Most tennis players severely notch or break their main strings. That is due to the main strings' movement from topspin shots.
A rare few break their crosses more frequently instead. Then they started wondering was it a defective string, poor string job, poor technique or due to shanking the ball.
But since it always snap near the sweetspot, it cannot be any of the above reasons. After observing the players who snap their crosses more often, I noticed two peculiarities.
First, they do not hit with a lot of topspin. Most of their strokes were driven almost flat forward with little upwards follow through. The very much lower net clearance, usually about a foot or less, confirms their flat shots.
Second, they use a lot more sidespin on both wings. Other than the low net clearance, most of their shots skidded off the ground instead of kicking up like topspin shots would.
An examination of their strings also revealed more cross strings movement than mains. Typically, the crosses are pulled upwards towards 12 o'clock. When I pulled the mains aside near the sweetspot, most of the crosses there were already notched.
You can see it clearly in the pic below. Blue mains black crosses. The crosses are deeply notched.
Notching always happens on the string that moves, not on the ones that stay still. For this group that break crosses and yet want a softer feel than full poly, perhaps they should try gut/poly or syn gut/poly since they move the crosses a lot more.
Basically, use the stiffer or more durable string in the cross. It may add a little more sidespin and control as well.
A playing partner, CK, lamented on how fast his poly setup "dies".
My understanding of poly death could be attributed to two areas - tension loss and no more snapback.
Since both issues were previously addressed satisfactorily (link), I whipped out the "String Glide" and inserted sixteen pieces.
Compared to before the string savers, CK felt the stringbed firmed up. He also heard the strings sliding and snapping back much better.
I hit a few shots with his racket as well. Even with more than 10 hours of play on that set of 1.10mm poly strings, I felt the stringbed tightness was restored good enough for me. I could trust the strings for directional control and swung freely. Spin was very good too. Much better than the 4-hours-old poly stringjob I was using in my racket that session.
In another session, I planted sixteen pieces into another playing partner, M's stringbed.
M was initially skeptical but allowed me to proceed anyway.
After some hits, and swapping back and forth with his other matched racket with exact strings setup, M commented:
- the stringbed felt a little more dampened with less vibrations which he enjoyed, and
- pocketing was deeper and it felt the ball stayed longer on the strings which gave him more time to shape or re-direct the ball at the last minute.
From my side, the result was very clear. M's shot dispersion and control was unmistakable between his three rackets. I could tell immediately when he picked up the one with stringsavers.
After the initial impressions, both CK and M popped the same question:
"Where did you buy the stringsavers?"
The verdict is clear.
Since string savers are so much cheaper than a stringjob, I believe this could be a viable method to extend the playing life of the poly strings.
As always, if you choose to do so, pay extra attention to how your wrist, arm, elbow and shoulder feels. Live to play another day!
18Dec2014 update:
After hearing positive feedback from CK and M, DL adopted the use of stringsavers in his open strings racket (link) as well.
After insertion, DL commented:
- the slight dampening reduced some stringbed vibrations without the need of a dampener,
- it played more comfortable with better pocketing, and
- added more spin and control.
Coincidentally, these stringsavers have all been tested with positive results in full poly (CK), poly/syn gut (M) and full syn gut (DL).
Long before the recent craze with spin frames and spin effect string patterns, very open patterns have already been tried and tested.
A regular playing partner, DL, dropped off an exotic 97 square inches, 14x17 Keencraft Classics tennis racket to be strung, complete with racket tag and even a pack of recommended strings!!!
I suspect this could have been released in the 80s or 90s. The strings have turned very stiff and brittle. Given the very open pattern, and that the owner opted for more control, I strung it with a 1.40mm 15g synthetic gut instead.
Playtest:
- Within the first few hits, it was clear the 15g string was a good decision as it provided a lot of directional control that this 14x17 would otherwise be missing.
- Despite the thick gauge, spin was very easy. The frame weights felt naturally polarized to me. It whips very easy and fast.
- Impacts were smooth and dampened enough that no dampener was needed. Being an old school frame, I suspect it was foam filled. Hence the excellent vibration absorption.
- DL hit a lot of flat serve bombs during our game. Based on an estimate with my rackets, I believe this stick's swingweight could be somewhere around 350.
- But it still felt maneuverable! Clearly, his confidence was heavily boosted by both the easy power and high control, which are usually not found together.
- I am quite impressed by this made in Taiwan racket. If you have one stashed away at home, or see one in the thrift store, I would recommend you pick it up for a spin. It would be fun!
In mint condition. Brand new. Unstrung. The last few of the Yonex woodies released in the 1970s (link).
Fortunately, the dilemma rests with M, my playing partner.
Not me.
His Christmas present, I suppose...
A picture speaks a thousand words.
Since I did not take any pics in my previous post (link), I snapped some while re-stringing my ProKennex Black Ace 98 with synthetic gut recently.
Below measurement was after the mains were done.
To reduce parallax error, some pics were taken from directly above the inside hoop. It spans from 1.0 cm to 26.1 cm, yielding an internal hoop width of 25.1 cm. Note the crosses were unfilled.
Here's how it looked after the crosses were completed. Racket still mounted.
From 1.0 cm to 25.4 cm, it's now 24.4 cm. The hoop narrowed 0.7 cm after the crosses were done.
The unstrung internal hoop width was 24.5 cm for this racket. So it's a 1 mm distortion.
As I mentioned in my previous post (link), my belief is no mounting would completely stop the frame from distorting. It serves more as a guide than "locking down" the hoop.
Choosing an appropriate combination of strings, tension and stringing method should take greater emphasis.
Following my previous attempt to increase spin by increasing ball-to-string friction (link), I thought I should try reducing string-to-string friction as a comparison too.
Roughing up the strings severely reduced durability. In some instances, I did not even get to play before it snapped! So it was not very viable.
Reducing inter-string friction would mean using lubricants like grease, silicone and hand lotions.
Almost equal amounts of each of the three different lubricants were applied directly onto the strings of three different rackets. Then rubbed into the intersections between mains and crosses. Excess amounts were lightly wiped off using tissue paper.
Knowing upfront that the tennis balls would be gunked up with oily residue, old tennis balls were used. They were playtested, then checked for bounce height and weight to ensure equality. 3 balls were set aside to test each lubricant independently.
Unfortunately, it was a total disaster.
Despite wiping off the excess lubes, the balls turned greasy very quickly. Once that happened, the entire stringbed became so slippery. Any attempts to swipe the ball for more spin ended up having the ball skid off the strings instead. There was no grip at all.
The few times that the strings managed to grab the ball did not end up well too. Directional control was lost. The ball zipped off sideways before the stroke was completed.
The hand lotion posed the least problems and the oils were all equally bad. Not only were all the balls ruined in less than 15 minutes, but my hitting partner's stringbed turned oily and lost grip as well. Our overgrips, pockets and shirts were also stained.
Some faint ball marks could also be seen on the dry hard court. Out of safety and consideration for other users, we stepped over the ball marks to ensure they were not slippery. We looped a rag under one shoe and cleaned up as many ball marks as we could find.
After cleaning up, we resumed playing our normal games with normal rackets and balls.
If you do attempt this, please ensure to:
(1) bring lots of rag to clean up the mess,
(2) change new overgrips as my racket almost flew, and
(3) check that the courts are not slippery for the next user.
But seriously, this is not worth trying.
Shortly after this post (link), some whom I regularly string for started re-thinking their setups.
That was totally unnecessary. If they had been accustomed to their unique hybrids, and were playing well, why change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
What I intended, was only to highlight the weaker link, should an unequal gauge be used. Nothing more.
Despite that, unequal gauges CAN play well. I absolutely enjoyed the combination of very thin mains with thick crosses to compensate (link), although the durability was terrible. The impeccable feel, spin and comfort more than made up for the need to restring every few hours.
Conversely, a thick mains with a thin cross, using whatever string, usually played dead to me. No feel, no spin and no control.
There is no magical string prescription. It has always been a process to find the balance between spin, control, comfort, power and durability, which are tradeoffs.
A few keen on purchasing their own stringing machines asked me the importance of 2-points mounts versus 6-points.
As with anything else, it always seem the more the better, right?
