Ode to the Wilson Ultra FPK 95

Captain Haddock · 06-29-2009, 08:07 AM

The Wilson Ultra FPK 95 (1988-1992) remains my all-time favorite Wilson frame. With a thick shaft and a thin head, it flexed just right for me. I wish Wilson would re-use that tapered beam mold and offer racquets like that again. It seems like Wilson abandoned this mold once it offered the 6.1 classic in 1992. The Ultra Graphite 95 (red/maroon) and the Ultra Kevlar 95 (white) were almost as good. Does anyone still have any of those laying around?

Were there other models from that Ultra 95 mold? I seem to recall a bunch of Euro models in all kinds of colors (silver, green, etc.), all with the same tapered beam... Can anyone list them all or post pictures?

schu47 · 06-29-2009, 09:21 AM

Here you go, Fabrice. I only have the FPK and the Graphite in the 95 head size, and here they are. I do have an Ultra Kevlar, but it is an oversize, and I don't much like it for that reason. I wouldn't mind having a Kevlar 95. These are nice racquets, comparable to any of Wilson's best from that era, and beautiful frames, too.

Here's a two-page ad spread from 1989 -- looks like Wilson put a lot into promoting these racquets. In case you can't read the fine print, the FPK was 84% graphite, 4% fiber (fiberglass?) and 12% Kevlar, with a stiffness rating of 5.0; the Ultra Kevlar was 80% graphite and 20% Kevlar, stiffness of 5.6; and the Ultra Graphite 50% graphite and 50% fiberglass, stiffness of 6.7. It's no wonder you liked the FPK if you like a flexy frame. I like the FPK much better than the Ultra Graphite myself.

Captain Haddock · 06-29-2009, 10:06 AM

I remember the ad. Just beautiful frames. And no technological gimmicks or strange merchandising claims either: the frame is clearly engineered to combine some power (from the stiffness in the throat and the very open string pattern) and feel (from the flex in the head and the kevlar in the layup). These were well-designed and well-built frames, and in the age of widebodies, they offered an alternative to players with longer swings who disliked the Wilson Profile line. I can't understand why Wilson would discontinue this blood line.
There were other racquets from other brands with a similar tapered beam, if I recall. Wimbledon, Dunlop and Fischer made some. And of course Kneissl pioneered the thick shaft/thin head graphite frame.

Bud · 06-29-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabrice Leroy

I remember the ad. Just beautiful frames. And no technological gimmicks or strange merchandising claims either: the frame is clearly engineered to combine some power (from the stiffness in the throat and the very open string pattern) and feel (from the flex in the head and the kevlar in the layup). These were well-designed and well-built frames, and in the age of widebodies, they offered an alternative to players with longer swings who disliked the Wilson Profile line. I can't understand why Wilson would discontinue this blood line.
There were other racquets from other brands with a similar tapered beam, if I recall. Wimbledon, Dunlop and Fischer made some. And of course Kneissl pioneered the thick shaft/thin head graphite frame.

What's the 4% material in the Ultra FPK? The magazine states... 84% graphite, 4% Fiber FP?, 12% Kevlar.

I can't quite read it.

retrowagen · 06-29-2009, 11:10 AM

The Ultra FPK 95 is my favorite Wilson racquet of all. And very nicely accomodates both the "classic" and "modern" styles of play.

I have been using what I think is Fischer's functional equivalent of these tapered-beam Wilsons for my playing this year, and can't imagine being happier with a piece of tennis equipment. Now if I could also find some shoes to be content with...

Colpo · 06-29-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud

What's the 4% material in the Ultra FPK? The magazine states... 84% graphite, 4% Fiber FP?, 12% Kevlar.

I can't quite read it.

That's all the ad says about that. If I'm not mistaken, FP was a Dupont proprietary, but one would need to do a bit more research to see what playing characteristics were claimed to be attributable to it in the FPK. I'm feeling some kind of ceramics-like property, but could be wrong.

Bud · 06-29-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colpo

That's all the ad says about that. If I'm not mistaken, FP was a Dupont proprietary, but one would need to do a bit more research to see what playing characteristics were claimed to be attributable to it in the FPK. I'm feeling some kind of ceramics-like property, but could be wrong.

So it does state "4% Fiber FP" in the magazine ad?

schu47 · 06-29-2009, 01:17 PM

Bud,

Here's a closeup of the ad.

Bud · 06-29-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schu47

Bud,

Here's a closeup of the ad.

I was blessed with good eyesight! Thanks for the enlargement.

