The truth about racquet material innovation

[PistolPete23]

Having spent some years in a materials research lab, pushing the boundaries on materials innovation, I can say that the vast majority of advancements in racquet technology year after year are gimmicks. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite

 

[Sander001]

I always figured that all their "tech" and "innovation" was just a way to make racquets cheaper to produce in order to gain maximum profit. My old racquets feel so much better than my newer ones, even way back in the early 90's when the Prostaff 85 became the 6.0, it was an obvious downgrade.

Anyway, it's kinda cool how the thing that inspired your career turned out to be a sort of sham so now you're uncovering it

 

[PistolPete23]

I always figured that all their "tech" and "innovation" was just a way to make racquets cheaper to produce in order to gain maximum profit. My old racquets feel so much better than my newer ones, even way back in the early 90's when the Prostaff 85 became the 6.0, it was an obvious downgrade.

Anyway, it's kinda cool how the thing that inspired your career turned out to be a sort of sham so now you're uncovering it

Yeah, I chuckle every time I think about it. I actually play now with a Donnay Pro One Penta. The foam-filled technology actually does something (although again not sure increasing the number of cores actually makes it better) and I like the flex and solid feeling of the frame. They have some customer service issues but the company is uber small, so yeah. It's a good thing the racquet shop near me in LA actually carries the brand.

 

[beltsman]

Yeah I think everyone here knows that. The real differences year to year are head shape, balance, SW, etc etc

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Having spent some years in a materials research lab, pushing the boundaries on materials innovation, I can say that the vast majority of advancements in racquet technology year after year are gimmicks. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite

How about TeXtreme; is it a hoax as well? The racquets that supposedly incorporate it seem to perform as claimed; greater torsional resistance without a corresponding increase in stiffness.

 

[Mathguy]

I personally never pay any attention to the new "technologies" that these companies market. I`m just looking at the new paint jobs and specs(weight,balance,SW, etc). If a racquet looks good and seems to play fine, its a go for me. Thanks for confirming my beliefs that most of these innovations aren`t anything new outside of an attempt to make an extra sale.

 

[JOSHL]

Yeah, I chuckle every time I think about it. I actually play now with a Donnay Pro One Penta. The foam-filled technology actually does something (although again not sure increasing the number of cores actually makes it better) and I like the flex and solid feeling of the frame. They have some customer service issues but the company is uber small, so yeah. It's a good thing the racquet shop near me in LA actually carries the brand.

Not anymore they don’t.

 

[proracketeer]

I still think, incorporating Basalt fibers would be beneficial.

 

[Roms]

It depend wich brands, wich techs etc ... look at Prince, Textreme and O3 aren't gimmick, it really work, comfort techs of Pro Kennew work too. But graphene for exemple is gimmick, when you know the price of this material, you know that it is impossible to put enought graphene in a tennis stick.

 

[hurworld]

Would love to hear your thoughts on:
- Textreme
- Twaron / Kevlar (not sure if they can be used interchangeably?)
- Namd

 

[Roms]

Textreme i am pretty sure it work, twaron don't know, and namd I think it is marketing gimmick.

 

[elsk]

Interested to know what Wilson's FreeFlex tech actually is, seems to be 99% beam design which allows the Clash to flex so much yet still feel quite solid. Design will always be more important than tech when it comes to a frame.

Strings on the other hand are all about the materials used, perhaps it is here we should focus on the "tech".

 

[1HBHfanatic]

I like the fact that every 2 years, we get to try the same model racquet In a new way
some years it feels better/worse
it comes down to feel and/or your personal preference at the time
manaufacturers are doing their best to keep you interested in their product
sometimes this works very well and/or at times they miss the mark

 

[BlueB]

Sorry guys, Textreme is just a fancy name for carbon twill...

Tvaron and Kevlar names are basicaly the same product by two different companies, both are aramid. It has different dampening properties than carbon/graphite.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[PistolPete23]

How about TeXtreme; is it a hoax as well? The racquets that supposedly incorporate it seem to perform as claimed; greater torsional resistance without a corresponding increase in stiffness.

