Several points of clarification:
So it looks like a gut-M and RPM-Blast-X would be the ultimate spin monster...
This quote echoes several others equating low COF and spin. COF is only one of the facilitators of string movement, snap back, and spin. But other properties of a individual string can act to negate or reverse benefits of the low COF. The COF experiments simply distinquish the slippery strings from the sticky ones. Other experiments will distinquish strings from each other on the other spin facilitating properties. The goal being able to decipher which strings have the greatest NET spin potential. Determining the COF ranking is just one step along the way. So do not simply interpret a low COF as "the best spin string," but rather, that it has one very important property that acts in favor of spin. It may or may not be the "best."
So TW Professor,
the strings that retain tension better,meaning less string movement,therefore less spin potential,am I right?
For a given string, higher tension will tend to increase the COF between strings, first because the tension pushes the strings together with greater force and second because the stiffer stringbed will create a greater normal force at impact which also pushes the strings together more.
Plus, the bottom chart shows two nylon strings with a lower COF than VS Team. That would imply gut doesn't have "super-slipperiness" in comparison with those two nylon strings:
Prince Synthetic Gut Original 16, Nylon, 0.124
Gosen OG-Sheep Micro Super 16L, Nylon, 0.145
Babolat VS Team 17, Gut, 0.147
COF depends on the TWO surfaces. The COFs given in the quote are for each string on itself. The hybrids involve two different materials. In each instance the surfaces will interact differently both atomically and morphologically.
Also, what's the second hypothesis?
Quote:
Friction between strings is determined by the surface characteristics of the main and cross that are moving against each other as well as the force pushing them together.
This 'same spin' result is true whether the string is a rough or smooth, thin or thick, or round or square.
Hmm. I'm confused. The first part makes it sound, along with the "gut oils" hypothesis, that surface condition (slippery surface) is really important. The second part makes it sound as if the surface condition makes little difference.
There are two completely different situations here: the ball-to-string friction interaction and the string-to-string interaction. The first is a special case because, as the article explains, friction tends to disappear before the end of the impact in the first case but not in the second. So string shape, texture, gauge may make a difference in spin in the string-to-string interaction but not in the ball-to-string interaction.
TW Professor,
Can we please get the numbers for Prince Recoil? Since Prince is claiming that this is a very slippery string, it would be interesting to see this claim quantified.
Thanks!
There will be more COFs coming....
If sideways movement of the mains is so important, what about lowering string tension?
Lowering tension will reduce inter-string friction but it also tends to lower the energy return in the string (you can see this by going to
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/reporter.php and searching energy return at the different tensions). This means the string will snap back more slowly. Thus, it may or may not snap back quick enough, far enough or with enough force to significantly affect the spin. It will depend on the string.
Catching a ball late, or exaggerating the low-to-high motion in this set up really sends the ball long. I think this may also be what Chris (TW) was eluding to when he said that for him, an all poly set up provides more controlled spin because the launch angle is quite a bit less.
Friction not only puts torque on the ball to create spin, but it slows the ball down as it travels across the strings. String movement and snap back will do the same. The more the ball is slowed down parallel to the strings, the steeper the launch angle will be and the farther the ball will travel farther.
This article also makes no sense in some parts.
* String texture or shape makes no difference to spin
Didn't it show that ALu Rough Produces more spin than Alu Power??
* String pattern makes no difference to spin
It does make a huge difference.
Why don;t tey make a racket with 45 mains and 50 crosses and play with that racket and then go play with a 16x19?I bet you could get more spin from a 16x19.
* String tension makes no difference to spin
On the very same article it shows the same string strung at 62 and 52 and the one with 52 had low COF therefore producing more spin.
* String gauge makes no difference to spin-
Same string at lower gauge can produce more spin.
* String material makes no difference to spin
Didn't it say the polyester produces more spin than nylon?
I don't really believe some of what they said at all,very contradictory.
Buckethead is offline Add Infraction for Buckethead Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message
Much of the answer to this is explained above with respect to all these properties having a different significance depending on whether you are talking ball/string interaction or string/string interaction. Before it was determined that string movement and snap back were so important to topspin, the statement that COF, material, pattern, etc. did not matter to spin was "correct" as far as it went. But given that string movement is important, each of these needs to be experimentally revisited, but for different reasons and from a different point of view. So the COF article has revisted COF, the material articles (
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/spinexperiment.php and
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/stringmovement.php have revisted material, and we are presently conducting experiments on patterns.
Stay tuned...
