Ashaway 100% Zyex monofilament
- Thread starter corners
- Start date
julianashaway
Rookie
This is something we have talked about. Definitely a future possibility.
julianashaway
Rookie
We have seen that ,if strung too fast, MZX may not have enough time to fully elongate between pulls. The extra time on each pull allows the string to complete its stretch before moving on. This gives you the best chance for a consistent string-bed.
Also, because the string stretches so much during stringing, there will be some initial tension loss during the settling period. However, once the string has settled, the string-bed maintains tension better than either Polyester or Nylon. Have you noticed?
mikeler
Moderator
If you go with a shaped string, please consider 5 and 6 sided profiles. I was not impressed with the spin potential of the square Tour Bite Soft. I've been more impressed with B5E and Dunlop Hexy Fiber which are 5 and 6 sided.
The string has been very consistent. I'm on vacation now and look forward to trying it out in some cooler temps my next 3 singles matches before I write my review.
fgs
Hall of Fame
regarding shape i found that the best and most consistent spin i got from profiles that are "crimped" - for instance i'm just about to finish my playtest with the alu power rough. the black venom rough also kept the profile for quite a long while. the only "edged" one that kept up in this matter has been the twisted razor. all the other strings that i have tried out in the past two years had rather considerably diminishing spin-support once the edges started wearing down.
alexgeorge
New User
I have a 22X15 stringbed and its very dense. Wouldnt the 17 gauge be better than the 16 gauge in a denser stringbed than rather a 16X10, or a
16X18/19
My racket needs more power and has great control because its dense, what do you think? Do you think I should add more control over its high control or too much control is useless because it gets to a point where you cant get any more control?
alexgeorge
New User
hey man, i also have one more q.
With my dense stringbed, do you think a 17 gauge monogut would be better than the 16 gauge for more power because i dont get as much of it.
alexgeorge
New User
also julian if you can help me out that would be great thanks.
sorry for triple posting
Is that a PK micro? Can you even get 16g strings through the holes? I would definitely go thin with a micro.
Just curious how this string might play when re-used.
1.27 brown harvested from one racquet and restrung in a different stick as crosses. Obviously the string length was too short so had to improvise. Mains are Yonex PTS 125 (51/53 CP).
Will be interesting to see how this plays, given that ZX supposedly soft to begin.
1.27 brown harvested from one racquet and restrung in a different stick as crosses. Obviously the string length was too short so had to improvise. Mains are Yonex PTS 125 (51/53 CP).
Will be interesting to see how this plays, given that ZX supposedly soft to begin.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply.
My 2 cents. For this type of string, I think its a bit misleading to give the 1.22 a 'Pro' tag, given how less control orientated (and arguably higher powered) the 1.22 is likely to be. It doesn't follow convention either - other manufacturers for example don't give their thinner gauges the 'Pro' tag.
That would be interesting. If you can produce a spinnier version, that would a good development in the right direction.
Personally, I'd also like to a see a stiffer / lower powered version. That could legitimately be called 'ZX Pro'.
mikeler
Moderator
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I am still enjoying my Kevlar zx hybrid in my blade. I pre stretched both strings thoroughly this time, and it makes a huge difference in strong bed consistency over time ( I pre stretched 20 ft of Kevlar to 4 " longer relaxed length, and the zx to 6" longer relaxed length). I now have 20 h on this stringed and I have not noticed any difference in tension or playing characteristics since day 1. Still better bite and better control than fresh poly. The Kevlar and zx seem to protect each other well from wear. The ball side surface of the Kevlar is a little rough though from ball friction.
Also, to those asking about 1.22 vs 1.27 versions of zx. I play tested both in full bed, and hardly noticed a difference- same basic characteristics
I have purchased a reel of the natural color in 1.27. I hope that the surface properties are the same as for the red version, because I have not tried the natural yet
Also, to those asking about 1.22 vs 1.27 versions of zx. I play tested both in full bed, and hardly noticed a difference- same basic characteristics
I have purchased a reel of the natural color in 1.27. I hope that the surface properties are the same as for the red version, because I have not tried the natural yet
Last edited:
alexgeorge
New User
cool thanks.
I am thinking of going with the ash kevlar 18 at 40 lbs like you said, and but how many lbs would the zyex be. If you have yours at 55, wouldnt mine be different because my rackets more dense or something, Im not sure but do you think 45-50 lbs is good for the zyex in 22 and 15 micro frame?
also how long would I prestretch it in inches for a micro. would it be like 6" for kevlar and 5" for t he zyex?
alexgeorge
New User
i just need to know that before i start
alexgeorge
New User
Jacklondon00
New User
I have been trying the Kevlar/Poly and Kevlar ZX mix in the C10 Pro 56m/58c for the past month, I have 4 frames and can experiment. So far what I found was that the Ashway Kevlar has the best snapback and slides much better than others due to the braiding structure, the spirally woven Kevlars get stuck in place and don't snap back.
As a cross, I compared SP Firestrom 1.20 (which is the most powerful/softest poly I have used in the full bed, and I tried quite a few) and 1.27 ZX Natural. Benefits of ZX in the cross is the livelier feel on every shot, especially on serve. Kevlar/Poly is terrible for flat serves, my first serve speed dropped by about 10 mph, but with ZX cross I am able to reclaim much of it back.
However, unlike travlerajm's experience, the Ashway 18 & 17g mains in my C10 Pro did not snap back on the ZX cross, almost immediately after the fist session. Of course after some silicone spray they did again, but that did not last long. Also, I felt that control was not as good after a few sessions as it was with poly, so in fact the playability did not last as long, possibly due to the lack of snapback and not tension loss. I cut it out even so the Kevlar mains were still in perfect shape. On the other frame with firestorm, the mains are all scuffed up, yet snapback perfectly after numerous hitting sessions. Also, I found that the ZX crosses moved vertically up the kevlar mains more than poly, since Kevlar does not notch as quickly, you really have to straighten your crosses out the first few hitting sessions, even with poly. I ordered some volkl cyclone tour and polystar turbo which are gear shaped to keep this from happening, will see if that works.
So travlerajm, perhaps the red ZX has a different surface from the natural ZX, because my experience with snapback was the opposite. I would order a set of natural ZX and try it first before starting that reel and realizing that it's not the same string surface as the red stuff, so this way you could still return it. I have two sets of Natural ZX I might try to exchange for red and see if it works better.
As a cross, I compared SP Firestrom 1.20 (which is the most powerful/softest poly I have used in the full bed, and I tried quite a few) and 1.27 ZX Natural. Benefits of ZX in the cross is the livelier feel on every shot, especially on serve. Kevlar/Poly is terrible for flat serves, my first serve speed dropped by about 10 mph, but with ZX cross I am able to reclaim much of it back.
However, unlike travlerajm's experience, the Ashway 18 & 17g mains in my C10 Pro did not snap back on the ZX cross, almost immediately after the fist session. Of course after some silicone spray they did again, but that did not last long. Also, I felt that control was not as good after a few sessions as it was with poly, so in fact the playability did not last as long, possibly due to the lack of snapback and not tension loss. I cut it out even so the Kevlar mains were still in perfect shape. On the other frame with firestorm, the mains are all scuffed up, yet snapback perfectly after numerous hitting sessions. Also, I found that the ZX crosses moved vertically up the kevlar mains more than poly, since Kevlar does not notch as quickly, you really have to straighten your crosses out the first few hitting sessions, even with poly. I ordered some volkl cyclone tour and polystar turbo which are gear shaped to keep this from happening, will see if that works.
So travlerajm, perhaps the red ZX has a different surface from the natural ZX, because my experience with snapback was the opposite. I would order a set of natural ZX and try it first before starting that reel and realizing that it's not the same string surface as the red stuff, so this way you could still return it. I have two sets of Natural ZX I might try to exchange for red and see if it works better.
Jacklondon00
New User
Slightly rubbery, springy and powerful is pretty much a spot on description. But it's nowhere as slick as a poly cross, at least not the natural color. I wanted to try ZX as a cross with Tourbite, but decided it was not worth the trouble, I am sure the mains would not snap back if they don't with kevlar. If I had to guess, I think the material has a scratch resistant coating.
Torres, do you live in London? I saw your post a while back about the London Tennis Knockout final, with the video and questions about the player ratings. If you are, lets play some tennis?
Torres, do you live in London? I saw your post a while back about the London Tennis Knockout final, with the video and questions about the player ratings. If you are, lets play some tennis?
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Thanks for the heads-up. Sounds like the natural doesn't have the same slickness as the red. I'll probably swap the natural reel for the a reel of red.
TaihtDuhShaat
Semi-Pro
Trav,
what tension would you recommend for a 95" 16 x 19 with kevlar 18g, zx 17g crosses. I'm also open to using the 16g zx. I use a similar weight and balance as you. I don't have the option to prestretch. I like really stiff stringbeds for volleying.
Last edited:
Interesting.
Julian, can you shed any light on why the red ZX might be slipperier than the natural color?
julianashaway
Rookie
Since it sounds like you are not worried about control, you could go either way. If you like to play with a lot of spin, go with the Pro for increased spin potential. If you play a flatter game, go with the 16 for the bump in durability.
julianashaway
Rookie
I am not aware of any difference in the surface properties between red and natural. The only difference between colors that I am aware of is that the red should be slightly (so slight that most wouldn't even notice) stiffer than the natural.
The color on the natural is the color of the raw material with no added dye. The red has a dye added which makes it minutely stiffer. I seriously doubt this would affect the surface properties. Much more likely that racquet, stringing, and player style variables are causing the difference noted here.
maxpotapov
Hall of Fame
Stiffer usually means firmer, which is slipperier on the surface
Thanks Julian!
Yeah, I think tensile stiffness and surface hardness are usually linked.
Thanks Julian. I have a hunch that cross strings with a flat cross-section, especially if rectangular, should promote main string sliding and snap-back by reducing the angle of the weave and therefore the forces pushing the two strings together. I'll soon test Gosen's Polymaster II, a very slippery rectangular string that is only 1.0 mm thick in one dimension. I'm hoping that it will not only be slippier than a round string used in the crosses, but that it also won't cut into, and notch, the main strings.
From reports, it sounds like ZX in round form might not allow main string movement like copoly strings do, despite the very low inter-string friction that TW University found ZX to have in the lab. A rectangular cross-sectioned version of ZX would be interesting.
Yonex PTS (Poly Tour Spin) 125 mains seems to work pretty well with this. The insane amount of grab and bite on the ball offered by the Yonex helps reign in the power of the ZX. Whereas the ZX softens and adds power to an otherwise stiffish Yonex full bed.
Not sure what's going to happen when the Yonex goes dead though...
Not sure what's going to happen when the Yonex goes dead though...
Last edited:
alexgeorge
New User
Hey Travlerajm, I bought the red zx pro 17 gauge and the ashaway 18 kevlar
do you have any idea what tension I should put it at for 22 x15.
I was told 40 lbs for the ash but im not sure about the zx pro?
the zx pro (zyex) is the crosses (15) strings
Jacklondon00
New User
I have a few theories. So Trav is using an 18x20 pattern, and I am playing with a 16x19, and I would have to agree with Julian that an 18x20 pattern vs my 16x19 pattern could play a role in this, and probably much more than the pigment color/stiffness. The denser pattern has the mains and crosses closer together, this keep the stings more "locked in", so there is less "string movement," I think most people would agree that there is less string movement in an 18x20 than in 16x19. Strings start moving around earlier in a 16x19 frame as they loose tension. So this would explain why the Kevalr/ZX did not behave the same way in my racket vs Trav's.
This is also related to what corners said. Here is my theory.
I used to think that snapback would be better with a very thin cross, the thinner the better, which would allow the mains to slide easier, but from my testing is seems to be otherwise. This is very counterintuitive. I have tried some very very thin crosses like fishing line made of Dyneema before, that were 0.38mm and covered with PTFE spray. There is much less snapback, even so the surface is slick and very thin, and the strings would get stuck out of place. This is definitely caused by the fact that there is a lot more friction since the force is over a smaller area, thinner string. This should be overcome with polyester because it is flat. But the second reason I suspect there would be less snapback is what I like to call "roller coaster-effect"
I noticed that I was getting less snapback with thinner poly crosses 1.10 and 1.15 than I was with the standard 1.25 while keeping the mains the same. After hybriding the same brand of poly, but changing the gauge, where the thicker gauge 1.25 or 1.30 goes in the mains and a thinner gauge 1.10 and 1.15 goes in the crosses, I have found that these hybrids actually have less snapback than if you used 1.25 or 1.30 throughout. My theory is that when a cross is 1.20 to 1.30 it creates a hill/dip. When you pull the cross out of position, it gets pulled up on to this hill, and when you let go it slides down the hill. The same thing happens when you strike the ball, the sting is pushed up the "hill" and is able to slide down faster compared to a flatter cross. Obviously the thickness of the mains also determines the steepness of the "hill", but lets assume that we are using 1.25 mains.
Now this does not mean that if you put in 1.30 or 1.35 poly in your cross that will create more snapback, I think in this case the hill might be too steep and there is too much resistance for proper snapback. Also the softness of the poly plays a role, you don't want the cross string to have a sharp dent in the middle. So basically you want a stiff cross that's not overly thin and not to overly thick, I found that 1.20 to 1.25 crosses produce the most snapback as the resistance seems just right.
Finally, because natural gut is so elastic the thickness of the cross might not effect snapback as much as poly when you go down a gauge, so in fact you might get more snapback with natural gut with a thinner cross. But with poly I noticed that if the cross is thinner than 1.15, it actually inhibited the snapback, and by snapback I mean exactly that, the poly returning back into place.
Just some observations.
This is also related to what corners said. Here is my theory.
I used to think that snapback would be better with a very thin cross, the thinner the better, which would allow the mains to slide easier, but from my testing is seems to be otherwise. This is very counterintuitive. I have tried some very very thin crosses like fishing line made of Dyneema before, that were 0.38mm and covered with PTFE spray. There is much less snapback, even so the surface is slick and very thin, and the strings would get stuck out of place. This is definitely caused by the fact that there is a lot more friction since the force is over a smaller area, thinner string. This should be overcome with polyester because it is flat. But the second reason I suspect there would be less snapback is what I like to call "roller coaster-effect"
I noticed that I was getting less snapback with thinner poly crosses 1.10 and 1.15 than I was with the standard 1.25 while keeping the mains the same. After hybriding the same brand of poly, but changing the gauge, where the thicker gauge 1.25 or 1.30 goes in the mains and a thinner gauge 1.10 and 1.15 goes in the crosses, I have found that these hybrids actually have less snapback than if you used 1.25 or 1.30 throughout. My theory is that when a cross is 1.20 to 1.30 it creates a hill/dip. When you pull the cross out of position, it gets pulled up on to this hill, and when you let go it slides down the hill. The same thing happens when you strike the ball, the sting is pushed up the "hill" and is able to slide down faster compared to a flatter cross. Obviously the thickness of the mains also determines the steepness of the "hill", but lets assume that we are using 1.25 mains.
Now this does not mean that if you put in 1.30 or 1.35 poly in your cross that will create more snapback, I think in this case the hill might be too steep and there is too much resistance for proper snapback. Also the softness of the poly plays a role, you don't want the cross string to have a sharp dent in the middle. So basically you want a stiff cross that's not overly thin and not to overly thick, I found that 1.20 to 1.25 crosses produce the most snapback as the resistance seems just right.
Finally, because natural gut is so elastic the thickness of the cross might not effect snapback as much as poly when you go down a gauge, so in fact you might get more snapback with natural gut with a thinner cross. But with poly I noticed that if the cross is thinner than 1.15, it actually inhibited the snapback, and by snapback I mean exactly that, the poly returning back into place.
