Babolat Settlement and Pro Racquets/Paintjobs

[Captain Ron]

In light of the proposed Babolat Settlement I thought it would be interesting to hear people's opinions on the practices of Babolat and other brands.

Here are my opinions:
1. I never really believed GT did anything and considered it more of a marketing thing than real technology. So, not upset if my racquets don't have any tungsten. This doesn't make it right to advertise something that isn't there or doesn't make a difference but to me no worse than Graphene or any other questionable tech/material.
2. I think Babolat has been better about paintjobs and having the pros play something closer to retail than Head/Wilson and a few others (Yonex Wawrinka 95D vs Tour G). From what I gather, most Babolat pros are using the same mold as their paintjob (but often different versions/tech and maybe custom layups). For instance, I believe Rafa uses a very near retail pre Cortex APD (I am no expert on this so happy to hear what others think). I don't think you can say the same for a lot of Head and Wilson pros (probably other brands also). Also, Babolat posted specs for many of their pros on these boards (Babolat earned a lot of respect from me for doing that).

To summarize, I have felt Babolat are one of the better manufacturers in terms of selling something close to what the pros are using and not using blatantly deceptive paintjobs etc.... We can all have opinions on Woofer grommets, Cortex, GT and flex carbon but I don't think they are any more deceptive than things like graphene, liquid metal, etc...

Am I just a deluded fan boy? I'll admit GT was probably pure marketing BS but I don't think any worse than the other brands.

Would really like to hear others honest opinions. Thanks in advance!

 

[Lavs]

Nadal uses APD Original (not sure about layup, it could be a little softer than retail though).
Tsonga uses APD Original Plus (also could be softer layup).
Fognini uses PD Original (no Woofer).

I agree that lots of pros who play Babolat frames, play actually with nearly retail sticks. I guess Querrey plays retails APD GT

 

[dgoran]

Sam plays retail 2013 and plus but cut to 27.25

 

[Automatix]

1. I never really believed GT did anything and considered it more of a marketing thing than real technology. So, not upset if my racquets don't have any tungsten. This doesn't make it right to advertise something that isn't there or doesn't make a difference but to me no worse than Graphene or any other questionable tech/material.

But how many bought them believing in this "technology"? How many were mislead?
Would you be as forgiving if Wilson frames which are supposed to have kevlar didn't have it? It's the same thing. A company claims it uses material X, if it doesn't it's guilty of fraud. Would you be happy with a cranberry cookie without cranberries?

2. I think Babolat has been better about paintjobs and having the pros play something closer to retail than Head/Wilson and a few others (Yonex Wawrinka 95D vs Tour G). From what I gather, most Babolat pros are using the same mold as their paintjob (but often different versions/tech and maybe custom layups). For instance, I believe Rafa uses a very near retail pre Cortex APD (I am no expert on this so happy to hear what others think). I don't think you can say the same for a lot of Head and Wilson pros (probably other brands also). Also, Babolat posted specs for many of their pros on these boards (Babolat earned a lot of respect from me for doing that).

Babolat is a younger company than Wilson or Head racquet wise.
A lot of Head players use a Pro Tour 630 aka PT57A.

Also think about the APD paintjobs on the Aero Storms. Yes, there is a small sign that says Aero Storm but wouldn't you say it's deceiving the public?
What about Roddicks signature frame which he didn't actually use?
And another thing if a player gets a 27,5 inch hairpin while a 27,5 inch model isn't available? Can we say that a player is using an older model if it never was available to the public in extended length?

A lie is a lie.

I actually don't care about pro paintjobs but the tungsten case is something else. Think of examples from other areas... I don't know, let's say you buy a necklace with meteor dust which doesn't contain meteor dust, would you say that's okay?

The problem with today's world is that there's to much BS marketing.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every claim had to be backed up?
No miracle supplements. No financial pyramid schemes. Etc.

 

[Captain Ron]

Automatix,
Good points about Tungsten. If it isn't there or not enough to make a difference it looks deceptive.
As for the Aero Storms, I believe those are retail PJs. Babolat issued the aero storm GT with a PJ that was almost the same as the APD. I think this was a marketing error and effectively killed the aero storm So, I don't think that is deceptive.
I have no problem with a pro getting and extended version of a frame available to the public. If you really want to, you can get your frame extended 1/2".
Not familiar with Roddick's frames, do tell?
Agree with you that claiming Tungsten but not putting it in the layup would be deceptive. I also think not putting enough in to make a difference is just marketing BS. So tungsten is at best marketing BS and maybe outright deception.

 

[Automatix]

As for the Aero Storms, I believe those are retail PJs. Babolat issued the aero storm GT with a PJ that was almost the same as the APD. So, I don't think that is deceptive.

You don't think that an Aero Storm painted like this is deceptive?

I have no problem with a pro getting and extended version of a frame available to the public. If you really want to, you can get your frame extended 1/2".

You're missing my point. There is a difference between extending from 27 inches and getting an uncut hairpin.

Not familiar with Roddick's frames, do tell?

Roddick used 2nd generation PDs+ not PDRs.

For me a lie is a lie. Painting Cortex is the same in my book as painting FXP holes or LM ridges.

 

[Captain Ron]

Automatix,
Agree that doesn't look like a retail Aero Storm PJ that I am aware of. However, I think that could have been the new Aero Storm PJ if it wasn't discontinued?
http://www.*************.com/Newsletter/020110_AeroProGT_National.jpg
(Sorry about the picture being blocked, maybe someone has a valid link? Google babolat aero gt line)
The APD and Aero Storm PJ's had become virtually identical.
My opinion is that Babolat has been more truthful than the other big names. I think that counts for something but maybe you don't see them as having behaved any different?
Appreciate your opinions and the picture.

