TW Strings Performance Database - Tension loss % for different gauges

[Slapper]

I have noticed that in the TW Strings Performance Database there are sometimes large differences in tension loss % for different gauges of the same string. The most extreme examples I could find were Solinco strings, although I only checked the data for a handful of strings from different manufacturers.

For example:

Solinco Tour Bite 15L = 24%
Solinco Tour Bite 16 = 47%
Solinco Tour Bite 16L = 25%
Solinco Tour Bite 17 = 49%
Solinco Tour Bite 18 = 51%

Solinco Revolution 16 = 47%
Solinco Revolution 16L = 28%
Solinco Revolution 17 = 50%
Solinco Revolution 18 = 29%

Babolat RPM Blast 16 = 46%
Babolat RPM Blast 17 = 33%
Babolat RPM Blast 18 = 36%


How to explain this?

NOTE: For most strings that I looked at, the tension loss % was similar among the different gauges.

 

[scotus]

It could just be that some batches were not formulated/processed correctly/precisely at the factory.

I have, however, read posts of Tour Bite users complain that the L-gauges were noticeably stiffer, and those posts are in agreement with this particular lab data.

 

[Slapper]

I have, however, read posts of Tour Bite users complain that the L-gauges were noticeably stiffer, and those posts are in agreement with this particular lab data.

Why would L-gauges be stiffer?

 

[scotus]

Why would L-gauges be stiffer?

The lab data you have quoted show that they lose much less tension. That alone shows that given the same initial tension and stiffness, you will end up with a stiffer string bed.

 

[Slapper]

The lab data you have quoted show that they lose much less tension. That alone shows that given the same initial tension and stiffness, you will end up with a stiffer string bed.

I mean what is it about the manufacturing process that could possibly result in L-gauges losing much less tension / being much stiffer?

 

[scotus]

I mean what is it about the manufacturing process that could possibly result in L-gauges losing much less tension / being much stiffer?

None, but if I remember correctly, Solinco had the regular gauges manufactured first, and then much later came up with the L gauges. So when they mixed chemicals for production of the L-gauges, there may have been a mishap at that time.

If TWU tested the current batches of L gauges now, it is possible that they might show completely different numbers.

 

[Slapper]

None, but if I remember correctly, Solinco had the regular gauges manufactured first, and then much later came up with the L gauges. So when they mixed chemicals for production of the L-gauges, there may have been a mishap at that time.

If TWU tested the current batches of L gauges now, it is possible that they might show completely different numbers.

I see what you mean.

And the stiffness ratings do appear to higher for the L-gauges.

Solinco Tour Bite (gauge, tension loss, stiffness)
15L, 24%, 239
16, 47%, 203
16L, 25%, 238
17, 49%, 182
18, 51%, 162

Solinco Revolution (gauge, tension loss, stiffness)
16, 47%, 216
16L, 28%, 213
17, 50%, 189
18, 29%, 196

But Solinco Revolution 18 seems to be an odd one out, unless it too was produced later.

 

[Slapper]

And to complicate things a bit more, the data for Tour Bite Soft are also a bit odd.

Tour Bite Soft 16 has much higher tension loss compared with the other gauges, and Tour Bite Soft 17 and 18 appear to be stiffer than Tour Bite 17 and 18, respectively.

Solinco Tour Bite Soft (gauge, tension loss, stiffness)
16, 50%, 184
16L, 29%, 192
17, 29%, 186
18, 31%, 172

 

[CopolyX]

They are copolys, tension loss is inevitable. I am a big time "objective - data driven string geek" but this one you have to let go.
There are so many variables that results in tension loss, so judging a string is not the best way to go. And you will go nuts.
Tensions loss starts going down hill right of the string job period.
The ride down the hill is fastest on the copoly.
It will have and hit unique pot holes on the the way down.
Starting with the tension the stringbed was set at ( high/med/low).

• Initial loss
  
• String Gauge
• String Stiffness
  
• Weather Conditions
  
• Players Use and Swing speed ( decrease in perpendicular stiffness as well as the increasing of static and sliding friction between main and cross strings)

Note:
TW does there calcs aslo based on:
Reference tension (Low, Med & High)
Swing Speed (Slow, Med and Fast)

Bottom line once you find copoly a string that works best for you.
You will live will tension loss and yes it patterns can be bit strange. All you can do is be aware on the natual of the coploy.
Play your best and focus on your game.
It is only going to last for hours, again depends see the bullets above (~8-14 hours - tossing out an average)
Keep a log book and log your time of use / with comments.
If you are somewhat string sensitive, you might start seeing some patterns or a notice change..

• "The strings lose power."
• "The strings hurt my arm."
• "The strings feel stiffer."
• "It hits like a board."
• "Strings are not snapping back"
  
• "The strings lose their resiliency."
• "The strings lose their elasticity."
• "My strings are staying out of place."
• "There is no pop."
• "I can't hit the ball deep."
• "I can't control the ball."
• "I spray the ball all over the place."
• "I can't keep the ball in the court."
• "The ball just takes off."
• "The the strings are mushy."
• "The strings trampoline the ball."
• "My ball isn't as heavy."
• "I can't hit with as much spin."
• "I have seen my stringer in weeks, or i forget his or her name"
• "If you get a haircut on a regular schedule, put your racquet on a restring schedule".

What the king of of low tension loss = Full bed of natural gut
more ...
http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2014/04/17_stringing_the_dead_zone.html
Also TW Labs has plently on this also...

 

[Slapper]

They are copolys, tension loss is inevitable.

Yes, but some have more tension loss than others. That is to be expected for different co-polys, but here we see that it can occur even with different gauges of the same co-poly. That came as a surprise to me.

I am a big time "objective - data driven string geek" but this one you have to let go.
There are so many variables that results in tension loss, so judging a string is not the best way to go. And you will go nuts.

Of course there are many variables. That's why I am interested in data generated through controlled experiments. In this case, it seems clear that there is something strange going on in terms of tension loss depending on the gauge. Do you have any idea why?

 

[El_Yotamo]

I feel like a broken record, but tension loss % tells you nothing other than what happens the first 24 hours before playing plus what happens for the first 15 minutes of play. Stabilization loss is good for judging if to string slightly higher or lower than usual, that's all. And static loss dies off virtually after the first 48 hours of rest. Impact loss remains rather constant, while you get small amounts of static loss between sessions. I swear when I have time to complete and publish that side-study I was working on...

 

[CopolyX]

I feel like a broken record, but tension loss % tells you nothing other than what happens the first 24 hours before playing plus what happens for the first 15 minutes of play. Stabilization loss is good for judging if to string slightly higher or lower than usual, that's all. And static loss dies off virtually after the first 48 hours of rest. Impact loss remains rather constant, while you get small amounts of static loss between sessions. I swear when I have time to complete and publish that side-study I was working on...

I have a portable ert 300 and a RDC, so I have seen it all. Again that controlled tension loss data is useless Your use cases and the controlled data will never match up. Also impact tension and plain old tension loss will still occur. There is nothing rather constant with sync type strings.
Copolys (Polyester)are is a complex polymer chain that will be very inconsistent period.
This is why you will always have inconsistencies in this type (sync./ man made) of string no matter what the gauge.
Loss of playability and loss of tension are not always the same thing. A poly can lose playability more quickly than it loses tension.
Copolys (generalized) is composed of multiple types of polymers. Copolymer strings usually will be made of different types of polymerized material. Content differs will differ & will be unkown. Common polymerized materials include polyester, polyamides , polyolefins, polyacetates, polyethylethylketones, polyketones and plasticizers. Normally additional heating, additives, raw material/ or dupont material are used to achieve a desired hardness, tensile strength, elasticity...
Again you better consistent results in tension loss, somewhat gradual tension loss...again natural gut is the best...

 

[El_Yotamo]

Your use cases and the controlled data will never match up

English please? I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'll assume what you're saying is that controlled data will never match up to reality, in which case you're technically right, but we can get close enough so that your subjectivity-based argument is wrong. We can still determine how strings lose tension/playability over time pretty accurately but TWU is doing it wrong and your subjective appoach isn't helping either.

Also impact tension and plain old tension loss will still occur. There is nothing rather constant with sync type strings.

What is "plain old tension loss"? It is either static or dynamic (impact). It occurs due to plastic deformation along the string's length, and if it's inconsistent (which it most likely is) it can also be understood and characterized based on the rate of change. More on plastic deformation in a sec.

Copolys (Polyester)are is a complex polymer chain that will be very inconsistent period.
This is why you will always have inconsistencies in this type (sync./ man made) of string no matter what the gauge.
Loss of playability and loss of tension are not always the same thing. A poly can lose playability more quickly than it loses tension.

I dunno what "that will be very inconsistent period" means as it isn't English. Let's assume it means copoly tennis strings lose tension inconsistently. That is correct in the sense that things aren't constant, however that doesn't mean it can't be analyzed or that we can't use rates of change to understand it. Gauges are irrelevant here so I dunno why you brought them up. But yes good! You brought up the fact that "loss of playability and tension loss are not the same thing". Good, that's objective and can be cross-analyzed for each particular string because in the end of the day it's playability and how it changes over time that matters. Playability is changed by changing tension as well as by notching and friction changes in the stringbed mainly, so crose-analyze and boom you've got a good analysis on how the string's playability changes over time and with each passing shot. I'm so disappointed that you had to then say "a poly can lose playability more quickly than it loses tension". Lose os subjective, we want to be objective. Playability change is more accurate than loss. Of course tension loss is objective because tension actually decreases, but playability loss is subjective because many people prefer certain strings after they've changed in playability more than before.

Copolys (generalized) is composed of multiple types of polymers. Copolymer strings usually will be made of different types of polymerized material. Content differs will differ & will be unkown. Common polymerized materials include polyester, polyamides , polyolefins, polyacetates, polyethylethylketones, polyketones and plasticizers

So this you either copied from the Internet or paraphrased based off of content from there. Either way it is mainly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Usually the base material in copolys is PET. That still doesn't matter or have anything to do with what I originally said.

Normally additional heating, additives, raw material/ or dupont material are used to achieve a desired hardness, tensile strength, elasticity...

This is where things become important. Firstly, don't say dupont material, as dupont is just a company which gives trademark names. Engineering material or additional special material are both more accurate and objective. But anyhow, it is the orientation, molecular weight, and composition of the base material that matter for the base properties. This is then either tweaked or changed completely based on additives. However, there's two types of additives: 1) the usual suspects, which protect against UV and oxidation, etc. and 2) performance additives which are meant to change the things you mentioned above. Still though, I struggle to see the connection between this and my original statement about tension loss. Unless I was making a string, this is still irrelevant. I might make a string some day, but that day is in the future and I wouldn't be taking the advice of strangers in an Internet forum that copy/paste their information from the Internet and pretend that their random information that they've copy/pasted is relevant to the subject at hand.

Again you better consistent results in tension loss, somewhat gradual tension loss...again natural gut is the best...

I fail to understand this statement as well, and what language it is in. I'll hope you're saying tension loss is gradual because it is. Also why is natural gut relevant at all to the topic at hand? Oh wait I remember now, it isn't.

Please dude. You have got to have more clarity in what you're saying. You also have to understand the information you copy/paste randomly because it's irrelevant and derailing. It's very interesting, but completely irrelevant to this thread to go into it in the depth that you did. It wasn't very deep, but all that needs to mentioned here is "material composition and traits" instead of going on a useless rant of what copolymers are and how companies make copoly tennis strings. Very cool and interesting things, but very very irrelevant. I hope you understand.

Also before you say that the thread's topic is gauge, you replied to my response which was criticizing the info the OP was using, as the tension loss % tool on TWU is extremely misleading and in many cases very wrong in many ways. That's what I was saying. I was also mentioning what actually happens over the life of the string. And as I said, I hope to very soon continue and finish the side study I was doing about plastic deformation, material composition, tension loss, and playability change of copoly tennis strings. It was very interesting and would've showed you the capability of scientific know-how of characterizing playability change and tension loss over a string's life.

 

[CopolyX]

English please? I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'll assume what you're saying is that controlled data will never match up to reality, in which case you're technically right, but we can get close enough so that your subjectivity-based argument is wrong. We can still determine how strings lose tension/playability over time pretty accurately but TWU is doing it wrong and your subjective appoach isn't helping either.



What is "plain old tension loss"? It is either static or dynamic (impact). It occurs due to plastic deformation along the string's length, and if it's inconsistent (which it most likely is) it can also be understood and characterized based on the rate of change. More on plastic deformation in a sec.



I dunno what "that will be very inconsistent period" means as it isn't English. Let's assume it means copoly tennis strings lose tension inconsistently. That is correct in the sense that things aren't constant, however that doesn't mean it can't be analyzed or that we can't use rates of change to understand it. Gauges are irrelevant here so I dunno why you brought them up. But yes good! You brought up the fact that "loss of playability and tension loss are not the same thing". Good, that's objective and can be cross-analyzed for each particular string because in the end of the day it's playability and how it changes over time that matters. Playability is changed by changing tension as well as by notching and friction changes in the stringbed mainly, so crose-analyze and boom you've got a good analysis on how the string's playability changes over time and with each passing shot. I'm so disappointed that you had to then say "a poly can lose playability more quickly than it loses tension". Lose os subjective, we want to be objective. Playability change is more accurate than loss. Of course tension loss is objective because tension actually decreases, but playability loss is subjective because many people prefer certain strings after they've changed in playability more than before.



So this you either copied from the Internet or paraphrased based off of content from there. Either way it is mainly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Usually the base material in copolys is PET. That still doesn't matter or have anything to do with what I originally said.



This is where things become important. Firstly, don't say dupont material, as dupont is just a company which gives trademark names. Engineering material or additional special material are both more accurate and objective. But anyhow, it is the orientation, molecular weight, and composition of the base material that matter for the base properties. This is then either tweaked or changed completely based on additives. However, there's two types of additives: 1) the usual suspects, which protect against UV and oxidation, etc. and 2) performance additives which are meant to change the things you mentioned above. Still though, I struggle to see the connection between this and my original statement about tension loss. Unless I was making a string, this is still irrelevant. I might make a string some day, but that day is in the future and I wouldn't be taking the advice of strangers in an Internet forum that copy/paste their information from the Internet and pretend that their random information that they've copy/pasted is relevant to the subject at hand.



I fail to understand this statement as well, and what language it is in. I'll hope you're saying tension loss is gradual because it is. Also why is natural gut relevant at all to the topic at hand? Oh wait I remember now, it isn't.

Please dude. You have got to have more clarity in what you're saying. You also have to understand the information you copy/paste randomly because it's irrelevant and derailing. It's very interesting, but completely irrelevant to this thread to go into it in the depth that you did. It wasn't very deep, but all that needs to mentioned here is "material composition and traits" instead of going on a useless rant of what copolymers are and how companies make copoly tennis strings. Very cool and interesting things, but very very irrelevant. I hope you understand.

Also before you say that the thread's topic is gauge, you replied to my response which was criticizing the info the OP was using, as the tension loss % tool on TWU is extremely misleading and in many cases very wrong in many ways. That's what I was saying. I was also mentioning what actually happens over the life of the string. And as I said, I hope to very soon continue and finish the side study I was doing about plastic deformation, material composition, tension loss, and playability change of copoly tennis strings. It was very interesting and would've showed you the capability of scientific know-how of characterizing playability change and tension loss over a string's life.

It is late night, long day bad English, guilty as changed!
So it a nutshell, the best way to monitor your tension loss is with an ERT 300.
Basically again, any synthetic string no matter what the guage is , can give you inconsistent tension loss data. But it will certainly occur. If you want to track it down, more power to you. At least monitor it if you can.
Then try it and get back to me, I might be sleeping though.
Wait ...is my strung frame w/ a copoly losing tension as I sleep? no....

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2015/05/17_the_evolution_of_poly_strin.html

 

[CopolyX]

Yes, but some have more tension loss than others. That is to be expected for different co-polys, but here we see that it can occur even with different gauges of the same co-poly. That came as a surprise to me.



Of course there are many variables. That's why I am interested in data generated through controlled experiments. In this case, it seems clear that there is something strange going on in terms of tension loss depending on the gauge. Do you have any idea why?

Because poly/co-poly strings have limitations due to their molecular make-up causing inconsistencies in tension loss, but try explaining that to el_y....
It is not just gauge related..again it is molecular related...

 

[El_Yotamo]

It is late night, long day bad English, guilty as changed!
So it a nutshell, the best way to monitor your tension loss is with an ERT 300.
Basically again, any synthetic string no matter what the guage is , can give you inconsistent tension loss data. But it will certainly occur. If you want to track it down, more power to you. At least monitor it if you can.
Then try it and get back to me, I might be sleeping though.
Wait ...is my strung frame w/ a copoly losing tension as I sleep? no....

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2015/05/17_the_evolution_of_poly_strin.html

Yeah read that article. It definitely clears things up for people who don't study materials and also gave me a starting point to base my research.

Also to your comment when replying to Slapper, of course there are inconsistencies (I never said there weren't) however these inconsistencies are caused by errors and some deviation in string behavior over time. Still though, you can model this behavior and it does give good insight for comparison of different strings and/or gauges.

 

[Slapper]

Because poly/co-poly strings have limitations due to their molecular make-up causing inconsistencies in tension loss, but try explaining that to el_y....
It is not just gauge related..again it is molecular related...

If the anomalous data for stiffness and tension loss % are primarily due to inherent properties of poly/co-poly strings, then we would expect to see 'inconsistencies' in the data for all poly strings. But that is not what we see (as I said in my original post, for most poly strings that I looked at, the tension loss % was similar among the different gauges). Rather, the inconsistencies, as you call them, only appear to be present in certain gauges of certain poly strings, particularly Solinco strings.

I might add that I am not the first person to notice this...

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-test-results-on-twu-string-database.581241/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-bite-16-16l-and-17-stiffness-ratings.465013/

 

[esgee48]

Post extrusion processing includes how long and how fast the temperature of the strings is allowed to occur. A longer period or slower cooling stages will allow the polymers to realign before 'crystalizing' [they really don't do this, but the analogy still is relevant.] Quicker cooling down to room temperatures will leave the polymers more randomly aligned. Some strings also include an element of prestretching which will change the elastic properties of the string. 3¢

Mixing other polymers with your basic type of polyester string will do the same things, i.e. interference with 'crystalization.' These additives can also help in tension maintenance and enhance elasticity. And then there are co-polymer strings that have fibers/strands/braids of these different polymers that yield strings like Origin, Velocity/Reflex, the newer TNT2 family. These are called multis excepting Origin, but they do not behave like the traditional old time multis.

 

[Slapper]

I feel like a broken record, but tension loss % tells you nothing other than what happens the first 24 hours before playing plus what happens for the first 15 minutes of play. Stabilization loss is good for judging if to string slightly higher or lower than usual, that's all. And static loss dies off virtually after the first 48 hours of rest. Impact loss remains rather constant, while you get small amounts of static loss between sessions. I swear when I have time to complete and publish that side-study I was working on...

Well, I want to know what happens in the first 24 hours before play and what happens during the first 15 minutes of play.

In my experience, the first session results in a lot more tension loss than subsequent sessions. Based on that observation, it seems to me that impact loss does not remain rather constant.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Well, I want to know what happens in the first 24 hours before play and what happens during the first 15 minutes of play.

In my experience, the first session results in a lot more tension loss than subsequent sessions. Based on that observation, it seems to me that impact loss does not remain rather constant.

My research so far partially debunks that experience of yours (the second part specifically). The first 24 hours before hitting and 15 minutes of play matter for sure, but when is it that you put your racquet away to be restrung? Even pros don't do it after just 15 minutes. Thus your argument is flawed I'm afraid.

I think that "tension loss percent" is highly misleading as it makes you feel as if that is what shows which strings hold tension best. In fact it does not. The biggest factor out of this percentage, after all, is not truly a factor in the long run. How you knowingly call that science and state that those results have bearing is unfortunate to me.

In fact, as real data has shown over time, it is the impact loss after each shot that builds up and makes up each hitting session. In fact, it has been shown that while "stabilization" loss is a one-time thing (so just string higher or lower accordingly) and static loss dies off after 24 hours and is practically nonexistent after 48, impact loss actually stays relatively constant if not increases over time as a result of the nature of the plastic deformation that copoly strings undergo. So again, I ask you to consider that if let's say 0.4 lbs are lost after 60 shots and this stays relatively constant, how much tension will be lost after 5000 (the amount of balls the average player good enough to hit with copoly probably hits in about 4 or 5 hours of play)?

Now the only issue is that due to the oscillations in the material behavior, those 60 "shots" (which aren't actually shots, they're essentially hammer impacts) may not be indicative. That's why in my research so far I've done at least two hundred shots and used a real ball. So even that number is flawed.

