String comparison database
Let's see if I still remember how to do this....
Allow me to reintroduce myself
My name is Chairman with a 3 but not an OG
I test alot of strings but no apology
But even back then you could call me
Alright thats enough of ripping off JayZ in the whitest way possible. Besides, this is the Huey Lewis playtest.
We have our square, yellow twins here.
Weisscannon Ultra Cable 1.23 and Volkl V-square 1.25.
Ultra Cable has been around for awhile and V-square is now offered in something besides red. These top the charts in spin but are they one trick ponies?
Allow me to reintroduce myself
My name is Chairman with a 3 but not an OG
I test alot of strings but no apology
But even back then you could call me
Alright thats enough of ripping off JayZ in the whitest way possible. Besides, this is the Huey Lewis playtest.
We have our square, yellow twins here.
Weisscannon Ultra Cable 1.23 and Volkl V-square 1.25.
Ultra Cable has been around for awhile and V-square is now offered in something besides red. These top the charts in spin but are they one trick ponies?
silentkman
Hall of Fame
I'm in the midst of trying Weiss Cannon with NG with Weiss Cannon as the crosses.Let's see if I still remember how to do this....
Allow me to reintroduce myself
My name is Chairman with a 3 but not an OG
I test alot of strings but no apology
But even back then you could call me
Alright thats enough of ripping off JayZ in the whitest way possible. Besides, this is the Huey Lewis playtest.
We have our square, yellow twins here.
Weisscannon Ultra Cable 1.23 and Volkl V-square 1.25.
Ultra Cable has been around for awhile and V-square is now offered in something besides red. These top the charts in spin but are they one trick ponies?
You know I love the reviews, but you do need to learn how to tie proper knots lolLet's see if I still remember how to do this....
Allow me to reintroduce myself
My name is Chairman with a 3 but not an OG
I test alot of strings but no apology
But even back then you could call me
Alright thats enough of ripping off JayZ in the whitest way possible. Besides, this is the Huey Lewis playtest.
We have our square, yellow twins here.
Weisscannon Ultra Cable 1.23 and Volkl V-square 1.25.
Ultra Cable has been around for awhile and V-square is now offered in something besides red. These top the charts in spin but are they one trick ponies?
That'll be interesting to see how the NG holds up against the sharp edges
Here are my first, second, and as a bonus, third impressions (fanfare sound)
Ultra Cable (UC) is much livelier, it's been awhile since I used it but I was still surprised at how launchy it was straight off the stringer. V-square was much more neutral, not dead but not super lively. Since playing almost 5hrs, v-square has got a touch more power than at the start.
UC is visibly and tactilely thicker. I'm not sure if Weisscannon's 1.23 (17g) is marketing trickery or what but it is obviously thicker than the 1.25 v-square.
In terms of feel, V-square is nicer, more refined, and borderline comfortable. I think the thinness of this 1.25 is a big advantage here. By comparison, UC feels a little plastic-y and raw, but not necessarily raw in a good way.
I think you get a little easier spin from UC and you feel more bite but v-square isn't far behind and the difference is mostly negligible. Because UC is lively, you can't really get away with just pushing and generating spin. This is particularly evident on serves when I try to roll in an easy kick serve, they've been landing about a foot or so long. V-square isn't as lively so is a little more forgiving when pushing but you don't get the full benefit of the shape if you don't take a good swing.
To that end, v-square has a little more consistent response off the stringbed compared to UC. UC can still launch a little unexpectedly and generally the launch angle is higher. UC seems more elastic so I think once it starts losing tension this launchiness will be amplified.
Control is pretty similar between the two, neither have excellent control, directionally, the name of the game here is spin. Control with spin, drive your opponent back and either rush the net or wait for an UE.
Durability seems about equal, neither has much notching after 5 hrs.
Going forward, I'll focus on how the feel changes as with shaped strings the edges start wearing down and usually they feel and play different. Also how the stringbed response changes with more playtime.
I have to say, so far I like V-square better. Lively strings can be a double edged sword but I am adjusting to UC, feels like it is settling in a bit.
Ultra Cable (UC) is much livelier, it's been awhile since I used it but I was still surprised at how launchy it was straight off the stringer. V-square was much more neutral, not dead but not super lively. Since playing almost 5hrs, v-square has got a touch more power than at the start.
UC is visibly and tactilely thicker. I'm not sure if Weisscannon's 1.23 (17g) is marketing trickery or what but it is obviously thicker than the 1.25 v-square.
In terms of feel, V-square is nicer, more refined, and borderline comfortable. I think the thinness of this 1.25 is a big advantage here. By comparison, UC feels a little plastic-y and raw, but not necessarily raw in a good way.
I think you get a little easier spin from UC and you feel more bite but v-square isn't far behind and the difference is mostly negligible. Because UC is lively, you can't really get away with just pushing and generating spin. This is particularly evident on serves when I try to roll in an easy kick serve, they've been landing about a foot or so long. V-square isn't as lively so is a little more forgiving when pushing but you don't get the full benefit of the shape if you don't take a good swing.
To that end, v-square has a little more consistent response off the stringbed compared to UC. UC can still launch a little unexpectedly and generally the launch angle is higher. UC seems more elastic so I think once it starts losing tension this launchiness will be amplified.
Control is pretty similar between the two, neither have excellent control, directionally, the name of the game here is spin. Control with spin, drive your opponent back and either rush the net or wait for an UE.
Durability seems about equal, neither has much notching after 5 hrs.
Going forward, I'll focus on how the feel changes as with shaped strings the edges start wearing down and usually they feel and play different. Also how the stringbed response changes with more playtime.
I have to say, so far I like V-square better. Lively strings can be a double edged sword but I am adjusting to UC, feels like it is settling in a bit.
SITREP: about 7.5hrs on each string
V-square is losing some elasticity and almost cupping the ball too much to bite into it. You can't feel it bite as much and the spin generation has gone down. Yesterday and today my shots didn't quite have the shape and I was hitting some long.
It's notched about 50% so most of these revelations aren't surprising.
Still feels good, I'd borderline call this a comfortable string. To me this is a sharp (pun, because the sides are sharp) departure for a shaped string.
I've not used many shaped strings that aren't a little stiff. So big bonus points there.
UC is pretty typical shaped string. It felt ok but is starting to feel a little stiffer each time I use it. Spin and bite are still great and there is minimal notching. even though it isn't notching, I think the sides must be getting shaved down. Despite feeling stiffer, it gets a little more trampoline-y, sort of unpredictably. It isn't any worse than V-square in the response off the stringbed. Where I notice UC being a little unpredictable is on serve. I find myself missing serves long if I'm just trying to roll a serve in.
I'm favoring V-square but this is a comparison so I'll highlight strengths and weaknesses of each in the final write-up.
V-square is losing some elasticity and almost cupping the ball too much to bite into it. You can't feel it bite as much and the spin generation has gone down. Yesterday and today my shots didn't quite have the shape and I was hitting some long.
It's notched about 50% so most of these revelations aren't surprising.
Still feels good, I'd borderline call this a comfortable string. To me this is a sharp (pun, because the sides are sharp) departure for a shaped string.
I've not used many shaped strings that aren't a little stiff. So big bonus points there.
UC is pretty typical shaped string. It felt ok but is starting to feel a little stiffer each time I use it. Spin and bite are still great and there is minimal notching. even though it isn't notching, I think the sides must be getting shaved down. Despite feeling stiffer, it gets a little more trampoline-y, sort of unpredictably. It isn't any worse than V-square in the response off the stringbed. Where I notice UC being a little unpredictable is on serve. I find myself missing serves long if I'm just trying to roll a serve in.
I'm favoring V-square but this is a comparison so I'll highlight strengths and weaknesses of each in the final write-up.
The Huey Lewis showdown
Hip to be square
Weisscannon Ultra Cable v. Volkl V-Square (yellow)
Who's the squarest of the squares....
Power: I consider these to fall near the middle but slighly to the power side on the power-control spectrum. Ultra Cable (UC) does get the slight nod as it immediately had more pop off the stringer compared to V-square (VSq). As time wore on UC still start to feel a little more dead but could still launch the ball. VSq didn't have as much for the duration but did start increasing in power as it got looser. You could feel it getting a little more springy. The main difference is while both could launch the ball near the ends of their lives, VSq remained more predictable and the tension loss felt more predictable. There is a caveat, the power potential is a little outweighed by how thick UC is. With the VSq racquet, mental or not, it felt like a lighter string and that I could swing easier.
Spin: YES! I mean what more is there to say really...but I guess while I'm here. UC is thicker and marginally sharper if you run your hand across the stringbed. UC has more of a tactile sensation when striking the ball, it has more bite. I do think in some regards that translates to spin but not at a significantly higher level than VSq. On the other hand, VSq feels thinner but just as sharp. I don't think it bites as well but it has very good snapback. This is surprising as it did start moving out of place almost immediately, similar to how syngut moves, but I could feel the strings moving and snapping on well struck balls. UC may grant you a little more spin when you "push" the ball but, again, not hugely more than VSq. I think one of the differences in the bite and spin production is VSq definitely loses some of its snapback as playtime adds up. You still get good spin but you do need to take more deliberate cuts. UC let's you be a little lazy but can punish you with unexpected launches too. I have to call it a tie. I honestly can't definitively say one produced more spin than the other.
Control: As sharp, square, spin strings neither of these really gives you control like round or super stiff polys do. For control, these are really all about spinning the ball where you want it. If I had to decide, I felt more confident to take my shots with VSq because the stringbed response was more consistent and predictable. While UC felt stiffer it didn't really translate into control and the occasional launch made me want to play a little safer. For that same reason, I felt more comfortable flattening balls out with VSq compared to UC where the latter seemed to provide a little higher launch or felt like it provided a higher launch. I have another set of VSq and am going to try to hybrid with more of a control string to see what happens.
Feel: This is hands down a win for VSq. It has a nice feel with very good pocketing. It isn't really soft but it is forgiving and comfortable. It's almost neutral where it doesn't feel too soft or too stiff but gives great feedback for playing those touch shots and, honestly, juat good feedback overall. UC started out a little powerful than firmed up but because its thicker you don't get as much feel and I think the sharper or more pronounced edges lead to a little inconsistency. It was harder to play touch shots with UC. The differences in feel kind of lead me to develop player profiles which I will touch on in the Finale section. But UC has a bit of an identity crisis, it starts feeling stiffer like it wants to be a control string but it has too much pop and not enough of a consistent response.
Tension maintenance/durability: I now have about 14hrs on VSq and it is done. It's probably been done since around 10 hours but is still playable without being harsh. It also still provides decent spin but between 7-9 hours is when I noticed snapback lessening. There's definitely been tension loss and it feels more springy. I'd estimate 75 percent notching. I think I could play it to breaking if I were only playing singles. UC I stopped around 10 hours and really should've stopped sooner. It never got harsh like hurting my arm but it definitely stiffened up above 5-6 hours. It was not very notched and that isn't surprising since it's so thick. I think it has such sharp edges that they wore down quicker. It was weird because while it felt stiff it was still kind of launchy and unpredictable. For this, VSq gets the nod for its greater longevity and more linear, predictable tension loss. Further, I think VSq scores exceptionally well as a shaped string for tension maintenance as most of its playability remained. I'm used to shaped strings losing their sharp edges and bagging out or feel bad, kind of like UC, but VSq didn't as noticeably.
Finale: So the conclusion may be obvious, I prefer VSq. I was very pleasantly surprised by how good it was both as a spin string and just in general compared to all polys. But since these comparisons aren't as much about declaring a winner and more about where each excels, I developed player profiles to encapsulate my conclusions. UC is for that baseline grinder that wants to hit some high tospin rally balls, perhaps a few tospin lobs/moonballs and basically wait for the opponent to make an UE. They'll probably throw in some wonky backhand slices and the sharp edges will make it terrible for the opponent. While VSq is more for your all-court, attacking, or doubles player. You just get more connection and better feedback but also that great spin that some of us with more traditional strokes lack. You also get a little boost in power to help you where ever it's needed. At least a few opponents told me the balls with VSq were a bit heavier than normal. So there it is, two very similar strings with different personalities, it's like the difference between your first and second child, for those that have kids and get the reference. Cut from the same cloth but do their own thing.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
Hip to be square
Weisscannon Ultra Cable v. Volkl V-Square (yellow)
Who's the squarest of the squares....
Power: I consider these to fall near the middle but slighly to the power side on the power-control spectrum. Ultra Cable (UC) does get the slight nod as it immediately had more pop off the stringer compared to V-square (VSq). As time wore on UC still start to feel a little more dead but could still launch the ball. VSq didn't have as much for the duration but did start increasing in power as it got looser. You could feel it getting a little more springy. The main difference is while both could launch the ball near the ends of their lives, VSq remained more predictable and the tension loss felt more predictable. There is a caveat, the power potential is a little outweighed by how thick UC is. With the VSq racquet, mental or not, it felt like a lighter string and that I could swing easier.
Spin: YES! I mean what more is there to say really...but I guess while I'm here. UC is thicker and marginally sharper if you run your hand across the stringbed. UC has more of a tactile sensation when striking the ball, it has more bite. I do think in some regards that translates to spin but not at a significantly higher level than VSq. On the other hand, VSq feels thinner but just as sharp. I don't think it bites as well but it has very good snapback. This is surprising as it did start moving out of place almost immediately, similar to how syngut moves, but I could feel the strings moving and snapping on well struck balls. UC may grant you a little more spin when you "push" the ball but, again, not hugely more than VSq. I think one of the differences in the bite and spin production is VSq definitely loses some of its snapback as playtime adds up. You still get good spin but you do need to take more deliberate cuts. UC let's you be a little lazy but can punish you with unexpected launches too. I have to call it a tie. I honestly can't definitively say one produced more spin than the other.
Control: As sharp, square, spin strings neither of these really gives you control like round or super stiff polys do. For control, these are really all about spinning the ball where you want it. If I had to decide, I felt more confident to take my shots with VSq because the stringbed response was more consistent and predictable. While UC felt stiffer it didn't really translate into control and the occasional launch made me want to play a little safer. For that same reason, I felt more comfortable flattening balls out with VSq compared to UC where the latter seemed to provide a little higher launch or felt like it provided a higher launch. I have another set of VSq and am going to try to hybrid with more of a control string to see what happens.
Feel: This is hands down a win for VSq. It has a nice feel with very good pocketing. It isn't really soft but it is forgiving and comfortable. It's almost neutral where it doesn't feel too soft or too stiff but gives great feedback for playing those touch shots and, honestly, juat good feedback overall. UC started out a little powerful than firmed up but because its thicker you don't get as much feel and I think the sharper or more pronounced edges lead to a little inconsistency. It was harder to play touch shots with UC. The differences in feel kind of lead me to develop player profiles which I will touch on in the Finale section. But UC has a bit of an identity crisis, it starts feeling stiffer like it wants to be a control string but it has too much pop and not enough of a consistent response.
Tension maintenance/durability: I now have about 14hrs on VSq and it is done. It's probably been done since around 10 hours but is still playable without being harsh. It also still provides decent spin but between 7-9 hours is when I noticed snapback lessening. There's definitely been tension loss and it feels more springy. I'd estimate 75 percent notching. I think I could play it to breaking if I were only playing singles. UC I stopped around 10 hours and really should've stopped sooner. It never got harsh like hurting my arm but it definitely stiffened up above 5-6 hours. It was not very notched and that isn't surprising since it's so thick. I think it has such sharp edges that they wore down quicker. It was weird because while it felt stiff it was still kind of launchy and unpredictable. For this, VSq gets the nod for its greater longevity and more linear, predictable tension loss. Further, I think VSq scores exceptionally well as a shaped string for tension maintenance as most of its playability remained. I'm used to shaped strings losing their sharp edges and bagging out or feel bad, kind of like UC, but VSq didn't as noticeably.
Finale: So the conclusion may be obvious, I prefer VSq. I was very pleasantly surprised by how good it was both as a spin string and just in general compared to all polys. But since these comparisons aren't as much about declaring a winner and more about where each excels, I developed player profiles to encapsulate my conclusions. UC is for that baseline grinder that wants to hit some high tospin rally balls, perhaps a few tospin lobs/moonballs and basically wait for the opponent to make an UE. They'll probably throw in some wonky backhand slices and the sharp edges will make it terrible for the opponent. While VSq is more for your all-court, attacking, or doubles player. You just get more connection and better feedback but also that great spin that some of us with more traditional strokes lack. You also get a little boost in power to help you where ever it's needed. At least a few opponents told me the balls with VSq were a bit heavier than normal. So there it is, two very similar strings with different personalities, it's like the difference between your first and second child, for those that have kids and get the reference. Cut from the same cloth but do their own thing.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
Last edited:
May be taking a break from comparisons for awhile.....my normal strings are getting lonely.
But until then,
Here we have a tale of two hybrids.
Hyper-Mach BD and PT Rev/PT Pro, all 1.20
I went with Mach10 mains/HyperG Round crosses.
Rev is in the mains and Pro in the crosses.
But until then,
Here we have a tale of two hybrids.
Hyper-Mach BD and PT Rev/PT Pro, all 1.20
I went with Mach10 mains/HyperG Round crosses.
Rev is in the mains and Pro in the crosses.
Initial impressions after break-in; 2hrs on PT and about 1.5 on HyperMach.
They have some pop. Hypermach seems to have quite a bit more launch at this point so I'm hoping that calms down a bit or at least I get used to it. Feels good, spin is there but we'll see if it ends up being as good as full bed.
PT has a little more controlled launch and the ball doesn't seem to come off as hot, but in a good way. I've never thought Rev produced alot of spin in fullbed, so maybe having the round cross will actually improve it. Feels good too.
Initially, they are similar feeling so we'll see if that remains.
This is all very preliminary after just one hit with each.
They have some pop. Hypermach seems to have quite a bit more launch at this point so I'm hoping that calms down a bit or at least I get used to it. Feels good, spin is there but we'll see if it ends up being as good as full bed.
PT has a little more controlled launch and the ball doesn't seem to come off as hot, but in a good way. I've never thought Rev produced alot of spin in fullbed, so maybe having the round cross will actually improve it. Feels good too.
Initially, they are similar feeling so we'll see if that remains.
This is all very preliminary after just one hit with each.
Last edited:
Here's a "mid" test update with between 6-7 hours on each; for those fellow pedants, about 7.5 on HyperMach and a little over 6 on RevPro. I do wish I could come up with a cooler name for the Yonex hybrid..I digress.
So for HyperMach, it really took me some adjusting. This hybrid simply launches the ball, it flings it. I'm not sure if this is a lack of dwell time or pocketing but boy does it leave in a hurry. Weirdly, it doesn't feel stiff or dead like you might think a string lacking pocketing would, it has a comfortable, mostly smooth feel to it. The package did say put Mach10 in the mains for spin and since my strokes aren't strictly Nadal-esque, I have to work harder. It has a high launch angle as well, which I'm not totally a fan. This is because when my racquet launches I tend to try and hit flatter and thus I do but this leads to more misses into the net. After my last two sessions of singles and doubles, I think I have finally dialed it in and can use it more effectively.
Aside from my lack of skill, I did feel I had more control from the Yonex hybrid. I think this is due to the slightly lower launch, lower power level, and overall more predictable response. You do get more spin from the Hypermach, which I'm not surprised by. Feel from the Yonex is pretty similar, maybe slightly more dampened and firm compared to the hypermach feeling almost springy.
The most glaring difference is the stringbed response. I actually find my self leaving balls shorter in the court with the Yonex. The hypermach probably hits a heavier ball all else being equal.
Was hitting against some harder hitters last night and a few mains were out of place on the Yonex, so may have done it in. Both are similarly notched, I think Hypermach slightly less.
I give myself some credit, I do think these are pretty comparable.
So for HyperMach, it really took me some adjusting. This hybrid simply launches the ball, it flings it. I'm not sure if this is a lack of dwell time or pocketing but boy does it leave in a hurry. Weirdly, it doesn't feel stiff or dead like you might think a string lacking pocketing would, it has a comfortable, mostly smooth feel to it. The package did say put Mach10 in the mains for spin and since my strokes aren't strictly Nadal-esque, I have to work harder. It has a high launch angle as well, which I'm not totally a fan. This is because when my racquet launches I tend to try and hit flatter and thus I do but this leads to more misses into the net. After my last two sessions of singles and doubles, I think I have finally dialed it in and can use it more effectively.
Aside from my lack of skill, I did feel I had more control from the Yonex hybrid. I think this is due to the slightly lower launch, lower power level, and overall more predictable response. You do get more spin from the Hypermach, which I'm not surprised by. Feel from the Yonex is pretty similar, maybe slightly more dampened and firm compared to the hypermach feeling almost springy.
The most glaring difference is the stringbed response. I actually find my self leaving balls shorter in the court with the Yonex. The hypermach probably hits a heavier ball all else being equal.
Was hitting against some harder hitters last night and a few mains were out of place on the Yonex, so may have done it in. Both are similarly notched, I think Hypermach slightly less.
I give myself some credit, I do think these are pretty comparable.
A tale of two hybrids.
Here we have HyperMach BD, courtesy of T-dub, and my own Yonex homebrew, which sadly doesn't have any cooler of a name than RevPro. Which is cool except Head used to have RevPro racquets, so probably some copyright stuff there.
As usual, an unnecessary digression from what is simply a poly-hybrid, mash-up comparison for the ages. The idea was to have two comparable hybrids of "modern, cutting edge" poly strings.
Solinco Mach10 mains and Hyper-G Round crosses in 1.20 against Yonex PolyTour Rev (mint) mains and PolyTour Pro (yellow) crosses in 1.20. Top of the line strings from both brands. Add to the fact Hyper-G Round is very comparable to PT Pro and away we go.
Power: This was evident from the very first hit or at least the first two....Hypermach (HM) has some serious power, almost shockingly so. It really took me some time to adjust to how quick and with how much launch the ball came off the hypermach stringbed. Revpro (RP) started out with pop but it kind of settled to a much more moderate level than HM. Overall, RP was definitely lower-powered and with a flatter trajectory. I did find some balls landing short with RevPro but on the other side of the spectrum, at least initially, I was launching some with HM. I tended to prefer the lower power of RevPro because it was easier to adjust to and control but I was tending to hit balls much flatter. But once I got adjusted to HM, the power was a huge benefit, the ball would just move..quickly. My main complaint was the launch angle, I'd probably want to throw a pound or two of tension on HM next time to lower the launch a bit and ideally end up with a bit more predictability. Some of my complaints also relate to my flatter mechanics, I don't swing vertically enough to reign in the high launch of HM with topspin. But for someone who does, especially in a more open pattern, it would be a dream.
Spin: This is an interesting one. I've never thought PT Rev was a spin monster despite being shaped and that continues a bit here. However, I do think having the slick round cross of PTP promotes spin more than fullbed Rev. The spin was decent but I reckon only average to maybe slightly above. For a shaped string, even in hybrid form, Rev leaves a little something to be desired for me. It didn't produce alot of "free spin" and I'd say a little less than HM. But HM produced less spin for me than fullbed Mach10 1.25. It could be the thinner guage here doesn't have as sharp of edges but I was surprised because fullbed Hyper-G Round actually produced pretty good spin so I expected really easy spin. Part of the problem for HM, at least my supposition, is the power level is so high it almost washes out some of the spin you'd normally get. I'm really curious to try this hybrid in 1.25 and see if that would make it better. Suffice to say it takes a purposeful swing to get the desired spin, any partial swings or pushes that lacked follow through were punished with some launchiness. I definitely have some round strings that seem to give me more and with more predictability than either of these hybrids. The upside of both is spin never really diminished as playtime increased.
Control: RevPro definitely gave me more confidence to go for my shots. The combo of less powerful response and a more predictable launch at least gave the impression of greater control. With HM I think it is more about controlling with spin to get the ball to a big target and push your opponent back or run them around. Don't get me wrong, I smacked some flat balls with HM but how quick the ball came off the strings and the angle at which it did never made me feel as confident to hit my shots with pinpoint accuracy. As time increased they both loosened up and control worsened. This was more noticeable with RevPro because the response got slightly more erratic whereas HyperMach started out a little erratic until I adjusted. But through the end, HM didn't dramatically change in terms of response and control.
Feel: So I'll go ahead and pat myself on the back here, I did pretty good picking the HyperMach competitor. These strings feel pretty similar with some subtle but standout differences. Honestly, switching back and forth to playtest was a bit tricky because they felt very similar. They are both pretty dampened and comfortable with not bad feel but not the most direct. RevPro basically feels more muted but a little more firm while HM feels a little more crisp and less muted. I also think HM was feeling a little harsher the last 2-3hrs compared to RP. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was hurting my arm but I'd definitely cut it sooner (see below for approximate playtime). I felt I had better touch with RP but I think that's more attributable to things mentioned earlier such as the predictability and power level.
Tension maintenance/durability: RevPro I played 11 hours and Hypermach I played 12 hours. As noted above, HM's useful life is probably 7-8, maybe stretch to 10 if that makes you feel better. At 12 hours, it didn't feel as good and it might have been causing a little forearm tightness. I have to disclaim that a bit as I have been playing a bit more than normal but HM just felt a little worse at the end and I wished I'd stopped using it about 2 or 3 hours earlier. RevPro is more firm but muted in a way it never really feels dead like some polys. RevPro was notched maybe 25 percent and Hypermach 40-50 percent, so neither was significant but I generally don't break poly. HM had more noticeable notching which probably contributed to that change in feel. Both had some mains that were starting to stay out of place. RevPro probably could've gone longer but it had definitely lost enough of its attributes by the end to warrant cutting. Heavier spin players would probably break them in about the same time as when they start "dying." But again, I think they generally have the same useful life with RevPro maybe tacking on another 1 or 2 hrs because its more muted and resisted notching better. Pretty average playability duration for poly, maybe slightly above.
Finale: This is interesting, I really find these strings to be very similar. It's a situation where I almost want to do it again with RevPro the same and HM strung 2lbs higher to see if they'd feel identical. Probably won't waste my (or your) time with that. The differences standout enough to reach conclusions. RevPro offers a little more predictable stringbed, a little less spin, and a little more control. Hypermach has tremendous power, pretty good spin, but doesn't feel harsh or stiff, the one negative is it can be a little unpredictable. The hard part for me though, at least on HM, is I playtested HyperG/HyperG Round 1.20 and..it was better..technically than either one of these. I felt it was playable longer, had a great combo of spin with feel and decent control. I was especially surprised here because when I playtested Mach10 1.25, it had very good tension maintenance and spin. So for me, I'd stick with that or the HyperG hybrid. One note though, if you're a PT Rev fullbed player, I see zero reason to not try RevPro hybrid as you may gain some performance and feel from having that PTP cross.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
Here we have HyperMach BD, courtesy of T-dub, and my own Yonex homebrew, which sadly doesn't have any cooler of a name than RevPro. Which is cool except Head used to have RevPro racquets, so probably some copyright stuff there.
As usual, an unnecessary digression from what is simply a poly-hybrid, mash-up comparison for the ages. The idea was to have two comparable hybrids of "modern, cutting edge" poly strings.
Solinco Mach10 mains and Hyper-G Round crosses in 1.20 against Yonex PolyTour Rev (mint) mains and PolyTour Pro (yellow) crosses in 1.20. Top of the line strings from both brands. Add to the fact Hyper-G Round is very comparable to PT Pro and away we go.
Power: This was evident from the very first hit or at least the first two....Hypermach (HM) has some serious power, almost shockingly so. It really took me some time to adjust to how quick and with how much launch the ball came off the hypermach stringbed. Revpro (RP) started out with pop but it kind of settled to a much more moderate level than HM. Overall, RP was definitely lower-powered and with a flatter trajectory. I did find some balls landing short with RevPro but on the other side of the spectrum, at least initially, I was launching some with HM. I tended to prefer the lower power of RevPro because it was easier to adjust to and control but I was tending to hit balls much flatter. But once I got adjusted to HM, the power was a huge benefit, the ball would just move..quickly. My main complaint was the launch angle, I'd probably want to throw a pound or two of tension on HM next time to lower the launch a bit and ideally end up with a bit more predictability. Some of my complaints also relate to my flatter mechanics, I don't swing vertically enough to reign in the high launch of HM with topspin. But for someone who does, especially in a more open pattern, it would be a dream.
Spin: This is an interesting one. I've never thought PT Rev was a spin monster despite being shaped and that continues a bit here. However, I do think having the slick round cross of PTP promotes spin more than fullbed Rev. The spin was decent but I reckon only average to maybe slightly above. For a shaped string, even in hybrid form, Rev leaves a little something to be desired for me. It didn't produce alot of "free spin" and I'd say a little less than HM. But HM produced less spin for me than fullbed Mach10 1.25. It could be the thinner guage here doesn't have as sharp of edges but I was surprised because fullbed Hyper-G Round actually produced pretty good spin so I expected really easy spin. Part of the problem for HM, at least my supposition, is the power level is so high it almost washes out some of the spin you'd normally get. I'm really curious to try this hybrid in 1.25 and see if that would make it better. Suffice to say it takes a purposeful swing to get the desired spin, any partial swings or pushes that lacked follow through were punished with some launchiness. I definitely have some round strings that seem to give me more and with more predictability than either of these hybrids. The upside of both is spin never really diminished as playtime increased.
Control: RevPro definitely gave me more confidence to go for my shots. The combo of less powerful response and a more predictable launch at least gave the impression of greater control. With HM I think it is more about controlling with spin to get the ball to a big target and push your opponent back or run them around. Don't get me wrong, I smacked some flat balls with HM but how quick the ball came off the strings and the angle at which it did never made me feel as confident to hit my shots with pinpoint accuracy. As time increased they both loosened up and control worsened. This was more noticeable with RevPro because the response got slightly more erratic whereas HyperMach started out a little erratic until I adjusted. But through the end, HM didn't dramatically change in terms of response and control.
Feel: So I'll go ahead and pat myself on the back here, I did pretty good picking the HyperMach competitor. These strings feel pretty similar with some subtle but standout differences. Honestly, switching back and forth to playtest was a bit tricky because they felt very similar. They are both pretty dampened and comfortable with not bad feel but not the most direct. RevPro basically feels more muted but a little more firm while HM feels a little more crisp and less muted. I also think HM was feeling a little harsher the last 2-3hrs compared to RP. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was hurting my arm but I'd definitely cut it sooner (see below for approximate playtime). I felt I had better touch with RP but I think that's more attributable to things mentioned earlier such as the predictability and power level.
Tension maintenance/durability: RevPro I played 11 hours and Hypermach I played 12 hours. As noted above, HM's useful life is probably 7-8, maybe stretch to 10 if that makes you feel better. At 12 hours, it didn't feel as good and it might have been causing a little forearm tightness. I have to disclaim that a bit as I have been playing a bit more than normal but HM just felt a little worse at the end and I wished I'd stopped using it about 2 or 3 hours earlier. RevPro is more firm but muted in a way it never really feels dead like some polys. RevPro was notched maybe 25 percent and Hypermach 40-50 percent, so neither was significant but I generally don't break poly. HM had more noticeable notching which probably contributed to that change in feel. Both had some mains that were starting to stay out of place. RevPro probably could've gone longer but it had definitely lost enough of its attributes by the end to warrant cutting. Heavier spin players would probably break them in about the same time as when they start "dying." But again, I think they generally have the same useful life with RevPro maybe tacking on another 1 or 2 hrs because its more muted and resisted notching better. Pretty average playability duration for poly, maybe slightly above.
Finale: This is interesting, I really find these strings to be very similar. It's a situation where I almost want to do it again with RevPro the same and HM strung 2lbs higher to see if they'd feel identical. Probably won't waste my (or your) time with that. The differences standout enough to reach conclusions. RevPro offers a little more predictable stringbed, a little less spin, and a little more control. Hypermach has tremendous power, pretty good spin, but doesn't feel harsh or stiff, the one negative is it can be a little unpredictable. The hard part for me though, at least on HM, is I playtested HyperG/HyperG Round 1.20 and..it was better..technically than either one of these. I felt it was playable longer, had a great combo of spin with feel and decent control. I was especially surprised here because when I playtested Mach10 1.25, it had very good tension maintenance and spin. So for me, I'd stick with that or the HyperG hybrid. One note though, if you're a PT Rev fullbed player, I see zero reason to not try RevPro hybrid as you may gain some performance and feel from having that PTP cross.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
Could be the last comparison for awhile, my normal strings need some love.