Textreme is admittedly a pretty cool material, because the way the carbon fiber is braided allows for higher ratio of carbon fiber to polymer matrix and you thus achieve higher stiffness (more power) and lower weight simultaneously. I'm not sure about torsional resistance without increasing stiffness; those two properties are usually coupled and even if you look at the Phantom's specs, the stiffness is still pretty high. Textreme is definitely pretty to look at, but it is still a graphite composite (not THAT much different from regular carbon fiber) and I doubt the entirety of the throat area in Textreme racquets are made of the material; the result would be too stiff to play comfortably with and I bet the Textreme in Prince players racquets are at most just one or two layers of prepreg at the top for looks. The litmus question is whether you can build a racquet that plays just as well as Textreme frames but using plain "old" graphite composite. The Babolat Pure Strike comes to mind ...

 

[PistolPete23]

Interested to know what Wilson's FreeFlex tech actually is, seems to be 99% beam design which allows the Clash to flex so much yet still feel quite solid. Design will always be more important than tech when it comes to a frame.

Strings on the other hand are all about the materials used, perhaps it is here we should focus on the "tech".

Yes, strings are underrated tech! Just look at the impact that poly strings have had. So much emphasis is often attributed to the frame, but string tension(s) and type of string plays a big role in how the racquet feels.

 

[PistolPete23]

Would love to hear your thoughts on:
- Textreme
- Twaron / Kevlar (not sure if they can be used interchangeably?)
- Namd

I'm not sure about Namd. But yes, Twaron and Kevlar are proprietary names for the same thing, otherwise known as aramid fiber. Both materials are substantially less stiff than graphite composite (i.e. carbon fiber composite), but that can be a good thing, because you can use it to create a more flexible frame; fiberglass or glass fiber have also been used for similar effect. The dampening properties of Kevlar/Twaron might be a little better than graphite composite as well.

 

[itsme9003]

Having spent some years in a materials research lab, pushing the boundaries on materials innovation, I can say that the vast majority of advancements in racquet technology year after year are gimmicks. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite

But then how do you explain Graphene and Countervail racquets feeling so much different than their non-graphene and -CV counterparts if the material is 99.99% the same?

 

[PistolPete23]

But then how do you explain Graphene and Countervail racquets feeling so much different than their non-graphene and -CV counterparts if the material is 99.99% the same?

Not all racquet tech are entirely gimmicks and some companies try to actually innovate. Countervail I believe can make a difference you can feel, but so can using a vibration dampener, or better yet, fill the frame or handle with foam. But the graphene tech? Nope, I don't buy it! I'd take a Head PT630 or PT57a over any of their "new" racquets. If graphene racquets "feel" different to you, I assure you it's probably not the graphene.

 

[markwillplay]

so here is the question; does the listed RA matter more than the twaron in the throat? In other words, does a stick with 65RA and twaron in the throat play less stiff than a stick at 62RA without or is the RA the final say?

 

[itsme9003]

Not all racquet tech are entirely gimmicks and some companies try to actually innovate. Countervail I believe can make a difference you can feel, but so can using a vibration dampener, or better yet, fill the frame or handle with foam. But the graphene tech? Nope, I don't buy it! I'd take a Head PT630 or PT57a over any of their "new" racquets.

I just don't see the point of your original post. Are you saying that the new technology truly just makes the racquet feel different? if so that's not really a "gimmick" - some people actually prefer the feel of Graphene, CV, etc. You preferring a PT630/PT57a is purely subjective and should have no bearing on your opinion of new racquet technology

 

[PistolPete23]

I just don't see the point of your original post. Are you saying that the new technology truly just makes the racquet feel different? if so that's not really a "gimmick" - some people actually prefer the feel of Graphene, CV, etc. You preferring a PT630/PT57a is purely subjective and should have no bearing on your opinion of new racquet technology

The title of my OP is "The Truth about Racquet Material Innovation". If you prefer how a graphene racquet feels, by all means go for it. There are many ways to make a graphite-based racquet feel differently, including altering the shape of the beam cross section and the overall silhouette of the frame; all I'm saying is that the "new" material tech marketed by many companies actually have very little influence on the feel and performance of the end product. Case in point is Novak Djokovic's racquet. It's painted to look like a Graphene racquet, but it's actually molded from the shape of the Head LM Radical Tour, which Novak used in his early years. But his new pro-stock LM Radicals do not contain LM . How come it plays similarly to the LM racquets of yore you ask? Well, because Head knew it was the shape of the racquet mold that determined the feel of the racquet; it wasn't the LM marketing BS. I wasn't going to say this (sorry Head), but the graphene particles that Head uses isn't even real graphene. It's the cheaper stuff, consisting of 2-3 layers of graphene per particle (hence not a monolayer and not graphene at all!). Yes, my preference for the PT630 and PT57a is personal, but I contend also that it's not entirely subjective. The racquets are decades old but if you've hit with one before, the stability of the frame and the buttery feel of the sweetspot is undeniable and OBJECTIVELY rivals any new frames out there, of course unless you don't like stability and buttery feel. It is quite flexible though, so maybe that's not for all players. But there's a reason why so many Head pros use the 57a painted to look like new racquets. My "opinion" of new racquet tech is also not really an opinion; it is my objective assessment of whether the science makes sense.

 

[itsme9003]

The title of my OP is "The Truth about Racquet Material Innovation". If you prefer how a graphene racquet feels, by all means go for it. There are many ways to make a graphite-based racquet feel differently, including altering the shape of the beam cross section and the overall silhouette of the frame; all I'm saying is that the "new" material tech marketed by many companies actually have very little influence on the feel and performance of the end product. Case in point is Novak Djokovic's racquet. It's painted to look like a Graphene racquet, but it's actually molded from the shape of the Head LM Radical Tour, which Novak used in his early years. But his new pro-stock LM Radicals do not contain LM . How come it plays similarly to the LM racquets of yore you ask? Well, because Head knew it was the shape of the racquet mold that determined the feel of the racquet; it wasn't the LM marketing BS. I wasn't going to say this (sorry Head), but the graphene particles that Head uses isn't even real graphene. It's the cheaper stuff, consisting of 2-3 layers of graphene per particle (hence not a monolayer and not graphene at all!). Yes, my preference for the PT630 and PT57a is personal, but I contend also that it's not entirely subjective. The racquets are decades old but if you've hit with one before, the stability of the frame and the buttery feel of the sweetspot is undeniable and OBJECTIVELY rivals any new frames out there, of course unless you don't like stability and buttery feel. It is quite flexible though, so maybe that's not for all players. But there's a reason why so many Head pros use the 57a painted to look like new racquets. My "opinion" of new racquet tech is also not really an opinion; it is my objective assessment of whether the science makes sense.

oh boy, a lot of things you're misunderstanding here.

Firstly, Graphene isn't marketed to change the "feel" of the racquet. It is marketed as making a racquet more polarized by REDISTRIBUTING the weight while still keeping the shaft strong enough to play with, which it does exactly as Head claims it to do. Whether or not this is optimal is completely dependent on the player and whether or not they prefer a more polarized racquet, but this is ultimately purely subjective (and many people do prefer using polarized racquets). You can read up on this here: https://www.head.com/us-US/sports/padel/technology/graphene/

"your objective assessment" is just another term for SUBJECTIVE. You prefer the buttery feel of the sweetspot, good for you - it's still a FEEL. Others prefer a more crisp, direct feedback, some prefer a very dead, muted response. Then you talk about stability of the frame, well I can think of plenty of just as stable frames. But more importantly, by increasing stability you're making sacrifices (usually at the cost of increased weight, maneuverability, etc.). And many players other than you will prefer a more maneuverable, easier-to-handle stick at the cost of decreased stability. There is no objectively-best racquet, everything (including your preference for those racquets) is ENTIRELY subjective.

All that being said, I still don't see the point of your original post - all the new innovations aren't "gimmicks" if they actually make a difference and do what they claim to do. And whether or not you like those differences (which in your case seems to stem from them not playing like your preferred racquets) is irrelevant

 

[tigonian02]

Yeah, I chuckle every time I think about it. I actually play now with a Donnay Pro One Penta. The foam-filled technology actually does something (although again not sure increasing the number of cores actually makes it better) and I like the flex and solid feeling of the frame. They have some customer service issues but the company is uber small, so yeah. It's a good thing the racquet shop near me in LA actually carries the brand.

I actually switched to the pro one hexacore this week.

 

[PistolPete23]

oh boy, a lot of things you're misunderstanding here.

Firstly, Graphene isn't marketed to change the "feel" of the racquet. It is marketed as making a racquet more polarized by REDISTRIBUTING the weight while still keeping the shaft strong enough to play with, which it does exactly as Head claims it to do. Whether or not this is optimal is completely dependent on the player and whether or not they prefer a more polarized racquet, but this is ultimately purely subjective (and many people do prefer using polarized racquets). You can read up on this here: https://www.head.com/us-US/sports/padel/technology/graphene/

"your objective assessment" is just another term for SUBJECTIVE. You prefer the buttery feel of the sweetspot, good for you - it's still a FEEL. Others prefer a more crisp, direct feedback, some prefer a very dead, muted response. Then you talk about stability of the frame, well I can think of plenty of just as stable frames. But more importantly, by increasing stability you're making sacrifices (usually at the cost of increased weight, maneuverability, etc.). And many players other than you will prefer a more maneuverable, easier-to-handle stick at the cost of decreased stability. There is no objectively-best racquet, everything (including your preference for those racquets) is ENTIRELY subjective.

All that being said, I still don't see the point of your original post - all the new innovations aren't "gimmicks" if they actually make a difference and do what they claim to do. And whether or not you like those differences (which in your case seems to stem from them not playing like your preferred racquets) is irrelevant

Are you sure the graphene is doing what the company claims it does? I want to see hard evidence of this new weight distribution. Like I said, the "graphene" particles aren't even real graphene, so that should immediately be a "marketing BS" red light. They're graphite nanoparticles, much cheaper, and when embedded in a polymer matrix, inferior to the tensile properties (both stiffness, weight, and strength) of conventional carbon fiber. I also call B.S. on the polarizing weight distribution argument. Assuming mass is redistributed to the handle and head of the racquet, you would only feel this "polarizing" effect if stiffness at the throat region is lower. And why would you redistribute the weight to both ends of the frame? I can easily achieve the same by take a light racquet and adding lead tape to the hoop and handle simultaneously. Anybody else want to chime in on this? I feel like I'm making good arguments that aren't getting through. It's ok though, maybe I'm just a stupid, cynical guy, all marketed racquet tech is legit, and the new racquets each year are objectively superior to those of the previous year.

 

[itsme9003]

Are you sure the graphene is doing what the company claims it does? Like I said, the "graphene" particles aren't even real graphene, so that should immediately be a "marketing BS" red light. They're graphite nanoparticles, much cheaper, and when embedded in a polymer matrix, inferior to the tensile properties (both stiffness, weight, and strength) of conventional carbon fiber. I also call B.S. on the polarizing weight distribution argument. Assuming mass is redistributed to the handle and head of the racquet, you would only feel this "polarizing" effect if stiffness at the throat region is lower. And why would you redistribute the weight to both ends of the frame? I can easily achieve the same by take a light racquet and adding lead tape to the hoop and handle simultaneously. Anybody else want to chime in on this? I feel like I'm making good arguments that aren't getting through. It's ok though, maybe I'm just a stupid, cynical guy, all marketed racquet tech is legit, and the new racquets each year are objectively superior to those of the previous year.

Are you sure it's NOT doing what it claims it does? Because if that's what you're saying then you're just calling out the Head marketing team as flat-out liars, which is a completely different topic you've got on your hands. In fact, you did say you "call B.S. on the polarizing weight distribution argument", which is entirely your problem. If you can provide proof that Graphene doesn't do any of this then hell, we have a class-action lawsuit on our hands! Count me in. But until then, I will choose to believe that Head isn't blatantly lying to its consumers, and that yes, Graphene is doing exactly what the company claims it does.

and just for the record, I'm not calling you a "stupid, cynical guy", nor am I saying the new racquets each year are objectively superior to their previous iterations. new innovations don't always perform better for me personally, but they do make a difference and do perform better for other people playing other styles of tennis. So who would I be to say the vast majority of advancements are gimmicks?

 

[MikeMechanic]

Tecnifibre is a company which doesn't abuse this marketing exploit and just sells sticks on their specs, and that is how it should be.

 

[MikeMechanic]

Are you sure it's NOT doing what it claims it does? Because if that's what you're saying then you're just calling out the Head marketing team as flat-out liars, which is a completely different topic you've got on your hands. In fact, you did say you "call B.S. on the polarizing weight distribution argument", which is entirely your problem. If you can provide proof that Graphene doesn't do any of this then hell, we have a class-action lawsuit on our hands! Count me in. But until then, I will choose to believe that Head isn't blatantly lying to its consumers, and that yes, Graphene is doing exactly what the company claims it does.

and just for the record, I'm not calling you a "stupid, cynical guy", nor am I saying the new racquets each year are objectively superior to their previous iterations. new innovations don't always perform better for me personally, but they do make a difference and do perform better for other people playing other styles of tennis. So who would I be to say the vast majority of advancements are gimmicks?