Captain Haddock · 06-29-2009, 04:05 PM

I think you're right about the Dupont trademark, Sandro. I also think that the Ultra FPKs were made in Saint Vincent, at least in the first few years of production. The white Ultra Kevlars were a little cheaper but felt very similar. Years later (in the mid-nineties), Wilson released an Ultra 6.8, but only with an oversize head. There was also an Ultra Hammer 5.5 (same mold, red and black cosmetics, head heavy balance), which was released in Europe. I'm not a big fan of Hammer-balanced racquets, but even that version of the Ultra felt nice.

Bud · 06-29-2009, 10:25 PM

In case anyone's interested... Fiber FP (Dupont trademark) is a reinforced metal matrix composite or MMC (also called a ceramic composite) developed and patented by DuPont

"Composite materials are generally well known. There are currently in use many composite materials made of various fibers and resins. Fiberglass and boron filament resin composite structures, for example, are in widespread use.

Efforts have been underway for many years to produce composite structures by combining high strength fibers or filaments in a metal matrix. Such efforts have met with some success. However, forming such parts by the method of casting has been difficult. Problems have been encountered in achieving a good bond between the fiber and metal matrix.

A fiber of polycrystalline aluminium oxide has been found to result in an excellent bond with magnesium and aluminium. This fiber was developed by the DuPont Company and is marketed under DuPont's trademark Fiber FP. Such fibers are generally coated with a fugitive organic binder. Fiber FP has been coated with such a binder, Rhoplex. Rhoplex is a trademark of the DuPont Company.

The coated fibers are laid up into a preform. The preform is then heated and compressed. The preform is then placed in a casting mold where the temperature is again elevated so as to permit the binder to either drain or burn off. The voids thus created are then filled by molten metal.

Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex preforms must be subjected to approximately 3,000 pounds per square inch in the compaction step. This requires complex and expensive tooling. Additionally, Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex is extremely brittle resulting in a high fiber failure rate when laying up curved preforms. Additional fibers are broken during compaction. It is difficult to combine preforms of Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex to form more complex structures, prior to their insertion into the casting mold due to Rhoplex's lack of adhesionary characteristics."

References:
http://www.chemindustry.com/chemicals/14870.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_matrix_composite
http://tinyurl.com/kua6nl
http://tinyurl.com/krz4fq (pic above)
http://www.composites-by-design.com/metal-matrix.htm (excellent info)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4312398.html (long quote above)

georgeyew · 06-30-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schu47

Here's a two-page ad spread from 1989 -- looks like Wilson put a lot into promoting these racquets. In case you can't read the fine print, the FPK was 84% graphite, 4% fiber (fiberglass?) and 12% Kevlar, with a stiffness rating of 5.0; the Ultra Kevlar was 80% graphite and 20% Kevlar, stiffness of 5.6; and the Ultra Graphite 50% graphite and 50% fiberglass, stiffness of 6.7. It's no wonder you liked the FPK if you like a flexy frame. I like the FPK much better than the Ultra Graphite myself.

Actually you are backwards on that. The FPK is the stiffest out of the bunch. The rating that they used back then is, the lower the number, the stiffer the racquet. It measured how much the head deflects on impact.

schu47 · 06-30-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgeyew

Actually you are backwards on that. The FPK is the stiffest out of the bunch. The rating that they used back then is, the lower the number, the stiffer the racquet. It measured how much the head deflects on impact.

Is that right? Thanks for the info. So the current rating is the opposite, and the Graphite is the most flexible? Well, duh.

Richard Pur · 06-30-2009, 10:08 AM

Great thread! I played with the FPK 95 from 1991 to 2008. I scooped up a bunch when they were discontinued and played with them since. The ironic thing is that back then I could not find a suitable replacement for my Graphite Edge and "settled" on the FPK 95. After tailoring my game to the racquet for all those years, I found it virtually impossible to replace the FPK, but "settled" on the Slaz Pro X1. But it's a little harsher than the FPK. The FPK 95 could be the best ever at serving and volleying.

As my FPK's aged, they got better, as the head got softer and more flexible. Man, could I hit some unbelievable drop shots with that racquet! I could hold the ball on the racquet etc. As I have stated several times on this forum over the past years, when I find a replacement that I am "totally comfortable with", which may or may not be the Pro X1, I will get rid of my FPK's. But as I play less and get older, I think I realize I need more help with power. That's where the Pro X1 helps.

All but one of my FPK's are pretty worn, but I never took the plastic off of one and it's brand spanking new. I was thinking about trying to get about $150 for that one, and throw in the 4 or 5 others for minimal $. They are 4 5/8".

A while back, I wrote a thread to TW asking what it would take to have Wilson make these again (special order) and I got a negative response. If someone championed the effort, I would be good for ordering some.

Again, great thread.

Rich

Captain Haddock · 06-30-2009, 10:17 AM

Rich, my grip size is actually 4 & 5/8 as well... (hint, hint

pshulam · 07-03-2009, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schu47

Is that right? Thanks for the info. So the current rating is the opposite, and the Graphite is the most flexible? Well, duh.

The Graphite model is most flexible since it has almost 50% fiberglass.

plasma · 07-03-2009, 04:45 AM

did they make the ultra graphite in an 85?

Captain Haddock · 07-03-2009, 08:34 AM

Plaz, I don't think Wilson ever released an 85 version of the red Ultra Graphite. There was a FPK 85 briefly for sale here at TW (from the Bosworth collection), but I've never seen those in stores. I thought these were made specifically for Mandlikova when she switched from the Ultra 2. And, speaking of the Ultra 2, I seem to recall a special edition of the Ultra 95 (FPK mold) with modernized Ultra 2 cosmetics (unless I hallucinated this).

Retrowagen, are you using the Twin Tec or the Elliptic? Both are beautiful frames in all aspects.

I hit today with a HPS 6.0 95 from a friend, and it reminded me a bit of the FPK.

plasma · 07-03-2009, 05:00 PM

the beam width reminds me of the stars and stripes> I love 85's but they're a bit too stiff. Hoping to find an fpk 85 or 6.1 85 this year.

pshulam · 07-03-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

I hit today with a HPS 6.0 95 from a friend, and it reminded me a bit of the FPK.

PS95 is probably closer to the Ultra Kevlar than FPK.

06-29-2009, 08:07 AM	#1
Captain Haddock Rookie Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 285	Ode to the Wilson Ultra FPK 95 The Wilson Ultra FPK 95 (1988-1992) remains my all-time favorite Wilson frame. With a thick shaft and a thin head, it flexed just right for me. I wish Wilson would re-use that tapered beam mold and offer racquets like that again. It seems like Wilson abandoned this mold once it offered the 6.1 classic in 1992. The Ultra Graphite 95 (red/maroon) and the Ultra Kevlar 95 (white) were almost as good. Does anyone still have any of those laying around? Were there other models from that Ultra 95 mold? I seem to recall a bunch of Euro models in all kinds of colors (silver, green, etc.), all with the same tapered beam... Can anyone list them all or post pictures?

06-29-2009, 11:10 AM	#5
retrowagen Professional Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,499	The Ultra FPK 95 is my favorite Wilson racquet of all. And very nicely accomodates both the "classic" and "modern" styles of play. I have been using what I think is Fischer's functional equivalent of these tapered-beam Wilsons for my playing this year, and can't imagine being happier with a piece of tennis equipment. Now if I could also find some shoes to be content with... __________________ Psalm 100:4

06-29-2009, 10:25 PM	#11
Bud Talk Tennis Guru Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 28,952	Fiber FP (another DuPont trademark) In case anyone's interested... Fiber FP (Dupont trademark) is a reinforced metal matrix composite or MMC (also called a ceramic composite) developed and patented by DuPont "Composite materials are generally well known. There are currently in use many composite materials made of various fibers and resins. Fiberglass and boron filament resin composite structures, for example, are in widespread use. Efforts have been underway for many years to produce composite structures by combining high strength fibers or filaments in a metal matrix. Such efforts have met with some success. However, forming such parts by the method of casting has been difficult. Problems have been encountered in achieving a good bond between the fiber and metal matrix. A fiber of polycrystalline aluminium oxide has been found to result in an excellent bond with magnesium and aluminium. This fiber was developed by the DuPont Company and is marketed under DuPont's trademark Fiber FP. Such fibers are generally coated with a fugitive organic binder. Fiber FP has been coated with such a binder, Rhoplex. Rhoplex is a trademark of the DuPont Company. The coated fibers are laid up into a preform. The preform is then heated and compressed. The preform is then placed in a casting mold where the temperature is again elevated so as to permit the binder to either drain or burn off. The voids thus created are then filled by molten metal. Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex preforms must be subjected to approximately 3,000 pounds per square inch in the compaction step. This requires complex and expensive tooling. Additionally, Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex is extremely brittle resulting in a high fiber failure rate when laying up curved preforms. Additional fibers are broken during compaction. It is difficult to combine preforms of Fiber FP coated with Rhoplex to form more complex structures, prior to their insertion into the casting mold due to Rhoplex's lack of adhesionary characteristics." References: http://www.chemindustry.com/chemicals/14870.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_matrix_composite http://tinyurl.com/kua6nl http://tinyurl.com/krz4fq (pic above) http://www.composites-by-design.com/metal-matrix.htm (excellent info) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4312398.html (long quote above) Last edited by Bud : 06-29-2009 at 10:41 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode