The single MOST IMPORTANT PROPERTY to Stringbed Performance…

#1
(… and the hidden benefit of smaller headsize on stringbed performance).

The most important property to the performance of a stringbed is something that most people have never given much thought to. To control the flight trajectory of a tennis ball, a high level player must be able to apply spin to the ball while also having good directional control of the rebound angle off the stringbed. So control requires both the ability to spin and the ability to control launch angle. To have both of these aspects of control in one package, you need a stringbed property I call 'ESP."

ESP (Definition): I have previously loosely defined the term “ESP effect” (with ESP being a cheesy acronym for Extraordinary Spin Potential) but this was in reference to a specific string material combo. Here, I keep the name ‘ESP’ but more precisely define ESP as a qualitative but measurable property of any stringbed:

ESP = the ratio of Spin Potential to Launch Angle Sensitivity.

The higher the ESP for a given stringbed, the better. High spin potential is useless unless it comes with good control of launch angle. And good control of launch angle is not useful unless good spin potential is available too. Indeed, most pro players play with racquets that have relatively high ESP compared to the typical amateur player.

The term “Spin Potential” is easy to understand. A stringbed is commonly understood to have a given level of “Spin-Friendliness.”

The term “Launch Angle Sensitivity” is more commonly referred to more simply as “Launch Angle.” That is, open-patterned stringbeds and looser-tensioned stringbeds are commonly considered to have higher “Launch Angle.” But what people really mean when they say “High Launch Angle” is “High Launch Angle Sensitivity”. That is, for a perfect straight-on impact with the stringbed with zero incoming ball spin, launch angle will be zero. But for an oblique impact or an impact with high incoming spin, certain stringbeds will have higher rebound (or launch) angle. Thus, the “high launch angle” stringbed is more sensitive to both angle of attack of the impact and the rpm and heaviness of the incoming ball.

High Launch Angle is Bad!: If it was not previously apparent, it should be evident from the above that “high launch angle” is always a bad thing, all other things being equal. “High Launch Angle” and “directional control” are antonyms. For someone to say “I can adjust to a high launch angle” is not very different than saying “I can adjust to a stringbed that tends to spray balls in different directions depending on what type of ball my opponent feeds me.”

One reason that High Launch Angle is commonly misunderstood (and even thought of favorably), is that stringbeds with high launch angle tend to have high spin potential. For example, stringing looser will often increase spin potential as well as rebound angle. Conversely, stringing very tight will often give a low launch angle with good directional control, but at the expense of spin potential. However, launch angle and spin potential do not necessarily need to be coupled. One should strive to have good spin potential and low launch angle at the same time – in other words, high ESP.

Having a high-ESP stringbed is essentially giving you your cake and letting you eat it too. In modern high-level tennis, where having both directional control and the ability to shape shots with ample spin are equally important, ‘ESP’ is the closest thing there is to a synonym for ‘control.’

Factors that increase ESP the most: There are several things that can be done to increase ESP of a stringbed (increase spin potential while maintaining a low launch angle).

1. Low Interstring Friction: Using a string combination that allows mains to slide more freely along the crosses, for better in-plane mainstring snapback.

2. Mains tighter than crosses. The more extreme the difference in tension between mains and crosses, the higher the ESP. Even a racquet strung conventionally with same material in mains and crosses and same reference tension takes advantage of this – the tension of the mains increases when the crosses are woven between them, while the tension pulled on the crosses is less than the reference tension due to the friction from pulling through then mains. The net effect of having mains tighter than crosses is better freedom for in-plane mainstring snapback.

3. Mains hold tension better than crosses. Stringing mains with material having better tension maintenance compared to the material of the crosses. For example, using natural gut mains with poly crosses is something many pros use to achieve good ESP.

4. Mains stiffer than crosses. Using mains made from stiffer material than crosses. For example, Kevlar mains with Monogut ZX crosses.

5. Smaller head size frame. This one may be the least obvious, but it is also the one that has the most dramatic effect on ESP, because the ESP goes up inversely with the cube of the head diameter. A smaller headsize frame is much stiffer in resisting hoop squashing from the stringing process (which tends to shorten the hoop). The smaller the headsize, the more pronounced the effect of having mains tighter than crosses. This is the primary reason why smaller headsizes tend to offer more control. Tightening the stringbed in a larger headsize frame can recover the directional control of a smaller headsize, but the ESP of the larger head frame will still be much lower, and consequently the player will feel less control on impacts in the center of the stringbed. This advantage of smaller headsize must of course be weighed against the disadvantage of lower forgiveness on offcenter impacts.

Ideally, a player will want to utilize several of these 5 factors in combination in order to maximize ESP.
 
Last edited:
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
#2
1. Stiff crosses are obviously better for spin production, as they ensure that more of the collision's energy will go towards laterally displacing the mains strings (spin generation) rather than horizontally displacing the mains and crosses (ball speed generation). The path of least resistance. Conversely, you want powerful strings in the mains, at a tension which offers a high energy potential, so it can generate ample energy with the lateral snapback. This will not only result in a high spin/speed ratio, but actually maximize spin generation in absolute terms. This is why fresh gut/poly is the most spin friendly setup available.

2. High tension differential makes no sense for spin production, because high tension actually inhibits string displacement and snapback.

3. It follows from above that smaller headsize being better for spin makes no sense. Well it kind of does, but has nothing to do with your reasoning.

4. Pros don't use their gut/poly hybrids until the poly loosens up. They use them while the crosses are still pretty close in tension to the mains. You and your groupies are the only people in the world promoting this idea of outrageous tension differentials. Let us know when you find even just one decent rec player with such a setup.

5. You're offering a "solution" for a problem that good rec players don't have, let alone pros. Only very low level players have trouble with launch angle when they use recommended tensions or a bit lower. Decent rec players can keep a consistent, low net clearance with sub 50lb tensions if that's what they're used to.

Next thread please! This is fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DJ-

Hall of Fame
#3
(… and the hidden benefit of smaller headsize on stringbed performance).

The most important property to the performance of a stringbed is something that most people have never given much thought to. To control the flight trajectory of a tennis ball, a high level player must be able to apply spin to the ball while also having good directional control of the rebound angle off the stringbed. So control requires both the ability to spin and the ability to control launch angle. To have both of these aspects of control in one package, you need a stringbed property I call 'ESP."

ESP (Definition): I have previously loosely defined the term “ESP effect” (with ESP being a cheesy acronym for Extraordinary Spin Potential) but this was in reference to a specific string material combo. Here, I keep the name ‘ESP’ but more precisely define ESP as a qualitative but measurable property of any stringbed:

ESP = the ratio of Spin Potential to Launch Angle Sensitivity.

The higher the ESP for a given stringbed, the better. High spin potential is useless unless it comes with good control of launch angle. And good control of launch angle is not useful unless good spin potential is available too. Indeed, most pro players play with racquets that have relatively high ESP compared to the typical amateur player.

The term “Spin Potential” is easy to understand. A stringbed is commonly understood to have a given level of “Spin-Friendliness.”

The term “Launch Angle Sensitivity” is more commonly referred to more simply as “Launch Angle.” That is, open-patterned stringbeds and looser-tensioned stringbeds are commonly considered to have higher “Launch Angle.” But what people really mean when they say “High Launch Angle” is “High Launch Angle Sensitivity”. That is, for a perfect straight-on impact with the stringbed with zero incoming ball spin, launch angle will be zero. But for an oblique impact or an impact with high incoming spin, certain stringbeds will have higher rebound (or launch) angle. Thus, the “high launch angle” stringbed is more sensitive to both angle of attack of the impact and the rpm and heaviness of the incoming ball.

High Launch Angle is Bad!: If it was not previously apparent, it should be evident from the above that “high launch angle” is always a bad thing, all other things being equal. “High Launch Angle” and “directional control” are antonyms. For someone to say “I can adjust to a high launch angle” is not very different than saying “I can adjust to a stringbed that tends to spray balls in different directions depending on what type of ball my opponent feeds me.”

One reason that High Launch Angle is commonly misunderstood (and even thought of favorably), is that stringbeds with high launch angle tend to have high spin potential. For example, stringing looser will often increase spin potential as well as rebound angle. Conversely, stringing very tight will often give a low launch angle with good directional control, but at the expense of spin potential. However, launch angle and spin potential do not necessarily need to be coupled. One should strive to have good spin potential and low launch angle at the same time – in other words, high ESP.

Having a high-ESP stringbed is essentially giving you your cake and letting you eat it too. In modern high-level tennis, where having both directional control and the ability to shape shots with ample spin are equally important, ‘ESP’ is the closest thing there is to a synonym for ‘control.’

Factors that increase ESP the most: There are several things that can be done to increase ESP of a stringbed (increase spin potential while maintaining a low launch angle).

1. Low Interstring Friction: Using a string combination that allows mains to slide more freely along the crosses, for better in-plane mainstring snapback.

2. Mains tighter than crosses. The more extreme the difference in tension between mains and crosses, the higher the ESP. Even a racquet strung conventionally with same material in mains and crosses and same reference tension takes advantage of this – the tension of the mains increases when the crosses are woven between them, while the tension pulled on the crosses is less than the reference tension due to the friction from pulling through then mains. The net effect of having mains tighter than crosses is better freedom for in-plane mainstring snapback.

3. Mains hold tension better than crosses. Stringing mains with material having better tension maintenance compared to the material of the crosses. For example, using natural gut mains with poly crosses is something many pros use to achieve good ESP.

4. Mains stiffer than crosses. Using mains made from stiffer material than crosses. For example, Kevlar mains with Monogut ZX crosses.

5. Smaller head size frame. This one may be the least obvious, but it is also the one that has the most dramatic effect on ESP, because the ESP goes up inversely with the cube of the head diameter. A smaller headsize frame is much stiffer in resisting hoop squashing from the stringing process (which tends to shorten the hoop). The smaller the headsize, the more pronounced the effect of having mains tighter than crosses. This is the primary reason why smaller headsizes tend to offer more control. Tightening the stringbed in a larger headsize frame can recover the directional control of a smaller headsize, but the ESP of the larger head frame will still be much lower, and consequently the player will feel less control on impacts in the center of the stringbed. This advantage of smaller headsize must of course be weighed against the disadvantage of lower forgiveness on offcenter impacts.

Ideally, a player will want to utilize several of these 5 factors in combination in order to maximize ESP.
Interesting Trav. The pro's love their smaller head sizes frames, seems the 95sq in size seems to dominate. The players using those have no problems with spin power or control. The larger head sizes at rec level are easier to play with for sure. I think if all generations learned the game with smaller head sizes it would be a different picture.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
#4
The pros and better rec players generally prefer smaller frames because they are faster in the air, usually more maneouvrable too, their sweetspot is higher on the stringbed and therefore can achieve higher effective swing speeds. That's where any potential extra spin and power comes from, nothing to do with tension differential and all that silliness.
By the way I wouldn't even call 95 in small, it's pretty common among rec players too. Federer's 90 was hard to use because it had a low twistweight. But today's good 95's are all pretty stable torsionally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#5
The thing that makes your scientific observations falacious is that you develop your hypothesis based on the premise that ball revolution, energy return, launch angle etc is all about the science of the racquet and the strings. Upper level players can string a racquet with synthetic gut at mid tension and generate tremendous power, spin and control. Stringing with full poly high differentials the mains are not supported by the crosses and get abused quickly making them dead. You are losing all the great qualities of poly mains with the high tension initially and the high differential destroys what is left. When you hurt your arm at 53/53 with all poly the solution would have been to lower tension and use a softer poly. Liking the higher differential you could have strung at 50/45 and achieved the spin you want without compromising the racquet frame or destroying the great qualities of poly. Instead with your rather impressive scientific approach you have unfortunately chased this down into a rabbit hole. We just have to endure the madness.
 
Last edited:
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
#6
The thing that makes your scientific observations falacious is that you develop your hypothesis based on the premise that ball revolution, energy return, launch angle etc is all about the science of the racquet and the strings. Upper level players can string a racquet with synthetic gut at mid tension and generate tremendous spin and control. Stringing with full poly high differentials the mains are not supported by the crosses and get abused quickly making them dead. You are losing all the great qualities of poly mains. When you hurt your arm at 53/53 with all poly the solution would have been to lower tension and use a softer poly. Liking the higher differential you could have strung at 50/45 and achieved the spin you want without compromising the racquet frame or destroying the great qualities of poly. Instead with your rather impressive scientific approach you have unfortunately chased this down into a rabbit hole. We just have to endure the madness.
Except even the science makes no sense at all.

We just have to endure the madness.
Quoted for emphasis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#7
The thing that makes your scientific observations falacious is that you develop your hypothesis based on the premise that ball revolution, energy return, launch angle etc is all about the science of the racquet and the strings. Upper level players can string a racquet with synthetic gut at mid tension and generate tremendous power, spin and control. Stringing with full poly high differentials the mains are not supported by the crosses and get abused quickly making them dead. You are losing all the great qualities of poly mains with the high tension initially and the high differential destroys what is left. When you hurt your arm at 53/53 with all poly the solution would have been to lower tension and use a softer poly. Liking the higher differential you could have strung at 50/45 and achieved the spin you want without compromising the racquet frame or destroying the great qualities of poly. Instead with your rather impressive scientific approach you have unfortunately chased this down into a rabbit hole. We just have to endure the madness.
Totally agree with this, sound mechanics and a strong understanding of the game with lowering tension based on feel has a much better impact.

This high differential doesnt make sense, how can a poly not go dead when it is already dead?? Watched Dustin using his 78 pound tension? Thing is like a plank, incredible net control but unbelievably flat strokes and solid. If not restringing every hour you would f*ck your arm up chronically with any proper stroke at a high level. Dustin has a unique stroke that hits flat, Del Potro wouldnt have a wrist left with this setup, amputated at the shoulder.

On top of this, OP has an incredibly compact stroke so he is limited in his understanding of what strings are doing. Arming the ball and very little body movement as it stops when his elbow is basically hitting his hip. I would recommend proper coaching, settling on a standard setup and understanding the basics of each stroke before experimenting.

Just like this kevlar zyex setup... Why would I risk injury and damage to a great frame for an unquantifiable increase in performance? Even if it miraculously had benefits I still wouldn't risk the long term impact of this setup, there is a reason why people prone to injuries don't want to risk a material twice as stiff as the stiffest poly.
 
A

Attila_the_gorilla

Guest
#10
Guys stop derailing the thread whether you like what the op has written or not, show some respect. If you don't like the content, then go elsewhere and post / like meme's. Maybe the general pro player discussion.
I'm done, just felt the need to help some would-be brainwashing victims. Too late for you by the sound of it. I'll never forgive myself.
Could have saved more!!!
 

CopolyX

Hall of Fame
#11
I just keep it simple, if it works the best for me and my game overall, in a particular frame..that is the behavior i reward by going back to it..it very just one element..sure// .it is all a give and take...
 
Last edited:
#12
I'm done, just felt the need to help some would-be brainwashing victims. Too late for you by the sound of it. I'll never forgive myself.
Could have saved more!!!
You know the guy sorta puts himself out there claiming he sees the future of tennis strings with this ESP and knows the single most important property to stringbed performance. The most important property would be the person holding the racquet. People are free to agree or disagree but when people see BS they are gonna respond. 3.5 guys claiming superior performance with their set ups is a little ridiculous especially when it flys in the face of what industry leaders and experienced players know to be true.
 
Last edited:
#13
In a pop quiz, my answer for the most important property with my strings would be decent feel, no matter the string type. If I can't feel the difference between good and not-so-good contact, I can't hit with confidence. But this is more of a subjective intangible - probably not something we can quantify empirically or boil down to a number.

Carry on...
 
#14
Have seen a D1 player beat a club level player with an actual frying pan. Wonder what kind of string properties or launch angle was involved there? Co-poly is right, keep it simple. My suggestion to players is to take the steps to become the best player you can through all the advances in physical training, technique improvements, footwork improvements,etc. Short term mini-goals for long term improvement. Energy spent there is well spent rather than spending your energy dreaming your strings will take you to the next level and neglecting the rest. People like that are always looking at their strings..thinking something is wrong. When I see that it is blood in the water, I know they aren’t focused. Using the awesome strings on the market today and stringing in such a way that it doesn’t hurt your arm, which is normally the mid range of recommended tension or below, is as good as it gets. The science has been done. If you lose is wasn’t your strings.
 
Last edited:
#16
Trav I think you are on to something. Its how theories progress. Tons of naysayers in the beginning guarding the past. Love it when posters know what happens on a stringbed without even using it. Lots of strawmen too


Do you have any examples of racquet combo and string combo that exemplify this idea? Is that your silver surfer thread??
 
