Adding one extra cross string

[singnflip4life]

I'm gonna order spare grommets so I can try this, just to try. No point in rejecting without actually trying it out, no matter how much the math says it should be insignificant.

[kakinami]

The weaving pattern for any two adjacent strings must always be opposite from each other. In other words, when the grommet #9 cross is on top of main string A location, then the grommet #11 cross should be below the same Main A string location.
Another two items or things you may want to get rid off for better playability are:
1. The 4 pairs of grommets at the T-joint. I don't know why Yonex keeps using them. Do it like Li Ning with their N series racquets. Take off those paired grommets at the T-joint and either replace them with single ones or cut and trim the paired grommets to narrower single grommets.
Also use a sharp diagonal plier to cut off the lengths of the grommets that are too long near the T-joint. Reducing the grommet lengths at this vulnerable T-joint area will also improve speed. Long grommets at the T-joint were initially put in to reduce string and frame vibrations.
2. Get rid of any bulging grommets, especially those that come in pairs, on both sides of the frame at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Replace them with single and small grommets that are flush with the frame. This will make the racquet more aerodynamic and faster.

Try the above and let me know.

If all your theories are true, don't you think ALL the top players in the world would be using your methods? With the Z Slash and all its studies and measurements, wouldn't Yonex Japan have taken into account wind drag, reducing main strings, taking out u shaped grommets at throat, etc? if they did that how many more Km's could have they gotten, 421.5Km?

[druss]

two points

1. your 7.8% is an appreciable difference between strings only but on a total surface area basis including racket frame, shaft, your fist, your arm, the overall net reduction in air resistance is much less than 7.8%. If i wax my racket arm, i can make up for the added air resistance of using regular string

2. bless that panda, his leisure time in the zoo allow him to measure diameter for various badminton strings. In reality, bg66 isn't 0.66mm check it out here
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...6&postcount=67 So again, the real reduction of air resistance of using 'thinner' string isn't that much.


So, taneepak's theories of damaging heat from using an awl, and reduction of racket speed due to 1 extra cross string only impresses the gullibles

If you look over my calculations again... or try it yourself, you'll see that I included the strings and the racket head but ignored the shaft downwards. So yes it is conservative but not by much. You'd have to get into triple integral calculus in order to calculate it correctly which is just not worth it for this simple exercise.

As for the taneepak's statement about the grommets... that's even more ludicrous than the string comment.

[Blitzzards]

As for the taneepak's statement about the grommets... that's even more ludicrous than the string comment.

What taneepak stated about the grommets (or the points against the U-shaped grommets at the throat) actually made me rethink about my racquets. Now I understand why my first gen Ti-10 generates so much vibrations during smashes and power shots which makes it hard to control compared to my other newer racquets. On the other hand I also noticed hardly ANY increase in swing speed with the racquet compared to the others, especially my other MP100 which of the same weight specification and similar design.

I would gladly refit my Ti-10s with the U-shaped grommets in favour of more stability rather than to hope to gain something from the negligible decrease of (if any at all) aerodynamic surface area contributed by the grommets.

[taneepak]

If you look at the T-joint face of some Yonex racquets with the 4 U-shaped or paired grommets, the surface area of the T-joint around the U-shaped grommets looks rather large. I have as a matter of fact cut the 4 U-shaped grommets of my AT700 and trimmed them into 8 single grommets. I can feel it is now faster and less ponderous.

[taneepak]

The Chinese knew as early as in the 1960s about omitting one cross string at the throat end for more power. There is in fact on record about this if I recall correctly.
There is a 10 VCD pack on badminton by Xiao Jie produced in 1997. Xiao Jie recently appeared with Zhao Jianhua in a 3-dvd training program which many of you may have either bought or pirated.
In the 10 VCD series there was one section devoted to stringing, which clearly says that omitting the cross string at the throat end gives more power. Some of you may have the 10 VCDs. I know uncle Loh of Singapore has a set because he bought them from me. Maybe Loh may be kind enough to look into this.

[Blitzzards]

If you look at the T-joint face of some Yonex racquets with the 4 U-shaped or paired grommets, the surface area of the T-joint around the U-shaped grommets looks rather large. I have as a matter of fact cut the 4 U-shaped grommets of my AT700 and trimmed them into 8 single grommets. I can feel it is now faster and less ponderous.

Taneepak, I understand your point and respect your theoretical ideas. But personally and humbly speaking, I can hit hard and swing my racquets fast enough to generate sufficient and sometimes unnecessarily over power (which leads me to making quite a lot of unforced errors) to not want to bother too much in attempting the reduction of as much aerodynamic area on my racquets.

But about the point you made about omitting the cross string at B10 will make the racquet easier to generate power with compared to a racquet using the usual Yonex string pattern at the same tension, perhaps it is because the omission of that string reduces the overall stiffness of the string bed even at the same tension? In terms of physics, the shorter string when pulled to the same tension compared to a longer string will be easier to flex and "bend" because the longer string has more resilience. Those who play guitar will also understand this fact, where it is definitely well known that a shorter scale guitar's strings are easier to bend and flex compared to that of a longer scaled guitar, at the same tuning (string tension).

[silentheart]

Taneepak, I understand your point and respect your theoretical ideas. But personally and humbly speaking, I can hit hard and swing my racquets fast enough to generate sufficient and sometimes unnecessarily over power (which leads me to making quite a lot of unforced errors) to not want to bother too much in attempting the reduction of as much aerodynamic area on my racquets.

But about the point you made about omitting the cross string at B10 will make the racquet easier to generate power with compared to a racquet using the usual Yonex string pattern at the same tension, perhaps it is because the omission of that string reduces the overall stiffness of the string bed even at the same tension? In terms of physics, the shorter string when pulled to the same tension compared to a longer string will be easier to flex and "bend" because the longer string has more resilience. Those who play guitar will also understand this fact, where it is definitely well known that a shorter scale guitar's strings are easier to bend and flex compared to that of a longer scaled guitar, at the same tuning (string tension).

I second your post. As I sad before, some one need to take a high school physics...

[cooler]

maybe taneepak, knowingly or not, want to showoff his tighter upper stringbed string job to his customers. U see, if u drop out 1 or 2 bottom cross, relatively feel test will conclude that the upper string bed will feel tighter lol.

[cooler]

The Chinese knew as early as in the 1960s about omitting one cross string at the throat end for more power. There is in fact on record about this if I recall correctly.
There is a 10 VCD pack on badminton by Xiao Jie produced in 1997. Xiao Jie recently appeared with Zhao Jianhua in a 3-dvd training program which many of you may have either bought or pirated.
In the 10 VCD series there was one section devoted to stringing, which clearly says that omitting the cross string at the throat end gives more power. Some of you may have the 10 VCDs. I know uncle Loh of Singapore has a set because he bought them from me. Maybe Loh may be kind enough to look into this.

one question for u, which current chinese player racket on chinese #1 team has this special chinese secret stringing technique??? r u saying they left out this obvious advantage by accident? is old master tang fu that forgetful now? lol

[taneepak]

Gentlemen, do you see a trend moving from the standard 22 cross strings to 21 cross strings, especially for racquets that are for doubles and racquets that are not too head-heavy?
Also do you see which half of the stringbed has a much larger area without cross strings at the extremities? Just imagine what would happen if the two areas without cross strings were to swap places, the top part swapping with the bottom on area terms? Swapping places on an area basis will not affect the total areas of the strings in both cases, but in effective air resistance it will be like day and night.

[taneepak]

If you look over my calculations again... or try it yourself, you'll see that I included the strings and the racket head but ignored the shaft downwards. So yes it is conservative but not by much. You'd have to get into triple integral calculus in order to calculate it correctly which is just not worth it for this simple exercise.

As for the taneepak's statement about the grommets... that's even more ludicrous than the string comment.

This is interesting reading http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/71...scription.html. Although it is mainly about tennis, do you think it is as ludicrous? For those who want to skip the long read just go to the last two ending paragraphs.

