Why so few box beams?/perfect racquet

stevewcosta · Feb 17, 2009

I seem to only like box beam construction (ProStaff 6.0, old 80s Yonex etc.). Why are 99% of the racquets tubular? I think feel is compromised.

Also, why can't a co. come out with a 19mm box beam 95 sq. in., with a reasonable swingweight (~325), a decent static weight >12 ounces and enough stiffness so it's not a noodle like the Donnay Pro Int. (which I own...PS 6.0 95 was close but too thick, too low of a swingweight and a dead upper hoop)???? Unfortunately Head racs. don't work for me - too flexible, tight patterns for the most part and grip shapes that cater to 2hbh.

I guess this is more of a rant. Sorry if in wrong location.

larry10s · Feb 17, 2009

just a thought better aerodynamics with tubular?

Sublime · Feb 17, 2009

How about a pro supex nano energy?

http://www.prosupex.com/image/tennis/i-tennis-003.html

It's 95 sq in head size with a 16x18 pattern, 20mm box beam, 67 stiffness, 11.2oz, and 8 points HL.

I feel bad posting this on TW forums since it's a frame they don't carry. However, people have made countless efforts to ask TW to carry Pro Supex, so it is what it is.

SFrazeur · Feb 17, 2009

Less than 99% of racquets are tubular, more like 80. Keep in mind that racquets like Prestiges are not considered "box beams" but "straight beams" along with beams like those of Wilson's 6.1 95. Personally I would consider the more rectangular beams, of say Prestiges to have enough of a significant difference to be categorized differently.

Have you tried Yonex RDS 001 MID and MP racquets? They are more box than the elongated rectangular beams of say head, dunlops, etc. But they are also more like hexigon beams than box beams.

Then there are RQiS 1 TOURs which have more rectangular, slanted edge beams in the head and more slanted edge boxy-hexagonal shaped throats, but yet have some similarity in appearance to their oval pressed shaft concept. . .Yonex frame characteristics are a little difficult to classify at times.

-SF

-SF

vkartikv · Feb 17, 2009

The 6.1 95 has a tubular beam and still has plenty of feel...but that may be the exception.

rosenstar · Feb 17, 2009

stevewcosta said:
I seem to only like box beam construction (ProStaff 6.0, old 80s Yonex etc.). Why are 99% of the racquets tubular? I think feel is compromised.

Also, why can't a co. come out with a 19mm box beam 95 sq. in., with a reasonable swingweight (~325), a decent static weight >12 ounces and enough stiffness so it's not a noodle like the Donnay Pro Int. (which I own...PS 6.0 95 was close but too thick, too low of a swingweight and a dead upper hoop)???? Unfortunately Head racs. don't work for me - too flexible, tight patterns for the most part and grip shapes that cater to 2hbh.

I guess this is more of a rant. Sorry if in wrong location.

Greater than 12 oz and swingweight less then 325 kgcm^2? Why don't racquet companies make these? Because that's unstable. I'm assuming you mean a 325 kgcm^2 swingweight when strung? To do that, the frame would have to be incredibly headlight, so much that there would be very little weight in the hoop.

As far as the box beam, I've always prefered a rounder beam. I just don't like the feel. I feel that box beams are by nature less stable, and feel that they get pushed around by heavier balls. I believe this is why you never see box beams less then 12.3+ oz. The current consumer trend is towards lighter frames, and since box beams need heavy frames to compliment the lack of stablitity, the a box beam frame is not something that racquet companies want to invest in.

As for suggesting a frame for you, maybe the asain k90? I don't know much about these frames, and I will probably never buy an asian frame unless I'm living in asia, but there are others on the forum who could assist you in that category.

Automatix · Feb 17, 2009

Low demand? Not necessarily because I could imagine someone buying such a frame. BUT... did you notice how many strict specs you gave? I'll show and example comparing your and my preference:

19mm - We both like it... so okey...
95 sq inch head - Perfect...
sw ~325 - you like it I prefer 330-335...
Mass: > 12 oz. - I like a bit lighter frames, easier to modify depending on conditions...
Stiffness: Enough - I can't relate to that but I like flexible frames below 64 at least.
String pattern: Open - you want an open stringpattern I on the other hand prefer 18x20...

My point is you can't make everyone happy. Your dream frame is something I wouldn't play with (4 different preferences) and vice versa.

