am1899
Legend
Funny how these type of threads take an abrupt turn like this, isn't it?
Constant pull vs Lockout
- Thread starter Irvin
- Start date
Funny how these type of threads take an abrupt turn like this, isn't it?
It cannot slow it down... The material will behave the same way under strain/stress and follow the same. But I am not disagreeing with you in principal.. My interpretation of what you are saying is that you prefer to play in the plastic region. Of course the material will lose less tension as it becomes more brittle. But don't confuse this with "preferred" playability.
What matters to me is that my racket plays better and longer, much, much longer.
My main objective is to find the right tension and do something (pre-stretch, re-use) to keep that tension.
Tension determines stiffness and stiffness is the key ingredient in a string's playability.
eelhc
Hall of Fame
If stiffness is your goal... And yes... Dead strings (past elastic) will be dead for a long time.
The following was from a lecture from R. Parnell a few years back:
"Elongation, natural gut will stretch further allowing the string to absorb more energy.
Elasticity, what stretches must recover and the recovery rate of natural gut is unmatched by any synthetic. Natural gut is a product of nature, not man, and by design it will seek its original state after its stretched and upon release. Polyester is the exact opposite as it does not recover to its original state.
Tension maintenance, nat. gut's recovery rate is what sets it apart from all other strings. It will stretch and recover at a phenomenal rate and retain a higher % of the original strung tension than any other string on the market.Basically its the strings elongation, elasticity, and tension maintenance that makes natural gut special."
This is what makes nat. gut keep its great playability until it breaks
So from the above, what some above posters want to do is stretch the hell out of a string so it has no more elongation remaining.All they want is tension maintenance, so there you have it.
If that is their goal then let them hit that way, so be it.
My string of choice is nat. gut and it does hit well until it breaks.
Reusing string, and stretching the hell out of it, I though I have seen it all and then there are the posts in this thread, and they think they are smart?
I'm sure many pro's would hit with reused string if they thought it would help their game as that is their livelihood, yet I really doubt that any pro would do that.
I'm sure if manuf. wanted to make strings with no elongation properties remaining but good tension maintenance it would be made, but I'm sure not many would purchase it, as that's not the only characteristic of tennis strings.
"Elongation, natural gut will stretch further allowing the string to absorb more energy.
Elasticity, what stretches must recover and the recovery rate of natural gut is unmatched by any synthetic. Natural gut is a product of nature, not man, and by design it will seek its original state after its stretched and upon release. Polyester is the exact opposite as it does not recover to its original state.
Tension maintenance, nat. gut's recovery rate is what sets it apart from all other strings. It will stretch and recover at a phenomenal rate and retain a higher % of the original strung tension than any other string on the market.Basically its the strings elongation, elasticity, and tension maintenance that makes natural gut special."
This is what makes nat. gut keep its great playability until it breaks
So from the above, what some above posters want to do is stretch the hell out of a string so it has no more elongation remaining.All they want is tension maintenance, so there you have it.
If that is their goal then let them hit that way, so be it.
My string of choice is nat. gut and it does hit well until it breaks.
Reusing string, and stretching the hell out of it, I though I have seen it all and then there are the posts in this thread, and they think they are smart?
I'm sure many pro's would hit with reused string if they thought it would help their game as that is their livelihood, yet I really doubt that any pro would do that.
I'm sure if manuf. wanted to make strings with no elongation properties remaining but good tension maintenance it would be made, but I'm sure not many would purchase it, as that's not the only characteristic of tennis strings.
Last edited:
Of course they do but they do it differently.
But instead of re-using strings they change rackets after so many games.
Why do you think they change rackets frequently during a match?
If you don't have a clue I will tell you why.
Tension loss.
After so many games the strings have lost a lot of tension that affects the way they play.
So they switch to a fresh racket.
Andy why is tension so important that they change rackets frequently?
I would tell you that too but I won't because it is so basic that most people with over 4,000 postings should know by heart.
If I can afford it, I will change rackets during a match as the pros do.
But I cannot afford it.
The only thing I can afford is to pre-stretch and re-use strings because these are
the only method I know that can pro-long tension maintenance.
If you know of any other way I will be very glad to hear it.
Last edited:
I actually consider this process as string deformation, not string pre-stretching.
I started doing string deformation when I read the following statements from TWU:
- In a sense, it would appear that the string actually gets better with use, but you just have to re-tension it to get the benefit.
- If you re-tension that same string, it performs "better" than before.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/deadstringsPart2.php
Instead of de-bunking the statements above outright, I decided to actually do it and find out if the claims are true.
So far, my experience support the above statements.
Materials
- Dropweight tensioner with a rachet. The ratchet is mandatory
- 20 ft long string
- Anchor post
- Carpeted floor or non-slippery floor
- 80 lbs weight to prevent tensioner to tip over while pre-stretching
- Lots of time/patience
- Lay down the tensioner on the floor
- Tie one end of the string to an anchor post
- Grip the other end to the tensioner gripper
- Position the tensioner away from the anchor post to remove all slack
- Put the 80lbs weight on top of the tensioner
- Start at 30lbs
- Increment by 10 lbs when the bar stays at horizontal for 15 minutes and repeat until you get to 80 lbs (you can go to 90 lbs if you want).
- When the bar stays horizontal at 80 lbs, I let it stay there for about 10 hours and adjust the bar if required.
- After 10 hours or so, I un-mount
- Measure the string after 24 hours.
There is always permanent elongation, from 2 inches to 2 ft.
Since there is permanent elongation, you may think that elasticity has been reduced.
That is not the way I see it.
When you deform a string (permanent elongation), you are actually creating a new string.
The new string is stiffer, longer and thinner.
So elasticity is relative to the new string (deformed string) with the new lenght.
When you stretch this new string (i.e ball impact), it is still very elastic as evidenced by the energy return.
It is actually more powerful than the old string. I can feel this by just bouncing the ball on the racket.
What is noticeable is the lenght of time the tension remains the same.
So if you tension too high, don't expect the tension to come down soon because it wont.
It will take a very long time before you lose tension.
Last edited:
Karma Tennis
Legend
I'm somewhat mystified by all of this debate.
People are debating the merits of string beds with regards to tension maintenance being the priority. That sounds fine when one is talking about a single length of string.
But tennis racquets are strung with intersecting pieces of string of varying lengths which move across each other when they contact the ball that is being hit. The resulting friction leads to deformation of string in ways which leads to reduction in the performance of the string over time .... regardless of whether the tension is maintained or not.
String that is exposed to weather, heat and cold etc. is affected in ways which reduce the performance of the string ... again regardless of whether tension is maintained or not.
Perhaps you guys who look to preserve string tension as a primary goal are flat hitters so the way the shape of the string changes in the racquet over time is irrelevent to you. But for players who hit with spin, especially top-spin, it could be argued that trying to increase string life by methods including pre-stretching fresh string, or re-using string is a totally false economy.
am1899
Legend
Forgive me, is the implication that I'm not using my brain, and that I lack intelligence?
This assertion seems a bit oversimplified to me, no? Tension is not the only factor in resulting SBS. You're leaving out an important factor IMO. That is, the continued efforts (deformation, re-tensioning, etc.) as a means to reuse string. That in and of itself plays a role in the resulting SBS of the bed. Now, your methods may very well be aimed at compensating for that, too. But again, that's yet another variable added into the already complicated quest of recreating desired playability characteristics.
eelhc
Hall of Fame
Do you pay attention to when the Pros go to a freshly strung racquet?
Do you use 6 new balls for every match and change them on the 7th, 16th, 25th games?
What exact recipe/routing may be up to the pro's preference but in most majority of the matches I've seen... they will go to a freshly strung racquet on a ball change. They regardless of whether they made a 100 shots or 300 shots in between. I've seen some instances where a pro will wait until they receive after a ball change, opting to serve with the "old" racquet.
Tension loss is only a part of the equation. They are matching the tension of the racquet to the compression/bounce of the balls.
Once in a while they'll realize that have the wrong setup for the match and will send out a bunch of frames to be restrung during the match. I have seen some cases where the pro will stand on the stringbed to loosen up the tension.
