PDA

View Full Version : Extreme Beam Photos


varuscelli
09-27-2006, 05:19 PM
Inspired partly by Duzza's "Thinnest Racquet Ever" thread, I'm taking the opportunity to post some fairly extreme beam-width comparison photos of a few racquets, from a 9mm beam Wright & Ditson wire-strung metal/wood racquet (circa 1920) to a 1970s 13mm beam Wilson T2000 to a more recent 30mm beam Wilson Hyper Hammer 3.3. Pretty incredible differences in beam width from the 9mm to the 30mm. Don't know if there are any racquets out there with narrower than a 9mm beam or wider than a 30mm beam, but this is the best I can do from here.

All measurements are done with my el cheapo plastic vernier calipers, so if I'm off by a half millimeter, well...what can I say? I'm betting this is all pretty close, though.

Here's one photo of those three racquets side by side (beam-wise, that is).

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-005.jpg

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 05:22 PM
Here are a couple of photos of the Wright & Ditson and the Wilson Hammer 3.3.

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-009.jpg

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-004.jpg

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 05:23 PM
Here are a couple of photos of the Wilson T2000 and the Wright & Ditson.

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-001.jpg

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-003.jpg

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 05:27 PM
Here's a 19mm beam Yonex RDX 500 Mid with the Wilson T2000 and the Wright & Ditson, and a shot of the RDX 500 Mid next to the Wright & Ditson just to show the two racquets from a normal view.

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-006.jpg

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-011.jpg

gonzalocatalino
09-27-2006, 05:33 PM
http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-001.jpg



"game improvement racquet" :mrgreen:

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 05:41 PM
"game improvement racquet" :mrgreen:

Ha! At the time, I bet that's exactly how they marketed it. ;)

Noveson
09-27-2006, 08:27 PM
Wow, that is quite a difference, try to get one of the Flexpoint 10, they have square beams and they looked positively huuuuuuge. I don't know how big they are compared to that 30 mm one though.

thomas martinez
09-27-2006, 08:42 PM
You want huge? Go find either an original Profile 110 or 120. These things I think at their thickest were around 40mm thick, there was also the Prince CTS Thunderstick 90/110 which was 36mm thick at their tips!

AJK1
09-27-2006, 09:01 PM
Who wraps your overgrips? That's the lumpiest wrap i've ever seen!

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 09:28 PM
Who wraps your overgrips? That's the lumpiest wrap i've ever seen!

Used racquet, pal. That's the way it arrived. I suspect there might even be a second overgrip underneath the top one (feels kind of "puffy") but haven't unwrapped to see.

And not to make the photography part too complex, but it's also an issue of light coming in at a low angle through widow blinds where I photographed the racquets. It causes the slightest of "edges" to cast harder shadows, giving an illusion of "bumps" because of shadowing effect. (But I don't want to get to far over your head with the light and shadow stuff, AJK1. I've seen you get confused before, and it's not a pretty sight... :p )

Tennis Man
09-27-2006, 09:54 PM
Inspired partly by Duzza's "Thinnest Racquet Ever" thread, I'm taking the opportunity to post some fairly extreme beam-width comparison photos of a few racquets, from a 9mm beam Wright & Ditson wire-strung metal/wood racquet (circa 1920) to a 1970s 13mm beam Wilson T2000 to a more recent 30mm beam Wilson Hyper Hammer 3.3. Pretty incredible differences in beam width from the 9mm to the 30mm. Don't know if there are any racquets out there with narrower than a 9mm beam or wider than a 30mm beam, but this is the best I can do from here.

All measurements are done with my el cheapo plastic vernier calipers, so if I'm off by a half millimeter, well...what can I say? I'm betting this is all pretty close, though.

Here's one photo of those three racquets side by side (beam-wise, that is).

Thanks a lot but those are different materials. You can't compare apples and oranges. Graphite rackets have different flex from wood/metal. I think we were looking at some current players racquets with thin beams.

anirut
09-27-2006, 09:58 PM
Who wraps your overgrips? That's the lumpiest wrap i've ever seen!

We're talking thin beams here, not thin overgrip ... ;)


Varuscelli, thanks for the nice pics!

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 09:59 PM
You want huge? Go find either an original Profile 110 or 120. These things I think at their thickest were around 40mm thick, there was also the Prince CTS Thunderstick 90/110 which was 36mm thick at their tips!

Whoa! I didn't have any idea how wide some of the racquet beams had evolved to be. I assuming no one makes racquets with that wide of a beam any more -- or do they?

On the Prince CTS Thunderstick, I'd guess if you're referring to 36mm width at the tip that they were perhaps tapered beam and even wider further down the racquet. Wider than the 40mm of the Profile you referred to, you think?

AJK1
09-27-2006, 10:00 PM
Yeah thanks pal, i'm glad you stopped when you did with your explanation, seems like if you kept going you might have done yourself an injury. Lol
By the way, how do you know which racquet i was referring to? The Wilson or the Yonex? Mmmmmm
P.S. Varuscelli, don't be embarrassed,i know you wrapped both overgrips, they look identical, even the finish tape is the same, keep practicing, you'll get there!

Zets147
09-27-2006, 10:09 PM
So that's why they slice so well!!!

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 10:13 PM
Thanks a lot but those are different materials. You can't compare apples and oranges. Graphite rackets have different flex from wood/metal. I think we were looking at some current players racquets with thin beams.

Ahh, I think you're referring back to the "Thinnest racquet ever" thread. That's a different thread. This beam comparison photo thread is one that someone had asked me about a month or so ago, and the previous thread (about 'the thinnest racquet ever') just inspired me to go on with this as a small photo project that I had already started. I really meant this thread to stand on its own (and thus, I didn't post the photos to the other thread).

But even so, wasn't the title of that other thread, "Thinnest racquet ever" and not "Thinnest racquet made of graphite?" ;)

I think it's interesting to look at these things from a historical perspective when we can. No big deal. :)

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 10:17 PM
We're talking thin beams here, not thin overgrip ... ;)


Varuscelli, thanks for the nice pics!

Thanks, anirut, and you're welcome as well. Just a continuation of the T2000 comparison photos from awhile back. Same window, same floor, a few different racquets... ;)

AJK1
09-27-2006, 10:22 PM
Photographer eh!
We share something in common.;)
I've done my share of paid work, it's a great job.:p

varuscelli
09-27-2006, 10:31 PM
Photographer eh!
We share something in common.;)
I've done my share of paid work, it's a great job.:p

Yeah, I like it as work and I like it as play, too. These days I spend so much time shooting for other people that I rarely seem to have time to shoot anything for myself. (Well, not all the time, but still...). Not complaining, though. It's nice being able to do something I really enjoy doing for a living. I've certainly had it the other way around before. ;)

anirut
09-28-2006, 02:58 AM
Oh, I see, so we have a couple of photographers here ...

May I join the gang?

thomas martinez
09-28-2006, 05:06 AM
No, the Prince CTS line had a reverse taper as it was known. It progressively got thicker the further away from the handle you got. While the Wilson Ultra line was the opposite, it was thickest at above the handle, thinnest at the tip of the frame.

Tennis Man
09-28-2006, 06:29 AM
Ahh, I think you're referring back to the "Thinnest racquet ever" thread. That's a different thread. This beam comparison photo thread is one that someone had asked me about a month or so ago, and the previous thread (about 'the thinnest racquet ever') just inspired me to go on with this as a small photo project that I had already started. I really meant this thread to stand on its own (and thus, I didn't post the photos to the other thread).

But even so, wasn't the title of that other thread, "Thinnest racquet ever" and not "Thinnest racquet made of graphite?" ;)

I think it's interesting to look at these things from a historical perspective when we can. No big deal. :)

sorry, man. I was under impression that we are talking about the current racquets with thinnest beam. I love and collect those. so far I've only got playable racquets with 17mm beam, but I'd love to see something around 15 mm in a small mid-sized player grame. Any ideas, aside from Wilsom Hammer 5.5 spin?

varuscelli
09-28-2006, 10:03 AM
sorry, man. I was under impression that we are talking about the current racquets with thinnest beam. I love and collect those. so far I've only got playable racquets with 17mm beam, but I'd love to see something around 15 mm in a small mid-sized player grame. Any ideas, aside from Wilsom Hammer 5.5 spin?

You know, I really don't know enough about the modern racquets to have any one in mind that has a particularly narrow beam (or the narrowest beam, I should say). Personally, now that I've seen a photo of it, I'd like to at least hold one of the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin racquets, just to see what it feels like. Well, hold it and hit with it too, for that matter. ;)

But yeah, it would be interesting to know (and see) the modern era racquet that has the narrowest beam -- say, one made between 1990 and present, perhaps? Or in the last 10 years?

Adding a bunch of old racquets that I already had together with a handful that I've picked up lately, I have kind of an odd collected assortment of them. Some I have only because they are such unusual collector's items (at least, to me). I even picked up a Prince Mono a little bit back, but mostly because it's such a different racquet.

But even with the T2000, I hadn't realized how many people (mostly younger players) there were who had never even seen one, much less used one. But I have a small collection of the T2000 and T3000 racquets, and even a T4000 on the way. (Think I'll have a T2000 tournament one afternoon and force my doubles buddies to play a full set or two with just those racquets. It would certainly make an interesting couple of hours of play, if I can convince them to do it an as long as no one slams a racquet to the ground in frustration.)

varuscelli
09-28-2006, 11:18 AM
Oh, I see, so we have a couple of photographers here ...

May I join the gang?

Yes, you may. Fire away! Or: Take your best shot! (So to speak...). ;)

Tennis Man
09-28-2006, 12:00 PM
You know, I really don't know enough about the modern racquets to have any one in mind that has a particularly narrow beam (or the narrowest beam, I should say). Personally, now that I've seen a photo of it, I'd like to at least hold one of the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin racquets, just to see what it feels like. Well, hold it and hit with it too, for that matter. ;)

But yeah, it would be interesting to know (and see) the modern era racquet that has the narrowest beam -- say, one made between 1990 and present, perhaps? Or in the last 10 years?

That's awesome. I collect everything under 20mm, 93 sq inch and over 12 oz strung (by definition these are the most demanding players frames).

I love the look of my Wilsons at 17mm but I'd love to see something around 15mm as well. It must be very stiff though to maintain some power :)

Here's my li'l contribution:
http://i10.tinypic.com/4cacf8g.jpg
APD, nCode 6.1 95 and nCode 6.1 90

Tennis Man
09-28-2006, 12:10 PM
Here's another one:

http://i9.tinypic.com/2cpus5f.jpg

varuscelli
09-28-2006, 12:35 PM
[QUOTE=varuscelli]Here are a couple of photos of the Wright & Ditson and the Wilson Hammer 3.3.

http://www.ruscelli.com/images/060927-009.jpg[QUOTE]

One of the interesting things about these two racquets (aside from the huge difference in beam at 30mm compared to 9mm) is also the difference in weight. The Wilson Hyper Hammer 3.3 OS weighs about 8.8 ounces, while the old Wright & Ditson weighs 15 ounces -- without the leather grip that used to be on it (you can see where the grip used to be). Wood handle, metal frame and metal strings. ;)