Badminton Racket with Fishing Line

Recently, there has been some requests for me to re-string badminton rackets. I have no idea how and why this happened. Those who know that I string just started asking.

To them, it seemed like stringing is just stringing. There is no distinction between different sports nor rackets.

So, on a hot and lazy afternoon, out of sheer boredom, and a tinge of curiosity, I ventured out to try stringing my first badminton racket. It's mine, so there's little risk even if damaged. 

After studying the old string pattern carefully, I cut out the three decade's old strings on my Yonex Carbonex 8.

This stringjob was intended for a little girl, so there is no better color to choose other than pink! The centre mains were threaded first since they would be obstructed by the mounting plates.

Most online sources recommended a string tension of between 16 to 20 lbs for this racket. And 20 lbs happened to the minimum tension this stringing machine could accomodate. So 20 lbs it was.

(Even with the minimum calibration at 20 lbs, it is possible to tension it lower by manipulating the angle of the tension arm. If I set the tension at 25 lbs, but only allowed the tension arm to lower to 45 degrees, the actual tension pulled would be only 17.7 lbs)

To prevent the string clamps from snapping the string, I inserted thin pieces of paper to act as a "cushion". This ensures the paper was squashed instead of the thin string. The paper fibres also added a lot more friction and grip. I experienced zero slippage throughout.

It was important to note that badminton rackets are strung bottom-up. Cannot recall the rationale but something alone the lines to prevent distortion I think.

Weaving was difficult. The very dense 22x23 string pattern meant my fingers could not push the strings through the gaps as well as on a tennis racket. I was slow, but got the job done.

The stringjob was far from ideal. But it was an enjoyable learning experience and perfectly playable!




     

Frame Movements while Stringing

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.

Optimal Tensioning?

After a friendly game, a teenager was asking how to fine-tune his string tension after deciding his preferred strings.

He was aware of the adage "String loose for power and tight for control", but did not know how to make adjustments.

My answer was simple:

Generally, the tennis game can be grouped under four categories:
(1) serve,
(2) return of serve,
(3) groundstrokes, and
(4) net play.

The real challenge was that, regardless of string type, each of those categories performed best at slightly different tensions. 

So it's more of WHICH aspect of his game he needed help with. Or, was a particular style of play from any opponent giving him troubles.

Stringing very tight would help with his first serve's accuracy and return of serves for both first and second serves. But he might lose some spin for second serves and groundstrokes. So some angles and placements would be cut off. Touch shots would be challenging, or could even feel dead.

If his strategy was on using heavy spin on both serves for an opponent that he knew could not handle spin, then low tension could do wonders! Even better, if he charge forward after his spin serves to volley and finish the point early. That would avoid any potential high rebound or loss of control issues with his groundstrokes from the baseline. Best used for opponents who struggle returning spinny shots and have a tendency for weak/short returns.

Since he has multiple similar rackets, was not a string breaker, and could well afford to test strings, I even recommended different setups for different sticks! That would cover a wider spectrum of different opponents he may not have played with.

Yes, there would be adjustment issues when changing rackets. But so far, I observed that all who tried my unconventional setups, took mere minutes to acclimatize.

For an average Joe, say ntrp 3.5, that would probably cost him about 1 to 1½ games at most. Never the entire set, unless he was already struggling against a much stronger player.

Plus, the abrupt change ALWAYS seemed to rile up the opponent more! After reading, analysing and understanding your pace, spin, movement, placement, etc, you messed up the variables again!

Just take note this is no replacement for hard work and training. Only an enhancement. An unorthodox one.

Taboo Stringing: Re-do Mains Only (3 & 9 mounting)

Countless have restrung only the crosses of a used stringbed successfully. 

But I have yet to hear about successful restringing of mains only. A previous post (link) explained why it could not be done.

Then I thought, instead of anchoring the main supports at 12 & 6 o'clock of the racket hoop, would it be possible if mounted at 3 & 9 instead?

That would prevent the crosses from compressing and distorting the frame width once the mains are cut, wouldn't it? 

From this perspective, doesn't it seem like the "crosses" were being strung instead?

First 2 pics below was width measurement before the above mains restring. Next 2 pics below was after.

Before:

After:

While the frame width maintained its exact measurement after the mains restring, it is important to note that the width still compressed about 6-7mm from an unstrung state. (The most extreme distortion I witnessed for this frame was a narrowing of about 11-12mm).

Even though the mains did not snap, this warp occurred because tension loss and string creep caused greater elongation in the main strings than the crosses. 

Nevertheless, if this works out, I believe there could be huge implications on how rackets could be restrung, as long as one understands and accepts the risks.


Playtest:
- The first impression was how much tighter the mains felt compared to how it last played.
- The mains dominated the feel of ball impacts. It was nice to feel it pocketing and supporting the ball as the stringbed depresses before rebounding accurately.
- Although this sounds odd, but compared to the more commonly felt feeling of the crosses supporting most of the impact, having the mains do the bulk of the work was way better! I enjoyed this tremendously!
- For this to happen, clearly, the crosses have lost a fair bit of string tension. But still, there was no instance of any odd rebound angle nor trampoline.
- If you try to imagine a freshly strung racket with the main strings about 10-15 lbs tighter than the crosses, that's probably how this felt like to me.
- Control and confidence improved. I felt more at ease just taking full relaxed swings instead of holding back with the previous worn main strings.
- String bite, feel and spin improved significantly over the old mains.
- For second serves, both sidespin and topspin curled the ball down much faster than anticipated, causing many to land short, almost right in the middle of my opponent's service box, before kicking up. So we knew spin increased.
- Sweetspot size felt the same. Likewise, shots hit off-sweetspot did not feel more or less harsh, nor extra low-powered.
- Frame width maintained the same after an hour of play.

Why Not Restring Mains Only?

All the times that I restrung only the mains did not end up well. Either the stringbed developed heavy vibrations, or there was a sense of loss of control.

Now that I am testing fishing line fervently, and that the thin fishing line snaps so frequently, the question that kept popping up was, "Why not restring only the main strings after it snaps?"

The sole reason is racket warp. Once deformed, a lot of other variables are affected, such as, length, width, swingweight, sweetspot size, sweetspot location, pocketing, and feel.

Take a look for yourself...

On the left below was the freshly strung fishing mains with syn gut. On the right, the fishing mains snapped at two locations after about an hour of play. Compare the shape, length and width of the racket hoop. 

In the right picture, the racket hoop has narrowed and lengthened. Since the mains snapped, there was no tension holding together 12 and 6 o'clock anymore. The crosses compressed the hoop at 3 and 9 o'clock together, narrowing the frame.

As soon as I got home, I measured the frame width.

Just like that, the hoop narrowed by 9mm, which was huge!

I tried. No amount of re-tensioning on the mains could restore the frame back to its original shape.

So re-stringing mains only cannot, and should not be done.

Some Failed Attempts with Fishing Line

Up till now, fishing line remains the most challenging string I have worked with. 

Many friends and playing partners dismissed me as crazy until they had a go with my rackets. Then some got hooked as well!!!

If you have not tried it, don't start. Once hooked, it is very difficult to accept any other strings.

Maybe some of my failures below could act as a deterrent?

The initial problem was poor tension holding, which was solved by some ridiculous pre-stretch before stringing. Then the line kept snapping during tensioning or tie-offs.

So I tried using fishing crimps instead of tying knots. Unfortunately, that did not work well. Some crimps slipped, some snapped the string, some did not sit down well after crimping while others slid through the grommet hole.

To overcome the constant snapping, I tried a "divide and conquer" strategy. The 12 centre mains were divided into 3 pieces of 4 mains each, resulting in 6 knots, hopefully, to mitigate the amount of re-work if/when each line snaps.

However, the tension loss during tie-offs was more severe than anticipated, despite adding 15 lbs per tie-off. This, in turn, caused uneven pressures between the mains and crosses.

Above, the left racket (note the six orange knots) width was 25.3cm and the right, 26.3cm. The sweetspot disappeared for the left racket, just like this case (link).

This is why flexible hoops are a little more difficult to string well compared to stiff hoops.

The line was cut out immediately and re-strung. Back to a more conventional two tie-off knots this time.

There's some parallax error in the pic above, but the width read 26.3cm after the restring. It took me just two attempts before succeeding this time. Not too bad.

All in all, about four hours was spent pursuing this. 

Still keen to try fishing line?


20May2014 update:
- The racket in the last picture above was strung with fishing line mains and a shaped-poly cross.
- It was a bad decision as the mains snapped in just 30 minutes of play, severely notched by the sharp poly edge.

Revisiting the "Lendl Pattern"...

Someone emailed me after reading my previous "Lendl Pattern" attempt (link). 

He suggested I string the outside perimeter strings first, then the centre mains and crosses. Previously, I used a soft poly in the centre and syn gut around the perimeter.

The explanation was interesting and sounded convincing. Syn gut, being the softer string is almost always strung at a higher tension than poly. If the lower-tensioned poly was strung before the syn gut, he noticed that his racket frame would compress a little more during the syn gut stringing.

Since the frame was compressed, that led to some "tension loss" of the poly which made it play flat and dead from the first hit.

But how did he know the frame shortened since the racket was mounted?

Well... he claimed he dismounted the racket after completing the poly centre mains and crosses and measured hoop length and width. Complete with a starting clamp dangling at the side!

And he measured again after the softer perimeter strings were done. Shorter it was!

However, when the order was reversed, the dimensions remained constant, he claimed.

While I have several experimental frames to muck around with, I have no intention of finding out how my racket internals look like yet. 

So for me, no dismounting halfway, but I'm game enough to give it a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Also, he added that soft poly strings play much better when strung with lock-out machines as compared to the constant tensioning of electronic and dropweight machines.

Below pic shows the higher-tensioned outer perimeter syn gut being completed first...

Could it be Lendl himself who sent the email? Or his stringer?

Playtest:
- I was pleasantly surprised how comfortable and yet controlled this stringbed played from the first hit!
- The sweetspot was right smack in the middle of the poly strings. It was very easy to find because it was so soft. I cannot recall when have I ever enjoyed this poly so much before.
- Spin seemed average to me, perhaps because I have been using so many extreme spin setups that this did not stand out. As usual, backhand slices were better than forehand topspins.
- Compared to the dead, stiff, boardy and powerless previous attempt (link), this felt like a totally different racket with different strings and different tension. Yet, everything was the same! Only the order of stringing was different!
- Pocketing was nice and harder flat hits were rewarded with accurate and powerful rebounds, with some unintended winners.
- Compared to syn gut, the poly pocketing was still "limited" in how much it gives before the feeling of hitting a wall took over.
- That was the only thing I disliked because the distinct stiff feel of poly was most clearly felt there, when the pocketing reached its limit.

Wilson PSC 6.1 + Syn Gut @ 33 lbs (Varied Cross)

In Singapore, the weather is gradually getting hotter. Even in the early mornings when I play, temperature can reach mid-30s degrees Celcius (about high 90s degrees F).

Heat does strange things to strung racket strings. For unknown reasons, even when I did not get my natural gut wet nor damp, the string suddenly felt "rubbery". Lest you wonder, the rackets are not stored in a car boot but in a cabinet in a cool room.

Perhaps it's because I re-used the natural gut? (link1)(link2)

Anyway, I'm not about to budge from ELT anytime soon. With the open stringing pattern, the last straight-up 30lbs felt a little loose (link). So I'll try something a little higher at 33 lbs plus some proportional stringing in the crosses.

I will change the stringing slightly too. For this one-piece job, I'll leave the last mains on the long side. Then I'll start from the third cross on top to the last. Then fill the last main, second cross and first cross respectively.

The pic below should help you to visualise.

Other than varying tension, the other reason is to test whether tension holding improves by "sacrificing" the last main and top two crosses. From past ball fur pics, I don't hit with these two parts of the racket anyway.

For those who missed my earlier proportional stringing experiments using one-piece stringing, here are some links:

RW5800 + Poly / Syn Gut @ 48 / 65-46-65 (16x14)

RW5800 + Poly / Syn Gut @ 48 / 40-43-40

Wilson PSC 6.1 + Full Poly @ 58 / 48-52-56-52-48 lbs

Wilson PSC 6.1 + Poly/Multi @ 58 / 48-52-56-52-48 lbs

My objectives with this stringing, compared to the last straight-up 30lbs, is to:

- retain the extraordinary comfort and pocketing of ELT

- reduce spin slightly

- increase power slightly

- test if the new pattern can "lock-in" better tension maintenance

Playtest:

- I played this morning (18May), six days after the racket was strung.
- Tension holding is extremely good. For those who subscribe to the frequency measurement of string tensions, tension dropped only about 1.6 lbs in four days (unplayed) compared to immediately off the stringer.

- After about 75min of play today, tension dropped by another measly 0.3 lbs!
- Other than the frequency measurement, the stringbed felt tight throughout the session of play. I did not experience the "break-in" or tension drop normally felt after 20-30 minutes of hard hits.
- A lady playing partner tried the racket too and refused to believe this was strung at ELT of 33lbs! She enjoyed it so much that she is now regretting not heeding my advice to try ELT earlier.
- With the slightly shallower pocketing, spin decreased slightly but still way better than normal tensions.
- Directional "problems" I had with deep pocketing disappeared completely. This setup is "aim where go where", like a laser-guided missile.
- Comfort remains superb with a huge sweetspot.
- Power levels are very good too.
- All four objectives are achieved, with tension holding being the most impressive so far. I have never had a racket hold tension so well before!
- Just for comparison, 33 lbs in this 95 sq in (16x18) plays very close to 30 lbs in my 80 sq in (16x19). (link)
- Will monitor and update again before and after play the second time I use this racket.

20May2013 update:
- Tension after about 90min of play dropped by only 0.2lbs! This is probably as best as it gets! Amazing!
- The "tightness" I felt previously is still there. No dip in tension at all.
- Because of less pocketing, flat serves accuracy improved tremendously. However, I have to consciously aim slightly higher due to the lower rebound angle of the stringbed compared to at 30 lbs.
- Spin serves continue to carry very heavy amounts of spin. In the two sets I played, I used the flat serves only twice. The spin was good enough to be used as a first serve even though there was much less power than a flat. Because of that, I had only two double faults.

- Even my partner was astonished as how "tight" the stringbed felt. For once, he really believed that he could go lower than 33 lbs!

22May2013:
- Hit with this racket for about 90min again.
- Tension loss was a mere 0.1lbs after the game.
- The sweetspot has developed a darker shade due to string/ball friction. Pic below.

13Jun2013 update:
- I played with this strings for approximately another 3 hours since 22May and the tension remained the same. There was no more tension loss.
- Spin serves continue to amaze and comfort remains supreme.
- The acid test for me was whenever I was facing a challenging opponent during gameplay, I would always come back to use this stick. So I know the stringbed works well for me.

06Jul2013 update:
- After more than 12 hours of use, the strings has lost its liveliness.
- Pocketing has become shallower and power levels have dropped too.
- Ball contact feel is not longer crisp but "murky".
- Spin levels have dropped back to on par with conventionally tensioned rackets. 

29Jul2013:
- Just for the fun of it, I played a game with this racket.
- The liveliness is definitely long gone but it is still playable.
- I noticed the string rebound has slowed too. So there is something like a "delayed effect" before the ball departs. But the duration is very very short.
- Out of mischief, I tried to time my "windshield wiping" to be in sync when the pocketing felt deepest. The result was hilarious!!! The ball travelled in a "n" shaped path and became a topspin lob with super heavy spin, kicking over my partner's head while he fumbled!!!

Strings:

Pro Supex Synthetic Gut Titan 1.25mm @ 33lbs 

(varied crosses)

RW5800 + Poly / Syn Gut @ 48 / 40-43-40

My last experiment proved that the different tension in cross strings would not normalise, even with almost 20 lbs difference. (link) 

In fact, my problem was the difference in tension held too well. I had anticipated some movement, so I strung the area with skipped crosses much tighter. But it stayed that way and hits near those areas felt harsh, naturally!

To reduce the variables, I did the mains at 48 lbs again. A full proportional stringing would mean the tightest cross strings be strung around the mid-30s. Psychologically, I cannot accept nor fathom how that would play. So I decided to take one step at a time. A small step...

