String Patterns are deceptive

[1stVolley]

Life is complicated, so it would be nice if we could simply say an 18x20 string pattern gives a closed stringbed pattern and a 16x19 and a 16x18 give open patterns. Once in a while someone does mention that we should consider the drill pattern but mostly that complication is quickly forgotten. So, out of curiosity, I grabbed a bunch of my current and old racquets and here are the results:
Völkl Super G V1 Pro: 99.5"; 16x19; closed
Völkl PB10 Mid: 93"; 16x19; closed
Völkl C-10; 98"; 16x19; closed
Prince TT 95: 95"; 16x19; open
Prince TT 100 (310); 100"; 16x18; medium open
Wilson RF 97A; 97"; 16x19; medium open
Head Gravity Pro; 100"; 18x20; medium open

Some of the resulting string beds fall between the simple open-closed dichotomy, so I've used "medium" to convey this. As you can see, some 16x19 patterns are closed (Völkl V1 Pro, PB10 & C-10) and the one 18x20 pattern racquet I have is between open and closed (Head Gravity Pro). You can't even rely on head size to guarantee open/closed as the V1 Pro, TT 95 and C-10 all seem to go their own way.

This might be one good reason why the Prince TT 100 (310) with a seemingly wide open 16x18 string pattern is pretty accurate and the Head Gravity Pro isn't bad on generating topspin. And, also why the Wilson RF97A is so versatile for those who can swing it.

So maybe we should get manufacturers and reviewers to specify the relative openness or closure of the stringbed besides simply telling us the string pattern.

 

[Shroud]

Life is complicated, so it would be nice if we could simply say an 18x20 string pattern gives a closed stringbed pattern and a 16x19 and a 16x18 give open patterns. Once in a while someone does mention that we should consider the drill pattern but mostly that complication is quickly forgotten. So, out of curiosity, I grabbed a bunch of my current and old racquets and here are the results:
Völkl Super G V1 Pro: 99.5"; 16x19; closed
Völkl PB10 Mid: 93"; 16x19; closed
Völkl C-10; 98"; 16x19; closed
Prince TT 95: 95"; 16x19; open
Prince TT 100 (310); 100"; 16x18; medium open
Wilson RF 97A; 97"; 16x19; medium open
Head Gravity Pro; 100"; 18x20; medium open

Some of the resulting string beds fall between the simple open-closed dichotomy, so I've used "medium" to convey this. As you can see, some 16x19 patterns are closed (Völkl V1 Pro, PB10 & C-10) and the one 18x20 pattern racquet I have is between open and closed (Head Gravity Pro). You can't even rely on head size to guarantee open/closed as the V1 Pro, TT 95 and C-10 all seem to go their own way.

This might be one good reason why the Prince TT 100 (310) with a seemingly wide open 16x18 string pattern is pretty accurate and the Head Gravity Pro isn't bad on generating topspin. And, also why the Wilson RF97A is so versatile for those who can swing it.

So maybe we should get manufacturers and reviewers to specify the relative openness or closure of the stringbed besides simply telling us the string pattern.

@travlerajm had a thread and metric related to this.

 

[beltsman]

Life is complicated, so it would be nice if we could simply say an 18x20 string pattern gives a closed stringbed pattern and a 16x19 and a 16x18 give open patterns. Once in a while someone does mention that we should consider the drill pattern but mostly that complication is quickly forgotten. So, out of curiosity, I grabbed a bunch of my current and old racquets and here are the results:
Völkl Super G V1 Pro: 99.5"; 16x19; closed
Völkl PB10 Mid: 93"; 16x19; closed
Völkl C-10; 98"; 16x19; closed
Prince TT 95: 95"; 16x19; open
Prince TT 100 (310); 100"; 16x18; medium open
Wilson RF 97A; 97"; 16x19; medium open
Head Gravity Pro; 100"; 18x20; medium open

Some of the resulting string beds fall between the simple open-closed dichotomy, so I've used "medium" to convey this. As you can see, some 16x19 patterns are closed (Völkl V1 Pro, PB10 & C-10) and the one 18x20 pattern racquet I have is between open and closed (Head Gravity Pro). You can't even rely on head size to guarantee open/closed as the V1 Pro, TT 95 and C-10 all seem to go their own way.

This might be one good reason why the Prince TT 100 (310) with a seemingly wide open 16x18 string pattern is pretty accurate and the Head Gravity Pro isn't bad on generating topspin. And, also why the Wilson RF97A is so versatile for those who can swing it.

So maybe we should get manufacturers and reviewers to specify the relative openness or closure of the stringbed besides simply telling us the string pattern.

I made a thread about measuring string density but it never caught on.

 

[1stVolley]

I made a thread about measuring string density but it never caught on.

That's really unfortunate. I was thinking of bugging the TW playtesters to include a mention of the density patterns in the racquets they review--are the mains and crosses evenly spaced (like Völkl racquets some posters have said) or denser in the middle and more open outside of that (like Babolat racquets). I think that'd be helpful for people to decide whether to demo a racquet. Simply saying it's easy or harder to create topspin or slice isn't accurate enough because that is relative to the reviewer's technique. Knowing the density pattern makes it easier to evaluate how the racquet would respond to any individual's technique since they know whether they generally have an easier or harder time generating spin.

 

[1stVolley]

I made a thread about measuring string density but it never caught on.

Is it possible to give a link to that thread?

 

[beltsman]

Is it possible to give a link to that thread?

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/new-essential-racquet-measurement.583322/

On my own I started measuring the sizes of the string rectangles in the hitting zone (area and length and width), but it was too time consuming and my measuring devices weren't exact enough to be reliable.

 

[erikm]

I agree 100%, and here's the thread that I started on exactly this same topic: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...cing-vs-string-patterns.664711/#post-14175439

 

[Shroud]

here is a predating post:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/racquet-stringbed-density-rankings.504151/

 

[ccmtennis]

That's really unfortunate. I was thinking of bugging the TW playtesters to include a mention of the density patterns in the racquets they review--are the mains and crosses evenly spaced (like Völkl racquets some posters have said) or denser in the middle and more open outside of that (like Babolat racquets). I think that'd be helpful for people to decide whether to demo a racquet. Simply saying it's easy or harder to create topspin or slice isn't accurate enough because that is relative to the reviewer's technique. Knowing the density pattern makes it easier to evaluate how the racquet would respond to any individual's technique since they know whether they generally have an easier or harder time generating spin.

Well said. This is why I try to pay more attention to their rare mentions of the launch angle more than more easy it is to generate spin. To me the launch angle is more reflective of the string spacing or density as well as how it affects comfort outside the sweet spot. Overall there are a lots of factors for ease of spin generation aside from string pattern such as swing weight, HL balance or how "whippy" it feels to name a few. Some of my fav playtesters will mention the launch angle relative to their current frame of choice or a recent playtest they had and it helps me get a frame of reference

 

[Crocodile]

What if you change the thickness and texture of the string as well as the tension, that should affect things as well. Imagine comparing Tecnifibre NRG 1.32 with Diadem Solstice Power 1.25. These 2 strings will behave differently, and maybe the size of the rectangles will measure up differently as well.

 

[beltsman]

What if you change the thickness and texture of the string as well as the tension, that should affect things as well. Imagine comparing Tecnifibre NRG 1.32 with Diadem Solstice Power 1.25. These 2 strings will behave differently, and maybe the size of the rectangles will measure up differently as well.

Yes, definitely. You can also elongate or make rectangles more square by using hybrid gauges.

 

[1stVolley]

I agree 100%, and here's the thread that I started on exactly this same topic: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...cing-vs-string-patterns.664711/#post-14175439

Thanks for that link, erikm. One question would be determining a quick but informative way of measuring string density. Perhaps choosing a 4x4 matrix (that's 4 mains by 4 crosses) which would encompass all of the sweet spot, then measuring the horizontal and vertical widths and the diagonal. I think the diagonal measurement might be useful because it may reflect the combination of the main and cross placements. Just a hunch as geometry wasn't my best subject.

What if you change the thickness and texture of the string as well as the tension, that should affect things as well. Imagine comparing Tecnifibre NRG 1.32 with Diadem Solstice Power 1.25. These 2 strings will behave differently, and maybe the size of the rectangles will measure up differently as well.

Yes that's true. In reporting string density numbers we'd probably have to use a full bed of a the same gauge string for simplicity.

 

[erikm]

Thanks for that link, erikm. One question would be determining a quick but informative way of measuring string density. Perhaps choosing a 4x4 matrix (that's 4 mains by 4 crosses) which would encompass all of the sweet spot, then measuring the horizontal and vertical widths and the diagonal. I think the diagonal measurement might be useful because it may reflect the combination of the main and cross placements. Just a hunch as geometry wasn't my best subject.

Yes that's true. In reporting string density numbers we'd probably have to use a full bed of a the same gauge string for simplicity.

If we take into account string thickness, that adds too many variables. I think we should measure to the centerline of the strings, which should also be the centerlines of the grommet holes. I would also just measure one square, right at the centroid (sweetspot) because different manufacturers begin to vary the spacing at different distances away from the centroid. Any number of squares we choose would be arbitrary, and if a given manufacturer begins to spread their spacing within our arbitrary window, whereas another doesn't, that can lead to yet another misleading variable. If we stick with one square, that would give everyone an idea of what the launch angle would be for a ball hit in the sweetspot, which is the objective for this particular measurement.

 

[1stVolley]

If we take into account string thickness, that adds too many variables. I think we should measure to the centerline of the strings, which should also be the centerlines of the grommet holes. I would also just measure one square, right at the centroid (sweetspot) because different manufacturers begin to vary the spacing at different distances away from the centroid. Any number of squares we choose would be arbitrary, and if a given manufacturer begins to spread their spacing within our arbitrary window, whereas another doesn't, that can lead to yet another misleading variable. If we stick with one square, that would give everyone an idea of what the launch angle would be for a ball hit in the sweetspot, which is the objective for this particular measurement.

Good point about measuring at the centerline of the strings using the grommet holes as guides. But the problem I see with measuring just one square is that it doesn't reflect any variation in the string spacing. If we use a matrix then we will get an average of the spacing and I think this will better reflect the experience of the player. After all, even Djokovic doesn't constantly hit that single square in the sweet spot.

 

[Zoolander]

I chose a racquet that gave me the launch angle and control that I liked the best. Now every racquet i demo or try out i hold it up to it and compare them, whether their string spacing is more closed or open or the same.

Theres so much variability out there that just stating its a 16*19 or 18*20 is meaningless. So i simply compare them to my “control” racquet.

 

[1stVolley]

I chose a racquet that gave me the launch angle and control that I liked the best. Now every racquet i demo or try out i hold it up to it and compare them, whether their string spacing is more closed or open or the same.

Theres so much variability out there that just stating its a 16*19 or 18*20 is meaningless. So i simply compare them to my “control” racquet.

Right, but do you see any correlation between launch angle and how closed or open the string bed is compared to your control racquet?

 

[erikm]

Good point about measuring at the centerline of the strings using the grommet holes as guides. But the problem I see with measuring just one square is that it doesn't reflect any variation in the string spacing. If we use a matrix then we will get an average of the spacing and I think this will better reflect the experience of the player. After all, even Djokovic doesn't constantly hit that single square in the sweet spot.

That using a single square doesn't reflect variation in string spacing is precisely the point. Because different manufacturers maintain the identical single square spacing for different extents, there would be no way to establish a standard for the number of squares to be included in any guide measurement. Using a single square is, I think, the best of all bad compromises because every manufacturer maintains the single square spacing for at least some area around the sweetspot before beginning to vary the spacing. So long as you hit that area, launch angle differences from frame to frame should be predictable. Once you're outside that area of single square uniformity, results are unpredictable, and therefore, and measurement that encroaches into the area of variable spacing would not be as useful. It's hard (for me at least) to explain in words alone, and furthermore, it's all probably a moot point since industry-wide incorporation of this measurement (however formulated) is pretty unlikely.