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

[svarthofde]

Originally Posted by TennezSport

Well I have actually held D3O in my hands and I can tell you that it is a reactive material. It's in the way the fibers line up, so if you slowly or gently press the material it will bend. However, if you strike it hard the fibers realign and make the substance rock solid; not so James Bond. Like it or not it does work. Most of the new materials manufacturers use do work as stated, although may not at the levels of advertizing.

The bigger problem is in the way rec players look for racquets. If you have a racquet for 5+ years and you play frequently, your racquet has gone soft over time and you have become accustomed to the softer feel (especially if the racquets have heavy wear in the frame from scrapes). So, when you go to buy a new racquet, even the same exact model, you feel that the racquets dont feel the same. We see this all the time and show customers by measuring and comparing the flex of the old and new racquets. They had no idea how soft their old racquet had gotten.

The comments about lighter frames are correct and NO Pro plays with a light frame. ALL Pros play with customized frames.

Cheers, TennezSport

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

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

It depends. In regards to Wilson, say the 90, the specs of the K-90 and the new PS BLX 90 are almost identical, so the question is "Does Basalt make a difference"? No, no big time.

Try a K-Factor 95 and a new 6.1 BLX 95, no real difference, weight is weight, balance is balance, stiffness is stiffness, the thing that matters are the specs, not the materials. Different deal of course with strings.

In my opinion, the K95 and the BLX95 play differently. Some of it is the specs-the BLX95 has a slightly lower swingwieght and is slightly more flexible. However, I definitely felt the BLX95 played more muted, softer and less boardy. Is that the basalt or the flex rating?
I noticed a similar thing with the K90 and the BLX90 although the difference was pretty negligble with those two racquets.

[TennezSport]

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

Advanced and Pro players are very picky about their sticks and have them customized to their preferences, so changing to new materials can effect what they feel from the frame, something they are not interested in. This is also why they string everyday and change out racquets frequently to maintain a high consistency level.

Most rec players could not play with the pro racquets, so companies are always looking for ways to make a racquet more comfortable for rec players. Sometimes they look for materials that work well but are more cost effecient or something that enhances feel while keeping the racquet light. All of the breakthroughs like multi-layered wood frames, aluminum frames and later graphite frames were just that at the time.

Wood warped and was costly to make, Aluminum/Steel vibrates too much and caused arm issues, graphite is too brittle and must be mixed with various materials to even be playable. There is a never ending search for a combination of materials that will make that perfect racquet just like they are searching for with Poly strings today (never going to happen; too many variables).

Advertizing will always be off the charts when trying to sell like a young person who brags; always over blown. That is why we say try till to find what works for you. Companies advertizers are trying to create something for everyone and that will never happen.

Cheers, TennezSport

[db10s]

My Bio Max 200Gs play better than my HM 200Gs.... Because they have HM6 carbon.... And aeroskin.... lol

[UCSF2012]

The technology's great for girls, who now hit harder than boys. Actually, the technology's great for many groups of players: girls, women, weak boys, and old men.

Skinny boys with Pure Drives are now the most lethal, because they can hit bombs and run like mad side-to-side. Muscular men have to haul more weight around.

[Fuji]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

The technology's great for girls, who now hit harder than boys. Actually, the technology's great for many groups of players: girls, women, weak boys, and old men.

Skinny boys with Pure Drives are now the most lethal, because they can hit bombs and run like mad side-to-side. Muscular men have to haul more weight around.

I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not haha!

-Fuji

[UCSF2012]

It's a joke, but there's truth to it. How many times have we seen a 110 lb girl hit harder than a 160lb guy? Racquet technology has had a tremendous role in girl's tennis (alongside with coaches that teach them how to swing with their entire body).


Once upon a time, the Williams sisters were No 1 and 2, overpowering everybody. The Pure Drive allowed others to put them in place.

[r5d3]

There's definitely been improvements over the last ten years. Whether every generation improves on the last is questionable, but I definitely saw a difference between the sticks from then and now. In 2010 I was still playing with a Wilson (gold frame, red cover, all I can remember) and a Pro Kennex from around 2000. I then bought the Head TiS6 and felt a noticable improvement immediately, especially once restrung. Then in April I bought a new Pure Drive, and it has definitely improved my shot-making from the Head, and I'm currently a 3.5 at best. Unfortunately I'm likely going to remove the Babolat from the bag (tend to end up with arm and shoulder discomfort) and buy the Oraganix V1 MP soon, but I then hope not to buy another racquet for 4-5 years.

[svarthofde]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

The technology's great for girls, who now hit harder than boys. Actually, the technology's great for many groups of players: girls, women, weak boys, and old men.

Skinny boys with Pure Drives are now the most lethal, because they can hit bombs and run like mad side-to-side. Muscular men have to haul more weight around.

you may be right here. one example springs to mind. flavia penetta changed the racquet i think from wilson to a +length babolat pure drive and played a lot better.
but that may only be because she found her soul-mate racquet

[robbo1970]

I don't think there is much doubt that the majority of these 'improvements' are purely just to market a new PJ. Particularly when the improvement appears to be a made up word and some of the improvements are so slight, that its hard to really notice the difference.

However, I think its different when it comes to variances. Take the new Dunlop Bio series as an example. From the reviews and feedback, these are quite a bit different to the 1st Gen Bios, which is why Dunlop also have the classic range, which appears to be 1st Gens with a new PJ. So in other words, they arent producing improvements, just variances to suit different playing styles.

Now that would be a good lead for other manufacturers to follows; bring out the new ranges with the variances, but still keep the originals (with a new PJ) for those that don't want to change.

[Mick3391]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

In my opinion, the K95 and the BLX95 play differently. Some of it is the specs-the BLX95 has a slightly lower swingwieght and is slightly more flexible. However, I definitely felt the BLX95 played more muted, softer and less boardy. Is that the basalt or the flex rating?
I noticed a similar thing with the K90 and the BLX90 although the difference was pretty negligble with those two racquets.

Yea man I'm not saying there aren't differences, that's not the question, the question is "Do the materials make the difference", so all specs being the same, does for example Basalt make a difference? I say no, specs are specs.

If you take say a K-90 and a BLX 90, let's assume the specs are the same, that is same swingweight, same flex, same size, mold, etc. there will be no different, 12.5 oz is 12.5 oz.

That being said of course there are differences, my BLX 90 has a slighter higher swingweight than the new PS BLX 90, same mold, just a redistribution of weight and balance, I think even the flex although I'm not sure.

My K-Factor is just RAW, awesome, love it. I've played the 6.1 BLX 95 and although great, I prefer the K-Factor, but that's just me.

So to surmize, MATERIALS MATTER ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE USED IN DIFFERENT SPECS, and that they do to sell new racquets.

I suppose you could get a wood racquet, give it the same specs as a Bab 100 and it would play similar, if the wood were very stiff, same weight, balance, does the wood make any difference? I don't think so.

[dreamneedle]

New tech is OK. Quality control is going downhill.

[UCSF2012]

Let's be honest here. If you're gonna suck, then you're gonna suck regardless of the racket. That doesn't make the racket technology BS. The most recent technologies seem to target comfort, not performance. You'll hit the same, but you're less likely to get hurt hitting. (That's the intention, anyway).

[db10s]

Originally Posted by UCSF2012

Let's be honest here. If you're gonna suck, then you're gonna suck regardless of the racket. That doesn't make the racket technology BS. The most recent technologies seem to target comfort, not performance. You'll hit the same, but you're less likely to get hurt hitting. (That's the intention, anyway).

HAHA...... I think they are killing peoples arms. And the performance is worse.

[Kalin]

Good points here but one remark- racquet weights seem to have actually normalized recently. It looks like the average racquet these days is around 10-11.5 oz.

There was a time a few years ago when manufacturers were 'discovering' light frames and some sticks were clocking in at 7-something ounces! 7!!

So not all is bad with new frames...

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by TennezSport

Well I have actually held D3O in my hands and I can tell you that it is a reactive material. It's in the way the fibers line up, so if you slowly or gently press the material it will bend. However, if you strike it hard the fibers realign and make the substance rock solid; not so James Bond. Like it or not it does work. Most of the new materials manufacturers use do work as stated, although may not at the levels of advertizing.

The bigger problem is in the way rec players look for racquets. If you have a racquet for 5+ years and you play frequently, your racquet has gone soft over time and you have become accustomed to the softer feel (especially if the racquets have heavy wear in the frame from scrapes). So, when you go to buy a new racquet, even the same exact model, you feel that the racquets dont feel the same. We see this all the time and show customers by measuring and comparing the flex of the old and new racquets. They had no idea how soft their old racquet had gotten.

The comments about lighter frames are correct and NO Pro plays with a light frame. ALL Pros play with customized frames.

Cheers, TennezSport

Hilarious! You have it in your hands and can see that's how it works? You see the fibers realligning and can vouch for the manufacturer? Moreover, your bottom line is that it's the customer's fault. They do not change rackets nearly often enough. Not that you have any vested interest in that.

[db10s]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

Hilarious! You have it in your hands and can see that's how it works? You see the fibers realligning and can vouch for the manufacturer? Moreover, your bottom line is that it's the customer's fault. They do not change rackets nearly often enough. Not that you have any vested interest in that.

Your post is pretty funny too! So rackets are meant to wear out fast so that people buy more... LOL!

[db10s]

Originally Posted by Kalin

Good points here but one remark- racquet weights seem to have actually normalized recently. It looks like the average racquet these days is around 10-11.5 oz.

There was a time a few years ago when manufacturers were 'discovering' light frames and some sticks were clocking in at 7-something ounces! 7!!

So not all is bad with new frames...

Maybe nobody except old people and beginners were buying Ti rackets...

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by yemenmocha

ProKennex arm-friendly racquets do in fact function as advertised. They have an independent MIT study to backup their claims too.

Pro Kennex is great. I should stock up.

Also, I sometimes wonder why manufacturers can't just make a simple frame i.e. this is 80% graphite and 20% kevlar (or fiberglass etc). Or just 100% graphite.

[-Kap-]

Originally Posted by yonexRx32

Hilarious! You have it in your hands and can see that's how it works? You see the fibers realligning and can vouch for the manufacturer?...

What's so hilarious about it? D3O is a non-Newtonian fluid, and its properties change depending on the forces applied to it. Its application in racquets may or may not live up to the marketing hype, but there's no reason to discredit TennezSport for confirming that the material, itself, does what the manufacturer claims it does.

Mix up some corn starch and water (also known as "oobleck") like these fine folks have, and I think you'll be amazed at how non-Newtonian fluids can behave. Neat stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSQOWuANuW8