SP.INning a yarn, or not? 1988 racquets advertorial.

[Grafil Injection]

Although this SP.IN advertorial rather suspiciously doesn't include the three most established players racquets of early 1988 {MAX 200G, POG and PS85), the comparative analysis of the other sticks seems reasonably accurate to me.

Certainly going to take a look at a Grays Concord, which I've never heard of, if one turns up.

 

[Backspin to the Future]

Interesting reading @Grafil.
I picked up a fairly decent SP.IN racket only this week and have yet to have a hit with it.
I bagged a HIPO model with the grommet strip all intact unlike my disintegrating G.300 .
There is a a slight difference in head size but I enjoy playing with the G.300 and the string tensions have head up pretty well.
II don`t know how independent the above results/opinions are but I certainly find them pretty decent from a serve/volley perspective.
A few listing pics of the new arrival..apparently a slightly head heavy model compared with the G.300

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iaKAr4_x0kI_UA9SnYQLt1uew8VmZJVn/view?usp=drive_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KQfy1EyAE50mrrTXZh7_oEVufSnGuJJi/view?usp=drive_link

The racket has since had the grip replaced and been cleaned up ready for action on Monday

I think the G.300 may be the slightly earlier model as it lists the string tensions,has the inventors signature and the postal address for stringing instructions on the side of the shaft.
I recommend anyone trying one out if they come across one for a reasonable price.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Yes, the SPIN Hipo was 1990 I believe, and prior to that the G300 had been reasonably successful for a non-mainstream racket. The Hipo is excellent. Really big sweet-spot and solid feel, whilst having good aerodynamics. The S&V scoring might have been a bit generous though!

 

[Backspin to the Future]

I had a hit with the Hipo today for half and hour and really had fun with it.
Mine weighs approx 25g more than the G.300 so it needs a bit more effort when serving and not quite as nimble on the volleying front either-as you mentioned.
I found it very solid to use against a big hitting opponent.
I`m pretty sure mine still has the original string which has held up surprising well..like my G.300
I`m guessing most of these SP.IN rackets that are still around have their originals too..maybe because of the hassle of finding someone who was prepared to have a go re-stringing it or possibly the greater expense.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I had a hit with the Hipo today for half and hour and really had fun with it.
Mine weighs approx 25g more than the G.300 so it needs a bit more effort when serving and not quite as nimble on the volleying front either-as you mentioned.
I found it very solid to use against a big hitting opponent.
I`m pretty sure mine still has the original string which has held up surprising well..like my G.300
I`m guessing most of these SP.IN rackets that are still around have their originals too..maybe because of the hassle of finding someone who was prepared to have a go re-stringing it or possibly the greater expense.

My stringer was fine to re-string my Hipo, pointing out that dozens of squash rackets have similar extended mainstring designs. I think I did 58lbs mains x 48lbs crosses, getting close to the recommended set-up, and 1.5 times the typical amount of string.

 

[Sanglier]

I think it might be fun to see how the idea behind this design played out over time, judging purely by the relevant patents.

The grand-daddy of all long string patents was the one Henry Goerke filed in 1938, followed by an even funkier one he took out a year later. He was primarily interested in being able to replace individual broken strings and to adjust their tension on the fly. It's not obvious that he had given any thought to things like center of percussion, coefficient of restitution, or even dwell time, presumably because no eggheads had paid any attention to the actual physics of tennis yet at that point. Other than the three patents shown below, the Bergelin Long String design is also a grandchild of these Goerke ideas, though BLS is diagonally strung, and therefore belongs to a separate branch of the family tree.

The first eggheaded racquet man to show up was Princeton professor Enoch Durbin, who authored the most mathematically dense of racquet patents to date in 1977, in which he elaborated on the advantages of maximizing the lengths of mains and stringing them at higher tension than the shorter crosses, using arguments and proofs that required a degree in mechanical engineering to understand.

Two years later, a team of Germans and a Chinese American physicist indepentdently applied to have their own designs for a long string racquet patented. The Germans got theirs done slightly earlier (Markill Mosquito/ Bancroft Slingshot), but the physicist's version was more commercially successful (Sp.In). While the Germans talked about the increase in dwell time afforded by their long strings, the physicist did what a physicist does - using extensive experimental data to support the optimal ratio specified in his claims, between the lengths and tension of the mains and those of the crosses.

Interestingly, all three modern patents were granted by the same examiner, Richard Apley, who was evidently in charge of sports equipment patents during that period, and had the best seat in the world to witness the changes in racquet evolution, including all the failed attempts that none of us would ever know about. I would have thought that the Markill patent and the Sp.In patent were too similar to be granted at nearly the same time, but Apley clearly saw it differently. I reached out to him ten years ago to see if I could interview him for my research.

Never heard back from him.

 

[Backspin to the Future]

Thanks for that interesting insight @Sanglier.
I`d been aware of longstring rackets for both tennis and squash for sometime when I picked up my first SP.IN for next to nothing about 2 years ago but thought the idea only went back as far as around the 1980`s.
What I`d never seen before was a racket marketed with 2 distinctly different tensions on the mains and crosses.
It`s now fairly common for many players to experiment with differing tensions as well as string types on their rackets .
At my age (and ability level) any advantages of these technical tweaks and advances would be far outweighed if I lost a few pounds,had better footwork and ball preparation however.

That said I still enjoy playing with a wide variety of rackets ,both old and new and these SP.IN models did make me park my natural scepticism that the whole idea was a marketing gimmick .