Additionally the modern game is more about power and topspin and more towards tweener frames.

A company wants to sell as many frames as possible so they go with the biggest group of consumer.

HeadPrestige · Feb 17, 2009

vkartikv said:
The 6.1 95 has a tubular beam and still has plenty of feel...but that may be the exception.

Which 6.1 are you talking about? if it is the n code or the k-factor then i strongly disagree.

stevewcosta · Feb 17, 2009

Automatix said:
Low demand? Not necessarily because I could imagine someone buying such a frame. BUT... did you notice how many strict specs you gave? I'll show and example comparing your and my preference:

19mm - We both like it... so okey...
95 sq inch head - Perfect...
sw ~325 - you like it I prefer 330-335...
Mass: > 12 oz. - I like a bit lighter frames, easier to modify depending on conditions...
Stiffness: Enough - I can't relate to that but I like flexible frames below 64 at least.
String pattern: Open - you want an open stringpattern I on the other hand prefer 18x20...

My point is you can't make everyone happy. Your dream frame is something I wouldn't play with (4 different preferences) and vice versa.

Additionally the modern game is more about power and topspin and more towards tweener frames.

A company wants to sell as many frames as possible so they go with the biggest group of consumer.

OK - I said approx. sw 325 (I play with 6.0 85 and love the sw whatever that is---closer to 330 I would think). I hate the modern game (no feel, muted widebodies). Also, I guess not all cos. think about what will appeal to most. Just demo. the K88 - that thing is a damn beast and I wanted to love it. It's more muted than the 6.0 85, more difficult to play with despite the larger head. I'm usually not the kind of guy that says you need to be 5.0+ or whatever for a specific frame. With the K88, you better be damn good to maximize this thing in competitive play. But now I'm OT.

Not sure how old you are, but there were plenty of 95 - 98 sq. in. Yonex frames made in the 80s with huge sweet spots and tons of power and feel with 18.5mm box beam (and maneuverable and more stable than most racs. of today). They were "heavy" yet maneuverable even for a 16 yr. old. Now Yonex racquets look and play like candy. Just awful - don't mean to offend anyone...play w/what you want...These are obviously opinions.

stevewcosta · Feb 17, 2009

Sublime said:
How about a pro supex nano energy?

http://www.prosupex.com/image/tennis/i-tennis-003.html

It's 95 sq in head size with a 16x18 pattern, 20mm box beam, 67 stiffness, 11.2oz, and 8 points HL.

I feel bad posting this on TW forums since it's a frame they don't carry. However, people have made countless efforts to ask TW to carry Pro Supex, so it is what it is.

Looks pretty good but a bit wide and light. Interesting. Thanks.

stevewcosta · Feb 17, 2009

rosenstar said:
Greater than 12 oz and swingweight less then 325 kgcm^2? Why don't racquet companies make these? Because that's unstable. I'm assuming you mean a 325 kgcm^2 swingweight when strung? To do that, the frame would have to be incredibly headlight, so much that there would be very little weight in the hoop.

As far as the box beam, I've always prefered a rounder beam. I just don't like the feel. I feel that box beams are by nature less stable, and feel that they get pushed around by heavier balls. I believe this is why you never see box beams less then 12.3+ oz. The current consumer trend is towards lighter frames, and since box beams need heavy frames to compliment the lack of stablitity, the a box beam frame is not something that racquet companies want to invest in.

As for suggesting a frame for you, maybe the asain k90? I don't know much about these frames, and I will probably never buy an asian frame unless I'm living in asia, but there are others on the forum who could assist you in that category.

No, not < 325, ~ (approx.) 325 (more like 330 - prefer whatever the 6.0 85 is 330??).

Blade0324 · Feb 17, 2009

THe main reason you probably don't see these is because today's game has developed beyond that type of frame. That is pretty much a frame for S&V tennis which is basically dead in the game today. Also strings have a great deal to do with it. Since string technology has evolved it has allowed for larger heads on racquets that are stiffer and then a stiff string with low power to balance it out. It allows larger sweetspots due to larger head size yet maintaining control. That is what really ends up working for the majority of todays playing public. Not saying there is anything wrong with liking or wanting the type of frame you describe just stating the most likely reasons why companies don't make them.

morten · Feb 17, 2009

stevewcosta said:
I seem to only like box beam construction (ProStaff 6.0, old 80s Yonex etc.). Why are 99% of the racquets tubular? I think feel is compromised.

