Discussion in 'Strings' started by puck1230, Jan 8, 2012.
^^I already have. Go back, read, and please try and comprehend what you are reading.
you mean this?
That's a really an argument, you are taking the variables to the extreme by saying that lowering the tension enough would make the entire string bed sweet spot. We are not talking about extreme ranges, but tension in normal ranges. like 50-60, you know, range that most people actually string at.
Lowering the tension will give you bigger sweetspot by allowing more elasticity of the stringbed when moving away from the center, but it will also take away the control like I've explained in my trampoline example, by creating less predictable angles. Trampoline is the best example I can think of that people can relate to. You are really missing the point arguing that it has spring on the edges.
Another way to visualize it, is to imagine the power of the string bed like a mountain. At higher tension, the mountain is a steep and narrow one. At lower tension, the mountain is a wide and shallow one.
If you watch Federer's slow mo vids, he's constantly missing the middle of the racket, but his balls still drop in. That's partially the result when you string at low tension.
Before Federer fan blast me for mentioning his imperfection, here's a vid:
Moving from the oustide of the string bed to the center, if you lower tension, then you are rendering the outside of the center useless, which would result in a smaller sweetspot, not larger. Of course, this all depends on tension, racquet headsize, pattern, string, etc.
remember, there is a point of diminishing returns.
Using your "trampoline" example, think of it this way:
A perectly set up trampoline will provide a lot of energy in the center, but that energy transfer is lower as it gets to the outer edge. Lower it enough, and the outside becomes useless, as does the center.
way too many variables to simply state that lowering tension makes for a larger sweetspot. Simply not true.
Which sweetspot are you referring to exactly? Also, I know you referenced the USRSA with respect to tension and its influence over the size of the sweetspot, but is your rationale supported by other data...possibly data/research that provides detail as opposed to the brief statement in the USRSA?
I'm of the opinion that the influence of tension with regard to the size of any of the three sweetspots is negligible. That in order to alter the size significantly over that which is established by the head size and shape you have to sacrifice a great deal of playability, hence my conclusion that from a practical standpoint tension is a non-issue with respect to sweetspot size.
If anyone can find meaningful detailed data to the contrary I'd love to read it. I've yet to find any.
I don't understand, why would lowering the tension make outside of the center strike zone useless? I find low 50s quite playable in lower powered rackets.
I think this rule only apply within the normal 50-60 range, or even 45-65 range in most string setups. Outside that range, there are some weird things going on such as the super low tension poly, or super high tension gut setup.
But I will admit that there's certainly a lot of variables involve here to say lowering the tension would increase the sweet spot for sure, just I believe in normal circumstances, that's true.
And I don't think there is any shortage of racquet mfr advertisements promising exactly that, an entire string bed of sweetspot.
Can you name me one 95 sq in racquet being made today with a tension range up to 70 lbs?
Here is a real world example. Player is a 3.0-3.5 female with college aged kids. Racquet is a Head LM 8. Please note two things. First is that a 10% reduction in tension does not produce the same "string bed stiffness". The readings are significantly lower. Second thing to note is that while the tension loss is typically around 18% regardless of whether she is using a multi or Luxilon, the tension loss is more rapid (takes fewer days) with the multis.
I don't think that was his point. I believe he said if someone strung their racquet at 70lbs...
As you know, people go above and below the mfr's recommendation all the time. I string for a guy who loves his Wilson H5s at 72lbs, and there's no talking him down either. Course, I oblige him after he signs my little waiver about exceeding the racquet's recommended tension range. ;-)
Copey. Sweetspot, shmeetspot. If you want to get technical and pick nits the sweetspot is a point, not an area. And yes, I know there are 3 of them. Whoopitydo. I regret using the term sweetspot. Do you mean to tell me that you don't think that lowering the tension of a string bed makes it more forgiving on off center hits? Because THAT'S the point. Regardless of what you call it.
Nice dig rufusbgood! I remember seeing charts like that a few years ago comparing poly, multis, and other strings in similar charts. One of the reasons that makes me so stubborn in this matter! Very nice sir!
Okay. I give up. What was his point? You tell me.
Hehe I didn't make up the term. There are several scientific studies that refer to the three "areas" as sweetspots and even how to measure them.
As for your analogy about making impact more forgiving on off-center hits, no, that doesn't mean that the sweetspot is larger. It means that the entire area of the string bed is less stiff, hence it's logical that any point impacted by the ball would be more forgiving, particularly the center.
never claimed there was. What I said was that a player stringing his frame at 70, which was simply used as an example. To add, many people do not go by the manufacturers suggested tension range......... many go much lower.
as they should be. However, they will feel, relatively speaking, the same, which is what I said.
BS. No way a multi will lose tension more rapidly than a poly, and that comes from "Real world examples/testing".
The other thing to note in your sheet is that there is no note as to how many on court hours she played with any of the strings sampled, which string is still playing lively, etc, etc.
Lastly, poly strings lose elasticity until they simply can't lose anymore much quicker than multis, which would explain a stoppage in tension loss, however, would also be a sign of a "dead string" that no longer has the ability to transfer back energy.
"...what if someone typically string a 95 sq in frame (16X19), at 70 lbs? ..."
Where do you see the word "manufacturer" in that statement? He's referring to an individual stringing his/her racquet at that tension. No where does he reference a mfrs recommendation.
What if you prestretch the poly? Polys are known to have very high initial tension loss. After that, it's known to be more stable than multis in holding tension.
I don't know about you guys, but after one session of multis, I would already want to cut it out as it's moving around like crazy and play totally different than when it's fresh. Multis have always been a fast degrading experience for me. Not to mention they break like noodles usually
Pulling poly at a high tension disrupts the molecular bonds between the polymer strands. Yes, it will increase the life of an already dead string. Zombie Poly.
The few mm of sweetspot increase/decrease gained by tension differential is negated by the frame itself elongating or shortening to compensate, which is why I've never been convinced by the old wive's tales of 'lower cross tension=wider sweetspot' and I'm still not convinced that proportional stringing does what it claims.
There is a reason behind mfg recommended tension.
2Hare, word to the wise, let it go. You lose credibility with every attack you make on drakulie.
I've seen some fantastic posts here and chuckled at some. I'll look forward to tomorrow's daily email update of this thread. I'll have my popcorn ready...
I hope that comment is just hypothetical for the sake of argument, and that you wouldn't actually suggest pre-stretching polys. That would kill the poly before you ever hit the first ball. Who cares if it holds tension better after that?
Wow..you don't really know anything about poly strings.
This is the type of issue we deal with here on a regular basis regarding poly string. From what I read Drak is dead on with his statements. The misconception is with the misunderstanding of the CoR (coef of restitution) in string.
As many have stated here poly string has a low level of elasticity but it's even worse in it's ability to recover (restitution). Once you have broken the elastic limit the poly will no longer recover, returns no energy back to the ball and increases vibration back to the frame. This is often confused as tension stability when the string is actually dead.
Stringing lower will increase the life of poly string by as much as 45% from our tests but this is only increasing life span from 20 to 30hrs of play from the best polys we have tested over the years, and no poly has lasted over a 2 mo period when left in the rack and never played with. Your results may vary :wink:
I love me a good 'ole cat fight about tennis strings.
So a question for tennezsport and drak....
First, thanks for sharing your knowledge. Much appreciated.
I string my own sticks on a Neos 1000. After reading some of Irvin's posts, I've been experimenting with double pulling each time I tension a string to more closely replicate the results of a constant pull versus my lockout. By doing this with my poly crosses, am I doing something similar to a prestretch in that I'm "spending" some of the poly's elasticity with the double pull and ending up with a degraded result?
LOL wasn't really much of a fight, Mikeler. Mostly misguided conjecture and people with poor reading comprehension. ;-)
I know, that is why I only skimmed it.
What Irvin stated is one way of getting closer results to the ref tension in a LO machine that a CP machine would do automatically. It's not really prestretching but you are pulling the string tighter on the second pull. Whether it's a degraded result is really your decision, but tighter poly strings have a shorter life in general. If the string setup is delivering what you need for your game then it's all good; it's all about consistency. Drak, what do you think?
I was wondering why this thread kept going.
TennezSport....see, you said something there that makes a lot of sense. Basically, "is it working for you?"
Based on input on either this or a different thread (can't keep some of em straight) that says poly is best strung at 48 lbs or below, I'm going to experiment with my next string job using the strings in my signature but at 52/48 instead of 58/54. Honestly, I'm nervous about stringing gut that low because what I have now IS working for me. But would this new setup work for me even better?
Only one way to find out.
Re the question you answered, perhaps I'll double pull the gut mains and single pull the poly crosses.
I tried gut in a full bed and I loved the feel but I kept hitting groundies 2' long. Felt like I couldn't hit out on my topspin backhands, and didn't get quite the spin potential or control that I get with a gut/poly hybrid.
And that was stringing the gut at 60 lbs.
I'm hoping the increased responsiveness of the poly at 48 offsets dropping the gut to 52. And if it doesn't, then hey, some rules are meant to be broken.
Uh, Copey. I'm not really sure where you got the notion that it's other people in this thread who have a problem with reading comprehension, but I would sincerely love it if you could point out a single post of mine in this thread where I make an analogy.
Here are a few words from John Gugel who probably deserves more respect from the stringing community than all of you put together. His words: "There is no scientific data to support the fear that pre-stretching will damage polyester based string as long as the elastic limit of the string is not exceeded." Full article can be found by following the link.