If tension maintenance is your thing to the point of extreme pre-stretch... Perhaps you might want to try a Kevlar Hybrid. Check out the Crossfire ZX setup.
am1899
Legend
What's also interesting to me, is that while many of the male pros now change the racquet at (or around) the ball change, seemingly less of the women on tour do this. I wonder why that is? I'm not being porky here...I really do wonder why (many) women pros don't change - at all, or as frequently as the pro men do.
Do you notice that men hit much, much harder than women?
eelhc
Hall of Fame
And the WTA hit much, much harder than recreational/club players.... If we follow your logic, you must hit harder than the average WTA player.
eelhc
Hall of Fame
Just follow your logic... This is your quote...
So according to you... the pros change racquets because of tension loss.
Apparently you have this problem as well but since you can't afford the frames + strings, you've gone to your pre-stretch routine.... and in response to the WTA not changing racquets as often as the men, you mention that the men hit much harder (obviously true)... So the WTA doesn't have the same tension loss problem the ATP does.. but you do. Ergo... the conclusion is that you must hit much, much harder than the WTA.
In reality... the ATP racquet change, is usually done to coincide the introduction of new balls. Yes the strings did lose tension but they are matching the power of the racquet to the balls. It's more complicated than simple tension loss.
Now look at a more common reality... the club/recreational player. Me for example, I usually bring 2 racquets to a match with the same string setup but one will always have lower tension than the other. Either I strung it that way at the same time or more likely it's been in the rotation longer after a re-string. I will usually start with the higher tension (lower powered) racquet since I am fresh at the beginning of the match and have some additional nervous energy. During the match, I the nervous energy is gone, I will settle down and get more tired. ... at which point I switch over to the lower tension (higher powered) racquet. The tension loss of the first racquet is not significant enough to make up for the fact I have less energy 1-1/2Hrs into the match than at the beginning. This is a very common routine/approach... and many folks follow it.
You got that right!
If you hit the ball harder, the higher the tension loss.
If you hit the ball softer, the lower the tension loss.
The ball is also affected.
If you hit the ball harder, the softer the ball gets.
If you hit the ball softer, the ball does not get softer as much.
What is the affect of a softer strings in terms of ball/string interaction?
What is the affect of a softer ball in terms of ball/string interaction?
Control/Power!!!
Ball pocketing is also affected.
The string returns almost 100% of the energy it aborbs while the ball only returns 50%.
If the string is softer than the ball, which will absorb more energy?
If the ball is softer than the string, which will absorb more energy?
Power/control is affected as the string and ball's characteristics are changed.
Why do pros change rackets on a ball change?
They don't have to, but most/all do.
Stroke consistency!!
A fresh ball is much harder than a used ball.
Using a fresh ball with a used string may require you to adjust your strokes to get the same results.
However, most pros do not want to adjust their strokes.
They chose to change rackets instead and use the same strokes as before.
Last edited:
eelhc
Hall of Fame
Bingo... fresh balls, fresh racquet. tension loss is only part of the equation.
If it was just tension loss, a pro will change the racquet earlier or later depending on the number of strokes made.. Again, I see the pros change the racquet on a ball change whether the first 9 games took 40 minutes or an 1-1/2Hrs. If tension loss was all they are concerned with, they would change racquets more often on longer, grinder matches with lots of strokes but I do not see this. Racquet change at the same point in the match.
You seem to think that tension loss is something that is rapid and unpredictable. On some strings this is the case. But on most strings including many of the polys I've played... after the initial tension loss, once the bed has settled, there is a period of gradual tension loss until the stringbed goes dead. For me this is 15~20Hrs on most polys. I almost always cut it out before it goes dead (different than tension loss... this is when the poly starts to become brittle).
Tennis_dude101
Professional
I was talking to Rubin Statham about this a while ago, apparently he hardly sells any Pro Stringers to women players. Maybe they aren't as demanding regarding their restrings and don't restring as often and are happy to use whatever stringing services the tournaments provide. Could it be because women players don't really get into the technical(restring) side of the sport so much compared to men, or because they are gentler on the strings so they last longer?
