Dunlop Max IMF Series rackets

[joe sch]

Good to see lots of interest and talk about classic graphite "old school" rackets this summer of 2020.
The Dunlop Max rackets have lots of discussion over the years mostly because of the Max 200G and McEnroe association.

My collection of Dunlop Max Series rackets. Rare 150G is small head like a wood racket, approx 70si. Iconic Max 200g started the 85si head and these rackets are famous for the Injection Mold Process (IMF) using a graphite filler (Grafil). The Max500i went to a 95si head for a bigger sweet spot and more power. The Max 300i and Max 400i round out the series. I have many more but mostly trying to show the lineup with a few spares in pix.

Its a really nice set of rackets to have for the tennis collector and classic racket player. The 200G was loved by many and made famous by John McEnroe. These rackets played soft and flexible and the Grafil IMF resulted in a dynamic stiffness so when taking big fast swings, the racket offered more stiffness thus power, and when making soft touch vollies, the racket played very flexible.

This collection of max rackets shows off some classic leather grips and natural gut strings. Some of the gut string jobs have patches to help make the rackets more presentable and even possibly further play in case play tests are of interest. IMO, nat gut and leather maximizes the ultimate old school feel of these rackets to a wood racket level with the extra power and sweet spot.


Enjoy the classic racket eye candy (Pix will be posted hopefully soon ...)

NOTE: Dunlop numbering indicated progressive increase to headsize, beam width, stiffness and power... all on the increase relative to number. Thus, 500i > 400i > 300i > 200G > 150G considering these racket design specifications.

 

[Dino Lagaffe]

Great initiativ for a thread, @joe sch , and sorry for hi-jacking it...

I have the racquets you mention, and have played with all of them. While the 200G is getting most of the attention, the other racquets in the series deserve some of the spotlight. Here's my take on them.

150G
Weight: 394 g/13.90 oz
RA: 40
SW: 389

This one is a beast. Once you get the racquet moving, it's possible to hit pretty hard. It feels pretty outdated, though, partly due to the combination of a really small headsize and high static and swing weight.
..................................................................................

200G (A rough average of multiple frames)
Weight: 375 g/13.23 oz
RA: 43
SW: 364

A classic that needs no further explanation. I've used it in matches sometimes over the years, and if you expect it to play like an Aeropro Drive you'll be disappointed. However, with some adjustments, one can still play a pretty good game of tennis with it. In fact, I truly believe that playing old racquets would be good for many players. It makes you think about how you hit the ball, forces you to prepare early, you don't get away with sloppy foot work etc. Of course I don't think going back fulltime to early 1980s technology will improve your tennis, but try it sometimes. It's loads of fun!
..................................................................................

300i (NOS, unstrung)
Weight: 342 g/12.06 oz
RA: 50
SW: 318

Same mold and drill pattern as the 200G, but slightly stiffer.

..................................................................................

400i (Specs from two of my racquets.)
Weight: 354/364 g 12.49/12.84 oz
RA: 41/44
SW: 341/344

The 400i is thinner and has a more open string pattern compared to the 200G, if I remember correctly. Some people have mentioned a stiffer flex as well, but that's nothing I've been able to confirm when measuring my own racquets.

The 400i feels more modern, and one can work the ball a little bit more, when serving for instance.

Both the 300i and 400i have that IMF feel to them, but they will never be a 200G. Great racquets though, in their own rights.

..................................................................................

500i
Weight: 370 g/13.05 oz
RA: 43
SW: 361

A different beast compared to the sticks above, as this is more of a widebody. I really like it, but once again, don't expect a 200G. It does have that IMF feel, though. Obviously there's no way around the weight and swingweight, but if you can handle it (and like the soft flex) it's a very cool racquet.

..................................................................................

800i
Weight: 370 g/13.05 oz
RA: 36
SW: 337

There are some similarities with the 500i, but the 800i swings lighter and is flexier. I can't remember if it's also bigger.

 

[d-quik]

bro what the ****!?!??! this is a family-oriented website. please remove this porn there are kids who can see this. you can upload them on pornhub or xvideos but not here. please be civilised

 

[joe sch]

Great initiativ for a thread, @joe sch , and sorry for hi-jacking it...

I have the racquets you mention, and have played with all of them. While the 200G is getting most of the attention, the other racquets in the series deserve some of the spotlight. Here's my take on them.

150G
Weight: 394 g/13.90 oz
RA: 40
SW: 389

This one is a beast. Once you get the racquet moving, it's possible to hit pretty hard. It feels pretty outdated, though, partly due to the combination of a really small headsize and high static and swing weight.
..................................................................................

200G (A rough average of multiple frames)
Weight: 375 g/13.23 oz
RA: 43
SW: 364

A classic that needs no further explanation. I've used it in matches sometimes over the years, and if you expect it to play like an Aeropro Drive you'll be disappointed. However, with some adjustments, one can still play a pretty good game of tennis with it. In fact, I truly believe that playing old racquets would be good for many players.


