportant, in any plane. Maybe I'm wrong. Yonex certainly seems to be beefing up their beams, across their entire line, and from tip to butt.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by corners

Hmm, I've been looking at some older Yonex frames lately. Read a lot of reviews about the RDS 002 Tour, which looks very nice on paper, but quite a few posters described it as erratic on groundies. I wonder if it shared the 001 MP's torsional instability. Recently I've been leaning toward thinking that frame stiffness is relatively unimportant, in any plane. Maybe I'm wrong. Yonex certainly seems to be beefing up their beams, across their entire line, and from tip to butt.

Beam thickness is an interesting spec. Because of the RDC Stiffness Scale, where almost 99% of all frames on the market fall in the seemingly narrow range of 60-70, we tend to forget that the stiffness of a beam is is proportional to the cube of the beam thickness.

This means that a 25-mm beam racquet is over 3 times as stiff as a 17-mm beam racquet (given similar construction)!

Torsional stability is largely a function of beam width. Thus, a thicker beam gives a significant advantage in torsional stability. It's one reason that stiffer frames tend to offer better directional accuracy. But the thicker beam also comes at a cost of lower spin potential - this is the reason why widebody frames never caught on with higher level players until the advent of the modern spin-friendly stringjob. But with modern strings, if high performance is the goal, then there is no reason to use a flexible frame anymore.

With racquets targeted toward higher level players, we're seeing a homogenation of specs these days. Just about every frame has a stiffness rating in the high 60s now. And almost all of these have beam width in the 20-23mm range.

I don't see the 15mm-beam Donnay frames becoming a long-term seller. The one time I was hitting against a 4.0 player wielding a stock Donnay Gold, it was almost comical watching him try to return my hard heavy topsin serve - he couldn't figure out why the ball would hit his strings and rebound high in the air and toward the court to his left every time. Once I gave him one of my racquets, he was able to get my serve in play.

[Anton]

Originally Posted by corners

TW had N95 at 65, the most flexible of all the 6.1s.

Problem I described still remains.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Anton

Problem I described still remains.

What problem is that?

[Anton]

Originally Posted by corners

What problem is that?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...2&postcount=29

[corners]

Originally Posted by Anton

Interesting theory, but even without questioning methodology there is clearly a problem:

stiffness of a racket is not tested in stringbed plane, it is tested in normal to stringbed plane ONLY.

From your examples - Super spiny K 6.1 95 has flex rating of 69!

From your earlier comments one would draw conclusion that because k 6.1 95 is stiff, then therefore it is not as spin friendly as something similar specs but softer, for example Yonex RQiS 1 Tour, which is btw has quite low rebound angle (and I assume spin)

So is the problem that only data on the stiffness in the plane normal/perpendicular to the stringbed - as the RDC machine measures - is publicly available, and not stiffness in the plane of the stringbed?

Travlerajm corrected himself up-thread - it was the N6.1 (65 RDC), not the K6.1 (69 RDC), that he found relatively stiff in the plane of the stringbed compared to its stiffness in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed (65 RDC).

[Anton]

Originally Posted by corners

So is the problem that only data on the stiffness in the plane normal/perpendicular to the stringbed - as the RDC machine measures - is publicly available, and not stiffness in the plane of the stringbed?

Travlerajm corrected himself up-thread - it was the N6.1 (65 RDC), not the K6.1 (69 RDC), that he found relatively stiff in the plane of the stringbed compared to its stiffness in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed (65 RDC).

Yes, so even if the theory is correct, we still can't really use it much. Still have to demo to find out

[tball]

After some experimentation, I am leaning to the conclusion that to produce a good spin, a racquet must be powerful. Powerful is not the same a stiff. I've seen plenty of racquets which are stiff and dead at the same time ( meaning no power ). Soft also does not mean power-less. Head PT630 and Volkl C10 are very soft, and yet also powerful. I am not sure what it is that makes the racquet return the power back to the ball, but whatever it is, you need a lot of it. Otherwise the racquet head speed needs to increase ~4X to get you the same trajectory you had before. This much acceleration increase may be too much of a jump, too radical for recreational players.

Its either this, or your racquet power needs to increase 4X. If you go with a new powerful racquet, you'll need to slow down your existing flat shots about 4 times to account for the new extra power. Or, if you stick with your current racquet, you'll need to produce violent bursts of head speed to produce some proper spin.

Neither of these adjustments are particularly easy to master, let alone mix successfully into one game. This is probably why for those adventurous people who want to diversify their game, it ends up just "a little bit of extra spin" here, a little bit of "flat" there. And this is probably why the majority of people play one style only -- either flat all the time, or spin all the time.

[Roadway]

Originally Posted by Anton

they will be better for spin only if you still have the confidence to keep up the racket head speeds. If you hit flat more open string pattern will rebound the ball at higher angles landing the ball deeper and you may start losing swing confidence and racket head speed.Softer racket and/or dense pattern racket is better for natural ball drivers.

i agree. i play in a traditional eastern forehead style and make more flat strokes than spins. if the center pattern is too open, the ball deflects a little than i expected with dense pattern racquets.

[Cengusiento]

What a interesting thread!