The truth about racquet material innovation

itsme9003 · Jul 24, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
They're not "graphene" particles, even though I called them that in the OP (didn't want to be too harsh). They're tiny graphite particles, WAY, WAY, WAY cheaper than actual graphene and also cheaper than a good carbon pre-preg. So it is NOT graphene lol; I don't know why I keep repeating it is not graphene and you choose to ignore it. Per your argument, if a purported material makes the racquet feel different then it isn't a gimmick. So I can sandwich some plastic into my racquet, sprinkle in a little diamond dust, and say the new racquet is diamond-reinforced awesomeness. Sure it may play a little differently, but isn't that kind of marketing disrespecting and under-representing the real properties of diamond, and hence a gimmick? And nomenclature is incredibly important. Materials of slightly different names can have completely different properties.

I call it graphene because Head calls it graphene, players at my club call it graphene, literally 99.999% of the world calls it graphene. You seem to be the only one who is obsessed with getting the correct name right and calling it "tiny graphite nanoparticles tm". Like I said, borderline paranoid smh.

and YES, if you have an R&D department and find that sprinking diamond dust makes a racquet have completely different playing capabilities you are allowed to say it is diamond-reinforced, the next new innovation in racquet technology, etc. you can say whatever you want, that's the point of marketing and the reason why thousands of people have jobs. But as long as it works as intended it's not a gimmick, despite your best efforts to disprove that.

A true example of a marketing gimmick is putting flame decals on a racquet and stating "Now allowing you to swing faster than ever!!!" No, it won't change a thing (unlike the addition of graphene to racquets).

zettavaska · Jul 24, 2019

itsme9003 said:
I call it graphene because Head calls it graphene, players at my club call it graphene, literally 99.999% of the world calls it graphene. You seem to be the only one who is obsessed with getting the correct name right and calling it "tiny graphite nanoparticles tm". Like I said, borderline paranoid smh.

and YES, if you have an R&D department and find that sprinking diamond dust makes a racquet have completely different playing capabilities you are allowed to say it is diamond-reinforced, the next new innovation in racquet technology, etc. you can say whatever you want, that's the point of marketing and the reason why thousands of people have jobs. But as long as it works as intended it's not a gimmick, despite your best efforts to disprove that.

A true example of a marketing gimmick is putting flame decals on a racquet and stating "Now allowing you to swing faster than ever!!!" No, it won't change a thing (unlike the addition of graphene to racquets).

If my racquet has flame decals, the ball better light on fire when I hit it. Or I’ll be talking to some lawyers

PistolPete23 · Jul 24, 2019

itsme9003 said:
I call it graphene because Head calls it graphene, players at my club call it graphene, literally 99.999% of the world calls it graphene. You seem to be the only one who is obsessed with getting the correct name right and calling it "tiny graphite nanoparticles tm". Like I said, borderline paranoid smh.

and YES, if you have an R&D department and find that sprinking diamond dust makes a racquet have completely different playing capabilities you are allowed to say it is diamond-reinforced, the next new innovation in racquet technology, etc. you can say whatever you want, that's the point of marketing and the reason why thousands of people have jobs. But as long as it works as intended it's not a gimmick, despite your best efforts to disprove that.

A true example of a marketing gimmick is putting flame decals on a racquet and stating "Now allowing you to swing faster than ever!!!" No, it won't change a thing (unlike the addition of graphene to racquets).

99.999% of the world doesn't know that it's not actual graphene because Head did such a good job of marketing. If you don't think there are lies and exaggerations in marketing, you are truly deceived. And until you can provide proof that the graphene racquets feel different BECAUSE of the graphene, you won't change my opinion. In fact, inspired by the activity in this thread, I might try repainting several Head racquets to do a blind testing on a group of players. I won't tell them which racquets feature graphene and we'll see if there's truly a consistent difference in feeling between non-graphene and graphene frames. An alternative test would be to use all graphene frames but tell the group that half of them are not graphene. I personally can't detect a difference but I know placebo is powerful. If there's a real correlation from the study, then I will concede defeat and admit that I am a paranoid cynic.

itsme9003 · Jul 24, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
99.999% of the world doesn't know that it's not actual graphene because Head did such a good job of marketing. If you don't think there are lies and exaggerations in marketing, you are truly deceived. And until you can provide proof that the graphene racquets feel different BECAUSE of the graphene, you won't change my opinion. In fact, inspired by the activity in this thread, I might try repainting several Head racquets to do a blind testing on a group of players. I won't tell them which racquets feature graphene and we'll see if there's truly a consistent difference in feeling between non-graphene and graphene frames. An alternative test would be to use all graphene frames but tell the group that half of them are not graphene. I personally can't detect a different but I know placebo is powerful. If there's a real correlation from the study, then I will concede defeat.