TD
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Don't have their mum to re-string daily?
No.
Their mum's too busy.
What are you doing here anyways?
Go back to Shoes and Apparel.
This topic is serious stuff...
Last edited:
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
How difficult is it to string and find out for yourself? Just do it
Ronaldo
Bionic Poster
Is this the same stringer Paula Ormaechea used in the NYT article?
I think she used one of those portable Brazilian lockout machines if i recall.
Tennis_dude101
Professional
That is what I suggested these guys do. Just do it and be done with it.
But these guys just love to argue ad infinitum...
am1899
Legend
Does these guys include you?
Quite an arbitrary claim, dont you think? What defines "much, much harder?" Serena Williams pops serves consistently in the 120's, sometimes approaching 130 mph. Roger and Novak dont serve any harder than that. To me, (in general) it seems the weight of shot (read: spin) in the men's game is probably the more significant difference, compared with the women's game. Generally, women hit flatter. But, what separates the genders in both speed and weight of shot, IMO does little to explain the significant differences in behavior, with regard to changing racquets during matches.
am1899
Legend
Could very well be.
diredesire
Moderator
I'm glad you acknowledge that people may have different goals and that it's complicated
I agree. I'm also OK with others having their own opinion as long as they understand that my being OK with this doesn't mean I agree with the conclusion. However, the pro argument is a bit of a red herring. If we're arguing strict tension loss, this is something Pros dont have to deal with in the same way we mere mortals do. I know you already know this from the rest of the posts in the thread, but I'm not sure the comment is actually meaningful in this context... I fully agree with your manufacturer comment. My opinion about the pre-stretch (or elongation) technique being used by ricardo is that this would be a string I probably don't want to play with as the stiffness and response would theoretically move towards the stiffer/kevlar-like state. I'm not willing to risk my arm to try (I already have chronic injuries).Thanks for the process. Very interesting. One key material that many others would lack is: "Lots of time/patience" - While I think this experiment is very interesting, i just find it to be impractical. That's the barrier of entry for me. As far as string deformation vs pre-stretch, it doesn't really matter what we call it as long as it's defined well (which you did). I would like to point out that within the context of TW's article, the phrasing is subtle and matters quite a bit. The key phrase is "in a sense" and "it would appear." There's no claim that this is a better performing string because the metrics of a well performing string aren't defined. This is why several of us are belaboring the point of "depending on your goals." I also take issue with the oversimplification of playability wrt tension (loss). You are claiming as fact that tension loss is the key ingredient as it is directly correlated with stiffness. If stiffness is a key ingredient in playability, why haven't we settled on a single perfect string? The issue here is that playability is a subjective term, and it is entirely up to the individual to decide what they prefer. It's clear you prefer a string that doesn't lose tension (your words), and that's fine. I'd suggest that you also like a firm string bed and one that doesn't change characteristics over time (which may or may not be tension related!). My issue with your statements is that you attribute change in playability ONLY to tension loss, when there are many more factors to consider. If you are someone that plays with an extreme amount of spin, you may like fresh poly beds because they are slick and the strings slide against themselves. Once some dimpling/settling has occurred, this property may change. One could attribute this to tension loss, but it is not necessarily so. Again - my issue is that your "factual" claims (opinions) are hyper focused on tension loss when that may not at all be the reason you are pursuing string deformation/pre-stretch.
Regarding fact, however, it doesn't matter how you look at your "new" string (post-deformation). As compared to the original string that is installed into a frame in a conventional method, you have reduced elasticity. By stating that there is a permanent deformation, by definition you have reduced the elasticity. It is actually a pretty silly statement to say that elasticity is relative to the new string. Either this applies to all strings or none. When you string any string in any method this would apply.
I also notice you make the claim: "What is noticeable is the lenght of time the tension remains the same."
How are you measuring the tension loss and comparing the cases? Note: I believe you that the tension loss is reduced, by the way. However, if you're not using a tool (SBS or otherwise) to measure the change, this isn't a factual claim you can make. The only measurement metric you are using (if not a tool!) is feel. If you are using a tool, I'd be grateful if you could post some numbers (I personally enjoy knowing magnitudes so I can internalize them and use them to develop intuition.
