TW string comfort ranking, from softest to stiffest

[Centered]

LOL... if test data tells you a poly (any poly, in any gauge, at any tension, in any set of conditions) is as soft as a natural gut then: the data is flawed or you don't know how to interpret it

Seeing that TW Prof is one sharp cat, I'm going to go with the second.

1. You didn't read the posts that specifically addressed this.
2. You didn't bother to use the TW tool that I linked to in the opening post to check this yourself before trying to attack me.
3. Your ad hominem fails. If you or anyone else disagrees with the data, that's not my problem. Talk to the TW Prof.

As was made very clear, not only by me but by another (who posted a link to a nice TW graphic), tension matters in the case of this polyester string. There are two reasons why that string is nearly as soft as gut at 40 lbs reference (not pre-stretched): extreme string thinness and -- more importantly -- very low actual tension. The string had a total tension loss of 29.3 lbs, leaving it with an actual tension of 10.7 lbs.

I shouldn't have to explain this because it was already explained on the first page. You will be more successful in life if you take the time to investigate, to get your facts in order, before trying to attack people.

 

[Centered]

Centered, can you get the data for 60 Lbs tension?
Thanks.

I plan to create a medium tension (51 lbs) comfort ranking next, but maybe I'll merge a 62 lbs version. There is no data from TW or RSI for 60 lbs specifically, just 62 lbs.

There will be some surprises. For instance, if you look at the graphics I posted in the post above, you'll see that Pacific Tough Gut actually became softer at high tension, especially when pre-stretched. I can't explain that. There are some other surprises, too.

 

[Sublime]

1. You didn't read the posts that specifically addressed this.

Maybe you can point me to that little gem, because all I see out of you is: "Not MY numbers" and "ad hominem"

2. You didn't bother to use the TW tool that I linked to in the opening post to check this yourself before trying to attack me.

I can assure you I've used the tool and it's data is valuable.

3. Your ad hominem fails. If you or anyone else disagrees with the data, that's not my problem. Talk to the TW Prof.

But I'm not disagreeing with the data, I'm disagreeing with (attacking?) your interpretation of the data. Which is all yours. TW did not assemble the data in this form (for good reason), YOU did.

As was made very clear, not only by me but by another (who posted a link to a nice TW graphic), tension matters in the case of this polyester string. There are two reasons why that string is nearly as soft as gut at 40 lbs reference (not pre-stretched): extreme string thinness and -- more importantly -- very low actual tension. The string had a total tension loss of 29.3 lbs, leaving it with an actual tension of 10.7 lbs.

If you've ever hit with a poly (which I have my doubts you ever have), you'd know that you could string it up like a butterfly net and it would still be stiffer than natural gut at 100lbs.

Now let's get down to how you misinterpreted the data available to you.
The poly does have a pre-impact tension of 11lbs, but it's peak impact tension (on a fast swing) jumps up to 53lbs. At just 40lbs of actual tension, the stiffness is already over 200lb/in.
The tough gut, by contrast, has a pre-impact tension of 29lbs and a peak impact tension of 61lbs. At 50lbs, the stiffness is down to 78lb/in (and dropping).

So 200+lb/in and rising or 78lb/in and falling... are these strings in the same class of softness?

I leave you with the only correct part of your post:

You will be more successful in life if you take the time to investigate, to get your facts in order, before trying to attack people.

 

[Buckethead]

I plan to create a medium tension (51 lbs) comfort ranking next, but maybe I'll merge a 62 lbs version. There is no data from TW or RSI for 60 lbs specifically, just 62 lbs.

There will be some surprises. For instance, if you look at the graphics I posted in the post above, you'll see that Pacific Tough Gut actually became softer at high tension, especially when pre-stretched. I can't explain that. There are some other surprises, too.

It's simple, because it became thinner after pre-stretched or just stretched when strung.

 

[Centered]

At just 40lbs of actual tension, the stiffness is already over 200lb/in.

Red herring. My posted data did not involve 40 lbs of actual tension. It involved 40 lbs of reference tension.

Your attack fails. The 109 stiffness number comes directly from the database and it was classified accordingly. It was also explained in great detail in post #19 that that string becomes quite stiff with increased tension.

 

[Sublime]

*shaking head* You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Centered]

*shaking head* You can lead a horse to water...

Show me where I posted about that poly string having 40 lbs of actual tension in the opening post.

 

[Sublime]

Show me where I posted about that poly string having 40 lbs of actual tension in the opening post.

You didn't, that's the part of your analysis that's lacking. The strings don't stay at 11lbs of tension during impact. They go up over 50lbs.

 

[Centered]

You didn't, that's the part of your analysis that's lacking. The strings don't stay at 11lbs of tension during impact. They go up over 50lbs.

If you think the Peak Tension piece of the data is so important, you could cordially point that out. Instead you were rude.

TW's article and even the database description say stiffness is basically what matters, followed by tension loss. It did not say peak tension during impact is what's most important – that its stiffness measure is irrelevant by itself and somehow people need to ignore it and instead find out what the peak tension is and go from there.

Stiffness. What is it? This is the key measurement. Most others depend on this. Stiffness is measured dynamically during the impact. The measurement indicates the force necessary to stretch the string 1 inch during impact.

So, I need you to explain how you would use the Peak Tension data in conjunction with the stiffness rating to re-organize my opening post.

40 lbs fast swing:
String, Actual Pre-impact Tension, Peak Tension, Peak Force, Stiffness, Total Loss, Energy Return

Dynamite WB 16, 21.74, 58.9, 28.0, 104.6, 18.7, 85.0
VS Natural Team Gut 17, 31.86, 58.4, 25.9, 86.3, 7.9, 93.7
Poly Hightec 18, 11.05, 53.8, 26.8, 109.2, 29.3, 72.1

Each of these strings reaches nearly a similar peak tension. The Poly is 53.8 and the other two are 58.4 and 58.9.

Forten Sweet 16 and Prince SGD 17 each reach roughly 73 lbs.

How would you organize the data? Ignore the stiffness ranking and rank strings by Peak Tension? Use peak tension with the stiffness ranking somehow? If peak tension is so important, why wouldn't such an amalgam be part of the database? Who has the time and skill to realize they're being shown a pointless stiffness number and really need to do some sort of calculation – especially when TW tells people stiffness is the key measurement?

And, why would RSI not even post a peak tension measurement and rank strings according to stiffness in their String Selector guides they've been doing for years? Is the staff of RSI incompetent like you suggest I am? They use stiffness and tension loss, the two measurements TW said are the ones that matter. They don't even mention peak tension.

 

[Agent Orynge]

And quick!

How best to meet the standard of topicality? Ashaway Dynamite does not compare to natural gut.

There, that one should stick. I'll edit it later...

 

[JT_2eighty]

40 lbs fast swing:
String, Actual Pre-impact Tension, Peak Tension, Peak Force, Stiffness, Total Loss, Energy Return

Dynamite WB 16, 21.74, 58.9, 28.0, 104.6, 18.7, 85.0
VS Natural Team Gut 17, 31.86, 58.4, 25.9, 86.3, 7.9, 93.7
Poly Hightec 18, 11.05, 53.8, 26.8, 109.2, 29.3, 72.1

I truly think in order for this thread/list to be applicable to *most* players, this thread should have started with the data on TWU with 62 lbs, fast swing; or perhaps 51 lbs. This is going to apply to more people who play tennis, instead of those interested in showing how similar Ashaway Dynamite is to gut (which only occurs in this 40 lbs zone).

*When I say "most", ask yourselves a simple question... How many people string gut or multi near 40 lbs? How many near 62 lbs? 40 lbs is only useful for poly strings, with the latest "low tension poly" craze (and even then, that is still a small population of poly users). The majority of those with arm issues still string their gut or multis in the 50-60 lbs range, so they can still control the ball. Listing the "comfort" of strings at 40lbs, is only slightly more useful than listing a string's comfort while in the package.

The majority of tennis players are stringing their racquets in the 50-60 lbs range, so I am really confused why a "comfort ranking" thread would be made using 40 lbs reference tension to begin with (unless this was a "low-tension poly comfort ranking thread"). At the very least, 51 lbs should have been used, which still places odd anomalies from the 40lbs list, like Hightec and Dynamite, more in line with their similar family of strings and at tensions relevant to most tennis players. Once you sort using the 51 lbs and 62 lbs lists... all the strings fall more in line with on-court experiences and usages (i.e., no polys stray down like HighTec, and Dynamite no longer gets classified as gut-like).