..................................................................................

300i (NOS, unstrung)
Weight: 342 g/12.06 oz
RA: 50
SW: 318

Same mold and drill pattern as the 200G, but slightly stiffer.

..................................................................................

400i (Specs from two of my racquets.)
Weight: 354/364 g 12.49/12.84 oz
RA: 41/44
SW: 341/344

The 400i is thinner and has a more open string pattern compared to the 200G, if I remember correctly. Some people have mentioned a stiffer flex as well, but that's nothing I've been able to confirm when measuring my own racquets.

The 400i feels more modern, and one can work the ball a little bit more, when serving for instance.

Both the 300i and 400i have that IMF feel to them, but they will never be a 200G. Great racquets though, in their own rights.

..................................................................................

500i
Weight: 370 g/13.05 oz
RA: 43
SW: 361

A different beast compared to the sticks above, as this is more of a widebody. I really like it, but once again, don't expect a 200G. It does have that IMF feel, though. Obviously there's no way around the weight and swingweight, but if you can handle it (and like the soft flex) it's a very cool racquet.

..................................................................................

800i
Weight: 370 g/13.05 oz
RA: 36
SW: 337

There are some similarities with the 500i, but the 800i swings lighter and is flexier. I can't remember if it's also bigger.

Dino, Awesome reviews and pics! Now I dont need to get my pix to a photo share for uploading. I never had the 800i so good to hear about that model.

Im in total agreement with your statement:

It makes you think about how you hit the ball, forces you to prepare early, you don't get away with sloppy foot work etc. Of course I don't think going back fulltime to early 1980s technology will improve your tennis, but try it sometimes.

When I played the 200G's I was all SV and it was fun since most of the baseline players did not like the all out attack. I also did not get so tired running corner to corner as the points were over much quicker.

 

[joe sch]

@Dino Lagaffe regarding the 150G "This one is a beast. Once you get the racquet moving, it's possible to hit pretty hard. It feels pretty outdated, though, partly due to the combination of a really small headsize and high static and swing weight."
The 150G reminds me of the Head XRC, as both have small heads and are not much of an advance from the woods, especially the latest mid woods.

 

[vsbabolat]

I have a Slazenger Phantom IMF

 

[Dino Lagaffe]

I have a Slazenger Phantom IMF

From what I understand it doesn't really look like any of the IMF Dunlops. How does it play? Do you have the specs? Which Dunlop is it the closest to?

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

 

[vsbabolat]

From what I understand it doesn't really look like any of the IMF Dunlops. How does it play? Do you have the specs? Which Dunlop is it the closest to?

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

It looks like an IMF. No drilled holes and cap in the yoke where the poured the alloy out. It just looks like an egg. I’ll post some photos later.

 

[jxs653]

Looking at all the reissue of old racquets this IMF method will not be buried forever but will reappear someday.

 

[michael valek]

It’s like a max200g with an egg head. Silver grey blue colour if I remember correctly.

 

[Dino Lagaffe]

Looking at all the reissue of old racquets this IMF method will not be buried forever but will reappear someday.

I doubt it, but I would love it.

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

 

[vsbabolat]

Looking at all the reissue of old racquets this IMF method will not be buried forever but will reappear someday.

It’s too expensive

 

[Boronite]

These rackets played soft and flexible and the Grafil IMF resulted in a dynamic stiffness so when taking big fast swings, the racket offered more stiffness thus power, and when making soft touch vollies, the racket played very flexible.

Is there any hard evidence for this dynamic stiffness claim?

I always see it when I read about the 200G but just because Dunlop made this claim doesn't mean it's anything more than marketing hype.

There is, for instance, a racquet that has a really awesome technology in it called Tensilium. Tensilium is a ligament material produced by mollusks so it would be a bit difficult to actually put into a racquet.

If it can be scientifically proven, with hard data, that IMF racquets play so differently, due to this dynamic stiffness effect, then they would certainly not be obsolete. In fact, the case could be made for bringing back the technology, provided the complaint about warp could be solved.

If they are, however, merely very flexible graphite composites then that's rather run-of-the-mill and what made the racquets special was simply the talent of the pros who used it.

It’s too expensive

Economy of scale and outsourcing to low-cost countries both can quite significantly mitigate cost.

There was a huge amount of competition in the racquet market when IMF frames were made and yet someone decided to invest the money in the production anyway and the racquets were successful enough to get some of history's best players. There were also a bunch of models produced. I suppose tennis had more players when the decision was made but there was also more competition for those players' wallets.

A sure-fire way of making IMF affordable is to require it for a sport, such as an offshoot of tennis. If every racquet has to be made with injection molding then economy of scale kicks in. And, if the sport doesn't become very popular, as long as there is a minimum player base there will be enough sales to continue production.

 

[joe sch]

Is there any hard evidence for this dynamic stiffness claim?