Regardless of the science behind what happens to the string as tension is lost, the point is that not everyone has identical criteria for optimal playability. It's OK to disagree in this case as long as we can all agree on that fact
It's complicated, and that's why i personally find this interesting.
diredesire
Moderator
Agreed. The rest is less relevant to a discussion about tension loss, rather than choosing the right frame for the scenario. I do agree to try a kevlar hybrid simply for feel. It'd be a good indicator of whether or not you like obscuring the tension loss feel, as a kevlar hybrid would likely be an extremely lossy setup, but the feel would stay remarkably consistent across the string bed life (IMHO).
I'm glad we can agree
Why is any of this really relevant? All of the above are things we can't control. Yes, we affect the ball, but it doesn't have to do with loss of tension. It has to do with an appropriate tension choice, or string bed stiffness for the situation at hand.
I disagree with your energy loss claims. Where are you getting these numbers? For a string to return even remotely close to 100% of energy absorbed they would have to snap back in an equal and opposite magnitude and direction before the ball leaves the string bed. Is this a claimed/published number somewhere, or is this a theoretical claim that should be obvious to me?
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
It's OK to disagree in this case as long as we can all agree on that fact
Exactly! I think "we all" ( including myself) should do some more reading and studying towards string-properties. I see some pretty ackward comments, that make no sense to me. RIcardo put me on the track of pre-stretching and re-using, and I think he deserves credit to "boldly go etc.".
I just re-used a nat.gut-string, that was broken in the middle (L-strings). Untied the string, put a knot in the "old-ends" to make "one-string again". So, the "hardly used outside strings" are now the "new middle strings", and this string can go an other round (I could not string all 16 L-strings, just 14).
It seems a lot of people confuse a tension stable stringbed with a high SBS. You can re-use a string, and aim for a lower SBS (you should use a lower reference-tension when you re-use a string to get same SBS)
And EVERYONE is using strings in the "plastic region". Simple proof: even without play the SBS of EVERY fresh strung racket goes down (creep, you know).
And Ricardo is not playing without elasticity. Simple proof: his stringbed holds tension, and the only thing that can keep a stringbed to hold tension is the elasticity.
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
@MathieuR If you want a tension stable string bed, stretch the string until it cant stretch any farther without breaking for a long time. Then keep it in that stretched state until you're ready to string your racket. Then you can string your racket normally with any tension you want. You will have the stiffest string at the lowest tension with the least amount of tension loss.
One question, what if I dont like a stiff string bed? What if I like the spongy trampoline string? Most people are telling you that and you do not want to listen. You want to tell them they should string their racket the way you want it strung. How long will it take you to comprehend they don't care how you want them to string their racket?
EDIT: Sorry if I sounded a little terse.
One question, what if I dont like a stiff string bed? What if I like the spongy trampoline string? Most people are telling you that and you do not want to listen. You want to tell them they should string their racket the way you want it strung. How long will it take you to comprehend they don't care how you want them to string their racket?
EDIT: Sorry if I sounded a little terse.
eelhc
Hall of Fame
I think this about says it...
Take me for example... The 2 strings in my rotation at present is Pro Supex Big Ace Micro (19/1.15) and Kirshbaum Pro Line II (18L / 1.15). Both strung in a full bed at 40lbs (~18KG) on my lockout with no pre-stretch. The strings hardly stretch while I am tensioning and I need to cut a slightly longer length of string than say at 50~60lbs. One consequence of low tension with poly is that the initial tension loss is not severe and the stringbed maintains playability longer (in the upper end of 15~20Hrs I normally get with a full bed of poly).
I can stretch the snot out of 1.15mm poly then string at 40lbs but then the playability is completely different.
And as for natural gut... In the interest of science, risking damage to the frame, I took the time to cut the knots and remove the strings from one of my family's OS 125 sqin, 18x20 racquet, strung at 55lbs quite a while back but was not in rotation all that often (probably under ~30Hrs). I then strung up a 98 sqin , 16x18 frame at the same tension 55lbs. I got a chance to hit with it last night and as expected... it's a completely different, much firmer stringbed with much less ball pocketing + elastic feel than the same frame strung with fresh NG. I didn't care for it but if this is the stringbed one likes... fine.
