Prince's "Triple Threat" Concept & Frame Design/Mods

[TimothyO]

Prince's "Triple Threat" Concept & Frame EFFICIENCY

FRAME EFFICIENCY: PLOW, STABILITY, AND BALANCE

Most racquet tech stuff is BS. For example, Head's Graphene pitch is utter nonsense. Graphene is simply too expensive to include in a frame and even Head's patent makes no claim about a minimum amount of graphene in their products, only a maximum that, if true, would result in frames costing thousands of dollars!

But long ago Prince marketed a concept they branded "Triple Threat". They claimed that they added extra mass at 10/2 and the end of the handle for increased stability. I only noticed Prince's old marketing after observing a pattern in my favorite mod technique: I like extra mass at the end of the handle and at 10/2 too.

TENNIS GODS CAN MOVE ALONG
For those of you with the anticipation, footwork, timing, and stroke mechanics required to wield 13oz telephone poles coated in lead across the entire upper hoop, this discussion doesn't concern you. We mortals envy your natural ability and court time. And the reality is that for most middle aged rec players we'll never have the time or bodies to "get mad tennis skillz"

EFFICIENCY FOR MORTALS
But the rest of us tennis mortals need to use every gram of mass as efficiently as possible since every single gram, from handle to tip, reduces racquet head speed and increases fatigue. "Mass efficiency" in this context is measured in three key areas: plow, stability, and balance. By concentrating mass in the three areas of the frame you put mass where it's needed most while limiting overall mass to maintain high RHS and reduce fatigue.

STABILITY/PLOW EFFICIENCY
Obviously the most stable and powerful setup is that used by pros and high level players: lots of lead all along the top of the hoop. But since we're trying to maximize stability and plow while minimizing mass, the natural choice for extra mass is 10/2. Mass added in this area increases stability by reducing the frame's tendency to twist on off-center hits. And it increases plow since it's towards the end of the frame.

EFFECT ON SWEET SPOT
We also know that extra mass tends to pull the sweet spot in the direction of added mass. And according to TWU's maps most frames have a cone-shaped sweet spot, wide on the sides and tall in the middle. Extra mass at 10/2 seems to pull the sweet spot most where it's lacking: the "corners" of the stringbed. Every time I've applied this mod the stringbed seems so much more plush and more even in launch angle and power.

WHY NOT 3/9 AND 12?
Related to the sweet spot issue above, adding lead just at 3/9 and 12, especially on the inside of the hoop where we rec players tend to add lead tape, seems to cause control problems. You're expanding the sweet spot precisely where it's already widest: the sides and towards the tip.

Extra mass at 3/9 is incredibly stable but dramatically increases launch angle. Extra mass at 12, even a tiny bit, seems to dramatically increase the "trampoline" effect and launch balls out of proportion to any increase in "swingweight". Adding mass at 3/9 AND 12 is certainly efficient too but fails to smooth out the sweet spot and instead exaggerates it.

This may be why pros spread lead all along the upper hoop. They're not only dramatically increasing plow/power but also smoothing the sweet spot with lead as it approaches the ends of the guard at 10/2. The entire cone is larger to the point that it begins to conform to the hoop shape even better.

DEFINING 10/2
The following observations apply to 27" frames with 16 mains but it has been remarkably consistent across multiple frame brands/models with heads ranging from 95" to 100".

I've gotten my best results in terms of stability, power, control, spin, and comfort by confining mods at 10/2 to an area on the inside of the hoop ranging from ~21-1/8" to ~24-1/2". This corresponds roughly from the 8th or 9th cross up to the grommet for the first main on either side. Even if extra lead is needed to match multiple frames, I get a more consistent feel across multiple frames by double-layering extra lead in this area.

As tape for the "10/2 Triple Threat Mod" moves beyond those boundaries it seems to have a more pronounced effect on the sweet spot which reduces consistency and control. Ruthlessly limiting it to those boundaries results in a more consistent hitting experience.

BALANCE EFFICIENCY = CLEANER BALL CONTACT AND HIGHER RHS
While extra lead at 10/2 seems really efficient for improving stability and power while smoothing out the sweet spot, a mod usually requires lead in the handle to achieve the right balance for a smooth swing to contact.

Balance is really about timing the handle and head so that both are in the right position at contact and your natural stroke is neither late nor early due to the frame being out of balance.

It seems that confining extra mass at the butt to a point no higher than about 3" maximizes the efficiency of extra mass for balance purposes. As mass creeps past the center of your hand towards the upper handle, throat, and lower hoop, it's doing less with respect to balance and less with respect to plow and stability but it's still going along for the ride and therefore slowing RHS. You're having to swing that frame "belly fat" but it's not "working" as efficiently as the mass at the butt and 10/2 when it comes to balance and plow/stability.

GET RID OF YOUR FRAME'S BELLY FAT
To decrease this inefficient use of mass in the middle of the frame I usually buy the lightest replacement grip I can find (the Wilson Shock Shield) and trim it down to 5" which fits my hand. I also add an overgrip all the way to the throat.

Replacing the stock grip and trimming the replacement grip usually saves about 8 grams. As a point of reference, 4 grams in the head or 4 grams at the butt will usually shift balance by a full point. And 4 grams at 23" up the hoop (ie at 10/2) will usually increase SW by a whopping 9 points!

So those 8 grams above your hand on the handle aren't doing much and are much better used to shift frame timing or to improve plow and stability by up to 18 points when taken together (usually I buy a stock frame aound SW320 and split those 8 grams between the head and butt).

CALM DOWN FORUM-NISTAS
Remember, this thread is for those interested in making efficient use of whatever mass they're swinging for their rec matches. Our middle aged bodies and "hit once or twice a week" technique needs every last bit of help they can get.

The Prince "Triple Threat" design approach is actually similar to Head's Graphene designs which do nothing more than make the throat thinner and shift the mass savings to the butt and head where it's used more efficiently (just like the mods I describe above).

This design/mod approach isn't entirely new. But I hope these observations shed some light on why they seem to work so well and why other approaches such as "3/9 and 12" might not work as well.

Remember, it's all about efficiency of work. Mass at 10/2 most efficiently smooths the sweet spot while increasing plow and stability. Mass in the butt below your hand most efficiently improves timing by balancing head mass.

Extra mass elsewhere is useful for those with the technique and physique to exploit it, but rec players need their frame mass arranged as efficiently as possible to limit its effects on RHS and player endurance. And you can mod your frame to achieve that objective which can also be used as a guide when choosing a stock frame. Figure out the maximum mass you can wield as far as endurance and RHS are concerned. Then figure out your best balance point for a frame of that mass. And then find a frame (with mods as needed) with the highest SW possible that fits within your static mass and balance requirements.

OTHER MASS EFFICIENCY SAVINGS
Use a light weight over grip which can save a few grams. And do NOT use one of those massive rubber dampeners. They can weigh several grams while a lightweight rubber band does the exact same thing, weighs less, and doesn't fall off, ever.

 

[LapsedNoob]

Yeah all they did was basically 'lead-up' a frame straight from the factory by impregnating metal in the frame where some might've put lead,

This is a lot of thinking about a very old frame technology.

 

[TimothyO]

Yeah all they did was basically 'lead-up' a frame straight from the factory by impregnating metal in the frame where some might've put lead,

This is a lot of thinking about a very old frame technology.

As they say, "what's old is new again". Head's Graphene design is trying to do the same thing: use mass as efficiently as possible for balance and plow/stability.

Sometimes such truths are also evident in their absence or opposites. Reading TW reviews and comments by customers you'll often see observations such as "it seems really sluggish for the low SW".

That's because SW does NOT equal the effort required to swing a frame. It's the frame's ability to resist impact as measured from the handle.

A heavier frame with a lower HL balance and low SW has its mass inefficiently concentrated in its center. You're still hauling that mass around on serve and ground strokes but it's not doing as much as efficiently for plow/stability and for balance.

The implications for those buying frames is this: try to stay within your mass limit while getting the highest SW possible with a balance that allows a smooth, natural swing to clean contact.

Since it's hard to find a frame that matches our individual requirements perfectly that can serve as a guide for both stock frame selection and mods.

And for those who want the most performance for the least mass there are ways to mod a frame, from grip to dampener to hoop, to get the best balance and most stability/plow possible while maintaining an effective RHS and longer playing endurance.

 

[ollinger]

I started counting the uses of the word "seems" in the OP here and became fatigued doing so, possibly from using an inefficiently weighted racquet. Lots of assertions here without any evidence. For example, are you saying that lead at 3 and 9 will increase launch angle, but not lead at 10 and 2? That's not my experience. Any evidence for any of this?

 

[sma1001]

As they say, "what's old is new again". Head's Graphene design is trying to do the same thing: use mass as efficiently as possible for balance and plow/stability.

Sometimes such truths are also evident in their absence or opposites. Reading TW reviews and comments by customers you'll often see observations such as "it seems really sluggish for the low SW".

That's because SW does NOT equal the effort required to swing a frame. It's the frame's ability to resist impact as measured from the handle.

A heavier frame with a lower HL balance and low SW has its mass inefficiently concentrated in its center. You're still hauling that mass around on serve and ground strokes but it's not doing as much as efficiently for plow/stability and for balance.

The implications for those buying frames is this: try to stay within your mass limit while getting the highest SW possible with a balance that allows a smooth, natural swing to clean contact.

Since it's hard to find a frame that matches our individual requirements perfectly that can serve as a guide for both stock frame selection and mods.

And for those who want the most performance for the least mass there are ways to mod a frame, from grip to dampener to hoop, to get the best balance and most stability/plow possible while maintaining an effective RHS and longer playing endurance.

Very interesting post. TW seem to advise that swingweight and maneuverability are synonymous, which has put me off frames with a SW above 325. You appear to suggests this is a myth, which would certainly open up some different avenues for me. Food for thought. I also need to revisit the mods to my IGPMP - at 3/9 and 12!

 

[TimothyO]

I started counting the uses of the word "seems" in the OP here and became fatigued doing so, possibly from using an inefficiently weighted racquet. Lots of assertions here without any evidence. For example, are you saying that lead at 3 and 9 will increase launch angle, but not lead at 10 and 2? That's not my experience. Any evidence for any of this?

It's a matter of degrees.

3/9 maximizes twistweight and reduces twisting, especially on off center hits which are more common when hitting topspin. When the frame twists less you get deeper pocketing and higher launch angle. And 3/9 pulls the sweet spot to the sides further enhancing that trampoline effect.

In a way, higher launch angle is nothing more than greater trampoline effect on the vertical axis, just like adding lead at 12 increases the trampoline effect on the horizontal axis during a ground stroke.

Shifting from 3/9 to 10/2 appears to provide some added twistweight with a smoothing of the sweet spot resulting in a less extreme launch angle.

As for my use of the terms "seems" and "appears", it's precisely because I can't offer evidence such as high speed film. I'm being extra cautious as these are simply personal observations offered to others so maybe they can test them. It would be inappropriate for me to present them as "proven" and as fact. They're just observations.

But thanks for the snarky comment, it wouldn't be the internet without guys like you.

 

[TimothyO]

Very interesting post. TW seem to advise that swingweight and maneuverability are synonymous, which has put me off frames with a SW above 325. You appear to suggests this is a myth, which would certainly open up some different avenues for me. Food for thought. I also need to revisit the mods to my IGPMP - at 3/9 and 12!

TWU has recently published some data that calls into question that SW = maneuverability.

TW reviews also reveal that power and maneuverability are not equal to SW. Low SW frames are sometimes described as "powerful" while high SW frames are described as "swinging through the air fast".

The problem is one of language and misunderstand how and what SW measures.

SW is measured from 10cm up the handle. It discounts down to 0 the mass at that point. Using the TWU customization tool you can add the mass of the earth to a handle at 10cm and the tool will tell you that SW does NOT change. Seriously, go try it!

Since we swing a frame from a point well beyond the handle we spend energy (work) to move every last gram, from butt to tip. The balance point determines how well coordinated the butt and tip are at point of contact. Those two factors are far more important to maneuverability.

Your ability accelerate the frame depends mostly on how much the frame weighs. There's no free lunch. With early prep and a long take-back you have more time and more distance to accelerate. With late prep and a short take back you have less time and less distance to accelerate that mass.

Your ability to make clean contact with a natural swing depends on the balance point. If it's wrong then you'll feel a need to "arm the ball" to compensate for the poor coordination between butt and tip. You'll usually end up braking your swing and not following through smoothly.

SW mostly defines how stable the frame is at impact. That is a big factor in frame "power" since a lower SW resists the impact poorly compared to a high SW frame. But a heavy, low SW frame CAN be more "powerful" than a lighter, higher SW frame. It all depends.

All of this goes to frame efficiency. It appears (to me and some others) that you need a SW of at least 320 to 325 and a mass in the mid-11 ounce range for a solid, comfortable impact at the pace of most mid-level rec players. As pace goes up more mass and more mass at the business end of the frame are needed to maintain stability at impact. That's why pros returning 120mph serves use heavier/higher SW frames than rec players.

It might also be why TW reviews so often don't mesh with the numbers. Specs might tell a reviewer that a frame has a SW of 325 and said reviewer assumes it's slow. But maybe the frame is light enough and the balance tuned enough to his/her needs that the frame flies through the air. My 13 year old uses a SW 330+ frame close to 12 ounces and generates tremendous RHS. My wife uses a similar frame but with a lower RHS and slower pace of play. They both really dislike lower SW frames but also don't like heavier frames. The lower weight lets them swing the frame while the higher SW provides a plusher feel at impact.

But I think it could be argued that going below those 320/11.5 ounce specs isn't a good idea for even lower level rec players. Physics doesn't care about your playing level. Even an elderly 2.5 needs to generate a certain minimum amount of energy to get the ball over the net and near to the opposing service line.

I think that's why so many rec players suffer from TE. Poorly fitting racquets that are also too light for the fundamental forces involved even at the lowest levels of play encourage bad form, punish good form, limit control and consistency, and transmit too much impact force to the player's body.

 

[sma1001]

TWU has recently published some data that calls into question that SW = maneuverability.

TW reviews also reveal that power and maneuverability are not equal to SW. Low SW frames are sometimes described as "powerful" while high SW frames are described as "swinging through the air fast".

The problem is one of language and misunderstand how and what SW measures.

SW is measured from 10cm up the handle. It discounts down to 0 the mass at that point. Using the TWU customization tool you can add the mass of the earth to a handle at 10cm and the tool will tell you that SW does NOT change. Seriously, go try it!

Since we swing a frame from a point well beyond the handle we spend energy (work) to move every last gram, from butt to tip. The balance point determines how well coordinated the butt and tip are at point of contact. Those two factors are far more important to maneuverability.

Your ability accelerate the frame depends mostly on how much the frame weighs. There's no free lunch. With early prep and a long take-back you have more time and more distance to accelerate. With late prep and a short take back you have less time and less distance to accelerate that mass.

Your ability to make clean contact with a natural swing depends on the balance point. If it's wrong then you'll feel a need to "arm the ball" to compensate for the poor coordination between butt and tip. You'll usually end up braking your swing and not following through smoothly.

SW mostly defines how stable the frame is at impact. That is a big factor in frame "power" since a lower SW resists the impact poorly compared to a high SW frame. But a heavy, low SW frame CAN be more "powerful" than a lighter, higher SW frame. It all depends.

All of this goes to frame efficiency. It appears (to me and some others) that you need a SW of at least 320 to 325 and a mass in the mid-11 ounce range for a solid, comfortable impact at the pace of most mid-level rec players. As pace goes up more mass and more mass at the business end of the frame are needed to maintain stability at impact. That's why pros returning 120mph serves use heavier/higher SW frames than rec players.

It might also be why TW reviews so often don't mesh with the numbers. Specs might tell a reviewer that a frame has a SW of 325 and said reviewer assumes it's slow. But maybe the frame is light enough and the balance tuned enough to his/her needs that the frame flies through the air. My 13 year old uses a SW 330+ frame close to 12 ounces and generates tremendous RHS. My wife uses a similar frame but with a lower RHS and slower pace of play. They both really dislike lower SW frames but also don't like heavier frames. The lower weight lets them swing the frame while the higher SW provides a plusher feel at impact.

But I think it could be argued that going below those 320/11.5 ounce specs isn't a good idea for even lower level rec players. Physics doesn't care about your playing level. Even an elderly 2.5 needs to generate a certain minimum amount of energy to get the ball over the net and near to the opposing service line.

I think that's why so many rec players suffer from TE. Poorly fitting racquets that are also too light for the fundamental forces involved even at the lowest levels of play encourage bad form, punish good form, limit control and consistency, and transmit too much impact force to the player's body.

Thanks TO. Played really well with my leaded IGPMP tonight. Suitable weight behind the ball and perfect launch angle. But it will all be different tomorrow no doubt!

 

[LapsedNoob]

They are all linked.

I like a certain swingweight and a certain balance which differ more or less the total weight I my racquets. If I lower weight too much I have a harder time achieving the swingweight I like at a balance I like.

 

[BlueB]

I like 10 and 2. I start there to get onto SW I want. Than ad towards 3 9 to arrive at desired.
I counter balance at the butt and above the grip fidling with distribution to get to the ballance and swing timing I like.