But until then we have this...
An inverse relationship comparison.
On the left: Rexis Speed 1.25 mains and Hawk Rough crosses
On the right: Hawk Rough mains and Rexis Speed 1.25 crosses
Which is better?
People love to tout multi mains but is it actually better, will it even hold up?
I predict the rexis mains snapping early but I'm a pessimist.
But until then we have this...
An inverse relationship comparison.
On the left: Rexis Speed 1.25 mains and Hawk Rough crosses
On the right: Hawk Rough mains and Rexis Speed 1.25 crosses
Which is better?
People love to tout multi mains but is it actually better, will it even hold up?
I predict the rexis mains snapping early but I'm a pessimist.
After about 1.5hrs on each, here are some pre-lim thoughts...
The rexis mains definitely give a more plush stringbed with better pocketing. The power is also really nice, I feel it most on serve where I have actually been missing long as a result. My serve is more kick oriented so I just need a little more spin to compensate. As expected, I feel like I'm seeing early signs of notching, no surprise at all.
Otherwise a very promising hybrid.
Hawk Rough mains is kind of average so far but also hasn't gotten a fair shake. Both times using, I used it after I used the other racquet so the power level was immediately lower and the response deader. Next outing I will use this one first and get a better feel for it.
The rexis mains definitely give a more plush stringbed with better pocketing. The power is also really nice, I feel it most on serve where I have actually been missing long as a result. My serve is more kick oriented so I just need a little more spin to compensate. As expected, I feel like I'm seeing early signs of notching, no surprise at all.
Otherwise a very promising hybrid.
Hawk Rough mains is kind of average so far but also hasn't gotten a fair shake. Both times using, I used it after I used the other racquet so the power level was immediately lower and the response deader. Next outing I will use this one first and get a better feel for it.
@Chairman3 - Curious to see which hybrid orientation gives you higher playability and for how long. Also as to whether you tend to like a bed that is more fluid, unlocked and snappy (poly crosses, non-poly mains) or more static, locked and stationary (poly mains, non-poly crosses). And is that universally, or does it change depending on the racquet in question? TIA!
I definitely have a preference so far related to which I like better.
However, that's a predisposition because I tend to like softer stringbeds. Regardless, I try to look at performance merits, overall, not just personal preference. If a multi main snaps in 4 hrs because the cross is too stiff, that's not a great performing stringbed to me.
The latter question is a bit trickier as I think that would require quite a bit more testing, and time, then I really have. But I have used quite a few hybrids and in several racquets.
My general supposition would be perhaps a little elementary.
A locked, stationary stringbed would probably be favored in more powerful or open pattern racquets, at least for me. This ensures a more controlled launch and predictable stringbed response, again, for me.
In denser patterns I already have the control and typically lower launch so I want some power and pocketing and would favor the fluidity of a softer main.
These blades are actually a great test bed because they are stiffer but with a denser pattern. We'll see if my general statements above hold.
Appreciate the questions/comments!
Heres a quick update about 5hrs on each string.
It may be the only update as they are wearing fast, even the rexis cross.
There's two factors:
1. Hawk Rough seems to be a pretty stiff string
2. Rexis is 1.25 and seems to be a pretty soft string.
Regardless, performance is good.
The strings seemingly polar opposite really makes it interesting.
Rexis main is springy, soft, and excellent pocketing. You can really feel the snap and the power is great. Strings are definitely loose and will probably snap within the next 2 hours, depending on opponents. I've been playing alot of doubles so I think that has helped longevity. But heavy notching.
Rough mains, nearly the complete opposite. Rough is so low-powered and pretty dead feeling that even the softer cross doesn't up the power that much. It definitely is better than fullbed rough but there is so much control. I feel like I get better spin with rexis mains, which is surprising. Not sure if the more elastic main is snapping more or what. I didn't get great spin with fullbed Rough so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Rexis in the cross, also is not holding on well, flattening in the center and you can see it's like physically being crushed and splitting.
It may be the only update as they are wearing fast, even the rexis cross.
There's two factors:
1. Hawk Rough seems to be a pretty stiff string
2. Rexis is 1.25 and seems to be a pretty soft string.
Regardless, performance is good.
The strings seemingly polar opposite really makes it interesting.
Rexis main is springy, soft, and excellent pocketing. You can really feel the snap and the power is great. Strings are definitely loose and will probably snap within the next 2 hours, depending on opponents. I've been playing alot of doubles so I think that has helped longevity. But heavy notching.
Rough mains, nearly the complete opposite. Rough is so low-powered and pretty dead feeling that even the softer cross doesn't up the power that much. It definitely is better than fullbed rough but there is so much control. I feel like I get better spin with rexis mains, which is surprising. Not sure if the more elastic main is snapping more or what. I didn't get great spin with fullbed Rough so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Rexis in the cross, also is not holding on well, flattening in the center and you can see it's like physically being crushed and splitting.
Last edited:
PSA:
The Inverse Relationship comparison is temporarily on hold as I was selected for the Ultra 99 Pro racquet playtest. As such I will be using that racquet exclusively for about the next month.
As an apology, I offer my current top 5 list of strings.
1. PT Strike 1.20
2. BB Ace 112*
3. Solinco Mach10 1.25
4. Hawk Power
5. Element Soft IR
OLI:
Head Lynx
Big Banger Original
HyperG/HyperG Round 1.20 hybrid
Babolat Xalt
*Ace was discontinued, but I recently was able to acquire a reel, so it gets an asterisk.
If I had to remove Ace I would put in Head Lynx as #2.
The Inverse Relationship comparison is temporarily on hold as I was selected for the Ultra 99 Pro racquet playtest. As such I will be using that racquet exclusively for about the next month.
As an apology, I offer my current top 5 list of strings.
1. PT Strike 1.20
2. BB Ace 112*
3. Solinco Mach10 1.25
4. Hawk Power
5. Element Soft IR
OLI:
Head Lynx
Big Banger Original
HyperG/HyperG Round 1.20 hybrid
Babolat Xalt
*Ace was discontinued, but I recently was able to acquire a reel, so it gets an asterisk.
If I had to remove Ace I would put in Head Lynx as #2.
So I have posted my Ultra 99 review and am working on transitioning back to my regular Blades.
As such, I have intermittently used each Blade in between using the Ultra with different stringjobs, post-review. I'm on the last string, Element Soft IR, that I really wanted to try in the Ultra and once done will go back to my Blades full-time.
To update, I am at about 7hrs on each Blade. I'm genuinely astonished the Rexis has held up this long, especially the main, but both look like they are on their last leg. If either get to 10hrs, it will be notable because Hawk Rough is very stiff and Rexis is only a 1.25. Sadly I think I'd have to get to 12+ hrs to make it viable as I don't string my own racquets.
But we'll see when I get back to them...stay tuned.
As such, I have intermittently used each Blade in between using the Ultra with different stringjobs, post-review. I'm on the last string, Element Soft IR, that I really wanted to try in the Ultra and once done will go back to my Blades full-time.
To update, I am at about 7hrs on each Blade. I'm genuinely astonished the Rexis has held up this long, especially the main, but both look like they are on their last leg. If either get to 10hrs, it will be notable because Hawk Rough is very stiff and Rexis is only a 1.25. Sadly I think I'd have to get to 12+ hrs to make it viable as I don't string my own racquets.
But we'll see when I get back to them...stay tuned.
A little surprisingly, it lasted 2.5 more hours for a total of about 12hrs.
Pretty good durability from Rexis 1.25
Review to come, this was a fun, albeit drawn out, playtest.
Inverse Relationship Comparo
Aptly named as this string is two hybrids, what I call traditional (poly main/multi cross) and the faux pro (multi main/poly cross).
I started with Hawk Rough because I have multiple sets and am not a huge fan of it and then used some Rexis Speed because it was a $2 happy hour deal, sadly it was the 1.25.
I did not have high expectations on durability but was decently surprised.
Let's take a closer look....
For clarity and brevity, MP=multi main/poly cross and PM=poly main/multi cross.
