Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by Torres, Jun 23, 2012.
Anything that makes Nadal beat Federer should be banned...
Yeah, ban anything that amplifies spin, 'cos Federer hits it dead flat all the time!
Sometimes I use Nivea baby oil It definitely prolongs string life, brings some life to dead/old strings, but I did not noticed extra spin... anyway I don't need it...
Well, put a skirt on me and call me Shirley!!!! :smile:
Best part is, NO MORE POLYS FOR ME. Applied the silicone spray, as Bud directed, on my freshly strung Nrg2/POSG hybrid set-up, let it sit overnight and string movement is non-existent. Opponent's comments (and my own observations) verify, there is a noticeable amount of spin being imparted on the ball as compared to the same non-sprayed set-up.
I've been chap sticking my syn gut jobs and string movement has been nil. I may have to move on to silicone.
If the slippery string thing=spin is correct, this is both a revolution and a huge cost savings, because it should prolong string life and make cheap nylon and syn gut more attractive. I prefer the feel of synth gut over anything except gut, but after a few hours having to adjust strings drives you nuts.
Probably the best analogy would be a "corked" bat in baseball which is illegal. Of course, silicone on your strings isn't illegal (yet).
I'm a little afraid to test this out on a new string job. Would it work on a string job that is a few hours away from breakage?
yap, now i know.
1. pros sticks - check.
2. full bed poly at high 60 pounds - check
3. lead on top, and silicone in the handle - check
4. swingweight adjusted for wearing the sweatband - check
5. brand matching of shoes and shirt - check
6. brand matching rackets and a bag - check
7. latest babolat dampeners for hotter days, and sampras-like dampeners (but pre-2009 only) for colder days - check and check.
8. stringing using L-TEC/JET Method – check
still have not seen my play level approaching pros.
But now I know - I WAS MISSING SILICONE SPRAY ON THE STRINGS!!!
Love it you made my day
But that's not to increase spin. That's to make it easier to string when you pull the crosses through the mains. The slippery coating makes it easier and faster to string without burning and possibly damaging the string during the stringing process. In fact, I get less spin from fresh stringbeds because the strings still have that new slippery coating on them. Once that slippery coating wears off and the strings stop moving and/or snapping back, I get much more spin.
Wd is a water displacement spray that's anti corrosive and is mostly based off of petroleum. Silicon is more of a lubricant and made out of silicon. I use silicon spray over wd just because it's cleaner and less prone to damaging whatever I use it on.
How about it's poly strings' stiffness that gives you more spin? I've used stiff non-poly strings which were not slippery at all that also gave me more spin than softer strings.
Besides, if slippery strings give more spin, why do rough strings, which are the least slippery type of strings, also give more spin?
So you think that TW's research is complete bunk based on your own anecdotal findings?
That's fine, you should use whatever you think works for you.
My anecdotal experience has been in line with TW's research. I'm not a Huge topspinner so I only take it with a grain of salt anyway, I find it more relevant to drop shots and kick serves.
If slippery strings give more spin, why have string manufacturers been producing rough strings, the least slippery type of strings, for decades to enhance spin? Heck, even Luxilon makes a rough string (which inhibits the sliding of the strings against each other) to enhance string production.
[FONT=Verdana,arial,helvetica]"Players with fast swing speeds also tend to find these strings very spin friendly. ALU Rough is textured to further enhance spin production."[/FONT]
Good marketing? I used prince topspin for years thinking it aided in spin production. I know it created a lot of ball fuzz flying around. Used 18 gauge kevlar and you'll really see ball fuzz flying around.
My own personal experience was that the spinniest setup I've ever used was cheap gosen polylon at 35lbs, fresh off the stringer.
Of course it felt like mush, vibrated like crazy, and I couldn't volley or defensively block a shot in the court to save my life..but I could hit a ridiculous kick serve with it and a properly executed forehand dipped like crazy on the base line. That provided my own anecdotal evidence to support what TW's findings were.
However, spin isn't everything, although Nadal's success has convinced everyone that it is.
Like your sarcasm, but come' on. Nobody expects to play 'like the pros' by adding some silicone on their strings. If you're timing and mechanics ain't down, your game will be.
Interesting discussion going on. BP, you're right, stiffness does help in the production of spin. But if there is string movement, your next shot will tend not have that 'spice'. Hence the beauty of polys, they're stiff AND don't move, they don't move because they're stiff, so it's a chicken or egg thing with me.
As far as textured polys go, I find I get more spin from smoother strings, but that could very well depend on technique/tension/pattern density etc.
I've just recovered from shoulder surgery, which was suffered playing hockey... not playing with polys. That being said, I never was a fan of full-poly beds. The first hour is great, then we all know the outcome.
My favorite string set-up is any quality multi/gut in the mains and a syn.gut in the crosses. So far, the silicone has given my string-bed no movement and although it is a softer set-up than poly, it's behaving like a poly bed. Due to the minimal movement, it's behaving much like a stiffer set-up would.
Am I getting the same funk as a full bed of tour bite or RPM? NO. But it's much more cost effective, comfortable and at least retains one characteristic of polys, and I am seeing the benefits. The mere fact that I don't have to adjust the mains and crosses every point is worthwhile in itself.
If silicone can also prevent the multi and syn.gut from drying out and becoming harsher prematurely, then it's also worthwhile. But I'm in the process of finding that out.
The article in this months RSI by some string guru from Babolat answers this. The rough/textured/shaped strings spin more, not because they grip the ball, but because they slide more easily - guess it is because there is less surface area in contact with the other strings (less friction).
Lots of comments on this thread saying poly's don't move? They DO move but they move back - poly string is inherently smooth and slide more easier than gut/syn/multis.
Oh, come on. There's a thing known as the coefficient of friction, and the rougher (less smooth) the string, the less slippery it is, and therefore, the higher its coefficient of friction. And the higher the coefficient of friction, the more force it requires for the string to slide back and forth against each other. Thus, the rougher the string, the less and the more slowly it slides back and forth.
If your read the TWU research, there is string on ball friction and string on string friction. There are textured/shaped strings (poly) that have high string on ball friction and at the same time have low string on string friction.
Well, it can't be just marketing because rough strings for more spin have been around since the 1970's. Since they are still around four decades later, they must work to produce more spin or else people would have figured it out by now and stopped using them.
Most people also find that the stiffer the string, the more spin it produces. Thus, most people usually get more spin from a very stiff poly than from an ultra soft multi regardless of slipperiness (i.e., even if they're equally slippery). There's a good reason for that which I've explained ad nauseum in the past in the strings forum.
BTW, strings that don't move or move less should "grab" the ball more as you brush up on it, and thus, rotate the ball more than strings that move downwards easily and give way as you brush up on the ball, don't you think? It's the difference between the strings rotating the ball versus the ball sliding the strings instead. Which transfer of kinetic energy should result in more ball spin?
You really don't want this slippery string thing to be true, do you?
Read the research. You're wrong.
You can't have both (in the case of rough strings). Think about it. How can a string surface have more friction on the ball but at the same time have less friction on another string? That would imply that the string's coefficient of friction instantaneously changes depending on if it's about to touch a ball or if it's about to touch another string. A string surface can only have one coefficient of friction.
With shaped strings, it would depend on the surface areas of the two strings that actually make contact with each other.
The most important question: does silicone spray influence my 7.0-level stringbed stencil? After all, like NOS stickers on a Honda, that ink really adds something to the racquet's performance. I'd hate to spray my strings with silicone only to find it prevents the ink from staying on. Then I'm just trading one performance enhancement for another.
/I will try the spray. What do I have to lose?
Since when is "research" always correct? "Research" used to say that eating fat made people gain weight. Then people went on all fatty meat diets and lost weight.
I can also say I did my research and I believe my research is correct. See, there you go. Anyone can say their "research" is correct.
I want the laws of physics to remain true, as they always have.
I do not have anything to gain/lose in this discussion. I was merely pointing out what Crawford Lindsey has presented. You do not need to like, agree, or accept his findings, but it appears you reject them outright without recognizing their value. I would like to see another controlled and objective study that presents your anecdotal findings. More research is desirable.
Some polys comes with some kind of oil. Kirschbaum Super Smash Spiky comes to mind. Ask some stringers.
Maybe the interaction of main string against cross string under 40+ pounds of tension is not governed by the same paramerters as both strings against a rubber ball covered in felt.
Perhaps the real physics experts here should chime in on that relationship.
Yes I realize the wax and lubricant are there to ease stringing but it seems like it should have similar effect as spraying on a lubricant.
Let's talk about silicone spray.
It adds spin potential....
It makes strings last longer......
Bab RPM uses a silicone coating....
Bab thermo gut coating had a similar affect.
I regret ever starting thread.
It ain't a show until someone gets banned. :smile:
Besides, I feel it's still a constructive conversation and has not escalated (yet) into an argument, thanks to the maturity and decency of the posters.
Now then, I have not read any research (yet) as to which type of string is more suitable for enhancing spin, so I cannot comment about known theories or research.
Most textured polys are hardly that. ALU rough for example just feels like someone stamped notches into the string, it still retains quite a slick surface. I've actually hand-sanded full beds of ALU-rough and BigBangerO and did not notice a significant increase in spin production.
Shaped polys like RPM and TourBite definitely boost spin potential. RPM being quite slick, yet soft and tourbite rougher and stiffer. Both create great potential for spin, but for different reasons. RPM, has a less noticeable shape to it than TB, it's quite soft and slick, allowing the mains to slide against the crosses, which in turn create spin. TourBite feels like you could cut yourself on it while stringing and you can definitely tell it's shaped. It's quite rough and very, very stiff. You don't get much mains-sliding-against-the-crosses action here, but what you do get is ball to string friction and this also imparts a good amount of spin.
Adding silicone to my non-poly set-up has produced the RPM effect, not the TourBite phenomenon. After all, if it DIDN'T work, why would they contemplate banning it?
i dont see whats so unfair about it. it could evolve the pro game and rec game further.
Interesting, lub'ed strings snap back easier imparting more spin on the ball, than non lub'ed strings
Heres an recent article on it,,ect
I'm glad you did. This could add that little extra spin to my full multi setup which would make it just about perfect for what I'm looking for.
Sorry, but the author of the item, Barry Flatman, is one of the worst writers in all of tennis. His only link to the game is via Cash - he co-authored Cash's autobiography. Other than that he seems to be way out of touch with the game. He is almost uncontactable by email - unlike most Sunday Times writers - for a reason. He'd spend all day being corrected on stuff ha ha.
Who we should be asking is the P1 guys who are members here. If anyone would know, they would.
Isn't it ironic that they are contemplating banning silicone spray on strings because they think it might enhance spin but, AFAIK, they are NOT contemplating banning poly strings even though they KNOW that poly strings enhance spin?
I think that the fact that the silicone spray is something unnecessarily applied to the strings, which are essential to play tennis, is the reason silicone spray is being questioned. As for poly strings potentially being banned because they increase spin, any player can choose to reap the benefits of polyester string or not, at least at the professional level, and most do. The one exception due to arm issues that I've come across is Tommy Haas, although he occasionally uses it in the crosses with gut mains.
You are wrong. A string surface can have more than one coefficient of friction. The coefficient of friction is determined by both surfaces.
Alumninum against Steel is 0.61
Copper against Steel is 0.53
But the same rationale can be said of silicone spray, couldn't it? That any player can choose to reap the benefits of silicone spray or not.
The fact that anyone can use something IS the reason that something should be banned. I mean, if no one wanted to use something, then there would be no need to ban that something, right?
Um...Aluminum and steel are two different materials with two surfaces.
Copper and steel are two different materials with two surfaces.
A string by itself is one material with one surface.
Of course the coefficient of friction (COF) between the ball and the string is different than the coefficient of friction between the string onto itself. That's because the ball is fuzzy and a lot rougher than the string so therefore the ball is going to have a much higher coefficient of friction than the string. But you can't raise the COF between the ball and the string and AT THE SAME TIME lower the COF between the string and the string because the string itself only has one COF. So they either both go up or they both go down depending on how much you increase or decrease the roughness of the string's surface. You can't both increase AND decrease the roughness of a surface at the same time.
i tried it out today and i did notice a slightly enhanced spin effect. i was using my APDC with focus hex/isospeed baseline which were about 75% gone. i imagine it works even better when the strings aren't already notched. i'll give it another go with fresh strings.
The discussion is irrelevant if you think it has no impact on spin. They are basically the same subject.
OK, I will try it at lunch today and hopefully hit tonight with an older set of strings. Question, do you only have to spray the stuff on one time?
It seemed like the thread was starting to spiral out of control hence the reason for that comment.
I think you are missing my point. A racket must be strung to play with it effectively, and thus, strings, regardless of composition, are required. You can choose to get the benefits of gut, or kevlar, or poly, or whatever. Silicone spray is something that is applied after stringing. It does not need to be applied IN ORDER TO PLAY TENNIS. Also, pinky42 is correct in saying that there is more than one coefficient of friction. The coefficient of friction is between two surfaces. The lower the force between the strings, the more they will slide and the more energy the sliding will impart to the ball. A rough string will have a high degree of friction with the ball. The force here that puts spin on the ball comes from the strings tendency to remain at rest. Friction is a force that resists movement. So, when a rough string moves, it won't move as much a slick string with a low coefficient of friction, but it will snap back with greater force, although over shorter distance. I believe that the difference is minimal because technique is a huge part of how much spin is imparted on the ball, but tennis is a game of millimeters. Sadly, we may have to agree to disagree here.
Waste of time arguing with BP. Hard headed and trolly.
I was thinking about grabbing some for my backup gut/poly experiment. I am going to string red alert mains with cofocus crosses and am thinking the silicone spray may help this setup last longer.
Please let us know in here or in the string section how your experiment goes...if you end up doing that.
Will do. It's only a few bucks so I think it is worth checking out.
Separate names with a comma.