Last edited:
Irvin
Talk Tennis Guru
I agree with you @eelhc there is a thread out there where 30 lbs is great and 20 lbs not so bad. Not for me so I ignore the thread Some people string at very high tensions with poly and that is not for me either. I like what I like and gave tried most of the other stuff too. But others don't and that's fine with me.
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
I lean toward thinking this is the primary reason new strings feel better than old ones and why some players switch out. If it was just solely constant tension, one could use steel cables that would last for years.... (This is also why I'm not sold on this "pre-stretch" or even CP that may improve tension maintenance but at the expense of degrading elasticity.) But six pages in and I haven't read the definitive answer lol.
diredesire
Moderator
There is none!
The prestretch stuff IS rather interesting, but I have a feeling my arm wouldn't like it. It's also not feasible to do this on a large(r) scale besides home stringing (IMHO).
That said, I'd like to see data on it.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
@Irvin: can't remember I am pushing this method. It is "a" method, everybody is free to try it or leave it.
If you would string a 125sq.inch and a 98sq.inch with same (fresh) string at same tension, I can assure you the SBS in the 98sq.inch will be a higher value. On top of this: a re-used string should be strung at a LOWER reference tension to get same SBS (and in a smaller head-size even lower)
And I don't think you did use the gut "inside out" (cut in the middle, tying the old ends to make the "new middle" to give the new middle L-strings the "unused" part of the string.
If you use a much lower refernce-tension, you will get a SBS that your arm can handle.
Agree, it is labour-intensive, and therefore too costly if you calculate the hours. What can be done: prestretch the string before stringing. It shouldn't be too hard to make a commercial unit that could do this (or a construction with pulleys and weights)
I have some, but not "presentable". I will keep record, and come back on this; I do have a StringLab2 for SBS-measurements.
graycrait
Legend
Incredible, I read this whole thread. I ruminated over much of what has been transcribed in this thread. I saw nothing that makes me want to change what I am doing on my NEOS 1000 on which I primarily string Ashaway Kevlar x Zyex Pro for myself and two other guys. However, if I win the lottery tomorrow night I might buy an uber expensive CP machine. Prestretching is a player personal preference issue, no right or wrong about why or why not. LO vs DW vs CP is a preference issue also unless it is a business issue like frames/hr/predictable for customer base. For me it is pragmatic, figured on cost, durability, reliability and predictability of job. The NEOS 1000 will get the job done pretty well and will last forever, but there is a bit of "art" involved which means there are more variables from job to job with a LO even from like frame to like frame, using the same string. If I had to string every day, several rackets per day, I would get a CP.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
Exactly
. But as I stated before, many stringers, same for users of a (e)CP or a LO have little understanding of the physics of stringing.
A simple test that can be an eye-opener for stringers: while tensioning a L-string, pluck the string, and listen to the pitch. A LO-stringer will hear the pith rise when cranking, and as soon as the machine locks, pitch goes down IMMEDIATELY (I know I am just repeating myself, but I still have the impression many stringers do not realize this)
A steelwire has not enough elasticity to hold the tension in a stringbed. A string without elasticity can not be used for stringing. Pre-stretching kills most of the creep, but the elasticity in NOT killed.
Last edited:
eelhc
Hall of Fame
Exactly
But as I stated before, many stringers, same for users of a (e)CP or a LO have little understanding of the physics of stringing.
A simple test that can be an eye-opener for stringers: while tensioning a L-string, pluck the string, and listen to the pitch. A LO-stringer will hear the pith rise when cranking, and as soon as the machine locks, pitch goes down IMMEDIATELY (I know I am just repeating myself, but I still have the impression many stringers do not realize this)
A steelwire has not enough elasticity to hold the tension in a stringbed. A string without elasticity can not be used for stringing. Pre-stretching kills most of the creep, but the elasticity in NOT killed.
Setting aside the pre-stretch/taking the creep out/etc discussion for the moment... As we've discussed before, all machines are in fact lockouts. On a crank lockout, the tension is locked out between the tensioner and the far grommet. On a CP, once you clamp, the tension is locked between the clamp and the far grommet. On conventional stringing, the pitch of the string goes down between the clamp and the far grommet once one clamps off.
Now... the discussion of pre-stretching or extreme pre-stretching is a different one and should not be confused with the tensioner operation. If one prefers the all of the initial creep to be taken out of a stringbed or actually prefers used strings (may work with gut but I'd like to see someone try this with poly and not get injured), fine... but they are in the minority. The argument is that taking the initial creep out is easier with a dropweight or eCP.... wait 20 seconds with a stopwatch,etc. But IMO there are other, more consistent ways to do this (some folks have built simple pre-stretching rigs to accomplish).
Also... maybe we should rethink the use of the word "creep" in this discussion. "creep" is a material science term and should not be confused with pre-stretching. There is no such thing as "taking the creep out".
Not exactly true.
Many years back there was a racquet made that had a wooden handle that extended up towards the throat, and a metal top part of racquet that had twisted steel wires for strings, so evidently there was enough elasticity to hold tension. I have seen such a racquet a couple times at antique shows.
I was told by someone that those racquets were used by some schools back about 60+ years ago.
Your comment above is not valid.
Last edited:
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
Well, you are right, steel wire does has some elasticity: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_modulus
The modulus for steel is 100 times that for nylon, meaning, for same string-thickness, you will need 100 times more force to get the same elastic elongation, or, for same force you get ~1% of the nylon-elongation.
This means, that at "standard-stringing-tension", where you have 5% elongation for nylon (say 17mm for the L-strings), you get 0.05% elongation for the steel-wire = 0.17mm. Some draw-back of your clamps, and all elasticity is gone.
edit: could be that a twined steelwire has more elasticity, like a metal spring
tennis_ocd
Hall of Fame
A steelwire can hold tension just fine (although the process of stringing and clamping would get a bit more precise... similar to comparing gut to a stiff poly) .... at least we're talking the importance of string elasticity and not tension maintenance. Steel would play much too stiff; rubber bands, much too soft.
But what really jumps out is the comment that pre-stretching does not diminish a string's elasticity. As someone who believes a string's elasticity is the primary playability characteristic (and therefore believe manufactures of string do all they can to preserve elasticity) I try to do my part in preserving this designed/manufactured property. I can't comprehend how pre-stretching (to over final tension pull) doesn't degrade this property.
Put another way, I trust the Babolat engineers to not skip a simple manufacturing process that would better xcel elasticity maintenance and therefore decide to mess with their designed product in my garage..... a man must know his own limitations and all that.
(Before I hit send I went back to OP to see how far I drifted; 2011? lol. I'll send anyway to read more on the values of pre-stretching....)
diredesire
Moderator
You're only considering first order cause/effect again. The starting SBS has very little to do with arm safety. If you have deformed the string to the point where it stops stretching, the dynamic response of the stringbed will absorb much less energy from ball impact. Assuming you strike the ball with the same force, where is all that energy going? There aren't very many places, I can assure you.
As far as the labor "solution" - my point is this wouldn't work for any non-home stringing setup, especially when the time order of magnitude is so high. A commercial unit would have to service many sets of string at once and be able to handle multiple types of string or else it just simply moves well beyond the realm of "reasonable" very quickly. I just really don't see this working unless you have a very predictable customer base.
Exactly
But as I stated before, many stringers, same for users of a (e)CP or a LO have little understanding of the physics of stringing.
A simple test that can be an eye-opener for stringers: while tensioning a L-string, pluck the string, and listen to the pitch. A LO-stringer will hear the pith rise when cranking, and as soon as the machine locks, pitch goes down IMMEDIATELY (I know I am just repeating myself, but I still have the impression many stringers do not realize this)
A steelwire has not enough elasticity to hold the tension in a stringbed. A string without elasticity can not be used for stringing. Pre-stretching kills most of the creep, but the elasticity in NOT killed.
I don't think that any of the above is a mystery to most people. What the heck is an "L-string," by the way? Is this common terminology these days, am I no longer "hip with it"? Oh man. Whether or not many people have thought deeply about it is another story (in which I agree with you).
You are confounding elasticity with elongation here. Less deformation in the perpendicular plane of the string bed (the elastic elongation) doesn't have much to do with string tension or the ability to hold it.
I agree, the elasticity by definition has to change if there is a permanent deformation of the string. It does not mean that there is no elasticity left, which is also fine. The suggestion that the elasticity isn't affected is... wrong. As far as the rest of the value statements, it depends on your goals, but I agree with the spirit. Simply deferring to experts at Babolat (or wherever) is the fallacy of expertise (argument of authority). We are super off topic at this point, but theory discussions often go that way
am1899
Legend
Exactly
But as I stated before, many stringers, same for users of a (e)CP or a LO have little understanding of the physics of stringing.
You can state it all you like, but it should be clear that this is your opinion - not fact. I, for one, disagree with you. I think the very nature of the stringing process lends itself to types of people (for example: those who value attention to detail, those who are mechanically inclined, "tinkerers", engineers, etc.) who are more likely (than the general population) to inherently understand (or want to learn) the related physics.
Frankly, I think your impression is off the mark. My own impression of experienced stringers, is that they (generally) have a good deal of understanding of how their machine(s) work(s) - regardless of the type of machine.
And, whether or not you intended it, the implication of the bolded statement is, at least in part, that those who string on LO's are lacking in intelligence (b/c they don't realize how their machine works). That's a rather baseless, inflammatory statement to continue to repeat, IMO.
MathieuR
Hall of Fame
I did a simple test, that everybody can repeat, using Kirschbaum Super Smash 1.30mm. I tensioned a piece of string in increasing and decreasing tensions. Measured the lenght of a marked piece of string, and did some simple calculations (sorry for the "," should read as "."):
Kirschbaum Supersmash 1.30
tension[kg] | length [mm] | elongation [mm] | elongation [%]
0 | 19,96 | 0,00 | 0,00
10 | 20,05 | 0,09 | 0,45
20 | 20,30 | 0,34 | 1,70
30 | 20,65 | 0,69 | 3,46
40 | 20,80 | 0,84 | 4,21
50 | 21,20 | 1,24 | 6,21
40 | 21,14 | 1,18 | 5,91
30 | 21,00 | 1,04 | 5,21
20 | 20,89 | 0,93 | 4,66
10 | 20,68 | 0,72 | 3,61
0 | 20,44 | 0,48 | 2,40
then I used same piece of string and repeated the test:
tension-|-length [mm]-|-elongation [mm]-|- elongation [%]
0-|-20,44-|-0,00-|-0,00
10-|-20,50-|-0,06-|-0,29
20-|-20,70-|-0,26-|-1,27
30-|-20,85-|-0,41-|-2,01
40-|-21,00-|-0,56-|-2,74
50-|-21,16-|-0,72-|-3,52
40-|-21,13-|-0,69-|-3,38
30-|-21,00-|-0,56-|-2,74
20-|-20,90-|-0,46-|-2,25
10-|-20,70-|-0,26-|-1,27
0-|-20,50-|- 0,06-|-0,29
Sorry, lay-out sucks, but I could not copy the nice columns of the spreadsheet
(I did it a 3rd and a 4th time, and those measurements were almost same as the 2nd time)
As you can see, the "pre-stretch" eliminates a lasting elongation of 2.4%. The pre-stretched string still has elasticity, and has a "lasting elongation" of 0.29% You get a different string when pre-stretching, for sure, but don't tell me I killed the elasticity!
Look at the measurent at 50kg, first pull:
50 | 21,20 | 1,24 | 6,21
6,21% elongation. But of which 2,4% is "permanent elongation", leaves for the elastic-elongation at 50kg 3,81%
Look at measurement second pull, 50kg:
50-|-21,16-|-0,72-|-3,52
3,52% elongation. Of which is 0.29% "permanent elongation", leaves for the elastic elongation at 50kg's 3,23%
Not so much difference.
Last edited:
Similar threads
