Discussion in 'Strings' started by mikeler, May 9, 2013.
Have you tried a string besides 4g in it?
Once again you contribute nothing to this topic but only post to slam others here who are discussing this topic. If you don't have anything intelligent to say about this topic, maybe you should refrain from posting at all?
"Universities around the world"? There are universities all over the world studying the snap back of tennis strings? Shouldn't they be spending their time on something more important, like I don't know - a cure for cancer? LOL
It's not news to anyone here that more open string patterns produce more spin. This is because with fewer strings per square area, each string can dig and bite into the fuzz of the ball more thereby gripping the ball better. Thus, when you swing up, the strings grab the ball better which allows you to rotate the ball easier. No "snap back" required.
The videos (here and at the links above) show that string movement does indeed occur at the angles and speeds tested. It is also shown that the strings do snap back for all setups and they do so, for the most part, in less than 1/1000 second. We can't see the details of what occurs during that 1/1000 second between video frames, but the evidence makes it reasonable to assume that the strings are indeed spinning the ball.
If you think about this from a physics standpoint, when you take a huge vertical swing upwards at the ball, there is a tremendous amount of force on the stringbed in the downward direction by the ball which is why the main strings deflect downwards. There is also a tremendous amount of momentum from the heavy 2 oz. ball traveling at a high velocity when it impacts the strings. These forces all push and deflect the main strings downwards. This collision is extremely violent, which is why when you look at super slow motion videos of pros hitting you can see the head of the racquet shake, flutter, and twist at the moment of impact with the ball and you can see the ball impact deflecting the main strings downwards.
So what you "snap back" proponents are saying is that this very weak "snap back" force of the main strings is not only enough to overcome but supersede the tremendous downward force on the main strings from the momentum of the ball plus the momentum of your aggressive vertical swing. So much so that this weak "snap back" force will stop the ball from moving downwards on your stringbed and reverse the ball's direction of travel to the opposite direction and move it upwards on your stringbed. Do you know how much force this "snap back" would have to produce to do that? When you pull the strings to the side with your fingers and allow them to snap back, does it seem like this "snap back" force is huge? Enough to overcome and supersede the tremendous momentum of both the incoming ball and your huge vertical swing?
All of this, of course, is assuming the the "snap back" happens while the ball is still on the strings, which I am not acknowledging as I'm not convinced it does.
I'll take equal and opposite for a thousand Alex!
I never slammed others who are discussing this topic. What I'm doing is deconstructing the motivations of one particular troll who isn't discussing this topic at all but instead only posting rambling gibberish you'd see smeared on a bathroom stall in a truckstop on the way to Bradenton, Florida.
I am being very helpful indeed because others may want to actually engage in discussion and posts like mine help them point out the nonsense so they can avoid it and not waste their time. You're welcome!
I don't have much to attribute to this thread other than saying I appreciate the physics lesson from all of you that actually know what you're talking about. Aside from that, why are you all still arguing with BP? If you ignore him, eventually he'll leave quietly.
The article hints it is just one of the factors. I think it is not too big a factor.
Hey, not my fault you don't understand physics.
Really? Have you explained what happens in terms of physics what happens when the ball collides with the strings and how the strings actually rotate the ball?
I'm sure all of this is a "waste of time" for you because all of it is over your head. Did you even pass high school physics?
The article you linked also state the following:
"But all but one of these experiments was performed at low impact speeds."
"The possibility that we have been investigating is that the mechanism is the lateral movement of strings and subsequent snap-back while the ball and strings are still in contact. It is this latter condition that has been difficult to observe, but has nevertheless been postulated because other events appear contingent on its occurence."
"It is also apparent how convoluted the process can become. There are a lot of moving parts and forces that change magnitude and direction throughout the duration of the impact. Some factors accummulate to contribute to spin and others to diminish it. It is too complicated to keep an energy accounting at each step of the process."
I just enjoy seeing Breakpoint going against 15 guys a day in different threads lol.
Because they are crocked doesn't mean they don't snap back, this is polyester even if dead it can be sliding back and forth.
You guys focus too much on equipment here. In order to see who hits more spin you'd have to give the same racquet, string and tension to everybody to test and see who hits with more topspin.
Psychiatry is indeed way over my head, I'll admit that; I haven't earned a degree in mental disorders. But whoa, weird non sequitur there, I'm beginning to see the problem.:shock:
Anyone can go back and read every single one of your posts in this thread and see that you have added nothing to this analysis of ball-string collision because EVERY ONE of your posts in this thread has been about me and you slamming me. Nice way to contribute, huh? I must be a more valuable subject to you than this discussion of strings is. Nice to know I have a stalker. But I guess if there's nothing else more interesting going on in your life.........
Thank you for proving my point. Now everyone, including the mods, know what you are all about.
So how do Kevlar strings give you even more spin than poly strings do without ANY "snap back"? Oh, could it be because of what I've been saying on this forum for years?
A STIFF STRINGBED GIVES YOU BETTER SPIN! Regardless if it's natural gut at 80lbs., syn gut at 70lbs., poly at 50lbs. or Kevlar at 40lbs. - all result in stiff stringbeds which give you more spin with no snap back required.
This is because the ball compresses more against a stiff stringbed so that more of the surface area of the ball digs deeper into more strings so when you brush up on the ball, the strings grip the ball better to rotate it more (i.e., greater string on ball friction, which is also why rough/textured strings give more spin). That's why you hear a louder pop when you hit the ball with a stiff stringbed and why you feel more bite - that's the ball compressing more against the stringbed.
You guys are too funny.
All you have 'proven' is that there is more than one mechanism at work in spin production.
Yes, snap back helps generate spin and, yes, a stiff string bed helps generate spin and yes, thin strings and shaped strings bite and grab the fuzz better, and YES it is more about technique and form than about equipment.
Yawn... so what else is new?
You don't have to be a physicist to know what works.
Or, as the lyric goes " You don't have to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Seriously, this sums it up!
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the part about stiffs strings generating more spin is not quite true. Guts are not stiff, but when used with polys, it can generate even more spin than full polys because of its incredibly elastic properties for snapping back. But it needs a stiff and easy to slide poly for that gut to slide on. Together creating the best spinning combination. The combination is absolutely addicting!
I'm sure if Nadal decided to switch like Tsonga, Federer, Joker, and a few other ATP players, he can generate even more spins. But it's too late for such a drastic change as that'll requiring changing years of muscle memories, swingweight(to lower power level of the racquet), and I think he's happy about how much spin that he's generating already
And I don't get why you guys are fighting with this guy:
Thanks! I've read marketing before.
Deformed strings snap back you know.
the information you state regarding braking is common misconception.
the reason for larger calipers is more evenly predictable braking force (pedal feel). the reason for larger rotor diameter and thickness is heat dissipation so that brakes don't fade under heavy use. tires determine the braking & stopping distances predominantly. clamping force size of pads, etc. don't make much difference. same thing with pad materials. the louder race type of pads make too much noise for street use, but they resist fading. fluids play a large role in heat dissipation as well.
I'm in. You bring the rackets.
That is why I said it hinted that it was just one of many factors. Open string pattern may be more important.
I know, I know. He's a madman. But the thing is that most posters, like Breakpoint, have not read the papers, and are also unaware of just how much evidence has been accumulated, experimentally, by numerous researchers in several countries, that, taken together, shows beyond dispute that lateral string snap back is how copoly strings generate so much spin. So some might be inclined to go along with his uneducated arguments. I don't respond to him for his benefit, but only to try to prevent the spread of his misinformation.
This case is closed. And for tennis players, the questions now should be whether strings that snapback are necessary for their game. Are there disadvantages that come with lateral sliding and snapback that might be incompatible with some playing styles? Which copoly strings maintain their ability to freely slide and snap back for longer lengths of playing time? Is it possible to get lateral sliding and snapback with strings other than copolys, and if so, which ones? These are the questions that we should be asking at this point. I'd just like to see the discussions head in this direction.
Going from my experience with hybrids, the snap back is there as well. Tour Bite Soft and OGSM crosses needed no adjustment until the string died. Same with gut poly.
So there are options, and they depend on how much spin you want.
