AlecG
Semi-Pro
NOTE: I believe they used a VERY STIFF polyester string here (Black Code?), as some polyester strings have similar stiffness to some nylon strings.
Here are some graphs that were on a talk tennis thread a while ago, from a tennis warehouse article, both of which seem to have since disappeared from the internet. I couldn't find either graph with a reverse image search, but had a copy on my computer. Anyone know why the thread and article were taken down?
The most important take away of the first graph for me is that I can achieve the same stiffness as 25kg nylon by using poly at 12 kg. around what Mannarino uses. I find that polyester at 12 KG has better playability (consistency), durability and comfort than nylon as 25, so I can understand why Mannarino and some other pros opt for low tension polyester for comfort rather than high tension nylon or gut.
The lower "energy return" doesn't seem to make a big difference, probably because a lot of this extra "energy return" goes into squashing the ball instead of accelerating it. As a result *lower* "energy return" seems to be correlated with more power if anything. This makes the second graph somewhat meaningless, or misleading, but the first is very useful.
Here are some graphs that were on a talk tennis thread a while ago, from a tennis warehouse article, both of which seem to have since disappeared from the internet. I couldn't find either graph with a reverse image search, but had a copy on my computer. Anyone know why the thread and article were taken down?
The most important take away of the first graph for me is that I can achieve the same stiffness as 25kg nylon by using poly at 12 kg. around what Mannarino uses. I find that polyester at 12 KG has better playability (consistency), durability and comfort than nylon as 25, so I can understand why Mannarino and some other pros opt for low tension polyester for comfort rather than high tension nylon or gut.
The lower "energy return" doesn't seem to make a big difference, probably because a lot of this extra "energy return" goes into squashing the ball instead of accelerating it. As a result *lower* "energy return" seems to be correlated with more power if anything. This makes the second graph somewhat meaningless, or misleading, but the first is very useful.

Last edited: