Are the technologies really helpful?

[paris0120]

The only technology I can feel works is wilson's stablizing system (put more weight on 3 and 9, Yonex has similar tech called IPS but they put too little weight to work). I really dont know if the other tech especially

materials (The new rackets still have the same or similar stiff and weight as the old one coz it's the specifications of that serial)
aerodynamic tech: based on Babolat it can increase 15% air penetration. Same as prince's hole tech. I'm wondering how the air will affect the swing weight? I guess if i change a lighter dampener i can get the same effect.

The other tech I think may work is prince's hole tech to increase the SP since in fact it make the strings longer. but why dont you get a larger headsize racket and string looser?

I'm pretty satisified with my current sticks (wilson n90 head prestige fxp prestige mid, volkl 10 mid and yonex rds 001 mid). From them, all I can feel the differences are their specs but their techs. I dont know if there is any other techs that make big difference as wilson's does. I'm alway wondering why so many people are crazy about apd. Can that tech really make you play like Nadal?

 

[OHBH]

Specs are all that count. not tech. a quality graphite racket that is 15-20 years old plays just as good. Because graphite rackets last so long tech hoopla is made up to keep people buying new sticks. Prince could sell its original graphite for the next 50 years.

 

[paris0120]

Thx OHBH. That's what I think.

There is another thing I can't understand. Why ppl always say the bigger the head size the looser the string, the more power you get.

I like mid head size rackets and high string tenstion coz I found I can't hit really fast and hard ball with bigger headsize and/or looser tension. It seems the balls get same speed however hard you hit them. What's more I feel when I hit the ball, there is sth between my racket and the ball and I can't transfer my all energy to the ball and I can't make sure where the ball will go.

 

[VGP]

Specs are all that count. not tech. a quality graphite racket that is 15-20 years old plays just as good. Because graphite rackets last so long tech hoopla is made up to keep people buying new sticks. Prince could sell its original graphite for the next 50 years.

At the time, the Prince Graphite was chock full of technologies. Graphite and resin frame with a headlight balance, eventually incorporating replaceable plastic grommet strips and bumperguard, cross-bar stabilizer, available in midsize and oversize - which importantly both frames played well. Traditional leather grips....things that are considered old or taken for granted these days.

The POG (and other frames with different materials) was a collection of excellent technologies. Very different coming out of wood frames and aluminum frames.

As innovative as the POG was, it's hard to reinvent the wheel as far as frames go these days......

...as for making it for 50 years. I guess they decided 25 was enough.

 

[fuzz nation]

Thx OHBH. That's what I think.

There is another thing I can't understand. Why ppl always say the bigger the head size the looser the string, the more power you get.

I like mid head size rackets and high string tenstion coz I found I can't hit really fast and hard ball with bigger headsize and/or looser tension. It seems the balls get same speed however hard you hit them. What's more I feel when I hit the ball, there is sth between my racket and the ball and I can't transfer my all energy to the ball and I can't make sure where the ball will go.

Power is a tricky thing and may have different meanings for different players. A frame will often have more raw "pop" if it is more stiff or has more heft (as long as the player can still swing it comfortably), but it also makes sense that a larger head size can have more inherent resilience since the lengths of string within the hoop are longer.

If I have more control in a racquet, that can effectively allow me to play with more power since I can keep bigger strokes down on the court. I've switched to racquets with more flex and although they have less inherent pop than my older frames, they allow me to hit harder with accuracy. Some softer racquets can seem especially dead, but that's usually when they're not matched with the right strings.

The only tech innovation I know of that has any real significance is the ProKennex Kinetic/Ionic stuff that improves the arm-friendliness of their racquets. Otherwise it all comes down to the weight, balance, and flex of the racquet along with how it's strung. I'm the same way with larger frames in that I tend to feel more disconnected from the ball on contact - I usually string them rather tight to cut down on some of that extra resilience.

 

[neverstopplaying]

I believe that advances in materials provide manufacturers more options to deal with the playing characteristics:

overall weight
swingweight
balance
polarization / weight distribution
stiffness
beam width
variations in stiffness in different areas of the racquets

Then there are other developments in string movement such as woofer or O ports that definitely affect playability.

 

[Steve Huff]

I think the Pro Kennex kinetic system really works. The 5g has been one of the easiest on the arm rackets made for years, back when Racquet Research was still around, and look at the specs on it. Not what you'd consider "soft" or "flexible", although it sure feels like it is.