I always see it when I read about the 200G but just because Dunlop made this claim doesn't mean it's anything more than marketing hype.

There is, for instance, a racquet that has a really awesome technology in it called Tensilium. Tensilium is a ligament material produced by mollusks so it would be a bit difficult to actually put into a racquet.

If it can be scientifically proven, with hard data, that IMF racquets play so differently, due to this dynamic stiffness effect, then they would certainly not be obsolete. In fact, the case could be made for bringing back the technology, provided the complaint about warp could be solved.

If they are, however, merely very flexible graphite composites then that's rather run-of-the-mill and what made the racquets special was simply the talent of the pros who used it.

Economy of scale and outsourcing to low-cost countries both can quite significantly mitigate cost.

There was a huge amount of competition in the racquet market when IMF frames were made and yet someone decided to invest the money in the production anyway and the racquets were successful enough to get some of history's best players. There were also a bunch of models produced. I suppose tennis had more players when the decision was made but there was also more competition for those players' wallets.

A sure-fire way of making IMF affordable is to require it for a sport, such as an offshoot of tennis. If every racquet has to be made with injection molding then economy of scale kicks in. And, if the sport doesn't become very popular, as long as there is a minimum player base there will be enough sales to continue production.

Flex rating is not measured at different swing speeds, AFAIK, especially on old rackets that are "too expensive" to reproduce and manufacture. No reason why flex could not be rated for different swing speeds given RDC machine / tool improvements? If you were a racket company CEO then maybe you would be more concerned with profit margins and the reasons for IMF phase out.

 

[jxs653]

Am curious about what was the price of the 200G (or 300i, 400i) back then. When people say racquet prices were far higher in the past than today they often quote Prince Boron and I never saw IMF racquets being mentioned. If IMF was expensive to manufacture they should've been sold expensive.

 

[d-quik]

Am curious about what was the price of the 200G (or 300i, 400i) back then. When people say racquet prices were far higher in the past than today they often quote Prince Boron and I never saw IMF racquets being mentioned. If IMF was expensive to manufacture they should've been sold expensive.

I do about brand new prices but I find them for 2-5 dollars yard sales

 

[Boronite]

Flex rating is not measured at different swing speeds, AFAIK, especially on old rackets that are "too expensive" to reproduce and manufacture. No reason why flex could not be rated for different swing speeds given RDC machine / tool improvements? If you were a racket company CEO then maybe you would be more concerned with profit margins and the reasons for IMF phase out.

So, we don't have any data to support the claim about IMF being special because of dynamic stiffness?

I read about Zyex (the string material) and experienced it personally when I used it. It feels firm until enough force is placed on it and then it stretches quite a bit, higher dynamic stiffness than most materials. So, I'm not saying I think the claim about the IMF tech is marketing fiction. I'd just like to know for sure. Perhaps using one of the racquets would help. I missed an auction recently for one at a reasonable price but I'd really like to get a 150G, which is too rare to be found for a low price. Maybe the nylon in IMF has more dynamic stiffness than other racquet materials since nylon is suitable as a string material due to its ability to temporarily deform. I have no idea which is why it's so nice to have data like TW's string numbers.

I wonder if Zyex could be used instead of nylon for injection molding.

 

[Sanglier]

Dynamic stiffness is a function of applied force and vibration frequency on a given material. It isn't a set value but a complex curve, and is a measurable property in all load-bearing materials and structures, not just injection molded thermoplastic racquets. It is absolutely real! Dunlop made a point of emphasizing this particular quality of their IMF frames probably because their static stiffness is so much lower than that of most hand-laid composite frames, owing to the fact that the former had a random assortment of tiny masticated carbon fibers pointed in every which direction where the latter had tows of continuous fibers precisely laid down in the same direction. In an era when "stiffer is better" was the dominant trend in the industry, perhaps Dunlop did not want to be seen as peddling an inferior noodly product?

Anyone who has attempted to measure the static flex on an IMF (or any other injection molded) frame knows how difficult it is to get a precise and repeatable reading (compared to hand-laid frames), because the racquet just keeps bending, and bending, and bending a little bit more, as long as it is under continuous load. In order to plot a dynamic stiffness curve for the same frame, you'd have to build a very sophisticated rig that is well-anchored and insulated from external vibrations, which must allow precise input of force AND vibration frequency to generate the data you seek. Even then, the curve would mean almost nothing to anyone looking at it (other than the mechanical engineer working on the racquet design), because you can't readily tell how the numbers would match up to swing speeds and impact locations, etc., and how any of that will translate to how the racquet actually feels or behaves in your hand, as there are no reference data against which you can make meaningful comparisons.

It is far simpler to just pick up one of these frames and try it for yourself, as there is no shortage of feedback from the countless number of people who have hit with these things during the last four decades to indicate that they play stiffer than their static flex would suggest, namely at faster swing speeds. It could be that many of these IMF fans unwittingly bought into Dunlop's marketing hype, but enough of them had tried enough different racquets through the years to have a reasonably reliable BS detector, and their cumulative consensus has been that this claim is no BS.

