Initially, I bought this to experience how a comfortable frame ought to play and feel (link). After all, Pro Kennex is the epitome of comfortable frames.
Now, I am exceedingly curious how to "optimise" stringing for this very low-powered 18x20 racket, and add some control and spin as well. Power, control, spin and comfort are always squabbling.
I've tried many combinations (some are not posted in this blog):
- low tension (28lbs)(link)
- low tension box method (35lbs)(link)
- normal tension (55lbs)
- proportional stringing (reference tension 60lbs)
- proportional stringing (reference tension 50lbs)
But I could not get the right mix of the above four factors. Not to my satisfaction.
So I listed down some "problems" I had with this racket. When summarised, my dis-satisfactions were primarily:
1. too low-powered due to very flexible hoop/throat,
2. low-mid spin from dense string pattern,
3. possible directional inaccuracies due to flex.
To solve 1 & 2, conventional methods would be to drop tension. However, for this racket, I found that the hoop flexes a lot at low tensions but played stable at high tensions. I need to string tight to "hold" the hoop together. So that option is out.
From previous playtests, I know the sweetspot and my regular contact area on the stringbed is within the centre 8 mains and between crosses 5 to12 from the top. (See pic below)
This got me thinking, what if I "mess around" with the other strings that I use less of?
So, that's how I arrived at this 16x10 proportional stringing pattern.
The length and width before stringing are 34.7cm and 26.4cm (link).
Length and width after stringing are 34.5cm and 26.4cm. Distortion is amazingly low given the very soft and flexy hoop!
Playtest:
- I only managed to rally with this racket for about 15 minutes.
- The stringbed felt extremely comfortable and yet tight. There was a slight loss of control only for shots I believe was contacted in the gap between cross strings.
- I had anticipated this problem as I've tried skipping crosses before. So while stringing the crosses, I pulled and released tension several times to pre-stretch the string so it would hold tension better. I think it helped.
- Spin looks very good from my side but my partner claims it was ordinary. So that's debatable.
- Power was good. Not excessive nor trampoline like. It made volleys and swinging volleys easy, comfortable and accurate.
- Directional control was not bad. Out of about 10 shots I tried to aim down the line and crosscourt, I nailed about 7. Two misses coincided with a weird feel from the stringbed. It could be the ball "penetrating" the wide gap between the crosses. But the miss was not huge, maybe by about 2 feet?
- I tried light spin serves and was still able to place them quite accurately.
- The main takeaway from this session is how to mitigate the problem of the ball "penetrating" the wide gap. If this can be solved, I see a big potential for this setup. I'll let the strings settle-in and try them again next session.
05Aug2013 update:
- I always enjoy the second session of use for newly strung rackets. Somehow, the strings always perform the best on its second use.
- Tension felt as good as it did in the first outing. Tight and controlled would be how to describe it. Yet it was very very comfortable!
- I was early on court so I had about 10 minutes of practice serves. Both flats and spins were very good. Flats could be directed confidently and accurately. Spins were really spinny! Side spins easily curled 3 to 4 feet sideways as it entered the service box. Topspin serves kicked up almost 6 ft near the baseline.
- During warm-up volleys, the stringbed did not give any hint of skipped crosses at all. I thought I was playing with a normally strung racket with all strings filled. Control was surprisingly fully intact!
- I played a set and was leading 5-1 when it started raining and play stopped. Every aspect (serves, overheads, volleys, return-of-serve and groundstrokes) performed almost as well as my ultimate control stick which was strung with kevlar (link).
- My partner finally admitted this played more spinny than usual.
- The mains were tensioned proportionately starting from 50lbs. To equalize pressure in the crosses, increase overall control and also "stretch-out" the elasticity to improve tension holding, some of the cross strings were tensioned close to 80lbs! (Isn't it surprising that the frame distortion is so low?)
- During play, the mains move a lot and with very loud crackling sounds! Ball fur pic below...
- The only downside so far is severe notching. Total play is only about one hour so far... see pic below...
- This setup is very comfortable, controllable, spinny and fun! I like it!
07Aug2013 update:
- It rained overnight but stopped about 2 hours before my game. I wanted to push this stringbed to its limits to test if the earlier notching would break the strings today.
- I usually use pressureless trainer balls in wet conditions because they bounce a little higher. US Opens or Slazengers don't play well when wet.
- Even with the heavy, hard and wet balls, the stringbed felt incredibly comfortable! I cannot think of any more challenging test for stringbed comfort than this!
- For baseline rallies, I had expected the stringbed to lose some control but it didn't. Control was exactly the same as when it was dry.
- The ground was a little too wet to play a game safely so I decided to test control with flat serves. I hit about 30 flat serves at 80% power. 10 each down the T, middle of service box and the sidelines. 22 serves made it where it was aimed. Service is not my forte and I'm very impressed by the accuracy of the stringbed and racket. I have no doubts on this stringbed's control and accuracy anymore.
- Spin was still very good. Perhaps the wet balls fluffed up more than when it's dry, so there's more "grab", but there is substantially more ball fur on the stringbed today. Quite a few balls my partner thought was going out curled in and kicked up. Yes! Those wet heavy balls kicked up!!!
- The "ball penetrating the crosses gap" problem did not re-surface at all. Not even once!
- Notching got deeper. That was expected. But the string did not break however hard I bashed the ball. That was surprising!
- I think this setup can stay. I really like it!
10Aug2013 update:
- Just as I was wondering how much longer can this strings last, it snapped!
- I had used it for less than 5 minutes today.
- All together, this stringbed lasted me only about 3 hours of use.
Interesting, I've read most of your experiments with skipping crosses. What do you think about skipping mains as well, to get something like 10x10 on an 18x20 racquet?
ReplyDeleteWell... I've tried it too...
ReplyDeletehttp://unorthodoxstringing.blogspot.sg/2015/02/custom-drilling-10x19-spin-pattern.html
Thanks, but I meant skipping on both crosses and mains!
DeleteI have played with a 16x15 racket, and I like the spin effect. That racket broke, so now I'm playing with a 18x20 racket . Not the same spin, and I also think less power on off-center shots. After reading about your experiments, I was really inspired, and thought that 10x10 or something like that would be super spinny. I have measured that the gaps in center would be about 18x18mm when skipping, and that is about the same gap as the off center strings on my 15x16. So maybe I will try it, but since I only have one racket I think it would be risky, since I'm playing matches with it.
Wow! 10x10 would be really open. The most open strings I read about was in Mark Woodforde. Something like 12x14 I think. You can google him up.
DeleteEven then, he had to string in the 80+ lbs with thick 1.4+ mm strings. The spin was phenomenal though.
I cannot imagine myself doing that. With the 16x10, there was already loss of some control.
But please keep me posted if you do proceed. I'm curious to know the results!