However, my experience appears otherwise.
Thinking back, I have had many rackets done by others on high-end 6-points mount stringing machines. Yet frame distortion happened. (link)
When tensioning the mains at 50 lbs on a 16 mains racket, the total stress adds up to 800 lbs (16 x 50). Each end of the racket, at 12 and 6 o'clock respectively, would be subjected to a total of 400 lbs of direct pulling force compressing the hoop together.
In my younger days, I often sat on the hoop of tennis rackets with the handle butt on the floor. None cracked. So I have good faith in my racket's construction.
But looking at the mounting posts of ANY stringing machine, can anyone believe that those posts are capable of supporting 400 lbs each?
When stringing mains, hoops often shorten from 12 to 6 o'clock and widen between 3 and 9. When the crosses were strung, the 3 and 9 often narrows back and lengthens 12 to 6 again. I saw that happen and measured it multiple times.
Moreover, other than the mounts at 12 and 6, the other 4 "mounts" are merely supporting arms not fastened to the hoop. So it functioned more like a "safety guide", to prevent the hoop from changing its shape excessively before the crosses are done.
There have also been reports of over-tightened mountings at 12 and 6 causing lots of racket squeaks during tensioning. A few experienced cracks and believed it was due to the over-tightened mounts not allowing the hoop to flex freely.
That said, I am still satisfied with my 2-points mount. YMMV!
The lure of fresh strings is difficult to resist. If not for its price, everyone would follow the restringing patterns of their favourite players on tour.
When sufficient unfulfilled needs arise, a business opportunity comes by. So budget strings popped up, some at merely ¼ or less the price of original brand names they claim to replicate.
Since I have yet to figure out how to grow money on trees, I jumped on the bandwagon too. Then got off. And on. And off. Multiple times. (No brands nor models will be mentioned here)
There are multitudes who "swear by" the quality of these strings. And probably an equal number who threw out unused reels.
So far, I have succumbed to cheap natural guts, syn guts, polys and kevlar. Out of about nine different strings I tried (many multiple times), I thought a few polys were not bad, playing almost 70-80% similar to the real deal.
Usually, two similar sticks were strung, one with original strings, one dud. They were rotated during play every fifteen minutes. A single new can of balls was used.
At 15 minutes, both were almost indistinguishable. At 30 minutes, significant tension loss started creeping in. At 45 minutes, control and spin departed to string heaven. Budget price for budget durability too?
The kevlar did not feel like kevlar to me. More like garden wire. (link) The syn gut was completely devoid of any feel or feedback. It gave me the impression it was strung with coaxial cable.
Buying and stringing the budget natural gut was like playing russian roulette. One batch was kinked with white fold-lines straight out the package. Could have been the shipping, so after some negotiation, I settled on 50% price for a replacement and some freebies.
Nevertheless, I strung it up at 52 lbs. And it snapped in the bag overnight, right at the kinked spot. The replacement arrived in better shape. However, my gripe was the huge variability in gauge from start to end. I think it ranged between a 15g to 17g. And it was uncoated.
As it is, my tennis game is pathetic enough. Add to that my Mr Bean styled footwork is enough to make anyone collapse in laughter. Unless I'm bent on working towards ntrp 0.0, I would be giving all these budget strings a miss.
Or I could save them for competitors who beat the crap out of me everytime...
Many asked for recommendations how to hybrid and pair strings.
Most commonly:
- What tensions for mains and crosses? Any differentials?
- Which string for mains?
- Which for crosses?
- What gauge?
- Prestretch?
Personally, I do not enjoy hybrids. (I have even tried tri-brids and quad-brids!) No matter what I pair together - kevlar, syn gut, multifilament, natural gut, soft poly, stiff poly, fishing line, steel wire or grass trimmer line, it was extremely difficult to balance them well.
Inevitably, one string would dominate over the other. Usually, the feel and playing characteristics of the mains prevail. Once in a while, the crosses.
I am far from solving this puzzle, but I believe it has something to do with how the strings behave at different tensions.
When pulled to 55 lbs, the amount of total stretch observed in the following strings were:
- natural gut 6~7%
- synthetic gut 9~10%
- multifilament 10~12%
- poly 3~4%
- kevlar 1~2%
The numbers were in a range due to different batches and brands.
These same strings, when pulled an extra 10 lbs, bringing them to 65 lbs, yielded an incremental stretch of:
- natural gut 0.4~0.7%
- synthetic gut 0.8~1.1%
- multifilament 0.5~1.2%
- poly 0.1~0.3%
- kevlar 0%
The conventional wisdom is to string the softer string a couple pounds tighter. Using poly/syn gut at 53/55 lbs for example, would see them stretch about 3.5% and 9.5% respectively when strung.
However, during ball impact, the amount of additional poly stretch available is less than half that of the syn gut. Even though the strings are inter-weaved together, hard impacts bring the poly into deformation territories.
In other words, poly gets stretched beyond its elastic range and loses tension. Over time, the feel of the syn gut increases. (see "Impact Loss" in table below)
And that's only assuming one plays with the racket immediately off the stringing machine.
(from Tennis Warehouse University String Performance Database link)
When allowed to rest from being strung at 51 lbs each, the "Actual Pre-Impact Tension" has already dropped to 30/39 lbs! This differential would only get wider with every ball hit.
Having established this, then how about we string poly higher instead? Would that help to compensate for its larger pre-impact tension loss compared to syn gut?
Probably yes. But only for a while before impact tension loss brings down the tension again. How fast this happens depends on how tightly strung it initially was and how hard one hits the ball.
Another often overlooked factor is string gauge while pairing. Many choose the same gauge for hybrids, typically 17g or about 1.25mm.
Using the same example of poly/syn gut earlier, from my own measurements, the 1.25/1.25 mm combination would thin out to about 1.20/1.13 mm.
Below pic shows a 1.40mm syn gut became 1.25mm strung.
Below shows a 1.25mm syn gut thin to 1.10mm strung.
An easy way to calculate this diameter change would be to use the percentage stretch as a proxy. A 1.25mm string with 10% stretch, usually becomes 1.13mm (0.90 x 1.25) strung.
Simple engineering dictates, the thicker the material, the stronger the support. This could be another factor why the poly mains dominate when paired with syn gut in the same gauge. Well, but many people like it, so it's their choice.
Perhaps after reading this, one could start deducing why Federer is touted to be using 1.30mm gut mains and 1.25mm poly crosses:
0.93 x 1.30 = 1.209 mm
0.96 x 1.25 = 1.200 mm
The same gauge combination of 16G gut and 16L poly for Serena Williams as well? (link) And Sharapova? (link) And Nishikori? (link)
That said, my personal preference is still a full bed of the same string. Primarily for its ease of adjustment and consistency after play. If I were to cut strings out after every hour of play, then it might change.
After all, according to the Luxilon String Analysis at the 2013 US Open (link, refer pg 6-10), more than 70% of the competitors used the SAME STRING in both mains and crosses.
Special thanks to Irvin for highlighting that report. (link)
Even natural gut, widely reputed to hold tension the best, loses about 13% tension. (~7 lbs stabilization loss when strung at 51 lbs, according to Tennis Warehouse University String Performance).
For non-string breakers, it can be difficult to justify cutting out a set of strings after just several hours of play.
Up till now, some of my friends call me fussy and wasteful when I cut out my strings after 8 to 10 hours. (Yet these same chaps always want to "try" my racket almost everytime we play!)
For the sake of going green, is there any easy way to "add" tension back without restringing? How can we "pull" the string and re-tension it after tie-off?
Then I came across this...
So I bought a pack and gave it a try.
The string savers look like tiny doughnuts, measuring just 3.5mm wide and about 1.5mm tall. Kind of resembles this.
The hole in the centre assists with "locking" it in place between the intersection of the mains and crosses.
Since my objective was not to "save" the strings from breakage, nor allow them to glide, that "hole" reduced the amount of string deflection I wanted.
An increase in bend means a longer string. And a longer string means greater stretch, thereby higher tension. So I cut out a few snipplets from my old replacement grip and inserted it alongside the stringsavers.
When I played with it, there was a significant increase in tautness. It felt more dampened, but the added control and power reduction was unmistakable. So much, that I moved my dampener to 12 o'clock to add about 6 swingweight points to beef up the power level.
I swapped the stringsavers and the black snipplets around and found the black pieces worked much better at "increasing" tension. None dropped off after several sessions, even at direct full impact.
When removed, the stringbed dropped back and became its former floppy trampoline again. Poor control with too much power.
For those who may be skeptical, I have measured and found that from 50 to 60 lbs of tension, both syn gut and multi stretches only an extra 1.0-1.5 mm. For poly, it's an extra 1.0 mm.
I believe either the snipplets or string savers can easily add 1.0mm of stretch to the strings. And you would need only about a dozen pieces, thereabouts.
String viagra, if I may...
This oldie was introduced sometime around 1999. According to the Tennis Warehouse review, it "quickly became Wilson's most popular selling Hyper Carbon model". (link)
This 27½" midplus version was touted to be quick, maneuverable, powerful, controlled and stable. Basically an all-rounder racket. It even served and volleyed well.
Only downside was a seemingly inability to generate spin with its 16x20 string pattern. Coupled with the very high stiffness of RA 75, I decided to use proportional stringing to soften the impact, and hopefully "turbo-charge" the spin department.
Playtest:
- The stiffness of this stick is unmistakable! Despite the softer perimeter strings, mis-hits were more uncomfortable than modern rackets.
- It could be due to the ½" longer length, but the 95 sq inch felt much smaller. Maybe more like an 90 sq inch? I was very glad proportional stringing was used to open up the sweetspot. Without which, I doubt I could handle this racket.
- Power was very good. Not excessive, but enough to land most of my shots somewhere between my opponent's service and baseline. And this power could be reigned in with shorter swings or cranked up on demand as well.
- Even with a full bed of syn gut, I found spin extremely impressive! The amount obtained easily ranks amongst the very bests I have tried. Just take a look at the amount of ball fur ripped off by the strings in half an hour.
- String movement was acceptable to me. I was not bothered by it. Rather, I found straightening them out between points comforting. You can gauge the amount of string movement in pic below.
- The extra length helped my serve. I felt I could hit the ball higher before it dropped. Placements, even near the outer side service lines felt easier. The stiff flex aided with aiming too.
- Volleys were very good. I felt confident with it. It was a matter of getting the ball on the strings and letting it do it's work.
After playing with balsa wood (link) under the overgrip for a while, a friend was lamenting the bevels felt too sharp and too hard.
He wanted something a little softer, but yet still gave him a clear feel of the bevels. Leather added too much weight, so I decided to try using cardboard instead.
The bare pallet measured 4⅛".
A single layer of cardboard added ⅛" to become 4¼".
An overgrip added another ⅛" and brought it up to his desired 4⅜".
For the butt, I used a piece of foam to provide a softer feel.
It's a very simple DIY job. Good for those who like the feel of bevels and wanted to keep the weight down.
A regular tennis partner, M, has very sensitive hands. When I have problems discerning minute differences between same model rackets, I get M to try them blind.
Within a few hits, sometimes merely "air-swings", he could tell me the difference.
But looking at how much M's pair of Yonex RD-7s bother him, I am not sure if I could call his sensitive touch a blessing.
Near the bottom left of both pics were scribbled the racket's balance. One at 32.0cm and the other 32.5cm.
Even with the same strings and same tension, this balance (0.5cm) and total weight difference (a whopping 2 grams!!!) affected M so much!
During play, I could see his swing timing difference between both rackets! His ball trajectory, drive, spin and accuracy were distinct for each. Judging from the shots that came over, I could clearly tell which stick he was using!
I am grateful I can handle some "manufacturing tolerances". Even when they were out by about 10 grams, or balance off by about 1cm, I am fine. I would feel a little uneasy switching rackets, but a couple of minutes settles me down.
It is common for many to have multiple similar rackets. If you play competitively, make sure to try them side-by-side. Play a set each with the same partner. Or rotate rackets every two games and video yourself if possible.
When swapping rackets mid-game, between me adapting to a slightly different stick (like different strings, tension or swingweight), and my opponent adjusting to different kind of shots going towards them, I usually adapt faster. (link)
Lest you wonder, M's full name is not Maradona. (link)
Despite having been around for about three decades now, many still seem to have misconceptions about poly strings.