There are many older threads on this board that discussed why Dunlop chose to develop these frames and why their production was eventually abandoned. The reasons are intuitive in some instances but also unique to tennis racquet manufacture in others. There is no point repeating all of them here; suffice it to say the very basis for the success of these racquets (i.e., the molding of those critical internal pillars) was also the chief contributing factor to their eventual demise, as the difficulty of achieving and maintaining production consistency in this technically challenging process made the unsustainably high QC rejection rate all but inevitable. It is also why no one is likely to revive this exact design anytime soon, not unless labor costs in developing countries surge past material costs by a huge margin, making hand-laid frames prohibitively expensive to produce.

 

[georgeyew]

Am curious about what was the price of the 200G (or 300i, 400i) back then. When people say racquet prices were far higher in the past than today they often quote Prince Boron and I never saw IMF racquets being mentioned. If IMF was expensive to manufacture they should've been sold expensive.

Back in the late 80's the 200G was around $120 at the peak and in the early 90's you can find the model for about $80. When the 300i and 400i first came out they were about $10 more than the 200G, but the prices quickly dropped. I think I picked up 2 new 400i's in 1993 for $50 each.

 

[Boronite]

Dynamic stiffness is a function of applied force and vibration frequency on a given material. It isn't a set value but a complex curve, and is a measurable property in all load-bearing materials and structures, not just injection molded thermoplastic racquets. It is absolutely real!

I wasn't questioning the existence of dynamic stiffness. I think I mentioned that I found it to exist in my personal testing of Zyex string.

Just because something is measurable doesn't mean the data has been provided or that it hasn't been selectively presented to give a distorted impression.

Dunlop made a point of emphasizing this particular quality of their IMF frames probably because their static stiffness is so much lower than that of most hand-laid composite frames

Yes, of course. It had to be justified.

Anyone who has attempted to measure the static flex on an IMF (or any other injection molded) frame knows how difficult it is to get a precise and repeatable reading (compared to hand-laid frames), because the racquet just keeps bending, and bending, and bending a little bit more, as long as it is under continuous load. In order to plot a dynamic stiffness curve for the same frame, you'd have to build a very sophisticated rig that is well-anchored and insulated from external vibrations, which must allow precise input of force AND vibration frequency to generate the data you seek. Even then, the curve would mean almost nothing to anyone looking at it (other than the mechanical engineer working on the racquet design), because you can't readily tell how the numbers would match up to swing speeds and impact locations, etc., and how any of that will translate to how the racquet actually feels or behaves in your hand, as there are no reference data against which you can make meaningful comparisons.

That doesn't sound good. A racquet made out of plastic sounds like it would do the same thing. Bend and bend and bend. It wouldn't play well, though. I doubt it would have any kind of special dynamic stiffness, at least depending on the plastic.

It is far simpler to just pick up one of these frames and try it for yourself, as there is no shortage of feedback from the countless number of people who have hit with these things during the last four decades to indicate that they play stiffer than their static flex would suggest, namely at faster swing speeds.

Perhaps. Sometimes human psychology is highly fallible.

It could be that many of these IMF fans unwittingly bought into Dunlop's marketing hype, but enough of them had tried enough different racquets through the years to have a reasonably reliable BS detector, and their cumulative consensus has been that this claim is no BS.

Non-factual beliefs have been extremely popular with huge numbers of people throughout history, and continue to be.

There are many older threads on this board that discussed why Dunlop chose to develop these frames and why their production was eventually abandoned. The reasons are intuitive in some instances but also unique to tennis racquet manufacture in others. There is no point repeating all of them here; suffice it to say the very basis for the success of these racquets (i.e., the molding of those critical internal pillars) was also the chief contributing factor to their eventual demise, as the difficulty of achieving and maintaining production consistency in this technically challenging process made the unsustainably high QC rejection rate all but inevitable. It is also why no one is likely to revive this exact design anytime soon, not unless labor costs in developing countries surge past material costs by a huge margin, making hand-laid frames prohibitively expensive to produce.

The most important thing in terms of determining whether or not the technology will/should return is whether or not it offers a superior experience (based on a specific set of criteria), due to its inherent mechanical qualities and not due to psychological beliefs based on misperception and/or hype.

 

[joe sch]

So, we don't have any data to support the claim about IMF being special because of dynamic stiffness?

I read about Zyex (the string material) and experienced it personally when I used it. It feels firm until enough force is placed on it and then it stretches quite a bit, higher dynamic stiffness than most materials. So, I'm not saying I think the claim about the IMF tech is marketing fiction. I'd just like to know for sure. Perhaps using one of the racquets would help. I missed an auction recently for one at a reasonable price but I'd really like to get a 150G, which is too rare to be found for a low price. Maybe the nylon in IMF has more dynamic stiffness than other racquet materials since nylon is suitable as a string material due to its ability to temporarily deform. I have no idea which is why it's so nice to have data like TW's string numbers.

I wonder if Zyex could be used instead of nylon for injection molding.

Yes

I recommend getting a 200G not a 150G in good structural condition, ie little court rash, cosmetics dont really matter and is common to have faded away on these rackets. Take the action and report back. Many of us played these rackets for many years, decade(s) and you can continue to question the feedback and marketing but really should do your own testing.

I will also recommend string with atleast a hybrid of natty gut. These racket play great at low tension all natural!

 

[jxs653]

Back in the late 80's the 200G was around $120 at the peak and in the early 90's you can find the model for about $80. When the 300i and 400i first came out they were about $10 more than the 200G, but the prices quickly dropped. I think I picked up 2 new 400i's in 1993 for $50 each.

Thanks. I know little about the price of racquets of that time but those prices seem comparable with other racquets at that time. Interesting that higher production cost didn't result in higher price. By the way you have good memory still remembering all those numbers.

 

[Sanglier]

I wasn't questioning the existence of dynamic stiffness. I think I mentioned that I found it to exist in my personal testing of Zyex string.

What you described in your earlier post is the transition of the string from the elastic phase to the plastic phase, when the applied load exceeded a certain threshold. This is an entirely separate property from dynamic stiffness.

I suspect if you read up a little more on the subject, you would come away with a different view of Dunlop's claims, which, objectively, did nothing more than to articulate a fully established (non conjectural) physical fact (perhaps in a way that implied it was more extraordinary than it really was, as is typical in marketing verbiage, but still a far cry from anything that could approach fibbing). It's like announcing that "the amazing life-sustaining sun will always rise from the east" - a declaration for which none of us is likely to require proof by way of peer-reviewed data (just imagine what those data would even look like for that short statement to be proven true word for word, and what a waste of effort it would be to compile such a dataset to convert potential non-believers). Yes, I am exaggerating here, but only a little.

The technology behind these IMF racquets is neither mysterious nor dead. It is accessible all over the world. Its advantages and disadvantages had been thoroughly explored and fully understood decades ago. Mass production is above all a commercial undertaking, driven by profit potential. Absent the latter, everything else is moot. These racquets retired from the market when Dunlop could no longer meet their profit target for the reasons I stated in the earlier post, and no one else was game either. The economic calculus has not changed since then. It really is that simple.

I agree with Joe, given that the data you are seeking are not accessible, the simpler (and perhaps only) path to the proof you need is on the court. There is no guarantee that your experience will make you a believer, but belief has never been required to enjoy these unique frames as they are, and they are likely the only ones of their kind there will ever be.

Interesting that higher production cost didn't result in higher price.

Injection molding has a high upfront cost, but is not nearly as labor intensive as making hand-laid compression-molded frames. Dunlop went into this project believing they could make a composite racquet in England (the main objective) that can be competitively priced relative to Asian imports, so these were never meant to be expensive racquets from the outset. The realization that the higher-than-expected QC rejection rate was killing their profit margin came later, but by then the die had already been cast. As the decade wore on, cheap Taiwanese racquets completely took over the world. For Dunlop, raising the retail price on these frames to reflect the actual cost of manufacturing became less and less of an option, until finally, quitting was the cheapest and most painless option.

 

[retrowagen]

Indeed, Dunlop Slazenger’s ultimate problem with the IMF program was that of profitability. Around the time these racquets ceased production, and through today, if the setup, labor, and material costs to produce a premium graphite composite tennis racquet exceeds approximately US$30 per unit, it is considered unprofitable.

 

[Boronite]

Sanglier, you can't claim that someone should read-up about technology and simultaneously claim that there is no data, especially while claiming the data can't be obtained via objective testing. Subjective testimonial has its place but it is not a substitute for hard data.

When someone can link the scientific data that demonstrates the superiority of this process for a given set of criteria then I will be glad to read-up on it. Tennis Warehouse published testing data about strings that shows, objectively and clearly, the stiffness of string materials at different tensions. Instead of having to convince people based on testimonial, I can show them the actual data. That is a better position to be in when making claims about equipment.

 

[Sanglier]

Sanglier, you can't claim that someone should read-up about technology and simultaneously claim that there is no data, especially while claiming the data can't be obtained via objective testing. Subjective testimonial has its place but it is not a substitute for hard data.

When someone can link the scientific data that demonstrates the superiority of this process for a given set of criteria then I will be glad to read-up on it. Tennis Warehouse published testing data about strings that shows, objectively and clearly, the stiffness of string materials at different tensions. Instead of having to convince people based on testimonial, I can show them the actual data. That is a better position to be in when making claims about equipment.

I certainly would never argue against hard data. As a committed equipment geek who spent years measuring and compiling my own data sheets on hundreds of racquets, I find very little to disagree with you in your second paragraph.

However, we may be talking past each other on this specific topic, as your first paragraph thoroughly mischaracterized my positions. Either my gratuitously long-winded arguments are producing unintended confusions at your end, or I am misreading yours.