I would love to see you do such a study, because I and everyone I play with can DEFINITELY tell when we're playing with a graphene vs. non-graphene racquet (within the same Head line of course). Whether or not I prefer it is a different story.

Report back with results.

leojramirez · Jul 24, 2019

Interesting read but its nothing new on how our beloved racket companies make up some nonsense to continue the consumerism wheel. I'm with the OP though
I currently use Graphene Touch solely because its muted af and my hand and wrist very much like it. If there were better alternatives I'd love to know.

Kevo · Jul 24, 2019

Last year I hit with my first graphite and fiberglass frame from the 80s. I don't think I'll ever go back to full graphite. After I played with that copper ace I knew I had to find some more of these old racquets. I bought probably 15 old PK and Rossignol frames for anywhere between $15 and $50 and I think they all play better than most modern frames. The feel is great, and the control on some of these frames is just phenomenal. The only real complaint I have with any of them is some of them are too heavy for my taste. So in my opinion there has been little to no improvement in racquet tech since the early 80s or so.

It's funny that I went from a metal frame to a full graphite frame and totally missed the graphite/fiberglass frames when I was younger. Took me almost 30 years to find these frames and be able to enjoy them. I guess I got snookered by the marketing hype back then.

1HBHfanatic · Jul 24, 2019

leojramirez said:
Interesting read but its nothing new on how our beloved racket companies make up some nonsense to continue the consumerism wheel. I'm with the OP though
I currently use Graphene Touch solely because its muted af and my hand and wrist very much like it. If there were better alternatives I'd love to know.

the Wilson clash is a new feel!, I prefer the W.clash.98
the head.gravity is another one, I prefer the h.gravity.pro
if my suspicions are correct, we should see an update to the head.prestige line soon

Automatix · Jul 24, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
I might try repainting several Head racquets to do a blind testing on a group of players. I won't tell them which racquets feature graphene and we'll see if there's truly a consistent difference in feeling between non-graphene and graphene frames.

You'd have to have identical racquets which differ only by lack or presence of graphene. Not really possible unless you're able to produce such specimens...

PistolPete23 said:
An alternative test would be to use all graphene frames but tell the group that half of them are not graphene. I personally can't detect a difference but I know placebo is powerful. If there's a real correlation from the study, then I will concede defeat and admit that I am a paranoid cynic.

In this case you are not testing the impact of graphene on racquet performance. You are doing an experiment on the participants and their susceptibility to marketing tricks and so on...

While I agree with what you wrote about the "use" of new materials in racquets and understand what you want to prove I think you didn't think the above through and it was driven by emotions.
I am fairly sure you know that the only real way to verify these things is to use tests which exclude human feedback which is just a bunch of subjective opinions. Human perception is flawed...

PistolPete23 · Jul 24, 2019

Automatix said:
You'd have to have identical racquets which differ only by lack or presence of graphene. Not really possible unless you're able to produce such specimens...

In this case you are not testing the impact of graphene on racquet performance. You are doing an experiment on the participants and their susceptibility to marketing tricks and so on...

While I agree with what you wrote about the "use" of new materials in racquets and understand what you want to prove I think you didn't think the above through and it was driven by emotions.
I am fairly sure you know that the only real way to verify these things is to use tests which exclude human feedback which is just a bunch of subjective opinions. Human perception is flawed...

Yeah, you're right haha. Unless I ask Head to supply me with exact models that feature graphene or sans-graphene, the study wouldn't be conclusive.

stingstang · Jul 24, 2019

At the end of the day, its a stagnant and saturated market. If people used rackets until they wear out or break, the companies wouldn't make any money... hence BS "technologies", laughable gimmicks and big buck endorsements to create an illusion that older models become outdated.

String technology with co-polys is the only genuine change in tech for decades.

PistolPete23 · Jul 24, 2019

stingstang said:
At the end of the day, its a stagnant and saturated market. If people used rackets until they wear out or break, the companies wouldn't make any money... hence BS "technologies", laughable gimmicks and big buck endorsements to create an illusion that older models become outdated.