The top and bottom 5 crosses are pulled at 40 lbs. The middle 8 crosses are pulled at 43 lbs. If there is any merit in proportional stringing, this setup would definitely show some. There is some chatter online about how Davydenko varied tensions in his cross strings. Google it if you are curious.

I marked the position of the cross strings like what I did previously. But with black cross strings, I cannot see the markings!!! I think I'll buy a silver-coloured felt tip marker next time!

Here's another pic where I re-marked the red line with a gold-coloured felt tip marker.

Playtest:
- Dead-on sweetspot hits were controllable, nice and soft
- Slightly off sweetspot hits still felt harsh
- Spin is very good and enhanced directional control
- The black fusion strings really "grabbed" the ball very well and a lot of ball fur was stuck on the strings after only a few minutes of topspin shots
- Since this frame is only about 90-92 sq in, the harsh feeling could be due to the very small sweetspot
- I did not like this setup. In fact, I have not liked any strings combo in this racket so far. So I think it could be due to the racket instead...
- The gold-coloured line on the cross strings remained intact after playing so there should not be any evening out of the varied cross tensions

Strings:

Pro Supex Black Fusion 1.19mm mains @ 48 lbs

Pro Supex Synthetic Gut Titan 1.25mm cross @ 40-43-40 lbs

Robertson Wilson rw5800 + Full Poly using JET Method

Found another old racket and decided to string it up using the full JET Method. (link)

I recall this is a very flexible racket but I don't know the exact RA stiffness rating. Could be in the 40s I believe. Yes, it's that flexible. So much so that I struggle to bounce a stationary ball off the ground. 

With so much flex, I decided to string full poly to see what the JET method can do to the stringbed.

Starting the center mains at reference tension of 48 lbs...

Had to skip mains #7 and do #8 first. With flying clamps, I had to use a starting pin to clamp down the #8 string after pulling tension.

Mains completed.

Weaving the crosses now. (I still don't enjoy weaving full poly...) It does take longer to string a racket using the JET method. Maybe it is due to a lack of familiarity or the need to keep adjusting tension. But I do not know of any commercial stringer willing to do this in Singapore yet.

Completed racket weight with overgrip.

And the final weight touchup using lead tape.

Playtest:
- sweetspot contact felt incredibly soft and yet had harsh vibrations
- directional control is good
- power level is extremely low
- spin generation seems average
- both my playing partner and I dislike the impact vibrations and I stopped using it after ten minutes
- will probably re-do only the cross strings and convert it into something else

Strings:

Pro Supex Black Fusion 1.19mm @ Reference Tension of 48 lbs

Stringing Methods

Many years ago, I was told that a tour player always asked for the "Around-the-World" (ATW) stringing pattern. Being young and impressionable, I thought ATW was cool, so I asked for it everytime I restrung my rackets too.

Much later on, I realised the ATW was mainly used for people who prefer one-piece stringing and where their rackets' main strings end at the throat area. ATW was used to protect the frame by stringing crosses from top-to-bottom! Now I feel so foolish acting that way!

Over the years, I've found out many other types of stringing patterns and tried quite a few of them. Some of those include:
- Around the World (ATW)
- Modified ATW
- Box Method
- One Piece Stringing (ie Bottom up crosses)
- Standard 2-piece
- 50/50 Method
- Proportional Stringing (aka Frequency-based stringing)

Most of the different stringing patterns that I've tried were done by professional commercial stringers. Frankly, I couldn't tell much difference. Neither did my regular tennis buddies then. I slyly asked to try their rackets and passed them mine in return. Then, I asked if they felt any difference from my usual stringing before telling them about the different stringing method used. None could tell any difference.

What I've learnt, is that consistency is paramount, whichever the method. So when I try a new stringer, I usually ask him to string my racket using whichever stringing method he is most familiar and comfortable with.  That almost always guarantees me a good string job from any unfamiliar stringer.

For now, the standard 2-piece is my preferred stringing method. The 2-piece allows me to hybrid strings, vary tension between mains and crosses and skip strings. I also feel the tension holding is more evenly distributed since there isn't any major twist and loops like the ATW or Box method. Most stringers are also very familiar with this method.