Just some observations.
Jacklondon00
New User
As for Alex, I also happen to own a 20 x 22 pattern racket that I experiment with. I usually go with 18x12 or 18x14 pattern, there are absolutely no need for the outside 2 mains.
You main goal here is to keep the tension "the same" on both mains and crosses so not to deform the racket. You can try to use math to figure that out, but it doesn't quite work like that, or we would not be stringing our 18x20 or 16x19 frames at the same tension for mains and crosses. Rackets are designed to have more crosses than mains, and the different is built into the racket, so you will need a lot more tension on the crosses to keep you 22x15 from deforming, and I mean A LOT more. Your racket is the Micro, and is supposed to have 30 crosses, if you strung the whole thing at 50lb, that would put 1500 lb on the crosses and 1,100 on the mains. I am not sure if pro kennex advised a difference in tension for mains and crosses for this racket, it would seem necessary. If we assume they did not advocate a difference (which would seem strange), than you need a ratio of 1100/1500, or a ratio of 0.73. We know that ZX can only handle 60lb max tension, so 60x15=900lb, than 900x0.73= 657lb, and divide that by 22 mains = 30 lb. So if you want to pursue this 22x15 pattern, you will need to do the mains at 30 lb and crosses at 60 lb to keep the frame from deforming, in theory.
I suggest you ditch 2 mains on each side and go with an 18x15 pattern, it will play softer and you will never miss those side mains. In that case you can do the crosses at 60 lb and the mains at 37 lb, and if you want to account for tension loss with Kevlar, probably bump the mains to 40-42lb. But now it gets really tricky because tension loss is different for different materials at different tensions, and here I really don't know any other solution but trial and error. Also, not sure you can get away stringing ZX pro at 60, it's a delicate string and might not be able to take it.
You main goal here is to keep the tension "the same" on both mains and crosses so not to deform the racket. You can try to use math to figure that out, but it doesn't quite work like that, or we would not be stringing our 18x20 or 16x19 frames at the same tension for mains and crosses. Rackets are designed to have more crosses than mains, and the different is built into the racket, so you will need a lot more tension on the crosses to keep you 22x15 from deforming, and I mean A LOT more. Your racket is the Micro, and is supposed to have 30 crosses, if you strung the whole thing at 50lb, that would put 1500 lb on the crosses and 1,100 on the mains. I am not sure if pro kennex advised a difference in tension for mains and crosses for this racket, it would seem necessary. If we assume they did not advocate a difference (which would seem strange), than you need a ratio of 1100/1500, or a ratio of 0.73. We know that ZX can only handle 60lb max tension, so 60x15=900lb, than 900x0.73= 657lb, and divide that by 22 mains = 30 lb. So if you want to pursue this 22x15 pattern, you will need to do the mains at 30 lb and crosses at 60 lb to keep the frame from deforming, in theory.
I suggest you ditch 2 mains on each side and go with an 18x15 pattern, it will play softer and you will never miss those side mains. In that case you can do the crosses at 60 lb and the mains at 37 lb, and if you want to account for tension loss with Kevlar, probably bump the mains to 40-42lb. But now it gets really tricky because tension loss is different for different materials at different tensions, and here I really don't know any other solution but trial and error. Also, not sure you can get away stringing ZX pro at 60, it's a delicate string and might not be able to take it.
Jacklondon00
New User
I think the effect on spin and control is small, but it's there. I have tested two different types of Kevlar side by side in the mains, a spiral braid like Gamma Power Play vs Ashway braid, with the same cross. The spiral kevlar moved around a lot and did not snap back, while Ashway did. Spin was about the same, maybe slightly greater with Ashway, but control was noticeably less with the spiral Kevlar, especially after a few hitting sessions. Seems like the research is pointing to the snapback, or lack there off, as one of the main reasons that poly strings "go dead"
But this is a thread is about ZX, and we are trying to figure out if natural ZX has the same surface/snapback as red, or whether the string pattern makes a greater difference.