 

[OTMPut]

aerodynamic tech: based on Babolat it can increase 15% air penetration.

that is the biggest marketing b.s. i have seen. everyone has a wind shield wiper f/h and that huge beam width is no way going to be aero-dynamic.

 

[jwbarrientos]

Asuming some part of the tech is not BS marketing, the technology would help you but will not let you play like a top ten, right?

 

[pshulam]

^ All manufacturers of sports equipment want you to think that what's good for the pros must be good for you also. That's why they pay big $$ for athlete's endorsements. I wish they focus more efforts on R&D, quality control and manufacturing process. More important, lower their prices .. can't imagine it would cost more than $10 to make a racket. The cost of marketing is probably a lot more.

 

[skier318]

Actually, manufacturing composites is extremely labor intensive and a significant cost component of the price alone - the 2 main processes happen before and after molding - wrapping, and cosmetics. Each individual ply of composite fiber sheet is laid up by hand because of the abstract shape of the racket. Even for symmetric objects like a baseball bat or golf shaft, are laid up by hand because of the importance of where each piece is positioned. This ability to position material to control performance is the beauty of composites! The other labor intensive component is taking the molded raquet and applying its composites. It's like restoring a rust bucket 57 chevy every time because there's nothing pretty about composites after molding.

^ All manufacturers of sports equipment want you to think that what's good for the pros must be good for you also. That's why they pay big $$ for athlete's endorsements. I wish they focus more efforts on R&D, quality control and manufacturing process. More important, lower their prices .. can't imagine it would cost more than $10 to make a racket. The cost of marketing is probably a lot more.

 

[galain]

Some of the techs seem to be more "valid" than others. No doubt the O Ports and Speed Ports seem to make a difference in playability. The Flexpoints and Liquid Metal - not that I could make sense of.

Karophite Black.......? Really?
Does Youtek really add anything of significance to the frames? I hit with a new Radical - didn't feel markedly different to the old one to me.
Fischer's Magnetic whatever it was? Please.

i agree with Steve above - of all the manufacturers, my hat is off to Pro Kennex for both their Core system and their Kinetic system. Both of these technologies are I think quite innovative, and both did exactly what they claimed to do, improving the tennis playing experience for me each time I tried them.

 

[pshulam]

Actually, manufacturing composites is extremely labor intensive and a significant cost component of the price alone - the 2 main processes happen before and after molding - wrapping, and cosmetics. Each individual ply of composite fiber sheet is laid up by hand because of the abstract shape of the racket. Even for symmetric objects like a baseball bat or golf shaft, are laid up by hand because of the importance of where each piece is positioned. This ability to position material to control performance is the beauty of composites! The other labor intensive component is taking the molded raquet and applying its composites. It's like restoring a rust bucket 57 chevy every time because there's nothing pretty about composites after molding.

The cost is about $24 / racket according this following study in 2002:
http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/publishedPapers/productProcess.pdf

It's likely cheaper now because of cheap labor and efficiency in manufacturing process.

The gross margin is still very healthy with a retail price of $199. However, the manufacturers may charge only $100 /racket to the retailers.

 

[Richie Rich]

The cost is about $24 / racket according this following study in 2002:
http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/publishedPapers/productProcess.pdf

It's likely cheaper now because of cheap labor and efficiency in manufacturing process.

The gross margin is still very healthy with a retail price of $199. However, the manufacturers may charge only $100 /racket to the retailers.

it's more like $120-$140 to the retailer on a $199 frame.

some of the "technologies" out there boggle my mind. all I's going to say is if a technology was so great why do racquet comapnies (especially wilson and head) change it every few years? you don't see liquidmetal any more or flexpoints any more. if they technology was so great why not keep incorporating it into frames?

don't pick a racquet based on marketing hype. demo and get what plays best for you regardless of what crap the manufacturers put in the frame

 

[pshulam]

some of the "technologies" out there boggle my mind. all I's going to say is if a technology was so great why do racquet comapnies (especially wilson and head) change it every few years?

It is called continuous innovation. This is true for high-tech industries, i.e., medical device, semiconductor, electronics, computer network, etc. I am not so certain about the tennis racket industry. The biggest breakthrough was from wood to graphite. Since then, nothing has been really earthshaking.

