Head's variable string pattern in the Pro Staff 95S?

[SpinToWin]

As most probably already know, the Pro Staff 95S will henceforth replace the Pro Staff 95 completely and the thin box beam with the traditional string pattern has disappeared completely from the Wilson lineup as a result. However, several people (me included) are not happy with this decision, as there are those who do not need or like the Spin Effect technology and prefer the control of a more traditional string pattern. However, I can understand that Wilson needs to discontinue racquets that do not sell sufficiently.

Lately, information on the new GrapheneXT Speed racquets from Head has been swirling around, with a racquet they call the Speed MPA in the lineup, which is a Speed MP with differing grommets based on whether the player wants to play a 16x16 or a 16x19 string pattern. The general idea of a racquet which is designed for the use with different string patterns seems to be the perfect solution for the "conflict" between Wilson and the unsatisfied players (people like me). Furthermore, it seems that Wilson could profit from this as they would be combining the markets for both racquets, meaning that the target group would be enlarged, which usually implies increased sales.
(the technology/method could of course also be applied to their other S racquets in order to save production costs)

I admit that I don't know how much money would be involved in the development of such a racquet (technology) for Wilson (or to which extent there would be a copyright infringement with Head's products) and whether it truly will be profitable for them in the end, but we have seen that they are in fact reading these boards, so I'll just throw this idea out into the open in case it catches anybody's interest and seems feasible (it certainly would be worth it for me!).

 

[radically_prestigious_guy]

It would certainly solve my 95 vs 95S buying dilemma.

 

[SpinToWin]

It would certainly solve my 95 vs 95S buying dilemma.

There is that too

 

[smalahove]

That's a great idea! Well done.

 

[corners]

I would think that Head would have applied for patent protection on this, although that would depend on whether there is prior art for variable patterns, and what kinds. If so, Wilson and others would not be able to do it for seven years or more. Patent records for new applications aren't available right away, so you probably couldn't find it. But you could call Head and ask them if they have a patent pending on this "tech."

 

[radically_prestigious_guy]

I wonder if Wilson ever reads these boards. This would be a great way to keep both versions of the 95 going. Surely there's a way to do it without stepping on Head's toes.

 

[Sander001]

They may be able to get around the grommet switching simply by making more holes available so you could choose what pattern to go with. Have holes for many crosses[perhaps like 24?] and you could choose to use 20 crosses or 18, 16, or 14.

The reason there would be 24 crosses is because it would be the only way to maintain an even string bed whether you go with 18 crosses, 14, or whatever. You would need to skip a different sets of holes depending on what pattern you're going with. Sorry that I'm not clear, had a very long 2 days :| Somebody can explain it better.

 

[000KFACTOR90000]

Interesting; kneissl had something called a vario stringing pattern. I like the idea.

 

[Devilito]

I think they took the "less crosses" thing too far. I would have loved a taper from 16x19 to say, 16x17

 

[radically_prestigious_guy]

Maybe when they tested it out there was no significant difference between 16x19 and 16x17, so 15 was the most they could do while still seeing a significant difference.