Also, why can't a co. come out with a 19mm box beam 95 sq. in., with a reasonable swingweight (~325), a decent static weight >12 ounces and enough stiffness so it's not a noodle like the Donnay Pro Int. (which I own...PS 6.0 95 was close but too thick, too low of a swingweight and a dead upper hoop)???? Unfortunately Head racs. don't work for me - too flexible, tight patterns for the most part and grip shapes that cater to 2hbh.

I guess this is more of a rant. Sorry if in wrong location.

WOW! This could have been my exact words, amazing, could not agree more

about the Head and all... i am a ps85 user btw..

Pushmaster · Feb 17, 2009

I have to agree that box beams have more feel than straight beams. My 3 favorite racquets are box; PS 6.0 85, Tour 90, and the Yonex R-22. Don't get me wrong, there are a few older straight beam racquets that have good feel and feedback like the PC 600, MW 200G, and POG, but most of the newer ones like the AG 100, Redondo mid, and KBT have almost no feel at all. There's something special about the box beam feel that's hard to describe, even the best straight beams feel muted in comparison.

dabudabuda · Feb 17, 2009

try theprince diablo mid(19mm, box beam, 12oz+, stiff and very head light)

the sweetspot plays more like a 95sq in

by the way...i will have to disagree about the redondo having no feel^^^

Automatix · Feb 17, 2009

stevewcosta said:
Not sure how old you are, but there were plenty of 95 - 98 sq. in. Yonex frames made in the 80s with huge sweet spots and tons of power and feel with 18.5mm box beam (and maneuverable and more stable than most racs. of today). They were "heavy" yet maneuverable even for a 16 yr. old. Now Yonex racquets look and play like candy. Just awful - don't mean to offend anyone...play w/what you want...These are obviously opinions.

I'm 23 but I did have the chance to play some classics and I know what you mean... todays heavy racquets seem like logs and when you take heavier true classics you don't feel the encumbrance which is quite surprising.

Rorsach · Feb 18, 2009

rosenstar said:
I feel that box beams are by nature less stable, and feel that they get pushed around by heavier balls. I believe this is why you never see box beams less then 12.3+ oz. The current consumer trend is towards lighter frames, and since box beams need heavy frames to compliment the lack of stablitity, the a box beam frame is not something that racquet companies want to invest in.

I think that the reason you see more tubular frames is because that shape has more strength than a box shape.
So if you want lighter racquets (what the market is asking for), you want to use the strongest shape.

cork_screw · Feb 18, 2009

Ahhhh, I agree. I love box frames. They feel so good when you grip it with your off hand. Before you make your shot.

naturallight · Feb 18, 2009

Seriously, I would love a 17mm beam with a 98sq in head.

stevewcosta · Feb 18, 2009

naturallight said:
Seriously, I would love a 17mm beam with a 98sq in head.

Yeah man (I'll settle with 18 - 19mm). While I love the 6.0 85, I play better with larger 95 - 98 (max) but don't like any of the 95 - 98 racquets currently being manufactured (tried them ALL!). Also, the damn POG OS feels like a gigantic bubble to me...too round, too big. The Yonex RDS 002 Tour gave me instant TE within 15 mins (never had TE w/6.0 85)---was cumbersome also. Weird beam shape, imperfect balance...feel so so.

Take the Yonex R10 for instance. It was heavy, maneuverable and had incredible feel and great sweet spot with power on demand (don't understand all of this modern need for effortless power---generate your own, that's why it's called a sport...weird). I played the best tennis ever with that racquet.

Morten wrote:
WOW! This could have been my exact words, amazing, could not agree more about the Head and all... i am a ps85 user btw..

(Great minds think alike!)

wallymann · Feb 18, 2009

Lol

larry10s said:
just a thought better aerodynamics with tubular?

aerodynamics...that's a good one!

marketing hype aside, the differences in aerodynamic drag between a tubular and box-section frame at the significantly sub-sonic speeds the human arm can generate are infinitesimally small.

Tennis Dunce · Feb 18, 2009

stevewcosta said:
(don't understand all of this modern need for effortless power---generate your own, that's why it's called a sport...weird).

