Slow Chat: Just some thoughts about racquets.

[Crocodile]

Well friends as I typed this post it’s was just on 9PM on a Saturday Night on the east coast of Australia and I left it as a draft till now which is 8pm Sunday night. I had a home visit lesson which finished around 6.45pm, and it was quite mild and humid with a few showers about. The Slazenger grass court balls got a bit damp so I will probably have to change them over for some new ones next week. Don’t usually like to go that late on a Saturday but the people I’m working with are great people so I quite enjoy teaching them. I went and picked up some fruit, yoghurt, sourdough and tuna and now I’m relaxing on the couch talking to you. If you are in the US you should be still sleeping so maybe when you wake up early Saturday morning you will read this slow chat if you have the time.
I’m going to start off with kind of like an analogy story about cars. From the 1980’s onwards I always had a fascination about cars and I would buy all the car magazines to read the reviews of new releases and comparisons. In Australia when we had a local manufacturing industry I would always be enthused when a new generation of car would be released which included a new body style and some technological improvements. The body style would usually stay for around anywhere between 5 years, right up to 10 or more years. Usually they would have multiple facelifts with incremental improvements. Sometimes different brands would run in similar timelines but sometimes one brand would beat the other brand to the market by 6 months to a year.
So what would happen is that when the new generation from Holden (GM) would come out and was compared to an ageing model from say Ford, the motoring writers would acknowledge this buy saying that the new car was a leap ahead when it came to the build quality and driving experience and it would be considered as the state of the art contemporary design. Sometimes however a company would release a new body style but it was really a re-hash of an old design and would get criticised for it. At one time Ford would just dish up the same thing over and over and people would start to get a bit tired of the same issue’s popping up year after year.
And so it is sometimes with tennis racquets, especially when it comes to feel and generational improvements you may or may not get with a new design or release.
Interestingly for me I didn’t start playing tennis until around 1980 and it was the period where Aluminium and wood was just being replaced by graphite, graphite- wood composites and they became midsize racquets. Back then you knew when a racquet maker released graphite composite frame that it was going to be light years ahead of wood and aluminium standard frames so naturally people made the switch. However over the next 4 decades the construction of frames would continue to evolve to the point where you would have an expectation of what a current frame should play and feel.
As we find ourselves in March 2024 do you think that most brands are on par with each other or do you think there are some brands that have leaped ahead and have a more contemporary and higher quality feel. On the other hand do you think there are brands that are simply just rehashing old frames with a new paint job, just like the car analogy.
The racquet that really throws me with this discussion is the Volkl C10 classic. I first used this frame in 1999 and then it was deleted from the range only to re- emerge somewhere around 2012. In between that gap I used other Volkl 10 Series models, Dunlop Biomimetic 200’s and Yonex Tour G 330 and even a T Fight 325 which I thought were newer and better versions of a contemporary racquet for the time, yet here we still have a C10 in 2023/2024 getting great reviews.’what are your thoughts about racquets?

 

[Crocodile]

I will add this supplementary comment that it’s hard to know what may or may not happen in the tennis racquet industry unless you are close to the action.
I would imagine that some of the brands would be a few years ahead with what they plan to release to the public in 2026,
From a visibility point of view the Wilson Clash and Shift have done well to illustrate their technological progression and Head have done well to promote their Auxetic 2.0. Then you have these smaller brands like Bolt and Angell releasing interesting ideas which I like.

 

[Crocodile]

2nd supplementary comment about my thoughts on racquets and their generational updates brings me to Yonex and their switch from the DR model to the first E Zone.
A lot of people didn’t like what Yonex did with the new model and preferred the DR. I thought the DR and particularly the extended version had a more foam filled caramel sensation to them where’s the first E Zone felt hollow and tin like. I noticed a similar thing with the transition from the Tour G to the Duel G, the feel to me was of a less premium frame.
I would say that Yonex may have tried to make the E Zone more powerful and the duel G less cumbersome. Many thought the Tour G 330 was a log, but I liked the 62 RA and feel of it;

 

[Klitz]

Mr. Crocodile,

I don't have answers to your questions, but it seems like you are very knowledgeable about racket technology. So I have a question for you.

What is the "technology" that yonex uses in their rackets that completely removes the feeling of the ball from the user. Also, why would anyone desire such a disconnected feeling in the first place?

 

[time_fly]

It’s tough to compare the car industry and the racquet industry. They both want to release new and better models on a regular basis. However the car industry has a lot more money for R&D and cars are very complex technologically, so it’s very possible for the car industry to keep making very measurable improvements. On the other hand a racquet is just a solid object for hitting a ball. You can change designs to make the experience different versus an outgoing model (more flex, more power, more feel, more comfort, etc.), but after so many decades of designing and testing frames I think there are limits to making it “better.”

 

[OldSkoolSlice]

Well friends as I typed this post it’s was just on 9PM on a Saturday Night on the east coast of Australia and I left it as a draft till now which is 8pm Sunday night. I had a home visit lesson which finished around 6.45pm, and it was quite mild and humid with a few showers about. The Slazenger grass court balls got a bit damp so I will probably have to change them over for some new ones next week. Don’t usually like to go that late on a Saturday but the people I’m working with are great people so I quite enjoy teaching them. I went and picked up some fruit, yoghurt, sourdough and tuna and now I’m relaxing on the couch talking to you. If you are in the US you should be still sleeping so maybe when you wake up early Saturday morning you will read this slow chat if you have the time.
I’m going to start off with kind of like an analogy story about cars. From the 1980’s onwards I always had a fascination about cars and I would buy all the car magazines to read the reviews of new releases and comparisons. In Australia when we had a local manufacturing industry I would always be enthused when a new generation of car would be released which included a new body style and some technological improvements. The body style would usually stay for around anywhere between 5 years, right up to 10 or more years. Usually they would have multiple facelifts with incremental improvements. Sometimes different brands would run in similar timelines but sometimes one brand would beat the other brand to the market by 6 months to a year.
So what would happen is that when the new generation from Holden (GM) would come out and was compared to an ageing model from say Ford, the motoring writers would acknowledge this buy saying that the new car was a leap ahead when it came to the build quality and driving experience and it would be considered as the state of the art contemporary design. Sometimes however a company would release a new body style but it was really a re-hash of an old design and would get criticised for it. At one time Ford would just dish up the same thing over and over and people would start to get a bit tired of the same issue’s popping up year after year.
And so it is sometimes with tennis racquets, especially when it comes to feel and generational improvements you may or may not get with a new design or release.
Interestingly for me I didn’t start playing tennis until around 1980 and it was the period where Aluminium and wood was just being replaced by graphite, graphite- wood composites and they became midsize racquets. Back then you knew when a racquet maker released graphite composite frame that it was going to be light years ahead of wood and aluminium standard frames so naturally people made the switch. However over the next 4 decades the construction of frames would continue to evolve to the point where you would have an expectation of what a current frame should play and feel.
As we find ourselves in March 2024 do you think that most brands are on par with each other or do you think there are some brands that have leaped ahead and have a more contemporary and higher quality feel. On the other hand do you think there are brands that are simply just rehashing old frames with a new paint job, just like the car analogy.
The racquet that really throws me with this discussion is the Volkl C10 classic. I first used this frame in 1999 and then it was deleted from the range only to re- emerge somewhere around 2012. In between that gap I used other Volkl 10 Series models, Dunlop Biomimetic 200’s and Yonex Tour G 330 and even a T Fight 325 which I thought were newer and better versions of a contemporary racquet for the time, yet here we still have a C10 in 2023/2024 getting great reviews.’what are your thoughts about racquets?

Great question, Crocodile. I often wonder this myself. After all, you see many players using older models with paint jobs to make it look like they're using new technology. Says a lot about the world we live in where we're impulsed to buy because something's new—whether it be cars or racquets.

I've been playing tennis for 45 years (started with a wood racquet when I was 5). I have seen technology advances recently. The trend seems to have been to make bigger heads that aren't too flexy (even pros use them). Generally stiffer, lighter racquets which may help club players, but pros need mass, hence why they stick with heavier flexier racquets (Sinner is a new exception).

I use the Clash 98. I realized though that I'm constantly trying to get a set up that feels like the C10 Pro, one of my favorite all-time frames. With the Clash, I do get more spin which was something I couldn't get out of the C10 Pro. So that's a technical advancement.

Also the shape of the Gravity line and the Boom is a technical advancement, to suit where the ball colides with racquet in the modern swing style.

I've tried a number of frames in the last 10 years to get to where I am now. Starting with the old-school PK Redondo, then in various guises Dunlop 200 Tours, Volk C10 Pro, Prince Phantom 100x, etc. Always the old-school approach. The Clash 98 is my first modern frame and I would say I'm better for the change.

I'm tempted by the Boom Pro ( a bit stiffer and maybe more power, but less spin?).

But for my next racquet I want to go bigger head size. So may go with Blade 104 or the Volkl V1 Evo...

But now I have a setup that works, I'll stick with it until they break. It's hard to change setups and I invested time and effort to get to this point.

Happy Sunday all (Monday now for me and back to work I go...)

 

[Crocodile]

Mr. Crocodile,

I don't have answers to your questions, but it seems like you are very knowledgeable about racket technology. So I have a question for you.

What is the "technology" that yonex uses in their rackets that completely removes the feeling of the ball from the user. Also, why would anyone desire such a disconnected feeling in the first place?

I will let others comment on their racquets one way or another but they have definitely changed their approach to building frames and I think a lot has to do with the emergence of polyester strings and what levels of dampening people expect now in 2024.
If I think about to the MP 1 Tour of the late 90’s it was a pretty roar feeling racquet and now with the Percept Line in 2024 and the VDS handle dampening system the racquets are much quieter. I quite like the Percept H but prefer the orange coloured Tour G 330’s feel which seemed less hollow in the head. It seems like they added the handle system to compensate on perhaps losing some fibreglass they had back then.

 

[Crocodile]

Great question, Crocodile. I often wonder this myself. After all, you see many players using older models with paint jobs to make it look like they're using new technology. Says a lot about the world we live in where we're impulsed to buy because something's new—whether it be cars or racquets.

I've been playing tennis for 45 years (started with a wood racquet when I was 5). I have seen technology advances recently. The trend seems to have been to make bigger heads that aren't too flexy (even pros use them). Generally stiffer, lighter racquets which may help club players, but pros need mass, hence why they stick with heavier flexier racquets (Sinner is a new exception).

I use the Clash 98. I realized though that I'm constantly trying to get a set up that feels like the C10 Pro, one of my favorite all-time frames. With the Clash, I do get more spin which was something I couldn't get out of the C10 Pro. So that's a technical advancement.

Also the shape of the Gravity line and the Boom is a technical advancement, to suit where the ball colides with racquet in the modern swing style.

I've tried a number of frames in the last 10 years to get to where I am now. Starting with the old-school PK Redondo, then in various guises Dunlop 200 Tours, Volk C10 Pro, Prince Phantom 100x, etc. Always the old-school approach. The Clash 98 is my first modern frame and I would say I'm better for the change.

I'm tempted by the Boom Pro ( a bit stiffer and maybe more power, but less spin?).

But for my next racquet I want to go bigger head size. So may go with Blade 104 or the Volkl V1 Evo...

But now I have a setup that works, I'll stick with it until they break. It's hard to change setups and I invested time and effort to get to this point.

Happy Sunday all (Monday now for me and back to work I go...)

Thanks for taking the time to post, I enjoyed reading about your journey. I haven’t testing the V2 98 Clash but only the 100Pro and it is an enjoyable frame to use.

 

[Crocodile]

It’s tough to compare the car industry and the racquet industry. They both want to release new and better models on a regular basis. However the car industry has a lot more money for R&D and cars are very complex technologically, so it’s very possible for the car industry to keep making very measurable improvements. On the other hand a racquet is just a solid object for hitting a ball. You can change designs to make the experience different versus an outgoing model (more flex, more power, more feel, more comfort, etc.), but after so many decades of designing and testing frames I think there are limits to making it “better.”

I can see your point and thanks for posting. I remember in the early to mid 80’s the Dunlop 200g which was made in the UK was a jump
or leap in racquet performance and feel. When Stefanie Graf was dominating Wimbledon with her 200G Martina Navratilova who was contracted to Yonex using the R7 turned up one year with a 200G with a Yonex stencil so I think the players were definitely looking into whether there was anything to it.
Looking at today, do you think that most of the companies are on par or on the same page in technology and feel or are their brands that have jumped ahead or slipped back?

 

[Crocodile]

I will say that I noticed one difference in feel and quality was when Snauwert had returned to the market with the Vitas and Grinta racquets snd they to me felt like 1980’s graphite compared to comparable contemporary expectations:
I wonder with the new Hi Ten range whether they have upgraded their feel. At a 59 strung RA they should feel different because the Grinta Tour was not that great.

 

[Crocodile]

The other thing off course is from a Volkl perspective their late 1990’s racquets were in my opinion ahead of everyone in being able to combine feel with comfort. The C10 Pro and V1 frames had technology that was advanced compared to the other brands. Wilson racquets were very basic and Head dumped their twin tube in preference to the Titanium frames. The Ti Pro Tour ( retail version) was as rough as, giving many people arm pain,
I think back then all the ski makers such as Kniessl, Fischer and Volkl were making more advanced equipment.
The twin tube Head frames were very good and Pro Kennex, a brand that you don’t see much on tour these days were innovators in the late 80’s and 90’s with their kinetic, Core and Destiny frames. Prince also had a strong period with their. CTS frames, Response and Spectrum in the ceramic era:
I wonder where we are right now. Babolat have had a very long run with their aero and Drive lines although many I talk to miss the Control and Storm lines and they are not quite sold on the Strike series particularly if one was expecting the VS Strike and now Strike 97 to fulfil that role: These frames have a very low swing weight and not really playable in stock form for someone who wants a traditional beefy frame.
I think the tennis racquet market would really be a buzz if one of the companies held some new technology as a secret and then sprung it on to the market cresting some panic. Imagine coming out with something that made everything else obsolete.
This did happen when Wilson sprung a Kuebler design to the market with its ultra thick Profile frame and the massive power it generated for the day. Its RA was in the 80’s. They look quite cumbersome now, but at the time it forced other makers to do their version of it to compete. I think that Prince was able to prosecute the case that the Profile lacked the feel that many players still wanted so they came out with their CTS beam.

 

[Crocodile]

I think of late it was Prince that has been trying to release something different. You have;
1. The Diablo and Synergy Tour for the retro fans
2. The Vortex and Synergy 98 for string pattern fans
3. The Twistpower for ergonomic fans
4. The ultra thin Phantoms for feel and comfort lovers
5. And the ATS range for box beam traditionalists
Now they may not be having huge success with this but I think there are other reasons for that.
I kind of like what they are doing because it makes tennis and racquets fun and interesting.
I remember when Snauwert released their macro patterns with the Hi Tens, that did attract some pros, some even applied hair spray to really do stuff to the snap back on the ball. This did actually happen during ATP matches. However PK responded by going in the opposite direction with the Micro Ace and I believe John McEnroe liked that idea.

 

[ey039524]

I'm in the minority in that I'm going backwards in time:
When I picked up a racquet after a long layoff, it was bc my sons were old enough and wanted to start playing (I quit when my youngest was born). I used my old Wilson ncode pros, but switched to the clash bc of TE. Then I played w the PS 6.1 100, then 7.5 95, Phantom 100, 97, 93, and now powerflex 90 from 1986. I love the old flexible box beams. I don't think in the nearly 40 years, there's been any tech that makes the newer racquets significantly better, if at all.

 

[OldSkoolSlice]

Thanks for taking the time to post, I enjoyed reading about your journey. I haven’t testing the V2 98 Clash but only the 100Pro and it is an enjoyable frame to use.

FYI—I'm using V1 of the Clash 98. It has hints of that old wood racquet feel sometimes. I like Signum Pro Poly Plasma @ 44#s. It feels like the racquet flexes the way Wilson intended—softer on short swings and stiffens up on hard swings.

 

[Steve Huff]

I've been playing since the early 70s and stringing since 1979. I've played with a lot of rackets, and strung even more. Some of the "inventions" have been great ideas, some were doomed from the start. I've wondered what would have happened had professional tennis decided against Prince when it came out with the OS head, and if they would have ruled rackets had to be predominantly wood. Would we see wood rackets with grommets? Different string patterns? Different, stiffer wood used? And, if wood rackets remained the norm, what advances would have been made to string? You wouldn't need a stiff, low-powered poly if you were using a wood, small-headed frame. When the Prince Classic was approved, all bets were off. The next racket was only up to one's imagination. Finally, they had to cap the size (the Big Bubba's were getting too big). Rackets I've had thoughts about over the years: 1) Wilson t series. Probably would never have survived had it not been for Jimmy Conners. Few people liked to string them. I played a t series and it hit a lot better than many critics have reviewed. 2) The Prince Classic and Prince's demise. You couldn't go to a court in the late 70s-80s without seeing a Prince racket. Nearly everyone wanted to at least try it. Their patent should have payed their way for the next 50 years. What happened? 3) Some rackets you just wanted to ask "WHY?". The Bergelin Longstring--no one is going to restring that thing. The Blackburne Double Strung--again, who wants to restring that one either. The Snaewaert Ergonom--really. What made them think this is going to sell? The Handler--2 handled racket that you'd have to have special instructions to serve with. Did anyone buy this thing to really play with it? The Lacoste Equijet--It might have hit well, but most would think you'd want LONGER strings in the sweetspot, not shorter ones. If it was made to bend and cup the ball, consumers probably picture it bending AND breaking. Others too, but these stand out. 4) There were rackets with technology that was really good, that should have been more popular, but weren't. 2 ProKennex rackets come to mind 1st. The Asymmetric (which did a phenomenal job at dampening vibration, and the kinetic system which did the same. The kinetic system is still around, but as good as these rackets are, they should be selling quantities closer to Wilson and Babolat. Inverted bridges--I've played 2 manufacturers with inverted bridges--Rossignol and Pro Supex. Both had large sweetspots that were a little higher in the frame, thus hitting there gave you more leverage, therefore more power. Rossignol probably sold a lot of rackets, but I'm surprised others didn't copy it when the patent ran out. The rectangular head that Yonex introduced. Again, it gave you a huge sweetspot, solid feel, great spin. They were a little fragile though, so may have been the reason companies avoided the design. Croc--enjoyed this thread.

 

[Crocodile]

I've been playing since the early 70s and stringing since 1979. I've played with a lot of rackets, and strung even more. Some of the "inventions" have been great ideas, some were doomed from the start. I've wondered what would have happened had professional tennis decided against Prince when it came out with the OS head, and if they would have ruled rackets had to be predominantly wood. Would we see wood rackets with grommets? Different string patterns? Different, stiffer wood used? And, if wood rackets remained the norm, what advances would have been made to string? You wouldn't need a stiff, low-powered poly if you were using a wood, small-headed frame. When the Prince Classic was approved, all bets were off. The next racket was only up to one's imagination. Finally, they had to cap the size (the Big Bubba's were getting too big). Rackets I've had thoughts about over the years: 1) Wilson t series. Probably would never have survived had it not been for Jimmy Conners. Few people liked to string them. I played a t series and it hit a lot better than many critics have reviewed. 2) The Prince Classic and Prince's demise. You couldn't go to a court in the late 70s-80s without seeing a Prince racket. Nearly everyone wanted to at least try it. Their patent should have payed their way for the next 50 years. What happened? 3) Some rackets you just wanted to ask "WHY?". The Bergelin Longstring--no one is going to restring that thing. The Blackburne Double Strung--again, who wants to restring that one either. The Snaewaert Ergonom--really. What made them think this is going to sell? The Handler--2 handled racket that you'd have to have special instructions to serve with. Did anyone buy this thing to really play with it? The Lacoste Equijet--It might have hit well, but most would think you'd want LONGER strings in the sweetspot, not shorter ones. If it was made to bend and cup the ball, consumers probably picture it bending AND breaking. Others too, but these stand out. 4) There were rackets with technology that was really good, that should have been more popular, but weren't. 2 ProKennex rackets come to mind 1st. The Asymmetric (which did a phenomenal job at dampening vibration, and the kinetic system which did the same. The kinetic system is still around, but as good as these rackets are, they should be selling quantities closer to Wilson and Babolat. Inverted bridges--I've played 2 manufacturers with inverted bridges--Rossignol and Pro Supex. Both had large sweetspots that were a little higher in the frame, thus hitting there gave you more leverage, therefore more power. Rossignol probably sold a lot of rackets, but I'm surprised others didn't copy it when the patent ran out. The rectangular head that Yonex introduced. Again, it gave you a huge sweetspot, solid feel, great spin. They were a little fragile though, so may have been the reason companies avoided the design. Croc--enjoyed this thread.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Interesting accounts and I can relate to all the frames.
I do like the PK frames a lot using the Q Tours as my main racquet for coaching and playing,

 

[SackFeral]

The trouble is in the trade off with any new tech. I love O port racquets because they formed my junior years playing and were new and cool. Stringers hated them though and so did players who grew up with more connected 90s Wilsons, Heads and earlier Princes who thought the O ports were mushy. I personally liked the power and comfort they gave otherwise stiff frames.

Trade offs.

 

[dyslexical-scope]

I kind of separate technologies into two primary domains in my mind.
Performance - that which helps you find more success on the court
Comfort - that which helps you stay on court more without injuries
It's not a perfect separation, because comfort creates performance.
But still when we're discussing technologies and trends it's a decent model.

I've been thinking about layups recently, the parts that aren't graphite sheets.

Aramids & Para-Aramids (Kevlar/Twaron/etc.)
Nowadays it is distinctly unhype and untrendy, barely see it mentioned really.
Not sure who did it first, I guess Wilson did -- I'm sure they'd be happy to take credit.
Whole lot of racquet lines lost their aramid inclusions in a generational update and never got them back.
Personally I really enjoy the way racquets feel with it, Angell K7 and classic Professional Staves in particular.
That said, it doesn't seem like the future of aramids in racquets is a bright one.

Fibreglass
Was reminded of this seeing tennisnerd hitting with his Soft Drive.
Appeared to be in vogue for a good while before petering out.
Maybe it was too soft, or who knows what, but it never came back.
Do players miss it?

Others
I read that Mizuno even experimented with Dyneema in their designs, I have no idea what that must have felt like.

Of course we can go the other direction, the composites to stiffen a frame too
Ceramic, boron, basalt, et. cetera.
Less comfort, more performance.

Just Graphite, And Seasoning
True composites died out a long time ago, Soft Drive era must have been the last hurrah from what I've seen.
Since then layup design focuses on a purely graphite layup with small deployments of another material at a few key locations to change feel.
Also a whole lot of convergence on graphite layup style recently, stiff hoop with a flexy throat.
Which is funny because it really feels like a lot of brands are circling back around to the style of response and flex you'd get from a classic frame!
But with the spin potential you expect from modern sticks, sure.
And of course the brand's chosen trademark addition (Auxetic, Sonic Core, VDM, etc.) to give the frame a specific feel.

But I do wonder, maybe it's time to give the humble composite layup another go.
Not like there's any patents to dodge at this point.

Future of Racquet Tech
It's a little hard to picture what a significant racquet innovation would look like.
If I ignore layups and just think wider picture...

Performance-wise, I don't think we can get much stiffer than graphite, can we?
So is it Bolt-style power boosters? The issue that presents itself there is the consistency shift of having more materials moving in different ways.
Best I can guess is a new wundermaterial for strings is found, and a racquet designed around that.
I thought PEEK (e.g. Zyex) was going to be the one for a while there.

Comfort-wise, to me the Pro Kennex beads do have a special something about them.
And they've been around forever, so anyone can use that idea in their frames no worries from legal department.
Head could do a "special edition" of the Ti. S6 with kinetic beads, as apology to all the destroyed arms addicted to it.
That's still one of their top selling racquets right? And they don't even bother to rebadge it to be in-line with their current offerings. They just put it up and it sells.

One last tangent
Clash is an interesting one because the patent they landed with it

US11541282B2 - Racquet configured with increased flexibility in multiple directions with respect to a longitudinal axis - Google Patents

A racquet including a frame including a head portion, a handle portion, and a throat portion. The head portion is a tubular structure including inner and outer peripheral walls, each having inner and outer surfaces. The head portion of the racquet being formed of a fiber composite material. The...

patents.google.com

They're happy to tell you exactly what their competitors can't do on their site too

 

[Crocodile]

The trouble is in the trade off with any new tech. I love O port racquets because they formed my junior years playing and were new and cool. Stringers hated them though and so did players who grew up with more connected 90s Wilsons, Heads and earlier Princes who thought the O ports were mushy. I personally liked the power and comfort they gave otherwise stiff frames.

Trade offs.

Yes good points. Someone had told me that Prince spent a lot of money on the O ports technology and it was an expensive venture for them. . I thought the idea worked and I had a few tour models and they sponsored quite a few players at the time including Maria Sharapova, The technology here was criticised by quite a few players.