To be clear, I did not suggest that you should read up on something that doesn't exist and cannot be tested! I merely proposed that you read up on what dynamic stiffness is and how it is tested, in broad and basic terms only, based on my impression that you are mistaken about the meaning of the term and are reading more into Dunlop's claims than what is actually there. Perhaps that impression itself was based on a flawed reading of your earlier statements (very common occurrence during virtual conversations between strangers). Had you phrased you original question as "is there any scientific data that demonstrates the superiority of this process for a given set of criteria?" instead of "is there any hard evidence for this dynamic stiffness claim?", I probably would have stayed quiet and saved both of us a lot of time, because I never had access to such data, don't know what constitutes "superiority" in this context, and am afraid to even ask what would satisfy your "given set of criteria".

Anyway, I think I understand what you are getting at now, and have nothing to add that could clear the higher bar you have set for me, because I am neither a mechanical engineer nor an archivist at Dunlop. However, to be fair, if you were to use the same bar to judge all other claims and feedback on racquet performance characteristics, including, for instance, your own recent review of the "worst racquets" in that other thread, we can probably dismiss 99% percent of the content on this board as unsubstantiated rubbish; then what would be the point of all this? Tennis is a game above all, not a scientific pursuit. Even equipment geeks need to be able to draw a line somewhere.

Before I let this go, please don't interpret my posts as anything other than a friendly exchange of opinion. There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdoms and slaying myths. Being forced to reexamine one's beliefs from time to time is a good way to ensure that they remain sound. Even if our conversation didn't go anywhere, I still wish to thank you for the exercise and your indulgence!

 

[max]

Dino, Awesome reviews and pics! Now I dont need to get my pix to a photo share for uploading. I never had the 800i so good to hear about that model.

Im in total agreement with your statement:

It makes you think about how you hit the ball, forces you to prepare early, you don't get away with sloppy foot work etc. Of course I don't think going back fulltime to early 1980s technology will improve your tennis, but try it sometimes.

When I played the 200G's I was all SV and it was fun since most of the baseline players did not like the all out attack. I also did not get so tired running corner to corner as the points were over much quicker.

I was a good server and volleyer but never always put the two together. Once I had the 200G, everything fell into place. . . WONDERFUL for approach shots and for play around the net, half-=volleys.

The racquet simply MADE me become more aggressive---it's capabilities affected my game entirely.

 

[Boronite]

I certainly would never argue against hard data. As a committed equipment geek who spent years measuring and compiling my own data sheets on hundreds of racquets, I find very little to disagree with you in your second paragraph.

However, we may be talking past each other on this specific topic, as your first paragraph thoroughly mischaracterized my positions. Either my gratuitously long-winded arguments are producing unintended confusions at your end, or I am misreading yours.

To be clear, I did not suggest that you should read up on something that doesn't exist and cannot be tested! I merely proposed that you read up on what dynamic stiffness is and how it is tested, in broad and basic terms only, based on my impression that you are mistaken about the meaning of the term and are reading more into Dunlop's claims than what is actually there. Perhaps that impression itself was based on a flawed reading of your earlier statements (very common occurrence during virtual conversations between strangers). Had you phrased you original question as "is there any scientific data that demonstrates the superiority of this process for a given set of criteria?" instead of "is there any hard evidence for this dynamic stiffness claim?", I probably would have stayed quiet and saved both of us a lot of time, because I never had access to such data, don't know what constitutes "superiority" in this context, and am afraid to even ask what would satisfy your "given set of criteria".

Anyway, I think I understand what you are getting at now, and have nothing to add that could clear the higher bar you have set for me, because I am neither a mechanical engineer nor an archivist at Dunlop. However, to be fair, if you were to use the same bar to judge all other claims and feedback on racquet performance characteristics, including, for instance, your own recent review of the "worst racquets" in that other thread, we can probably dismiss 99% percent of the content on this board as unsubstantiated rubbish; then what would be the point of all this? Tennis is a game above all, not a scientific pursuit. Even equipment geeks need to be able to draw a line somewhere.

Before I let this go, please don't interpret my posts as anything other than a friendly exchange of opinion. There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdoms and slaying myths. Being forced to reexamine one's beliefs from time to time is a good way to ensure that they remain sound. Even if our conversation didn't go anywhere, I still wish to thank you for the exercise and your indulgence!

Again, I don't see the point in studying dynamic stiffness if there is no data on how the IMF tech performs in that regard.

When such data is available then it makes sense to analyze it. One can't analyze what isn't there.

I think your advice would be useful if I were a scientist intent on creating the data.

What interests me is hard evidence that shows the superior qualities of IMF tech. Becoming a mechanical engineer would be neat but I'd have to have a few chips implanted to do that expeditiously.

 

[coachrick]

Back in the late 80's the 200G was around $120 at the peak and in the early 90's you can find the model for about $80. When the 300i and 400i first came out they were about $10 more than the 200G, but the prices quickly dropped. I think I picked up 2 new 400i's in 1993 for $50 each.

The 200G SHOULD have been ~$180 MSRP; but was one of the benchmark "mail order" rackets of the day. There were mail order places selling the 200G for $99 and killing the B&M retail sales after the initial interest. A fair price would have been ~$149; but most stores had to fight the Tennis Magazine ads with lower prices. That, and the fact that a huge number of them warped with heat and high string tensions, kept many retailers from committing to the model too much. It took a serious interest in either Dunlop or the IMF concept for retailers to then commit to the 300, 400, 500 variants.

 

[retrowagen]

Here are my 200g, 300i, 400i, and 500i. I also have a Slazenger Phantom IMF, which is basically a Max 200g with a Kneissl-esque, egg-shaped head.

I think I need a Max 150g and a Max 800i to complete my collection!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[joe sch]

Again, I don't see the point in studying dynamic stiffness if there is no data on how the IMF tech performs in that regard.

When such data is available then it makes sense to analyze it. One can't analyze what isn't there.

I think your advice would be useful if I were a scientist intent on creating the data.

What interests me is hard evidence that shows the superior qualities of IMF tech. Becoming a mechanical engineer would be neat but I'd have to have a few chips implanted to do that expeditiously.

To be honest I think your response is very sad after all this support for the frame and trying to motivate you to just try it.
Maybe you dont have the skills to really appreciate such a classic ?
You can continue to lust for data that does not exist and miss a chance for reality sensation

 

[vsbabolat]

Here are my 200g, 300i, 400i, and 500i. I also have a Slazenger Phantom IMF, which is basically a Max 200g with a Kneissl-esque, egg-shaped head.

I think I need a Max 150g and a Max 800i to complete my collection!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice Max 400i mine don’t have that paint job.

 

[Boronite]

To be honest I think your response is very sad after all this support for the frame and trying to motivate you to just try it.
Maybe you dont have the skills to really appreciate such a classic ?
You can continue to lust for data that does not exist and miss a chance for reality sensation

Ad hominem doesn't create missing data.

That, and the fact that a huge number of them warped with heat and high string tensions, kept many retailers from committing to the model too much.

Was that problem fixed? Does lowering the max recommended tension for the frame-printed tension range solve the problem? What is the temperature where things become unsafe?

Is it two separate causes of warp (tension and heat by themselves are enough to do it) or do they require each other for synergy?

Is it possible to use a material other than nylon to mitigate the issue?

 

[vsbabolat]

From what I understand it doesn't really look like any of the IMF Dunlops. How does it play? Do you have the specs? Which Dunlop is it the closest to?

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

https://imgur.com/a/aLbvShF

https://imgur.com/a/XP5tKAo

https://imgur.com/a/FiLDh0h

https://imgur.com/a/s6nqAeb

 

[georgeyew]

Thanks. I know little about the price of racquets of that time but those prices seem comparable with other racquets at that time. Interesting that higher production cost didn't result in higher price. By the way you have good memory still remembering all those numbers.

I used to drool over the Max series racquets when they were out but could not afford them. And I also have all the old Tennis Magazines from back then for reference.

 

[Boronite]

Have you hit with that Slazenger? What is your opinion of the egg-shaped head versus the shape of the Dunlop IMF line? I have used reverse teardrop racquets but never a non-reversed teardrop.

 

[joe sch]

Ad hominem doesn't create missing data.

Yes I am questioning your motivation since I thought maybe you were interested in actually hitting some classics?

 

[michael valek]

thread revival. been using my old max200g to protect my shoulder, and rediscovered how much i love it. However, 85 sq inches is a bit small these days.....max 500? max 800? what would you guys recommend as playing close to a max 200g, but bigger?

 

[michael valek]

or something modern which plays veeery soft indeed.

 

[joe sch]

thread revival. been using my old max200g to protect my shoulder, and rediscovered how much i love it. However, 85 sq inches is a bit small these days.....max 500? max 800? what would you guys recommend as playing close to a max 200g, but bigger?

Consider playing table tennis, squash or racketball until your shoulder heals but *NOT* pickleball

 

[coachrick]

Consider playing table tennis, squash or racketball until your shoulder heals but *NOT* pickleball

But why??? Pickleball is the perfect game!!!

 

[CameronJ]

Is there any hard evidence for this dynamic stiffness claim?

I always see it when I read about the 200G but just because Dunlop made this claim doesn't mean it's anything more than marketing hype.

There is, for instance, a racquet that has a really awesome technology in it called Tensilium. Tensilium is a ligament material produced by mollusks so it would be a bit difficult to actually put into a racquet.

If it can be scientifically proven, with hard data, that IMF racquets play so differently, due to this dynamic stiffness effect, then they would certainly not be obsolete. In fact, the case could be made for bringing back the technology, provided the complaint about warp could be solved.

