## User Tag List

1. Regular Member
Join Date
May 2009
Location
gombak
Posts
11
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
hai, can anyone explain more on what is the purpose of cross stringing e.g 24mainx26cross?

tq

2. Regular Member
Join Date
Apr 2002
Location
Basement Boiler Room
Posts
22,118
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by 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.

coach Zhao JH racket 5:16

i don't see skipped cross

3. Regular Member
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Edmonton, AB
Posts
1,534
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by silentheart
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...
LOL, I didn't see his post until just now and was wondering WTH he was talking about??? My comment was about air resistance and he linked a document that had nothing to do with that....

The more I read his responses the more confused I get. At this point, there I have no more interest in this topic. We have pretty much covered everything and he has nothing more to use to prove his theories regardless of how many google searches he does.

Also, just as a point, I used to work in research and development for my company and during that time have been involved in creating patents and finding ways around competitors patents... believe me when I say that patents have as much or more to do with creating something different from another company so that they can sell product. Notice I said different NOT better. Many patents are put in place to so that when a product is specified by a government agency, no other product can meet the specifications, even if they have nothing to do with the application the product is specified into.

4. Regular Member
Join Date
Jan 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Posts
6,527
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
2 Post(s)
Tagged
If omitting the bottom cross strings give more power and speed because of the trampoline effect, then why don't we simply lower the tensions?
Lower tensions with their enhanced trampoline effect effect tennis racquets differently from badminton racquets. In badminton, it is the late acceleration that gives power and speed, and a reasonably high tension is necessary. But only players who have fast hand speed and who use the late acceleration can hit high tension badminton racquets effortlessly. If not, like they say it is like hitting with a brick bat.
Just try this:
String one racquet at low tensions of say 20lbs/22lbs with 22 mains/22 cross strings. String another similar racquet with the same type of string at say 28lbs/30lbs with 22 mains and 21 crosses, omitting the bottom grommet #10 cross.
Get an advanced player to try the 2 racquets. Do the same with a beginner or any player who is not skilled enough to use the late accelaration hitting technique.
The low tension racquet will give you the highest trampoline effect. The higher tension racquet-try to press your fingers on the stringbed to test for trampoline effect, if any-will be no match for the other racquet in trampoline effect.
Now, for the better players which racquet will play better with more power and speed?

5. Regular Member
Join Date
Jan 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Posts
6,527
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
2 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by cooler

coach Zhao JH racket 5:16

i don't see skipped cross
This is not the 15 VCDs I am talking about. I believe some members have this pack and can help out.

6. Originally Posted by taneepak
If omitting the bottom cross strings give more power and speed because of the trampoline effect, then why don't we simply lower the tensions?
Lower tensions with their enhanced trampoline effect effect tennis racquets differently from badminton racquets. In badminton, it is the late acceleration that gives power and speed, and a reasonably high tension is necessary. But only players who have fast hand speed and who use the late acceleration can hit high tension badminton racquets effortlessly. If not, like they say it is like hitting with a brick bat.
Just try this:
String one racquet at low tensions of say 20lbs/22lbs with 22 mains/22 cross strings. String another similar racquet with the same type of string at say 28lbs/30lbs with 22 mains and 21 crosses, omitting the bottom grommet #10 cross.
Get an advanced player to try the 2 racquets. Do the same with a beginner or any player who is not skilled enough to use the late accelaration hitting technique.
The low tension racquet will give you the highest trampoline effect. The higher tension racquet-try to press your fingers on the stringbed to test for trampoline effect, if any-will be no match for the other racquet in trampoline effect.
Now, for the better players which racquet will play better with more power and speed?
The main point of the discussion here concerns the stiffness level of the string bed when strung to a certain tension. To be honest do you actually think that just by omitting one cross string the perceived stiffness level of a string bed will drop as much as from 30lbs to 22lbs or anywhere near as low? This is really scientific nonsense, and if true ALL professional players will be using lower tensions and string at higher cross string counts since according to your theory since everyone who has correct hitting technique will benefit a lot from a stiffer string bed to obtain better control from especially a racquet strung at lower tensions which is less likely to break on mishits, clashes and also having a much larger sweet spot. There is also a reason why the professional players have their own specific tensions for their own personal feel of the racquet rather than all of them using as high tension as possible (go figure out what part of the discussion this statement concerns).

There is a limit to how much stiffness increases or decreases depending on the amount of cross strings a string bed has. A value of 1lb to 2lbs is more logical than comparing between one racquet strung at 30lbs and one at 22lbs.

Other than that I still don't see the point in the absolute requirement of omitting one measly cross string just to improve on one mere aspect of dynamic drift which has never been proved to improve on swing speed.

7. Regular Member
Join Date
Jan 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Posts
6,527
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
2 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by Blitzzards
The main point of the discussion here concerns the stiffness level of the string bed when strung to a certain tension. To be honest do you actually think that just by omitting one cross string the perceived stiffness level of a string bed will drop as much as from 30lbs to 22lbs or anywhere near as low? This is really scientific nonsense, and if true ALL professional players will be using lower tensions and string at higher cross string counts since according to your theory since everyone who has correct hitting technique will benefit a lot from a stiffer string bed to obtain better control from especially a racquet strung at lower tensions which is less likely to break on mishits, clashes and also having a much larger sweet spot. There is also a reason why the professional players have their own specific tensions for their own personal feel of the racquet rather than all of them using as high tension as possible (go figure out what part of the discussion this statement concerns).

There is a limit to how much stiffness increases or decreases depending on the amount of cross strings a string bed has. A value of 1lb to 2lbs is more logical than comparing between one racquet strung at 30lbs and one at 22lbs.

Other than that I still don't see the point in the absolute requirement of omitting one measly cross string just to improve on one mere aspect of dynamic drift which has never been proved to improve on swing speed.
I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say in para 1.
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have been trying to say.
What I am saying is that the patent case's claim to more power and greater speed by omitting a few cross strings at the bottom to be due to trampoline effect is questionable. Whilst it may be true for tennis racquets, it is not necessarilly so for badminton racquets. Badminton racquets in the hand of skilled players get more power and speed from high tensions than low tensions, despite the greater trampoline effect of lower tensioned badminton racquets. This is due to the highly skilled technique of late acceleration before impact-the classic case being a powerful and effortless backhand clear with just a snap of the wrist. You cannot do this in tennis, which needs trampoline effect to do anything close. It is hard to explain this uniquly badminton snappy late acceleration technique unless you use it or I can demonstrate it to you if possible.
High tensions are a must in badminton for such late acceleration shots. In a crude example, this late acceleration is like swatting a fly or cracking a whip.
Since the faster this late acceleration the more deadly its shots, any decrease in air resistance is a plus. Omitting one cross string, provided it is omitted as near the T-joint as possible, will reduce effective air resistance-hence increasing this late acceleration. However, if one is unable to play comfortably and effortlessly at high tensions of at least 28lbs/31lbs, which requires reasonably fast late acceleration before impact, then yes any attempts to decrease air resistance is wasted.

8. Originally Posted by taneepak
I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say in para 1.
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have been trying to say.
What I am saying is that the patent case's claim to more power and greater speed by omitting a few cross strings at the bottom to be due to trampoline effect is questionable. Whilst it may be true for tennis racquets, it is not necessarilly so for badminton racquets. Badminton racquets in the hand of skilled players get more power and speed from high tensions than low tensions, despite the greater trampoline effect of lower tensioned badminton racquets. This is due to the highly skilled technique of late acceleration before impact-the classic case being a powerful and effortless backhand clear with just a snap of the wrist. You cannot do this in tennis, which needs trampoline effect to do anything close. It is hard to explain this uniquly badminton snappy late acceleration technique unless you use it or I can demonstrate it to you if possible.
High tensions are a must in badminton for such late acceleration shots. In a crude example, this late acceleration is like swatting a fly or cracking a whip.
Since the faster this late acceleration the more deadly its shots, any decrease in air resistance is a plus. Omitting one cross string, provided it is omitted as near the T-joint as possible, will reduce effective air resistance-hence increasing this late acceleration. However, if one is unable to play comfortably and effortlessly at high tensions of at least 28lbs/31lbs, which requires reasonably fast late acceleration before impact, then yes any attempts to decrease air resistance is wasted.
The main reason why people play at high tensions is to obtain a stiff and tight string bed, do you not agree? It is because of the stiffness/tightness that allows the string bed to flex and snap back immediately to propel the shuttle when hit correctly. If there is really a way to obtain a stiff and tight string bed which is similar to high tension strung racquets in a lower tension strung one then that is the more important thing to consider since there are a lot of risks involved when playing with a tightly strung racquet. I play at tensions of 27/28lbs and know how it feels to play at such tensions.

There is hardly any effect from air resistance caused by that one string at B10. Just a decrease of perhaps less than 1% of air resistance on the string bed is not going to affect the immediate swing speed much. It's just as saying that modifying a sports car to omit the rear bumper or trunk (where turbulence is the most) will not immediately increase the top speed achievable by much, so much that it can actually affect the winning rorbability of the car.

9. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2004
Location
USA
Posts
4,632
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
4 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by taneepak
I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say in para 1.
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have been trying to say.
What I am saying is that the patent case's claim to more power and greater speed by omitting a few cross strings at the bottom to be due to trampoline effect is questionable. Whilst it may be true for tennis racquets, it is not necessarilly so for badminton racquets. Badminton racquets in the hand of skilled players get more power and speed from high tensions than low tensions, despite the greater trampoline effect of lower tensioned badminton racquets. This is due to the highly skilled technique of late acceleration before impact-the classic case being a powerful and effortless backhand clear with just a snap of the wrist. You cannot do this in tennis, which needs trampoline effect to do anything close. It is hard to explain this uniquly badminton snappy late acceleration technique unless you use it or I can demonstrate it to you if possible.
High tensions are a must in badminton for such late acceleration shots. In a crude example, this late acceleration is like swatting a fly or cracking a whip.
Since the faster this late acceleration the more deadly its shots, any decrease in air resistance is a plus. Omitting one cross string, provided it is omitted as near the T-joint as possible, will reduce effective air resistance-hence increasing this late acceleration. However, if one is unable to play comfortably and effortlessly at high tensions of at least 28lbs/31lbs, which requires reasonably fast late acceleration before impact, then yes any attempts to decrease air resistance is wasted.
1) Did you even understand what the pattern application? Did you even look at the figures attach with it? Whatever...
2) "despite the greater trampoline effect of lower tensioned badminton racquets. This is due to the highly skilled technique of late acceleration before impact-the classic case being a powerful and effortless backhand clear with just a snap of the wrist. You cannot do this in tennis" yes you can. Just look at Andy Roddick's serve and Nadal's forehand.These 2 are best example of the wrist snapping motion you talk about in tennis. And yes, Roddick use high tension while Nadal use lower tension. It is what suits them the best.
3) "Omitting one cross string, provided it is omitted as near the T-joint as possible, will reduce effective air resistance-hence increasing this late acceleration." If that is the case, why not skip the top cross? Given that the same angular speed, the top of the racquet has higher velocity. That in term get you better air resistance reduction. Right? So your claim still holds no water.
4) "What I am saying is that the patent case's claim to more power and greater speed by omitting a few cross strings at the bottom to be due to trampoline effect is questionable." In the pattern claim, there is no mention of "air resistant" also. So what are you try to say?
5) I know it is too difficult for you to understand how all the sciences, technologies and engineering that goes into making a badminton racquet. So, please just stop. You are making yourself looks really bad if you keep post your bull shiet.

10. Regular Member
Join Date
Jan 2004
Location
Hong Kong
Posts
6,527
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
2 Post(s)
Tagged
I think the best way to find out is to do it, that is to experiment and do an A/B comparison.
BTW, I am now stringing all racquets with one cross string missing at the bottom grommet #10 and my customers seem to like it. I have also persuaded customers to replace the 4 U-shaped grommets at the T-joint with single grommets like those in Li Ning's N series racquets. Another practice that I insist on is to string the crosses top down with a 5-loop starting knot at the top. This alone beats the bottom up cross stringing as the difference is noticeable.
Perhaps you can try this out yourself. Or you can send one racquet to stringer A and let him string that racquet the way Silentheart uses. Then send another similar racquet to stringer B and string it my way.
Then compare the two. That should be interesting. BTW, I don't expect unbiased feedback if available soon as we need a longer cooling off period. Time will tell if the one missing cross string takes root.

11. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2004
Location
USA
Posts
4,632
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
4 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by taneepak
I think the best way to find out is to do it, that is to experiment and do an A/B comparison.
BTW, I am now stringing all racquets with one cross string missing at the bottom grommet #10 and my customers seem to like it. I have also persuaded customers to replace the 4 U-shaped grommets at the T-joint with single grommets like those in Li Ning's N series racquets. Another practice that I insist on is to string the crosses top down with a 5-loop starting knot at the top. This alone beats the bottom up cross stringing as the difference is noticeable.
Perhaps you can try this out yourself. Or you can send one racquet to stringer A and let him string that racquet the way Silentheart uses. Then send another similar racquet to stringer B and string it my way.
Then compare the two. That should be interesting. BTW, I don't expect unbiased feedback if available soon as we need a longer cooling off period. Time will tell if the one missing cross string takes root.
1) So you are out of theory and now you are just asking people to use their feeling? How should this blind test to be conducted? in the dark or blind folded? Yeah, like Lin Dan can hit a shuttle just by listening to the sound...
2) What is the difference between 5 loop vs 3 loops vs 2 loops starting knot beside more loops? If you tie it right, adding more loops is just a waste of time. I tie 3 loops because That is my signature so I know I strung the racquet. not really meaningful.
3) Once again. You are mixing and fuzzing issue. 2 facts, we are trying to determine skipping 1 cross on the throat will make a difference due to aero dynamic. Yes, only happen in wind tunnel and difference is less than 1%. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I can not tell that in middle of the game. You are claiming top down is better than throat up. Well, depend on the purpose. I string with standard pattern from manufacture. If player ask me to do it differently, as long as he/she know what is the difference. Will do.
String tension? It is not in the discussion because to do the test, all racquets will have to string at the same tension based on each players preference. So don't bring in string tension into this discussion. If you are so passionate about that subject, please start your own thread on that.
Please lear how to do a proper lab experiment. If you need to take or retake any high school science class, please do so. Otherwise, you are just making a fool of yourself.

12. Regular Member
Join Date
Apr 2002
Location
Basement Boiler Room
Posts
22,118
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by taneepak
This is not the 15 VCDs I am talking about. I believe some members have this pack and can help out.
my point was, they don't do that( 1 less bottom cross) anyone. Smart people make necessary change to adopt better methods. If xiao jie does it before and not anymore, it proves that having 1 less bottom cross was inferior. She knows better now but u seem to be stuck at their old inferior way.

U talk about how your customers seem to like your stringing with the 1 less bottom cross pattern but at the same breath talks about how only the pro players can benefit from speed gain with 1 less bottom cross. Tell me, are your customers all top pro players who can swing like fu haifeng? Your two exaggerations don't seem to be mesh.
Last edited by cooler; 02-17-2010 at 12:54 PM.

13. this thread is very interesting - so much scientific explanations for so little changes.. best is try it out and post the results for your own benefit of your own doubts..

as a player, do not spend too much on your racket, too much details equals to too much worries. put on a decent string and tension will do best for you in the long run and concentrate on your opponent..

14. Regular Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Chicago, Il
Posts
14
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
What is this all about? Omitting number 10 on the crosses is perfect if not far better than not skipping at all. At any rate...what really is the fuzz?

I find the wrist snapping comparison of some guy equating Roddick's serve and Nadal's forehand with wrist's snap...! Probably that guy is a wannabe tennis player? If he is/was, then he should identify precisely who utilises the most wristy movement and not randomly tear away like a knucklehead does.

15. even more interesting...from a tennis comparison..

16. Regular Member
Join Date
Dec 2009
Location
Toulouse France
Posts
125
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
From personal experieince I'd say that missing the ten string off makes no difference at all. My racquet was strung like that once and it changed nothing for me. On the other hand stringing the 8 cross of Yonex, I find is not a good idea at all. I think it causses power loss. I believe the slightly freer strings restore some trampoline effect to a tightly strung racquet when hitting for instance a smash with your racquet held in a vertical position.

I think some shots, one 'carries' the shuttle more than others. Imagine a shot coming at you rising and you smack it right back where it came from, the difference between the angle of arrival and the angle of departure both in the horizontal and vertical planes is zero.
Now imagine a shot falling straight down that you hit both downwards and off to the left. The angle is about 135 degrees in the vertical plane and say 45 to 80 degrees in the horizontal plane. Thus on this second hit, the shuttle will 'dwell' on the racquet for a longer time.

Since you are probably using both shots in a game, your racquet has to be, ideally, versatile enough to give you power in both situations. (Stringers, what's your best formula for versatility?)

Furthermore, where a player is getting his speed from changes with the individual, there are those people who use a wrist flick and others who move their entire body so that in effect they are hitting shuttle with their abdos.

As i said, missing the 10 cross did nothing FOR ME, but other people might not be getting their power from the same way I am and maybe it works for them. Likewise adding the 8 cross doesn't work FOR ME, others may find it useful.
I really believe that the only way to get exactly how you want is to try each system, simply because what works for one person might not for another.

(Sorry about the geometry in this post. In my house if you're served pie, you get asked 'How many degrees can you eat?' - Well you learned that stuff in school didn't you? We might as well make use of it!)
Last edited by Grotius; 02-17-2010 at 05:49 PM.

17. ...now includes french geometry.... its confirmed interesting..

Page 6 of 11 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•