Chris Dono
Rookie
Whats the differnts between Wilson K Factor KSix-One 95 ( 18x20 ) and a Wilson K Factor KSix-One 95 ( 16x18 )? I can see the string but how does that effect the raccquet?
Differnts between...
- Thread starter Chris Dono
- Start date
tennisfreak15347
Banned
the 16 x 18 would give more spin, and a little more power (as what I'm told.) I prefer the 18 x 20.
*breaksracquet
Semi-Pro
From my understanding, the 16x18 string bed is less dense than the 18x20. Meaning that you should be able to produce more spin with the 16x18 than with the 18x20 (a little less effort to produce spin with the 16x18 than with the 18x20). That's what I have read at least.
Chris Dono
Rookie
thanks guys
certifiedjatt
Banned
the above posters are only partially correct. i won't give an opinion or perpetuate age ol' myths. i'll simply summarize science (source: "Technical Tennis").
everything related to strings (material, pattern, gauge, tension) is ultimately important only in how it impacts string-bed stiffness ,i.e., softer vs stiffer. An open string pattern (in this case, the 16x18) creates a softer string bed. A softer string-bed results in more power, less control, less shock and vibration, but SAME SPIN as the stiffer property.
on a slightly different, but related, note: neither string tension, nor string material or string gauge has any impact on spin. so, if you're stringing tighter to generate more spin, you aren't basing that decision on any science.
if anyone is going to negate these claims, that's great. but please provide a scientific source.
everything related to strings (material, pattern, gauge, tension) is ultimately important only in how it impacts string-bed stiffness ,i.e., softer vs stiffer. An open string pattern (in this case, the 16x18) creates a softer string bed. A softer string-bed results in more power, less control, less shock and vibration, but SAME SPIN as the stiffer property.
on a slightly different, but related, note: neither string tension, nor string material or string gauge has any impact on spin. so, if you're stringing tighter to generate more spin, you aren't basing that decision on any science.
if anyone is going to negate these claims, that's great. but please provide a scientific source.
mawashi
Hall of Fame
Science and specs aside, I have both the AN95 in the 16x18 & 18x20 and the I would agree with most of the above except the part about spin.
Personally, a softer string bed which is the direct result of the 16x18 patten allows it to better pocket the ball and with the longer dwell time better spin is created.
I just find it a tad harder to generate spin with a dense vs open string patten.
As far as this frame is concerned, I prefer the 18x20 as it just feels that much more solid. The 16x18 feels too open and without polys, the strings start look like spaghetti within just a couple of hits.
mawashi
________
Children avandia
Personally, a softer string bed which is the direct result of the 16x18 patten allows it to better pocket the ball and with the longer dwell time better spin is created.
I just find it a tad harder to generate spin with a dense vs open string patten.
As far as this frame is concerned, I prefer the 18x20 as it just feels that much more solid. The 16x18 feels too open and without polys, the strings start look like spaghetti within just a couple of hits.
mawashi
________
Children avandia
Last edited:
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Not sure about the science guy comment above, but there is CLEARLY more (easier) spin with an open pattern (16 x XX) vs. 18 x XX. "Scientifically", it is also logical as the ball "sinks" deeper in between the mains, therefore, more "grab" by the strings, creating more spin...
I have played with the NBlade for a few years (18 x 20), then switched to 16 x 20 pattern and there is absolutely more spin created with the same technique with the later one...
I have played with the NBlade for a few years (18 x 20), then switched to 16 x 20 pattern and there is absolutely more spin created with the same technique with the later one...
certifiedjatt
Banned
well, i didn't invent the science or speculated about it. it's just a set of conclusions that university researchers came to. but, if it makes you FEEL like you're generating more spin, all the power to you.
Nice, quoting "science" and therefore it's correct! Do you know how often info-mercials quote science when telling people that if they do XYZ they will get better abs (etc)?
I'm keen to know more about the above, because much of it seems to fail the subjective tests (a point you're not shy about making). I'm surprised that your red paragraph seems to indicate that there is no way to change the spin potential of a frame(?), which sounds somewhat ridiculous to anyone who's ever hit with frames at opposite ends of the mains spectrum (eg. 14 vs 20).
I realise it's a book - which I'm unlikely to go buy - is there links to summaries / analysis of the above on the net?
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Do you really need me to involve math and physics into a simple logical conclusion that if the strings are set further apart, the ball would "sink" deeper in, therefore, the strings will create more "bite", i.e. more spin?
To me, it is very clear why the open pattern racket allows more spin...
It's been a known thing for ages and using one book lines to prove the opposite is really not relevant...
Zielmann
Semi-Pro
Umm... I have to disagree here. It seems that your source is talking about the frame/strings actually generating spin for you, which is bogus. The point is that they make it easier to create spin, not that you will automatically create more spin because you use a certain setup.
Think logically, here (as much of science begins with logic and all math can be summarized into simple logical terms). Why do we slice cheese with a thin wire? Because it's thin enough to cut into the cheese with less effort. Try slicing your block cheese with a taught rope that's as thick as spaghetti. Not so easy now, is it?
The same goes for string gauge on a frame, only we're not trying to slice pieces off the ball here. The thinner string can bite the soft surface of the ball much easier than a thicker string. When the stringbed is moved (from the player swinging to create topspin), the thinner string is less likely to slip on the ball, which means that you won't lose some spin you could have had.
As for string pattern, that's simple: think about your favorite bed of nails. Lay down on a single nail, and you'll be impaled. Space them out 4 or 5 inches apart in a grid pattern, and you'll still get poked pretty bad. But if you have them in a very dense pattern, your weight distributes over the nails more evenly, so each nail is holding up less of you. Thus, you can lay on a bed of nails without experiencing any bodily harm whatsoever. Now, think of the bed of nails that's made into a 4" grid as your open string pattern, the closed string pattern is, say, a 1" grid, and the ball is your body. Which bed is going to bite your body harder?
certifiedjatt
Banned
you're right. i got overly defensive.
certifiedjatt
Banned
what you're ignoring is the fundamentals (i.e., correlation vs causation). and yes, i would love to see your math and physics (i won't understand the physics portion of it too much, unless you dumb it down to just mathematic. i can get advanced math). i'll then compare it to the one in the book and see which one is more convincing. i am not trying to pass my posts off as my opinion; they're findings by a group of scientists.
so let's see your math.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
If you don't understand (so far) simple logic that my 6-year-old does, there is no point getting into complex stuff...
more ball area covered by the open pattern...study it a bit more, then we'll continue this conversation...
certifiedjatt
Banned
mawashi
Hall of Fame
What is it with you science geeks. The OP asked for the difference between the 2 racquets and not a science class on friction dynamics.
Why the hell would Wilson make 2 string pattens of the same frame if there wasn't any difference in the first place?
Just answer the OP.
mawashi
Btw, I have a degree in Economics, we study economatrics, equations for interpolations etc, so don't start with the math stuff.
________
Fix ps3
Why the hell would Wilson make 2 string pattens of the same frame if there wasn't any difference in the first place?
Just answer the OP.
mawashi
Btw, I have a degree in Economics, we study economatrics, equations for interpolations etc, so don't start with the math stuff.
________
Fix ps3
Last edited:
tennisfreak15347
Banned
agreed; Wilson wouldn't have made two separate string patterns to a same racquet if there was no difference. As for certifiedjatt's claim "
everything related to strings (material, pattern, gauge, tension) is ultimately important only in how it impacts string-bed stiffness ,i.e., softer vs stiffer. An open string pattern (in this case, the 16x1 creates a softer string bed. A softer string-bed results in more power, less control, less shock and vibration, but SAME SPIN as the stiffer property." I completely disagree. as referenced to a bed of nails, if you put all your weight onto one nail, and dont get punctured, we will all believe your claim. However, if you find that you'll soon need to find the local hospital's number, then we've proven our point.