Amen to that!

stician · Feb 18, 2009

stevewcosta said:
I seem to only like box beam construction (ProStaff 6.0, old 80s Yonex etc.). Why are 99% of the racquets tubular? I think feel is compromised.

Also, why can't a co. come out with a 19mm box beam 95 sq. in., with a reasonable swingweight (~325), a decent static weight >12 ounces and enough stiffness so it's not a noodle like the Donnay Pro Int. (which I own...PS 6.0 95 was close but too thick, too low of a swingweight and a dead upper hoop)???? Unfortunately Head racs. don't work for me - too flexible, tight patterns for the most part and grip shapes that cater to 2hbh.

I guess this is more of a rant. Sorry if in wrong location.

Check out these specs I pulled from TW's retail site...

Babolat Pure Storm Ltd. Racquets

Midplus Specs
Head Size:
95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.8oz / 335g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 305
Stiffness: 62
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Carbon Xtreme
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Leather
String Pattern:
18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 9T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 50-62 pounds

I like this control oriented frame quite a lot.

stevewcosta · Feb 18, 2009

stician said:
Check out these specs I pulled from TW's retail site...

Babolat Pure Storm Ltd. Racquets

Midplus Specs
Head Size:
95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.8oz / 335g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 305
Stiffness: 62
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Carbon Xtreme
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Leather
String Pattern:
18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 9T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 50-62 pounds

I like this control oriented frame quite a lot.[/QUOTE

I don't expect all specs to be perfect but here's where this frame falls short for me:
- too light
- sw too low
- pattern too tight
- stiffness too low

I see this as Babolat's identity crisis. They took a bunch of specs and scrambled 'em up but missed the mark. Are you the king of the wide body rocket launchers or do you want to be like Head and offer tight patterned, flexible player's racs? But then they make it w/a 305 sw? Very strange to me. Make it heavier, 16X19, 325+ sw and 66+ stiffness and it would probably rock! The only way they could make this racquet worse is make an extended version. I heard that's coming out next!

okdude1992 · Feb 18, 2009

try the prince tour diablo. http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCPRINCE-PTD.html
that as close as youl find. otherwise just get a custom vantage

Kevo · Feb 19, 2009

stevewcosta said:
I don't expect all specs to be perfect but here's where this frame falls short for me:
- too light
- sw too low
- pattern too tight
- stiffness too low

I see this as Babolat's identity crisis. They took a bunch of specs and scrambled 'em up but missed the mark. Are you the king of the wide body rocket launchers or do you want to be like Head and offer tight patterned, flexible player's racs? But then they make it w/a 305 sw? Very strange to me. Make it heavier, 16X19, 325+ sw and 66+ stiffness and it would probably rock! The only way they could make this racquet worse is make an extended version. I heard that's coming out next!

I think the PSL is just spectacular. I found myself wondering about the low swingweight the other day after reading a bunch of people complaining about it so I leaded mine up. After about 30 minutes of hitting, I decided it was better without the lead. I used to play a Pure Storm leaded up to about 13oz., and it was very good. The swingweight on that one was about 330. However, the control and precision of the PSL with the lower swing weight is outstanding. It gives you so much variety. If you want to hit crazy topspin, you can do it even with the tight pattern because of that low swing weight. If you want to drive through the ball flat, the control and precision are there for that as well. Slices are brutal. The more I play with the frame the more I love it. IMO, Babolat hit a home run with this one. The only mod I've done to mine that I like is adding some weight in the handle. It really helps dampen the shock of hitting out, and once you get comfortable with this frame you will want to hit out often.

It's hard to please everyone, but I think there are so many frames out there that you should be able to find one you like. I did demo a lot of box beam frames before I bought the PSL, and many of them were very good. I think I just got lucky to find one that I've grown to love so much.

HeadPrestige · Feb 19, 2009

Even though the rds 001 is not a box beam, it is the only racket i was happily able to move from my 6.0 95s to. It is definitely worth a demo. It has a similar amount of feel and flex to a lot of the pro staffs, but it is not quite as "thick" feeling if you know what i mean by that.

Bubba · Feb 19, 2009

larry10s said:
just a thought better aerodynamics with tubular?

More strength from tubular (arch) design?

Why so few box beams?/perfect racquet

Professional

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Professional

Professional

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Professional

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Professional

Similar threads