But this is a thread is about ZX, and we are trying to figure out if natural ZX has the same surface/snapback as red, or whether the string pattern makes a greater difference.
Jacklondon00
New User
Ok, thinking more about this statement I made earlier "This is definitely caused by the fact that there is a lot more friction since the force is over a smaller area, thinner string. This should be overcome with polyester because it is flat." This seems to be false, as the friction should be the same and the diameter should not make a difference. Maybe the ultra thin cross digs into the mains more, so that might be causing more friction from the notching. I don't know.
Here is a question I would like to ask. If you string your poly mains on top of your crosses without interviewing them, do you get more spin than with a regular setup? Since this would make the thinnest possible cross, right?
From my personal experience the answer is not exactly. I can't say that the answer is no, but the spin I was getting was not a heavy spin, I am not sure how to describe this.
The problem with this setup, is that you want the mains to have some energy pushing back as you push against them. If you just string your mains on top of the crosses, without weaving them, the poly mains don't have enough force to snapback, at least not at normal tensions, but maybe if strung at 100lb that would be different. Now people will bring up Spaghetti strings, which I have also experimented with. These are also not interwoven, but the mains are all tied together, so when one pushes a main they all move, and it takes a lot more force to move a main on a Spaghetti racket than moving a main on a racket with the mains strung on top of the crosses but not tied together. Hence, you get a lot less spin with the mains on top of the crosses setup opposed to Spaghetti stringing.
Thinking about a stringed in 3 dimensions, instead of just lateral movement, means that this up hill/down hill theory should be considered as something which could play a role in snapback.
Here is a question I would like to ask. If you string your poly mains on top of your crosses without interviewing them, do you get more spin than with a regular setup? Since this would make the thinnest possible cross, right?
From my personal experience the answer is not exactly. I can't say that the answer is no, but the spin I was getting was not a heavy spin, I am not sure how to describe this.
The problem with this setup, is that you want the mains to have some energy pushing back as you push against them. If you just string your mains on top of the crosses, without weaving them, the poly mains don't have enough force to snapback, at least not at normal tensions, but maybe if strung at 100lb that would be different. Now people will bring up Spaghetti strings, which I have also experimented with. These are also not interwoven, but the mains are all tied together, so when one pushes a main they all move, and it takes a lot more force to move a main on a Spaghetti racket than moving a main on a racket with the mains strung on top of the crosses but not tied together. Hence, you get a lot less spin with the mains on top of the crosses setup opposed to Spaghetti stringing.
Thinking about a stringed in 3 dimensions, instead of just lateral movement, means that this up hill/down hill theory should be considered as something which could play a role in snapback.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
A little more data on my set-up in my Blade.
1. I am not using the outer mains (using a 16x20), which requires higher tension for equivalent stringbed softness.
2. My pre-stretched 55 lbs would probably be equivalent to ~65 lbs unstretched, then allowing it get pounded and broken in for 10-20h. Would need to be even tighter on a less-dense pattern.
3. It definitely is snapping all the way back - my kevlar mains are straight as an arrow and perfectly aligned after nearly 20h of play.
JackLondon, I was on the court for your first experiment with fishing line - I recall it only lasted about 10 balls before it snapped.
1. I am not using the outer mains (using a 16x20), which requires higher tension for equivalent stringbed softness.
2. My pre-stretched 55 lbs would probably be equivalent to ~65 lbs unstretched, then allowing it get pounded and broken in for 10-20h. Would need to be even tighter on a less-dense pattern.
3. It definitely is snapping all the way back - my kevlar mains are straight as an arrow and perfectly aligned after nearly 20h of play.
JackLondon, I was on the court for your first experiment with fishing line - I recall it only lasted about 10 balls before it snapped.
Last edited:
Jacklondon00
New User
Thanks Trav, well, the last two mains would not effect the density of the string pattern in the middle.
