# Mesh measurements for some string patterns

#### MikeMechanic

##### Rookie
I grabbed myself this one

and decided to measure the widths of the meshes of some string patterns.

I measured the length of the 8 mains in the center, that is the aggregated length of the diameter of 8 mains and the width of 7 meshes. I measured at the bottom of the string-bed and at the top, giving me an average length. That average length together with the known diameter of a string allowed me to calc the width of a single mesh.

Results are as expected:

Last edited:

#### moon shot

##### Hall of Fame
I grabbed myself this one

and decided to measure the widths of the meshes of some string patterns.

I measured the length of the 8 mains in the center, that is the aggregated length of the diameter of 8 mains and the width of 7 meshes. I measured at the bottom of the string-bed and at the top, giving me an average length. That average length together with the known diameter of a string allowed me to calc the width of a single mesh.

Results are as expected:

I'm unfamiliar with mesh as you use it here, is that the average spacing?

I think it would be interesting to compare the average string void in center.

#### MikeMechanic

##### Rookie
Yes it is the spacing. In fact it is the average string void in the center for the meshes between the 8 mains in the center.

#### moon shot

##### Hall of Fame
Yes it is the spacing. In fact it is the average string void in the center for the meshes between the 8 mains in the center.
Ah, you are ahead of me then. I didn't see a measurement other than the number of crosses so I thought it was something else.

Edit: I noticed these guys do something similar for string spacing and density. If we can figure out common ground you could leverage their data for a greater snapshot of variation. http://racquetmuseum.com/2014/01/23/wilson-prostaff-classic-6-1-gaudio/

I have wondered for a while about the density between the Wilson 6.0, 6.1 and new 97 models. I'd done some photo comparisons but it sounds like I'll be doing some measuring soon.

Last edited:

#### Irvin

##### Talk Tennis Guru
Yes it is the spacing. In fact it is the average string void in the center for the meshes between the 8 mains in the center.
I remember when someone used a calculation for string density. That measure the length and width of the string pattern and divided by the number of holes formed by the strings. So what? Not knocking your post but is there any thing useful about know the result?

#### BlueB

##### Legend
But the spacing is not uniform on various models... I have a 16x18 that plays like an 18x20 in the centre of the stringbed, the strings are so dense there. I also have an 18x19, that is looser spaced in the center then the mentioned 16x18...

#### MikeMechanic

##### Rookie
Yes it is about the strings in the center. Therefore I measured the 8 mains in the center only.

#### Shroud

##### G.O.A.T.
I grabbed myself this one

and decided to measure the widths of the meshes of some string patterns.

I measured the length of the 8 mains in the center, that is the aggregated length of the diameter of 8 mains and the width of 7 meshes. I measured at the bottom of the string-bed and at the top, giving me an average length. That average length together with the known diameter of a string allowed me to calc the width of a single mesh.

Results are as expected:

#### zalive

##### Hall of Fame
Nice Shroud...I bumped this thread, deserves more attention.

Only, travlerajm explained to me the importance of upper crosses, because groundstrokes are typically not hit with centre of the racquet, but with the upper hoop instead. And this is where racquets offer lot of difference in their approach.

For example I had Volkl X8 16x18 which was very dense in the middle but very open in the upper hoop as well. Result was that it was very precise at the net (where you typically hit balls with centre whenever you don't miss lol), thanks to dense pattern in the middle but also to its high stock twist weight. However if you hit with closed racquet's face it gave higher (and less consistent) launch angle losing on precision.

Deserves also mentiong another thread in which travelerjam kindly shared some of his huge knowledge:

Last edited:

#### zalive

##### Hall of Fame
Travelerjam mentioned something similar in 2014. with what I can relate. I started to appreciate racquets with denser upper hoop. Beacause there's a less tedency of such to create uncontrolled launch angle when you hit with some power. When crosses in the upper hoop pattern are designed too distant there will be tendency to spray launch angle more than one might wish for. On the other hand, denser upper hoop may give you less power, but it can be compensated through customization, to get a nice, predictable response.

Generally speaking, 16x20 racquets look like bliss to me for 97-100'' racquets. Because it's one additional cross that's missing in the upper hoop, not necessary two additional mains. I think 16x20 represents nice middle ground between 18x20 precision and 16x18 or 16x19 spin generation, looking generally, because it's easier to distribute crosses density with one additional cross for racquets 97-100'' (95'' or smaller do well with 19 crosses in my opinion, I can see it on PS95). Particularly for 100'' racquets 16x20 would be a better solution (unless 18x20 was used).

I play part of the time with customized PK Destiny FCS. It is kind of a good balance between precision/predictability and spin+power generation ease. Upper hoop is fairly open but head is more round shaped, so with shorter crosses in the upper hoop everything stays under control. It's certainly not a scalpel but it won't produce any wild response either.

#### BlueB

##### Legend
I kinda like when the crosses are not very dense at the upper hoop. When you hit there, it often feels very harsh and lacks the power. Open upper crosses compensate for that a bit.

#### zalive

##### Hall of Fame
Yeah, but when you lead up the upper hoop good (of a, say, 16x20 racquet), it's no longer dead and powerless. Just controlled.
Trick is to use no less than 6'' long strip of lead tape at 12 o'clock, but it can be even longer, say, 10''. By doing this you get a bigger sweet zone and you extend it to upper hoop.
If you do this you need to compensate MgR/I drop as much as needed with lead at 7'' from the butt cap (or at similar MgR/I increasing spot like throat or 6 o'clock).

Last edited:

#### BlueB

##### Legend
Tried that, don't like it. It is not significant and adds too much SW. It can work only on the racquets that are very light and light SW from the get go.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

#### zalive

##### Hall of Fame
It might be not because of too high SW but because of MgR/I lowered too much which causes racquet's head starts to lag.
Math says: if you add 3 grams at 12 o'clock, you need to add 7 grams to 7'' from the butt to fully restore MgR/I to initial value (prior to adding lead at 12'').
It also accidentaly (or not) restores the initial balance point too.

#### BlueB

##### Legend
I'm aware of MgR/I concept and tune my racquets using it. It's double jeopardy - you add something at the tip, then SW becomes too much and then you have to add even double that at 7", so the static weight also becomes too much.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

#### BlueB

##### Legend
That's why I said earlier that adding a lot of weight to the top of the hoop (to increase liveliness in that area) works only for the frames that are quite light to start with.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

#### zalive

##### Hall of Fame
That depends on what is personally too much for someone.
I've found that in order to get everything I want from a racquet, somehow I usually end up with around 355 grams.
I combine 7'' and tailweighting - after I tune MgR/I by 7'' lead I tailweight until racquet feels right in my hand. Good to cancel a part of a static moment, then racquet becomes more balanced in the hand.
It worked on old Prince Response MP 16x20. I used 3 grams of lead at 12 o'clock and some protection tape at 9-10 + 2-3 o'clock, with some mass at the handle it started to sing.
But otherwise I absolutely agree - light racquets are true customizers' stuff. On heavier racquets it really depends on what's already in them.

Last edited: