Thick vs Thin beams

[sma1001]

Ok, so conventional wisdom has it that thick beams provide more stiffness and hence power. But what is the relationship to mass? If a thinner beamed racquet has more mass in the hoop, why doesn't the greater mass convert into power? Why would less mass, but a thicker beam (implying the mass is more thinly distributed in the beam), have the effect of supplying more power? Or are thinner beams every bit as helpful in the hit as thick ones?

How does it work?

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Stiffness compensates for lack of mass, to some extent.

 

[SpinToWin]

Thicker beams flex less at contact by design, thus making the stringbed more forgiving and offering a lower power drop off outside the sweetspot.

With a less forgiving design (thinner and flexier beam) it is hard to strike the sweetspot consistently, so you will not swing at full speed. In that sense, thick and stiff beams compensate for the lacking mass of the racquet and offer a forgiveness that allows you to swing fast without missing the sweetspot. This gives the illusion of more power, as it is easy to accelerate the racquet (ramp up velocity) and as you may know, Kinetic Energy = 0.5*m*v^2, so the velocity component contributes more to the kinetic energy of the racquet/power of the shot.

At least that's the way I understand it.

 

[Zoolander]

Easy. E = mc²

(where E = energy of departing shot, m = mass of racquet, c = width of beam squared.)

Hope that cleared things up for you.

 

[jaxadam]

Easy. E = mc²

(where E = energy of departing shot, m = mass of racquet, c = width of beam squared.)

Hope that cleared things up for you.

This guy nailed it. Just don't forget to add the Lorentz transform in to account for 16 x 19 vs 18 x 20.

 

[Bobs tennis]

I presently have been playing two rackets, each opposite, one thick and one thin beam. I find the thick beam feels stiffer but seems to add a lot of control. Drops and passing shots seem better with the thick beam but I get more power out of the thin beam.I can't decide. Just my experience

 

[SpinToWin]

I presently have been playing two rackets, each opposite, one thick and one thin beam. I find the thick beam feels stiffer but seems to add a lot of control. Drops and passing shots seem better with the thick beam but I get more power out of the thin beam.I can't decide. Just my experience

All else being equal?

 

[Bobs tennis]

All else being equal?

I should have mentioned-Both frames are customized to 11.3--5 pts HL

 

[n8dawg6]

thick vs thin beams is like schrödinger's cat: even though the frame is intact in my hand at the moment, its fate of being smashed to bits in a hissy fit of anger is inevitable

 

[SpinToWin]

I should have mentioned-Both frames are customized to 11.3--5 pts HL

Which frames are you talking about?

 

[esgee48]

thick vs thin beams is like schrödinger's cat: even though the frame is intact in my hand at the moment, its fate of being smashed to bits in a hissy fit of anger is inevitable

You gotta take the racquet out of your bag to see if it is intact or not.

 

[Anton]

It's not just the stiffness, wider frame increases racket's polar moment of inertia (the resistance of the racket to rotation about its long axis).

Everything else being equal wider body racket will be more stable on off center impact.

 

[Beowulf]

You gotta take the racquet out of your bag to see if it is intact or not.

But the moment you do, you become uncertain about whether or not you can beat Heisenberg.

 

[beltsman]

thick vs thin beams is like schrödinger's cat: even though the frame is intact in my hand at the moment, its fate of being smashed to bits in a hissy fit of anger is inevitable

The power level of the ball off the racquet isn't determined until the ball lands. If you hit tennis balls/photons and only looked at where they landed, you would see a 1:1 correlation between powerful shots and powerful racquets. Whereas if you just looked at the racquet but not the landing point, you would see a 50% distribution between powerful and non-powerful.

Quantum tennis baby.

 

[pfrischmann]

I find it easier to shank with a thicker beamed racquet. I can pick up very similar racquets in weight etc.. and never shank with a 18 or 19mm frame but shank pretty frequently with a 22mm frame...weird.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I find it easier to shank with a thicker beamed racquet. I can pick up very similar racquets in weight etc.. and never shank with a 18 or 19mm frame but shank pretty frequently with a 22mm frame...weird.

shanking is due to missing the stringbed. Clearly you are screwing up your swingpath and contact point with the wide frame racket. Has nothing to do with the width of the beams. You just make more errors with that frame. Maybe the lighter stiffer frames make you more lackadaisical in your swing?

 

[beltsman]

shanking is due to missing the stringbed. Clearly you are screwing up your swingpath and contact point with the wide frame racket. Has nothing to do with the width of the beams. You just make more errors with that frame. Maybe the lighter stiffer frames make you more lackadaisical in your swing?

That's not necessarily true. Shanks occur more frequently with thicker beamed racquets because the string window is smaller when hitting with a non-flat racquet face. Thinner framed racquets allow for a more extreme closed/open angle.

 

[SpinToWin]

That's not necessarily true. Shanks occur more frequently with thicker beamed racquets because the string window is smaller when hitting with a non-flat racquet face. Thinner framed racquets allow for a more extreme closed/open angle.

Right. Cause 3mm make the difference between a shank and a strike in the sweetspot. Even the difference between a PS95 and a APD is like 3mm (on each side), certainly not enough to justify shanks.

 

[beltsman]

Right. Cause 3mm make the difference between a shank and a strike in the sweetspot. Even the difference between a PS95 and a APD is like 3mm (on each side), certainly not enough to justify shanks.

Well you didn't refute anything I said. A thicker beam means, mathematically, a smaller window when the racquet face is not perpendicular to the ground.

 

[wsk429]

You gotta take the racquet out of your bag to see if it is intact or not.

But once out of the bag, it's actually a different racket.

 

[SpinToWin]

Well you didn't refute anything I said. A thicker beam means, mathematically, a smaller window when the racquet face is not perpendicular to the ground.

I very much did refute what you said, nobody attacks a ball steeply enough to cause shanking due to the beam width and a shank with a thick beam won't become a normal/good shot with a thin beam, it'll be a bad mishit at the very best.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Right. Cause 3mm make the difference between a shank and a strike in the sweetspot. Even the difference between a PS95 and a APD is like 3mm (on each side), certainly not enough to justify shanks.

Well I think shanks are more a function of not having the stick prepped in time or having the stick at least out of position... at least it seems to be the most frequent times I shank... say 9/10 shanks are because my backhand takes a lot of prep. I do know my relatively extreme backhand grip likes the spin window of those extra 3mm. It isnt a deal breaker but I do like it. Possibly it is because the way the frame cuts through the air on the closed face axis when I take a steep cut at a ball?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Well you didn't refute anything I said. A thicker beam means, mathematically, a smaller window when the racquet face is not perpendicular to the ground.

If that's the case than a 95 sq in racket should have more shanks than a 100 sq inch. Since most thin beam players rackets have a smaller racket face they should be getting just as many if not more shanks.

Mishits are mishits. IF you shank more with a certain frame, you are doing something different with that frame in your mechanics which is leading to mishits. A thicker beam racket may alter the quality of the shank as its a different edge than a thinner beam, but its still a mishit ball.

 

[beltsman]

If that's the case than a 95 sq in racket should have more shanks than a 100 sq inch. Since most thin beam players rackets have a smaller racket face they should be getting just as many if not more shanks.

Mishits are mishits. IF you shank more with a certain frame, you are doing something different with that frame in your mechanics which is leading to mishits. A thicker beam racket may alter the quality of the shank as its a different edge than a thinner beam, but its still a mishit ball.

Depends. Most 95s are thin framed. A thick framed 95 would have more thanks than a thin framed 95, all else equal.

 

[n8dawg6]

Depends. Most 95s are thin framed. A thick framed 95 would have more thanks than a thin framed 95, all else equal.

think we're getting waaay of topic here. more relevant is that Nietzsche quote: "if thou gaze long into a thick beam, the thick beam will also gaze into thee"

 

[beltsman]

think we're getting waaay of topic here. more relevant is that Nietzsche quote: "if thou gaze long into a thick beam, the thick beam will also gaze into thee"

“The unexamined beam is not worth using" - Socrates

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

To thin beam, or not to thin beam- that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The shanks and topspin of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of passing shots,
And by opposing end them. To ace- to sleep-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The point, and the thousand elbow shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To double fault- to weep.
To weep- perchance to scream: ay, there's the breakpoint!
For in that sleep of service change what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this side of the court,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes a match of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of tennis,
Th' umpire's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd calls, the point's delay,
The insolence of choosing not to serve, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy tosses,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare scorecard? Who would these ****els bear,
To grunt and sweat on a weary court,
But that the dread of something after set point-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No comback returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make tennis freaks of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of rainstorms,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the score of the action.- Soft you now!
The fair boxbeam!- midesize, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red.

 

[LeeD]

Beam thickness is not necessarily head thickness.
You can widen and shorten a 95 sq in frame so it won't mishit with a thick beam.
Some player's like a Bio300 head shape, while other's favor the round GrapheneExtreme head shape.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Ok, so conventional wisdom has it that thick beams provide more stiffness and hence power. But what is the relationship to mass?

Beam thickness isn't as related to stiffness as you might think. The reason racquets are often thicker beam is a thicker beam shape make it easier to make a racquet stiffer using cheaper materials. It is easy to make a very stiff racquet using a thick beam but harder to make a stiff frame with a thin beam without having a more complex fabrication process (and materials).

Mass is another topic altogether. You can make stiff, thicker-beam racquets heavy or lights just as easily.

 

[beltsman]

To thin beam, or not to thin beam- that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The shanks and topspin of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of passing shots,
And by opposing end them. To ace- to sleep-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The point, and the thousand elbow shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To double fault- to weep.
To weep- perchance to scream: ay, there's the breakpoint!
For in that sleep of service change what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this side of the court,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes a match of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of tennis,
Th' umpire's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd calls, the point's delay,
The insolence of choosing not to serve, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy tosses,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare scorecard? Who would these ****els bear,
To grunt and sweat on a weary court,
But that the dread of something after set point-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No comback returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make tennis freaks of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of rainstorms,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the score of the action.- Soft you now!
The fair boxbeam!- midesize, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red.

 

[Christian Olsson]

Somehow after a lot of searching what I want I fount that a thinner but still quite stiff frame suited my taste. 20 mm 65 RA Volkl SG10. Gives good power in my configuration but still good control because I somehow feel the ball better thru the stick. There's no right stick IMHO. It all depends on preferences for me. My game might change and then my stick setup might too. That's what I love about light racquets modded.

 

[BlueB]

It's not just the stiffness, wider frame increases racket's polar moment of inertia (the resistance of the racket to rotation about its long axis).

Everything else being equal wider body racket will be more stable on off center impact.

Um, no... Everything being the same, meaning stiffness, mass, mass distribution, swing weight, balance, head shape, the 2 racquets would be equally stable.
The thicker beam would have more polar moment od inertia (aka twist weight) only if there is more mass further away from the longitudinal axis.

 

[Bogdan_TT]

To thin beam, or not to thin beam- that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The shanks and topspin of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of passing shots,
And by opposing end them. To ace- to sleep-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The point, and the thousand elbow shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To double fault- to weep.
To weep- perchance to scream: ay, there's the breakpoint!
For in that sleep of service change what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this side of the court,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes a match of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of tennis,
Th' umpire's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despis'd calls, the point's delay,
The insolence of choosing not to serve, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy tosses,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare scorecard? Who would these ****els bear,
To grunt and sweat on a weary court,
But that the dread of something after set point-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No comback returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make tennis freaks of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of rainstorms,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the score of the action.- Soft you now!
The fair boxbeam!- midesize, in thy orisons
Be all my sins rememb'red.

Obviously, Shakespeare is the GOAT English player!

 

[Username_]

I love shanking with my PS95. i always win on it.

 

[PBODY99]

Ok, so conventional wisdom has it that thick beams provide more stiffness and hence power. But what is the relationship to mass? If a thinner beamed racquet has more mass in the hoop, why doesn't the greater mass convert into power? Why would less mass, but a thicker beam (implying the mass is more thinly distributed in the beam), have the effect of supplying more power? Or are thinner beams every bit as helpful in the hit as thick ones?

How does it work?

A Profile 110 weights in around 13 ounces, but stiffness in the ball striking axis gives it massive power,at a slow swing speed. You could engineer a 18mm frame with an exotic layup to match the stiffness of a wide body, but the cost would be very high.
Thick frames have a patent that explains why they are used widely in frame construction.
This link takes you to an article from the transition period

 

[Anton]

Um, no... Everything being the same, meaning stiffness, mass, mass distribution, swing weight, balance, head shape, the 2 racquets would be equally stable.
The thicker beam would have more polar moment od inertia (aka twist weight) only if there is more mass further away from the longitudinal axis.

...which there is. Straight line to zero width frame |, is shorter than distances \/ to mass distributed on a wider frame. So same mass, but distributed further away from impact.

 

[Bobs tennis]

Which frames are you talking about?

Spin... You probably will laugh but one is Pro Kennex Q cut to 26 1/2 and reweighted to 5 pt hl-11.3oz..The other is a Gamma 117 cut again to 26 1/2 and the same 5pt hl-11.3 oz.I am loving these shorter rackets and been using them this way about a month.Played a friend today that I never came close to beating and today won again in tie breaker for the second time.This makes our match scores 100 to 2,only winning the last 2 times.He was a high school coach and has helped my game a lot. I'm embarrassed to tell him what I did to frames but he feels I have never hit that consistent and hard. Don't mean to steal thread. I definitely feel difference in stiffness and flex due to beam thickness...

 

[SpinToWin]

Spin... You probably will laugh but one is Pro Kennex Q cut to 26 1/2 and reweighted to 5 pt hl-11.3oz..The other is a Gamma 117 cut again to 26 1/2 and the same 5pt hl-11.3 oz.I am loving these shorter rackets and been using them this way about a month.Played a friend today that I never came close to beating and today won again in tie breaker for the second time.This makes our match scores 100 to 2,only winning the last 2 times.He was a high school coach and has helped my game a lot. I'm embarrassed to tell him what I did to frames but he feels I have never hit that consistent and hard. Don't mean to steal thread. I definitely feel difference in stiffness and flex due to beam thickness...

Uhm... The racquets aren't comparable in the least though... There's waaaaaaaay more than just beam width separating them.

I won't laugh, everybody should do whatever works for him.

 

[BlueB]

...which there is. Straight line to zero width frame |, is shorter than distances \/ to mass distributed on a wider frame. So same mass, but distributed further away from impact.

But we are not talking about the wider head, rather about thicker beam. That's what OP asked abut and I qualified "same head shape" in my post.

 

[esgee48]

I would say it depends on the player. Whether the beam is thick, e.g. APD, or thin, e.g. PS95, it is primarily technique that drives spin on the ball. Secundo is related to string and tension that delivers the right amount of grab for that players' styles. I look at it very simply, you can find someone who will shank with a thin beam PS95 just as easily as someone with an APD. H e l l, I have seen people shank with POG OSs, so that's what I think. 2 cents.

 

[ludde]

Is there generally a difference between thin flex frames with 60 RA and thicker beams with same RA by the level of comfort? Same material and specs?
Would you say a thicker flex frame generates more vibration or protects against it?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Is there generally a difference between thin flex frames with 60 RA and thicker beams with same RA by the level of comfort? Same material and specs?
Would you say a thicker flex frame generates more vibration or protects against it?

I’d say at that point beam construction makes more difference in shock transmission. A hollow beam will transmit more shock than a solid or foam filled beam of similar flex.

 

[flanker2000fr]

I love shanking with my PS95. i always win on it.

Me, it's my Kneissl Masters 10: 75 sq. in. and a very thick / flat beam section. Truly a joy to shank with. Which is a good thing, considering how many time this happens with this tiny head size.