String technology with co-polys is the only genuine change in tech for decades.

100% agree on this. The last true racquet innovation was the switch from wood --> graphite composite. On a side note, I would love to see a company create a racquet that has clear coating and just the branding, no other logos. It would be a pure players frame in both spec and cosmetic.

Winners or Errors · Jul 24, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10853-015-9705-6

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the chart in which "graphite nanoplates" are depicted describes them as one of many "different graphene types." It's in Figures 1 and 6. That seems to indicate that Head did use, in fact, a form of graphene in the racquet in question, which shocks me even more as I am truly surprised that they bothered using the material in a junior frame.

The paper also concluded that: "Resin-rich regions have been found in the area where the head of the racquet is joined to the handle. It appears that this area, which is a point of potential of weakness in the racquet, has been reinforced with graphene in form of graphite nanoplatelets." That sounds exactly what Head is advertising.

BlueB · Jul 24, 2019

itsme9003 said:
Firstly, Graphene isn't marketed to change the "feel" of the racquet. It is marketed as making a racquet more polarized by REDISTRIBUTING the weight while still keeping the shaft strong enough to play with, which it does exactly as Head claims it to do.

Unfortunately, it is not Graphene doing what you claim. Graphen is too expensive to be used in any meaningful quantity. Its just sprinkled in to still have a legit claim of usage

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

PistolPete23 · Jul 24, 2019

Winners or Errors said:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the chart in which "graphite nanoplates" are depicted describes them as one of many "different graphene types." It's in Figures 1 and 6. That seems to indicate that Head did use, in fact, a form of graphene in the racquet in question, which shocks me even more as I am truly surprised that they bothered using the material in a junior frame.

The paper also concluded that: "Resin-rich regions have been found in the area where the head of the racquet is joined to the handle. It appears that this area, which is a point of potential of weakness in the racquet, has been reinforced with graphene in form of graphite nanoplatelets." That sounds exactly what Head is advertising.

You're correct and it's one of the things I disagree with in the article because by putting so many different forms of graphite under the graphene umbrella name, the material as originally discovered becomes very misrepresented. It's like calling graphite a form of diamond. The two are completely the same stuff in chemical makeup (carbon atoms) but different in terms of properties due to their respective crystal structures. The material that has excited the world a few years ago is monolayer graphene (also the form that Head claims to use as the 'lightest and strongest' material in the world), but over time, as hype kept increasing, some have designated other inferior forms also as graphene. It's too bad the racquet the article dissected was a junior frame.

"Despite its manufacturing challenges, enthusiasts are quick to point out that graphene has already hit the market. Multi-layered graphene, in which many sheets are stacked together, is used to strengthen a tennis racquet made by Head, for example, and forms a conductive circuit in anti-theft packaging produced by Vorbeck Materials in Jessup, Maryland. But these cheaper forms of graphene include a range of different structures that are essentially nanometre-sized chunks of graphite. The properties of this sooty jumble of fragments are no match for Mr G's superpowers, which reach their zenith only in pristine, one-atom-thick layers in which the atomic arrangement is perfect. Only in this state can electrons flow more quickly than in any other material."

https://www.nature.com/news/graphene-the-quest-for-supercarbon-1.14193

Winners or Errors · Jul 24, 2019

Thanks.

TimeToPlaySets · Jul 24, 2019

Any kind of molecular advance is laughable considering most rec tennis players have grotesque strokes that no racket can ever fix

BillKid · Jul 24, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
100% agree on this. The last true racquet innovation was the switch from wood --> graphite composite. On a side note, I would love to see a company create a racquet that has clear coating and just the branding, no other logos. It would be a pure players frame in both spec and cosmetic.

I disagree. The development of stiff and light Pure Drivesque frames (strung with poly strings) was a game changer. You may like it or not..

PistolPete23 · Jul 24, 2019

BillKid said:
I disagree. The development of stiff and light Pure Drivesque frames (strung with poly strings) was a game changer. You may like it or not..

Ok, I'll give that to you, although it was more an innovation of shape design, not material design. I agree the PD was pretty revolutionary. I remember the first time I saw it on my HS tennis team; I was like, "what is Babolat?"

hurworld · Jul 25, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
Ok, I'll give that to you, although it was more an innovation of shape design, not material design. I agree the PD was pretty revolutionary. I remember the first time I saw it on my HS tennis team; I was like, "what is Babolat?"

I'll do you one better: Why is Babolat?

jmacdaununder2 · Jul 25, 2019

itsme9003 said:
1. There is definitely a difference. If you can't feel the difference between a modern Graphene racquet and a racquet from 10, 20, 30 years ago, I don't know what else to tell you.
2. The material added into the frame allows Head to play around with the weight distribution. Plenty of players benefit from the redistributed mass to the handle and/or head.
3. Head never explicitly specifies what parameter they're measuring when they state the headsize (inner vs outer hoop). You can't call them liars just because you choose your own arbitrary interpretation of what their specs state.

Re. #3: If you actually - as has been done here before, 'young-timer' - do the math, the inner vs. outer hoop measurement theory doesn't stack up.

PistolPete23 said:
99.999% of the world doesn't know that it's not actual graphene because Head did such a good job of marketing. If you don't think there are lies and exaggerations in marketing, you are truly deceived. And until you can provide proof that the graphene racquets feel different BECAUSE of the graphene, you won't change my opinion. In fact, inspired by the activity in this thread, I might try repainting several Head racquets to do a blind testing on a group of players. I won't tell them which racquets feature graphene and we'll see if there's truly a consistent difference in feeling between non-graphene and graphene frames. An alternative test would be to use all graphene frames but tell the group that half of them are not graphene. I personally can't detect a difference but I know placebo is powerful. If there's a real correlation from the study, then I will concede defeat and admit that I am a paranoid cynic.

itsme9003 said:
I would love to see you do such a study, because I and everyone I play with can DEFINITELY tell when we're playing with a graphene vs. non-graphene racquet (within the same Head line of course). Whether or not I prefer it is a different story.

Of course you can tell the difference: most of the Graphene ones play like s#!te!! (Gravity excluded apparently.)

gazz1 · Jul 25, 2019

Are you suggesting that marketing departments are making false claims?...Somebody call 60 Minutes

Povl Carstensen · Jul 25, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
Having spent some years in a materials research lab, pushing the boundaries on materials innovation, I can say that the vast majority of advancements in racquet technology year after year are gimmicks.

No ****, S...? Well, maybe it is just me that is so incredibly sharp and cool...

leojramirez · Jul 25, 2019

1HBHfanatic said:
the Wilson clash is a new feel!, I prefer the W.clash.98
the head.gravity is another one, I prefer the h.gravity.pro
if my suspicions are correct, we should see an update to the head.prestige line soon

Ideally I'd like something as powerful as the Radical if not a bit more and muted of course. Not too keen on the Clashype and the new Gravity line as it doesn't seem yo provide enough power. Thanks for the suggestions though.

gazz1 · Jul 25, 2019

gazz1 said:
Are you suggesting that marketing departments are making false claims?...Somebody call 60 Minutes

All jokes aside, I think this is a great post from an industry insider who obviously knows his stuff.

The Angell rackets that someone mentioned are superb. Mostly foam filled, with those that aren't using the Trwon/aramid/Kevlar fibres mentioned. Paul Angell really knows his stuff. I have yet to come across any manufacturer that come close to the combined quality, performance and comfort of his products. He's not into gimmicks, which leads me to believe in the Kevlar and Kevlar variants

My question is, do you think that these make a difference to comfort because my Prince TT310s use this and after years of TE problems, I have zero arm pain with these, and that's using much stiffer polys than I ever dared to use before. I'm convinced that there is something to this material.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

tennisyyw · Jul 25, 2019

I heard graphite from different factories have different quality, but nobody cares about that.
If tech on new materials really matters, then why don't they mention the quality of material they used?
There are many stories about Apple only use the highest grade components, but I've never heard similar stories in tennis.
Wait, maybe slazenger's wimbledon ball may count? high quality scottish wool or something.

PistolPete23 · Jul 25, 2019

Povl Carstensen said:
No ****, S...? Well, maybe it is just me that is so incredibly sharp and cool...

You'd be surprised how many people believe whatever new tech they hear about; if not the case, companies wouldn't be trying so hard to sell their gimmicks. In fact I use to be one of them as a junior player and thought that racquet tech could actually make me a better player.

PistolPete23 · Jul 25, 2019

tennisyyw said:
I heard graphite from different factories have different quality, but nobody cares about that.
If tech on new materials really matters, then why don't they mention the quality of material they used?
There are many stories about Apple only use the highest grade components, but I've never heard similar stories in tennis.
Wait, maybe slazenger's wimbledon ball may count? high quality scottish wool or something.