[silentheart]

Gentlemen, do you see a trend moving from the standard 22 cross strings to 21 cross strings, especially for racquets that are for doubles and racquets that are not too head-heavy?
Also do you see which half of the stringbed has a much larger area without cross strings at the extremities? Just imagine what would happen if the two areas without cross strings were to swap places, the top part swapping with the bottom on area terms? Swapping places on an area basis will not affect the total areas of the strings in both cases, but in effective air resistance it will be like day and night.

Sorry, FYI, the decrease in cross string is because of more single pass grommets on the top and you need to decrease stress in that area. That is original problem with AT800 because it does not have enough support at 10~11 o'clock area after additional holes.
My question for you is, if you are right that air resistance on the string is so great. Why not just string the top 16 crosses? For pros, that is where they hit anyway.
Last thing is, this apply to all the racquets (tennis and racquet ball and other racquet sports) lower the string density, better the trampoline effect. Air resistance from string is not a major factor. Effect is less than 1% (I did the calculation for you already) unless you can come up with a theory and calculation to back up (which you never did in any of your claim).

[silentheart]

This is interesting reading www.patentstorm.us/patents/7144341/description.html. Although it is mainly about tennis, do you think it is as ludicrous? For those who want to skip the long read just go to the last two ending paragraphs.

Yes, it is about decrease string density in certain area of racquet to produce more powerful shot. That is the trampoline effect. Nothing to do with air resistance as you claim. If you even understand physics, you would understand that given the same frame shape, string, tension and force of impact, the object (or ball in tennis term) will "dwell" (in the author's word) longer on the string less dense string bed because the each string will have more force on it and thus ball stop later. Also It is easier to store the energy to the string's full potential. Now going back to what we are discussing here, the desire location of impact is between top 8 and 10 crosses. Given the same racquet, string and tension. When you skip the throat 1 cross, may I ask what is the string density change over that desire impact location? The answer is 0%. Yes the big whopping 0% change because you did not change any string pattern in that immediate surrounding location. Also, by skipping the throat 1 cross, you decrease string bed density by 43/44-1=2.2% and true effect is less than 1% because the location if the string is most outer string while the impact areas is in the center.
I am begging you to stop use wrong info to justify your wrong theory. It just make you look bad...

[kklam]

Can we have a poll here to see how many people are convinced by Master Taneepak's idea?

[kklam]

I don't know how Master Taneepak can relate the conclusion of the article with his idea of air resistance. In the conclusion, what the author saying is with one less cross at the bottom of the tennis racquet, the main strings will deflect more thereby more energy is stored in the stringbed. This results in greater power and speed for the ball. Master Silentheart had explained it in the previous post in layman terms. It's the trampoline effect. Once again, this is the scientific approach explaining why a tennis ball can be hit harder with one less cross at the bottom. I buy that explanation, however I still am not convinced by what Taneepak said it's related to air resistance.

[cooler]

I don't know how Master Taneepak can relate the conclusion of the article with his idea of air resistance. In the conclusion, what the author saying is with one less cross at the bottom of the tennis racquet, the main strings will deflect more thereby more energy is stored in the stringbed. This results in greater power and speed for the ball. Master Silentheart had explained it in the previous post in layman terms. It's the trampoline effect. Once again, this is the scientific approach explaining why a tennis ball can be hit harder with one less cross at the bottom. I buy that explanation, however I still am not convinced by what Taneepak said it's related to air resistance.

this is why i don't understand taneepak, not only sometime wrong, he contradict himself.

Yes, that paper/article does said 1 less bottom cross enhance repulsion at the sweetspot (we do try to hit shots at or closest to sweetspot). I don't dispute that because it is for TENNIS and that author knows more about tennis than me. The kink to taneepak's assertion, which he bought the article's premise and used to support his claim, why does he all this time claim and promote that having a tighter upper stringbed is better??? If we string bottom up and have a looser last cross tie off at the top(assuming one couldn't get the last top cross tight enough), wouldn't this also 'enhance' the replusion at the sweetspot?? Why he choose to like only loose bottom and tight top? Has he been looking too much at fashion of today's young girls?

Does stringer who add an extra bottom cross likes a tight bottom?