Low Friction Poly X's For Gut Mains : Softer Alternative to MSV Co-Focus?

[corners]

Corners,

You are way too smart for me! Awesome post as usual and I'll try to respond below.

I agree that the low tensions might be fouling up the works. The Exo Tour is a very unique frame as well.

I'd love to try higher tensions because I do enjoy comparing my feelings on court with science but unless my elbow goes from "OK" to "No pain" soon, I have no intention of upping tension.

All that being said, I've had a few multi strings (Dunlop DNA) comes to mind recently) that produced a heavier ball. I've used the gut/poly in mostly cooler conditions compared to DNA though. I'll report back after my matches this weekend.

You're way too kind Mikeler. (Actually, you're a really nice guy and the whole message board appreciates that!)

I forgot the last hypothesis: Everyone is wrong about gut/copoly. It does not generate more spin than other setups. What actually happens is that the rebound angle is very high. This forces the player to close the racquet face to lower the trajectory of the shot and keep it inside the baseline. Closing the racquet face produces more spin, but this is a player-dependent effect, not a true inherent virtue of gut/copoly.

This is actually a possibility. To date, there have been no published tests of a gut/gopoly setup under controlled conditions, so we do not know that gut/copoly is more spin-friendly than any other setup. We can assume this setup is quite powerful, so if players are closing their racquet faces to compensate for a high launch angle, and thereby generating more spin, the combination of that racquetface angle-dependent spin and the inherent power of this setup would create a heavy, dipping ball. Mikeler might not have given himself enough time to adjust to the high launch angle by closing his racquet face, or may have reduced the steepness of his swing (another compensatory strategy used to deal with a high launch angle that would result in less spin, rather than more), and so his results were a fast ball with not so much spin.

I hate to write this: but who the hell knows? On the other hand, every bit of info we have on strings and spin suggests that gut/copoly does produce more natural spin. But that info also suggests that if the tensions are too low you won't get more spin and only a high launch angle. So I think this particular hypothesis is probably blul siht. It's more likely that your tension was too low in that big, open pattern.

I think you could probably up the tension by 5-10 pounds and not endanger your arm. But you know your body a zillion times better than me.

Another thing to try, and I honestly cannot believe you didn't try this instead of gut/copoly, is gut/Monogut ZX at 56/54. Monogut ZX is half as stiff as that Yonex copoly! USRSA has a nice deal on the 17g version for members.

 

[ChicagoJack]

Mike and Corners -

One more thing to add to the laundry list of possibilities. The Co-efficient of friction of gut string varies quite a bit. Check my opening post, I have the digits there. From Pacific Prime 16 being the most slippery at 0.103 to Klip Uncoated 16 at 0.298. Wilson 16 is 0.245 and is the 2nd most sticky gut. While its really tough to predict how any two different strings will react together, the single string/full beds data is hard to ignore when the spreads are that large.

Wish I had more time to contribute to the conversations, lots I'd like to chime in with! So many awesome threads happening right now.

PS. I like it when corners gets slightly feisty.

Jack

 

[ChicagoJack]

ChicagoJack, I noiced on your signature you are using a 15L with MB 18g as crosses... Does the thin MB cuts into your gut easily?
Becos recently I ordered some gut in 16 and 16L and I am worried to string them with my MB

Cheers

Hi Boinz

I've not noticed any increased wear pairing 18g crosses with 15L gut. I play with 15L gut just to get a little extra life out of my set. I go with the 18g co-poly crosses just because a thinner gauge in poly is more comfortable. Should add that I play indoors on hard court year round. If I was playing in South Florida on clay all year round, I'd likely have a whole nuther story for you regarding string wear.

Regards, Jack

 

[corners]

Mike and Corners -

One more thing to add to the laundry list of possibilities. The Co-efficient of friction of gut string varies quite a bit. Check my opening post, I have the digits there. From Pacific Prime 16 being the most slippery at 0.103 to Klip Uncoated 16 at 0.298. Wilson 16 is 0.245 and is the 2nd most sticky gut. While its really tough to predict how any two different strings will react together, the single string/full beds data is hard to ignore when the spreads are that large.

Good point. But, Wilson 16, which you note is not very slippery in a full bed, when paired with BBO cross is in the top 10 most slippery setups. And BBO is not a top tier poly in terms of lubricity. So I'm inclined to think the gut main's coating is not particularly important to string-on-string friction.

PS. I like it when corners gets slightly feisty.

Jack

Well, I'm drinking white russians, so I've got an excuse. Picture a slightly more ornery, and svelte, Dude.

BTW, I'm still high on Polymaster's potential as a cross. I was wondering about this the other day. Lots of players have reported longlife and improving spin as their gut/cofofucus setups age. Some guys are reporting 30+ hours. I only get 10 before I snap the gut. So clearly some people are slicing through the gut mains and others are not. String life aside, if you're slicing the gut that means you're notching it first. Kawazoe and company in Japan found that when gut mains notch (in a full bed), spin potential drops by 20-30%. If you can avoid notching you can avoid that dropoff. On the other hand, the TW Professor found that gut/copoly gets more slippery the longer you rub the two together, although I'm not sure if he rubbed 'em until the gut notched. So, assuming they will notch if impact force is high enough, you don't want that.