Therfore, when I look at the string performance database, I look at all three of the above tension loss criteria, and I adjust tension if stabilization loss and static loss cause a need to do so (either higher or lower than what I'm used to). However the major criterion that causes me to consider whether or not the string I'm looking at holds tension well is impact loss (with a small consideration for static loss). Of course I still take it with a grain of salt, and for strings with illogical results in that department (too close to zero, negative, or above ~0.6-0.7) I won't consider it at all as I know some error was made.

For example Head Hawk has an impact loss of over 1 lb, which is stupidly erroneous given I've played with it and it showed an impact loss of 1 lb after about 1.5 hitting sessions (each being two hours long) or about 3000 shots. Another example would be RPM Team, which has a negative impact loss value. That's obviously wrong as I played with this string as well and while it held tension superbly it did lose some.

I promise when I can get back to that side study I'll send it to you as soon as I'm done

 

[Slapper]

I think that "tension loss percent" is highly misleading as it makes you feel as if that is what shows which strings hold tension best. In fact it does not. The biggest factor out of this percentage, after all, is not truly a factor in the long run. How you knowingly call that science and state that those results have bearing is unfortunate to me.

Where did I say that tension loss % shows which strings hold tension best in the long run?

In fact, as real data has shown over time, it is the impact loss after each shot that builds up and makes up each hitting session. In fact, it has been shown that while "stabilization" loss is a one-time thing (so just string higher or lower accordingly) and static loss dies off after 24 hours and is practically nonexistent after 48, impact loss actually stays relatively constant if not increases over time as a result of the nature of the plastic deformation that copoly strings undergo.

I may have misunderstood the definition of impact loss. I assumed that any loss due to an impact would be impact loss i.e. impact loss includes stabilization loss. However, if stabilization loss is considered separately, then yes, impact loss would certainly be more constant.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Where did I say that tension loss % shows which strings hold tension best in the long run?



I may have misunderstood the definition of impact loss. I assumed that any loss due to an impact would be impact loss i.e. impact loss includes stabilization loss. However, if stabilization loss is considered separately, then yes, impact loss would certainly be more constant.

1) If you didn't say anything about tension loss % having anything to do with strings holding tension, then your OP is somewhat irrelevant. Your thread was about inconsistencies in how different gauges of the same string hold tension. Let me know what that meant if there was no implications of tension loss percent being linked to holding tension well in your response please

2) impact loss includes stabilization loss, but that loss is a one-time phenomenon and is as such treated as its own category. Thus impact loss is indeed rather constant

 

[Slapper]

1) If you didn't say anything about tension loss % having anything to do with strings holding tension, then your OP is somewhat irrelevant. Your thread was about inconsistencies in how different gauges of the same string hold tension. Let me know what that meant if there was no implications of tension loss percent being linked to holding tension well in your response please

I did say something about tension loss % having something to do with strings holding tension, because it does. What I did not say is that tension loss % shows which strings hold tension best in the long run. You appear to be making the assumption that I am misinterpreting tension loss %. I'm not.

 

[El_Yotamo]

I did say something about tension loss % having something to do with strings holding tension, because it does. What I did not say is that tension loss % shows which strings hold tension best in the long run. You appear to be making the assumption that I am misinterpreting tension loss %. I'm not.

In case you're not, which is good, then what bearing does this have on your original statement? That some strings don't show consistency in tension maintenance across gauges for the first 15 minutes of play? Doesn't seem very relevant given the errors in short-term measurement and the fact that 15 minutes is a very short amount of time and afterwards everything most likely levels out.

We'll see how these inconsistencies fare when I get back to that side study I suppose. Until then I'm afraid this thread is of no relevance if even you, the OP, have admitted that the data is flawed and has no bearing past the first 15 minutes.

Of course unless you were unclear again about your interpretation/the point of this thread...

 

[Steve Huff]

My opinion: 1) Either different stringers strung the rackets being tested (someone did the 16L, someone else stringing faster did the others). Not very likely since they were knowingly doing a study, or 2) Solinco farmed out the 16L to a different manufacturer who manufactured the string a little differently (my guess)

 

[Slapper]

In case you're not, which is good, then what bearing does this have on your original statement? That some strings don't show consistency in tension maintenance across gauges for the first 15 minutes of play? Doesn't seem very relevant given the errors in short-term measurement and the fact that 15 minutes is a very short amount of time and afterwards everything most likely levels out.

It might not be relevant to you (even though you said that you use the static loss and stabilization loss data), but it is to me. And in any case, everything doesn't appear to level out. Similar differences between gauges also show up in the impact loss data for those Solinco strings.

We'll see how these inconsistencies fare when I get back to that side study I suppose. Until then I'm afraid this thread is of no relevance if even you, the OP, have admitted that the data is flawed and has no bearing past the first 15 minutes.

Of course unless you were unclear again about your interpretation/the point of this thread...

Do you act this way in real life, or only on the internet? If this thread is of no relevance to you, feel free to drop out and get on with your side study.

 

[El_Yotamo]

It might not be relevant to you (even though you said that you use the static loss and stabilization loss data), but it is to me. And in any case, everything doesn't appear to level out. Similar differences between gauges also show up in the impact loss data for those Solinco strings.



Do you act this way in real life, or only on the internet? If this thread is of no relevance to you, feel free to drop out and get on with your side study.

Look dude, no need to get hostile. I dunno if I came off as condescending but I at first thought there was something interesting to this thread but through our discourse you have shown me otherwise despite my attempt to find something of relevance in your content. I apologize if that sounds patronizing but I was genuinely trying to help.