 

[Richie Rich]

It is called continuous innovation. This is true for high-tech industries, i.e., medical device, semiconductor, electronics, computer network, etc. I am not so certain about the tennis racket industry. The biggest breakthrough was from wood to graphite. Since then, nothing has been really earthshaking.

that was kind of my point. however, continuous innovation is one thing. changing marketing gimmicks is quite another

 

[pshulam]

that was kind of my point. however, continuous innovation is one thing. changing marketing gimmicks is quite another

I know what you mean. Since they lack product innovation, manufacturers have to do something to get people to buy.

 

[Captainkidd]

Do technological advancements affect playability? Absolutely! Does it make a tennis racket play 'better'? Not necessarily.
What I have discovered in my extremely short time playing the game is that there is a huge difference in playability between different frames/strings and everybody seems to like the feel of something different. Nobody can tell you what you are going to like. What I can tell you is that some technologies provide what I would call forgiveness and to me forgiveness is one of the attributes that virtually every player can benefit from.
The key to winning points in a match is getting the ball back over the net and in play. In other words consistency. This seems elemental and self explanatory but I think a lot of players forget how important this is when trying to choose a racket. I, like many others, was tempted to buy the racket that felt best to me when I was standing at the baseline just hitting with a buddy. This racket was inevitably heavy, head light and fairly stiff. What I found out is that the racket that felt best standing back and busting ground strokes failed me far too often when I was on the run or on the defensive due to the lack of forgiveness and maneuverability. If you want to compete in tennis, until you reach a VERY high level you need to to use the racket that gives you the best chance of not making a mistake.
After demoing 20+ rackets from almost every manufacturer I ended up going with the Prince Ozone Tour. Although I like the feel of some other rackets better I can honestly say that the Ozone Tour had the largest margin for error and best playability for me. It seems as if the entire string bed is lively and playable and the racket itself is very maneuverable, stable and easy on the arm.

 

[El Diablo]

kidd
I think your observation is less about technologies than about SHAPE. I also found the Ozone very playable and think it has more to do with the very rounded Prince head shape than the O-ports, creating a broadly lively playing surface. Similarly shaped Prince speedports with string hole inserts also have very large sweetspots. I keep going back to my Vantage, a racquet with no discernible "technologies" but wonderful playability and plenty of power. Interestingly, the only flaw I find with the Vantage is perhaps less stability than comparably weighted frames, and this doubtless results from the frame being a bit narrower than some competititors, but I find the added control makes up for the stability loss (which I remedy with a little lead on the sides.)

 

[supineAnimation]

I think you can apply common sense to most of these. If you believe that any tennis racquet offers "nano-technology" then I have a racquet made out of pure unicorn horn that I'd like to sell you. Certainly the PWS makes sense, but it’s essentially built-in lead tape. I currently play with Flexpoints and I think it’s likely that they do hinge a bit to cup the ball on contact, but I don't believe it makes a huge difference. There are technologies that reduce vibration in the handle, I believe, but beyond these it’s all marketing if you ask me. While I saw an amazing demonstration on Wired magazine’s show a couple of years ago about a soft, flexible material used for body padding that actually becomes rock hard when a fast-moving object approaches it (I'm sure you can find it on YouTube if you wanna take a look… pretty cool), if this is what YouTek was actually made of the racquets would cost somewhere in the $100,000 range and would require Head to contract with the US military. That being said, I'm salivating over the soon-to-be-released YouTek Prestige MP and plan to sell my plasma so I can buy three of them just as soon as my blood regenerates 20 times next year. But it has nothing to do with buying the YouTek “technology”… it’s just that my 5-year-old Flexpoints are dying and I need new frames and I've been a Prestige man for 15 years. So in other words, if Head was releasing a new adamantium Prestige next year I would probably buy that as well.

 

[retlod]

all I's going to say is if a technology was so great why do racquet comapnies (especially wilson and head) change it every few years? you don't see liquidmetal any more or flexpoints any more. if they technology was so great why not keep incorporating it into frames

That's all you need to know right there.

 

[movdqa]

I love the tech in the KPS88 - they just added more weight in a non-polarized frame.

The aerogel stuff in the Dunlops may work. I tried one two weeks ago and I was amazed at how light it was but I could also smack the ball pretty hard without vibration. Maybe it is the aerogel or something else in the racquet but I've never felt anything like that before.

 

[cellofaan]

The aerogel stuff in the Dunlops may work. I tried one two weeks ago and I was amazed at how light it was but I could also smack the ball pretty hard without vibration. Maybe it is the aerogel or something else in the racquet but I've never felt anything like that before.

That's not aerogel.