How much does gauge affect power.

[Jackson Heights]

I had heard a long time ago that a 17 gauge has a little more power than a 16 gauge.
This week I was looking at the description page for strings on the TW website. I was checking out posters reviews for the regular Gamma Asterisk 16 gauge, and the regular Gamma Asterisk 17 gauge (not the Tour or Spin versions). Lots of people posted reviews for the Asterisk 16 G. Many said it lacked power, and some said the strings were so weak they could barely hit the ball over the net.

Then I checked the reviews for the Asterisk 17 G.
Only a few people posted reviews for the 17G, but no one complained about a lack of power. One poster even said it was too powerful. I found it hard to believe that the same string, with such a slight difference in gauge, could be so different - one being very weak and the other not. I expected a slight difference in power, but these reviews made it seem like they were totally different strings. Can anyone explain this?

 

[Court Valkyrie]

I think that the thicker gauge allows for less power because it isn't as forgiving...lets say you were trying to bend metal bars the thinner the easier to bend.

 

[marosmith]

I think that the thicker gauge allows for less power because it isn't as forgiving...lets say you were trying to bend metal bars the thinner the easier to bend.

Thinner gauge has more power and spin because it moves and bends more- more elasticity.

 

[v205]

When I use 16g and change to 17g, I would hit more balls just slightly out etc. Takes a little bit of time to adjust so it's no drama unless you change guage during a match.

 

[alidisperanza]

The above posters are correct. TW unfortunately doesn't have the greatest user reviews =/

 

[Jackson Heights]

I think that the replies here, other than maybe the last one, are missing the point. I wrote that I understand that 17 g probably has a little more power than 16g. But the reviews for the Asterisk were wildly different. There shouldn't be more than a small difference - how much different is a 16g from a 17g in terms of power? It's not much thicker. When I looked at posters reviews for other strings, there was not much of a difference in reviews of 16g vs 17g of the same string. But the posters' reviews for the Asterisk 16g vs Asterisk 17g were very different. As if they were totally different strings. 16 G very weak, 17g not weak. It did not make sense for there to be such a great difference, and I cannot understand that. Please see my opening post for this thread.

 

[YULitle]

It depends on the string. The majority of the strings out there follow the thinner gauge = more power rule. There are those that don't. This is backed up with not only user reviews but USRSA string data.

 

[Keifers]

If your sample sizes of customer reviews is small, you may have to make allowances in reaching conclusions about the two gauges.

That said, some strings do play quite differently depending on gauge. For example, I always liked Bab Super Fine Play 16 but found SFP 17's playability noticeably less good.

 

[alidisperanza]

For better string reviews you may want to check out s tringforum . net They have a nice database and decent player base that review consistently

 

[Jackson Heights]

Is the Asterisk string coated with polyester?

For better string reviews you may want to check out s tringforum . net They have a nice database and decent player base that review consistently

Good idea alidisperanza. I checked out that website. There were no reviews of the Asterisk 17 but a bunch of reviews for the 16. Reviews were mixed as to whether this had a lot of power or a little power.

One thing worried me. The website description of the strings is an Asterisk multifilament center encased by a "polyamide matrix." Is this "polyamide matrix" polyester? If so, I am in trouble. I have tennis elbow and have to use soft strings and have to avoid polyester strings. And I already ordered two rackets strung with the Asterisk 17, which have already been shipped. I hope that polyamide matrix isn't polyester and hope it doesn't make the string hard, or I'll have to restring both rackets right away.

I think I'll put in a new thread about this to see if people know if that is polyester.

 

[li0scc0]

For better string reviews you may want to check out s tringforum . net They have a nice database and decent player base that review consistently

I love the reviews at Tennis Warehouse. However, another big issue is the following that I have noticed.

Here is a typical review:

"Got the string, hit with it for 30 minutes, and it is the BEST STRING EVER! Can't comment on durability or tension loss, but wow!"

The same goes for shoes and racquets.

The issue, of course, is lack of objective long-term results. For example, a week ago I broke a string (Prince Duraflex 17g). Grabbed a new backup racquet that had Luxilon Big Banger in 17g. Never used it before. The first 20 minutes I hit with the Big Banger was terrible. Atrocious! Had I posted a review at this point, it would have been a -1 out of 10. Over a few days, though, things got better and I found I was able to hit better with the Luxilon than with the Prince Duraflex. Even so, I don't think I have enough 'experience' with the Luxilon Big Banger to post an actual review. Not yet. In time, yes. An anecdote as I just related above? Sure. But that is not a review, rather something I might relate to another player on the court.

I realize that 'limiting' reviews to those with long term experience would...well...limit the number of reviews. But I would far prefer 10 strong, experienced, and detailed reviews than I would 25 reviews that are spotty.

Just my $0.02, please adjust for inflation.

 

[alidisperanza]

Lio, you're absolutely right. Many people don't take the time to qualify the good and the bad of a product. It's unfortunate.

As for the OP, Multi and poly don't really "bunch" together. Typically if something is a "poly" it's some sort of monofilament/ co-poly. (to others, please take this with a laaarge grain of salt, I'm being very general) Multifilaments are usually composed of hundreds and thousands of fibers woven around each other or held in by an outer wrap. Just becuase there may be a polyester coating on the outside of the string doesn't, by any means, mean that it will play like a poly (ie ProHurricaneTour).

Rest assured, it will be much softer than a poly =]

Happy playing!

 

[Jackson Heights]

I think it's funny how the reviews are different at different sites. There were lots of reviews of the Gamma Asterisk 16 on the stringforum.net website. Most people there thought it was an average string.
Lots of people also reviewed it in 2007 for the Racquet Sports Industry August 2007 magazine issue. They have a lot of people testing strings without knowing the name of the string they are testing. The Asterisk 16 came in 7th out of 113 strings tested. So lots of people loved it on one site, and lots thought it was average at best on another site. Hard to explain!