Ultra thin beam technology

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by proracketeer, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    With todays very stiff materials it should be possible to build a reasonably stable racket with a beam of 15mm or less?
     
    #1
  2. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    Speaking of that, which current production racquet has the thinnest beam?
     
    #2
  3. didier

    didier New User

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Must be the wilson 6.1 Tour ncode.
    it has a 17 mm beam
     
    #3
  4. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    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.
     
    #4
  5. KickServer

    KickServer Rookie

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    116
    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.
     
    #5
  6. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    Hammer 5.5 'Spin' was quite unstable;
    But, what about a Hammer 5.5 'Spin' with Hyper Carbon or DNX ??
     
    #6
  7. armand

    armand Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,747
    Location:
    RDS001 90: SPPP 1.18 @ 63/61
    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...
     
    #7
  8. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    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.
     
    #8
  9. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    #9
  10. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    Okay, thanks. But anyone have an idea on what is currently the thinnest production racquet in the market?
     
    #10
  11. ssjkyle31

    ssjkyle31 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    730
    I think the thinnest would be the ncode tour 90 at 17mm
     
    #11
  12. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    Could they go thinner making use of modern materials? I love thin beams!
     
    #12
  13. Vantage231511

    Vantage231511 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    217
    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?
     
    #13
  14. nViATi

    nViATi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    It would be fragile. Stiffness + narrowness = bad combination. Try bending a toothpick. Crack!
     
    #14
  15. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,570
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    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.
     
    #15
  16. hummer23

    hummer23 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,558
    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.
     
    #16
  17. jck01

    jck01 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    488
    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.
     
    #17
  18. jck01

    jck01 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    488
    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.
     
    #18
  19. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,560
    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.
     
    #19
  20. ace of spades

    ace of spades Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    it would be so sweet if in the future they made a 1cm beam racket that was strong, somewhat flexy and stable.
     
    #20
  21. nViATi

    nViATi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    That's not going to happen man. It would just snap.
     
    #21
  22. Swan Song

    Swan Song Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,156
    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".
     
    #22
  23. K. Wilson Moose

    K. Wilson Moose Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    501
    The 5.5 Spin was like hitting with a fly swatter, absolutely no stability.
     
    #23
  24. hummer23

    hummer23 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    1,558
    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.
     
    #24
  25. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    It is possible.

    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!
     
    #25
  26. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    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
     
    #26
  27. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    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.
     
    #27
  28. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    14cm? Wow, must feel funny swinging a brick on court ... ;-)
     
    #28
  29. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    What does one have to do to get a company to produce a ultra thin beam racket? Sign a petition? 1000?
     
    #29
  30. Ripper

    Ripper Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,652
    Location:
    "Where Moth & Rust Destroy"
    I'd sign it!
     
    #30
  31. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    2 . . . and counting
     
    #31
  32. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    3 ........
     
    #32
  33. bruguerabatigol

    bruguerabatigol New User

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin

    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.
     
    #33
  34. proracketeer

    proracketeer Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    972
    Looks like Donnay answered our prayers.
     
    #34

Share This Page