Do newer model racquets have true superior breakthroughs in materials/technology?

[sabala]

Originally Posted by svarthofde

it is interesting though how these technological wonders are especially liked, most of the times, only by rec players. i've talked to competitive players, people that made a living out of tennis, some of them just national, some of them top 100 atp and most of them said that these knew technologies are not so special as advertised.
i especially mentioned the D3O because i know from a tennis player that all 6 of his racquets, the first head racquets that had D3O they all broke at the neck. and i mean the head of the racquet broke and flew across the court.
now considering that people have the tendency to exaggerate these things i am inclined to think that it wasn't all six of them. yet there were others that reported the same problem.
and maybe you do not remember the advertising done by the manufacturer when the D3O was first implemented. the words " the racquet will know what kind of shot you need and get more or less stiff accordingly" were thrown around.
i do not say that these technologies do not exist or do not improve a racquet. but IMO they do too little and they are only a revelation for the rec player.
if one of these technologies was a breakthrough all the manufacturers would have jumped on the wagon. like what happened with multi-layered wood frames, aluminum frames and later graphite frames

Prince Vortex had the same thing TWENTY years ago. I worked in a tennis club and the Prince rep dropped off a little Vortex tech display stand thingy.

Basically there was a little ball of the "Vortex space goo" with a mini mallet attached to display stand. You whack the ball with the mallet and it's still a perfect ball but if you slowly press into it, the ball easily deforms ....LIKE MAGIC!!

Also had staggered string pattern "technology" which was supposed to move the ball towards the frame on off centered hits.



Not to mention Dunlop Max200G well before the Vortex ...

Rick Perry, Dunlop's Director of Research & Development offers, "the measure of resistance on the Max 200g is based on the rate pressure is applied. When pressure is applied at a slow rate, such as on a Babolat RA or RDC machine, the frame will seem very flexible. During fast swings, though, the frame deflects less and thus, returns more energy to the ball."

[UCSF2012]

Today, racquets have big heads which give you more power and margin for error. They're stiff, which helps in directional control. Strings are stiff, which give you improved consistency, placement, and super spin.

How much more help does one need on their tennis game? Racquet manufacturers can only do so much. There comes a certain point when you - the player - have to put in the court time and improve your game. The only missing technology is the Federer Technology, whereby Federer comes on the court and hits the winner for you. (That, actually, would be awesome.)

Maybe these technologies aren't BS. Maybe your tennis game is BS. Ever thought of that? Ha.

[TennisCJC]

A good racket from 20+ years ago could easily be used on pro tour today. The prince graphite from 30 years ago was a great racket, the head prestige and radicals from 10+ years ago can easily compete with today's models. The Jim Courier flat beam 95 wilson pro staff from 10+ years ago is a great racket.

The main advance since graphite composite rackets has been polyester strings which have changed the game almost as much as the change from wood to graphite.

I really don't see "basalt" or amplifeel having an advantage over a good graphite racket from 20 years ago.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

I really don't see "basalt" or amplifeel having an advantage over a good graphite racket from 20 years ago.

Basalt and amplifeel are comfort technologies, not game improvement technologies. Ultra stiff graphite today take its toll on your body (while it has game improvement benefits), so BLX and Amplifeel are designed to allow a player to use ultra stiff graphite without pain.

Traditional graphite loses flex quickly and cave in in due time. The POG can't handle poly's without losing extreme power. A POG with poly is how a man turns into a 12 year old girl.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Traditional graphite loses flex quickly and cave in in due time.

This is a ridiculous statment, sorry. The graphite is the "strongest" component in any racquet composite, after the boron.
Even if there was some change in properties, it wouldnt be the loss but increase in flex.
More different fibre materials you put into a composite, less you can custom tailor the matrix (epoxy) for maximum bond, resulting in decreased longevity of the product...

[v-verb]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

...

Traditional graphite loses flex quickly and cave in in due time. The POG can't handle poly's without losing extreme power. A POG with poly is how a man turns into a 12 year old girl.

Tonight I was hitting hard with a POG mid and a Boron OS both strung with RPM Team.

No I'm not a 12 year old girl.

So...I disagree with your statement

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by v-verb

Tonight I was hitting hard with a POG mid and a Boron OS both strung with RPM Team.

No I'm not a 12 year old girl.

So...I disagree with your statement

Then I disagree that you were hitting hard.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by BlueB

This is a ridiculous statment, sorry. The graphite is the "strongest" component in any racquet composite, after the boron.
Even if there was some change in properties, it wouldnt be the loss but increase in flex.
More different fibre materials you put into a composite, less you can custom tailor the matrix (epoxy) for maximum bond, resulting in decreased longevity of the product...

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.

[Harry_Wild]

Originally Posted by Raul_SJ

I have been using the Wilson ProStaff Classic 6.1si Stretch for over 10 years.

I have tried demoes with recent models that claimed better playability due to new materials/technology (from Head and Wilson ) but they did not feel significantly better, so I just stuck with my old racquet.

I am wondering if there have been any significant breakthroughs in materials/racquet technology during the past decade?

Or is it primarily marketing hype by the racquet manufacturers that have a vested interest in players buying the latest gadgets?

Most of the break throughs are marketing generated. But if you believe in them; that what counts. There is definitely better graphics(not the fibers) in the newest rackets that make a big difference in how you view your racket - sort of like color and looks of a sport car user image. LOL!

But in general; a new racket gives you a hyped up fondness for the game and desire to do better stroking.

So go and buy yourself a new racket!

[pshulam]

"But in general; a new racket gives you a hyped up fondness for the game and desire to do better stroking. "
It might be the converse as newer racquets promote lazy strokes.

[v-verb]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Then I disagree that you were hitting hard.

Come to Toronto and find out.

[Harry_Wild]

Originally Posted by pshulam

"But in general; a new racket gives you a hyped up fondness for the game and desire to do better stroking. "
It might be the converse as newer racquets promote lazy strokes.

Might not too! Go buy a Prestige Mid!

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

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...

[yonexRx32]

Thank you for pointing this out! It's painful to listen to arguments such as "Ultra Xestra Super Graphite" is much stronger than "Ultra Limp Graphite".

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

I think frames are getting worse over time. It seems that the manufacturers are trying to make frames ever lighter, stiffer, and more powerful. Lighter and stiffer means more shock on impact with the ball. More power means that if you take a full swing at the ball it goes long, so rec players tend to use bad form and tap the ball like they're playing backyard badminton...all wrist and elbow.

The steady increase in head size also means less control for rec players (pros have the technique to tame this power). This too contributes to poor form and arm injuries.

Look at Wilson's new Ampli Feel technology. It's deliberately designed to transmit more impact feel/vibration to the arm using stiff, brittle materials such as basalt and metal in the handle. The irony is that Wilson also makes a great replacement grip, the Shock Shield, which includes soft, rubbery materials designed to DAMPEN vibrations.

Even Dunlop has jumped on the stiffer/lighter/power bandwagon. Read between the lines of TW's recent reciews of Biomimetic frames and you'll see they've abandoned a softer/Lower power approach to frame design.

When a consumer picks up a frame manufactuers believe they can sell more if the reaction is, "Oooohhh, it's so light and fast!". And on court they can sell more when players perceive that it's super easy to knock the ball over the net without proper form. They use their wrist and elbow and shoulder to swing that 10.5 oz frame into contact. Soon their tendons are inflamed and sore.

In reaction to the lighter, stiffer, power frames some players string with stiffer strings which transmits yet MORE shock to the arm. And the cult of topspin demands faster RHS speed At a more extreme swing path which puts more strain on the body.

I agree 100% with your post.

New racquets keep getting worse and worse. The newer racquets use less graphite, worse quality graphite, and are hollow and tinny, all to increase profit margins. That's why racquet companies can continue to sell graphite racquets for about the same price as 35 years ago despite all the inflation over all those years. The older racquets feel so much more solid because they used much more and higher quality graphite and so didn't feel hollow and tinny like today's new racquets do.

[AlpineCadet]

Originally Posted by Raul_SJ

I have been using the Wilson ProStaff Classic 6.1si Stretch for over 10 years.

I have tried demoes with recent models that claimed better playability due to new materials/technology (from Head and Wilson ) but they did not feel significantly better, so I just stuck with my old racquet.

I am wondering if there have been any significant breakthroughs in materials/racquet technology during the past decade?

Or is it primarily marketing hype by the racquet manufacturers that have a vested interest in players buying the latest gadgets?

You're using a players frame and im sure your strokes are grooved into a 13 oz stick, the newer head heavier frames are much stiff and require full poly to maximize control. If you aren't ready to change your strokes, stick with your setup.

[v-verb]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I agree 100% with your post.

New racquets keep getting worse and worse. The newer racquets use less graphite, worse quality graphite, and are hollow and tinny, all to increase profit margins. That's why racquet companies can continue to sell graphite racquets for about the same price as 35 years ago despite all the inflation over all those years. The older racquets feel so much more solid because they used much more and higher quality graphite and so didn't feel hollow and tinny like today's new racquets do.

I was wondering about the low prices today compared to the 70's and 80's when "good" racquets were frequently over $200 and up way back then - thanks for clearing that up for me! To me it seems like am amazing deal to get top shelf racquets for $150-$200.

That said Ive been playing POGs and Borons made in the 80s since my wrist injury as I can't play the light, hollow racquets that proliferate these days.

Looking forward to my Donnay X-Platinums which seem to be very old school in that they are relatively heavy and not hollow.

[UCSF2012]

Originally Posted by BlueB

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...

Then tell me why my hyper pro staff from 1999 is still stiff as a rock and why my PS85 is limp with the grommets caved in? My nCode 90's are in their original condition while the BLX90 is a bit softer after 6 months.

PS - you didn't quite flash knowledge we didn't know. To rephrase, Babolat uses ultra stiff/strong graphite, but they use less of it in order to reduce mass. Thus, they crack.

[magnut]

The big difference now with past racquets is the manufacturers make them cheap so profits can be increased. As a result they feel like crap. Old racquets were way higher quality than the junk they market now. Most of the technology is just recycled. Take foam core for instance. They used to foam inject a lot of racquets back in the 80s.

The most modern racquet I play is the Fischer Vacume Pro Classic 90. Everyone who hits with it loves it (even the Babalot croud).

I have old aluminum frames that play better than the junk they put out now.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Then tell me why my hyper pro staff from 1999 is still stiff as a rock and why my PS85 is limp with the grommets caved in.

Yes, I would... You need to send me the exact layup of both frames, including the resin specs, radial sections every 1/2", size and number of grommet holes, number of stringing jobs, tension and string type, total number of hours played, average swing speed, number of hits to the ground, number of shanked balls, how many times thrown in anger, hours in the trunk of car parked in the sun...
_________

At few other posters,
Easy now, the racquets are not made now out of "worse" graphite. Just less of it, allowed by higher beams and lighter weights, and in some cases higher modulus.
Prices are relatively cheaper then 3 decades ago mostly due to more massive volume and outsourcing to the far east. However, less material plays some rolle, but not to the extent you'd imagine...