Username_
Hall of Fame
What string do you use? Can't tell whether you favour kevlar, poly or natural gut this thread
Player's racquets = high powered, not low powered
- Thread starter Nadal15thslam
- Start date
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
^^^^ Come again?
Snapback means the strings getting displaced and exploding back into the ball. Snapback occurs both horizontally and laterally. In the horizontal plane, the snapback of both mains and crosses results in "power". In the lateral plane, the snapback of the mains results in spin. These two occur simultaneously, resulting in an overall vector. If your swing were faster than the snapback, that would be like hitting a tennis ball with a stiff board (maybe some small nails sticking out for friction), just relying on the ball's own potential energy and your swingspeed. Do you think a stiff board or elastic strings (even poly) result in greater ball velocity?
In actual fact, the snapback doesn't even need to be faster than your swing for it to do its magic. Because the snapback is just simply an ADDITIONAL FORCE that is produced above and beyond your swing speed. It does not replace your swingspeed, it adds some extra to it. Because while the strings are snapping back, you are actually swinging your racket, and will still be swinging it when the ball leaves the stringbed. The forces applied to the ball will be the sum of your swingspeed and the snapback force. (in layman's terms)
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
ROFL
zalive
Hall of Fame
That is truly interesting BP...thank you.
However there must be some snap back, even if it is little...otherwise those strings would not wear at all, yet players report they do wear (frails).
It would be interesting to try full kevlar strings out as mains (manufacturer Ashaway recommends them as mains only).
I think that in the end it's the friction that gets the spin. this is why some strings have other than round cross sections - such provide even stronger spin (at least until they get rounded) because of stronger friction. snap back is a good way to produce stronger friction because stringbed grabs the ball more tightly when the strings are snapped back since it goes deeper in the stringbed. but snap back is not the only mechanism of providing the spin. kevlar strings have different properties and they make up the lack of snap back with better friction. this is the reason why they produce strong spin too
in other words, I think two of you are both right
WYK
Hall of Fame
That's all fine and good, but your source didn't prove this.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
The snapback is just simply an ADDITIONAL FORCE that is produced above and beyond the forces that come from friction and your swing speed. It does not replace friction or your swingspeed, it adds some extra to it. Because while the strings are snapping back, you are actually swinging your racket, and will still be swinging it when the ball leaves the stringbed. The forces applied to the ball will be the sum of your swingspeed and the snapback force. (in layman's terms)
It's not Either friction Or snapback. Friction is a given, and it makes virtually no difference what kind of strings you use. But snapback is an extra above and beyond this, and is subject to slippery crosses and preferably elastic mains.
I do not dispute the existence of friction spin. There's no spin at all without the strings grabbing the ball. But Breakpoint and his mates dispute the existance of snapback spin that is an extra force above and beyond plain vanilla spin.
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
I'm going to thumb through Technical Tennis again to see if I can get the gist of what those guys concluded in the wake of their experiments. I do remember significant attention being paid to the relationship between spin and the friction between the ball and the strings.
Although the action of the strings snapping back into place and yielding a slingshot effect on the ball's rotation is apparently rather murky, there is a theoretical friction advantage to consider when the strings are more readily being displaced at initial contact. The thinking is that the strings can better "grab" the ball and get it turning more effectively when they're in more stationary contact with the surface of the ball compared with the strings sliding across the surface of the ball.
I think that the extreme example of this was happening with the outlawed spaghetti stringing patters that allowed the mains to move sideways big-time. The more readily these mains can slide sideways, the more quickly they can establish steady, relatively stationary contact with the cover of the ball, grab onto it, and transfer energy - get the ball turning.
Ah, those precious milliseconds!! I'm off to find my book...
Although the action of the strings snapping back into place and yielding a slingshot effect on the ball's rotation is apparently rather murky, there is a theoretical friction advantage to consider when the strings are more readily being displaced at initial contact. The thinking is that the strings can better "grab" the ball and get it turning more effectively when they're in more stationary contact with the surface of the ball compared with the strings sliding across the surface of the ball.
I think that the extreme example of this was happening with the outlawed spaghetti stringing patters that allowed the mains to move sideways big-time. The more readily these mains can slide sideways, the more quickly they can establish steady, relatively stationary contact with the cover of the ball, grab onto it, and transfer energy - get the ball turning.
Ah, those precious milliseconds!! I'm off to find my book...
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
Christian Olsson
Professional
A politician? Sorry. Bad joke. ;-)
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
None of the above.
I prefer soft multis and syn guts because they are much better for my arm. I hit flat so I wouldn't get much more spin out of poly nor Kevlar anyway and they are both arm killers and have no feel and I'm a feel player who attacks the net constantly. Natural gut is too expensive and I've never thought it was all that great anyway. I find some multis to feel even softer and have just as much (or more) power.
smalahove
Hall of Fame
- Borg didn't generate the 3K+ spin rate of f.inst. Nadal
- Borg didn't face a 3K+ spin rate ball.
Returning that ball and reversing the spin, to a 3K+ spin rate, with a 65 sq inch wooden racket with gut? No way.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Everyone agrees that natural gut and multis are more powerful than poly and Kevlar. If your theory was correct, and snap back in the normal plane results in power and snap back in the parallel plane results in spin, then natural gut and multis must snap back even MORE and FASTER than poly or Kevlar since they are more resilient and thus more powerful. They would be snapping back faster and with greater force in both the normal AND parallel planes since they are more resilient and thus store more potential energy. And before you say that the high friction of natural gut and multis prevent them from snapping back in the parallel plane, then how do they snap back so quickly in the normal plane to produce all that power when it has to overcome even more friction from even more intersections of mains and crosses emanating from and surrounding the entire impact zone and not just a couple of mains as with parallel plane snap back?
So if your theory was correct, a more resilient and powerful string like natural gut or multi would snap back faster and with greater force in BOTH the normal AND parallel planes. If this were the case, you should be able to generate not just more power but also MORE spin than with poly strings, but you don't.
n8dawg6
Legend
wow! great point! this should be a stickie
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Borg also didn't have Nadal's lightweight, powerful, aerodynamic, 100 sq. in. APD with a wide open 16x19 string pattern. Borg used a heavy 15 oz., zero power 65 sq. in. wood racquet with a 18x20 string pattern, which inside of a 65 sq. in. head is so dense that you can barely see through it. LOL
And, yes, Borg did generate a tremendous amount of topspin. Give Nadal Borg's racquet and I doubt he could generate as much spin as Borg did.
And Borg did have to face opponents who could also generate a lot of topspin using tiny wood racquets and full gut stringbeds, such as Vilas.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Even strings that don't snap back fray because you hit topspin on one shot and move the strings in one direction and then you hit a slice which moves the strings back in the other direction, so there is still sawing of the string intersections between the mains and the crosses to cause the fraying. Also because you don't always use the same side of the racquet face to hit all your shots so even if you hit mostly topspin, the strings may still get displaced in both directions during a match which causes sawing and thus fraying.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But slippery strings such as poly do not remain stationary when the ball impacts the strings, they slide and get displaced by the ball. So instead of the strings acting on the ball, the ball is acting on the strings. For strings that don't slide so readily, there would be more strings in contact with the ball and thus more total frictional forces to rotate the ball as you brush up on the ball with more strings in contact with the ball.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
I'm afraid the reason is pretty much what you have already dismissed. Although slightly different. It's not simply the snapback that is prevented or slowed down in the case of locked strings. It's more about the strings are prevented from getting displaced in the first place, or this displacement is greatly inhibited.
Once displacement does happen, the strings will be snapping back into place both laterally and horizontally, by definition. The greater the displacement in any direction, the more more explosive the snapback.
There is always going to be some friction the strings need to overcome when snapping back, in any direction. Obviously a lot less in the horizontal plane. Using the sliding Babolat string savers in full gut would minimize string to string friction, and increase both power (somewhat) and spin (considerably).
It's all relative, and snapback spin is about minimizing that friction.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
In the case of snapback spin, the strings don't "slide across the surface of the ball". The ball digs and flattens into the stringbed as much as in the case of locked strings. Or even more, because the strings' displacement leaves more space for the ball to flatten into. On top of that, more mains strings will end up being in contact with the ball, due to the strings sliding. Which means even more rotational force on the ball. Then of course all this force is amplified once the snapback starts, and it's a no-brainer.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
But more resilient strings like natural gut and multis displace more than stiff, less resilient strings like poly does. That's why they are more powerful than poly strings. And since natural gut and multis have greater displacement in all directions due to their greater resiliency, they should have more explosive snap back in all directions, and we see this in the normal direction as evidenced by the greater power. But we don't see this in the parallel direction as evidenced by less spin than with poly strings.
Thus, the conclusion should be that snap back in the normal direction produces more power but snap back in the parallel direction does not produce more spin.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Huh? If more main strings move away (are displaced), how can more main strings still be in contact with the ball than when no main strings move away?
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Are you really thick as a plank or is it just an act? Full gut and full multi doesn't allow for much displacement of the mains strings in the lateral plane.
Whereas in full poly, the mains slide much more freely on the crosses.
Capisci?
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Thick as a plank indeed.
Why do you think the mains slide out of position in the first place? Do they just do it by themselves? Or is it because the ball pushes against them? No prizes for getting this right.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Then you've just contradicted your own theory. Why would natural gut and multis be more resilient and displace more in one direction (normal plane) but NOT in another direction (parallel plane)? That makes absolutely no sense, especially since there is even more friction when displacing in the normal direction than there is in the parallel direction.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nope. The ball pushes one main string and then that string pushes on the main string next to it and so on and so on. So at the maximum displacement, probably only the string closest to the ball is the only one actually touching the ball. The other strings have been pushed aside by the string next to it. Contrast that with strings that don't move at all. In that case, multiple strings are in contact the ball during the maximum compression of the ball on impact.
Last edited:
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
No comment...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
When you resort to name calling and insults, well......it's not surprising you have no more comments.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
You show with each of your posts that you are either a pathetic troll or a thick as a plank idiot. Have a look at this piece of magic:
How do you even come up with this sort of crap?
How do you even come up with this sort of crap?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yet, you have no explanation whatsoever.
How can a resilient string displace and then "snap back" in the normal direction to produce power but not displace and then snap back in another direction to produce spin? Do strings have a mind of their own and decide to only stretch and "snap back" in one direction but decide not to do the same in another direction? LOL
If you can't refute it, you call it "crap". You must be an academic. LOL
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
Ok, I'll be slow and gentle.
Strings do not need to freely slide on each other for displacement, but it is needed if you want to maximize displacement.
Displacement will occur even if the strings are glued together at the intersections. The little sections of string between each intersection can be freely stretched and then snap back to generate "power". Free sliding would help, to minimize energy loss due to string-to string friction, but full gut is still a powerful setup, even when locked, simply because of the string's rebound efficiency. This same kind of displacement will occur in the lateral plane as well, ie the mains will stretch laterally even if they are not free sliding. But in this case a lot more energy is lost to friction than if you were just hitting the ball flat horizontally. Not sure where you came up with the opposite:
To maximize spin generation, the displacement of the mains strings needs to be maximized. That is where slippery crosses come into the picture. They minimize the energy lost due to string-to-string friction, and therefore maximize string displacement.
Are locked strings detrimental for power? Yeah a bit, but players don't care cos they are not looking for more power.
Are locked strings detrimental for spin? Yeah more so, and players care enough to do something about it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
When you hit the ball in the center of your stringbed and the ball sinks into the stringbed and the stringbed pockets the ball, for that to happen , you first have to overcome the friction between just about every intersection of mains and crosses on your entire stringbed. Just about all the intersections will experience movement. OTOH, when a main string slides laterally, it only has to overcome the friction between itself and a few crosses. Thus, the total frictional forces that has to be overcome is greater when the stringbed deflects in the normal plane than when a couple of main strings are displaced laterally. Yet, a powerful string, such as natural gut or multi, will deflect a great deal in the normal plane due to its elasticity and then snap back quickly to propel the ball and add power to your shot. Like a rubber band, the more you stretch it, the more potential energy it has. However, this same elasticity, displacement, and snap back in the lateral plane does not seem to add spin to the ball. So why does the potential energy add power in the normal plane but the potential energy does not add spin in the parallel plane?
BTW, if all the intersections in the stringbed were welded together, there would be no string movement, no sliding at the intersections, and thus no deflection of the stringbed and no pocketing of the ball. The string's elasticity would not add any power nor spin to the ball because the strings would be prevented from stretching. It would be like hitting the ball with a solid wooden board.
A
Attila_the_gorilla
Guest
It does add spin in the parallel plane. But not as much as with free string movement. And it's just so that hitting with spin results in greater string to string friction than hitting flat. There is always ball pocketing when you hit the ball. "The friction between just about every intersection of mains and crosses on your entire stringbed" is a given, whether you hit flat or with spin. But hitting with spin adds some extra frictional forces, because on top of just linear ball pocketing, you are trying to get the mains to slide on the crosses a lot more.
Hahh that's interesting. So you're saying the short pieces of string between the intersections have no elasticity, just because they're short? Or why exactly are locked strings unable to stretch? This is some fancy alternative universe you're living in.
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
Gave me a good chuckle, so thanks... Probably only a bad joke if is steers the whole conversation into politics - or religion - the two buzzkills for most social settings, right?
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
Don't worry, I don't much buy into this stuff.
The thinking is that if the strings can better grip the ball when biting into the felt instead of sliding across it, they can better lock up with it and "push" the ball in a rotational direction. The strings that don't slide across each other so readily are instead "skimming" across the surface of the ball and not grabbing or biting into it so much. Just the theory.
I'm much more comfortable with the idea of the ratio of power to spin that we get with any racquet. Reduce the power (rebound potential?) by increasing tension or switching to a less resilient string and the player can compensate by swinging bigger - that's the illusion we brought up back there somewhere.
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
I get what you're saying, but the guys who did the experiments and wrote the book (FASCINATING reading, by the way) found that the notion of substantially different dwell times is a myth. The ball typically spends about 5 milliseconds on the strings, but increasing tension by about 20 lbs. can reduce that dwell time down to nearly 4 milliseconds. That's a crazy super-tiny difference... and very brief overall in either case.
I think it makes sense that the same swing will seem to generate more spin when the racquet/string combo changes to produce less power (ball velocity) for a given swing. If the struck ball is travelling slower, but my angular contact is still making the same rpm's, that same amount of spin can turn the slower ball more readily than one that's going really fast.
If my more flexible "control racquet" bends away from the ball more at contact than a stiffer "high powered" frame, I'm pretty sure that the control racquet isn't putting as much velocity into the ball, but still producing about the same spin. Note: even though a flexible racquet bends more in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the stings (away from the ball when hitting a "flat" shot), it's still stiff in the plane that's parallel with the string bed.
So I suppose that the angular contact that generates the spin on the ball remains about the same. What much of this comes down to may just be managing the amount of velocity we make on the ball so that the spin we generate can effectively act upon it. A less powerful racquet or a less lively string layout is likely helpful with that balancing act when taking bigger swings.
Sander001
Hall of Fame
Ash Kevlar 17 feedback
Zero mentions of full Kevlar. And out of all that feedback, 20 comparisons to polyester, only one said Kevlar had more spin.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback-XFIRE17.html
Zero mentions of full Kevlar. And out of all that feedback, 20 comparisons to polyester, only one said Kevlar had more spin.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback-XFIRE17.html
Last edited:
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
Ash Kevlar 17 feedback
Zero mentions of full Kevlar. And out of all that feedback, only one said more spin than polyester.
It does classify as a significantly stiffer string though - I'm going back through the findings in Technical Tennis and the graph illustrating differences in dynamic stiffness (lengthwise) show Kevlar and aramid to be far beyond even the polys. Interesting that the bundle of polys on the graph are only slightly higher in this stiffness rating than the nylons - there's actually a small overlap between them. Kevlar lives out there in its own neighborhood.
More reading...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Huh? Just reading the first 3 feedbacks are already using full Kevlar and more later. I don't see any mention of using a poly cross. Those who used Kevlar mains mostly used a synthetic gut as a cross, and we all know that syn gut is NOT slippery and does not slide well. You're not going to get much sliding by combining Kevlar and syn gut in the hybrid.Ash Kevlar 17 feedback
Zero mentions of full Kevlar. And out of all that feedback, 20 comparisons to polyester, only one said Kevlar had more spin.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback-XFIRE17.html
And of course they are comparing the spin to polys because that's the basis for comparison when it comes to spin. And many, if not most, of these are former poly users. So when someone calls the amount of spin they get with Kevlar as "staggering", they are comparing it with poly.
In addition:
Last edited:
Sander001
Hall of Fame
First I have to say thanks for engaging me with some valid links and not just spamming your opinion. I respect that. Anyway, the thing is that Ashaway Kevlar is very slippery whereas all other Kevlar I've tried aren't. Full snapback in effect.
Your three commenters ok but here's an entire thread about which string produces the most spin: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-spin-string.459522/
and another: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/what-string-gives-the-most-spin.365058/
another: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/spin-string-recommendations.245908/
more: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/most-spin.311011/
And guess what comes out on top? Hint: It's not Kevlar [even though many have tried them, they've been around for decades longer]. Almost always the times Kevlar is mentioned is when it's used with poly crosses.
fuzz nation
G.O.A.T.
...was about racquets... but not anymore!!
I've used the pure aero racket a few times. It's known as a power racket. TW rates it 91 power. However the swing weight is only 316. How does this make any sense?
It feels so much more powerful than my head radical pro. Also TW rates my head radical pro at much lower power despite the higher swing weight.
Based on this, it seems like swing weight and power are uncorrelated. Thoughts?
It feels so much more powerful than my head radical pro. Also TW rates my head radical pro at much lower power despite the higher swing weight.
Based on this, it seems like swing weight and power are uncorrelated. Thoughts?
anarosevoli
Semi-Pro
1. The less the frame bends the less energy is lost, advantage PA with its high stiffness
2. Maybe you can swing the lower SW racquet faster.
(3. above mentioned illusion of power by a higher launch angle with longer (but loopier) shot)
First point is when is a frame flex and when it is stiff
You can use flex to your advantage with exceptional timing.
Dartagnan64
G.O.A.T.
The energy transferred to the the ball is mass X velocity. There will also be a subtraction of energy based on the energy absorption characteristics of the racket and strings largely determined by resilience of the materials. There will be energy added by the rebound characteristics of the ball and strings.
So SW has virtually nothing to do with it. It's the mass of the racket and the velocity fo the racket head as it contacts the ball minus the energy absorption by the racket flexing and then some energy subtracted or added based on string characteristics.
But since the SW calculation does include mass, it will also affect power. but it's the fact that swing weight goes up with mass, power generally also goes up unless the SW reduces velocity. Which at a certain point it does.
anarosevoli
Semi-Pro
So in the end it doesn't matter on which side you hold a hammer? "It's the mass of the hammer and the velocity..."
More mass in the head = more mass behind the ball: SW in most cases is the better indicator for power. That said, of two racquets with the same swingweight the heavier(more depolarized) one would win if everything else is the same.
bertrevert
Legend
The great debate... and @BreakPoint in tiebreak mode.
But old: what would the date be for starting to understand string snapback properties for the first time - is it around this 2015?
But old: what would the date be for starting to understand string snapback properties for the first time - is it around this 2015?
