Why not do Parallel Drilling all around the frame? (Long, windy)

[Kalethan]

So, let's assume we're Wilson, we've drunk our own Kool-Ade and genuinely believe in the benefits of Parallel Drilling. ¿Why then is Parallel Drilling only in the 'sweet spot'?!? Wouldn't the benefits of increased comfort be even More important Outside the sweet spot?!? Is it just because it's harder/more expensive to engineer grommet strips with the flanges perfectly parallel, so they only did it on the part of the racquet that would require the least retooling of the CNC machines/plastic molds? Call me ignorant and crazy (I mostly am), but why would having the grommet holes perfectly parallel necessarily make installing the grommets any harder? If anything, it seems like a strip could glide in More easily, and be done in sections instead of 1 continuous strip as you get to the sharp-angled alternating corner sections....as it is, the strings are rubbing and pulling against the sides of each grommet hole in all but 4 crosses and 8 mains. If the idea is increasing the effective size of the string bed by extending the length of string out to the break angle at the outside of the frame, why not really run with it? Did Wilson try and find it didn't work, or just decide it would be too expensive to implement?

I'm demoing a 2015 blade 98 18x20, and it feels light years more comfortable than previous Blades, even though it has somewhat old 15 gauge Revolve in there at mid-high tension. It also produces notably more spin and in a different way than the 16x20 and 16x19 racquets I've used within the last week (textreme tour 95, Angell 95, Babolat Pure Control Tour 16x20). With the Blade 98 I perceive more spin and feel and I'm gripping the ball better than with the other 98 sq in 18x20's i used during the same-day extended hit-around (prestige mid plus and prince pro tour 98). The only comparable racquet in terms of feel and spin production was the Pure Control Tour, and lo and behold it has the Woofer system in addition to a more open pattern in the first place. I've read assessments that essentially the Woofer system IS parallel drilling, just more consistently applied around the frame, and that makes sense to me, as I played with the Pure Strike Tour for 5 months last year, and at the time it was the most spin-friendly 18x20 I'd ever played, but now the Blade 18x20 seems to have surpassed it (or at least be better enough in aerodynamics and other aspects to convince me ...

So! It seems to me that if Wilson went the full monty with this technology, Parallel Drilled the whole dang thing, and remade the grommets so that there was No sideways pulling of any of the strings against the edges of the plastic grommet mouths, the vectors of force would be set free (sic) and the racquets would really breathe and just have an amazingly huge sweet spot. Now, it could be argued that if you go too far with this, reduce the friction enough, maybe do away with grommets entirely, you get Prince's O Port system or whatever, but I don't buy that it has to feel that way. (I recall the O3 I demoed many times felt very comfortable but too gooey, and many report the feel was Too plush to be enjoyable)...

So! Thoughts, especially from people who've used multiple iterations of Wilsons with and without parallel drilling, maybe Babolats before and after the Woofer tech, maybe Princes with and without ports.

Thanks,

EZ Ace Machine

 

[ollinger]

Ummm, you start out accepting there is koolaid drinking going on, then wax tehnical about its benefits? Well, for one thing, parallel drilling away from the sweet spot means your drill holes become less perpendicular (and start to approach parallel) to the graphite fibers themselves, which might weaken the frame

 

[Kalethan]

(Yes, I think there can totally be a combination of Kool-Ade with actual improvements

the new Blades really do feel substantially more comfortable and seem to give me...maybe 15% more spin? Could easily be due to other/sum changes in the construction, but I was giving Parallel Drilling theoretical sole credit for the improved feel and performance.

Good call, I don't know diddly about the arrangement and alignment of fibres within the frames, and would be willing to believe drilling at too sharp an angle might stress the frame more. However, I would be just as easily convinced that the strings are exerting force at similar angles anyway and the grommets/drill holes as they are are just accepting a greater coefficient of friction than necessary because that's the way it's always been done. I certainly also see the arguments that too sharp a turn due to 'true' parallel drilling could possibly Reduce string movement And lead to faster breakage. I'm just roaming around the edges of the racquet right now and am convinced that if they had wanted to, Wilson could have achieved full or more parallel drilling with pretty minor changes. I was wondering why they went against it.

EZ

 

[esgee48]

Wilson also tried power holes (oblong shaped grommets) and rollers. All to increase the size of the sweet spot and to make the string more yielding near the entry point to the frame. To me, that what parallel drilling does. Prince called their technology Sweet Spot Suspension (also oblong shaped grommets), their short lived air frames w/o grommets and finally their O and square shaped ports (this may be the only true innovation, but I'm not convinced yet.) Babolat has stayed with woofers. IME, if you don't hit near the frame, you won't recognize that you even have this 'technology.' If you frame a lot, than you should improve your technique. As far as spin, I think adjusting string tension or changing strings can give just as much spin. 2 cents. FWIW, changing string patterns are theoretically better able to produce spin than drilling.

 

[seekay]

Parallel drilling works in the sweet spot because there aren't any strings nearby going the other way. In the corners, parallel-drilled grommets would have to cross over other grommets inside the frame.

 

[Irvin]

Parallel drilling works in the sweet spot because there aren't any strings nearby going the other way. In the corners, parallel-drilled grommets would have to cross over other grommets inside the frame.

That's correct you can't have the grommets going through each other where the mains and crosses intersect. Does parallel drilling work? The string are freezer to expand and contract all the way through the racket much like O Ports do on Prince rackets. But because Wilson choose to open the grommets just a little Wilson frames don't cause the problems with the string being pulled as far out of position when they're tensioned.

 

[MathieuR]

I think the squarish Yonex frames do have the most parallel grommets in mains ánd crosses