#19
The pros and better rec players generally prefer smaller frames because they are faster in the air, usually more maneouvrable too, their sweetspot is higher on the stringbed and therefore can achieve higher effective swing speeds. That's where any potential extra spin and power comes from, nothing to do with tension differential and all that silliness.
By the way I wouldn't even call 95 in small, it's pretty common among rec players too. Federer's 90 was hard to use because it had a low twistweight. But today's good 95's are all pretty stable torsionally.
agreed... I grew up learning on wood frames and my tc95 feels like cheating by comparison... huuuge spin from a 95 btw
 
#20
I still think the key to tennis is buy a comfortable racket with comfortable strings and take lessons. Too many people wanting to buy a game through technology and science. Likely ruined many an arm over the years.
No one is talking about buying a game through tech and science. Its more like how to maximize the tech once you have taken the lessons.
 
#21
I am a bit confused by what you mean by ESP.
Also, why does it matter if the launch angle lowet? What advantages? Is the more spin and lower launch angle the goal?

If crosses at a higher tension than mains is better, why do most ATP pros string their crosses at lower tension than their mains?

(… and the hidden benefit of smaller headsize on stringbed performance).

The most important property to the performance of a stringbed is something that most people have never given much thought to. To control the flight trajectory of a tennis ball, a high level player must be able to apply spin to the ball while also having good directional control of the rebound angle off the stringbed. So control requires both the ability to spin and the ability to control launch angle. To have both of these aspects of control in one package, you need a stringbed property I call 'ESP."

ESP (Definition): I have previously loosely defined the term “ESP effect” (with ESP being a cheesy acronym for Extraordinary Spin Potential) but this was in reference to a specific string material combo. Here, I keep the name ‘ESP’ but more precisely define ESP as a qualitative but measurable property of any stringbed:

ESP = the ratio of Spin Potential to Launch Angle Sensitivity.

The higher the ESP for a given stringbed, the better. High spin potential is useless unless it comes with good control of launch angle. And good control of launch angle is not useful unless good spin potential is available too. Indeed, most pro players play with racquets that have relatively high ESP compared to the typical amateur player.

The term “Spin Potential” is easy to understand. A stringbed is commonly understood to have a given level of “Spin-Friendliness.”

The term “Launch Angle Sensitivity” is more commonly referred to more simply as “Launch Angle.” That is, open-patterned stringbeds and looser-tensioned stringbeds are commonly considered to have higher “Launch Angle.” But what people really mean when they say “High Launch Angle” is “High Launch Angle Sensitivity”. That is, for a perfect straight-on impact with the stringbed with zero incoming ball spin, launch angle will be zero. But for an oblique impact or an impact with high incoming spin, certain stringbeds will have higher rebound (or launch) angle. Thus, the “high launch angle” stringbed is more sensitive to both angle of attack of the impact and the rpm and heaviness of the incoming ball.

High Launch Angle is Bad!: If it was not previously apparent, it should be evident from the above that “high launch angle” is always a bad thing, all other things being equal. “High Launch Angle” and “directional control” are antonyms. For someone to say “I can adjust to a high launch angle” is not very different than saying “I can adjust to a stringbed that tends to spray balls in different directions depending on what type of ball my opponent feeds me.”

One reason that High Launch Angle is commonly misunderstood (and even thought of favorably), is that stringbeds with high launch angle tend to have high spin potential. For example, stringing looser will often increase spin potential as well as rebound angle. Conversely, stringing very tight will often give a low launch angle with good directional control, but at the expense of spin potential. However, launch angle and spin potential do not necessarily need to be coupled. One should strive to have good spin potential and low launch angle at the same time – in other words, high ESP.

Having a high-ESP stringbed is essentially giving you your cake and letting you eat it too. In modern high-level tennis, where having both directional control and the ability to shape shots with ample spin are equally important, ‘ESP’ is the closest thing there is to a synonym for ‘control.’

Factors that increase ESP the most: There are several things that can be done to increase ESP of a stringbed (increase spin potential while maintaining a low launch angle).

1. Low Interstring Friction: Using a string combination that allows mains to slide more freely along the crosses, for better in-plane mainstring snapback.

2. Mains tighter than crosses. The more extreme the difference in tension between mains and crosses, the higher the ESP. Even a racquet strung conventionally with same material in mains and crosses and same reference tension takes advantage of this – the tension of the mains increases when the crosses are woven between them, while the tension pulled on the crosses is less than the reference tension due to the friction from pulling through then mains. The net effect of having mains tighter than crosses is better freedom for in-plane mainstring snapback.

3. Mains hold tension better than crosses. Stringing mains with material having better tension maintenance compared to the material of the crosses. For example, using natural gut mains with poly crosses is something many pros use to achieve good ESP.

4. Mains stiffer than crosses. Using mains made from stiffer material than crosses. For example, Kevlar mains with Monogut ZX crosses.

5. Smaller head size frame. This one may be the least obvious, but it is also the one that has the most dramatic effect on ESP, because the ESP goes up inversely with the cube of the head diameter. A smaller headsize frame is much stiffer in resisting hoop squashing from the stringing process (which tends to shorten the hoop). The smaller the headsize, the more pronounced the effect of having mains tighter than crosses. This is the primary reason why smaller headsizes tend to offer more control. Tightening the stringbed in a larger headsize frame can recover the directional control of a smaller headsize, but the ESP of the larger head frame will still be much lower, and consequently the player will feel less control on impacts in the center of the stringbed. This advantage of smaller headsize must of course be weighed against the disadvantage of lower forgiveness on offcenter impacts.

Ideally, a player will want to utilize several of these 5 factors in combination in order to maximize ESP.
 
#22
One should strive to have good spin potential and low launch angle at the same time – in other words, high ESP.
Firstly, Thanks for the very interesting post. Makes a very nice change from "Which racquet or string should I try? ...." etc.

Secondly, I totally disagree that with the assertion you make above. I've been watching tennis at all levels for over 50 years. I have concluded that there is only one thing a player should be striving for and it is the same thing today as it was 50 years ago.

Hit the ball as deep as possible into the opponent's court with as much pace as possible and do it with the understanding that tennis is a game that is played in Four Dimensions (3 Physical and 1 Mental!).

IMO, anything that supports that endeavour is GOLD. Everything else is complicating something that should be very very simple!
 
#23
Why does it matter if the launch angle lower? What advantages?
That is a very good question.

Ideally, the launch angle (i.e., the direction in which the ball leaves the racquet) would be solely determined by things the player has control of, such as the angle of the plane of the racquetface at contact.
But if that were true, tennis would be much easier. What makes tennis hard is that the launch angle is also a function of the speed and rpm of the incoming ball delivered from your opponent.

The higher the launch angle, the more sensitive the launch angle is to the spin rate of the incoming ball. This effect is clearly shown graphically in the chart below taken from:

Goodwill & Haake. Ball spin generation for oblique impacts with a tennis racket. Experimental Mechanics. 44(2) 195-206 (2004).

As you can see in the chart, the slope of a line fit drawn through the closed symbols (representing stringbeds with high launch angle strung at 40 lbs) is much steeper than the slope of a line fit drawn through the open symbols (stringbeds with low launch angle strung at 70 lbs). The steeper the slope, the higher the sensitivity of the rebound angle (launch angle) to the rate of incoming spin. In other words, the steeper the slope (and higher the launch angle), the less you are in control of the direction in which the ball leaves your racquet. Also note that the closed symbols start to spray wider for high incoming spin (more negative spin numbers on chart).

This means that a player using a high launch angle racquet will spray the ball when playing against a spin-reliant player like Nadal. This might explain why players like Blake and Djokovic, who string tightly with dense patterns (low launch angle setups), had favorable records against Nadal.


Having a very low launch angle is most advantageous on volleys and blocked returns, because on these shots nearly all of the energy of the ball-stringbed collision is supplied by the incoming spinning ball, with a relatively small contribution coming from racquethead motion.

A racquet with a very tight and firm "wall-like" stringbed (with low launch angle) will always be much superior for controlling the direction of volleys and blocked returns than a loosely strung "deep-pocketing" stringbed (with high launch angle). Even on other types of shots such as topspin groundstrokes, the advantage of low launch angle is still significant. The only shot where launch angle does not matter is the serve, because the incoming ball (i.e., the toss) is almost motionless and with negligible spin.
 
Last edited:
#26
Trav I think you are on to something. Its how theories progress. Tons of naysayers in the beginning guarding the past. Love it when posters know what happens on a stringbed without even using it. Lots of strawmen too


Do you have any examples of racquet combo and string combo that exemplify this idea? Is that your silver surfer thread??
The first 4 of the 5 ways I mentioned for increasing ESP have been previously described in many earlier posts (e.g., the "Power of ESP" thread).

The new idea introduced here is the effect of racquethead size on ESP, and how the advantageous increase in ESP is the primary reason why smaller headed racquets are often perceived to have better control.

With a large-headed OS frame, it is very difficult to achieve a stringbed with properties that provide both high spin potential and low launch angle (a player must usually compromise one or the other). But with a midsize frame, a high-ESP setup providing both spin potential and launch angle precision (and therefore better ability to "shape" and control the trajectory of shots) can be easily achieved without much effort or thought put into the stringbed setup.
 
Last edited:
#27
1. 'Low' in 'low launch angle' does not necessarily refer to height over the net does it? Would it be more accurate to call it 'small launch angle' to reflect the fact that the concept also applies to left/right deflection variance and everything in between if I'm understanding right?

2. Ball-string friction is not mentioned. Does it make a difference?

3. Some people including me find it hard to see how increasing mains tension from equal main/cross tension increases spin but somehow it makes sense to me if I think about reducing cross tension instead (since the crosses won't be 'holding' the mains in place as strongly). No physical difference though.

4. ‎Regarding point 4, is it really stiffness or the 'force' that makes the crosses squeeze the mains in place (tension I guess) that matters? As a counterexample, what about a super stiff cross at super low tension? I'd guess you are referring to stiffness as one of the contributors to all-in stiffness once strung, alongside tension, tension maintenance etc. The way in which you list these as separate points could be a little misleading.

5. ‎'ESP goes up inversely with the cube of the head diameter.' Where is this from?

6. ‎Wouldn't hoop/racquet stiffness also matter, since this seems to be the gist of point 5.

Edit:

7. Also stringbed density at the impact location?
 
#29
I think you answered your own question.
Playing with the crosses higher allows the string bed to feel a little more solid for a longer period of time. Good for people that are trying to get more longevity out of a set of strings or maintain control with a poly/gut or poly/multi type set up. Lower crosses is going to play better and create more spin with all poly, gut/poly, multi/poly. See allot of pros stringing 54/52, 56/54 with all poly.(Monfils, Halep) Raonic strings up a couple lbs on his crosses with all poly probable due to him stringing in the upper 40’s after having elbow problems and trying to maintain control at lower tension.
 
Last edited:
#31
#32
Lower or higher launch angle can all be adjusted with any frame with different strings, and tensions at normal tension ranges. Not as complicated as it sounds. The greatest player to ever play tennis is playing a high launch angle with an open string pattern at lower tensions. 59/56-54/51. He was in the upper 40’s with a 90 inch frame. This guy is worth taking a look. Some Swedish guy. There is another guy named Djokovic who isn’t too shabby.
Before some one types out that there is no comparison between us and the pros. Look at the RF97 threads and see which combination is by far the best playing stated by the members here. Gut/ poly in the 54/51-58/55. Some guys even string lower.
 
Last edited:
#33
Just don't maximize the tech for control until your arm falls
That Yonex diagram doesn’t say anything about launch angle. It shows that their racquet will produce more spin and cause the ball to dip down into the court at a sharper angle, causing it to bounce higher off the court.
I think they did mention that the new one has a slightly wider string pattern than dg330 but relatively I hope it's still tight going to test out when available.

Playing with the crosses higher allows the string bed to feel a little more solid for a longer period of time. Good for people that are trying to get more longevity out of a set of strings or maintain control with a poly/gut or poly/multi type set up. Lower crosses is going to play better and create more spin with all poly, gut/poly, multi/poly. See allot of pros stringing 54/52, 56/54 with all poly.(Monfils, Halep) Raonic strings up a couple lbs on his crosses with all poly probable due to him stringing in the upper 40’s after having elbow problems and trying to maintain control at lower tension.
I just tried tighter crosses and off center hits on 18x20 feel great. To get to this I actually didn't tighten the crosses I loosened the mains 4lbs. It's a 95 previously sold as 98 square inch. Still lots of control just no vibrations no longer boardlike. Full poly, huge spin, pocketing, dwell time, swing out, bigger sweet spot
 
#34
I just tried tighter crosses and off center hits on 18x20 feel great. To get to this I actually didn't tighten the crosses I loosened the mains 4lbs. It's a 95 previously sold as 98 square inch. Still lots of control just no vibrations no longer boardlike. Full poly, huge spin, pocketing, dwell time, swing out, bigger sweet spot[/QUOTE]

The higher crosses will stabilize the mains and keep them from getting abused so quickly, lowering tension and becoming dead. Brings the mains and cross tensions closer together. Better play longer.
 
Last edited:
#35
Little food for thought, the majority of Americans on the pro tour string their mains and crosses at the same tension. The mains string up 35% tighter than the crosses when stringing this way. It’s really easy to over think all this. If you want more length on your shots lower your tension 2-3lbs. If you are hitting allot long, go up 2-3lbs. Time to play ball.
 
Last edited:
#36
Little food for thought, the majority of Americans on the pro tour string their mains and crosses at the same tension. The mains string up 35% tighter when stringing this way.
Yes. Exactly. This point was referred to in the opening post of this thread. The fact that mains are in general always much tighter than crosses means that the hoop is always squashed to some degree.

The 35% difference mostly goes away due to hoop squashing to relieve uneven stresses after you dismount racquet from stringer.

The greater the elastic modulus of the hoop, the more the racquet is able to resist this hoop squashing effect. Smaller headed frames, especially narrow headed ones, have higher modulus to resist squashing due to more favorable geometry. This helps retain the higher tension in the mains, giving better ESP.

Note that hoop geometry is generally much more important than material stiffness, because most graphite materials are similar, and the resistance to buckling of a culinder under compression goes inversely with cube of diameter.
 
Last edited:
#37
Yes. Exactly. This point was referred to in the opening post of this thread. The fact that mains are in general always much tighter than crosses means that the hoop is always squashed to some degree. The greater the elastic modulus of the hoop, the more the racquet is able to resist this hoop squashing effect. Smaller headed frames, especially narrow headed ones, have higher modulus to resist squashing due to more favorable geometry. This helps retain the higher tension in the mains, giving better ESP.
Interesting. My RF97’s go on and off the stringer exactly the same but stringing at 55/52 with fairly soft elastic mains. If it were compressing it would be pinching the inside clamps on the stringer at the throat and the top of the hoop. Have seen frames do that. They sort of pop off the stringer. Amazing how subtle the changes can be to create different launch angle. Have one racquet with 17g mains in a hybrid and another with 16g mains. Same tension. The 17 has a very noticeable lower launch angle.
 
Last edited:
#38
That Yonex diagram doesn’t say anything about launch angle. It shows that their racquet will produce more spin and cause the ball to dip down into the court at a sharper angle, causing it to bounce higher off the court.
From what I understand, your explanation would defy the laws of Physics.

Track the trajectory arc of the incoming ball, extrapolate that back to the point of origin, and it should be obvious that the initial launch angles were different if the balls came from the same point of origin. The higher bouncing ball was launched at a higher angle with more spin. Otherwise, the diagram would have the show the two balls bouncing at different points on the court.

Also, the Yonex diagram DOES NOT SHOW the point of origin of the balls which I think is pertinent.
 
#40
Personal side note. Talking about this topic in this thread just prompted me to put in bid for used k90. My collection could use more mids.
I have a couple K90s I was going to sell after switching to the Yonex 95D but now I think I will keep them since one of them is pretty beat up anyways so I probably would not get much for it if I sold it.
 
#41
My own personal thought:

6} rectangular, not square, string cross patterns. What I mean is in the sweet spot, have the crosses spaced farther apart than the mains. See: Pure Strike 2017 16x19.
 
#43
From what I understand, your explanation would defy the laws of Physics.

Track the trajectory arc of the incoming ball, extrapolate that back to the point of origin, and it should be obvious that the initial launch angles were different if the balls came from the same point of origin. The higher bouncing ball was launched at a higher angle with more spin. Otherwise, the diagram would have the show the two balls bouncing at different points on the court.

Also, the Yonex diagram DOES NOT SHOW the point of origin of the balls which I think is pertinent.
The way I read it was you get a bit more power and a bit more spin with the new tech. So, that means the ball travels a little further before dipping and carries more speed and spin into the bounce, which would mean a higher ball coming out of the bounce.

But really, if the marketing on this stuff every year were true we'd all be hitting 150mph forehands by now, so to me it's just nice looking pictures to decorate with.
 

Imago

Hall of Fame
#45
Really digging how the stringbed on my shortened and lead-up 89.5si Prestige Mid is playing with kevlar/poly prestretched at 90/35 lbs...
If you string it vice versa, the head will turn into bolide. Does it become shorter with 95 lbs for the mains?
 
Top