I'll check out the data you mentioned about Solinco strings, and if my budget is high enough maybe I'll test them across different gauges just for you (as that could certainly be an interesting side-side study )

I'll clarify that I have used stabilization and static loss simply for tension adjustments the same way I use stiffness: a stiffer string with less tension loss in those departments will be strung lower etc. I also look at stiffness across reference tensions if that data is available for this same reason. Still has nothing to do with tension maintenance or playability duration, which are gradual things over the long term.

Unfortunately, the side study still has to wait for at least a little while longer but not to worry it will be done at some point and when it is I will keep my word to send you the results in case you are interested of course. Good luck with whatever direction you wanna take this thread. I hope it also has a magnitude, otherwise this thread would become a sad little zero vector and I would've been right about its lack of relevance to actual playability and tension loss of strings

 

[Hmgraphite1]

Look dude, no need to get hostile. I dunno if I came off as condescending but I at first thought there was something interesting to this thread but through our discourse you have shown me otherwise despite my attempt to find something of relevance in your content. I apologize if that sounds patronizing but I was genuinely trying to help.

I'll check out the data you mentioned about Solinco strings, and if my budget is high enough maybe I'll test them across different gauges just for you (as that could certainly be an interesting side-side study )

I'll clarify that I have used stabilization and static loss simply for tension adjustments the same way I use stiffness: a stiffer string with less tension loss in those departments will be strung lower etc. I also look at stiffness across reference tensions if that data is available for this same reason. Still has nothing to do with tension maintenance or playability duration, which are gradual things over the long term.

Unfortunately, the side study still has to wait for at least a little while longer but not to worry it will be done at some point and when it is I will keep my word to send you the results in case you are interested of course. Good luck with whatever direction you wanna take this thread. I hope it also has a magnitude, otherwise this thread would become a sad little zero vector and I would've been right about its lack of relevance to actual playability and tension loss of strings

Good info, so what strings do you use?

 

[El_Yotamo]

Good info, so what strings do you use?

I don't really have a goto setup. I love trying new things so I'm always doing various string playtests etc. I do have a certain mold though, which involves double-copoly hybrids. Sorry that's a bit vague, but it doesn't get any more specific than that. Right now I'm actually enjoying a gut/poly setup in my newly acquired H19 (first time playing gut, got real lucky to have that setup when receiving the frame), but despite how much I love it I would never switch to gut/poly due to the ridiculous price and lack of durability. I mix and match a lot of random combinations in my hybrids, but I usually tend to put a slicker string in the crosses. The mains can be anything from an ALU Power to a Spiky Shark. Just something with brilliant playability that goes nicely with a slick cross and holds tension well (with a prestretch if necessary). I hope that helped

 

[Hmgraphite1]

I don't really have a goto setup. I love trying new things so I'm always doing various string playtests etc. I do have a certain mold though, which involves double-copoly hybrids. Sorry that's a bit vague, but it doesn't get any more specific than that. Right now I'm actually enjoying a gut/poly setup in my newly acquired H19 (first time playing gut, got real lucky to have that setup when receiving the frame), but despite how much I love it I would never switch to gut/poly due to the ridiculous price and lack of durability. I mix and match a lot of random combinations in my hybrids, but I usually tend to put a slicker string in the crosses. The mains can be anything from an ALU Power to a Spiky Shark. Just something with brilliant playability that goes nicely with a slick cross and holds tension well (with a prestretch if necessary). I hope that helped

Yes, thankyou, do you know if there's a pro's pro similar to alu?

 

[El_Yotamo]

Yes, thankyou, do you know if there's a pro's pro similar to alu?

I heard that their strings Nano Vendetta, Cyber Power, and Nano Cyber Power are all supposed to be similar, but I've played none of them so I can't say for sure.

 

[Slapper]

Look dude, no need to get hostile. I dunno if I came off as condescending but I at first thought there was something interesting to this thread but through our discourse you have shown me otherwise despite my attempt to find something of relevance in your content. I apologize if that sounds patronizing but I was genuinely trying to help.

Yes, you do come off as condescending, and dismissive. I'm glad that you are trying to help. But I'd put it to you that there's no need to be a d**khead in the process.

I'll clarify that I have used stabilization and static loss simply for tension adjustments the same way I use stiffness: a stiffer string with less tension loss in those departments will be strung lower etc. I also look at stiffness across reference tensions if that data is available for this same reason. Still has nothing to do with tension maintenance or playability duration, which are gradual things over the long term.

That's interesting. However, I do not subscribe to your definition of tension maintenance. To me, tension maintenance includes not just long-term tension maintenance (recorded as impact loss) but also initial tension maintenance (static loss and stabilization loss). I understand your point about static loss and stabilization loss being useful for making tension adjustments but not so useful for judging long-term tension maintenance. But static loss and stabilization loss data across different reference tensions might also be useful for other purposes e.g. string selection when using a tension differential between mains and crosses.

Good luck with whatever direction you wanna take this thread. I hope it also has a magnitude, otherwise this thread would become a sad little zero vector and I would've been right about its lack of relevance to actual playability and tension loss of strings

This is you being a d**khead again. Is it really necessary?

The purpose of this thread was to get opinions on why different gauges of the same string (especially certain Solinco strings) apparently have very different properties (i.e. differences in tension loss that are not fully explained by differences in thickness). This is relevant to the question of whether or not those data are reliable. scotus, esgee48 and Steve Huff offered plausible explanations, which were helpful. You did not address my original question. Instead, you turned it into a discussion about how to correctly interpret and use tension loss data, based on the assumption that I was misinterpreting tension loss %. If the only thing of relevance to you is impact loss and long term tension maintenance, that's fine. As I pointed out, there are also substantial differences in impact loss between gauges of some strings. If you want to look into that and report back, great.

 

[travlerajm]

Simple explanation for why tension loss doesn't always correlate with string gauge:

When you use a thinner gauge string, there are two effects that offset each other.

1. When you string it up, the thinner string experiences a much higher static tensile stress load (compared to thicker gauge) for a given reference tension. This prestretches the thinner string more, making it more elastic and resistant to tension loss.

2. The impacts of the ball against the stringbed cause higher dynamic tensile stress loads on the stringbed (compared to a thicker gauge), so the thinner string effectively takes more of a beating during play.

Effects 1 and 2 tend to cancel each other out, so that other effects besides string gauge alone matter more in determining the gauge-vs-tension-loss relationship (e.g., to what extent was the string prestretched in the factory? Is the string a mono or multi?).

 

[El_Yotamo]

Yes, you do come off as condescending, and dismissive. I'm glad that you are trying to help. But I'd put it to you that there's no need to be a d**khead in the process.



That's interesting. However, I do not subscribe to your definition of tension maintenance. To me, tension maintenance includes not just long-term tension maintenance (recorded as impact loss) but also initial tension maintenance (static loss and stabilization loss). I understand your point about static loss and stabilization loss being useful for making tension adjustments but not so useful for judging long-term tension maintenance. But static loss and stabilization loss data across different reference tensions might also be useful for other purposes e.g. string selection when using a tension differential between mains and crosses.



This is you being a d**khead again. Is it really necessary?

The purpose of this thread was to get opinions on why different gauges of the same string (especially certain Solinco strings) apparently have very different properties (i.e. differences in tension loss that are not fully explained by differences in thickness). This is relevant to the question of whether or not those data are reliable. scotus, esgee48 and Steve Huff offered plausible explanations, which were helpful. You did not address my original question. Instead, you turned it into a discussion about how to correctly interpret and use tension loss data, based on the assumption that I was misinterpreting tension loss %. If the only thing of relevance to you is impact loss and long term tension maintenance, that's fine. As I pointed out, there are also substantial differences in impact loss between gauges of some strings. If you want to look into that and report back, great.

Look, the inconsistencies in the Solinco strings you saw were only based on new gauges being released and slight tweaks in the chemical makeup to maximize their playability (with respect to gauge and not string). There's also the exact same anomalies in the stiffness data. That is all, and it is not something Solinco has really attempted to hide either, and has actually been rather well-known for at the very least 4 years.

However, as you've noted, part of the point of this thread was to see if the data were reliable, to which I responded that they weren't. You gotta decide dude. Either you agree that tension loss % is irrelevant and misleading or you're misinterpreting the data. You can't have it both ways. I've been over why the above is misleading and misrepresentative of true tension maintenance so I won't do it again. I will say that I didn't make up my own definition of tension maintenance, I simply used the universally accepted one. So you don't have to subscribe to that definition, but then again, who has to subscribe to the universally accepted definition of gravity? It's the same. You either use correct and precise terminology or you are misinterpreting.

I see though that any attempt to help you realize that is only met with denial and hostility so I would ask you not to reply to this unless you have something constructive and not self-negating to say. Otherwise I'm out. Peace

 

[Slapper]

Look, the inconsistencies in the Solinco strings you saw were only based on new gauges being released and slight tweaks in the chemical makeup to maximize their playability (with respect to gauge and not string). There's also the exact same anomalies in the stiffness data. That is all, and it is not something Solinco has really attempted to hide either, and has actually been rather well-known for at the very least 4 years.

Oh, so you had the answer to the original question all along but decided not to tell us until now. Well, thanks, I guess.

Considering it's something that has been "rather well-known" for at least 4 years, it's surprising that nobody in this thread knew, except you.

Anyway, where did you get this information, specifically that it was a deliberate change to the chemical makeup to maximise performance? Did the information come directly from Solinco or is it available online somewhere? If so, please provide a link.

However, as you've noted, part of the point of this thread was to see if the data were reliable, to which I responded that they weren't. You gotta decide dude. Either you agree that tension loss % is irrelevant and misleading or you're misinterpreting the data. You can't have it both ways. I've been over why the above is misleading and misrepresentative of true tension maintenance so I won't do it again.

I'm talking about data reliability, not data interpretation. They are two completely different things. And moreover, I'm not talking about the reliability of tension loss % data in general. I'm talking about the reliability of the data for specific gauges of Solinco strings.

I will say that I didn't make up my own definition of tension maintenance, I simply used the universally accepted one. So you don't have to subscribe to that definition, but then again, who has to subscribe to the universally accepted definition of gravity? It's the same. You either use correct and precise terminology or you are misinterpreting.

I've been very clear. I consider 'tension maintenance' to include initial tension maintenance. If I'm talking specifically about initial or long-term tension maintenance, then I will say initial or long-term tension maintenance.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Oh, so you had the answer to the original question all along but decided not to tell us until now. Well, thanks, I guess.

Considering it's something that has been "rather well-known" for at least 4 years, it's surprising that nobody in this thread knew, except you.

Anyway, where did you get this information, specifically that it was a deliberate change to the chemical makeup to maximise performance? Did the information come directly from Solinco or is it available online somewhere? If so, please provide a link.



I'm talking about data reliability, not data interpretation. They are two completely different things. And moreover, I'm not talking about the reliability of tension loss % data in general. I'm talking about the reliability of the data for specific gauges of Solinco strings.



I've been very clear. I consider 'tension maintenance' to include initial tension maintenance. If I'm talking specifically about initial or long-term tension maintenance, then I will say initial or long-term tension maintenance.

1) I wasn't the first to point out that some gauges of Solinco strings were released after others. Companies make changes upon new releases all the time, especially when introducing a brand new gauge of a beloved string. The mechanical data alone shows this, especially given I've tested Tour Bite 16L both 4 years ago and one year ago and it exhibited the same characteristics. Also there have been threads on the anomalies of Tour Bite gauges and many other players who have played Solinco and with whom I've spoken have realized this. Therfore, no, I'm not the only person to have known about it and I don't need direct confirmation from Solinco considering they refuse to confirm Tour Bite and Hyper-G are pentagonal rather than square as advertised.

2) it doesn't matter what you consider something to be. Many people might consider the earth to be flat, they're still wrong. You can't make up your own definitions for things, tension maintenance is tension maintenance and not whatever you decide it is. If you wanna say initial loss, be my guest but that again shows your narrow-minded approach which fails to look at the bigger picture and would rather defend itself by means of hostile rebuttals. And one last thing: data reliability is reliant on the interpretation, as data interpreted poorly is unreliably presented no matter what and goes on the false pretense of having an answer to the right question when in fact it has the answer to the wrong question. So the data in and of itself is reliable, but the usage of the tension loss % values isn't reliable to achieve accurate results. The stiffness values are completely reliable though.

 

[Slapper]

1) I wasn't the first to point out that some gauges of Solinco strings were released after others.

Right. But you were the first person to make the specific claim that the differences between the gauges of those Solinco string are due to deliberate changes to the chemical makeup that were made to maximise performance.

Companies make changes upon new releases all the time, especially when introducing a brand new gauge of a beloved string. The mechanical data alone shows this, especially given I've tested Tour Bite 16L both 4 years ago and one year ago and it exhibited the same characteristics. Also there have been threads on the anomalies of Tour Bite gauges and many other players who have played Solinco and with whom I've spoken have realized this.

Thanks. That's useful to know. I just don't understand why you decided to not tell us this in your first post.

Therfore, no, I'm not the only person to have known about it

I didn't say that you are the only person who knew that Solinco made the changes deliberately to maximise performance. I said that nobody else in this thread knew.

and I don't need direct confirmation from Solinco considering they refuse to confirm Tour Bite and Hyper-G are pentagonal rather than square as advertised.

OK, so it hasn't been confirmed.

2) it doesn't matter what you consider something to be. Many people might consider the earth to be flat, they're still wrong. You can't make up your own definitions for things, tension maintenance is tension maintenance and not whatever you decide it is.

It's a poor analogy. That the earth is not flat is a fact as demonstrated by science. The definition of 'tension maintenance' is nothing more that exactly that: a definition. And, yes, I can define the term if I want to. It's quite common to do that in technical discussions, to avoid confusion. If you can't accept that, fine. I really don't care.

And one last thing: data reliability is reliant on the interpretation, as data interpreted poorly is unreliably presented no matter what and goes on the false pretense of having an answer to the right question when in fact it has the answer to the wrong question. So the data in and of itself is reliable, but the usage of the tension loss % values isn't reliable to achieve accurate results. The stiffness values are completely reliable though.

Again, I'm not talking about data interpretation. I am not talking about the reliability of the interpretation or reliability of the presentation of the data. I am talking about the reliability of the data itself.

 

[Hmgraphite1]

Please note areas of the earth where there are craters or small to large impressions, the earth is in deed flat here. It is nearly impossible to communicate even when people speak the same language due to the exceptions that exist in statements t h at are all encompassing.
The following statements are both true.
The earth is flat.
The earth is roundish

 

[Slapper]

Please note areas of the earth where there are craters or small to large impressions, the earth is in deed flat here. It is nearly impossible to communicate even when people speak the same language due to the exceptions that exist in statements t h at are all encompassing.
The following statements are both true.
The earth is flat.
The earth is roundish

Communication is usually pretty easy when the parties understand each other. El_Yotamo understands exactly what I mean, because I have explained very clearly that when I say 'tension maintenance' I am not just referring to long-term tension maintenance. We could have a normal discussion based on that mutual understanding. However, he seems more intent on playing semantic games.

 

[El_Yotamo]

I think the more I respond the angrier you get so I'll just stop. Have fun with this thread, I hope it helps you, as I tried to so myself. Please don't respond to this message.

 

[Slapper]

I think the more I respond the angrier you get so I'll just stop. Have fun with this thread, I hope it helps you, as I tried to so myself. Please don't respond to this message.

I am not angry at all. Just dumbfounded at how you: a) could have answered my original question in your first post but instead decided to change the topic; b) repeatedly attack a straw man; and c) are not able to have a normal conversation based on mutual understanding.

I'll respond if/when I please.

 

[Hmgraphite1]

I think you both mean well but interpretations sometimes don't appear to line up even if they're parallel.

 

[Znak]