 

[Crocodile]

I kind of separate technologies into two primary domains in my mind.
Performance - that which helps you find more success on the court
Comfort - that which helps you stay on court more without injuries
It's not a perfect separation, because comfort creates performance.
But still when we're discussing technologies and trends it's a decent model.

I've been thinking about layups recently, the parts that aren't graphite sheets.

Aramids & Para-Aramids (Kevlar/Twaron/etc.)
Nowadays it is distinctly unhype and untrendy, barely see it mentioned really.
Not sure who did it first, I guess Wilson did -- I'm sure they'd be happy to take credit.
Whole lot of racquet lines lost their aramid inclusions in a generational update and never got them back.
Personally I really enjoy the way racquets feel with it, Angell K7 and classic Professional Staves in particular.
That said, it doesn't seem like the future of aramids in racquets is a bright one.

Fibreglass
Was reminded of this seeing tennisnerd hitting with his Soft Drive.
Appeared to be in vogue for a good while before petering out.
Maybe it was too soft, or who knows what, but it never came back.
Do players miss it?

Others
I read that Mizuno even experimented with Dyneema in their designs, I have no idea what that must have felt like.

Of course we can go the other direction, the composites to stiffen a frame too
Ceramic, boron, basalt, et. cetera.
Less comfort, more performance.

Just Graphite, And Seasoning
True composites died out a long time ago, Soft Drive era must have been the last hurrah from what I've seen.
Since then layup design focuses on a purely graphite layup with small deployments of another material at a few key locations to change feel.
Also a whole lot of convergence on graphite layup style recently, stiff hoop with a flexy throat.
Which is funny because it really feels like a lot of brands are circling back around to the style of response and flex you'd get from a classic frame!
But with the spin potential you expect from modern sticks, sure.
And of course the brand's chosen trademark addition (Auxetic, Sonic Core, VDM, etc.) to give the frame a specific feel.

But I do wonder, maybe it's time to give the humble composite layup another go.
Not like there's any patents to dodge at this point.

Future of Racquet Tech
It's a little hard to picture what a significant racquet innovation would look like.
If I ignore layups and just think wider picture...

Performance-wise, I don't think we can get much stiffer than graphite, can we?
So is it Bolt-style power boosters? The issue that presents itself there is the consistency shift of having more materials moving in different ways.
Best I can guess is a new wundermaterial for strings is found, and a racquet designed around that.
I thought PEEK (e.g. Zyex) was going to be the one for a while there.

Comfort-wise, to me the Pro Kennex beads do have a special something about them.
And they've been around forever, so anyone can use that idea in their frames no worries from legal department.
Head could do a "special edition" of the Ti. S6 with kinetic beads, as apology to all the destroyed arms addicted to it.
That's still one of their top selling racquets right? And they don't even bother to rebadge it to be in-line with their current offerings. They just put it up and it sells.

One last tangent
Clash is an interesting one because the patent they landed with it

US11541282B2 - Racquet configured with increased flexibility in multiple directions with respect to a longitudinal axis - Google Patents

A racquet including a frame including a head portion, a handle portion, and a throat portion. The head portion is a tubular structure including inner and outer peripheral walls, each having inner and outer surfaces. The head portion of the racquet being formed of a fiber composite material. The...

patents.google.com

They're happy to tell you exactly what their competitors can't do on their site too

The aramid fibres in the k7 range was applied to perfection better in the Angell racquets than any other brand - the feel and comfort is fantastic;

 

[Crocodile]

Good evening everyone, it’s almost 8pm eastern daylight saving time on a Tuesday night in NSW Australia. It’s 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees F in the old measurement and I have just finished working with some clients.
One of my clients is a racquet enthusiast and he just decided to buy himself the 2024 Dunlop CX 400 Tour. He really liked the demo but unfortunately he says the racquet he has now received feels nothing like the demo. Needless to say he tested the SW and it came in way over with a strung SW of around 330.
Speaking of the current Dunlop range what do you guys think about the Dunlop feel. quality and playability compared to the big 4 major brands ? I used to like the old Dunlops back in the Biomimetic days when a 200 series was a 12 ounce racquet and you could get it in the large grip sizes. These days the CX 200 Tour is sort of a platform racquet that needs a bit of lead, especially the 95 version and in the18/20 pattern.
Do people think that the current Dunlops are making inroads in the sales and how do you think they compare? Do you think their products are fashionable for 2024 and who is buying the brand. 15 years ago they still had that British connection, and many Uk retailers did reviews of their frames. Mind you some of them were also pretty keen on the Mantis frames that Greg Rusedski was endorsing post career .
Anyway what’s happening ?

 

[Klitz]

I previously played with the aerogel 5hundred tour and liked it.

5 years ago I was looking for a new racket and first tried dunlop, but I didn't like the feel. I switched to blade 98 v7. Then I went to blade 98 v8. For the last year I played with the 99 shift 300 prototype.

I just bought the 400tour, and I am going to give it a go. I think that dunlop has managed to make a modern racket with more traditional feel that I require.

 

[Fighting phoenix]

I think in general, the biggest issues w/r to Tennis Racquet innovation is that the market size is relatively small (I believe it's like ~$350M in sales worldwide across all manufacturers - and I believe that Babolat and Wilson have ~30% market share combined, so those two alone are just at ~$100M in global sales annually), which is much smaller than other categories like golf clubs, skis, etc.. Marketing has to be the largest expense, so after manufacturing costs, marketing, distribution, and overhead, there isn't much room to R&D/Product development to meaningfully move the needle in a market that generally is slow to adopt new technology in the first place. I think that is why we've landed on Graphite as the dominant material after the wood-aluminum evolution. Additionally, outside of Babolat and Yonex, the majority of manufacturers get most of their sales through other categories (think Wilson, Head, and Dunlop), and of course now we have an explosion in pickleball/padel, so with all that I don't see there being any real incentive to invest in expensive/risky new product development in tennis racquets, just minor tweaking to maximize near term sales and cash flow.

 

[Hulger]

Please correct me if I’m wrong because this comes purely from my intuition with only few evidence to back it up, but I think Yonex and Babolat are the leaders. Yonex has even incorporated some acclaimed nanomaterials in their latest vcore racquets, which I think might actually be felt because e.g. Vcore 95 is very stable and powerful while there’s still a healthy amount of flexibility.
Babolats seem to have the most solid graphite fibres and most pop, but not sure has their material quality increased after their first APD/PD lines.
Both of the brands also use some detailed little forms in some of their racquet molds.
Actually also Prince seems to be very innovative with their design but material-wise there’s nothing new about adding twaron patches here and there (Babolat used them also.) Prince racquets tend to have pretty good and clean feel though.

Wilson has their old kevlar/basalt composites and now this cheap fibre alignment hype. I think they are losing it.
Head with their excessive marketing department is (for regular customers) all about using cheapest graphite and yearly trying to invent some bogus add-on material incorporated into minimal parts of the frame.

If I’m trying to see the bigger picture neither as a material expert, but as far as I know the latest technological advantages concerning graphite is about better purity of the molecular structure and better resins available, and possibilities to replace or reinforce graphite depend on nano/metamaterial research.
For now, I guess it would need too considerable increase in the manufacturing costs to produce a purely nanostructured racquets.

 

[emkayenaim]

I think in general, the biggest issues w/r to Tennis Racquet innovation is that the market size is relatively small (I believe it's like ~$350M in sales worldwide across all manufacturers - and I believe that Babolat and Wilson have ~30% market share combined, so those two alone are just at ~$100M in global sales annually), which is much smaller than other categories like golf clubs, skis, etc.. Marketing has to be the largest expense, so after manufacturing costs, marketing, distribution, and overhead, there isn't much room to R&D/Product development to meaningfully move the needle in a market that generally is slow to adopt new technology in the first place. I think that is why we've landed on Graphite as the dominant material after the wood-aluminum evolution. Additionally, outside of Babolat and Yonex, the majority of manufacturers get most of their sales through other categories (think Wilson, Head, and Dunlop), and of course now we have an explosion in pickleball/padel, so with all that I don't see there being any real incentive to invest in expensive/risky new product development in tennis racquets, just minor tweaking to maximize near term sales and cash flow.

Tennis is peanuts for Yonex compared to the bigger badminton market where they are the clear leading brand.

 

[Klitz]

Please correct me if I’m wrong because this comes purely from my intuition with only few evidence to back it up, but I think Yonex and Babolat are the leaders. Yonex has even incorporated some acclaimed nanomaterials in their latest vcore racquets, which I think might actually be felt because e.g. Vcore 95 is very stable and powerful while there’s still a healthy amount of flexibility.
Babolats seem to have the most solid graphite fibres and most pop, but not sure has their material quality increased after their first APD/PD lines.
Both of the brands also use some detailed little forms in some of their racquet molds.
Actually also Prince seems to be very innovative with their design but material-wise there’s nothing new about adding twaron patches here and there (Babolat used them also.) Prince racquets tend to have pretty good and clean feel though.

Wilson has their old kevlar/basalt composites and now this cheap fibre alignment hype. I think they are losing it.
Head with their excessive marketing department is (for regular customers) all about using cheapest graphite and yearly trying to invent some bogus add-on material incorporated into minimal parts of the frame.

If I’m trying to see the bigger picture neither as a material expert, but as far as I know the latest technological advantages concerning graphite is about better purity of the molecular structure and better resins available, and possibilities to replace or reinforce graphite depend on nano/metamaterial research.
For now, I guess it would need too considerable increase in the manufacturing costs to produce a purely nanostructured racquets.

With all do respect, I think you are wrong.

The largest leap in the last 10+ years has been the advancement in layup orientation seen primarily in the Clash/Shift.

Making a graphite racket powerful in slow racket head speed collisions and pocket/flex for high racket head speed collisions, whilst maintaining good feel, low vibration, control, and spin with poly strings is damn near magic.

You call this " cheap fibre alignment hype". If anything, there should be more hype.

 

[Crocodile]

I think in general, the biggest issues w/r to Tennis Racquet innovation is that the market size is relatively small (I believe it's like ~$350M in sales worldwide across all manufacturers - and I believe that Babolat and Wilson have ~30% market share combined, so those two alone are just at ~$100M in global sales annually), which is much smaller than other categories like golf clubs, skis, etc.. Marketing has to be the largest expense, so after manufacturing costs, marketing, distribution, and overhead, there isn't much room to R&D/Product development to meaningfully move the needle in a market that generally is slow to adopt new technology in the first place. I think that is why we've landed on Graphite as the dominant material after the wood-aluminum evolution. Additionally, outside of Babolat and Yonex, the majority of manufacturers get most of their sales through other categories (think Wilson, Head, and Dunlop), and of course now we have an explosion in pickleball/padel, so with all that I don't see there being any real incentive to invest in expensive/risky new product development in tennis racquets, just minor tweaking to maximize near term sales and cash flow.

Interesting read, I will have to read up on the sporting goods industry and see where tennis in heading in relation to other sports,

 

[Crocodile]

With all do respect, I think you are wrong.

The largest leap in the last 10+ years has been the advancement in layup orientation seen primarily in the Clash/Shift.

Making a graphite racket powerful in slow racket head speed collisions and pocket/flex for high racket head speed collisions, whilst maintaining good feel, low vibration, control, and spin with poly strings is damn near magic.

You call this " cheap fibre alignment hype". If anything, there should be more hype.

Something to think about for sure.

 

[Crocodile]

Please correct me if I’m wrong because this comes purely from my intuition with only few evidence to back it up, but I think Yonex and Babolat are the leaders. Yonex has even incorporated some acclaimed nanomaterials in their latest vcore racquets, which I think might actually be felt because e.g. Vcore 95 is very stable and powerful while there’s still a healthy amount of flexibility.
Babolats seem to have the most solid graphite fibres and most pop, but not sure has their material quality increased after their first APD/PD lines.
Both of the brands also use some detailed little forms in some of their racquet molds.
Actually also Prince seems to be very innovative with their design but material-wise there’s nothing new about adding twaron patches here and there (Babolat used them also.) Prince racquets tend to have pretty good and clean feel though.

Wilson has their old kevlar/basalt composites and now this cheap fibre alignment hype. I think they are losing it.
Head with their excessive marketing department is (for regular customers) all about using cheapest graphite and yearly trying to invent some bogus add-on material incorporated into minimal parts of the frame.

If I’m trying to see the bigger picture neither as a material expert, but as far as I know the latest technological advantages concerning graphite is about better purity of the molecular structure and better resins available, and possibilities to replace or reinforce graphite depend on nano/metamaterial research.
For now, I guess it would need too considerable increase in the manufacturing costs to produce a purely nanostructured racquets.

Interesting, I will try and look into this:

 

[Crocodile]

Well we are having a bit of a cool change coming on the eastern seaboard and I may have to have a jumper handy tomorrow.
Racquet wise today a customer turned up with a long body Prince Phantom. It’s a very thin constant beam frame for a 28 inch racquet with cross bar. It’s very headlight.
Have any of you played with a 28 inch long body frame that’s ultra thin ?
Do you gain any service speed advantage or superior service angular consistency with such a frame. I’m tempted to buy one for testing purposes. If you could gain 10km increase in service speed from a long body, would that be worth it for you?

 

[dyslexical-scope]

Well we are having a bit of a cool change coming on the eastern seaboard and I may have to have a jumper handy tomorrow.
Racquet wise today a customer turned up with a long body Prince Phantom. It’s a very thin constant beam frame for a 28 inch racquet with cross bar. It’s very headlight.
Have any of you played with a 28 inch long body frame that’s ultra thin ?
Do you gain any service speed advantage or superior service angular consistency with such a frame. I’m tempted to buy one for testing purposes. If you could gain 10km increase in service speed from a long body, would that be worth it for you?

I always wanted to experiment with using an extended racquet, especially one extended to the maximum regulation length (29 inches?)
Just to know what it's like putting the tip of the lever that much further out.
Not even sure where I'd get a 29'' racquet outside of a RZR Bubba 137 though.
Feels like there must be something that goes very wrong beyond about 27.5'' given how few racquets dare to cross that line.

That said I think my current fascination, being on a bit of an Agassi kick, is oversize frames.
I feel there might be something lost in the modern standard head sizing window being all of 97 to 100 square inches.
At least there are a decent amount of modern OS offerings if you dig through the brand's various silos, just gotta try some and learn.

 

[Crocodile]

I always wanted to experiment with using an extended racquet, especially one extended to the maximum regulation length (29 inches?)
Just to know what it's like putting the tip of the lever that much further out.
Not even sure where I'd get a 29'' racquet outside of a RZR Bubba 137 though.
Feels like there must be something that goes very wrong beyond about 27.5'' given how few racquets dare to cross that line.

That said I think my current fascination, being on a bit of an Agassi kick, is oversize frames.
I feel there might be something lost in the modern standard head sizing window being all of 97 to 100 square inches.
At least there are a decent amount of modern OS offerings if you dig through the brand's various silos, just gotta try some and learn.

Yes the oversize frames, particularly Prince, were very popular in the 80’s. Prince used to offer 2 versions in their frames and the 110sq inch was their oversize offering. I had a CTS Graduate ( silvery blue) which was an oversize frame mixed with a thinner version of a wide body frame. At the time if you wanted to go thicker you went for the Approach and the big monster was the Thunder-stick which destroyed everything in front of it.
The reason why these frames disappeared I am told was because the industry found better materials and construction methods to create the same power in a smaller head that was not as hard to move around.
Moving now to current times and the oversize frames have mainly been consigned to super light recreational racquets. Head did release a copy of Agassi’s radical oversize and Dunlop
released the CX 200 OS but in a 105sq inch frame which is kind on the border between MP and OS. PK have an Ace Station series in a 105 as well. One very interesting frame that many players missed out on buying was the Kawasaki green Volkl SG and Organix 7 in a 295g frame that was very playable for a broad range of players and an excellent doubles racquet. The Gamma BB, it’s probably classified as a Super Oversize. There is one guy here who owns at least 5 Weed racquets that he has customised and also strung low in gut, and he is a big unit who used to play at a high level.
Are there any oversize users out their, which one do you use and what are your thoughts?

 

[Steve Huff]

I always wanted to experiment with using an extended racquet, especially one extended to the maximum regulation length (29 inches?)
Just to know what it's like putting the tip of the lever that much further out.
Not even sure where I'd get a 29'' racquet outside of a RZR Bubba 137 though.
Feels like there must be something that goes very wrong beyond about 27.5'' given how few racquets dare to cross that line.

That said I think my current fascination, being on a bit of an Agassi kick, is oversize frames.
I feel there might be something lost in the modern standard head sizing window being all of 97 to 100 square inches.
At least there are a decent amount of modern OS offerings if you dig through the brand's various silos, just gotta try some and learn.

Unless you want tennis elbow, you really don't want to use a super long racket. I used the 29" Prince RipStick for a couple of seasons, and that is what gave me a really bad case of TE. I did a little research and it was fairly conclusive that longer rackets are harder on your arm. You get more leverage on the ball (more speed and spin), but likewise, the ball gets more leverage on your arm. You might have fun a few times, but I wouldn't make using a longer racket your normal routine.

 

[dyslexical-scope]

There is one guy here who owns at least 5 Weed racquets that he has customised and also strung low in gut, and he is a big unit who used to play at a high level.

Can't imagine how long it must have taken to develop the technique to play with that sort of setup.
Must be a spectacular feeling when you middle the ball in a stringbed with that much energy potential though, pure zip and zoom.
How many Head Ti. S6s do you see around these days?

Unless you want tennis elbow, you really don't want to use a super long racket. I used the 29" Prince RipStick for a couple of seasons, and that is what gave me a really bad case of TE. I did a little research and it was fairly conclusive that longer rackets are harder on your arm. You get more leverage on the ball (more speed and spin), but likewise, the ball gets more leverage on your arm. You might have fun a few times, but I wouldn't make using a longer racket your normal routine.

Appreciate the words of warning. It would purely be a novelty or feel training tool if I do it.
Sort of like having a overly light and overly heavy racquet for contrast drills.
Never use them for more than a few minutes but nice way to learn a little more about the big stiff lever you're swinging.

 

[Steve Huff]

I tried some others tooI have a Pro Kennex 28" long racket and a 28" PK Asymmetric racket. I've played with a 28" long Prince TT Graphite (what a log), and a 28" Yonex. Never again. Pretty sure the damage is permanent.

 

[Crocodile]

I tried some others tooI have a Pro Kennex 28" long racket and a 28" PK Asymmetric racket. I've played with a 28" long Prince TT Graphite (what a log), and a 28" Yonex. Never again. Pretty sure the damage is permanent.

It’s good to know about people’s experiences with long bodies. I remember back in the 90’s when Prince realised their morph beams and a lot of people just at one club ( who were pushing them) had shoulder issues. The Swing weights of those racquets must have been over 350 points.
I wonder though whether todays lighter 27.5 would have better prospects ?

 

[Crocodile]

Good evening everyone if you are anywhere that is 153 degrees east longitude. If you are in LA you probably are still sleeping on this Saturday morning at 4.12am or you belong to the insomniac club or the 5am clock. Don’t worry I definitely subscribe to one of those clubs myself.
Well I finished late today on court and we were on a private court in a lush acreage environment with a view to the blue mountains and it was about 24 degrees today which is probably around 76 degrees in the old measurement. I don’t know why you Americans haven’t gone metric. Anyway the court has a large glass gazebo where the players I work with sit and try to solve the problems of the world, play cards, eat and drink, healthy food and drink- today it was an organic gourmet vegetarian pizza, garlic bread, Greek salad, some pomegranate juice diluted with sparkling Santa Vittoria mineral water and we had these Lindt bunnies, the ones with the bells around their neck. I abstained off course from the Lindt bunny because, well you need to maintain your health status when you work in the sports industry:
Anyway today the topic was about tennis racquets and the question being discussed was whether the technology has improved enough in the last 3 years where you could either buy a stiffer racquet and still get your comfort or buy a more flexible but newer racquet that now offered you more power then similar type racquets offered in the past.
One of the points argued was if you could buy a stiffer frame that could get you an extra 15 km on your serve would you end up working lees to win your matches. Most of the players on this private court had UTR’s around in the high 6’s, so they were decent players, who are looking for any advantage they could get without injuring themselves,
Anyway what do you think about this. Incidentally there was a lot of comparisons being made with the new Volkl Vostra 8 and how its virtues matched up with a V2 Clash 100Pro. The Vostra is stiffer but Volkl has a lot of dampening tech with its REVA handle system, soft butt cap and big grommets.

 

[Crocodile]

Hi guys - thought I would touch base with you all in the racquet world with my thoughts. It’s Monday evening here on the 21st October 2024 and I have just done 4 hours straight on court hitting with a variety of players and finishing off with a cardio session with an 80’s playlist tonight.
Anyway as a fan of box beam frames I had the opportunity to hit with the new 2024 Tecnifibre TF40 315 in the 16/19 pattern and the 2023 Solinco white out 305 in the 16/19 pattern - both very similar looking with the white paint job. The TF 40 is a more pronounced box beam frame than the Solinco and both have some added dampening technology with the TF 40 being foam filled right through the frame. I know this is true because I cut one up that was used by a young guy who cracked the frame - so he gave it to me and after cutting it up into little pieces it has all the white foam right through it. The Solinco I haven’t cut up but the manufacture states that the frame has what they term as some liquid crystal material.
Both of these racquets a very good frames with the Solinco slightly stiffer. I think it’s 66 for the Solinco and 64 for the Tecnifibre. Coming from a 60 RA frame with a 20.5mm beam to these racquets you do feel like you get some free power but they are still comfortable on the arm. The TF40 to me felt a little low in the SW but after a while I adapted to it and found that this racquet was really good at returns, The Solinco’s SW comes in around 327 and I did like that, it’s a very good racquet with perhaps slightly erratic with its open string pattern.
When we think about flexible players frames many point to the racquets that come with an RA in the low 60’s with a Prince Phantom line offering frames even in the high 50’s. For a long time these were the frames I really liked.
However maybe now players who opt for a control players stick still want to have enough power to compete against the Pure Drive PK Destiny mould frames hence a 65 RA frame may give them enough power to do the job. With improved dampening technology these days a 64 to 66RA can feel comfortable yet offer a bit more power .
With regards to comfort I at times felt that a medium RA racquet could be more useful to those wanting an arm safety than a low RA frame due to the extra free power you could generate and less work by your arm trying to manage the frame distortion. What do you guys think?

 

[Crocodile]

Hi everyone it’s Saturday 26th October coming to you at just past midday and it’s a lovely spring day on the east coast of Australia.
Well this last week I have had the task of finding some racquets for some beginner/ intermediate elderly and younger players and two of them were small women who needed a light racquet that was playable for them but still good for the arm because both of them had a touch of TE. I was going to try and get them to hit with the Clash UL but getting the right grip size was now difficult as the frame is on run out here in OZ. Therefore I decided to experiment with 2 Prince racquets from the legacy series ( the 03 Red and the 110) and everyone seemed to like both racquets and the other 2 frames were the Pro Kennex Q15 (285g and the Q30) and they liked them too but not as much. One guy did like the Q15 after hitting with them for an hour.
My thoughts about this session was whether the comfort technology of these frames were enough to offset the 72ra stiffness of the Q15 and O3 110.
For myself comfort has always been defined by weight, headlight balance and low RA but many recreational players find it hard to use these heavier frames especially a small lady and old man so for them they are left with hitting with a light racquet with an oversize head and high stiffness and head heavy balance. For many of these customers I was trying to find a balance between good power but arm comfort so in that realm I always thought that the Clash concept was a worthwhile choice and idea and probably the Volkl handle system is another but the Volkl’s today are a bit harsher than days gone by. I wonder if the Bolt zip strips help with this issue for these players.
Interestingly if you go back to the 70’s and early 80’s people didn’t really have these game improvement racquets, they all swung heavy frames. I wonder how tennis elbow compares between today and back then.
On another note some of the younger player after hitting with the Prince frames had a hit with the MPL and MP Head Boom’s and they felt that these racquets felt quite harsh in comparison. Certainly for many players you would want to have these frames strung in a soft multi;
Any thoughts - can technology over come the stiffness of a 72RA frame for arm comfort for older and smaller or weaker players ?

 

[Dabeardlessdwarf]

I recently gave my mother (who is in her early 80s) one of my ripstick 280s. She liked it better than the Legacy 110 I had previously given to her. You may want to give that one a try for your elderly customers with arm issues.

 

[gfwp]

Hi guys - thought I would touch base with you all in the racquet world with my thoughts. It’s Monday evening here on the 21st October 2024 and I have just done 4 hours straight on court hitting with a variety of players and finishing off with a cardio session with an 80’s playlist tonight.
Anyway as a fan of box beam frames I had the opportunity to hit with the new 2024 Tecnifibre TF40 315 in the 16/19 pattern and the 2023 Solinco white out 305 in the 16/19 pattern - both very similar looking with the white paint job. The TF 40 is a more pronounced box beam frame than the Solinco and both have some added dampening technology with the TF 40 being foam filled right through the frame. I know this is true because I cut one up that was used by a young guy who cracked the frame - so he gave it to me and after cutting it up into little pieces it has all the white foam right through it. The Solinco I haven’t cut up but the manufacture states that the frame has what they term as some liquid crystal material.
Both of these racquets a very good frames with the Solinco slightly stiffer. I think it’s 66 for the Solinco and 64 for the Tecnifibre. Coming from a 60 RA frame with a 20.5mm beam to these racquets you do feel like you get some free power but they are still comfortable on the arm. The TF40 to me felt a little low in the SW but after a while I adapted to it and found that this racquet was really good at returns, The Solinco’s SW comes in around 327 and I did like that, it’s a very good racquet with perhaps slightly erratic with its open string pattern.
When we think about flexible players frames many point to the racquets that come with an RA in the low 60’s with a Prince Phantom line offering frames even in the high 50’s. For a long time these were the frames I really liked.
However maybe now players who opt for a control players stick still want to have enough power to compete against the Pure Drive PK Destiny mould frames hence a 65 RA frame may give them enough power to do the job. With improved dampening technology these days a 64 to 66RA can feel comfortable yet offer a bit more power .
With regards to comfort I at times felt that a medium RA racquet could be more useful to those wanting an arm safety than a low RA frame due to the extra free power you could generate and less work by your arm trying to manage the frame distortion. What do you guys think?

Yes, that's the point.

You always have to consider not only your requirements but also what your opponents do.

I'm playing tennis since 1978 approx. I went through wood, aluminium, T-2000 steel and carbon. All of this in my first 13y of tennis. And I found my honeypot with Wilson Sting Midsize 90. After the beginning of the 90 I almost completely stopped playing despite having reached an high competitive level. I tried a small re entry in 2008 buying a pair of, now disliked, Pure Drives (liking or not is always personal, btw).

This year I've been compelled back to the court because my last son wants me as coach. I immediately noticed that my '80 racquets were not anymore a match. They all vibrates too harshly for my aged elbow, sadly. Moreover the '80 frames are severely underpowered compared to what all the other players use. So using these old frames leads to being pushed back deep behind the baseline. The major advances in the industry is for sure the vibration management, which evolved quite silently but steadily in the last 40y. I thing that the biggest difference in the evolution is indeed on this topic. But of course also the power increase has been steady and silent.

I then bought a C10 Pro, mainly to fix my TE. And Yes this frame is a kind of holy Graal on this point. It adsorbs virtually everything. But on the negative side, The C10 is still a bit under powered (compared to what the others uses) and on the long run it could force me to an higher effort to keep up with the opponents pace and with my son of course.

Thus, I demoed quite a lot during this summer. Wilsons, Yonexes, Heads.

I think that one big leap forward was the refurbishing of the Pro Staff line with the Pro Staff X which is a kind of substantial "car restyling". It provides a lot of of free power (to be able to contrast opponents speed) combined with the traditional scalpel like precision of the 40y old PS models.

In general, I don't like spin oriented frames. They are too light for my OHBH and they are too much erratic in control. The time of contact with the ball is too short for my taste and I'm not able to pinpoint the lines. All these Babolats and Heads and even some Wilson models have this in common. A sub optimal control in general. Some of them are of course better, some not.

Foam filling is in my opinion another generational innovation. No idea when it was introduced, since I've been in a deep freeze tennis status for such a long time. Foam filling allows to have pure graphite racquets playing (almost) like aramid composites. The dampening and confort gain are real and effective. The very first foam filled racket I tested was the RF01 Pro. It is a very good frame which carries some additional new tech that are detectable, like the tighter 6 mains strings in the center (may like or not, but it's something new that can bring advantages). Unfortunately it's not going to be available in L5. And in general L5 is difficult to have here in South Switzerland for most brands.

Finally I came to Angell. And with Angell TC line you get a customizable racquet with foam filling. A very good compromise. Since I'm pretty much addicted to boxy beams I choosed TC 101 and this frame is really really a good option, because the stick it's a mid RA stiffness. It provides enough power combined with boxy control.

I also have noticed that in Angell line there is an ASI line. I did not test them, so I cannot endorse it. But it looks like an attempt to produce back a graphite extruded racquet, thus replicating at least part of the very exeptional features that the Dunlop 200G offered almost 40y ago. This idea of composing a frame in different part with very different properties could also be seen as major development in the industry. I could well imagine to push this tech evolution up to the point where thoroat and hoop could be separatedly be choosen and combined.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Crocodile]

Yes, that's the point.

You always have to consider not only your requirements but also what your opponents do.

I'm playing tennis since 1978 approx. I went through wood, aluminium, T-2000 steel and carbon. All of this in my first 13y of tennis. And I found my honeypot with Wilson Sting Midsize 90. After the beginning of the 90 I almost completely stopped playing despite having reached an high competitive level. I tried a small re entry in 2008 buying a pair of, now disliked, Pure Drives (liking or not is always personal, btw).

This year I've been compelled back to the court because my last son wants me as coach. I immediately noticed that my '80 racquets were not anymore a match. They all vibrates too harshly for my aged elbow, sadly. Moreover the '80 frames are severely underpowered compared to what all the other players use. So using these old frames leads to being pushed back deep behind the baseline. The major advances in the industry is for sure the vibration management, which evolved quite silently but steadily in the last 40y. I thing that the biggest difference in the evolution is indeed on this topic. But of course also the power increase has been steady and silent.

I then bought a C10 Pro, mainly to fix my TE. And Yes this frame is a kind of holy Graal on this point. It adsorbs virtually everything. But on the negative side, The C10 is still a bit under powered (compared to what the others uses) and on the long run it could force me to an higher effort to keep up with the opponents pace and with my son of course.

Thus, I demoed quite a lot during this summer. Wilsons, Yonexes, Heads.

I think that one big leap forward was the refurbishing of the Pro Staff line with the Pro Staff X which is a kind of substantial "car restyling". It provides a lot of of free power (to be able to contrast opponents speed) combined with the traditional scalpel like precision of the 40y old PS models.

In general, I don't like spin oriented frames. They are too light for my OHBH and they are too much erratic in control. The time of contact with the ball is too short for my taste and I'm not able to pinpoint the lines. All these Babolats and Heads and even some Wilson models have this in common. A sub optimal control in general. Some of them are of course better, some not.

Foam filling is in my opinion another generational innovation. No idea when it was introduced, since I've been in a deep freeze tennis status for such a long time. Foam filling allows to have pure graphite racquets playing (almost) like aramid composites. The dampening and confort gain are real and effective. The very first foam filled racket I tested was the RF01 Pro. It is a very good frame which carries some additional new tech that are detectable, like the tighter 6 mains strings in the center (may like or not, but it's something new that can bring advantages). Unfortunately it's not going to be available in L5. And in general L5 is difficult to have here in South Switzerland for most brands.

Finally I came to Angell. And with Angell TC line you get a customizable racquet with foam filling. A very good compromise. Since I'm pretty much addicted to boxy beams I choosed TC 101 and this frame is really really a good option, because the stick it's a mid RA stiffness. It provides enough power combined with boxy control.

I also have noticed that in Angell line there is an ASI line. I did not test them, so I cannot endorse it. But it looks like an attempt to produce back a graphite extruded racquet, thus replicating at least part of the very exeptional features that the Dunlop 200G offered almost 40y ago. This idea of composing a frame in different part with very different properties could also be seen as major development in the industry. I could well imagine to push this tech evolution up to the point where thoroat and hoop could be separatedly be choosen and combined.

Sorry for the long post.

Enjoyed the read. Definitely the power levels have changed. You really notice this when you say test say. a 2009 Dunlop Biomimetic 200 compared to say a current Tecnifibre TF 40 315.
The C10 must have really been so ahead of its time or could we say it’s an enduring frame in that it still has the liveliness even today to hang with the current frames and still retain its comfort and feel. The other Volkl frame, the V1 Classic and now EVO version still has something to offer today. They probably could re-release the Organix V1 Pro which was well pitched at older C10 users. There have been a few other Volkl master pieces such as the PB 10 Mid, Tour 10, VE 10 MP and BB Melbourne but of late they have lost a lot of advantages they held 15 years ago over the other brands to just hanging on right now.
I think some if the brands such as Pro Kennex have some very good frames but they are let down by not very appealing cosmetics. They need to become more contemporary yet elegant.
A lot people are unaware how good the Angel K7 frames are with the materials that were used to create such a nice feel.
When I talk to many former Volkl users, many who left after Volkl went to the V Cell and V Feel lines, a lot of them switched to Prince with their Phantom and ATS Tour lines to get that feel,

 

[Crocodile]

Hi everyone, hope all your tennis adventures have been going well. It’s Sunday morning 24th Nov here on the east coast of Australia. While many of you in the NH are heading into winter, we are starting to get some warm to hot days. With the occasional 3pm thunderstorm. The storms always seem to hit when the kids finish a school day and have to run to the bus.
This is also frustrating for the tennis industry as courts become wet and debris end up on the court and then you have to do the clean up snd convince everyone that it’s ok to play.
Anyway on the racquet scene both myself, colleagues and clients have been testing quite a few different racquets since I last posted here.
One brand that tends to fly under the radar these days yet probably has the nicest feeling frames is Dunlop. We had a bit of a hit with the CX and FX range including the 200 tour 16 by 19 and standard CX 200, the OS and both FX Tour and 500. The 200 series in particular has the most delightful feel of any racquet that I have hit with this year. It’s a very addictive feel and the last time I felt this way with a frame’s feel was with the Artengo Control Tour 630 and then further back the Angell K7 range and Pacific X Tour 97.
Even the standard CX200 which is too light for me felt so nice to hit with even with a basic synthetic or poly.
Now with the FX range I found that if you strung it in the mid to high 40’s in a poly it too felt really nice and both racquets were great to serve with. Quite a few people made the comment that the previous iteration. was too harsh for their arms but I felt that this update was pretty good with the FX Tour at 66RA while the FX500 was around 70 and slightly thicker and bigger head. All in all I think the CX range is a great feeling frame that many of you should try.
The other frame that we had a hit with was the current Prince ATS Tour 98. The interesting thing about this frame was that it played better than it felt, so while my shots were being hit with great penetration it somehow felt a bit vanilla. It’s a thicker beam that I normally like and there is something clunky and ponderous about how the frame plays - I’m probably more of a Phantom player or even the older speed ports. Most of the other players tended to agree with these sentiments.
Anyway I will leave it here for now, maybe some of you might like to comment on this or share your experiences about what you have been hitting with lately.

 

[BenC]

brief note about the cx200 - they seem to take additional weight well. mine is currently at 345g from a leather grip and tungsten tape.

 

[jimdontcare]

CX200 is my favorite feeling racquet on the market for sure. I don’t think I gave the FX 500 a fair enough shake—I didn’t like my demo string and the grip size was too small, and my heart was kind of set elsewhere at the time anyway. But it’s a good stick. Fan of Dunlop for offering great feeling, minimal frills sticks.

 

[Crocodile]

Hi guys it’s late Monday night, the 25th November and it’s been a warm day here. I only just posted 2 days ago on here, but I thought I would check in again as I have had a lot of people wanting to try racquets and make comparisons. This time we had a chance to borrow 3 current model Head frames, the Head Boom in both Pro and MP versions and the Head Extreme in the Pro version,
One of the first things that came to mind is that it would be interesting to have the opportunity to try the same racquet in both a poly and a multi filament because it can really affect the playing characteristics and feel of a racquet and even the sound. Most shops opt with a poly because if they sent out demos in multi they would probably come back with broken strings. Saying that in an ideal world having fresh strings in a demo would be better than a tired poly, it’s just that shops have lots of demos to manage; I also think that if you are testing a Head racquet it would be good if it was paired with a Head string and Head over grip and dampener - that way you could really test what that manufacturer had to offer and their quality and distinctive philosophy in their feel of the brand. Im not a fan of a Head demo being sent out with say a Solinco string or vica-versa:
With all that being said the first thing that many of the players felt was that Head’s auxetic technology in the Extreme and boom have a loud sound and firm feel say compared to a Prince frame but once you got used to it the frames were acceptably comfortable, it’s just a different acoustic.
To me I didn’t think that the 2024 Extreme Pro felt overly different to the old model and likewise comparing the V2 booms with the V1, very similar and more of a cosmetic update.
I think to really understand the Head frames you really need to get all of them together at the same time and spend a full day as they do seem to have a lot of similar frames that kind of overlap between silos and you can’t fully appreciate the differences unless you have them all there. If the Extreme Pro was meant to represent power and spin well I didn’t think that these characteristics were overtly on display and the feel was kind of everyday run of the mill frame, you can take it all leave it. The boom’s perhaps were meant to represent power and comfort and perhaps they did but I thought they too were kind of middle of the road without being exceptional. I think that Head do a good job with their cosmetics but to be honest I thought the Dunlop CX and FX had a more addictive feel to them with more personality.
Anyway I think it interesting to compare all the different ranges between different brands. From a comfort perspective if I was buying a Head it would be a gravity and I think the new 2025 98 will be the one to go for: The shape and balance of the Gravity Pro looks and feels a little cumbersome and I would probably rather get the mp and customise to my preference. As far as character and personality I still prefer the virtues of the 2.0 Pro Tour and likewise with the 2.0 Prestige 600.
Anyway I have said a bit now and I’m looking to develop a data base of impressions of various makes and models that stand out in certain categories that are of benefit to my customers and other interested parties,
.

 

[Shroud]

Mr. Crocodile,

I don't have answers to your questions, but it seems like you are very knowledgeable about racket technology. So I have a question for you.

What is the "technology" that yonex uses in their rackets that completely removes the feeling of the ball from the user. Also, why would anyone desire such a disconnected feeling in the first place?

Which Yonex racquets are dead like that?

Fwiw I hate being “connected” to the ball. 1st its just useless. Its not like you can feel the impact and act on it. By the time you sense it, the ball is long long gone. Its useless data.

2nd that useless data can wreak havoc after the fact and cascade into lack of confidence and concern since each feel is different. Did I mistime it AGAIN? Am I that out of position?

3rd. If the racquet flexes at contact which is pretty much what being connected is, its another variable that changes all the time and is useless. Best to filter it all out at least for me.

Thats one reason the Rf97a was a no go for me. It flexed differently every damn time. Could be the lead I added but man that thing drove me nuts

 

[dyslexical-scope]

Most shops opt with a poly because if they sent out demos in multi they would probably come back with broken strings. Saying that in an ideal world having fresh strings in a demo would be better than a tired poly, it’s just that shops have lots of demos to manage

I remember hitting with a guy who was demoing a bunch of racquets, all from the same shop. We both agreed the 2021 Gravity Pro he was testing felt like rubbery mush. It had some black poly string in there. When he returned it to the shop he asked them what it was strung with. They told him it had only been strung once, when they got it... nearly a year ago. Who knows how many people demoed that racquet and came away with a negative impressions because of the state of the strings.

 

[Klitz]

Which Yonex racquets are dead like that?

Fwiw I hate being “connected” to the ball. 1st its just useless. Its not like you can feel the impact and act on it. By the time you sense it, the ball is long long gone. Its useless data.

2nd that useless data can wreak havoc after the fact and cascade into lack of confidence and concern since each feel is different. Did I mistime it AGAIN? Am I that out of position?

3rd. If the racquet flexes at contact which is pretty much what being connected is, its another variable that changes all the time and is useless. Best to filter it all out at least for me.

Thats one reason the Rf97a was a no go for me. It flexed differently every damn time. Could be the lead I added but man that thing drove me nuts

The entire yonex line between 2019 - 2021.

I agree that the "feel data" cannot be used to change the outcome of that particular shot.

However, the sensation is useful in 2 unique ways.

1. You can instantly predict the quality, trajectory, velocity, heaviness, etc of your shot. This allows you to more quickly determine your next action. Such as, move forward to close the net, or start running cross-court in anticipation of the net guy poaching your ground stroke.

2. The sensation felt on the previous shot can be used to calibrate/adjust angle of attack you take with the racquet to the ball in order to achieve more or less "bite" on the ball.

 

[Shroud]

The entire yonex line between 2019 - 2021.

I agree that the "feel data" cannot be used to change the outcome of that particular shot.

However, the sensation is useful in 2 unique ways.

1. You can instantly predict the quality, trajectory, velocity, heaviness, etc of your shot. This allows you to more quickly determine your next action. Such as, move forward to close the net, or start running cross-court in anticipation of the net guy poaching your ground stroke.

2. The sensation felt on the previous shot can be used to calibrate/adjust angle of attack you take with the racquet to the ball in order to achieve more or less "bite" on the ball.

Thanks. You must be a really good player to adjust the angle of attack consciously. And so confused on #1. Don’t you just to the net as part of a strategy? Like serving and volleying? Attacking a short ball? It seems sooo rare I decide to come to the net that isn’t orchestrated. Sure if you see your ball hurt the opponent you can come in but I certainly won’t know that until the ball lands on the other side.

Can’t you just see your shot is going to get poached?