Will a slippery cross string benefit the spin/RPM ?

#1
A slippery cross string (ie lubricated or whatever secret process from the brand) can allow the main string to move more smoothly and thus producing more spin ?

If thats correct, it seems to me that we shouldnt be using those rough/edged strings as crosses, as main will have difficulty in moving ?
 
Last edited:
#2
Lets say two combinations
1. Edged+edged
2. Edged+round shaped

Which one is going to produce more spins ?
 
#3
That's a very good question. You would think that if a brand has designed a string to sell as a set for a full bed that it would work well that way. But no edges on the crosses should give the mains more freedom. Maybe there can be a loss of control when choosing the wrong smooth cross poorly? And another question I have is if it's better to have a softer, more elastic poly in the crosses, or will that be a preference thing?
 
#4
A slippery cross string (ie lubricated or whatever secret process from the brand) can allow the main string to move more smoothly and thus producing more spin ?

If thats correct, it seems to me that we shouldnt be using those rough/edged strings as crosses, as main will have difficulty in moving ?
I say yes, both from a theoretical standpoint and from my own experience. Dunlop NT Max Plus is probably my favorite cross string; I have a VCore SV 98 strung with Diadem Solstice Power in the mains and Dunlop NT Max Plus in the crosses and it is probably the most spin-friendly racquet setup I've ever owned. I'm a big fan of shaped/textured poly mains and round/smooth poly crosses. Wilson Revolve is also a good choice, MSV Co-Focus would work too.
 
#5
I strung up Kirsch Max Power Rough a few times and used it in a hybrid. I can tell you that it feels like it'll saw through the grommets as I pull the string through. Playing, it seems like the strings are pretty slick up against another string. So even though it is heavily textured, somehow it is low string-string friction. I did get good access to spin with it, but my arm couldn't handle the stiffness.
 
#6
Lets say two combinations
1. Edged+edged
2. Edged+round shaped

Which one is going to produce more spins ?
1. Edged + edged (or rough) will produce more spin in a “locked” string pattern compared to edged + rounded in a “locked string pattern”

2. Edged + rounded will produce more spin in an “unlocked” string pattern compared to edged + edged (or rough) in an “unlocked” string pattern

My understanding
 
#7
Lets say two combinations
1. Edged+edged
2. Edged+round shaped

Which one is going to produce more spins ?
Option #2 might be more spin friendly than #1, but I'd expect the difference to be tiny. Tough call though, because it might also depend a lot on how readily the string materials slide against each other.

The biggest objection to using a rough or edged string as a cross is that it will probably be more prone to "sawing" into the mains than a smoother alternative as the mains move back and forth across it. But this depends on the cross section of the shaped/edged string. One example: folks here recommend using a smooth poly as a cross in hybrids combining a poly cross with a natural gut main to preserve the natural gut.

Somebody pointed out a while ago that the intersection of two shaped strings could actually create a slightly larger contact point than an intersection of two round/smooth strings. Imagine for example a hexagonal poly string used both as a main and a cross. That would create intersections where a flat face on one string would likely press against a flat face of the other string. That could certainly have an effect on how the strings slide across each other and also change the rate that the strings wear on each other.
 
#8
Option #2 might be more spin friendly than #1, but I'd expect the difference to be tiny. Tough call though, because it might also depend a lot on how readily the string materials slide against each other.

The biggest objection to using a rough or edged string as a cross is that it will probably be more prone to "sawing" into the mains than a smoother alternative as the mains move back and forth across it. But this depends on the cross section of the shaped/edged string. One example: folks here recommend using a smooth poly as a cross in hybrids combining a poly cross with a natural gut main to preserve the natural gut.

Somebody pointed out a while ago that the intersection of two shaped strings could actually create a slightly larger contact point than an intersection of two round/smooth strings. Imagine for example a hexagonal poly string used both as a main and a cross. That would create intersections where a flat face on one string would likely press against a flat face of the other string. That could certainly have an effect on how the strings slide across each other and also change the rate that the strings wear on each other.
Is a larger contact point desirable? Won't there be just as much friction distributed over a larger contact area? I can see how that might help for durability, but not so much for string movement and spin.
 
#9
Is a larger contact point desirable? Won't there be just as much friction distributed over a larger contact area? I can see how that might help for durability, but not so much for string movement and spin.
I think that's the tricky part - how the specific materials interact will determine whether a larger contact area is good or bad. Spreading out the area of contact can sometimes help with allowing two things to slide more readily across each other - I'm thinking alpine skis here - but tires with larger contact patches usually get better traction on dry roads.

I should thumb through my copy of "Technical Tennis" to see whether it was those guys who commented on this dimension of string interaction.
 
#12
I think that's the tricky part - how the specific materials interact will determine whether a larger contact area is good or bad. Spreading out the area of contact can sometimes help with allowing two things to slide more readily across each other - I'm thinking alpine skis here - but tires with larger contact patches usually get better traction on dry roads.
Careful to work the alpine skis into the concept. The flat surface of skis is almost irrelevant in this sense because the edge of the skis is what is key for performance. Generally, the width of the skis is more a response to how soft the snow you're skiing in is (so you don't sink in). Narrow skis used for high performance downhill skiiing are not ideal for anything other than high speed skiiing. The edges (and flex and curve) are still the main performance keys.
 
#13
I use a shaped main and smooth poly cross quite often.

I think the spin improves after about an hour of play when the shaped main notches providing a smooth groove to slide over the smooth poly.
 
#14
IME, with FRESH strings, a shaped main and shaped cross provided the greatest "ADDITION" to spin potential. The less surface area contact between the strings the less friction, the greater the string movement and ball grab, and the greater the snap back.

However, keep in mind that snap back usually only provides about 5% to 15% additional RPMs. As we all keep saying, most of the RPMs are generated by stroke technique. An additional 200 RPMs from snap back really doesn't make a huge difference to the end result if your stroke technique is generating 2000 RPMs alone.

Of course, things change very quickly once the strings start to deform or notch. In which case, I think the shaped Main, round Cross then comes into its own.

So, if I was restringing after every two hours of use, I would stick with a full bed of shaped string. But beyond that, the round Cross is preferable if you are looking for that additional 5% to 15% and perhaps a slightly higher launch angle.
 
#15
I find one huge benefit of round crosses is durability. The shaped Cross really saw the mains.

I have had good experience with Revolve 17 and Polytour Fire 1.20 (playability didn't last though).

Interestingly, if you look at TWU string on string friction, RPM Rough scores very well in terms of low friction.
 
Top