1. Those materials work well, that is not the point, the point is that there is hardly any difference/improvement over what we already had for the last 30 years. Hence the logical conclusion is it is used for marketing purposes.
2. Those materials are in the frame for a very low % that it is unlikely you will somehow benefit from it.
3. The biggest lying company in sports-land is Head, selling 95 sq in sticks as 98 sq in.

 

[itsme9003]

1. Those materials work well, that is not the point, the point is that there is hardly any difference/improvement over what we already had for the last 30 years. Hence the logical conclusion is it is used for marketing purposes..
2. Those materials are in the frame for a very low % that it is unlikely you will somehow benefit form it.
3. The biggest lying company in sports-land is Head, selling 95 sq in sticks as 98 sq in.

1. There is definitely a difference. If you can't feel the difference between a modern Graphene racquet and a racquet from 10, 20, 30 years ago, I don't know what else to tell you.
2. The material added into the frame allows Head to play around with the weight distribution. Plenty of players benefit from the redistributed mass to the handle and/or head.
3. Head never explicitly specifies what parameter they're measuring when they state the headsize (inner vs outer hoop). You can't call them liars just because you choose your own arbitrary interpretation of what their specs state.

 

[PistolPete23]

Are you sure it's NOT doing what it claims it does? Because if that's what you're saying then you're just calling out the Head marketing team as flat-out liars, which is a completely different topic you've got on your hands. In fact, you did say you "call B.S. on the polarizing weight distribution argument", which is entirely your problem. If you can provide proof that Graphene doesn't do any of this then hell, we have a class-action lawsuit on our hands! Count me in. But until then, I will choose to believe that Head isn't blatantly lying to its consumers, and that yes, Graphene is doing exactly what the company claims it does.

I admittedly can't prove whether Head is actually implementing this weight redistribution effect. But I can prove that they're not using real graphene. Do you want to see the academic journal article where they dissected a racquet purportedly to feature graphene, only to find graphite nano particles? One time my professor in grad school and the research team needed to quickly obtain some bulk metallic glass, i.e. Liquidmetal alloy. So they thought, hey, Liquidmetal Technologies have a partnership with Rawlings and they have a Liquidmetal softball bat that you can buy readily in sporting equipment stores. So they went to the store, spent several hundred dollars, brought the bat back to the lab and sectioned it open. Turns out there was basically no Liquidmetal at all (it was standard Al alloy), maybe a tiny sliver just to avoid a lawsuit if it ever came to that. Intrigued by this discovery, my professor contacted the founder at Liquidmetal Technologies (whom she knew personally) and told them Rawlings might be under-representing their cutting-edge alloy. Dr. Bill Johnson wasn't surprised at all and basically said it was a marketing gimmick that worked in the favor of both companies. I know it's unsettling for a gear junkie to hear that many materials innovations are not actual innovations, but it is the truth.

 

[PistolPete23]

1. There is definitely a difference. If you can't feel the difference between a modern Graphene racquet and a racquet from 10, 20, 30 years ago, I don't know what else to tell you.
2. The material added into the frame allows Head to play around with the weight distribution. Plenty of players benefit from the redistributed mass to the handle and/or head.
3. Head never explicitly specifies what parameter they're measuring when they state the headsize (inner vs outer hoop). You can't call them liars just because you choose your own arbitrary interpretation of what their specs state.

2. Companies have been playing around with weight distribution for decades. You don't need graphene (or fake graphene) to do that.
3. Another story of when the company "lied". I had a Head Ti-S2 from back in the day that was supposed to feature an anti-shock bar that ran the length of the handle. One day I was hearing something loose when I hit the ball and removed the butt cap. Holy moly! What I thought went through the entire handle via the transparent butt-cap was actually just an inch-long decoration that Head stuck to the end of the racquet.

 

[itsme9003]

2. Companies have been playing around with weight distribution for decades. You don't need graphene (or fake graphene) to do that.
3. Another story of when the company "lied". I had a Head Ti-S2 from back in the day that was supposed to feature an anti-shock bar that ran the length of the handle. One day I was hearing something loose when I hit the ball and removed the butt cap. Holy moly! What I thought went through the entire handle via the transparent butt-cap was actually just an inch-long decoration that Head stuck to the end of the racquet.

Of course you don't need graphene to distribute weight around, but Head wouldn't be able to make a racquet with the exact same specs and playing characteristics of a current Graphene radical, extreme, etc. without the graphene technology. If you took out all the graphene from a current graphene racquet it would play completely different. And plenty of people wouldn't like that.

 

[n8dawg6]

wellp, this thread just crushed my will to live

 

[n8dawg6]

If you took out all the graphene from a current graphene racquet it would play completely different.

i wager it would play exactly the same

 

[n8dawg6]

wait, is this a new fedace account?

 

[itsme9003]

i wager it would play exactly the same

and i would take that wager 10 times out of 10. you must be completely oblivious to the amount of threads/people that talk about how much the graphene has changed the feel of Head racquets of yore

 

[itsme9003]

wellp, this thread just crushed my will to live

yes. I, too, don't understand the point of this thread

 

[PistolPete23]

Of course you don't need graphene to distribute weight around, but Head wouldn't be able to make a racquet with the exact same specs and playing characteristics of a current Graphene radical, extreme, etc. without the graphene technology. If you took out all the graphene from a current graphene racquet it would play completely different. And plenty of people wouldn't like that.

Sir, are you just trolling me? Because I think you are. And stop calling the material graphene because it really is not. It's tiny pieces of graphite embedded in plastic.

 

[itsme9003]

Sir, are you just trolling me? Because I think you are. And stop calling the material graphene because it really is not. It's tiny pieces of graphite embedded in plastic.

That's your response? I'm calling you out on your absurd claim that graphene is a gimmick, when clearly it is not.

 

[PistolPete23]

That's your response? I'm calling you out on your absurd claim that graphene is a gimmick, when clearly it is not.

Clearly it is "not" a gimmick because it "feels" completely "different" from non-graphene Head racquets; anyone else feels this way? If Head has used Liquidmetal and titanium as gimmicks in the past, what makes you think they wouldn't use fake graphene (that's what I'll call it now because that's what it is) as a gimmick now? Graphene is an incredible material with otherworldly electrical and structural properties. If Head were actually using graphene, your racquet wouldn't cost $200. It would be in the thousands at least my friend; and who would want to spend that much?

 

[itsme9003]

Clearly it is "not" a gimmick because it "feels" completely "different" from non-graphene Head racquets; anyone else feels this way? If Head has used Liquidmetal and titanium as gimmicks in the past, what makes you think they wouldn't use fake graphene (that's what I'll call it now because that's what it is) as a gimmick now? Graphene is an incredible material with otherworldly electrical and structural properties. If Head were actually using graphene, your racquet wouldn't cost $200. It would be in the thousands at least my friend; and who would want to spend that much?

I don't see how graphene particles, no matter how small, doesn't qualify as graphene. Nor why it wouldn't excuse Head from using the terminology in their marketing strategy. I understand your background in the matsci industry and your love affair with getting the nomenclature correct, but it's making you overly cynical and borderline paranoid about these new innovations. The FACT is that the introduction of graphene into their line of racquets has made Head racquets play and feel differently than their predecessors, which disqualifies it as being a gimmick or "gimmicky." Some people like it, some people hate it, but it is something new and different.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, video yourself and see what your strokes look like,
and ask when was the last time you paid a coach to give you 100 in a row of your worst shot.

 

[Winners or Errors]

I admittedly can't prove whether Head is actually implementing this weight redistribution effect. But I can prove that they're not using real graphene. Do you want to see the academic journal article where they dissected a racquet purportedly to feature graphene, only to find graphite nano particles?

I very much want to see that article. Which journal? Kind of sounds like an interesting read.

 

[PistolPete23]

I don't see how graphene particles, no matter how small, doesn't qualify as graphene. Nor why it wouldn't excuse Head from using the terminology in their marketing strategy. I understand your background in the matsci industry and your love affair with getting the nomenclature correct, but it's making you overly cynical and borderline paranoid about these new innovations. The FACT is that the introduction of graphene into their line of racquets has made Head racquets play and feel differently than their predecessors, which disqualifies it as being a gimmick or "gimmicky." Some people like it, some people hate it, but it is something new and different.

They're not "graphene" particles, even though I called them that in the OP (didn't want to be too harsh). They're tiny graphite particles, WAY, WAY, WAY cheaper than actual graphene and also cheaper than a good carbon pre-preg. So it is NOT graphene lol; I don't know why I keep repeating it is not graphene and you choose to ignore it. Per your argument, if a purported material makes the racquet feel different then it isn't a gimmick. So I can sandwich some plastic into my racquet, sprinkle in a little diamond dust, and say the new racquet is diamond-reinforced awesomeness. Sure it may play a little differently, but isn't that kind of marketing disrespecting and under-representing the real properties of diamond, and hence a gimmick? And nomenclature is incredibly important. Materials of slightly different names can have completely different properties.

 

[PistolPete23]

I very much want to see that article. Which journal? Kind of sounds like an interesting read.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10853-015-9705-6

 

[sureshs]

Here is the list of modern innovations in racket technology which are making a difference:

There are none you idiots

 

[mpournaras]

Having spent some years in a materials research lab, pushing the boundaries on materials innovation, I can say that the vast majority of advancements in racquet technology year after year are gimmicks. Most "real" R&D take at least 5 years for the results of research to make an impact on actual product, but new technologies in tennis racquets are introduced year after year in the form of exotic materials that are purportedly lighter, stronger, more powerful etc. etc. For those who played in the late 90s, that material was titanium. And yet Ti is neither lighter nor stronger than woven carbon fiber. Racquets that claimed to incorporate Ti were 99.xx% graphite composite, barely enough Ti to make any significant difference. In the early 2000s, Wilson introduced Hypercarbon; this was nothing than a high-modulus graphite composite, similar to Prince's Graphite Extreme, that had been rebranded to incredible success. Around that time, Head, who championed the usage of titanium, introduced Liquidmetal tennis racquets. It was circa 2002-2003, and as a high school senior I thought, "wow, what an incredible material for tennis". Being naive and enamored with tennis gear and racquet tech, I was inspired to study materials science in college. Fast forward 4+ years and I found myself in grad school, joining a research group that specialized in none other than metallic glass, the academic name for Liquidmetal. Within a few weeks I learned that Head's usage of liquidmetal in their racquets was entirely a gimmick! Oh, the irony! There was barely any of the alloy in the racquets to make a difference in performance, and after studying the material in more depth, I realized Liquidmetal in racquets was probably not a suitable application to begin with. So here's the truth - many racquet companies (and especially Head) uses the strategy of identifying a cool material, incorporating a teeny tiny bit of it to accompany the tried and true graphite composite, and promote the product as the newest and best in the market. Their latest travesty is graphene. Graphene is a single 2d layer of hexagonally-packed carbon atoms. Graphite differs from graphene only in the number of layers; i.e. graphite == graphene but with more layers that are "weakly" bonded together. But if a single layer can be isolated, the material is pretty much the strongest substance on earth. The problem is that NOBODY has been able to grow a sizable sheet of graphene, certainly not nearly large enough to wrap it around the cross section of a racquet. So what Head has done is mix a lot of graphene particles into the composite resin matrix; the result is a material that's stronger than resin matrix but actually weaker and more compliant than carbon fiber, the typical material in graphite tennis racquets. I'm sorry to disappoint some on these forums, but the truth hurts sometimes. I hope someone would start a racquet company focusing on quality control and producing nice players racquets without all the marketing junk. The next time you buy a racquet for its new technology, keep in mind that the main material is still nothing else but tried and true graphite composite

That last sentence describes Angell

 

[mpournaras]

Here is the list of modern innovations in racket technology which are making a difference:

There are none you idiots

LOL.

And the ones that do concern how much or what the of the material is used. Like Wilson's PWS... its just more graphite near the strike zone. Simple... and it feels super solid. Or the ridges on the HEAD Liquid metal. It is just more material at the 4 corners and it made things a smidge more solid for the same weight.

 

[PistolPete23]

That last sentence describes Angell

I have yet to try Angell. Am pretty happy right now with my Donnay Pro One

 

[darkhorse]

This is probably true for any sports equipment that uses technology as a marketing tactic. There are probably innovations that do make a significant difference, but they would be few and far between. I also play hockey and the introduction of one-piece composite sticks completely changed the game...and cost $150. Now they're $250+ and I wonder what has changed in the 20 years since Easton released the original Synergy stick. Now the big thing is one-piece skate boots.

I'd imagine manufacturing techniques have far more to do with how a racquet feels these days, and I'm sure variations in materials makes a difference, but is it an improvement? Hard to say. After a certain level it becomes about player comfort, and that's subjective. But can anyone say definitively that racquets from 2019 are better than 1999? I don't think so.