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.
Most pros like fresh stringbeds that are usually less than a day old.
Amateurs have varied preferences. Some like them straight off the machine, while others like to leave their new stringjobs at least overnight before playing.
But how long would an unused stringbed stay fresh?
I have tested the daily frequency changes of several freshly strung syn guts over a week. Unused, the greatest drop always occur in the first 24 hours.
Depending on the initial tension, string pattern (ie 16x19 or 18x20), gauge, etc, about 6-8% (by frequency) was lost in the first 24 hours.
Then over the next 72 hours, another 3-5% would be lost, but at a much more gradual pace. On average, total loss would add up to about 10-12% before play.
After this "rest", when play commenced, tension loss was very gradual. Each session saw a drop of only about 1-2%.
When a fresh stringbed was allowed to "rest" overnight, the tension loss after the first session of play was reduced by about half. The other half was lost when unused. This total loss amounted to about 8-10% by frequency.
When "rest" was not given, and it was played as soon as possible after it was strung, it lost about 8-12%.
From these, it appears the initial tension of about 10% (+/- 2%) could not be avoided. It's just a matter of letting it drop before or during play, whichever one prefers.
Out of curiousity (or boredom, or madness), I replaced my guitar's "G" string with a length of new syn gut. It's the black string third from the right in the pic below. The original "G" string lays on top.
It was tuned to 196.00 Hz. (link)
Over the next 24 hours, I re-tuned it multiple times back to 196.00 Hz. By the third day, it almost stabilized.
Then I replaced the syn gut with another fresh piece, tuned to 196.00 Hz and left it untouched. After 24 hours, the frequency dropped almost 9%. After 48 hours, about 10%. Then I re-tuned it. The loss over the next few days was insignificant, but it required re-tuning nevertheless.
So?
I think it is acceptable to re-string with full syn gut and leave it for a while before playing. The tension loss is definitely not a straight line down. It will plateau.
And, the syn gut sounded horrible on the guitar!!! On the other hand, natural gut was extremely and addictively melodious!
Recently, I grew tired of stringing for no particular reason. It just happened.
Could it be from doing too many conventional stringjobs lately? Stifled, suppressed and deprived of letting my creative juices flow?
So, I flipped open my infamous black book. Like one with forbidden spells, that's where my to-do list of esoteric stringing patterns were recorded.
I thought the modern "faux" spaghetti pattern (link) was due. It has been postponed long enough. Moreover, I was feeling lazy, so NO WEAVING sounded attractive!
Expecting the stringbed to play looser without weaving, I strung it up 20% tighter than normal. As usual, that meant exceeding the racket's recommended tension range.
Surprisingly, even without weaving any crosses, I only managed to shave about 5 minutes from my normal stringing time! (I wasn't speeding, neither taking my time, sort of just cruising along.)
Playtest:
- Since the strings were not inter-woven, every shot created a buzzing sound from strings vibrations.
- On both sides of the stringbed, flat shots felt exactly the same as a regularly strung racket. Despite unwoven, I was very surprised how tight it felt.
- However, any kind of shots that incorporated even the slightest sidewards swipe, whether for topspin, backspin or sidespin, played vastly different.
- On the side of the stringbed with main strings, topspin shots were impressive! However, attempts at other spins were disastrous as the ball simply skidded off or bounced at unimaginable angles.
- On the side with cross strings, topspin attempts completely failed. The ball skidded off the strings. Sidespin shots, such as inside-outs, were executed beautifully.
- Ocassionally, even when the right kind of spin was hit with the correct side of the strings, there was still an odd reaction from the stringbed. Odd in that sometimes there was massive spin, sometimes the ball dived straight into the net, and sometimes a weird high rebound. We could not pinpoint how or why it happened, neither repeat any deliberately.
- Overall, I think this has been an interesting venture although not very rewarding.
- The greatest pitfall was the unpredictability of this stringbed. Clearly, the original three-planed stringbed with mains tied together in the full spaghetti pattern was superior, better conceived and executed.
- For now, I'll leave the other spaghetti patterns in my black book. This has been invigorating enough for me.
Following this post (link), I recalled my previous attempt to build and test the efficacy of a pressurized ball saver.
(Thanks to M, who sponsored most of the materials earlier)
I had wanted to test it out on several different brands of balls together, but the stores was left with only one. While waiting for stocks to replenish, this completely slipped my mind.
So now, this is picking up steam again...
Objective:
- To test if used tennis balls with a diminished bounce could be restored to regulation play (link).
Methodology:
- Three different brands of pressurized balls were used.
- Two cans were bought per brand. Total 18 balls.
- Within each brand, 2 balls were set aside unused outside its container to let it deflate. The other 4 balls were used for matchplay.
- All balls were marked for easy identification later.
- Bounce height from a 100" drop was measured for all balls when new and used.
Here's how my DIY pressurized PVC tube looks like. If you're planning to build one, there's plenty of instructions available online.
This tube could hold about 15 balls. I filled it with:
- 6 used balls from 3 different brands,
- 6 unused but deflated balls from 3 different brands,
- 2 pressureless balls, 1 used, 1 new.
Then it was connected to an air compressor set to 20psi. The auto-regulated air compressor eliminates the need to check and re-pump air regularly. It also ensures the balls are subjected to a constant air pressure throughout.
The balls were left in there for a week, then taken out to test its bounce before being put under pressure again. This cycle was repeated for four weeks.
Results:
- For both pressureless balls, there was no difference at all in their bounce at any point in time.
- Among the 6 used balls, a slightly higher bounce was observed in 2 balls in the drop test. When played on the tennis court, they still felt a little flat compared to those fresh from the can. There was no change in the other 4 used balls.
- All 6 unused but deflated balls registered a higher bounce than before, although to different degrees. The air pressure held well during play but still, they could not pass off as new.
Please note this was never intended to be an exhaustive nor conclusive test of pressurized ball savers, or tennis balls. It's more to satisfy my personal curiosity.
Among my playing partners, three simply do not like to use dampeners. No matter what racket or strings was used.
They like the raw feedback of the ball impacting the strings. But I don't. When I test their rackets, I put on a dampener so I could better compare their sticks with mine.
Most of the time, we would forget about the dampener as the rackets go back and forth.
After hitting with one for a while, and then removing it, these friends started wondering if something was missing. And it was not the vibrations!
It was the swingweight difference!!!
A small dampener, like the yellow face or red ring (above pic) weighs 2 grams. The Babolat, Dunlop and Wilson dampeners weigh 5 grams each. And the tennis ball dampener, 7 grams.
When placed at the strings above the throat of the racket, every gram adds approximately one swingweight point. At the top of the stringbed, one gram adds about three swingweight points.
How perceptible would a few swingweight points be?
Very!!! The difference in weight of using 1.22mm strings versus 1.30mm strings could be felt by most. And that difference is merely 3 to 5 grams.
Keep in mind, the racket is swung with an axis about 10cm from the butt. When the racket is in motion, the dynamic feel of the weight difference is highly magnified, compared to the tiny extra few grams when it is stationary.
Another important thing to note, is the trend of heavily polarized racket weights. That leaves the middle of the racket light and hollow, and very prone to vibrations.
They ended up adding a few grams of lead tape at the hoop.