If they are, however, merely very flexible graphite composites then that's rather run-of-the-mill and what made the racquets special was simply the talent of the pros who used it.

Economy of scale and outsourcing to low-cost countries both can quite significantly mitigate cost.

There was a huge amount of competition in the racquet market when IMF frames were made and yet someone decided to invest the money in the production anyway and the racquets were successful enough to get some of history's best players. There were also a bunch of models produced. I suppose tennis had more players when the decision was made but there was also more competition for those players' wallets.

A sure-fire way of making IMF affordable is to require it for a sport, such as an offshoot of tennis. If every racquet has to be made with injection molding then economy of scale kicks in. And, if the sport doesn't become very popular, as long as there is a minimum player base there will be enough sales to continue production.

It sounds to me as though you have never used one, and do not know much about them.

The 200G was not "run-of-the-mill", it is a special racquet that has the best touch of any racquet I have ever encountered. You get a fantastic feel for the ball, and you can hit magnificent slice and volleys with it. It lacks a little power compared to today's racquets.

There is no question that the manufacturing process was more expensive than other racquets, and would remain so today. That, along with the fact that the frame was not so successful when they made the larger head-sizes, was the reason they stopped.

As for warping, I have numerous 200Gs which I still play with often, and this has not been a problem for me. They are more than 30 years old.

 

[Grafil Injection]

It sounds to me as though you have never used one, and do not know much about them.

The 200G was not "run-of-the-mill", it is a special racquet that has the best touch of any racquet I have ever encountered. You get a fantastic feel for the ball, and you can hit magnificent slice and volleys with it. It lacks a little power compared to today's racquets.

There is no question that the manufacturing process was more expensive than other racquets, and would remain so today. That, along with the fact that the frame was not so successful when they made the larger head-sizes, was the reason they stopped.

As for warping, I have numerous 200Gs which I still play with often, and this has not been a problem for me. They are more than 30 years old.

Yes exactly. Whilst it's pretty difficult for anyone to prove dynamic stiffness, comparisons can be easily done to rackets with similar specs. What I have found is that despite the official flex being around 42RA, and the comfort certainly being at that level, the power is more like a high 50s RA racket of similar head-size, weight and balance, especially on fast shots like serves and flat ground-strokes. With gut or syngut, the 200G has more than enough power even today.

 

[michael valek]

I actually just read through all of these dynamic stiffness threads, thanks for sharing the info, very interesting. It also just occurred to me that dunlop never imagined that the rackets would warp when it was hot, because they made them in britain where "hot' doesn't happen very often.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I actually just read through all of these dynamic stiffness threads, thanks for sharing the info, very interesting. It also just occurred to me that dunlop never imagined that the rackets would warp when it was hot, because they made them in britain where "hot' doesn't happen very often.

Certainly true this year as Spring-Summer has only just arrived, but 1976 was pretty darn hot and just a few years before they started research on injection moulded frames, so I'm sure they tested it up to at least 100F. Moreover, I'm not sure just heat is enough to make it warp because the fusible-cores were melted out of the moulded rackets at 180C/356F. I think you need heat and a racket strung at too high a tension.

 

[michael valek]

sadly i remember the summer of 1976 but yes, although in bags / cars etc it could get very hot

 

[retrowagen]

I actually just read through all of these dynamic stiffness threads, thanks for sharing the info, very interesting. It also just occurred to me that dunlop never imagined that the rackets would warp when it was hot, because they made them in britain where "hot' doesn't happen very often.

Not unlike the cooling systems engineered in British cars, which prove unable to cope with operating in ambient temperatures above 22 C or so…

(-Former owner of a 1962 MGB in California)

 

[michael valek]

No need for +22c. Especially in wales.

 

[wedge]

Picked this pretty li'l buddy boy up today -- officially one to go to complete the IMF set, and I bet you all know which one

This one needs a wee bit of work -- came without throat grommets, luckily I have some on hand from a 400i that croaked -- not a perfect fit but we'll get there, by which I mean close enough, by which I mean I'll be cutting them all up. As long as they fit in the holes we're golden! The porthole grommets are cracked, but the last time I tried to extricate one of those, I failed completely. So I may just tube through them for now.

360g unstrung -- unreasonably beefy. Very interesting frame though, really is a 50/50 combo of the 400i and 800i -- it's got the boxiness of the 400, and it's halfway to the glossy clearcoat of the 800, though no racket in the history of the planet has ever had a thicker, glassier clearcoat than the 800 -- the finish on THAT thing is ridiiiiculous.

If the 400 is 1989 (which I don't even know for sure) and the 800 is 1991, does that mean the 500 was just made for the one year?

 

[Grafil Injection]

The original 400i is at least early 1988, possibly late 87. I have a Jan 88 advert showing it. I think 500i, 800i, 200G glossy and 400i glossy all came out in 1990 as I saw them displayed together at my local shop before I went to university in 1991. 800i might be 1989, but I haven't got a decent magazine from then yet.