PDA

View Full Version : list of Aerodynamic frames


oray777
09-12-2006, 03:59 PM
Can some of you give me a list of current and old aerodynamic frames?

pchoi04
09-12-2006, 04:08 PM
O3 Racquets

irishcommodore15
09-12-2006, 04:13 PM
AeroPro Drive

Nar57981
09-12-2006, 04:24 PM
the new Head air flow and some of the princes that came out have a little gap between the bridge and side, is that considered aero dynamic?

nadalito92
09-12-2006, 05:02 PM
aero series, and o3

onkystomper
09-12-2006, 06:45 PM
fischer pro 1 is the most aerodynamic frame i have used

snoflewis
09-12-2006, 08:54 PM
some other babolats are aerodynamic. i think the PD is pretty aerodynamic. the head is beamwidth is wide, but when looking at the face, it's really thin.

imo yonex muscle power series are pretty aerodynamic too w/ the triangular cross beam section.

oray777
09-12-2006, 09:16 PM
some other babolats are aerodynamic. i think the PD is pretty aerodynamic. the head is beamwidth is wide, but when looking at the face, it's really thin.

imo yonex muscle power series are pretty aerodynamic too w/ the triangular cross beam section.

I would like to use those racquets but their too stiff for my arm unless you know of other Babolat with lower stiffness rating.

snoflewis
09-12-2006, 10:40 PM
I would like to use those racquets but their too stiff for my arm unless you know of other Babolat with lower stiffness rating.

not that i know of....imo, the most aero dynamic frame are 03s....

meh
09-12-2006, 10:45 PM
Every single racquet with a rounded beam.

BaseLineBash
09-12-2006, 10:46 PM
Can some of you give me a list of current and old aerodynamic frames?
No offence, but tennis racquets are not planes, gliders or bicycles. Having an "aerodynamic" racquet is truly the least of anybodys worries while playing. Hitting a forehand and having your arm rip completely off is more of a worry than the aerodynamics of a racquet.

JordanR
09-13-2006, 08:28 AM
I'm with the last two guys probably...not that I'm an engineer or anything.

Rounded frame and a more regular circular/oval shaped head (as opposed to some of the lopsided ones out there) might be the best bet for aerodynamics, but there's so many other things to think about that will *actually* effect how your racquet feels going through the air than the aerodynamics of it. Weight (static, swingweight, balance, etc) would be the biggest issue IMO. Maybe try and focus on that.

Exci
09-13-2006, 10:59 AM
No offence, but tennis racquets are not planes, gliders or bicycles. Having an "aerodynamic" racquet is truly the least of anybodys worries while playing. Hitting a forehand and having your arm rip completely off is more of a worry than the aerodynamics of a racquet.

Hehe, I believe I indeed commented that on the original Aero tour, the 'it rips your arm off'.. :)

anirut
09-13-2006, 11:49 AM
Aerodynamics and tennis rackets?

It's all marketing BS! Well, not a total BS.

If your take the Aero range, I see that the racket's specially designed for extreme western grip, upward-ball-brushing stroke.

Aerodynamics begins to really come into play when an object moves faster than 80 km per hour. Now, don't think that a racket moves too slow.

Pros' strokes are really fast, esp Nadal's upward-brush. The velocity of the racket at the tip is actually very high. It's about angular velocity. The higher the velocity, the higher the aerodynamic drag.

Now, using the racket, the drag may be lower. Could also be measurable. But does it really matter for the game of tennis?

NO! A big NO!

Because you don't hit upward brush all the time, and not even continuously during a point. And, during the stroke, the swing is even less than half a second. So a person's energy loss from the aerodynamic drag may be considered totally negligible.

That's why I mentioned it's a marketing BS, but not a total BS.

anirut
09-13-2006, 11:54 AM
Let me add a little.

The Aero range's design has certainly bad aerodynamics for flat strokes. Just look at the broad cross section that will have to cut through the air.

But does it matter? NO!

oray777
09-13-2006, 12:25 PM
No offence, but tennis racquets are not planes, gliders or bicycles. Having an "aerodynamic" racquet is truly the least of anybodys worries while playing. Hitting a forehand and having your arm rip completely off is more of a worry than the aerodynamics of a racquet.

????? Just wanted a racquet that you might know of that cuts through the air easier. I guess the Prince 03 series and Babolat are the most mentioned. :-|

anirut
09-13-2006, 12:35 PM
Oray,

If you just want a racket that cuts through air easier, I'd suggest the O3 over the Bab Aero stuff.

Why?

Because the O3 head has acceptable aerodynamics for brushing the ball (due to the big holes) while the frame is very thin (small aerodynamic cross section) and will "cut through" easily for flat shots.

Thus, the O3 should be more "aerodynamically versatile" than the Bab Aero range.

My 0.02.

monologuist
09-13-2006, 12:55 PM
obviously any thinner beamed and smaller headed racquets are going to be more aerodynamic....of the racquets I've tried in recent years, the ones that come to mind in terms of being aerodynamic FOR THEIR SIZE AND BEAM WIDTH :

Yonex MP series
Yonex Ti-70 and Ti-80
Volkl DNX 9 and DNX 10-mid
Pro Kennex Laver Type S and SX (compared to competitors like Pure Drive, Surge, etc.)
Fischer Pro 1(all models)
Babolat aeropro series ( but only on western grip forehands and kick and slice serves)

I think throat shape and thickness can affecct aerodynamics quite a bit on certain shots...many of the racquets I listed above have particularly thin or aerdynamic throats.

galain
09-13-2006, 01:41 PM
Kneissl had one back in the day. I think it was called the Aero.

aeroman
09-15-2006, 01:28 PM
Aeropro Drive, all the way