OK, let's think about this. Do you know how fast "less than 1/1000th of a second" is? That's probably faster than you can see in real time with the naked eye (especially if you blink). However, when you pull the main strings aside with your fingers and then let go, you can clearly see the strings snapping back in real time with the naked eye. If you time it, it probably takes at least 1/10th to 1/4 (if not longer) of a second for the strings to snap back to their original vertical positions. And this is with really no other force inhibiting the strings from snapping back other than the friction between the main strings and the cross strings.
Now, when you take a huge vertical swing with your racquet at an incoming ball traveling at a high velocity so that the 2 ounce ball has a lot of momentum behind it, the weight of the ball and the combined momentum of the ball and your swing will push your main strings downwards. For the main strings to snap back upwards in the opposite direction, they will first have to overcome this tremendous downward force in the opposite direction. So how can the strings snap back even faster when there is a tremendous amount of opposing force acting upon them than when there isn't (when you let go of the strings with your fingers)? And not just a little bit faster, but in the magnitude of at least 100 times faster (1/1000th vs. 1/10th of a second)? How could this be? Well, either it's not really snapping back that fast or if it is (which I doubt), the ball is no longer in contact with the strings so it's no longer applying that downward force in the opposite direction to the snap back, which means the snap back occurs too late to affect the ball.
Sometimes you just have to step back and think about things more thoroughly to see if it actually makes common sense. This one fails that test.
Remember that there was a time in which people thought the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth just because some people wrote papers stating as such. Further analysis proved otherwise.
So then why do Kevlar strings generate even more spin than poly strings do with no snap back at all?
I used to use the Prince Recoil string for a while. It had a Dupont material coating on it which reduced friction. Compared to other strings, it would show hardly any net displacement. I never had to do the manual straightening I have to do with other strings. The theory is that it displaced and came back. How fast I do know.
Drive By Off Topic Comment:
Luxilon Alu Power Rough is so bad. How on earth could they claim that it gives spin? What a waste of money.
Cut it out after only an hour of play. Dont want to waste time on court with bad string. Going back to RPM Blast and BHB7.
I can also add to this and confirm that it doesn't matter what material your string is, poly or not, that if you can reduce the friction, your strings will snap back and give lots of extra spin.
Just testing Kevlar right now with a poly cross, Black Code 1.28.
The Kevlar mains snap back beautifully. So much so, that I do not need to straighten the strings after rallies or anything. In this way, the Kevlar can get as much spin as poly.
Gut mains/ Recoil crosses was one of the best setups I've tried. Excellent spin, power, control, comfort. But the PTFE wrap had little ridges where it overlapped (wrapped in a spiral around the syngut core) that sawed through the gut mains faster than I could tolerate. Gut/poly is my setup, but I'm still looking for a more powerful cross string that is as slippery as a copoly and can deliver the same, or similar, spin potential, but with a bit more pop and comfort.
I claim credit for the gut main/recoil cross stringjob concept at ttw.
I believe that when I tested pre production recoil for Prince I said that it would be awesome with gut mains.
I did not read all posts in this thread but
have you guys thought about why spagetti string pattern was banned by ITF?
Pro shop does not stock Recoil any more. He said nobody bought it.
You had a brief run with the Exo Tour. Did any setups stay straight for you in that stick?
Most of us know; BP likely has some convoluted, nonsensical explanation bereft of real world world parallels, and replete with logical fallacies.
Yeah, it produced too much spin. The ITF deemed it "unnatural".
A low ranked player shouldn't be allowed to use one to beat a top player.
I guess "most" doesn't include you? Because if you knew, you would have told him already.
Meanwhile, the question that "snap back" believers can't seem to answer:
Yes, a string snapping back 100 times faster when there is a huge force opposing it than when there is none sure is very logical. :???:
Oh, and taking huge vertical swings at fast incoming tennis balls out on a tennis court is "real world". Tossing balls at a clamped stationary racquet in a lab is not.
How well do you understand Hooke's law BP?
(If you suspect that I am baiting you in order to make you look ignorant and uneducated for my personal amusement you may be smarter than I give you credit for)
Oh, and by all means do a bit of Google searching, and read up a bit. It won't help you at all.
Separate names with a comma.