Making my own oversized players racket

Mten

New User
Hi guys. I've created a super OS players frame and want opinions. It's based on the Head TiS6 in shape, but it very different otherwise.

Strung stats
353g
320mm balance
325 swingweight
20x24 string pattern
gordon3-768x576.jpg.webp


I honestly plays very well. Controlled and muted but with very large sweetspot.

Tennisn**d just uploaded the full story about it if you want to read more about the project
 
Last edited:

Trip

Hall of Fame
@Mten - Very cool, well done, and great article over on TennisNerd. As for your idea to do a 200-frame run, I have no idea how much that would cost, but presuming it's above your personal means, maybe you might consider pitching it on something like GoFundMe? All kinds of stuff gets funded on there, and with a well-done-enough plan I wouldn't be surprised if a project like this would get funded, too.
 

Mten

New User
How much did it cost to have the factory make you only two frames?
They were nice enough to give me a sample of 2 of their 115" frames for $150 including postage and customs. So actually pretty reasonable. Obviously this was just for a sample though and if I wanted to make my own mold rather than just use something that exists with them already that's a totally different story!
 

Mten

New User
@Mten - Very cool, well done, and great article over on TennisNerd. As for your idea to do a 200-frame run, I have no idea how much that would cost, but presuming it's above your personal means, maybe you might consider pitching it on something like GoFundMe? All kinds of stuff gets funded on there, and with a well-done-enough plan I wouldn't be surprised if a project like this would get funded, too.
Yes I had considered something like a GoFundMe page. If I get a bit more interest in general I may well give that a go. Glad you enjoyed the article!
 

graycrait

Legend
@Mten , how much string did it take to string it? I used over 50' in the diminutive Micro Mid. I also goof around with weighted up OS rackets.

Anyway I applaud your effort and the time you spent in developing these prototypes.

My go to are old Wilson ProStaff 5.7Eb and FPK Titaniums. 18x20 115" rackets. I cut them to 27.3 and get them to 11oz and about 4pts HL. I string them with Ashaway Kevlar x Ashaway Zyex.

I sent a couple to an older fella who lives near Baltimore, MD. This guy captained his DIII college team, played USTA league tennis for many years. He is writing to a friend who played DI tennis back in the late 70's.

The conversion is complete.

All the skepticism and hesitancy is well behind me. I, too, am of the PS 5.7 EB faithful.

I finally gave the frame an honest dedicated try about two months ago, putting aside my initial concerns about weight (it's heavier), balance, and a big old honking head. My regret? I should have jumped on the bandwagon way sooner. Damn my stupidity!

It's a helluva of a racket. It's brought a level of steadiness and certainty to my game (nearly exclusively doubles) that was unknown before. The service return is at another level. The racket nearly magically squashes the disorder and chaos that afflicted pre-conversion returns. I'm guessing the denser string bed has a lot to do with that. It tames whatever spin or pace is coming at me, reducing all serves to a lowest common denominator, if that makes sense. Or, better, no surprises when ball meets string.

Serving is working out great too. I had feared the weight/length change would have an adverse effect. Did I even have the shoulder strength to maneuver this beast? Could I generate pace? Spin? No problem, as it turns out. All concerns have gone 'poof!'

Of course the cool part to all this are the "Huh?" reactions I bask in. It's a treat to have the confidence and capability to actually take over the match, at least in stretches. Like yesterday: "Gawd he finally missed one. He's human!"

I feel like my game is surging, often in unexpected ways. Do you recall how he talked up the Wilson Pro Staff 5.7 EB, a discontinued frame from some years past? At his urging, he mailed me one to try. I was skeptical. It seemed a bit too big and heavy, clunkier than anything I've hit with. I didn't do much with it for several months, viewing it as an ungainly curiosity. At mid-summer I was unhappy with how I was playing. What did I have to lose? Maybe it was time to give the Wilson ugly duckling a try.

What an idiot I am! Giving it a fair chance was all that was required. The racket is amazing. The effect on my game was surprisingly rapid -- overall, more command of all manner of shot, esp the return of serve. The racket is absolutely uncanny in that respect. Xxxxx says it has a dense string pattern for a super size OS racket. That, with the physics of weight, size, and balance, makes returning a breeze, which was always an iffy proposition for me. The racket neutralizes incoming spin and pace unlike any I've experienced. Hmm ... some kind of strange alchemy. Certainly makes the game a blast. It's not a liability on serve, either, like those oversized, way-too-powerful granny rackets.
 

ey039524

Professional
They were nice enough to give me a sample of 2 of their 115" frames for $150 including postage and customs. So actually pretty reasonable. Obviously this was just for a sample though and if I wanted to make my own mold rather than just use something that exists with them already that's a totally different story!
That's awesome that they were able to make it to your specs.

I like old flexible frames, and would love to have a new run of them.
 

blipblop

Rookie
Interesting project. I'm also curious about "oversized players frames." I really want to try the Prince phantom 107G.

Quotes above because I hate that those are the words we have chosen to describe tennis rackets. We need to reclaim some tennis vocab...

Anyway, I'm curious how the factory was able produce your requested specs (at the original quoted price and lead time!), especially stiffness. Weight, balance, and length all seem reasonable to be able nail on a one-shot of an existing mold. But even then I'm curious if they could calculate an expected weight and balance based on the original process - and in that case only slightly modify the layup (add more graphite layers) and still be within tolerance without additional secondary mods. Or if they basically added "hidden" lead tape to hit your nominal specs. I can't imagine they would want to waste material by scrapping samples with a "trial and error" method. My guess is they just ran the original process and added weight afterwards, which is something that pretty much anyone could do easily on their own. So not to take away how cool the project is, but the main creative aspect you did was the drill pattern. And that in itself is definitely cool, especially that it even worked out at all. It's also very fun to know that racket contract manufacturers are willing to run such small quantities for a "normal person."
 

Mten

New User
Interesting project. I'm also curious about "oversized players frames." I really want to try the Prince phantom 107G.

Quotes above because I hate that those are the words we have chosen to describe tennis rackets. We need to reclaim some tennis vocab...

Anyway, I'm curious how the factory was able produce your requested specs (at the original quoted price and lead time!), especially stiffness. Weight, balance, and length all seem reasonable to be able nail on a one-shot of an existing mold. But even then I'm curious if they could calculate an expected weight and balance based on the original process - and in that case only slightly modify the layup (add more graphite layers) and still be within tolerance without additional secondary mods. Or if they basically added "hidden" lead tape to hit your nominal specs. I can't imagine they would want to waste material by scrapping samples with a "trial and error" method. My guess is they just ran the original process and added weight afterwards, which is something that pretty much anyone could do easily on their own. So not to take away how cool the project is, but the main creative aspect you did was the drill pattern. And that in itself is definitely cool, especially that it even worked out at all. It's also very fun to know that racket contract manufacturers are willing to run such small quantities for a "normal person."
I was expecting the same as you with some hidden lead tape somewhere. However there is absolutely none having taken it apart as much as I possibly can. Nothing in or on the handle under the grip or inside the trap door. They were 284&287g when they arrived. But as neither has a bumper guard I'd guess that would take them near the 300g I roughly asked for. To make frames more or less heavy I believe they just add more or less layers of carbon fibre (it is more complex than this, but this is a basic explanation). So I guess they have enough experience to add the right amount of layers. It could also be that they actually do make this frame around that weight themselves so could do it easily too, I will of course never know this. Either way I was very surprised! I don't have a way to test RA so can't know it's official flex, I have tested it by hanging a weight off it and measuring how much it has flexed compared to other frames and my guess is mid to high 60's RA.

Aside from all that, as you say my main interest was the string pattern so I actually wouldn't have been too disappointed in whatever it came in at as I can modify a lot of it, but it was a pleasant surprise they already had some weight too them about the crazy 225g that frame would usually come in at.
 

Mten

New User
@Mten , how much string did it take to string it? I used over 50' in the diminutive Micro Mid. I also goof around with weighted up OS rackets.

Anyway I applaud your effort and the time you spent in developing these prototypes.

My go to are old Wilson ProStaff 5.7Eb and FPK Titaniums. 18x20 115" rackets. I cut them to 27.3 and get them to 11oz and about 4pts HL. I string them with Ashaway Kevlar x Ashaway Zyex.

I sent a couple to an older fella who lives near Baltimore, MD. This guy captained his DIII college team, played USTA league tennis for many years. He is writing to a friend who played DI tennis back in the late 70's.

The conversion is complete.

All the skepticism and hesitancy is well behind me. I, too, am of the PS 5.7 EB faithful.

I finally gave the frame an honest dedicated try about two months ago, putting aside my initial concerns about weight (it's heavier), balance, and a big old honking head. My regret? I should have jumped on the bandwagon way sooner. Damn my stupidity!

It's a helluva of a racket. It's brought a level of steadiness and certainty to my game (nearly exclusively doubles) that was unknown before. The service return is at another level. The racket nearly magically squashes the disorder and chaos that afflicted pre-conversion returns. I'm guessing the denser string bed has a lot to do with that. It tames whatever spin or pace is coming at me, reducing all serves to a lowest common denominator, if that makes sense. Or, better, no surprises when ball meets string.

Serving is working out great too. I had feared the weight/length change would have an adverse effect. Did I even have the shoulder strength to maneuver this beast? Could I generate pace? Spin? No problem, as it turns out. All concerns have gone 'poof!'

Of course the cool part to all this are the "Huh?" reactions I bask in. It's a treat to have the confidence and capability to actually take over the match, at least in stretches. Like yesterday: "Gawd he finally missed one. He's human!"

I feel like my game is surging, often in unexpected ways. Do you recall how he talked up the Wilson Pro Staff 5.7 EB, a discontinued frame from some years past? At his urging, he mailed me one to try. I was skeptical. It seemed a bit too big and heavy, clunkier than anything I've hit with. I didn't do much with it for several months, viewing it as an ungainly curiosity. At mid-summer I was unhappy with how I was playing. What did I have to lose? Maybe it was time to give the Wilson ugly duckling a try.

What an idiot I am! Giving it a fair chance was all that was required. The racket is amazing. The effect on my game was surprisingly rapid -- overall, more command of all manner of shot, esp the return of serve. The racket is absolutely uncanny in that respect. Xxxxx says it has a dense string pattern for a super size OS racket. That, with the physics of weight, size, and balance, makes returning a breeze, which was always an iffy proposition for me. The racket neutralizes incoming spin and pace unlike any I've experienced. Hmm ... some kind of strange alchemy. Certainly makes the game a blast. It's not a liability on serve, either, like those oversized, way-too-powerful granny rackets.
I've never tried the Wilson pro staff 5.7 EB but have heard it's closer to what I did. Interesting feedback from your friend.

In terms of strings it was just over 14m to string it. So quite a lot! Normally takes me around 15mins to string a racket, and this takes me about 25min. Thankfully at least there aren't any double blocked grommets as I was able to decide the tie offs myself!
 

Mten

New User
... Is HEAD cool with you using their molds?
I was never actually sold it has a head frame, I wasn't actually sure it was this frame when I got the sample, I just ordered the factories stock 115" headsize frame. So from my end I just purchased a racket. What head would say about them selling their racket mold as their own I don't know. But it could be that they own the mold rights anyway. That mold is over 20 years old now! So certainly not new tech for head and they may have been willing to their the factory use it.

That said, now I know it's either very close or the same mold there is absolutely now way I'd be selling this prototype, or asking them to make anything using that mold for resale. I feel it's a very different thing purchasing a frame from a certain mold than it is using that mold as your 'own'
 
Last edited:

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Currently using an Aero 112, handle weighted up to 345 grams, ~32.2 cm balance, 350 swingweight, and string with 1.20 Confidential in the upper 40's. Control with this setup is excellent. It's less powerful than the SW104 I was using previously when strung with either 17 gauge Silver 7 Tour or Black 7. There's no hot spot where the ball flies and the sweetspot is large but consistent in response throughout its entire area. It pockets nearly as well as the SW104 and hitting touch shots is as easy. I've done extended demos with the v7 and v8 Blades and v3 Pure Strike and I don't notice that control is any better with those racquets than my Aero 112.
 

Tide

Rookie
Currently using an Aero 112, handle weighted up to 345 grams, ~32.2 cm balance, 350 swingweight, and string with 1.20 Confidential in the upper 40's. Control with this setup is excellent. It's less powerful than the SW104 I was using previously when strung with either 17 gauge Silver 7 Tour or Black 7. There's no hot spot where the ball flies and the sweetspot is large but consistent in response throughout its entire area. It pockets nearly as well as the SW104 and hitting touch shots is as easy. I've done extended demos with the v7 and v8 Blades and v3 Pure Strike and I don't notice that control is any better with those racquets than my Aero 112.
I am playing with a Bab Pure Drive 107 strung with Alu Power at around 50lbs. Curious about what[/
Currently using an Aero 112, handle weighted up to 345 grams, ~32.2 cm balance, 350 swingweight, and string with 1.20 Confidential in the upper 40's. Control with this setup is excellent. It's less powerful than the SW104 I was using previously when strung with either 17 gauge Silver 7 Tour or Black 7. There's no hot spot where the ball flies and the sweetspot is large but consistent in response throughout its entire area. It pockets nearly as well as the SW104 and hitting touch shots is as easy. I've done extended demos with the v7 and v8 Blades and v3 Pure Strike and I don't notice that control is any better with those racquets than my Aero 112.
Currently using an Aero 112, handle weighted up to 345 grams, ~32.2 cm balance, 350 swingweight, and string with 1.20 Confidential in the upper 40's. Control with this setup is excellent. It's less powerful than the SW104 I was using previously when strung with either 17 gauge Silver 7 Tour or Black 7. There's no hot spot where the ball flies and the sweetspot is large but consistent in response throughout its entire area. It pockets nearly as well as the SW104 and hitting touch shots is as easy. I've done extended demos with the v7 and v8 Blades and v3 Pure Strike and I don't notice that control is any better with those racquets than my Aero 112.
any thoughts on what I could do to enhance a bit of stability and control on Bab Pure Drive 107 ? Sometimes a I feel like I hit too high in the upper hoop . Can’t recall if this racket has a raised sweet spot or not
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
any thoughts on what I could do to enhance a bit of stability and control on Bab Pure Drive 107 ? Sometimes a I feel like I hit too high in the upper hoop . Can’t recall if this racket has a raised sweet spot or not

I used the Babolat Overdrive 110 from about 2012 through 2019 and that's not that different from the PD 107. I went with the Aero 112 because it has much more weight in the hoop than either the PD 107 or PD 110 - the stock swingweight is stated to be 324 but all of my five Aero 112s measured in the 340+ swingweight range.

With my Overdrive 110, I had to add a fair amount of weight to the 3 and 9 o'clock positions to get that stability through added mass. But because I prefer about 345 grams static weight and 340+ swingweight, I probably added somewhere in the 8-10 gram range at that 3 and 9 o'clock location. It makes for a lot more plow-through and let me use a more control-oriented string. The bad thing about adding that much mass is it won't work if you aren't used to heft racquets, and that much weight at 3 and 9 o'clock increases the twistweight by a significant margin. I'm pretty insensitive to twistweight so it never bothered me but I know there are some players who have a tight twistweight tolerance range.

With the lower swingweight of the PD 107, it's likely the sweetspot isn't that high on the hoop. With an OS racquet, even if the sweetspot is centered in the hoop, it's going to be closer to you than in a racquet with a smaller head size. That's why I've always gone with the longer OS racquets. The Aero 112 is 27.6" long, and the SW104 I used before this was 28" long.

So if adding weight is comfortable to you, I'd suggest trying adding a gram at a time to 3 and 9 o'clock and offsetting each gram with three grams in the handle. See if that helps with the stability. If you find that you can tolerate a fair amount of added weight, go see if you can find an Aero 112 - it is the most solid and stable OS frame I have tried and I've tried many before making the switch in the last 18 months.
 

Tide

Rookie
I used the Babolat Overdrive 110 from about 2012 through 2019 and that's not that different from the PD 107. I went with the Aero 112 because it has much more weight in the hoop than either the PD 107 or PD 110 - the stock swingweight is stated to be 324 but all of my five Aero 112s measured in the 340+ swingweight range.

With my Overdrive 110, I had to add a fair amount of weight to the 3 and 9 o'clock positions to get that stability through added mass. But because I prefer about 345 grams static weight and 340+ swingweight, I probably added somewhere in the 8-10 gram range at that 3 and 9 o'clock location. It makes for a lot more plow-through and let me use a more control-oriented string. The bad thing about adding that much mass is it won't work if you aren't used to heft racquets, and that much weight at 3 and 9 o'clock increases the twistweight by a significant margin. I'm pretty insensitive to twistweight so it never bothered me but I know there are some players who have a tight twistweight tolerance range.

With the lower swingweight of the PD 107, it's likely the sweetspot isn't that high on the hoop. With an OS racquet, even if the sweetspot is centered in the hoop, it's going to be closer to you than in a racquet with a smaller head size. That's why I've always gone with the longer OS racquets. The Aero 112 is 27.6" long, and the SW104 I used before this was 28" long.

So if adding weight is comfortable to you, I'd suggest trying adding a gram at a time to 3 and 9 o'clock and offsetting each gram with three grams in the handle. See if that helps with the stability. If you find that you can tolerate a fair amount of added weight, go see if you can find an Aero 112 - it is the most solid and stable OS frame I have tried and I've tried many before making the switch in the last 18 months.
 

Tide

Rookie
Thanks so much for the advice and insight. For whatever reason, age or not playing as frequently…I am just not as consistent at the 4.0 level as I normally was with this racket. Would love to find that consistent level where I can swing out more and get that consistent ball. Therefore , I have changed strings and tension a ton the last 2 -3 years. Torn between trying to make this 107 work or try actually going to a 27.5 length to see if I can find some sort of compromise. Almost bought a Pure Aero 100 inch the other day to kind of start fresh !!
 
Top