 

[Automatix]

I'm not trying to make you change your mind, it's your take on the subject but truth be told a fraud is a fraud. Period.

As I wrote I don't care about paintjobs, but I am fully aware of this scheme and I don't buy a frame because a player endorses it... If Babolat makes an extended Soft Control I'm all aboard.

Automatix,
Agree that doesn't look like a retail Aero Storm PJ that I am aware of. However, I think that could have been the new Aero Storm PJ if it wasn't discontinued?
http://www.*************.com/Newsletter/020110_AeroProGT_National.jpg
(Sorry about the picture being blocked, maybe someone has a valid link? Google babolat aero gt line)
The APD and Aero Storm PJ's had become virtually identical.

It is debatable if the move to unify the paintjobs was to make it more difficult to distinguish the particular models, also why paint the older cortex black... most certainly so it isn't visible. But that's just speculation.

My opinion is that Babolat has been more truthful than the other big names. I think that counts for something but maybe you don't see them as having behaved any different?

For me it comes down to a simple: The pro doesn't use what's advertised.

I wonder however what's your take on the Roddick frame.

 

[sureshs]

In light of the proposed Babolat Settlement I thought it would be interesting to hear people's opinions on the practices of Babolat and other brands.

Here are my opinions:
1. I never really believed GT did anything and considered it more of a marketing thing than real technology. So, not upset if my racquets don't have any tungsten. This doesn't make it right to advertise something that isn't there or doesn't make a difference but to me no worse than Graphene or any other questionable tech/material.

Very well reasoned, but I would not compare it with anything else. A thief is a thief. I don't know about how much Graphene is there in the frames, but very curious now.

Unlike claims of "18% more comfort," I have to take this matter very seriously.I hope this leads to a series of lawsuits. The world could live with far fewer racket manufacturers all promising more control and power.

 

[TimothyO]

If you consider graphene's cost per gram then it's quite likely that it's impossible for Head frames to include a meaningful amount of the material. Just a tiny amount has a wholesale cost greater than the retail price of a tennis frame. A postage stamp sized wafer 1 atom thick would be economically unrealistic.

 

[Bartelby]

The paintjob issue is over at a legal level because all companies issue disclaimers that are easily understood.

The tungsten issue is simply an unforgiveable deception. Even if most innovations are marginal you can't just deceive people.

 

[sureshs]

The paintjob issue is over at a legal level because all companies issue disclaimers that are easily understood.

The tungsten issue is simply an unforgiveable deception. Even if most innovations are marginal you can't just deceive people.

What bothers me is how many people from the top down must have been consciously involved in this.

 

[Sparkyovcov]

Is this case just about rackets purchased in North america? Or were all rackets produced without tungsten worldwide?

 

[El_Yotamo]

Did some calculations. In order to get enough of what graphene needs to do in order for the potential that Head need from it, they'd need to pay about $215 PER RACQUET in order to get the real results they need from it in the throat. Obviously, this is impossible, since retail price is $200, and factory price is usually around $100-150.

 

[Errol]

Did some calculations. In order to get enough of what graphene needs to do in order for the potential that Head need from it, they'd need to pay about $215 PER RACQUET in order to get the real results they need from it in the throat. Obviously, this is impossible, since retail price is $200, and factory price is usually around $100-150.

I think similar calculations have been made for some of the other magic materials as well, like liquidmetal, aerogel, carbon nano tubes and such. Consensus seemed to be that any non-trivial amount of the stuff per-racquet would cost more than a racquet itself, so it is likely not present, or only present in such a small amount that could protect them from false advertising claims.

 

[sureshs]

What was the name of that orange thing which was even placed in pro shops for display - supposedly stiffened up under impact?

 

[Automatix]

What was the name of that orange thing which was even placed in pro shops for display - supposedly stiffened up under impact?

That was d3o.

 

[Jim A]

I really can't believe companies have to be pro active about settling this stuff nowadays, pretty sad. Akin to the recent Red Bull settlement where if you filled out a form you'd get $10 because I'm not smart enough to know that it will not actually "give me wings".

Coming from the hockey industry, paint jobs are just as much part of that sport as this one. Players have sticks painted to match the latest and greatest. Maybe the difference is that many of them have to actually pay for the products, or the teams do....but I'd be nearly 100% certain that the paid endorsers of a brand have PJ's on their sticks etc.

I guess more lawyers play tennis instead of hockey

 

[TimothyO]

Has Babolat Official commented on this yet?

 

[sureshs]

That was d3o.

Correct. I remember trying it out in the pro shop - press it and it stiffens. Even watched videos on it. What happened to that "technology?"

 

[sureshs]

Has Babolat Official commented on this yet?

I once asked him on the other thread whether he would comment on the amount of Tungsten in GT. No reply.

You really cannot expect him to say anything and keep his job. That is how corporations work.

 

[TimothyO]

I once asked him on the other thread whether he would comment on the amount of Tungsten in GT. No reply.

You really cannot expect him to say anything and keep his job. That is how corporations work.

Understood and that's why I thought he might be spoon fed a line as a corporate spokes shill. Was curious if that had happened yet since they seem to have kept him on a short leash after the "wealthy Babolat customers dump worn out shoes on working poor" debacle.