I've long had the idea that Polymaster crosses would act somewhat similar to the aluminum string savers imaged above. The flat surface of the polymaster cross would diffuse the friction forces enough so that the gut main may not notch at all. If this were the case, not only would string life be prolonged, but match-to-match spin consistency would be maximized.

Anyway, I've got three sets of polymaster II on deck. Just waiting for the thaw.

Ho boy! Rafa's making his 350+ week hardcourt debut. Gotta go.

 

[mikeler]

Of the few guts I've tried, Wilson 16 is the most slippery. The gut no longer returns to position. I was having all sorts of problems with power today. I think the poly is probably dead. The setup has lots of control but power and spin are not what I was hoping for.

 

[Fintft]

Good point. But, Wilson 16, which you note is not very slippery in a full bed, when paired with BBO cross is in the top 10 most slippery setups. And BBO is not a top tier poly in terms of lubricity. So I'm inclined to think the gut main's coating is not particularly important to string-on-string friction.




Well, I'm drinking white russians, so I've got an excuse. Picture a slightly more ornery, and svelte, Dude.

BTW, I'm still high on Polymaster's potential as a cross. I was wondering about this the other day. Lots of players have reported longlife and improving spin as their gut/cofofucus setups age. Some guys are reporting 30+ hours. I only get 10 before I snap the gut. So clearly some people are slicing through the gut mains and others are not. String life aside, if you're slicing the gut that means you're notching it first. Kawazoe and company in Japan found that when gut mains notch (in a full bed), spin potential drops by 20-30%. If you can avoid notching you can avoid that dropoff. On the other hand, the TW Professor found that gut/copoly gets more slippery the longer you rub the two together, although I'm not sure if he rubbed 'em until the gut notched. So, assuming they will notch if impact force is high enough, you don't want that.

I've long had the idea that Polymaster crosses would act somewhat similar to the aluminum string savers imaged above. The flat surface of the polymaster cross would diffuse the friction forces enough so that the gut main may not notch at all. If this were the case, not only would string life be prolonged, but match-to-match spin consistency would be maximized.

Anyway, I've got three sets of polymaster II on deck. Just waiting for the thaw.

Ho boy! Rafa's making his 350+ week hardcourt debut. Gotta go.

Corners, like other people have said, you are too smart for me!

Minor question: do you think that waxing(and cleaning) your gut periodically would increase friction or slow it down(especially after the gut started to fray/notch)?

I have yet to try gut in the mains (VS Team 17) with Luxilon crosses(I've only done the opposite), but I should...Meanwhile I usually go full bed gut.

Thanks!

 

[corners]

Of the few guts I've tried, Wilson 16 is the most slippery. The gut no longer returns to position. I was having all sorts of problems with power today. I think the poly is probably dead. The setup has lots of control but power and spin are not what I was hoping for.

If the gut is getting stuck out of position your tension was definitely too low. When the mains stop snapping back you pretty much have worst possible stringbed: a high and variable launch angle combined with average or below average spin.

 

[mikeler]

If the gut is getting stuck out of position your tension was definitely too low. When the mains stop snapping back you pretty much have worst possible stringbed: a high and variable launch angle combined with average or below average spin.

It stayed pretty straight the first few hours. The racket has very low power so I have to string it fairly low.

 

[Fintft]

If the gut is getting stuck out of position your tension was definitely too low. When the mains stop snapping back you pretty much have worst possible stringbed: a high and variable launch angle combined with average or below average spin.

Would 57 or 55 LBs for the gut mains be considered too low? 6.1 95 BLX 18X16.

 

[corners]

Would 57 or 55 LBs for the gut mains be considered too low? 6.1 95 BLX 18X16.

From my experience with 16x18 Wilson 95s, 57 or 55 pound gut mains should work just fine.

 

[corners]

Corners, like other people have said, you are too smart for me!

The flattery is going right over my head.

Minor question: do you think that waxing(and cleaning) your gut periodically would increase friction or slow it down(especially after the gut started to fray/notch)?

I have yet to try gut in the mains (VS Team 17) with Luxilon crosses(I've only done the opposite), but I should...Meanwhile I usually go full bed gut.

Thanks!

I think keeping your gut clean is a good idea. It can only help with stringlife and match to match consistency. I also like the idea of using some kind of lubricant - wax, silicone, graphite powder, etc. In theory, regular use of a lubricant would forestall the development of notches and improve string life by maybe a factor of 2 or more. But the problem is that the lubricant continually wears off as you play with it. So, are you still getting the same level of spin after 1/2 hour of play as you did just after applying the lubricant? I don't really know. I suppose that if you were to reapply a lubricant every 1/2 hour it would be a little bit like the pros changing to a fresh stringjob every 1/2 hour. But you'd have to be consistent with it and you'd also have to not mind the opinions of your opponents. (When I experimented with lubricant I felt uncomfortable applying it in front of other players. Unconsciously, it seemed like a dirty trick to me, even though it's perfectly legal.)

 

[corners]

It stayed pretty straight the first few hours. The racket has very low power so I have to string it fairly low.

What are you currently trying to achieve with your stringbed?

 

[Fintft]

The flattery is going right over my head.