One of gut's most fascinating and beneficial qualities is that it continues to be elastic and "soft" at high tensions, so one can still maintain accuracy along with the comfort of gut. Zyex, Polyolefin, Nano-whatever-in, etc... nothing man-made has yet to touch this about gut. Comfort is nothing without control, and stringing at 40 lbs is only controllable with stiff strings like poly and aramids.

 

[Centered]

I truly think in order for this thread/list to be applicable to *most* players, this thread should have started with the data on TWU with 62 lbs, fast swing; or perhaps 51 lbs. This is going to apply to more people who play tennis, instead of those interested in showing how similar Ashaway Dynamite is to gut (which only occurs in this 40 lbs zone).

This topic is about comfort, and people who want comfort with synthetic strings generally string at lower tensions, not 62 lbs — especially with poly.

Furthermore, it's important for people to see which synthetic strings are gut-like in terms of stiffness at low tension because no synthetic is gut-like at high tension.

*When I say "most", ask yourselves a simple question... How many people string gut or multi near 40 lbs? How many near 62 lbs? 40 lbs is only useful for poly strings, with the latest "low tension poly" craze (and even then, that is still a small population of poly users). The majority of those with arm issues still string their gut or multis in the 50-60 lbs range, so they can still control the ball. Listing the "comfort" of strings at 40lbs, is only slightly more useful than listing a string's comfort while in the package.

There's nothing stopping you from going through the database, collecting the data, and creating a comfort guide with 62 lbs. Although, it would be redundant:

The RSI String Selector 2010 has more strings than TW's database. The tests are done at 62 lbs with a fast swing. There isn't so much need for me to create a comfort guide, therefore, at high tension. People can simply refer to the RSI guide.

People who really want synthetics that feel as soft as gut are going to have to string at low tension. However, there doesn't appear to be any reason to string a full gut job at low tension, since gut remains soft at high tension.

At the very least, 51 lbs should have been used.

As I've said, I have been planning to do another version of the guide at medium tension. But, there is definitely a use for low tension tests, otherwise TW wouldn't have conducted them. Furthermore, as I've mentioned, people who need a synthetic to be as soft as gut will need this information. There is no need for one at high tension, except possibly one that only uses pre-stretched strings since RSI's test didn't pre-stretch.

Low tension stringing may be a misguided fad to some, but for those who happen to want to string at low tension for whatever reason, the information is here. It is the only way to achieve gut-like stiffness with the synthetic strings in TW's database. Perhaps the new Dynamite Soft 18 will change that? Maybe it will be nearly as soft as gut at medium tension? I really have no idea until I see the data.

 

[Centered]

The contention that Dynamite and Poly Techtec are "anomalous" results is also false. The results are due to the characteristics of the strings.

In order to make the comfort guide more useful, what we need is not a re-issue at high tension. We need more data. TW needs to test Dynamite Soft as well as regular Dynamite 17 and Gamma Professional 18. Such strings' data will be useful. The only data we have on a Zyex string is for one that's very thick at 1.41mm. And, it's a string that TW is not currently carrying.

I would ask the TW Professor to test these other strings, given that TW sells them and they would be very helpful to have in a comfort guide.

 

[JT_2eighty]

People who really want synthetics that feel as soft as gut are going to have to string at low tension. However, there doesn't appear to be any reason to string a full gut job at low tension, since gut remains soft at high tension.


As I've said, I have been planning to do another version of the guide at medium tension. But, there is definitely a use for low tension tests, otherwise TW wouldn't have conducted them. Furthermore, as I've mentioned, people who need a synthetic to be as soft as gut will need this information.

All I'm saying is even those who post about TE or GE, etc on these boards... find comfort using multis still at least in the 50 lbs. range. You would have gotten less flack (attacks/arguments) by beginning in the middle (51 lbs). It just seems you have an Ashaway agenda, with all the threads about and the bolding of Ashaway.

