View Single Post
Old 05-18-2007, 07:03 PM   #44
nBladed
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BreakPoint View Post
You're absolutely right. Federer did help to design his current racquet and he probably did go through many molds and prototypes. However, all of this happened in 2002 when he switched from the PS 6.0 85 to his current racquet. He's been using the same racquet ever since.
2002?

Are you sure he was that spot on in the design process? Fed was still pretty much a nobody. He only had three titles in 2002.

Didn't Wilson at that time say that the PStour 90 was designed for Pete Sampras and Roger Federer?

This question is to everyone:
If you understand anything about business, it gets super expensive to keep molds and make one shots of old stock. You make money in bulk.

Why do you think Wilson tried to phase out the PS6.0 85 so many times? Not enough critical demand. But there was enough of a demand so I am sure they cost the costs somewhere.... which ended up being a different manufacturing process.

I am only approaching this from a economics standpoint of supply vs. demand.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO TRULY KNOWS WHAT RACKET COMPANIES KEEP ON HAND TO SATISFY THEIR PLAYER'S OLDER RACKET NEEDS?

I refuse to believe that Head, Wilson, etc. will just say to any player, "Oh you are using this racket from 1993 that is no longer in production but you are the only person on Earth with this special request and guess what....? we will remanufacture 15 or more of them for you for thousands of dollars (because that's how much it will cost for that limited supply) just to keep you happy and somewhere in the top 50 where your name recognition means diddly to our overall worldwide sales.

anyone in top 5 becomes a different story.

heck Prince didn't even make a special racket for James Blake. What does that say about their economics?
nBladed is offline   Reply With Quote