I don't see how the pre-stretch of ZX could have helped with snapback, but a pre-stretched Kevlar might, as the tension drop would be less. I also strung mine at 56lb, but did not pre-strech.
I guess I might have to try a set of the red stuff just to be sure it is not just the 16x19.
I don't see how the pre-stretch of ZX could have helped with snapback, but a pre-stretched Kevlar might, as the tension drop would be less. I also strung mine at 56lb, but did not pre-strech.
I guess I might have to try a set of the red stuff just to be sure it is not just the 16x19.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think the biggest effect of the pre-stretch is a higher effective tension - my guess is that I am simply stringing at much higher effective tension - but without a full pre-stretch, you'd have to hit through a very boardy first several hours if you strung in the 60s before it settles in.
alexgeorge
New User
Thanks for helping me out Jack, Thanks alot.
Do you have facebook or hotmail. I really need ot know more about this. I aso have a head racket that Im having trouble using
Also jack, your right, its best to have more crosses than mains. What do you think is the best combination I can possibly make with the 22x30 to equalize it to a standard 16X19 OR 16x20
would 10x15 or 11x15 be good or bad? Does that mean it will put more pressure on the racket if its strings are too low?
and should the centre of the racket be more denser or more spaced out with the strings
alexgeorge
New User
I wanted to have the best spin and overall pattern I can make it with. ALso without deforming it
alexgeorge
New User
and wouldnt 18X15 be bad because there are less crosses?
julianashaway
Rookie
This may be true. However, in this case remember the difference is minute. There is definitely not enough difference in the surface properties of the red vs natural to explain the large gap in snap-back reported here.
Jacklondon00
New User
Alex, too many questions and I don't have a lot of time to answer them. Just string it up with 16x14 (if possible) otherwise, 18x15, or 18X16, this way you will be getting the benefit of the unique string pattern similar to Wilson Steam, there is no point of stringing it with a usual 16x19 or 18x20, that's what most rackets come with. For a legal string job the center needs to be slightly denser than the outside.
I recommend first using some very cheap synthetic gut to see how the spacing looks, and adjust it to make it uniform and legal, also will help to see what the effect on hoop deformation is with different tensions on crosses and mains, than you can string it with kevlar and ZX, since that stuff is not cheap.
I recommend first using some very cheap synthetic gut to see how the spacing looks, and adjust it to make it uniform and legal, also will help to see what the effect on hoop deformation is with different tensions on crosses and mains, than you can string it with kevlar and ZX, since that stuff is not cheap.
Sorry Jack, I missed your post. I'm in West London every 3 or 4 weeks or so at the weekends. Happy to try and catch for hit when I'm next around, subject to time / family commitments. Where abouts do you normally play? Would love to know where you get your Ashaway Kevlar from. I can't find Kevlar 18 anywhere...
On the subject to poly / ZX, the setup is only really as good as poly lasts. The Yonex PTP/ZX hybrid was great for the first 3 hours or so, but the Yonex seems to have lost tension/crispness now and I'm not feeling the same confidence from the stringbed as when it was fresh. Feels a bit rubbery and no longer firm/crisp in the way that I like.
Jacklondon00
New User
I live in West London, Chiswick. I usually play at Kew Bridge courts. My schedule is flexible, my email is yev_7(at)me.com, let me know next time you are in the area and we can hit.
Jacklondon00
New User
I ordered half set/hybrid crossfire 18 pack with a few other stings from TW in us, it was only $7.50 for shipping. But I have been buying 17g Ashway from a local pro shop in West London, at £9 for 40 feet. The difference between 18g and 17g is very small, I could not really tell a difference between the two visually, or in my racket. I bought a reel of 17g recently, you are welcome to try half a set if you want.
Jacklondon00
New User
On a related note, the new Ashway Kevlar plus in 17g is very thick, it's probably the thickest 17g string I ever seen, probably around 1.25mm. Plays good, but with less pop than 18g or 17g regular Ashway Kevlar. Snapback seems to be about the same.
Jacklondon00
New User
Ok, looking at it again, maybe 1.20 to 1.23 not 1.25
