PDA

View Full Version : we deserve to know..how much d3o material is used in making a youtek frame?


hyogen
07-14-2009, 03:48 PM
so that we can be the judge of it can have any sort of significant difference.

anyone have any idea? anyone talk to their Head reps?

i think a lot of us WANT to believe that there is at least enough of the stuff in the racquet to DO ANYTHING....not necessarily make us better tennis players..

samster
07-14-2009, 03:57 PM
good luck on finding out the "truth."

pvaudio
07-14-2009, 03:58 PM
Frankly, 95% of racquet "technologies" are completely useless. There is ia reason people are still using the PS85, POG and MW200G. Head is the leader in laughable technology. Liquid metal, flexpoint, intellichip, youtek, etc. are all marketing ploys to make their frames sound better than they are. I am not saying they are bad racquets or the technology is fake. I'm saying that you might be reading too much into what they say.

plowmanjoe
07-14-2009, 04:05 PM
what is youtek supposed to be anyways?

sometimes the new tech does "do" something, but that doesn't mean it makes the racquet any better.

hyogen
07-14-2009, 04:07 PM
yeah, i realize this. just want to know though :o

i've read m-fil (dunlop) was a tiny one inch strip of material at 3 and 9 inside the frame.

also, aerogel (dunlop) was supposed to be a revolutionary material that was very expensive... i wonder how much of that was in a frame.


Flexpoint wasn't necessarily gimmicky in my opinion. It did what it was said to do...flex more at the flexpoint areas - it flexes there because that's the thinnest part of the frame. Many people here have liked the flexpoint series - I have enjoyed using the flexpoint prestige team quite a bit..

hyogen
07-14-2009, 04:09 PM
what i'm saying is, sure d3o is a cool goop that you can see working outside of the racquet.

Did they just put a tiny ounce of the stuff and call it good? Or did they use at least 25% d3o in the materials used to make the racquet? Anything less than like 20% of the materials..it's gonna be completely pointless, regardless of whether its a good racquet or not.

pvaudio
07-14-2009, 04:51 PM
yeah, i realize this. just want to know though :o

i've read m-fil (dunlop) was a tiny one inch strip of material at 3 and 9 inside the frame.

also, aerogel (dunlop) was supposed to be a revolutionary material that was very expensive... i wonder how much of that was in a frame.


Flexpoint wasn't necessarily gimmicky in my opinion. It did what it was said to do...flex more at the flexpoint areas - it flexes there because that's the thinnest part of the frame. Many people here have liked the flexpoint series - I have enjoyed using the flexpoint prestige team quite a bit..
Yeah again, as I said earlier, I'm not talking **** about their frames. I'm saying their "technology" is a marketing scheme only. I play with the aerogel 100 and have a few aerogel 200s that I was using before the 100s. It makes absolutely no sense to use aerogel in a tennis racquet frame. I know their angle; aerogel is one of the if not the least dense materials ever made (it's nicknamed frozen smoke), however, it is very strong. It does NOT, however, withstand traumatic impacts very well at all. On the contrary, it "shatters" meaning that it's like taking strofoam and then shooting it with a shotgun. The little pellets will fly everywhere. That's what happens when you traumatize aerogel.

Using it in a frame means they can make the frame "stronger" but without adding weight. Great idea, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to repeated impacts. In fact, were there pockets of aerogel in the carbon weave, the frame would be so unstable that it'd be unplayable, and were you to shank a ball, the aerogel would break apart like if you wrapped an icecube in saran wrap and hit it with a hammer: it's still in the same shape, but it has no tensile strength anymore.

So all that I'm saying is that when I go demo a frame, I never pay attention to the technology behind it. It doesn't matter. If it hits well, it hits well. If not, then it doesn't. The hot melt 200g is one of my favorite racquets ever, but the aerogel 200 plays better ( I own two of each, upgraded from the HM300 to the HM200 to the AG200 to the AG100). I don't attribute that to the aerogel, I just think it's a better stick.

Zielmann
07-14-2009, 07:09 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=266781

Read through some of the stuff on that thread. And frankly, search for any thread about new technologies. Any time something 'new' and 'revolutionary' comes around, there's always a thread like this. I'm too lazy right now to type my whole tech spiel, so you're safe for now.

Fedace
07-14-2009, 07:14 PM
I am beginning to think it is the same material that Barbie dolls are made out of..

hyogen
07-14-2009, 07:49 PM
I am beginning to think it is the same material that Barbie dolls are made out of..

you're the one who said the control is amazing. is it your primary stick? the speed

Fedace
07-15-2009, 06:33 PM
you're the one who said the control is amazing. is it your primary stick? the speed

Speed MP is what i am trying to switch to. yea control is very good.

bertrevert
07-15-2009, 07:10 PM
I think demanding some idea from Head is... not a bad idea.

Is there any way we can do this? Internet petition?

bertrevert
07-15-2009, 07:12 PM
Current chairman has green cred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Eliasch

Maybe he sympathetic to our request? Now how to email him...??? :)

hyogen
07-16-2009, 12:31 AM
i just want to know that the racquet is at least using a significant amount of expensive materials...like the new d3o material... it's expensive right?

Deuce
07-16-2009, 12:51 AM
so that we can be the judge of it can have any sort of significant difference.

anyone have any idea? anyone talk to their Head reps?

i think a lot of us WANT to believe that there is at least enough of the stuff in the racquet to DO ANYTHING....not necessarily make us better tennis players..
^ Why is this so important to you?

All that should matter is if the racquet works for you or not. All this BS about 'technologies' and 'materials' and marketing is irrelevant and is best ignored.

Concentrate on your tennis.

adams_1
07-16-2009, 02:09 AM
Varies between models from 8-12%.

Enjoy your placebo effect.

zapvor
07-16-2009, 07:41 AM
i doubt its real....its just marketing. if the stuff really works, why dont they put it in cars so when you crash it either stiffens up or softens to absorb the impact accordinly???

backhand
07-16-2009, 08:48 AM
Have not demoed the Youteks yet, but have owned a lot of Heads over the years, also a lot of Head skis, which use many of same technologies. Generally like Head sticks, some more than others (Flexpoint was a joke). Obviously all racquet and ski makers are circling around the same basic design problems with the same basic constraints. Obviously marketing helps drive tech.

That said, you're asking the wrong question. "How much" of something is irrelevant. "Does it work?" is relevant. Look, would you even know how to evaluate it if a Head spokesperson said, OK, we use 2.761 gms of this material in the following locations? Would you say, "Oh, well that's obviously b.s. because everyone knows you have to use 3.298 gms to get an effect?" What's your background in materials engineering? Does something have to be visually obvious over 43% of the racquet to be non-b.s.?

IMO Head's tech tends to do what's advertised; you may or may not like the outcome. Look, this is the same company that put Twaron into their sticks 20 years ago when everybody else except Wilson was using pure graphite, all metal, or graphite/glass mixes. Go check out the Head PT280 thread here - or ask some pros what's under their paintjobs - if you want some ideas about whether Twaron works. Or look at their role in introducing the idea of metal placement to racquet design (or skis). Dunlop's making a big deal about their 4D, which Head's been playing with since the Ti's and LM's.

d3o isn't some "new" discovery (that's their marketing wing at work). It's a well characterized material, and Head's been playing around with tech to alter flex under load for a smoother response since the 90's. They have a thing about damping. In skis, they not only use i, they use "chips" that amplify the piezoelectric effect, dampen the ski further. Everyone I know who skis them agrees you can feel the difference, some disagreement on whether it's subtle or major, good thing or bad thing. In my experience, you have to really load the ski - or racquet - with serious flex to feel much of a change. So it "doesn't work" if you're a typical recreational skier. It "works" if you push things.

If you read the user's posts about this stuff, notice how often someone says how "stiff" the racquet is, even if they're talking about a low 60 flex? Would guess that's because the harder you swing, the stiffer the racquet gets. So big hitters will find the same Youteks stiffer and more stabile than normal hitters.

How much do they use? Probably not much, but in skis the only i or chip placement is a few cm of stuff just fore of the boot mount. Works fine.

canadave
07-16-2009, 09:06 AM
i doubt its real....its just marketing. if the stuff really works, why dont they put it in cars so when you crash it either stiffens up or softens to absorb the impact accordinly???

d3o is most certainly "real". It is an actual substance, and apparently it does do the job for which it was created--on impact, the material stiffens, making it suitable for protective equipment.

The big problem I have with the d3o hype is that, although it's a real substance, I don't see how it could possibly make any difference in a racquet. d3o's own website points out that it works by stiffening ON IMPACT. So, if you're skiing with a hat that incorporates d3o in its construction, and you hit your head, the d3o in the hat will stiffen, and supposedly protect your head better.

But unless you're hitting a tennis ball with the frame of your racquet, I don't see how any amount of d3o in your frame is going to make a difference. In fact, there's a video demo out there of someone flexing a piece of d3o to demonstrate that if it's flexed, it doesn't stiffen at all. A racquet frame flexes when the racquet hits a ball...so......

Now, if you put d3o on the STRINGS, which ARE actually being impacted by the ball..... ;) maybe that's a different story! I'd actually like to see how that'd work...strings coated with d3o!

zapvor
07-16-2009, 10:59 AM
oh ok i see. i thought d3o was strcitly a Head product. so if thats really the case, there is no definitive measure to see how different it is. its all relative. i personally think the ones i demoed so far feel too hollow and light.