Also, found within your "scientific" answer, you've disproved yourself. you say that an open string pattern causes the string-bend to be less-stiff compared to a dense pattern. Well, that directly affects spin, as more dwell-time equals more spin. As for tension, you've mis-read your scientific magazine's claims. it is indeed true that a racquet strung at 50 lbs and a racquet strung at 60lbs will produce the same spin with the same shot, but the 60lbs tensioned racquet has the ability to let you hit HARDER, which also lets you put more spin rotations on the ball. So, you shouldn't be so ignorant as to ignore all factors widely known to tennis. hows that information affect your Aristotle theory?
Spinal Tap
New User
I believe there was once a time when everyone "knew" the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was flat. Anyone thinking differently was labeled a heretic. How does this apply to tennis racquets and spin? You can "think" you know something based on how it seems logically, but until you apply the scientific method, it is only conjecture. If you think an open string imparts more spin than a closed pattern, that would be a reasonable hypothesis to test. However, it is being pointed out that a group of scientists using the scientific method proved this to be incorrect. Disagree all you want, but the scientific method saves us from incorrect beliefs and shows us the truth, even if it's a little counter-intuitive.
tennisfreak15347
Banned
let me ask a series of questions and a few brief explanations.
1. do you agree that thinner string gauges create a softer stringbend? (This is proven, and it is in an official site containing stringing stats like stiffness http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200709/stringmap_nylon.html )
2. Do you agree that more dwell time gives more spin?
As for tension, certifiedjatt was correct that tension does not affect the spin with identical strokes, but a higher tension allows you to hit HARDER, which lets you put more ROTATIONS on the ball. let me emphasize that one more time; HIGHER TENSION, CAN HIT HARDER, MORE ROTATIONS.
certifiedjatt
Banned
oh, so they didn't teach you how to spell econometrics, huh?
i am not a science geek. i am studying financial economics. i too have taken advanced econometrics--which have nothing to do with what is being discussed here. so don't throw your degree around. you're making me look bad.
why would Wilson make two different string patterns? this is a business question, stupid. do you not know what competition is??? did you not study oligopolies and game theory? do you know what a dominant strategy is? the reason wilson makes multiple string patterned racket is because it is a dominant strategy. it would be foolish NOT to make them. i don't know the history of string patterns and why manufacturers make them, but it probably started with one manufacturer, as a marketing gimmick. then the second manufacturer started making them. and now, it is in the best interest of racket manufacturers to make rackets with different string patterns.
i cannot believe that so many people are rejecting RESULTS because it doesn't fit their intuition.
mawashi
Hall of Fame
Amazing that you are able to read and generalize things so easily from from just reports... I hope your world doesn't consists of just what's in your head.
Sad... preaching those works like some cult leader... oh whatever happen the the rest of the cer?ti?fi?a?ble post?
________
Honda rc211v
Sad... preaching those works like some cult leader... oh whatever happen the the rest of the cer?ti?fi?a?ble post?
________
Honda rc211v
Last edited:
tennisfreak15347
Banned
I laugh at your ignorance. I doubt you even took the time to read any of my posts, so I wont argue with ignorance, as there's too much of it. But let me put this in simple terms; Why isnt the Kblade line in two-different string-patterns? Also, if you've read my post, you'd realize that you've perceived your magazine's data wrong, so do yourself a favor and read what I wrote. Also, I KNOW[/B it would be a lot more cost efficient focusing on the least amounts of racquets, as you don't have to create as much of a variation. I dont think that they would make different string patterns just for the hell of it.
*edit* change last to least
Last edited:
Zielmann
Semi-Pro
Exactly. According to his magazine, there must be no difference in how a 90" frame strung at 18x20 versus a 12x16 in a 90" frame... And you can string them at 75lbs or 50lbs and there won't be a difference. And you could use 14 gauge string or 18 gauge string, and there won't be a difference...
