PDA

View Full Version : Ultra thin beam technology


proracketeer
12-30-2005, 01:08 AM
With todays very stiff materials it should be possible to build a reasonably stable racket with a beam of 15mm or less?

jonolau
12-30-2005, 01:12 AM
Speaking of that, which current production racquet has the thinnest beam?

didier
12-30-2005, 01:14 AM
Must be the wilson 6.1 Tour ncode.
it has a 17 mm beam

Deuce
12-30-2005, 01:33 AM
With todays very stiff materials it should be possible to build a reasonably stable racket with a beam of 15mm or less?

Wilson did this about 10 years ago with the Hammer 5.5 'Spin'. The idea caught on about as well as Kennex's 'Micro' string pattern in the 80s. Basically the only people who bought them were racquet collectors.

KickServer
12-30-2005, 02:55 AM
15 mm??? Damn......that would be pretty thin. I have a rd-70 long that's 16 mm at the thinnest point, but they no longer in production. Has great stability with some lead.

proracketeer
12-31-2005, 12:07 AM
Hammer 5.5 'Spin' was quite unstable;
But, what about a Hammer 5.5 'Spin' with Hyper Carbon or DNX ??

armand
12-31-2005, 12:19 AM
A couple months ago I was at Play it Again Sports and they were selling a Donnay Speed 100 something and it looked to have a beam width of 14mm. I was tempted...

jonolau
12-31-2005, 12:46 AM
Mmmm, turkey. 14mm sure sounds really thin, but I'm usre you must be quite careful with it as can imagine that it can crack very easily.

Deuce
12-31-2005, 01:59 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=39496

jonolau
12-31-2005, 02:04 AM
Okay, thanks. But anyone have an idea on what is currently the thinnest production racquet in the market?

ssjkyle31
12-31-2005, 05:43 AM
I think the thinnest would be the ncode tour 90 at 17mm

proracketeer
12-31-2005, 06:37 AM
Could they go thinner making use of modern materials? I love thin beams!

Vantage231511
12-31-2005, 07:01 AM
Going much thinner becomes a game of diminishing returns. In theory you could go thinner and maintain strength by using higher modulus materials. But after a certain point the physics still breakdown. Why would I want a 10mm thin frame if I only have to turn around and add lead to the racquet to adjust the proper hitting physics?

nViATi
12-31-2005, 07:37 AM
With todays very stiff materials it should be possible to build a reasonably stable racket with a beam of 15mm or less?
It would be fragile. Stiffness + narrowness = bad combination. Try bending a toothpick. Crack!

Rabbit
12-31-2005, 08:45 AM
I recently strung a Hammer 5.5. I had to use the badminton pieces on my Neos to get the thing done. I was nervous the whole time I strung it, probably not deservedly, but I expected the thing to snap. A couple of guys I play with bought them, but Deuce is right, these should be filed away as collector's items.

hummer23
12-31-2005, 09:37 AM
Like Rabbit said, the thinner the beam, the harder to string, and the more chance the thing will emplode as you tension it. Then again, the side f teh spectrum, the wilson profiles, and now the n1's and what not also feel really flimsy, even tho thier beam width is more than twice as thick is pete's pro staff.

jck01
12-31-2005, 10:27 AM
Hammer 5.5 'Spin' was quite unstable;
But, what about a Hammer 5.5 'Spin' with Hyper Carbon or DNX ??

One of my friends still uses the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Stretch occasionally. It was his main stick for 3-4 years before he switched to Babolat Drive Z-Lite. Perhaps some people feel the racquet is unstable and some do not since my friend doesn't think it's unstable and likes the control he gets.

jck01
12-31-2005, 10:29 AM
I recently strung a Hammer 5.5. I had to use the badminton pieces on my Neos to get the thing done. I was nervous the whole time I strung it, probably not deservedly, but I expected the thing to snap. A couple of guys I play with bought them, but Deuce is right, these should be filed away as collector's items.

I strung Wilson Hammer 5.5 Stretch a couple of times but I was never nervous. I guess the main reason is that I'm usually watching television when I'm stringing and I don't think about it. Now that you brought it up, I don't think I'm going to string the racquet anymore.

El Diablo
12-31-2005, 10:40 AM
Aerodynamics at sub-sonic speed is not entirely intuitive. Racing cars and comnmercial airliners have broadly curved fronts (rather than pointed) because pointed doesn't become desirable until velocity exceeds speed of sound. Beyond a certain point, making the beam of a racquet thinner does not make it move through the air better.

ace of spades
12-31-2005, 01:51 PM
it would be so sweet if in the future they made a 1cm beam racket that was strong, somewhat flexy and stable.

nViATi
12-31-2005, 03:54 PM
it would be so sweet if in the future they made a 1cm beam racket that was strong, somewhat flexy and stable.
That's not going to happen man. It would just snap.

Swan Song
12-31-2005, 03:58 PM
I think the Hammer 5.5 Spin is supposedly the thinnest out in the market. The thinnest racquet I have touched was the Yonex Pro RD-70 Long or the Isometric Pro Long in Japan. I think it was 16 mm. in the shaft and 19 mm. in the head. Yonex also claimed that it was their "Anti-Twist Cross Section".

K. Wilson Moose
12-31-2005, 04:04 PM
I recently strung a Hammer 5.5. I had to use the badminton pieces on my Neos to get the thing done. I was nervous the whole time I strung it, probably not deservedly, but I expected the thing to snap. A couple of guys I play with bought them, but Deuce is right, these should be filed away as collector's items.

The 5.5 Spin was like hitting with a fly swatter, absolutely no stability.

hummer23
01-01-2006, 12:26 AM
it would be so sweet if in the future they made a 1cm beam racket that was strong, somewhat flexy and stable.

I agree wit hyou. MAybe not about the 1 cm part, but if a frame was made that had a 15-16 mm cross section, and was a solid and controlable frame, i'd certianly consider it. I love the way a prestige mid feels in my hand, with its 19mm beam, and even thinner could be better. Its not so much how it goes through the air, as someone suggested, but rather the feel of the frame in my hand that makes me want a thinner beam. In addition, when hitting they tend to be flexier, and softer, which are pluses for me.

proracketeer
01-01-2006, 01:23 AM
I have seen Wood-Rackets with a beam of 14 mm. So I would guess that a graphite racket could go thinner! Maybe one should let go of drilled holes and lead the strings in grooves around the frame if that should be a stability issue. It is not about aerodynamics it's about the feel of a thin blade in your hands!

joe sch
01-01-2006, 08:25 AM
There were quite a few vintage graphite and wood rackets with very thin beam widths.
One of the more popular small head versions was the Head XRC. I would estimate it at approx 13..14 mm, surely thinner than the wilson ps. Most of these rackets were square beam designed often with internal torsion tubing to prevent torque and twist. I really dont think todays thin air shell hardened graphite would last at these thinner beam widths

Deuce
01-01-2006, 11:23 PM
MM, people, not CM!

The XRC, according to my crude measuring device (a basic ruler), is 16 mm wide. This is noticeably thicker than the Hammer 5.5 Spin - although the 5.5 was not a box beam.

I think the Arthur Ashe Competitions are basically the same as the XRC - seems to be a very similar mold.

jonolau
01-02-2006, 05:43 AM
I have seen Wood-Rackets with a beam of 14 cm. So I would guess that a graphite racket could go thinner! Maybe one should let go of drilled holes and lead the strings in grooves around the frame if that should be a stability issue. It is not about aerodynamics it's about the feel of a thin blade in your hands!
14cm? Wow, must feel funny swinging a brick on court ... ;-)

proracketeer
01-03-2006, 12:52 AM
What does one have to do to get a company to produce a ultra thin beam racket? Sign a petition? 1000?

Ripper
01-03-2006, 06:28 AM
What does one have to do to get a company to produce a ultra thin beam racket? Sign a petition? 1000?

I'd sign it!

proracketeer
01-03-2006, 06:40 AM
2 . . . and counting

jonolau
01-03-2006, 06:44 AM
3 ........

bruguerabatigol
02-08-2006, 11:50 AM
I own three of these racquets, cut thru the air like no other, the stability issue can be solved by stringing at very low tensions and stuffing cotton wool down the grip shaft. I string all 3 with kev poly 17 hybrids at 48 pounds.

proracketeer
07-05-2010, 10:01 AM
Looks like Donnay answered our prayers.