You're spot on. Definitely a lot of variation in graphite properties and quality. Also depending on the orientation of how the prepreg is layered, you can get a completely different response in the frame.

graycrait · Jul 25, 2019

Deleted

Vanhalen · Jul 25, 2019

Kevo said:
Last year I hit with my first graphite and fiberglass frame from the 80s. I don't think I'll ever go back to full graphite. After I played with that copper ace I knew I had to find some more of these old racquets. I bought probably 15 old PK and Rossignol frames for anywhere between $15 and $50 and I think they all play better than most modern frames. The feel is great, and the control on some of these frames is just phenomenal. The only real complaint I have with any of them is some of them are too heavy for my taste. So in my opinion there has been little to no improvement in racquet tech since the early 80s or so.

It's funny that I went from a metal frame to a full graphite frame and totally missed the graphite/fiberglass frames when I was younger. Took me almost 30 years to find these frames and be able to enjoy them. I guess I got snookered by the marketing hype back then.

My 1980’s Silver Ace is still the best feeling frame I’ve ever owned. Also liked the old Head TiRadical.

PistolPete23 · Jul 25, 2019

gazz1 said:
All jokes aside, I think this is a great post from an industry insider who obviously knows his stuff.

The Angell rackets that someone mentioned are superb. Mostly foam filled, with those that aren't using the Trwon/aramid/Kevlar fibres mentioned. Paul Angell really knows his stuff. I have yet to come across any manufacturer that come close to the combined quality, performance and comfort of his products. He's not into gimmicks, which leads me to believe in the Kevlar and Kevlar variants

My question is, do you think that these make a difference to comfort because my Prince TT310s use this and after years of TE problems, I have zero arm pain with these, and that's using much stiffer polys than I ever dared to use before. I'm convinced that there is something to this material.

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Are you asking whether aramid fiber is better for arm comfort? Possibly but I doubt that's the only reason those Angell racquets feel so nice. There are a lot of factors that go into arm comfort. Stiff + light is usually a recipe for TE disaster, especially if you play a lot. Aramid fiber is significantly lower modulus (less stiff) than carbon fiber and I think dampens shock a little better, so racquets that feature Kevlar (or fiberglass too) are typically more flexible. You won't see Kevlar in many beginner/intermediate racquets. You can also improve arm comfort by adding more mass for a simple reason, because more mass means better stability and more material for the energy of impact to be distributed. You mentioned Angell racquets are also foam-filled, and I do think that factors into arm comfort significantly. Hollow objects are great at transmitting vibrational energy (e.g. like brass musical instruments) and unfortunately most, if not all, modern frames are hollow. But we can't really go back to wood so the next best thing is probably filling the frames with foam, which imparts dampening properties without adding weight. You can probably buy some PU foam for cheap and stick it into the handle of almost any racquet.

stephenclown · Jul 25, 2019

BillKid said:
I disagree. The development of stiff and light Pure Drivesque frames (strung with poly strings) was a game changer. You may like it or not..

Maybe for recreational players with poorer form but I disagree at the elite level in the mens game. Very few, if any, top players are using current generation pure drives and we cannot be sure that they are overly stiff. Babolat rep here claimed that babolat strung their tour frames hundreds of times to reduce the RA to mid/low 60s. Fognini's pure drive mould is over 20 years old with a stock RA of 64. Nearly all tour players are over 340sw with many much higher. HEAD players are nearly all using flexible arm friendly and solid frames that are not hollow. H19 and H22 are not played light and stiff. RF97 is not light nor overly stiff. Nadal is using a frame that is mid 60s with a tighter pattern and solid.

The top level is dominated by arm friendly player frames with a much more even distribution between 18x20 and 16x19 patterns. You also see that a lot of top players use natural gut hybrids. Even after all of the marketing by the big companys, when players get to the top level they still don't gravitate to stiff pure drives and light setups. With poor form or understanding of the long term impact of poly strings they are arm killers. Del Potro moved away from full poly for this reason and James Blake looks back on poly as a necessary evil only in the top levels of the game.

TimeToPlaySets · Jul 25, 2019

If pros used stiff rackets, the balls would go long, I bet

PistolPete23 · Jul 25, 2019

I wonder how stiff Rafa's pure aero is. And also wonder whether pros use older molds because they're accustomed to an older model or they're doing it to prevent injuries. On that same note, does anyone know whether the newer generation of players use pro stock or retail models (e.g. Felix Aliassime)? If so, I was wondering at what point in their careers do they switch over. I'm pretty sure the top juniors in the world are not given the "pro" treatment.

lima · Jul 25, 2019

I actually disagree that Angell racquets are comfortable. I had TC100 and that thing is firm as a bone.

PistolPete23 · Jul 26, 2019

lima said:
I actually disagree that Angell racquets are comfortable. I had TC100 and that thing is firm as a bone.

I've never personally played with Angell but a lot of people have been raving about their comfort and general awesomeness, so I guess comfort is relative. My Donnay Pro One Penta has a listed RA of 57 and feels so nice on the arm. Hard to find new frames with that much flex anymore.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
I've never personally played with Angell but a lot of people have been raving about their comfort and general awesomeness, so I guess comfort is relative. My Donnay Pro One Penta has a listed RA of 57 and feels so nice on the arm. Hard to find new frames with that much flex anymore.

If we talk about performance TC 100 is amazing stick! But my shoulder disagree. One thing that I don't like is comfort and feel. Very generic feel, it feels like metal, very artifitial. Like racquet has no soul, it is like a robot. I prefer softer feel

gazz1 · Jul 26, 2019

lima said:
I actually disagree that Angell racquets are comfortable. I had TC100 and that thing is firm as a bone.

Depends which one you’re talking about. I have a TC100 with an RA of 70 that plays like a 65RA racket. But they also have a Tc100 62RA (maybe 63). Either way, that’s going to feel plush. I’m guessing you have the 70RA?

Likewise, my Prince TT310 plays way more comfortable than it’s RA rating.

At the other end of the spectrum you have my Babolat PS17 that plays like a frying pan.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

gazz1 said:
Depends which one you’re talking about. I have a TC100 with an RA of 70 that plays like a 65RA racket. But they also have a Tc100 62RA (maybe 63). Either way, that’s going to feel plush. I’m guessing you have the 70RA?

Likewise, my Prince TT310 plays way more comfortable than it’s RA rating.

At the other end of the spectrum you have my Babolat PS17 that plays like a frying pan.

No, It was 63ra version. Such a shame that I can't play with that stick because my shoulder hurts because preformance wise it is fantastic! If I could figure out how to make it softer I would buy 2 and stop searching for another frame.

63ra is just a number. How it feels is what really matters.

My Prince Phantom 100P Pro is 59ra and it feels much firmer than Dr98 for example which has 63ra or something.

Dr98 and TC100 has the same ra number but yonex is much much more comfortable

gazz1 · Jul 26, 2019

Wow, that's a shame.

The Wilson Clash is a very arm friendly racket but, personally I just didn't like the way that it played.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

gazz1 said:
Wow, that's a shame.

The Wilson Clash is a very arm friendly racket but, personally I just didn't like the way that it played.

What didn't you like about Clash?
I'm searching racquet which is comfortable but has more power than Phantom

gazz1 · Jul 26, 2019

Didn't like the wide beam/frame as much...shanked a few balls on topspin serves.

Funny feel...felt like I got free power on slow/medium paced shots, but was lacking power on faster shots.

Wasn't enough static weight or swing weight for me personally, but that was easily fixed with some lead tape and blutac.

Didn't like the control at all...very erratic for me and had a higher than usual launch angle.

Comfort was excellent though.

I think that I would prefer the new 98 version with 8 mains through the throat, but don't plan on bothering with the clash anymore. I've found my Prince TT310 and TT100P rackets and I ain't going aware anytime soon.

Crocodile · Jul 26, 2019

I

PistolPete23 said:
Are you asking whether aramid fiber is better for arm comfort? Possibly but I doubt that's the only reason those Angell racquets feel so nice. There are a lot of factors that go into arm comfort. Stiff + light is usually a recipe for TE disaster, especially if you play a lot. Aramid fiber is significantly lower modulus (less stiff) than carbon fiber and I think dampens shock a little better, so racquets that feature Kevlar (or fiberglass too) are typically more flexible. You won't see Kevlar in many beginner/intermediate racquets. You can also improve arm comfort by adding more mass for a simple reason, because more mass means better stability and more material for the energy of impact to be distributed. You mentioned Angell racquets are also foam-filled, and I do think that factors into arm comfort significantly. Hollow objects are great at transmitting vibrational energy (e.g. like brass musical instruments) and unfortunately most, if not all, modern frames are hollow. But we can't really go back to wood so the next best thing is probably filling the frames with foam, which imparts dampening properties without adding weight. You can probably buy some PU foam for cheap and stick it into the handle of almost any racquet.[/QUOTE

I thought the same about foam filled racquets with regards to arm health but I think it's perhaps only one factor because I have hit with foam filled racquets that only had average dampening such as the XTC T Fight Tecnifibre frames which are foam filled yet marginal in comfort. Yonex frames are hollow yet more comfortable.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

gazz1 said:
Didn't like the wide beam/frame as much...shanked a few balls on topspin serves.

Funny feel...felt like I got free power on slow/medium paced shots, but was lacking power on faster shots.

Wasn't enough static weight or swing weight for me personally, but that was easily fixed with some lead tape and blutac.

Didn't like the control at all...very erratic for me and had a higher than usual launch angle.

Comfort was excellent though.

I think that I would prefer the new 98 version with 8 mains through the throat, but don't plan on bothering with the clash anymore. I've found my Prince TT310 and TT100P rackets and I ain't going aware anytime soon.

I'm really interested in Tour 310g. Comfort? Power?

gazz1 · Jul 26, 2019

lima said:
I'm really interested in Tour 310g. Comfort? Power?

For me personally, it has great comfort and power...I suffered with TE for years and I've had nothing with this racket...best all-round racket I have ever used.

That said, I'm not sure how you would go if you have had TE with the 63RA Angell TC100.
You may need something super-soft.
Others here will provide better advice than me on that topic.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

gazz1 said:
For me personally, it has great comfort and power...I suffered with TE for years and I've had nothing with this racket...best all-round racket I have ever used.

That said, I'm not sure how you would go if you have had TE with the 63RA Angell TC100.
You may need something super-soft.
Others here will provide better advice than me on that topic.

It is not the elbow that was the problem, it was the shoulder. Tc100 had sw around 330 so that was the problem during the serve.

So I'm looking for the racquet that is comfortable but has more power than Phantom 100P Pro

hurworld · Jul 26, 2019

lima said:
It is not the elbow that was the problem, it was the shoulder. Tc100 had sw around 330 so that was the problem during the serve.

So I'm looking for the racquet that is comfortable but has more power than Phantom 100P Pro

What static weight and balance is the TC100?

Perhaps use a thinner gauge string and/or lighten the handle (e.g. swap leather grip to synthetic) to reduce SW?

mrmike · Jul 26, 2019

PistolPete23 said:
Ok, I'll give that to you, although it was more an innovation of shape design, not material design. I agree the PD was pretty revolutionary. I remember the first time I saw it on my HS tennis team; I was like, "what is Babolat?"

I read a while back that the Pure Drive actually came from a ProKennex design. PK is one of the few actual innovators out there that try to improve racquet technology without materials gimmick claims. They just have a very low profile as far as pros are concerned. Seppi is the only top player I am aware of. Doesn’t bother me though since they are so reasonably priced.

lima · Jul 26, 2019

hurworld said:
What static weight and balance is the TC100?

Perhaps use a thinner gauge string and/or lighten the handle (e.g. swap leather grip to synthetic) to reduce SW?

TC100 63 RA, 300g, 325mm, SW300 unstrung

TimeToPlaySets · Jul 26, 2019

TT100 (310) is my current racket.
Seems like a decent all-arounder.

Mischko · Jul 26, 2019

elsk said:
Interested to know what Wilson's FreeFlex tech actually is, seems to be 99% beam design which allows the Clash to flex so much yet still feel quite solid. Design will always be more important than tech when it comes to a frame.

Strings on the other hand are all about the materials used, perhaps it is here we should focus on the "tech".

I think most brands these last couple of years are permitting more flex in the throat while stiffening the hoop, because if they do both then our tendons go by-bye quickly. It just depends how they do it. Babolat Pure Strike seems a good example, Wilson Clash, Yonex Vcore Pro etc. It seems a good idea, modulating the flex throughout the frame, just depends on the execution..

The truth about racquet material innovation

Rookie

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Rookie

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Semi-Pro

Legend

Rookie

Semi-Pro

New User

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Legend

Professional

Similar threads