 

[Centered]

Ashaway Dynamite does not compare to natural gut.

Every string can be compared with natural gut.

And, when one does a comparison between Dynamite WB 16 and natural gut, one finds that at a reference tension of 40 lbs with a fast swing, it has similar stiffness to several natural gut strings.

What we need to make this guide more useful, as I said, is data for the new Dynamite Soft and the thinner Zyex strings like regular Dynamite 17. Gamma Professional 18, although mostly nylon, would also be useful to have in the data set, because it does well at high tension in comparison with regular Dynamite 17. It can't compete in terms of price very well, however.

I also would like to see the softest Head polyolefin cross strings strung as a full string job and tested, to see how well they compare with the new Dynamite Soft strings.

 

[Centered]

All I'm saying is even those who post about TE or GE, etc on these boards... find comfort using multis still at least in the 50 lbs. range.

No multi-filament that I've seen tested compares in terms of stiffness to natural gut at 51 lbs. "Comfort" is relative. The most comfort a person can get from synthetic strings is at low tension.

You would have gotten less flack (attacks/arguments) by beginning in the middle (51 lbs). It just seems you have an Ashaway agenda, with all the threads and the bolding of Ashaway.

The "Ashaway agenda" thing is a straw man. I didn't do the testing. If anyone has a problem with Dynamite having the lowest stiffness score of any synthetic in the TW tests at 40 lbs fast swing they'll have to take it up with TW and accuse them of having an "Ashaway agenda" and falsifying the data.

Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18 is probably the softest synthetic on the market. I am definitely hoping testing data will be quickly forthcoming.

My agenda has been to present data from RSI and TW that contradicts false claims so people can make better choices. One such claim is when someone suggested various stiff poly strings to a person who was using a nylon multi and said comfort is their primary criterion. Another person kept suggesting the $20 per pack Gamma Professional 18 and held a grudge when I pointed out that Dynamite 17 is much less expensive and has similar stiffness at high tension (and likely lower stiffness at low tension). Some people get upset when I post data that contradicts their claims, so they will invent various ad hominem points of attack, like the "Ashaway agenda". I have drawn attention to a number of Ashaway strings based on their merit. Liberty, for instance, is the least expensive string TW sells. That is useful information to some people. Dynamite is the softest synthetic at low tension.

If people don't like the data, they can always conduct their own tests.

 

[JTathlete]

No multi-filament that I've seen tested compares in terms of stiffness to natural gut at 51 lbs. "Comfort" is relative. The most comfort a person can get from synthetic strings is at low tension.

The "Ashaway agenda" thing is a straw man. I didn't do the testing. If anyone has a problem with Dynamite having the lowest stiffness score of any synthetic in the TW tests at 40 lbs fast swing they'll have to take it up with TW and accuse them of having an "Ashaway agenda" and falsifying the data.

Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18 is probably the softest synthetic on the market. I am definitely hoping testing data will be quickly forthcoming.

My agenda has been to present data from RSI and TW that contradicts false claims so people can make better choices. One such claim is when someone suggested various stiff poly strings to a person who was using a nylon multi and said comfort is their primary criterion. Another person kept suggesting the $20 per pack Gamma Professional 18 and held a grudge when I pointed out that Dynamite 17 is much less expensive and has similar stiffness at high tension (and likely lower stiffness at low tension). Some people get upset when I post data that contradicts their claims, so they will invent various ad hominem points of attack, like the "Ashaway agenda". I have drawn attention to a number of Ashaway strings based on their merit. Liberty, for instance, is the least expensive string TW sells. That is useful information to some people. Dynamite is the softest synthetic at low tension.

If people don't like the data, they can always conduct their own tests.

you are a funny guy, that's why we all love you..

 

[Centered]

By request, the 51 lbs medium tension ranking is now here.

 

[JT_2eighty]

No multi-filament that I've seen tested compares in terms of stiffness to natural gut at 51 lbs. "Comfort" is relative. The most comfort a person can get from synthetic strings is at low tension.

The "Ashaway agenda" thing is a straw man. I didn't do the testing. If anyone has a problem with Dynamite having the lowest stiffness score of any synthetic in the TW tests at 40 lbs fast swing they'll have to take it up with TW and accuse them of having an "Ashaway agenda" and falsifying the data.

Ashaway Dynamite Soft 18 is probably the softest synthetic on the market. I am definitely hoping testing data will be quickly forthcoming.

My agenda has been to present data from RSI and TW that contradicts false claims so people can make better choices. One such claim is when someone suggested various stiff poly strings to a person who was using a nylon multi and said comfort is their primary criterion. Another person kept suggesting the $20 per pack Gamma Professional 18 and held a grudge when I pointed out that Dynamite 17 is much less expensive and has similar stiffness at high tension (and likely lower stiffness at low tension). Some people get upset when I post data that contradicts their claims, so they will invent various ad hominem points of attack, like the "Ashaway agenda". I have drawn attention to a number of Ashaway strings based on their merit. Liberty, for instance, is the least expensive string TW sells. That is useful information to some people. Dynamite is the softest synthetic at low tension.

If people don't like the data, they can always conduct their own tests.

You miss my point; it is not that i think the data needs any changes, it's how you focused on only a certain specific subset of the data that shows dynamite's seemingly superiority; sadly, No one cares about a multi at 40 lbs. The 51-62 lists (the other 2/3 of the data) shows it is just another "softer than most" multi. Not a revolutionary string as some possible threads could seem to imply, perhaps.

No one wants to censor or is questioning the data.

That is all. Nothing diabolical as you seem to perceive.

Let's agree to disagree. No worries

 

[Centered]

it is not that i think the data needs any changes, it's how you focused on only a certain specific subset of the data that shows dynamite's seemingly superiority; sadly, No one cares about a multi at 40 lbs. The 51-62 lists (the other 2/3 of the data) shows it is just another "softer than most" multi. Not a revolutionary string as some possible threads could seem to imply, perhaps.

The tiresome "Dynamite Conspiracy" ad hominem fails to take into account the fact that at medium tension the result is the same: Dynamite is the softest synthetic in the TW tests. In fact, only one other synthetic string had an equivalent stiffness. Plus, I have routinely linked to the RSI tests at high tension.

I can't be held responsible for TW's data. If you or anyone else has a problem with the results, you'll have to take it up with the TW staff who conducted the tests.

Plenty of people care about low tension results. There is a very active topic about low tensions that I'm sure you've seen by now.

I included every string TW tested in the comfort guide, not just multi-filament strings.

As for people not caring about low tension tests for multi-filament strings, you can take that up with the TW staff who felt otherwise, and thus conducted the tests. They even tested gut at 40 lbs reference tension.

I remain unmoved by the angst over the highlighting of Ashaway Dynamite. It's just a simple fact that it has the best result of any synthetic in the TW tests at 40 and 51 lbs reference tension with fast swings. I have posted in great detail about plenty of other strings by other brands (yet that fact is conveniently ignored), including strings that had better results than thick Dynamite WB 16 at high tension.

Dynamite WB 16 is probably not the softest synthetic on the market at 40 and 51 lbs reference tensions because of its 1.41mm thickness and thick inner filaments. The 17 gauge Dynamite is considerably softer at high tension in the RSI test, so one would assume it is also softer at lower tensions. The Pro Kennex IQ Element Z string was quite a bit softer than Dynamite 17, as I have discussed. WB 16 just happens to be the softest one tested by TW. I have asked for data for other strings that should be even softer several times and await the results of the testing.

The sad thing for the anti-Dynamite crowd, though, is that Dynamite Soft 18 is likely to be the softest synthetic yet. Those who are upset about Dynamite being highlighted may be in for an unpleasant surprise once the Dynamite Soft data is in. lol

 

[JT_2eighty]

If you or anyone else has a problem with the results... take it up with the TW staff...
.
There is a very active topic about low tensions that I'm sure you've seen by now.
.
...it has the best result of any synthetic
...Dynamite Soft 18 is likely to be the softest synthetic yet.

As was said before, no one has a "problem with the results."

Also, the "low tension thread" is about the unique effect of poly tensioned low.

And, saying something is "best" or *softest yet* when the differences are less than a few% of the competition is a bit of a stretch.(re: dynamite vs other multis at 51+lbs)

In conclusion, awaiting your inevitable last word : :

...

 

[mikeler]

As was said before, no one has a "problem with the results."

Also, the "low tension thread" is about the unique effect of poly tensioned low.

And, saying something is "best" or *softest yet* when the differences are less than a few% of the competition is a bit of a stretch.(re: dynamite and other multis at 51+lbs)

In conclusion, awaiting your inevitable last word : :

...

It is definitely a stretch considering all the other variables that go into how stiff a string actually plays.

 

[Sublime]

TW's article and even the database description say stiffness is basically what matters, followed by tension loss. It did not say peak tension during impact is what's most important – that its stiffness measure is irrelevant by itself and somehow people need to ignore it and instead find out what the peak tension is and go from there.

It's not useless, it just all has to be look at together, with no single property being more important than another.
Also stiffness strictly doesn't correlate to perceived softness. The vibration dampening properties of the string, it's friction, even it's weight all play a role in how a string feels. Stiffness and energy return play an overwhelming role in the power of a string.

So, I need you to explain how you would use the Peak Tension data in conjunction with the stiffness rating to re-organize my opening post.

I'll try to help you, but this is not something I'd do. There isn't enough data IMO to make such a list.

40 lbs fast swing:
String, Actual Pre-impact Tension, Peak Tension, Peak Force, Stiffness, Total Loss, Energy Return

Dynamite WB 16, 21.74, 58.9, 28.0, 104.6, 18.7, 85.0
VS Natural Team Gut 17, 31.86, 58.4, 25.9, 86.3, 7.9, 93.7
Poly Hightec 18, 11.05, 53.8, 26.8, 109.2, 29.3, 72.1

Each of these strings reaches nearly a similar peak tension. The Poly is 53.8 and the other two are 58.4 and 58.9.

Forten Sweet 16 and Prince SGD 17 each reach roughly 73 lbs.

How would you organize the data? Ignore the stiffness ranking and rank strings by Peak Tension? Use peak tension with the stiffness ranking somehow?

I suggest you look at peak tension, then determine the stiffness at halfway between peak and pre-impact, based on other measure results. This will still give you far from a definitive list, but it will be more accurate.

If peak tension is so important, why wouldn't such an amalgam be part of the database? Who has the time and skill to realize they're being shown a pointless stiffness number and really need to do some sort of calculation – especially when TW tells people stiffness is the key measurement?

It is a key measurement for power. Based solely on life experience, if the numbers say a poly is as soft as a premium natural gut, you're measuring the wrong thing or interpreting what you're measuring incorrectly. The goal of these types of experiments is to attempt to quantify what people feel when they play with the string, not to measure something and tell them they aren't feeling what they think they are. Court experience always trumps lab results, if the two disagree, it's the lab results that are wrong or misinterpreted.

And, why would RSI not even post a peak tension measurement and rank strings according to stiffness in their String Selector guides they've been doing for years? Is the staff of RSI incompetent like you suggest I am? They use stiffness and tension loss, the two measurements TW said are the ones that matter. They don't even mention peak tension.

The quick answer is that they're still trying to figure out what is important to measure and how to measure it best.

For such a simple device, the string bed in a tennis racket is very complicated, not to mention the extremely complicated feedback loop, holding onto the handle. Take for instance the subjective string attribute of "feel". If you ask a pro tennis player, what "feel" is, they'll say that it allows them to feel the tennis ball on the strings better and adjust to place the ball where they want to. From a science perspective, we know this can't be literally true. The vibration from contact takes time to even make it to the hand. Then the signal needs to go to your brain, be processed, and then back to your muscles to react. This all takes way too long, given the dwell time of a tennis ball. So is "feel" nonsense? Absolutely not. It's likely more about being able to accurately gauge the position of the ball on the string bed, to adjust for the next hit. Who knows what measurable property "feel" comes from.

 

[Buckethead]

Remember that the comfort also has to do with a racket and tension. So stiff string on comfortable racquet will still feel somewhat fine depending on the tension and soft string on stiff racket will feel stiffer depending on the tension as well.

 

[Bedrock]

Here are the Forten Sweet 16 numbers, for those who are interested:

40 lbs, Fast, 155.4
40 lbs, Slow, 165.2
40 lbs, Medium, 165.7

51 lbs, Fast, 188.6
51 lbs, Slow, 190.3
51 lbs, Medium, 190.9

62 lbs, Fast, 221.2
62 lbs, Medium, 224.6
62 lbs, Slow, 226.3

Where do you get data from.
I would like to compare some numbers for different strings and different tension as well as see correlation between stiffener and response for difference tensions. Are there any charts?

 

[JT_2eighty]

Where do you get data from.
I would like to compare some numbers for different strings and different tension as well as see correlation between stiffener and response for difference tensions. Are there any charts?

Click on TW University towards the top of the page.

Then, mouse over String Comparisons, and select String Performance Database.

Enjoy!

 

[Bedrock]

Click on TW University towards the top of the page.

Then, mouse over String Comparisons, and select String Performance Database.

Enjoy!

Thanks !!!

 

[Bedrock]

Click on TW University towards the top of the page.

Then, mouse over String Comparisons, and select String Performance Database.

Enjoy!

Is this for main or for cross strings?

 

[JT_2eighty]

Is this for main or for cross strings?

It's non-specific.

There are descriptions of how they performed the tests. Just a sample of a string, pulled to each tension listed, then tests performed with a non-deformable hammer in order to gain the readings.

It is mainly useful to see how strings compare to one another to get a reference point. It is not to say this is how strings will perform whether as main or cross, etc. (hence all the back and forth drama in thread)

 

[CP3]

Thanks for this detailed, informative reply. And thanks again for starting this thread: a great summary of information, especially for beginners like me.

RSI tested more strings than TW, but their data isn't as broad. They only tested at 62 lbs with a fast swing, while the data in the opening post is from TW's testing at 40 lbs reference tension with a fast swing.

TW's testing is missing a good number of strings, including some it sells, like Dynamite 17, Dynamite Soft 17, Dynamite Soft 18, Gamma Professional 18, Liberty 15L, all aramids, and more. Hopefully more strings will be added soon.

TW also only did pre-stretch tests at high tension. I would like to see pre-stretch tests at low and medium tensions, since pre-stretching dramatically improved tension retention with most strings.

They (and RSI for some of the data) did the testing. I compiled it from this tool.


Natural gut is definitely the softest string and tends to remain soft even at high tensions, although some natural guts are significantly softer than others. It also holds its tension better than other string materials. Some find it more durable than multi-filament strings, especially those with fairly dense string patterns, high quality gut, and flat strokes.

Gut is not without flaws, though. It's difficult to string. If a stringer notches the string (it will look like a white spot in the string), the gut will break quickly there. It unravels quickly if it gets wet and sometimes even in high humidity. Lower-quality gut may snap quickly, even on the stringing machine. Beginners may break it quickly because it is vulnerable to off-center mishits (shear stress). It is also expensive to produce.

Synthetic materials increase in stiffness as tension is increased, although how dramatic the increase is varies with material. Some polyester, for instance, may be soft in a very thin gauge at very low tension and becomes quite stiff at high tension. Zyex seems to be the best synthetic material in terms of comfort, especially at moderately low tensions and even more so with a thinner gauge string (Dynamite 17 is even softer than WB 16).

If you look at the data you quoted, you'll see that two natural gut strings are very close to Dynamite WB 16, a thick 1.41mm Zyex string, which means the Dynamite was practically as soft as those two strings at that reference tension after the TW impact tests were conducted. Part of this is because the Dynamite, being a synthetic, loses much more tension than natural gut, so its actual tension is significantly lower. With synthetic strings, as tension drops, so does stiffness. However, there is a range of stiffness depending upon the material and construction (gauge, filament thickness/shape). Aramids like Kevlar, for instance, are much stiffer than other strings even at the lowest tension, with many filaments, and with the thinnest possible gauge.

Zyex is rivaled by polyolefin, although it seems to have the edge. Although the data isn't yet available, I expect Dynamite Soft 18 (1.15mm) to be the softest synthetic string currently on the market. The 17 gauge should also be quite soft. I look forward to TW updating the database with the data for these new strings.