From its infant days, poly has come a very long way. Broadly speaking, we are now in the fourth generation of poly strings.
Without referring to specific brands or models, the first generation poly string was simply slick, stiff and dead. Nothing else.
Elasticity was so low that every ball impact took some tension off through string deformation. String life was so pathetic that it was probably better monitored by the number of shots one hit, rather than by time used.
While the spin was hugely rewarding, the stiffness must have affected quite a few players. As a result, a second generation of poly was born.
Additives were added to soften the string and the term co-poly surfaced. When strung within a specific tension range, from about the mid-40s to low-50s lbs, a higher level of comfort was achieved through greater elasticity.
Within this range, tension holding also improved. However, when strung below or above, it still played as boardy and stiff as the first generation.
I believe it was from this generation of poly that caused many misconceptions about poly's useful tension range, up till today.
The third generation poly was heavily marketed with more "bite". That was when shaped co-polys came aboard. Five-sided pentagonals, hexagonals, spirals, twisted and fused, and many with rough edges became wildly popular. Comfort improved further.
The most popular fourth generation poly string now is Luxilon 4G. Aptly named, as "4G" simply refers to fourth generation. Tension holding and comfort were touted to be "uncommon for a poly".
Somewhere around the third or fourth iteration, the useful tension range widened tremendously. Many reported great results from as low as 20+ lbs (link), to as high as 90 lbs! Yes, with full poly!
Personally, I have tested quite a few between 30 to 70 lbs. Surprisingly, at either 30, or 70 lbs in the same racket, it played almost equally boardy! But the one with lower tension loosened up much more rapidly, whereas the tighter strung took about an hour to "break-in" before playing well.
I could not find much difference in the amount of spin between the four generations. Variances were only on comfort and tension holding.
Whichever generation of poly it is, keep in mind it was introduced solely to generate tons of spin. To achieve that, it has to be made very slick and very stiff to snap back effectively. Slick and soft would not work as well for spin.
As a result, poly demands a strong loading to play well. And that could mean very long loopy full swings, or rackets with high swingweights and open string patterns.
Tennis balls that are a little heavier, have high bounce and are "hard like rocks" for natural gut or synthetic gut could also possibly help with the string loading required. Just be wary of your own shoulder, elbow, arm or wrist tolerances.
On the left was a pressureless Wilson Trainer ball. On the right was a pressurized Wilson US Open ball.
The overall thickness of both rubber cores were similar. When new, their weights and bounce were similar too.
What differed was that while the trainer ball had a single rubber core, the US Open had dual layers of rubber, one dark brown and one white.
Just sharing, if you are curious...
I cannot think of a proper name for this stringing pattern. Instead of alternating the mains and crosses, the crosses were woven in "pairs".
Whatever we call it, this pattern does not conform to the ITF tennis rules for a proper stringbed. (link)
All I wanted to know, was how this would play, especially in terms of spin!
Playtest:
- I had expected this to play close to the faux spaghetti pattern (link), however, it did not.
- Compared to the unwoven spaghetti, this had much more control, but still, it was just a little short of a normally interlaced stringbed.
- Because of the double weave, the cross strings could not be straightened. They bunched up together in pairs as seen in the last pic above. This slightly wider cross gaps looked like a modern spin effect racket.
- Spin was impressive. Effortlessly impressive. Normal strokes were enough to generate extra spin. Steep upward strokes made things very difficult for my partner as my shots resembled mini-lobs.
- Rebound was higher than normal. Despite aiming straight at the net tape, the ball clearance was about 3-4 feet above the net. The extra spin brought it down rapidly before the baseline so I could swing freely.
- Spin serves were wicked. The high clearance made it look like it was going long, but the spin curled it in very fast, then kicked off hard.
- Problem was returning very hard flat serves or groundstrokes as the stringbed depressed more than usual and rebounded unpredictably.
- Another would be potential short string life as there was severe notching on the sliding mains even after only an hour of play.
- Nevertheless, I think this could be a good serve and volley setup.