Power: For starters, Hawk Rough is pretty dead and low-powered, I honestly believe it is Hawk Touch but with texture because it reminds me alot of that string. So naturally the multi main (MP) was much more powerful than the poly main (PM). I really liked the power level of the MP it never felt uncontrollable or unpredictable, the stiff Hawk really did the trick in the cross to reign it in. PM on the other hand was pretty low-powered like you'd expect. The multi cross really did almost nothing for power and it was only toward the end when there was some tension loss that it felt like it had slightly more pop. So if I did a Hawk main hybrid again, I'd definitely drop a couple lbs of tension. It was really no contest MP handedly was more powerful.
Spin: This is tricky, it almost feels like the MP had more spin and it definitely had good spin. That's half the reason it snapped and was wearing so quickly, all the friction. But I hate to undercut PM even though HRough is such a stiff string and holds tension well, it just doesn't feel like it really has that snap. It was definitely wearing the multi cross and eventually broke it but just hitting it never felt like alot of snap to create spin. The things that really stood out on PM were the control and tension maintenance. Speaking of....
Control: This is pretty easy and already mentioned, PM has very good control. By no means was MP spraying balls or causing me to lack confidence, it's just that HRough is so dead feeling, predictable, and stiffer there's just no comparison. It dominated the stringbed in the mains so you could basically swing as hard as you wanted. The low power too contributed to the predictability and confidence to just go for shots. Likewise, HRough helped tame the multi main and create a more controllable stringbed and response but the multi is just alot livelier and the ball came off that way. A lot more spring with MP and that usually doesn't translate to control.
Feel: If you follow my work (and I know you all do) I like softer strings, stringbeds, I like a little spring, or trampoline effect, so MP was right up my alley. You could really feel the softer, springier nature while the poly cross did just enough to keep it in check as it loosened. Hands down, MP would almost always be my preference. Obviously you could pick a softer poly for the PM and one day I may do that. As mentioned, the multi cross of PM really didn't make it much more forgiving until the last few hours. I assume the wear finally caused the multi cross to be alot looser and more elastic. It's possible HRough was losing tension, but it holds pretty good so I'd bet on the multi, especially since it was fraying in several places.
Tension maintenance/durability: For MP, the main broke at about 9 hours. This actually exceeded my expectations, I expected about 6-7 hrs. The string looked really frayed after like 4-5 hrs. PM naturally did a little better and racked up about 12hrs before the cross snapped. This isn't bad and both variations would benefit immensely from a 1.30 guage multi or even thicker. Another thing I would try in the future. I also contend they might have broken sooner had I not paused the comparison to participate in the Ultra 99 playtest. Either way, at the time used, neither is really viable given I don't string my own racquets.
Finale: To be honest, it went about as I expected and despite that, this was probably one of the more fun comparisons I've done in awhile. People brag about the multi main hybrids and I kind of see why but I'm not totally a believer because for much less, you can use syngut and it'll be 95% as good. Probably a future comparison but the hard part is choosing a suitable multi and syngut that are comparable to try and reduce variability. I'll give it a ponder. Another bright spot is I don't mind Hawk Rough as a cross with something in the mains. I actually think I'm going to try a really soft or really thin poly main with HRough crosses, just to see what happens. As a sort of conclusion, as with most things in tennis, it comes down to feel...what do you want from your stringbed. Controllable power with a softer, springier response or low power but max control?
The PM hybrid was ok, not my favorite because a shaped main would do more but the MP was really nice.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19s.
Aptly named as this string is two hybrids, what I call traditional (poly main/multi cross) and the faux pro (multi main/poly cross).
I started with Hawk Rough because I have multiple sets and am not a huge fan of it and then used some Rexis Speed because it was a $2 happy hour deal, sadly it was the 1.25.
I did not have high expectations on durability but was decently surprised.
Let's take a closer look....
For clarity and brevity, MP=multi main/poly cross and PM=poly main/multi cross.
Power: For starters, Hawk Rough is pretty dead and low-powered, I honestly believe it is Hawk Touch but with texture because it reminds me alot of that string. So naturally the multi main (MP) was much more powerful than the poly main (PM). I really liked the power level of the MP it never felt uncontrollable or unpredictable, the stiff Hawk really did the trick in the cross to reign it in. PM on the other hand was pretty low-powered like you'd expect. The multi cross really did almost nothing for power and it was only toward the end when there was some tension loss that it felt like it had slightly more pop. So if I did a Hawk main hybrid again, I'd definitely drop a couple lbs of tension. It was really no contest MP handedly was more powerful.
Spin: This is tricky, it almost feels like the MP had more spin and it definitely had good spin. That's half the reason it snapped and was wearing so quickly, all the friction. But I hate to undercut PM even though HRough is such a stiff string and holds tension well, it just doesn't feel like it really has that snap. It was definitely wearing the multi cross and eventually broke it but just hitting it never felt like alot of snap to create spin. The things that really stood out on PM were the control and tension maintenance. Speaking of....
Control: This is pretty easy and already mentioned, PM has very good control. By no means was MP spraying balls or causing me to lack confidence, it's just that HRough is so dead feeling, predictable, and stiffer there's just no comparison. It dominated the stringbed in the mains so you could basically swing as hard as you wanted. The low power too contributed to the predictability and confidence to just go for shots. Likewise, HRough helped tame the multi main and create a more controllable stringbed and response but the multi is just alot livelier and the ball came off that way. A lot more spring with MP and that usually doesn't translate to control.
Feel: If you follow my work (and I know you all do) I like softer strings, stringbeds, I like a little spring, or trampoline effect, so MP was right up my alley. You could really feel the softer, springier nature while the poly cross did just enough to keep it in check as it loosened. Hands down, MP would almost always be my preference. Obviously you could pick a softer poly for the PM and one day I may do that. As mentioned, the multi cross of PM really didn't make it much more forgiving until the last few hours. I assume the wear finally caused the multi cross to be alot looser and more elastic. It's possible HRough was losing tension, but it holds pretty good so I'd bet on the multi, especially since it was fraying in several places.
Tension maintenance/durability: For MP, the main broke at about 9 hours. This actually exceeded my expectations, I expected about 6-7 hrs. The string looked really frayed after like 4-5 hrs. PM naturally did a little better and racked up about 12hrs before the cross snapped. This isn't bad and both variations would benefit immensely from a 1.30 guage multi or even thicker. Another thing I would try in the future. I also contend they might have broken sooner had I not paused the comparison to participate in the Ultra 99 playtest. Either way, at the time used, neither is really viable given I don't string my own racquets.
Finale: To be honest, it went about as I expected and despite that, this was probably one of the more fun comparisons I've done in awhile. People brag about the multi main hybrids and I kind of see why but I'm not totally a believer because for much less, you can use syngut and it'll be 95% as good. Probably a future comparison but the hard part is choosing a suitable multi and syngut that are comparable to try and reduce variability. I'll give it a ponder. Another bright spot is I don't mind Hawk Rough as a cross with something in the mains. I actually think I'm going to try a really soft or really thin poly main with HRough crosses, just to see what happens. As a sort of conclusion, as with most things in tennis, it comes down to feel...what do you want from your stringbed. Controllable power with a softer, springier response or low power but max control?
The PM hybrid was ok, not my favorite because a shaped main would do more but the MP was really nice.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19s.
I never envisioned or even imagined this playtest.
But a near racquet purchase, eventual string trade, and a bunch of messages later, here it is.
A new friend, to me, on the boards and I were comparing our top 5 strings and he raved about Kirschbaum Evolution and Solinco Outlast, his top 2.
I have never used either of these, I mentioned, so we worked out a string trade - the old this for that.
And the rest will be history in this hallowed pages.
I always like new strings, especially those that other people love, so I am definitely excited to give them a go.
But a near racquet purchase, eventual string trade, and a bunch of messages later, here it is.
A new friend, to me, on the boards and I were comparing our top 5 strings and he raved about Kirschbaum Evolution and Solinco Outlast, his top 2.
I have never used either of these, I mentioned, so we worked out a string trade - the old this for that.
And the rest will be history in this hallowed pages.
I always like new strings, especially those that other people love, so I am definitely excited to give them a go.
UnderArmServeOP
Hall of Fame
@Chairman3 have you been able to try the hybrid TennCom made with Toroline?? I think it's called O-Snap
I haven't.
I have alot of strings already, so try to use what I have or trade with people for other stuff rather than buy any new ones.
I've only used one toroline string briefly and it was ok.
If you have the hybrid and want to send it to me or trade, send me a message.
