PDA

View Full Version : Slazenger X1: thin hoop


ferrari_827
01-10-2005, 07:45 AM
I was looking at the frame design at the local tennis shop and the one thing that bothered me a bit is wall of the hoop looked too thin, especially compared to some frames like the Diablo, RDX, ncode, or Dunlop 200g.

Maybe the frame plays very solidly in spite of this.

BLiND
01-10-2005, 07:52 AM
it says its 20mm... larger than Diablo which is 19mm?

ferrari_827
01-10-2005, 08:22 AM
I don't mean the width looking from the side, I mean the thickness *horizontally* looking from above. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. I sometimes find hoops with thin walls lack mass and stability. A case in point is the Ti80.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2005, 08:26 AM
this frame was designed this way to move a little better IMO. it's a very cool design and seems really efficient because it's got decent mass to it, but is still easy to move. maybe the designer will jump in to support this. it's a sleek swinging frame as opposed to something boxy or clunky (i realize those arent technical terms)

stevewcosta
01-10-2005, 08:31 AM
That's why box beams are the best.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2005, 06:29 PM
box beams are best because they are slow and clunky?

PrestigeClassic
01-10-2005, 06:54 PM
In order to have the same mass as a thin-beam, wouldn't a box beam have to be more hollow?

BreakPoint
01-10-2005, 07:11 PM
In order to have the same mass as a thin-beam, wouldn't a box beam have to be more hollow?

No, if you think about a square and a circle with the same diameter (circle) or length of one side (square), the square would have more area (e.g., sq. in.), thus more mass, assuming both are solids.

PrestigeClassic
01-10-2005, 08:37 PM
Right. So, doesn't more area translate to more air being needed in the middle? I've never seen a completely solid graphite racket; you can remove the grommets and see that to a point they all are hollow. Doesn't using more graphite around the perimeter of a box-beam mean that there needs to be less material in the center, unless you want a really stiff and really heavy racket?

Am I missing something here?

NoBadMojo
01-10-2005, 08:58 PM
thats the way i look at it PC....racquets are hollow and pretty much thinner beams have less hollownesss to them, and that could be one of the reasons why thin beamed frames feel better to many.. which well known frames have box beams? do they make many current frames w. box beams? any new ones w. box beams? ..seems to me a box shape would have more air drag to it than something like the X1 or Surge shape or the kidney shaped Volkl precise frame..air drag is not your friend.

BreakPoint
01-10-2005, 09:50 PM
Right. So, doesn't more area translate to more air being needed in the middle? I've never seen a completely solid graphite racket; you can remove the grommets and see that to a point they all are hollow. Doesn't using more graphite around the perimeter of a box-beam mean that there needs to be less material in the center, unless you want a really stiff and really heavy racket?


Not necessarily. Box beam frames probably do have more mass overall (less hollow and more area) which adds to their stability. This is probably why almost all box beam frames tend to be relatively heavy, and have excellent feel and control (e.g., PS 6.0 85, nSix-One Tour, Estusa PBP, Dunlop Max 200G, etc.).

PrestigeClassic
01-10-2005, 10:15 PM
Not necessarily. Box beam frames probably do have more mass overall (less hollow and more area) which adds to their stability. This is probably why almost all box beam frames tend to be relatively heavy, and have excellent feel and control (e.g., PS 6.0 85, nSix-One Tour, Estusa PBP, Dunlop Max 200G, etc.).

Right, but why? Here's what I believe: no matter their mass, box-beams have more feel. And what is it that players are also looking for in a stick that has more feel? Mass. And vice-versa.

Also, all the rackets you mentioned are player's rackets that are quite head-light with flexible hoops. To an extent, those two properties mean that there's less mass in the head.

thats the way i look at it PC....racquets are hollow and pretty much thinner beams have less hollownesss to them, and that could be one of the reasons why thin beamed frames feel better to many.. which well known frames have box beams? do they make many current frames w. box beams? any new ones w. box beams? ..seems to me a box shape would have more air drag to it than something like the X1 or Surge shape or the kidney shaped Volkl precise frame..air drag is not your friend.

Some rackets are so light that upon impact the ball pushes the frame back. I think this is accentuated with a more aerodynamic frame. :)

NoBadMojo
01-11-2005, 06:21 AM
engineers can design an aerodynamic frame w. weight to it...to me, air resistence is not your friend....i would rather lose racquethead speed by having more weight (mass) than by having more air resistence..that seems obvious to me..so a 320 swingweight frame in a aero design is gonna be heavier static weight than a 320 swingweight box beam (likely)..i would rather have the former. air resistence makes you lose energy that could otherwise be transfered into the ball. weight helps you transefer energy into the ball. if a frame is boxy and cludgy to move, to me that is pretty inefficient, but to each their own. i'm not going to get into the aspect of feel..thats pretty subjective as to what feels better. i think thin beams feel better, and i also think some box beams actually feel bad no matter the beam width..some feel stiffer and some feel hollow

ferrari_827
01-11-2005, 06:25 AM
I guess it's a matter of preference, but I really like the feel of box design (i.e., RDTi70, PS6.0) and feel it gives the best feedback. Other designs like triangular, or hexagonal provide more comfort and better aerodynamics, but less feedback.

stevewcosta
01-11-2005, 06:43 AM
NBM,
Our posts overlapped. No, not b/c they're (box beams) clunky but b/c box beams 1.) feel better, 2.) play better 3.) are more solid 4.) are aerodynamic if thin. It's just unfortunate that most racs. are 20MM+ which is unnecessary (as long as there's sufficient mass). Would love to see the PS 6.0 95 with a 18.5MM box beam.

NoBadMojo
01-11-2005, 06:58 AM
steve i'm sure no engineer, and like i said, i'm not gonna disagree w, anyone as to what feels better ... i thought the X1 felt great and was very solid and performed very well, and you are sure welcome to think a box beam feels better..i dont know who else in this thread has hit the X1 for any length of time

El Diablo
01-11-2005, 08:33 AM
This thread is unravelling into a discussion about whether apples, peaches or oranges are "best." Why do people make meaningless statements like "box beams are best." Let's not objectify unless you have data; as Mojo points out, these are impressions, not facts, he is discussing.

bob
01-11-2005, 08:38 AM
Hey Steve, this is Bob A. in Raleigh. Email sometime and we can go hit.


NBM,
Our posts overlapped. No, not b/c they're (box beams) clunky but b/c box beams 1.) feel better, 2.) play better 3.) are more solid 4.) are aerodynamic if thin. It's just unfortunate that most racs. are 20MM+ which is unnecessary (as long as there's sufficient mass). Would love to see the PS 6.0 95 with a 18.5MM box beam.

stevewcosta
01-11-2005, 10:58 AM
Will do Bob. My knee is feeling better these days so i won't be hobbling around like last time we played.

El Diablo,
Many posts on this forum are opinions. The sooner you realize that, the less frustrated you'll become. How about all those posts asking people to chose racquets for them (just an example, not addressing any of your posts). Now that's ridiculous.