I think keeping your gut clean is a good idea. It can only help with stringlife and match to match consistency. I also like the idea of using some kind of lubricant - wax, silicone, graphite powder, etc. In theory, regular use of a lubricant would forestall the development of notches and improve string life by maybe a factor of 2 or more. But the problem is that the lubricant continually wears off as you play with it. So, are you still getting the same level of spin after 1/2 hour of play as you did just after applying the lubricant? I don't really know. I suppose that if you were to reapply a lubricant every 1/2 hour it would be a little bit like the pros changing to a fresh stringjob every 1/2 hour. But you'd have to be consistent with it and you'd also have to not mind the opinions of your opponents. (When I experimented with lubricant I felt uncomfortable applying it in front of other players. Unconsciously, it seemed like a dirty trick to me, even though it's perfectly legal.)

Thanks, another thing is that the wax leaves streaks on the balls, dirtying them and that makes them more difficult to see indoors (as I had the experience last night). I clean them maybe after playing 2-3 times as I'm also worried about loosing control, the first few minutes after I've waxed the gut...

 

[mikeler]

What are you currently trying to achieve with your stringbed?

Total domination of the central Florida men's 4.5 tennis scene!!! :twisted::twisted::twisted:

 

[corners]

Thanks, another thing is that the wax leaves streaks on the balls, dirtying them and that makes them more difficult to see indoors (as I had the experience last night). I clean them maybe after playing 2-3 times as I'm also worried about loosing control, the first few minutes after I've waxed the gut...

Yeah, the lubricants I've used have also left streaks on the ball, especially for the first few minutes after application. I know what you mean about losing control just after you've waxed. In theory, having a lubricant on the hitting surfaces of the strings would not be a good thing. My experience, though, is that after a few minutes of hitting the lubricant on the surface of the strings gets rubbed off by the ball and then you've only got the lubricant left at the string intersections, where you want it. So once the ball stops getting the streaks your strings are "clean." But that still leaves the streaks on the ball.

Wax might be more stubborn too, in terms of how quickly it gets rubbed off. I was using a silicone-based cream from Japan, called Mira-fit, which rubbed off the hitting surface pretty quickly but stayed in the intersections pretty long. Another option would be to apply whatever lubricant, have a short hit to get the lubricant worked into the string intersections and then take a paper towel and lightly run the surface of the strings to remove the unecessary excess. Kind of like work, though, which is why I gave up on lubricant and started focusing entirely on string setups that were naturally slippery for the longest amount of time.

Gut mains/slippery copoly crosses is the current best fit. The TW Professor found that gut mains slide with the lowest coefficient of friction along copoly crosses of any string or string combination, AND that they became more slippery the longer he rubbed them together. With copoly mains and crosses the trend was opposite - they started out very slippery but the interstring friction increased the more they were rubbed together. Thus, this thread, which is all about have that smooth sliding and snapback but with the most comfortable and powerful copoly cross string.

My thing is that I like gut/syngut the best, in terms of power and comfort. But the gut mains stop snapping back after a while. So I either put lubricant on, or I find a copoly cross that is more similar to a syngut in terms of power and comfort.

 

[corners]

Total domination of the central Florida men's 4.5 tennis scene!!! :twisted::twisted::twisted:

A full bed of ZX Pro is worth a try , as is gut mains/ZX Pro crosses. I'm going to flog this until you try that string Mikeler. It was made for you. And I fully support your fantasies of domination. Only the Optimal Stringbed will allow us to crush our opponents, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

 

[ChicagoJack]

It stayed pretty straight the first few hours. The racket has very low power so I have to string it fairly low.

Hi Mike,

Don't let that stop you from stringing your gut mains a bit higher, as suggested by corners. Dropping tension probably makes much less impact on power (ball velocity) than we imagine. Credible measurements (Crawford, Lindsey, Brody) range from .3 to 1.0 mph for every 10 lbs in tension drop. Even if the data is wrong by quite a bit, say by a multiple of two or three, another 2-3 MPH is still probably not perceptible by either you or your opponent. Also, I know you've got a tender arm, but one if the amazing properties to gut is that due to its organic and elastic properties it remains comfortable in the higher tensions.

Of the few guts I've tried, Wilson 16 is the most slippery. The gut no longer returns to position.

Key distinction here. I think you might be seeing the mains stuck out of position, and are arriving at a mistaken conclusion. The opposite is actually more plausible. All strings move upon impact, when a string moves because it is pushed by the ball, but does not snap back, its evidence of high friction, not low friction. See link. Very good visuals there. The other possibility is that the tension in the mains is too low, not enough elastic energy happening, the mains are just being pushed around like a wet noodle.

1. The co-efficient of friction for any given string bed is a pretty simple measurement. Data shows that a full bed of Wilson Natural 16 generates the second highest friction digits of all guts tested, with Pacific Prime the lowest. I have the digits on the opening post, but its really pretty intuitve. Prime has a slick coating and Wilson Natural is rough. Having said that, when you start mixing and matching dif guts and polys, it's almost impossible to predict how any two will react to each other. Two strings that are very sticky as full beds, when you hybrid them, can then become very slippery when combined. There have been quite a few gut/poly combos that have been tested, but a whole bunch have not. That's one main reason for the existence of my thread.

2. While its very difficult to predict how one specific gut will react with one specific poly string, we do know something about the generalities from the very high test samples. In order from lowest to highest friction, Gut/Poly -> Full Poly -> Nylon -> Full Gut -> Poly/Gut. In all cases, hybrids (even two types of poly) are more slippery.

Jack

 

[newyorkstadium]

Studies have shown that it's notching of the mains that disables the snapback mechanism the most. If you can stop that you should be able to get maximum playable life and value out of your gut mains/copoly setups. There is the hypothesis that Don't Let it Bounce mentioned - that notched guts exude a natural oil that actually helps them slide freely on copoly crosses - and I think that that probably happens, but the CoF numbers we have for gut/copoly setups are taken prior to notching, so if we can avoid notching altogether it might be better on balance, even if we miss out on this self-lubricating function.


Another thing to consider is that all of these stiffness numbers are taken post-tension loss. The nylons lose much less tension than the copolys, so the numbers make the copolys look pretty soft. But I believe TWU's procedure for tension loss measurement is too aggressive. Basically, their tests make the copolys lose more tension than they would in the real world - basically they are testing them "dead" (although I don't believe strings go dead in the way people believe them to). Adjusting for that, the copolys are probably about 10-15% stiffer than they appear in comparison to the nylons.

Is looking at the COF of individual strings in a hybrid not pointless? To qoute the TW professor:

"The COF of a string measures the friction of the string sliding on itself. It is not a universal measure against every other string it could slide on. Each combination must be tested separately. So a string could slide better on another string than it does on itself. This is very common."

I've tried to analyse the data on this thread - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=457588

 

[mikeler]

Corners,

I'm thinking about doing Gut/NVy next. Thoughts?

Jack,

I may try Gut/NVy at 60.

 

[corners]

Corners,

I'm thinking about doing Gut/NVy next. Thoughts?

Jack,

I may try Gut/NVy at 60.

No,no, gotta do gut/zx. Have you talked to anyone that's tried gut/n.vy? I thought at one time it would be good but the silicone coating is meant to interface with slippery copoly mains. I would be afraid that the relatively rough gut mains would tear off the coating pretty quick and then all you'd have is a gut/syngut stringbed, which isn't so bad, but you won't get any of that snapback spin. Plus, in that 16x18 the trashed n.vy will cut through the gut fairly quickly.


ZX is 80% less stiff than n.vy and also returns energy better. So it should be more comfortable and more powerful than n.vy. Plus, if the mains are free to slide on the smooth surface of the ZX you'll get the cushion effect that comes with the extra dwell time that accompanies sliding and snapback of the mains, but only if you hit with spin.

You mentioned that the gut/poly you tried felt rather firmer than you expected. Do you typically hit with a lot of spin? On flat shots I find that gut/poly can feel a little firm, but when hitting with spin the feel softens for the reason mentioned above.

Anyway, I've not tried either n.vy or ZX so this is all armchair stuff and might be BS.

 

[corners]

So is the TW tension loss tool useless? I've been using it for a while?

No, I don't think it's useless. It's just that they are a bit rougher with the strings than they should be. Many of the copolys lose 25-30 pounds in their tests, but we know from people that keep string tension logs using various tension reading tools and devices that copolys usually lose about half that much tension after 10 hours or so of play. But in the tests, nylon strings lose about 10 pounds, on average, and gut loses 5 pounds or so. And this reflects real life: copolys lose the most tension, nylon strings lose less, and gut loses the least. And the numbers for nylon and gut are close to real life, so it's really only with the polys that the tests show greater than realistic tension loss. But even with the polys, some lose much more tension than others. So if can still use the test data to compare one poly to another: If one poly loses 25 pounds in the tests and another only loses 15, we can be pretty sure that the second poly is much better than the first, which is useful info.

In addition, if we're clever we can still use the test data to compare the stiffness and energy return, string deflection and dwell-time, of a poly to a nylon string, or a poly to a natural gut. The String Performance Database allows us to sort results by "actual tension" - the tension is really at after the tension loss protocol has been carried. If we do this we can compare a nylon strung at 50, which might have an "actual tension" of 40 pounds, with, for example, a poly strung at 60 but, after tension loss, that is now also at an actual tension of 40 pounds. This way, we can compare them both at 40 pounds and get a pretty decent apples to apples comparison of their dynamic stiffness, energy return, deflection, dwell-time, peak force, etc. Then, we can use those actual tensions to compare the nylon at 40 pounds to the same poly at 30 pounds, which might be a good reflection of those strings after they've been played with for 10 hours or so, since we already know that the poly will lose about 10 pounds more tension than the nylon will in real life. Hope that makes sense.

Is looking at the COF of individual strings in a hybrid not pointless? To qoute the TW professor

"The COF of a string measures the friction of the string sliding on itself. It is not a universal measure against every other string it could slide on. Each combination must be tested separately. So a string could slide better on another string than it does on itself. This is very common."

I think it's still useful to look at individual strings when plotting a hybrid. If you're going gut/poly, for example, you can look at the hybrids that have been tested, then compare the poly in that hybrid with another poly we might be considering. If the second poly has lower friction in a full bed than the first poly, I think it's reasonable to conclude that that second poly will be more slippery in combination with gut mains than the first one was. The difference might not be that great, but if we're going to obsess about these things and try to find the optimal cross for gut mains it's probably worth looking at. And that's what Jack has done in the OP with his chart showing stiffness and COF numbers for lots of cross string "candidates."

 

[mikeler]

No,no, gotta do gut/zx. Have you talked to anyone that's tried gut/n.vy? I thought at one time it would be good but the silicone coating is meant to interface with slippery copoly mains. I would be afraid that the relatively rough gut mains would tear off the coating pretty quick and then all you'd have is a gut/syngut stringbed, which isn't so bad, but you won't get any of that snapback spin. Plus, in that 16x18 the trashed n.vy will cut through the gut fairly quickly.


ZX is 80% less stiff than n.vy and also returns energy better. So it should be more comfortable and more powerful than n.vy. Plus, if the mains are free to slide on the smooth surface of the ZX you'll get the cushion effect that comes with the extra dwell time that accompanies sliding and snapback of the mains, but only if you hit with spin.

You mentioned that the gut/poly you tried felt rather firmer than you expected. Do you typically hit with a lot of spin? On flat shots I find that gut/poly can feel a little firm, but when hitting with spin the feel softens for the reason mentioned above.

Anyway, I've not tried either n.vy or ZX so this is all armchair stuff and might be BS.

My reasoning is this. I cut out a half set of NVy to give to a friend. It somehow disappeared, so all I have left is the other half set. I'd like to try the Monogut as a full bed since it is so expensive. I've also got a half set of Discho Microfibre that I could use.

 

[corners]

My reasoning is this. I cut out a half set of NVy to give to a friend. It somehow disappeared, so all I have left is the other half set. I'd like to try the Monogut as a full bed since it is so expensive. I've also got a half set of Discho Microfibre that I could use.

Well, if it's between Discho and N.Vy I would go with the N.Vy. I was hoping someone would try N.Vy as a cross. I don't think anyone has done, or at least they haven't reported on it, so you may as well do it

I really liked Gut/Prince Recoil. I thought it functioned very much like gut/copoly but was softer and more powerful. I felt pretty badass off the ground with that setup. I doubt the coating of N.Vy is as slippery or as durable as the PTFE wraps of Recoil, but you should get similar performance for a while, at least, until the silicone coating gets scraped off. Then again, maybe the coating will hang in there.

 

[mikeler]

Well, if it's between Discho and N.Vy I would go with the N.Vy. I was hoping someone would try N.Vy as a cross. I don't think anyone has done, or at least they haven't reported on it, so you may as well do it

I really liked Gut/Prince Recoil. I thought it functioned very much like gut/copoly but was softer and more powerful. I felt pretty badass off the ground with that setup. I doubt the coating of N.Vy is as slippery or as durable as the PTFE wraps of Recoil, but you should get similar performance for a while, at least, until the silicone coating gets scraped off. Then again, maybe the coating will hang in there.

NVy it is!

 

[newyorkstadium]

In addition, if we're clever we can still use the test data to compare the stiffness and energy return, string deflection and dwell-time, of a poly to a nylon string, or a poly to a natural gut. The String Performance Database allows us to sort results by "actual tension" - the tension is really at after the tension loss protocol has been carried. If we do this we can compare a nylon strung at 50, which might have an "actual tension" of 40 pounds, with, for example, a poly strung at 60 but, after tension loss, that is now also at an actual tension of 40 pounds. This way, we can compare them both at 40 pounds and get a pretty decent apples to apples comparison of their dynamic stiffness, energy return, deflection, dwell-time, peak force, etc. Then, we can use those actual tensions to compare the nylon at 40 pounds to the same poly at 30 pounds, which might be a good reflection of those strings after they've been played with for 10 hours or so, since we already know that the poly will lose about 10 pounds more tension than the nylon will in real life. Hope that makes sense.

I think it's still useful to look at individual strings when plotting a hybrid. If you're going gut/poly, for example, you can look at the hybrids that have been tested, then compare the poly in that hybrid with another poly we might be considering. If the second poly has lower friction in a full bed than the first poly, I think it's reasonable to conclude that that second poly will be more slippery in combination with gut mains than the first one was. The difference might not be that great, but if we're going to obsess about these things and try to find the optimal cross for gut mains it's probably worth looking at. And that's what Jack has done in the OP with his chart showing stiffness and COF numbers for lots of cross string "candidates."

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

As I've said in a post I started today, a slippery poly cross does not always produce lower COF in a hybrid. With the VS touch, the slippier the poly cross, the higher the COF of the hybrid. Here's the thread- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7273605#post7273605. The thread title is wrong by the way.

 

[corners]

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

When measuring tension loss, I always substitute static tension loss from total tension loss, to get an idea of how much tension the strings lose through playing. Is this erroneous? The impact tension loss has a note saying "some strings (at lower speed impacts) actually are at higher tension after the impact than before". This has made me doubt my method.

Well, they only let the strings site for a little while before they start dropping the hammer on them, so that initial static tension loss might not be that important. But in my opinion you can dig into the numbers as far as you want, you might find something interesting.

Like....

As I've said in a post I started today, a a slippery poly cross does not always produce lower COF in a hybrid. With the VS touch, the slippier the poly cross, the higher the COF of the hybrid.Could you have a look at the thread - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7273605#post7273605. The thread title is wrong by the way.

...this interesting finding. I'm not sure what to make of this. But certainly it suggests that the COF of the cross is not so important. It might be that the more important thing is that the cross is a poly, which all have hard, smooth, slippery surfaces upon which the mains can glide. But for my money, I'll still choose the more slippery cross over another when plotting my next expensive hybrid experiment. Why not?

As far as that thread, I noticed that the Unwitting Enemies of Science have appeared, so I'll leave that one alone. No use arguing about stuff like that. Some people are more curious than others, some people don't have math backgrounds, etc. No big deal.

 

[newyorkstadium]

Agreed, I'm learning all the time about science. The whole undercurrent on here that the scientifically curious posters don't practice hard is ridiculous. Like you said, no biggie though. I hope to do my own COF experiments and try and fIs there a formula that can be used to work out the stiffness of a hybrid? Since the mains is (supposedly) the 70% dominant string. What about adding the two together then dividing by 2.08?

Another thing to consider is that all of these stiffness numbers are taken post-tension loss. The nylons lose much less tension than the copolys, so the numbers make the copolys look pretty soft. But I believe TWU's procedure for tension loss measurement is too aggressive. Basically, their tests make the copolys lose more tension than they would in the real world - basically they are testing them "dead" (although I don't believe strings go dead in the way people believe them to). Adjusting for that, the copolys are probably about 10-15% stiffer than they appear in comparison to the nylons.

So the TW test's make the co-polys lose too much tension, but not the nylon strings? If the tests made both lose too much tension, that would be fine. You could still compare strings, it's just the stiffness figures would be a bit off.

Strings have a stabilisation point, so they can't "lose more tension then they would in the real world". This is through the standard tension loss factors though, hitting and at rest, not through the TW method of hitting the stringbed with a hammer.

 

[polytheist]

String the Nvy crosses higher than the gut. 2 lbs for 16, 3 lbs for 17. 17 is super stretchy.

 

[newyorkstadium]

bump......

 

[ChicagoJack]

bump......

Hi newyorkstadium, I really appreciate your thoughtful participation here, it's generated some really awesome dialog lately. However, might I ask you to avoid the bumping routine? I see you do that with smasher08, with the TW Professor, With TravlerAjm, and with StoneAge. Nobody here is under obligation to answer your questions on any particular time frame. Participation here is recreational for most folks, and is squeezed in amongst the pressures of adult life.

Thanks

Jack

 

[newyorkstadium]

I must admit I'm trying to cram in as much information, as quickly as possible, in my off-season. So i'm thinking about only tennis when I'm back playing.

The question has gone off the first page, so I'm just putting it back on there. As a student, I must admit I do have quite a bit to learn on the pressures of adult life.

 

[ChicagoJack]

^^
Yeah cool, I totally understand. You are passionately curious, I dig that. I think we both an share obsessive compulsive streak, that fuels the ability to focus in on specific concepts, one at a time until they are understood intimately. The thread has slowly grown into a place free of the typical confrontational under current, which creates a space for real thinking to take place, and this delights me to no end. I'm really glad to have you here.

-Jack

 

[corners]

Is there a formula that can be used to work out the stiffness of a hybrid? Since the mains is (supposedly) the 70% dominant string. What about adding the two together then dividing by 2.08?

Sure, that sounds reasonable. But only for impacts normal to the stringbed. For glancing blows the mains and crosses are kind of doing different things and this results in longer dwell time and less shock when the mains are free to slide. So this means a lower "effective stringbed stiffness," so to speak.

So the TW test's make the co-polys lose too much tension, but not the nylon strings? If the tests made both lose too much tension, that would be fine. You could still compare strings, it's just the stiffness figures would be a bit off.

Strings have a stabilisation point, so they can't "lose more tension then they would in the real world". This is through the standard tension loss factors though, hitting and at rest, not through the TW method of hitting the stringbed with a hammer.

I don't know about any stabilization point. I don't think there's any such thing. Strings continuously lose tension, they just lose tension faster or slower at different points in their life. But I'm not an expert on that. Could be wrong.

As far as the tension-loss protocol, it appears that nylon strings are much more elastic than copoly, so the force used in the tension-loss part of the testing protocol doesn't lead to unrealistically high loss for nylon, or for natural gut. But copoly strings are different, and the fact that they lose more tension during testing than they seem to in real life is revealing of how different they are from those other materials. But again, even though they seem to lose more tension during testing than in actual play, I think it's still useful to compare the test numbers when looking at poly vs. poly.

 

[newyorkstadium]

Sure, that sounds reasonable. But only for impacts normal to the stringbed. For glancing blows the mains and crosses are kind of doing different things and this results in longer dwell time and less shock when the mains are free to slide. So this means a lower "effective stringbed stiffness," so to speak.

What is a glancing blow?

I don't know about any stabilization point. I don't think there's any such thing. Strings continuously lose tension, they just lose tension faster or slower at different points in their life. But I'm not an expert on that. Could be wrong. As far as the tension-loss protocol, it appears that nylon strings are much more elastic than copoly, so the force used in the tension-loss part of the testing protocol doesn't lead to unrealistically high loss for nylon, or for natural gut. But copoly strings are different, and the fact that they lose more tension during testing than they seem to in real life is revealing of how different they are from those other materials. But again, even though they seem to lose more tension during testing than in actual play, I think it's still useful to compare the test numbers when looking at poly vs. poly.

If you look at this thread, the strings have practically stabilized by the end - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=398516

 

[corners]

What is a glancing blow?

I just meant that would produce spin - impacting at angle other than normal to the stringbed.

If you look at this thread, the strings have practically stabilized by the end - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=398516

I think "practically" is the operative word here. The rate of tension loss diminishes with time, but each time Sten played with the racquet the strings elongated more. My understanding is that the peak force at impact is reduced as strings are reduced in tension. And I believe that it is the force peak that causes plastic deformation, or creep, and elongation of the strings (which reduces the tension further.) So as the tension drops, the impact peak force drops with it, and so the force acting to lengthen the strings is progressively decreased. Thus, the strings lose less tension the looser they are. But each time you impact a copoly string you're going to stretch it beyond its elastic limit, as long as your swing is fast enough. (There might be some exceptions to this, but I don't understand the subject well enough to identify them.)

Here's the tension loss graph from the post you linked to:

So that was Proline II 1.25 after 7 hours of play and a whole bunch of resting time. It lost about 17 pounds, which, from what I've seen is pretty typical of real-world tension loss with lots of polys. By comparison, the TWU numbers for the same string strung at the same tension (51 pounds) was 23 pounds. It's not really that far off, but I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that when looking at the copoly data from TWU is that the numbers represent that string after it has lost about as much tension as it ever will. So if you're comparing a nylon string to a copoly string, both at the same reference tension, you're looking at that copoly essentially at a place in its lifespan that some describe as "dead."

 

[newyorkstadium]

Will nylon strings continue to lose tension long after the TW tests?

 

[corners]

Will nylon strings continue to lose tension long after the TW tests? If the nylons tension loss has halted, then it would be best to just use TWU's tension loss figure. If they still have a lot to use, I wonder if it would be best to use rate of loss (total loss minus static loss) to see which string end's up with the highest total tension loss at stabilization point.

In the future, I may test the tension loss of some nylon strings against the TWU data, to see if the nylons are "dead" at the end of TWU's test's

You might want to check out the active thread on TWU's new study about "dead" strings. The TW Professor provides some information that requires us to re-think what "dead" means. He's also written a post that contradicts some of the stuff I've been telling you about tension loss. Believe him, not me.

BTW, what are you after anyway? What's your objective with all these questions about tension loss? Whatever your objective, I think you should post it as a question in a separate thread. ChicagoJack has spent a lot of effort on setting up this thread to answer specific questions about the ideal gut/copoly setup. Your questions are no longer on topic, so it would be good to start a new thread.

 

[newyorkstadium]

Okay, I will start a new thread. This is an excellent thread by ChicagoJack, and I don't want to veer it off-topic.

 

[mikeler]

Strung up my Exo Tours last night with Wilson Gut 16/Discho Microfibre 16 at 60 pounds this time. That is 10 pounds above what I had the Wilson Gut at with the Ytex poly hybrid. So we shall see how the gut snaps back now. I know once the Discho gets a little scuffed up that it will get hairy and prevent the snap back but I wanted a real soft string bed as my arm is not quite 100% yet.

 

[corners]

Strung up my Exo Tours last night with Wilson Gut 16/Discho Microfibre 16 at 60 pounds this time. That is 10 pounds above what I had the Wilson Gut at with the Ytex poly hybrid. So we shall see how the gut snaps back now. I know once the Discho gets a little scuffed up that it will get hairy and prevent the snap back but I wanted a real soft string bed as my arm is not quite 100% yet.

What happened to the slippery N.vy?!

 

[mikeler]

What happened to the slippery N.vy?!

I've never used NVy, so I'm not sure what the stiffness is like. I know DM well so decided to go that route.

 

[corners]

I've never used NVy, so I'm not sure what the stiffness is like. I know DM well so decided to go that route.

OK. Let us know how it plays for you.

 

[ChicagoJack]

Bummer.

Now that spring is here, and I'm playing outdoors again, I need at least one back up frame without any gut in it for damp conditions. I love my current Gut/Poly, but it seems to be raining non stop here in Chicagoland. Great for my lawn. Not so good for my racquets. I was all jazzed up to order some of the low friction nylons that I had listed the opening post of the thread. However, it looks like quite a few of the Gosen Nylon strings I had eyeballed as demo candidates have gone out of production? Maybe just out of stock?

I don't see a TW listing for: Gosen Composite Master II, Gosen Powermaster I, or Gosen Powermaster II. Prince Recoil went out of production early 2012 I think, and just going by the digits, it seems a bit stiff for a nylon anyways.

Of the remaining choices, the stiffness and friction digits on Volkl Gripper look awesome, but I'm quickly developing a dislike for textured string. Great for kickers and baseline bashing, but no so great at the net. If anybody has any thoughts on the following as full beds of nylon, I'd really appreciate it:

Head FXP Power 17
Klip Synthetic Gut
Volkl Synthetic Gut
Gosen Nano Silver 17
Gosen AK Pro 17

Also, feel free to mention anything else not on my radar. As always, I have comfort and low inter string friction high on my priorities list.

-Jack

 

[corners]

^^Monogut ZX. Less stiff than any multi. Lower interstring friction than any nylon string, at least initially. In a full bed, doesn't seem to offer the sliding and snapback of gut/poly or full poly, but might work well in various hybrids.

ZX/Powermaster

or

Poly/ZX might work.

Torres, over in the Monogut ZX thread thinks poly/ZX is the way to go, but the problem, as always, is the tension loss of the poly. Trav is high on kevlar/ZX at the moment, but that might be too stiff for you, or to great a change from gut/poly.

BTW, which poly are you favoring in the crosses from all those you targeted?

 

[ChicagoJack]

Corners -

Yeah cool, I think I will give the ZX a try. I know there was quite a lot of discussion, trial and error, regarding the ideal reference tension for ZX in that awesome thread of yours. Given it's unique stiffness characteristics and tension loss profile, what tension would you recommend for ZX/Poly? My usual for Gut/Poly is 54/50.

In regards to your question, I'm still favoring WC Mosquito Bite 18 as a cross. Yonex Poly Pro Tour is also really good and is a close second. I still have unopened packs of Gosen Sidewinder, and Gosen Polymaster to demo. If I recall correctly, you are particularly curious about the Polymaster, and if the flattened out shape has any merit. I'll be sure to report back on that one fer ya.

I'm fixin to crack the grip seals and customize/match up 3 more of Pro Ones pretty soon. Once I do that, Ill have much more opportunity to demo strings.

-Jack

 

[maxpotapov]

Corners -

Yeah cool, I think I will give the ZX a try. I know there was quite a lot of discussion, trial and error, regarding the ideal reference tension for ZX in that awesome thread of yours. Given it's unique stiffness characteristics and tension loss profile, what tension would you recommend for ZX/Poly? My usual for Gut/Poly is 54/50.

In regards to your question, I'm still favoring WC Mosquito Bite 18 as a cross.

-Jack

I'm now trying ZX cross with syn gut mains. Even though it does have some properties of multi, it still has some polyesque feel and sound to it. Syn gut mains is the harshest I would use in the mains to get the best out of ZX crosses. Next time I will hybrid it with natural gut. As it was previously discussed, why waste resilient ZX crosses on very short-lived poly mains. EDIT: same applies to poly crosses with ZX mains. As much as I like WC Mosquito Bite with natural gut mains, poly is still a poly, and Zyex is something different.
And of course, Zyex hybrid should work much better than any smooth poly full bed or poly/poly setup.

 

[corners]

Corners -

Yeah cool, I think I will give the ZX a try. I know there was quite a lot of discussion, trial and error, regarding the ideal reference tension for ZX in that awesome thread of yours. Given it's unique stiffness characteristics and tension loss profile, what tension would you recommend for ZX/Poly? My usual for Gut/Poly is 54/50.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a recommendation of any value. Despite pimping ZX on the boards for several months, I still haven't tried it myself. Torres has done the most testing of poly/ZX so I would check out his posts on that in the Zyex Monogut thread. But I don't think he's much into gut/poly, so he might not be of much help either.

It's been a long time since I've used poly/nylon of any sort, which, on paper, would be the closest to poly/ZX. But since the ZX is much less stiff than even a syngut, I would think poly/ZX should be strung a little tighter than poly/nylon.

In regards to your question, I'm still favoring WC Mosquito Bite 18 as a cross. Yonex Poly Pro Tour is also really good and is a close second. I still have unopened packs of Gosen Sidewinder, and Gosen Polymaster to demo. If I recall correctly, you are particularly curious about the Polymaster, and if the flattened out shape has any merit. I'll be sure to report back on that one fer ya.

I'm fixin to crack the grip seals and customize/match up 3 more of Pro Ones pretty soon. Once I do that, Ill have much more opportunity to demo strings.

-Jack

My playtesting has gotten washed out to some degree, but gut/Polymaster II and gut/ZX are on deck. Hopefully we'll be able to compare notes on the former.

 

[JT_2eighty]

Unfortunately, I can't give you a recommendation of any value. Despite pimping ZX on the boards for several months, I still haven't tried it myself. Torres has done the most testing of poly/ZX so I would check out his posts on that in the Zyex Monogut thread. But I don't think he's much into gut/poly, so he might not be of much help either.

It's been a long time since I've used poly/nylon of any sort, which, on paper, would be the closest to poly/ZX. But since the ZX is much less stiff than even a syngut, I would think poly/ZX should be strung a little tighter than poly/nylon.


My playtesting has gotten washed out to some degree, but gut/Polymaster II and gut/ZX are on deck. Hopefully we'll be able to compare notes on the former.

Hey Corners, quick question, as I haven't had time to read the whole ZX thread... for someone using Gut/Poly at 52/49lbs, and looking to try Gut/ZX, should I come in at the same cross tension? I know people are saying it takes time to find the right tension for the ZX, but I'm thinking just compare apples to apples with the same tension, and 49 crosses should be ok... or maybe too low?

 

[mikeler]

Hey Corners, quick question, as I haven't had time to read the whole ZX thread... for someone using Gut/Poly at 52/49lbs, and looking to try Gut/ZX, should I come in at the same cross tension? I know people are saying it takes time to find the right tension for the ZX, but I'm thinking just compare apples to apples with the same tension, and 49 crosses should be ok... or maybe too low?

If I remember correctly, you are a 4.5 player right? I'd put the Monogut ZX at the same tension as a nylon string especially with the warmer summer weather. It really has a lot of pop. Durability is fantastic, that gut/ZX combo should last you a long time.

 

[JT_2eighty]

Yes, thanks! I hope to try this out soon, and alongside one with Nvy crosses too.