Poly and PD-like frames are a match made in heaven, favoring the "modern game". Small size thin beam graphite frames used before the "PD era" just do not provide the same results. I know that traditional player racquets are still very good for many players, but it is clear that PD like racquets (coupled with poly)represent an important evolution.
I know this theory. It may be true, I do not know to what extent. There are still probably some pro players using stiff frames. And even if Nadal use racquets with a RA around 65 it does not make a big difference. Many pro or high level players (males and females) are now using such frames that are very different from graphite racquets used back in the 80's or 90's. The same goes for poly vs gut. I remember Guy Forget commenting on how racquets like Babolat coupled with poly strings changed the game. What I was saying is that the appearence of PD like racquets was a major evolution in the graphite era, unlike BS magic pseudo innovation that get many of us buying new racquets more than needed.
True but my first post was about racquet - not material - innovation. You are right that stiff and light existed before. Probably they became interesting at high level only when poly strings arrived. But the same could be said for poly ; it was not a new material and I am pretty sure that they existed in the 90's or even before maybe. But anyway, my point is just that an important evolution has occured with the widespread use of these racquets coupled with poly strings. Things have significantly changed since the first graphite frames. Call it innovation, evolution or whatever.
What were these ceramic particles? Bits of ancient Greek pottery blessed by Zeus?
Thank you for such a well thought out post! That’s why I still use my HEAD racquets form the 80’s and 90’s. HEAD did once make great quality frames that were high quality and manufactured in-house in USA and Austria.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. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite
In the 80's/early 90's, there were racquets marketed as ceramic or composites. The first racquet I picked out for myself was the Pro Kennex Prophecy. My sister still has a Silver Ace packed away in a closet.
As a kid, I imagined manufacturers were baking tennis racquets in a massive kiln.
. Tennis racquets are baked. For a graphite racquet what typically occurs is layers of carbon prepreg (flexible sheets of woven carbon fiber infiltrated with an uncured resin) are wrapped around a cylindrical tube. The tubes are then placed in a racquet mold and the racquet is literally baked while hot air is blown into the hollow tubes. When the resin reaches a critical temperature, it becomes very soft, causing the tubes to expand, molding them against the shape of the rigid mold. Once curing is complete, you have a graphite composite racquet. Regarding ceramic, most people equate ceramic with pottery. But the world of ceramic materials is actually incredibly extensive; for example, aluminum-oxide (i.e. sapphire) is a ceramic. And so is crystalline SiO2, also commonly known as quartz. I'm not sure the types of ceramic that were used in ceramic racquets but I'm pretty sure they weren't made of the same stuff as your toilet. Like carbon, one can fabricate ceramic fibers and create a thin sheet of ceramic-fiber prepreg or a sheet of resin embedded with ceramic particles. You can then layer the ceramic prepreg with the carbon prepreg; sky's the limit for what can be tried. I'm not sure why ceramics were phased out of the racquet industry but probably manufacturing cost had at least something to do with it.
Damn, 36 likes!! Just goes to show what can happen when someone who actually appears to know what he's talking about bothers to post!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. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite
This is actually a really good question and what you imagined isn't too far off
. There are just so many possible factors. I've never played with St. Vincent PS85 so I wouldn't know whether there really is a noticeable difference. Do you think it's possible that a big part of the legacy of St. Vincent frames was Sampras' obsession over small details? I'm sure this has been discussed many times on these forums, but anyone who has played with both St. Vincent and China versions, I would love to hear your thoughts on this. As for how they make tennis racquets, TW had done a pretty informative video featuring Wilson's prototyping shop. 
I'm going to glue some gold glitter to my racquets and see how the new "Gold Glitter" technology enhances the racquets. [emoji14]
So true...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. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite
Babolat did the same in the first 10-12 years of their racket's manufacture start-up. Very high quality frames with top notch QC. Then it's gone.
Babolat has never actually made a racquet. Their whole history they have only had OME manufacture their racquets for them in Asia.
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. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite
Pro Kennex is the house brand of Kunnan Industries. And yes, Kunnan made the first Babolats. You should visit us in the "Classic" sub forum and look through the archives; these topics have been covered ad nauseam over the years by successive groups of vintage racquet enthusiasts, most of whom experienced the graphite revolution in the '70s and '80s first hand, and likely agree with you that the material-science side of the equation reached its apogee more than 20 years ago.
Regarding ceramics, their use originated in the US by a manufacturer in LA, which also did contract work for the Defense Department, making ceramic armor for helicopters, among other things. It involved the addition of silicon carbide whiskers to the resin matrix, and probably marked the first instance in which a minor secondary component was given top billing in the composition of an otherwise ordinary carbon fiber frame. That was in the mid '80s, less than a decade after the introduction of "graphite". So yes, the quixotic quest to come up with something that can top "graphite" began right around the time you were born, and they are still at it today (at least the marketing guys are).
Hard to beat graphite (i.e. carbon fiber). Light, stiff, relatively cheap to manufacture, and a variety of layup configurations to tune flexibility in different parts of the frame. Cool to know that the ceramic in racquets featured SiC whiskers; SiC whiskers are typically single crystalline and have a Young's modulus several times higher than carbon fiber. So depending on how much SiC was used, racquets that incorporated them could have felt stiffer. SiC is also incredibly abrasive/hard, so wonder if those whiskers had a tendency to be separated from the resin matrix and create micro fissures over time. Kudos for figuring out when I was born! I'm right around the age where some of the players racquets that were popular in my early junior days are now considered vintage LOL.
I believe he "is" trolling you.
Better epoxy resins
.After this thread, they ain't gonna bamboo-zle me!Apparently there are bamboo fiber prepregs. I predict those will make it into tennis racquets at some point in the near future, marketed as "nature's sustainable super-material, infusing the racquets with natural flexibility and unrivaled feel".
Babolat still sticks to his Cortex technology in their PD/APD/PA line since 2007. Standard Cortex, Active Cortex and now, in the new PDs/PAs, Cortext that is spread throughout the whole frameI believe that there were definite advancements over the decades in the quality of the carbon prepreg and maybe manufacturing techniques, but the fundamental tech hasn't changed at all. I'd wager improvements in frame durability has little to do with the "revolutionary" stuff they're claiming to add to the frames. If titanium, piezoelectric fibers, Liquidmetal, Microgel, "Graphene", etc. are indeed game-changing materials, Head would not have stopped using them. I'm pretty sure in a few years we will no longer see "Graphene" racquets in Head's lineup. With the trend shifting back to more flexible sticks, maybe the next new thing will be a layer of wood shavings
Textreme is just a brand name for a proprietary carbon fiber fabric. It’s woven differently than others. Whether or not this matters is a different question. Prince buys the material they do not own the IP rights.
Apparently there are bamboo fiber prepregs. I predict those will make it into tennis racquets at some point in the near future, marketed as "nature's sustainable super-material, infusing the racquets with natural flexibility and unrivaled feel".
So it's basically Flexpoint without the holes?
^^ Wilson rollers were good but that's still my favorite miracle technology.
Which shop in LA?
Yeah just like spin creating strings. Everyone knows the key to generating spin is swing path and speed along with the type of grip you use.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. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite
