View Single Post
Old 01-07-2013, 11:53 PM   #73
BlueB
Professional
 
BlueB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,107
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UCSF2012 View Post
It's like you've never hit with a tennis racket and over time have the frame die on you. It's like you've never strung a racket, and have the graphite cave in as the machine is pulling on the string. There's a difference between traditional graphite and ultra high modulus graphite. My claims are "ridiculous" to you, because you've never made the observations many of us have. You theorize without observation.

This isn't about graphite in rackets. Modern rackets are still made of graphite. It's about traditional graphite versus ultra high modulus graphite. They're both graphite, but they have different properties. Ultra high modulus doesn't seem to fatigue as quickly (unless you add basalt to them, in which case it may die faster.)

EDIT: I misspoke when I said "loses flex." I meant to say that it gets more flexible.
What do I know, anyways... Only worked on a team that designed about $50,000,000.00 worth of composite products...

A product built to the same stifness spec out of higher modulus fiber, will fail quicker then the counterpart built in lower modulus fiber, for a simple reason - less material used in the high modulus product.
A produst built to the same stifness spec using higher beam, will fail before the the counterpart with lower beam - again, more material in lower beam.
A beam built with a core will outlast the hollow beam, for better load distribution.
All of above is especially true for point loading and impact related failures. Those are the major rasons for failure of the racquets, which is sometimes perceived as fatigue...
__________________
It's never too late for a happy childhood!
BlueB is online now   Reply With Quote