Alright, used both strings a couple hours, cold conditions in FL. 
Poly is never good in the cold.
I think this premise is particularly applicable to Evolution.
Off the top, Outlast is winning. You can quit reading now unless you want to know why...?
Outlast has better feel, spin, and more predictability.
Evolution is very firm, much more than I like. I assume it's because Kirschbaum pre-stretches their strings for tension maintenance but a side effect is a firmer, deader feel. Evolution just doesn't spin the ball as easily either. It has a lower launch and without a good, solid swing it can launch the ball a bit.
I know alot of people like Evolution and I'd say in a more powerful or open pattern it could work better.
Alternatively, it could work for me at a lower tension.
But right now it feels like I'm working a bit hard to hit good rally balls that don't fall short in the court and definitely having some trouble hitting winners.
Outlast on the other hand is pretty good. I like the feel, maybe still slightly firmer than I like, but good spin and a good middle balance of power and control. This string is pretty easy to adjust to and play with and I like the dark-ish red color as well.
At only a couple hours, quite a bit of meat on the playtest bone, so hopefully the weather improves.
Poly is never good in the cold.
I think this premise is particularly applicable to Evolution.
Off the top, Outlast is winning. You can quit reading now unless you want to know why...?
Outlast has better feel, spin, and more predictability.
Evolution is very firm, much more than I like. I assume it's because Kirschbaum pre-stretches their strings for tension maintenance but a side effect is a firmer, deader feel. Evolution just doesn't spin the ball as easily either. It has a lower launch and without a good, solid swing it can launch the ball a bit.
I know alot of people like Evolution and I'd say in a more powerful or open pattern it could work better.
Alternatively, it could work for me at a lower tension.
But right now it feels like I'm working a bit hard to hit good rally balls that don't fall short in the court and definitely having some trouble hitting winners.
Outlast on the other hand is pretty good. I like the feel, maybe still slightly firmer than I like, but good spin and a good middle balance of power and control. This string is pretty easy to adjust to and play with and I like the dark-ish red color as well.
At only a couple hours, quite a bit of meat on the playtest bone, so hopefully the weather improves.
@Chairman3
What is your suggestion for cold weather play? Polys plus hard rubber balls feels like hitting bricks.
Do multis or cheap synthetic gut work better or at minimum multi or synthetic gut mains, poly crosses?
What is your suggestion for cold weather play? Polys plus hard rubber balls feels like hitting bricks.
Do multis or cheap synthetic gut work better or at minimum multi or synthetic gut mains, poly crosses?
100%, full bed multi or synthetic gut would be alot better, if you're game for that. (Some act like they literally can't play with anything but poly)
But a hybrid with poly main and multi or syngut cross is better in the cold than full poly.
Up to about 5.5 hrs on each string and I have to say...this has been one of the more frustrating and confounding comparisons in recent memory.
I consulted the expert (@ChaseS.) and he confirmed, although maybe just humoring me, that these strings are pretty different in performance.
I started out liking Outlast more because it had better spin and feel with a little more pop than Evolution. Evolution has a low trajectory and pretty low-powered response.
Now after some hours, they've both loosened up a bit and I'm playing better with Evolution. It's not quite as firm, but still firm, and I'm getting a little better depth but still decent control. Outlast still has a higher launch and a bit more pop which is getting slightly harder to control. It almost seems like the spin is getting a bit worse but I think part of that was me.
It is interesting though that now I'm leaning more toward Evo because of its predictability. Again, I was getting a little tired while playing with outlast yesterday, so it is very likely I wasn't following through consistently.
We'll see tomorrow because I'll use Outlast first then Evo. It's going to be cold (for FL) so they may both feel terrible.
But back to the beginning, the differences are just enough that these two strings are a little tricky to switch back and forth between and that's frustrated me a bit. I actually did it during a USTA match and I think it was distracting me a bit. Normally I like to play side-by-side to capture the same conditions and opponent. But I may switch since I've got some base time on each and use the same for a whole session and then use the other for the next session.
I consulted the expert (@ChaseS.) and he confirmed, although maybe just humoring me, that these strings are pretty different in performance.
I started out liking Outlast more because it had better spin and feel with a little more pop than Evolution. Evolution has a low trajectory and pretty low-powered response.
Now after some hours, they've both loosened up a bit and I'm playing better with Evolution. It's not quite as firm, but still firm, and I'm getting a little better depth but still decent control. Outlast still has a higher launch and a bit more pop which is getting slightly harder to control. It almost seems like the spin is getting a bit worse but I think part of that was me.
It is interesting though that now I'm leaning more toward Evo because of its predictability. Again, I was getting a little tired while playing with outlast yesterday, so it is very likely I wasn't following through consistently.
We'll see tomorrow because I'll use Outlast first then Evo. It's going to be cold (for FL) so they may both feel terrible.
But back to the beginning, the differences are just enough that these two strings are a little tricky to switch back and forth between and that's frustrated me a bit. I actually did it during a USTA match and I think it was distracting me a bit. Normally I like to play side-by-side to capture the same conditions and opponent. But I may switch since I've got some base time on each and use the same for a whole session and then use the other for the next session.
The trusty two...
This comparison came as a result of me trying to buy a racquet. I messaged @ChaseS. about his racquet, someone else offered more and that was that..or was it? No, in fact, it was not. We exchanged some messages and then some more about racquets and strings and soon became internet buddies (my proclamation, not his lol).
A conversation on our personal top 5 strings led him to reveal Solinco Outlast and Kirschbaum Evolution are two of his ol' reliables. Naturally a string trade ensued and the rest is hallowed history....
Power: Straight off the top, Outlast has a more lively response, not all the way powerful but definitely some pop. Evolution is pretty much what you expect from a traditional poly, not dead like the most controlled strings but definitely low-powered. I was actually leaving balls short at first if I had a more defensive swing or sloppy technique. The critical aspect is always 4 hours later...for Outlast the power did keep going up as play time, and tension loss, increased. The last couple sessions were definitely a little more lively than I wanted and while not uncontrollable - and really not even unpredictable - you had to be deliberate in spinning the ball to make sure it stayed in. Some times the power could overwhelm the spin toward the end. For Evo, I much more enjoyed its performance 4 hours later. It loosened up a bit and the string had a little more give and I didn't feel like I was working as hard. The control mostly remained too which is why toward the end I was favoring Evo and playing better with it. It remained more predictable, spin didn't change much but we'll get into that...next!
Spin: This was pretty easy and really got to the foundation and key difference of these two strings. Out of the gate, Outlast was more spinny by nature, felt slicker (slightly), and had the higher launch off the stringbed. All of these did result in noticeably more spin and the tendency to favor that more vertical swing path. When you swung a little flatter the power could take over and result in hitting long. Mind you, these were strung at the same tension in matching racquets, but Evo is a flat hitters dream. Sure, it is poly, it produces spin, but the trajectory and character are so flat. A lot of times when I would swing more vertically it would just launch the ball but when I wanted to flatten a ball it obliged. Unfortunately, that was a key frustration of this comparison....switching back and forth. They were so different in this regard that switching mid-session took a concerted effort and sometimes had mediocre results. It was easier to go to Outlast but when I went from Outlast to Evo is when I netted a lot of balls or launched them. Evo just has different tendencies and they aren't quite as spin based. Sure, with a Nadal-style topspin game you'll get plenty of spin but there are strings that will do it better and easier. As mentioned, power went up with both strings as playtime increased and for Outlast that was a bit of its undoing. The power was able to overwhelm the spin near the end as I think it was losing snap. Evo didn't change much from a spin perspective, it's just more of a control string.
Control: Another easy category, Evo for sure has the control. I didn't have confidence, at first, because I was going back and forth too much. But mid to later on, I'd use just one racquet for a whole session. This is when Evo had loosened up and I felt more confident and was hitting my spots. Similar to having a much more controlled launch angle, this string just favors a little flatter more precise hitting. I always feel a string that complements your style is the best option. I think it could be used to tame a more powerful frame but might not be best if the pattern naturally has a high launch angle. Outlast on the other hand is probably a good middle ground because it has the spin to tame the launch. And that's about the summation of Outlast's control, add spin. As mentioned above, Outlast has some pop but isn't especially a power string but also isn't a spin string, nor a control string. Outlast would lean toward the power/spin side of the spectrum but is a nice all-rounder. As such, control is pretty average and not as good as Evo, especially at 7+ hours. Not wildly unpredictable but just requiring more deliberate hitting.