Regular Dynamite 17 remains a good buy at $7 a pack for 5+ packs, too. It will not likely be as soft as Dynamite Soft, but may be a bit more durable due to the thicker Zyex inner filaments. However, those recovering from tennis elbow should stick with the Dynamite Soft 18 or natural gut.

 

[Centered]

There isn't enough data IMO to make such a list.

I suggest you look at peak tension, then determine the stiffness at halfway between peak and pre-impact, based on other measure results. This will still give you far from a definitive list, but it will be more accurate.

So you think the TW Tool needs to have another measurement that does that, making it the "key measurement" rather than stiffness?

Also, RSI should abandon its current method of ranking strings by stiffness, too?

I suggest posting a topic about this in the Suggestions/Comments forum, because I have seen the TW Prof respond to questions directly there.

If the database changes and the new key measurement becomes what you're asking for, let me know and I will modify the guide posts accordingly.

Until then, though, I'm going to rely on the tools that are available. Currently both tools and articles authored by RSI and TW present stiffness as being the key factor, not peak tension.

 

[Centered]

Where do you get data from.
I would like to compare some numbers for different strings and different tension as well as see correlation between stiffener and response for difference tensions. Are there any charts?

The first sentence in the opening post links to the testing database.

 

[Centered]

As was said before, no one has a "problem with the results."

People have had problems with the results. For instance, people questioned the Dynamite data in a comparison with Sensation and the TW Professor responded with a screen shot from the database showing the claim that Sensation is softer to be false. People have questioned the Forten Sweet numbers. People have done a lot of questioning of the data.

Also, the "low tension thread" is about the unique effect of poly tensioned low.

My guide contains every poly TW has tested.

And, saying something is "best" or *softest yet* when the differences are less than a few% of the competition is a bit of a stretch.(re: dynamite vs other multis at 51+lbs)

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Centered]

Thanks for this detailed, informative reply. And thanks again for starting this thread: a great summary of information, especially for beginners like me.

You're welcome. Be sure to look at the RSI results as well since high tension results may be quite different from low tension results and the RSI page has more tested strings.

 

[Buckethead]

I haven't seen numbers for MSV Focus Hex(all gauges) Heptatwist other gauges, Luxilon Original 15L, among others. I hope they test the other strings soon.

 

[Centered]

I haven't seen numbers for MSV Focus Hex(all gauges) Heptatwist other gauges, Luxilon Original 15L, among others. I hope they test the other strings soon.

Me, too.

My medium tension guide could really use some synthetics in the "Very Soft" category. All the candidates have no numbers yet.

 

[Bedrock]

I would ilke to see the same data for Gosen Tuff 15L. That could be a killer for all nut. gut strings.
$1.50 a set
Tried Pro Sonic as main - looks like the data in DB is a truth. Soft and low power - very nice.

 

[Centered]

Since the TW Prof was nice enough to test Dynamite Soft at my request, I have updated my comfort guides.

 

[Agent Orynge]

"...and the cat came back the very next day. The cat came back, they thought he was a goner but the cat came back, he just couldn't stay away..."

 

[origmarm]

What may explain that perception is that stiffness is a dynamic rather than static property; that is, the string's tension increases a lot (don't remember offhand how much, but check out Cross & Lindsay's Technical Tennis if you're interested) during the first half of the 5 milliseconds of contact between ball and string: ball hits string, string stretches and gets much stiffer, process is reversed as string ejects ball.

Check out this handy chart: gut, incredibly, has roughly the same stiffness at most any tension, so it will feel soft throughout the ball-string contact. Nylon gets stiffer as tension goes up. Polyester gets stiffer a little faster as tension goes up, so the green line has a sharper slope. The difference between nylon and poly isn't much, but it might help explain your perception.

The other thing that might help explain it, of course, is that humans have a limited capacity to isolate "stiffness" out of the grab bag of dozens of factors that make up a 5-millisecond tactile perception.

It does seem to follow from the data on this chart, incidentally, that the handful of synthetics that have gut-like stiffness don't have gut-like stiffness once the ball and string are in full contact – though, needless to say, they may still be soft enough for a given player to like them.

A good post. The other thing that people often miss is speed of that distortion and return. I started a debate a while back on this with centered but chose to agree to disagree in the end.