It also depends on how much pre-stretch we're talking about.
When you pre-stretch gut to remove the coil memory, you are only pulling about 30 or so lbs of tension for a few seconds.
I know John. He has strung and customized my racquets before. Do not twist his words. He says as long as the elastic limit of the string is not exceeded. That is very key. This applies more to using a constant pull machine.
Have you ever prestretched a string before? I would imagine so. Did you use the prestretch function on your machine for poly? If so what tension did you set?
Or did you do what most people do and hand pull the string when you prestretched? What tension did you select there to maintain the polys elasticity? Oh..you cant really do that can you?
lowering it enough makes it useless because it has no rebound effect anymore.
i think you're arguing with physics or something like that. trampoline provides more energy transfer in the center and less as it reaches the outer edge, yes thats true, but if you loosen the tension, energy transfer is greater at the center than it was before and you can reach closer to the edge without loosing the rebound effect....therefore larger sweet spot. if you loosen the tension too much to a certain point then no energy is there, therefore useless.
anyways back on topic, i would like know if syn gut in the main and poly in the cross is any good? what have you experience with this?
Hehe I think you know full well where I got it from, otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my post. The fact that you did, however, speaks volumes. Still, admittedly a poor choice of words on my part.
It looks like CHOcobo is making an attempt to put this thread back on track, which is probably for the best.
I'm confused, can you point out where exactly did rufus twist John's words? He simply post a link to John's blog, which recommend people pre stretching their poly.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you pre stretch the string with over the top tension. I certainly didn't when I suggested that. I don't know why people just jump the gun and say pre stretching poly would damage the polys for sure. I was only thinking of pre stretching the polys lightly the good old way, by hand, if it's not factory pre stretch already. I hardly doubt that's a bad idea for poly.
If you want to machine stretch the polys on the other hand, I think that requires some experiments on the poly you are trying to stretch to determine the optimal stretching tension. I would expect different polys to require different approach.
I know John too and don't twist MY words. You jumped on 2Hare for daring to suggest pre-stretching poly. Nowhere in 2Hare's post did he say anything about machine pre-stretch. Yet according to you, he's the ignorant one. Well, good luck with that.
I don't use the pre-stretch feature on my machine. Don't believe in it.
I've never pre-stretched a poly and don't have any plans to.
I will be certain to pass on your wisdom to the customer. What brand of ping-pong paddle would you suggest for her?
Rufus relax. You are the guy who got all mad because cindy woudnt send you her racquets. I dont blame her..lol.
You and your boy 2hare can prestretch your polys. Enjoy it...it sounds like a great idea. Last time i checked drak just did a futures tournament while you were offering to string sticks on the web for free..lol.
Im just going to ignore you on here since i dont need to continue this derail..if yu know john you live near me..so hit me up if you are this upset and angry and we can talk about it face to face instead of on the web.
If I know John I live near you. Hmmmm. Now I'm beginning to understand the depths of your reasoning. What are you, twelve?
did you even read my post when I suggested pre stretching poly? It was ONLY to give polys fair ground to compete with the tension loss of multis. By making the polys a more stable tension to begin with, after the initial tension loss, polys would keep the tension better than multis. I didn't make up these data, it's what I've read years ago from either raquetsportindustry or some other more credible websites.
And like I said before, for me, polys last longer than multis. Do any of you guys even play with multis?
And No I'm not going to pre stretch my poly either, I only brought it up as an example to minimize initial tension loss.
Why some of you choose to get all testy and personal about this stuff is beyond me. It's ridiculous.
It's mind numbing, isn't it? :lol:
The cat fur is flying...
what about syn gut in the main and poly in the cross? is that any good? does that have similar characteristics as gut/poly combo?
Might want to start another thread, CHOcobo. I will say that I hit with Bab syn gut/proline 2 combo in a Prince Ozone 7. First off, I don't care for that particular racquet (one of my student's), but that particular combo was horrific. It's much better with Proline in the mains IMO.
I've yet to ever hit with a synthetic gut that wasn't horrible.
You're talking as a full bed or syn gut/poly hybrid? I didn't much care for Alpha 2000 (full bed) - at all!
I know a guy who will do that with his practice raquets but not for matches. He breaks strings every time out so I think it's an economical decision for him. But there is no syn gut that will have the feel or same performance as nat gut so no it's not really that similar.
thx. guess i should just try it. i think it will break much sooner than average.
It sucks that if I were to start a thread about gut mains and poly crosses that I would get a bunch of people jumping on me to use the search function. But when I do I get this thread and all of it's derailed glory. I wonder if tomorrow 2hare is going to pull out that 1 year old stick?
Separate names with a comma.