Feel: This category is by far the most subjective but I try to keep it objective.[?] Outlast is probably the best feeling Solinco string, not overly dampened, a hair crisp and starts firm but softens up a bit. I'd say easily their most forgiving feeling string with the newer HyperG Round being a very close second. I really liked the feel, ultimately it probably still starts out a bit firmer than what I like, and with the pop I'm not sure I'd want to go alot lower, but I could definitely use it as-is. Also would be interested in trying it in a 1.20 guage, might add just a touch of softness. Evo on the other hand is not what I favor. It starts out pretty firm, approaching stiff and loosens up a bit but still maintains that slightly deader feel. I'd say it's more transmissive, meaning you get a bit more direct feel but only marginally. I don't quite put Evo in the 4G category but probably like a Razor Soft or maybe less smooth Big Banger Original. Perhaps even Head Hawk is pretty similar but my points of reference are the 1.30 and 1.20 Hawk, but in that realm. By no means bad but as I said I try to make objective what is very subjective.
Tension maintenance/durability: Tension maintenance for both was pretty good. Outlast got up to 10 hrs and Evo just under 10 hrs, basically my minimum time for comparisons. I definitely could have played them longer but Outlast was not performing as good with the extra power. Evo was doing ok but in the midst of a cold-spell in FL, neither was feeling terrific and it didn't seem worth maxing them out at the expense of playability. Evo was less notched than Outlast which is pretty consistent with Outlast feeling softer, neither was about to break though and provided ample durability. So I'd expect slightly above average tension maintenance while maintaining a good amount of its playability and could probably be played to breaking for those that break poly.
Finale: The main takeaway is just how different these strings are. Not often when I do a comparison does it incite genuine frustration...but this one did. Going back and forth was more detrimental to my game than I've experienced in awhile. The only recent comparo I've done that was similar was my Yonex vs Solinco-braindead hybrid (check that out by the way, in this thread). The Yonex hybrid was so much flatter and less powerful than the Hypermach hybrid. Regardless, these are two good strings. Evo really was not that impressive to me because I have other "basic" polys that I like the feel of better but it's not bad value given the playability duration. Outlast did impress and is definitely one I'd use again and definitely try to pick up a set of 1.20 and see if it can crack my top 5 list. The only downside is Solinco introduced Outlast's chief rival in the form of HyperG Round. Seems there could be a furure comparison there...stay tuned.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
This comparison came as a result of me trying to buy a racquet. I messaged @ChaseS. about his racquet, someone else offered more and that was that..or was it? No, in fact, it was not. We exchanged some messages and then some more about racquets and strings and soon became internet buddies (my proclamation, not his lol).
A conversation on our personal top 5 strings led him to reveal Solinco Outlast and Kirschbaum Evolution are two of his ol' reliables. Naturally a string trade ensued and the rest is hallowed history....
Power: Straight off the top, Outlast has a more lively response, not all the way powerful but definitely some pop. Evolution is pretty much what you expect from a traditional poly, not dead like the most controlled strings but definitely low-powered. I was actually leaving balls short at first if I had a more defensive swing or sloppy technique. The critical aspect is always 4 hours later...for Outlast the power did keep going up as play time, and tension loss, increased. The last couple sessions were definitely a little more lively than I wanted and while not uncontrollable - and really not even unpredictable - you had to be deliberate in spinning the ball to make sure it stayed in. Some times the power could overwhelm the spin toward the end. For Evo, I much more enjoyed its performance 4 hours later. It loosened up a bit and the string had a little more give and I didn't feel like I was working as hard. The control mostly remained too which is why toward the end I was favoring Evo and playing better with it. It remained more predictable, spin didn't change much but we'll get into that...next!
Spin: This was pretty easy and really got to the foundation and key difference of these two strings. Out of the gate, Outlast was more spinny by nature, felt slicker (slightly), and had the higher launch off the stringbed. All of these did result in noticeably more spin and the tendency to favor that more vertical swing path. When you swung a little flatter the power could take over and result in hitting long. Mind you, these were strung at the same tension in matching racquets, but Evo is a flat hitters dream. Sure, it is poly, it produces spin, but the trajectory and character are so flat. A lot of times when I would swing more vertically it would just launch the ball but when I wanted to flatten a ball it obliged. Unfortunately, that was a key frustration of this comparison....switching back and forth. They were so different in this regard that switching mid-session took a concerted effort and sometimes had mediocre results. It was easier to go to Outlast but when I went from Outlast to Evo is when I netted a lot of balls or launched them. Evo just has different tendencies and they aren't quite as spin based. Sure, with a Nadal-style topspin game you'll get plenty of spin but there are strings that will do it better and easier. As mentioned, power went up with both strings as playtime increased and for Outlast that was a bit of its undoing. The power was able to overwhelm the spin near the end as I think it was losing snap. Evo didn't change much from a spin perspective, it's just more of a control string.
Control: Another easy category, Evo for sure has the control. I didn't have confidence, at first, because I was going back and forth too much. But mid to later on, I'd use just one racquet for a whole session. This is when Evo had loosened up and I felt more confident and was hitting my spots. Similar to having a much more controlled launch angle, this string just favors a little flatter more precise hitting. I always feel a string that complements your style is the best option. I think it could be used to tame a more powerful frame but might not be best if the pattern naturally has a high launch angle. Outlast on the other hand is probably a good middle ground because it has the spin to tame the launch. And that's about the summation of Outlast's control, add spin. As mentioned above, Outlast has some pop but isn't especially a power string but also isn't a spin string, nor a control string. Outlast would lean toward the power/spin side of the spectrum but is a nice all-rounder. As such, control is pretty average and not as good as Evo, especially at 7+ hours. Not wildly unpredictable but just requiring more deliberate hitting.
Feel: This category is by far the most subjective but I try to keep it objective.[?] Outlast is probably the best feeling Solinco string, not overly dampened, a hair crisp and starts firm but softens up a bit. I'd say easily their most forgiving feeling string with the newer HyperG Round being a very close second. I really liked the feel, ultimately it probably still starts out a bit firmer than what I like, and with the pop I'm not sure I'd want to go alot lower, but I could definitely use it as-is. Also would be interested in trying it in a 1.20 guage, might add just a touch of softness. Evo on the other hand is not what I favor. It starts out pretty firm, approaching stiff and loosens up a bit but still maintains that slightly deader feel. I'd say it's more transmissive, meaning you get a bit more direct feel but only marginally. I don't quite put Evo in the 4G category but probably like a Razor Soft or maybe less smooth Big Banger Original. Perhaps even Head Hawk is pretty similar but my points of reference are the 1.30 and 1.20 Hawk, but in that realm. By no means bad but as I said I try to make objective what is very subjective.
Tension maintenance/durability: Tension maintenance for both was pretty good. Outlast got up to 10 hrs and Evo just under 10 hrs, basically my minimum time for comparisons. I definitely could have played them longer but Outlast was not performing as good with the extra power. Evo was doing ok but in the midst of a cold-spell in FL, neither was feeling terrific and it didn't seem worth maxing them out at the expense of playability. Evo was less notched than Outlast which is pretty consistent with Outlast feeling softer, neither was about to break though and provided ample durability. So I'd expect slightly above average tension maintenance while maintaining a good amount of its playability and could probably be played to breaking for those that break poly.
Finale: The main takeaway is just how different these strings are. Not often when I do a comparison does it incite genuine frustration...but this one did. Going back and forth was more detrimental to my game than I've experienced in awhile. The only recent comparo I've done that was similar was my Yonex vs Solinco-braindead hybrid (check that out by the way, in this thread). The Yonex hybrid was so much flatter and less powerful than the Hypermach hybrid. Regardless, these are two good strings. Evo really was not that impressive to me because I have other "basic" polys that I like the feel of better but it's not bad value given the playability duration. Outlast did impress and is definitely one I'd use again and definitely try to pick up a set of 1.20 and see if it can crack my top 5 list. The only downside is Solinco introduced Outlast's chief rival in the form of HyperG Round. Seems there could be a furure comparison there...stay tuned.
Both tested at 50lbs in my Blade 18x19's
Last edited:
