Sweet spot of Max200g

[AlfaAce]

Originally Posted by joe sch

Would be great to get these reproduced but the injection molding process would make it much more expensive than the standard manufacturing.

Show me the machine and I'll show you the $ .

[max]

About ten years ago I looked into this. I think there is/was a firm in Rockford, Illinois that did this kind of injection molding with graphite stuff. I wasn't too surprised; Rockford is a well-known tooling city.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by joe sch

Would be great to get these reproduced but the injection molding process would make it much more expensive than the standard manufacturing.

Ummm, no...
The expensive part of the injection molding is the machinery and the molds. If those still exist, it is actually less expensive to produce a frame then a standard one. Standard is pretty much a hand laid process, with several slow steps. Injection molding is automated and a single quick step.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by BlueB

Ummm, no...
The expensive part of the injection molding is the machinery and the molds. If those still exist, it is actually less expensive to produce a frame then a standard one. Standard is pretty much a hand laid process, with several slow steps. Injection molding is automated and a single quick step.

Totally agree... The best thing, IMHO, is that the quality of a moulded frame is more consistent then a hand laid regular manufactured frame.
Rumours are that a certain person involved in this forum has set his mind on making a brand new racket line combining IMF with regular manufacturing processes..........

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by Rock Strongo

Is it just me who thinks it has obscene power for some shots? I hit some ridiculous returns with mine last week and couldn't really believe how much oomph they had.

It is a powerful racket if you can generate the head speed. I found that the best way to generate power is on hard incoming shots. The racket is very stable and I had no trouble hitting back to someone who was blasting bombs at me with a yellow Babolat. I play with the Max 200g Pro which is lighter and about 10pts head light (vs 5-6pt for the regular). It plays best with natural gut but a high quality multi like babolat xcel power 17 also works very well. Comparatively polyester didn't feel as good, but it was only relative to the two other strings.

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by AlfaAce

Show me the machine and I'll show you the $ .

Do you think the tennis crowd at large would want to play with an 84 sq inch racket? When I show up with my rackets even old timers wonder at the size. I tell them that it plays much bigger but they still shake their heads.

[AlfaAce]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

Do you think the tennis crowd at large would want to play with an 84 sq inch racket? When I show up with my rackets even old timers wonder at the size. I tell them that it plays much bigger but they still shake their heads.

I imagine that the same question was asked before the re-production of the original Wilson PS (85 sq. in.). It has a loyal following and, although I don't know the numbers, seems to be a demand for it and the repros are doing quite well. Of course, I wouldn't say this about just any old "vintage" racquet, but certain ones could follow suit like the POG, 200G, etc.

BTW... yesterday I placed my Max 200G over top of a modern midsize Head racquet and was shocked that there really didn't seem to be much of an appreciable difference in head size. I was expecting the difference to be black and white, but it wasn't. When you hold a Max 200G up at a distance they do look small. I think this is partially due to the "chunky" frame of the Max 200G. Also, when I play with my Max 200G I hit no more "framed shots" than with my Babolat PD2012 (100 sq. in.) and I'm certainly not a pro .

[AlfaAce]

Originally Posted by max

About ten years ago I looked into this. I think there is/was a firm in Rockford, Illinois that did this kind of injection molding with graphite stuff. I wasn't too surprised; Rockford is a well-known tooling city.

And what were the results if any?

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by AlfaAce

When you hold a Max 200G up at a distance they do look small. I think this is partially due to the "chunky" frame of the Max 200G. Also, when I play with my Max 200G I hit no more "framed shots" than with my Babolat PD2012 (100 sq. in.) and I'm certainly not a pro .

I actually measured it, it is 84 sq inch. The reason it looks bigger is that the frame is thick, as you mention. I compared it to a 93 sq inch Prince Diablo and it is clearly smaller.

[corners]

Originally Posted by MichaelChang

I picked up a used Max200g strung with random syn guts with low tension. The stick weights 13.4oz. The head sure looks like a 85 or so, but the sweet spot feels much bigger than a Wilson 85. The 200g plays very flex, and very sweet on most shots, including some off-center shots. Hmm... Is that so to you too?

The swingweight of about 355 is the primary reason the sweet zone feels so big. PS 85 is about 330. If you've ever slapped 8 grams of lead onto a stick at 12 o'clock you know what increasing swingweight by 25 units does to the sweetspot and feel.

The low - about 45 flex - is also a factor in how the frame feels compared to stiffer (PS: 65 flex) sticks.

[AlfaAce]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

I actually measured it, it is 84 sq inch. The reason it looks bigger is that the frame is thick, as you mention. I compared it to a 93 sq inch Prince Diablo and it is clearly smaller.

Originally Posted by corners

The swingweight of about 355 is the primary reason the sweet zone feels so big. PS 85 is about 330. If you've ever slapped 8 grams of lead onto a stick at 12 o'clock you know what increasing swingweight by 25 units does to the sweetspot and feel.

The low - about 45 flex - is also a factor in how the frame feels compared to stiffer (PS: 65 flex) sticks.

Yep... regardless of sq. in., there is certainly a reason that the 200G racked up so many wins on tour with many pros back in the day. That same reason keeps it quite popular today (like the Wilson PS85). Used 200Gs still command quite a price. For example, a decent condition 200G will easily run you $100 + shipping on 3bay these days. In comparison, a Yonex R-22 (also a very popular and winning stick of the same era) will only fetch $35-50 in the same condition. I'd love to re-introduce the original 200G .

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by AlfaAce

For example, a decent condition 200G will easily run you $100 + shipping on 3bay these days. Whereas as Yonex R-22 (also a very popular/winning stick of it's day) will only fetch $35-50 in the same condition. I'd love to re-introduce the original 200G .

.. and a used 200G pro would cost you $200. But if you had the choice, would you still make it 84 sq in or would you try to increase the size (90, 93, 95) to appeal to both the old guard and a broader public? The 500i, which is 95 sq in is quite a different beast, with different frame profile and different material.

As a side note, I compared the 200G pro and the PS 85 new version, side by side for an hour or so. In the past, I was a fan of the PS 85, having played with a similar racket for over ten years. However, compared to the 200G pro, it now felt underpowered and unstable. The dunlop felt better in many ways.

[AlfaAce]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

.. and a used 200G pro would cost you $200. But if you had the choice, would you still make it 84 sq in or would you try to increase the size (90, 93, 95) to appeal to both the old guard and a broader public? The 500i, which is 95 sq in is quite a different beast, with different frame profile and different material.

As a side note, I compared the 200G pro and the PS 85 new version, side by side for an hour or so. In the past, I was a fan of the PS 85, having played with a similar racket for over ten years. However, compared to the 200G pro, it now felt underpowered and unstable. The dunlop felt better in many ways.

Nope. I'd keep it 100% original. Of course, I'd want to reproduce the "200G Pro" as well.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

.. and a used 200G pro would cost you $200.

A used 200G Pro can be obtained for much less these days if you would settle for the less popular Dark green/Gold/Teal version. Same great feel but half the price of the Black/Purple/Green one.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by corners

The swingweight of about 355 is the primary reason the sweet zone feels so big.

I measuredd mine to about 330 SW...

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by Hannah19

A used 200G Pro can be obtained for much less these days if you would settle for the less popular Dark green/Gold/Teal version. Same great feel but half the price of the Black/Purple/Green one.

I know, I got one of the gold/teal version I don't have any of the purple/green ones but have three old style ones with two stripes.

[MichaelChang]

What is the main difference between the 200g and the 200g pros? I had the impression the pros were just re-runs and should have the same mold/material and plays the same? I am probably wrong? Thanks.

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by MichaelChang

What is the main difference between the 200g and the 200g pros? I had the impression the pros were just re-runs and should have the same mold/material and plays the same? I am probably wrong? Thanks.

I didn't know the difference myself until I held a couple of each. The answer is that the Pro model is lighter and is more head light.

On my sample of three of each, the Pros were 2pt more HL (9 vs 7). The pros are 360,361, 364g. The non-pros are 365, 366, 371g. All are strung and have overgrips, except the two lighter non-pros which don't have overgrips. The caveat is that the strings are different on the rackets and that the non-pros all have different grip sizes (L2, L3, and L4).

2pt HL doesn't seem like much but because I started playing with the pros, I picked up the difference as soon as I laid my hand on the non-pro.

[Virginia]

I already had ten 200G's of differing vintages, but the other day someone at my club gave me another couple, one the original black and the other the teal. They were her old racquets from years ago, but still in very acceptable condition.

I'm now playing with the teal one. Originally I wanted to use it occasionally just to improve my technique, but I've now got so addicted to the feel of it, I'm using it all the time.

It weighs 373 grammes, same as my mint (as in perfect graphics) black one. They do seem to vary a bit in weight, but I hadn't noticed any appreciable difference as between the standard and pro models.

I look around at the other members of my club, playing with 10 oz (or even lighter) frames and can't imagine playing with such light frames - horrible. I like to let the racquet do the work, rather than my arm.

[yonexRx32]

<<It weighs 373 grammes, same as my mint (as in perfect graphics) black one. They do seem to vary a bit in weight, but I hadn't noticed any appreciable difference as between the standard and pro models.>>

Can you measure the balance point between your pros and the others? I found it to be 1/4 inch = 2 pt. Curious if you see the same thing.