PDA

View Full Version : How does beam width affect the way a racket plays?


Ruuzo
06-12-2004, 11:04 PM
With today's tech it seems like beam width is not just for stiffness - for example, the new nSix-One Tour 90 has a beam width of 17mm and a stiffness of 66, while the nSix-One 95 has a beam width of 22mm and a stiffness of 65. So aside from stiffness, how does beam width affect a racket's playability?

Thanks for any info.

Gaines Hillix
06-12-2004, 11:51 PM
Ruuzo, the RDC flex ratings used on TW are measured at the throat of the frame. The flex of the hoop and the tip of the racquet are equally important, although there is no way to measure them with consumer equipment, AFAIK. I believe that a thinner beam is usually going to be more flexible in the hoop and more dead feeling at the tip than a wider beam.

MonicaSelesRulez
06-12-2004, 11:56 PM
Actually racquet with a thicker beam gives a better response and is less control oriented. That is the reason that they are usually begginers racquets + they are usually more stiff to provide even better response. Thin frame gives a little power and lot of control. But when you hit in a sweetspot it is much nicer than thick-framed racquet.

shideg
02-06-2009, 11:57 AM
Do there exist racquets that are light (9.5oz or less) and have thinner beams?

OnyxZ28
02-06-2009, 12:36 PM
The old Hammer 5.5 Spin was around 10 oz strung and was 15mm thick.

LeeD
02-06-2009, 12:50 PM
Zomding to do with air resistance especially for hard serves. Too much resistance is a slower swing. Too little resistance can destroy your form and arm.
So it goes for fast swings too.
And some being sig models, different players like different things.
And if they don't change it every few years, we'd feel no need to buy new rackets.:confused:

wallymann
02-06-2009, 12:54 PM
Zomding to do with air resistance especially for hard serves. Too much resistance is a slower swing. Too little resistance can destroy your form and arm.



that's what the marketing departments will have you believe!

the physics dont match up with the claims...the difference in wind resistance between thin/thick beamed racquets at the low speeds that a human arm can generate will be trivial.

a more meaningfull difference will be a result of a lightweight head letting the player accelerate the racquet head more for the same force.

NickC
02-06-2009, 02:41 PM
Do there exist racquets that are light (9.5oz or less) and have thinner beams?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/eldiablojoe/OldThreadAlert.jpg

quest01
02-06-2009, 04:33 PM
A thinner beam means the racquet offers more control while a thicker beam means more power. I own a few APDC's and used to own several K90's and the K90 is more control oriented due to the thinner beam however my baseline game is more consistent with the APDC (plus) compared to the K90 meaning that I can get into longer rallies from the baseline with the APDC.

LeeD
02-06-2009, 06:55 PM
Wallyman... nope !
Try swinging a T-2000, like Connors main racket. Your arm breaks from no resistance from the air. That's one of the reasons it never got popular.
Now try swinging a Kramer wood. All that air resistance, you can't swing fast, your arm lasts forever.

canadave
02-06-2009, 06:59 PM
Wallyman... nope !
Try swinging a T-2000, like Connors main racket. Your arm breaks from no resistance from the air. That's one of the reasons it never got popular.
Now try swinging a Kramer wood. All that air resistance, you can't swing fast, your arm lasts forever.

Please, please tell me my sarcasm radar is on the fritz :) This is a joke, right? Just making sure.

Alafter
02-06-2009, 07:23 PM
Wallyman... nope !
Try swinging a T-2000, like Connors main racket. Your arm breaks from no resistance from the air. That's one of the reasons it never got popular.
Now try swinging a Kramer wood. All that air resistance, you can't swing fast, your arm lasts forever.

Genius at work. FAIL.

It are smart in its failure.

Kirko
02-06-2009, 07:25 PM
Please, please tell me my sarcasm radar is on the fritz :) This is a joke, right? Just making sure.

Yes ! I don't get it either.

canadave
02-06-2009, 07:32 PM
No, no...can't be. He has to have been having a laugh, right? No one could possibly truly think that.