What is the STIFFEST Tennis Racquet ever made?

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
I'm wondering what is the stiffest tennis racquet ever made?

I would suggest the "Kuebler - Widebody 280HZ" made in about 1990!



Has a VF (Vibration Frequency) of, yes, 280HZ and am guessing an RA of over 100?

Edit. I'm now guessing RA for this would be in the 90's, but currently still think it's the stiffest racquet ever made!
 
Last edited:

joe sch

Legend
Keubler produced the profile racket for wilson which was considered the first widebody racket. It was 37 mm wide, which was twice the width of the standard racket at that time. It was basically too stiff and powerful for most all players and the rackets continually tapered down from this first widebody. I suspect it would be the stiffest racket although I dont the specs are below, probably 100 or over for rdc ?

Length: 27 in / 69 cm
Headsize: 110 sq in
Strung Weight: 12.5 oz/ 354 gm
Balance: 5/8" Head Light
Beam Width: 28mm-37mm-28mm Dual Taper Beam (37mm!!!)
Composition: High Modulus Graphite / Kevlar
Power Level: High
Swing Index: 2.7
String Pattern: 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
String Tension: 53-63 pounds

http://woodtennis.com/wilson/wilson_profile1.tiff
 
Last edited:
How did that old Prince Boron stack up and the old black Wilson Ultras ?





I hit with the Ultra for a few shots and promptly put it down. Nice frame, but not for me. It cost about $200 in the early-mid-1980's here in the U.S..
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
Keubler produced the profile racket for wilson which was considered the first widebody racket. It was 37 mm wide, which was twice the width of the standard racket at that time. It was basically too stiff and powerful for most all players and the rackets continually tapered down from this first widebody. I suspect it would be the stiffest racket although I dont the specs are below, probably 100 or over for rdc ?

Length: 27 in / 69 cm
Headsize: 110 sq in
Strung Weight: 12.5 oz/ 354 gm
Balance: 5/8" Head Light
Beam Width: 28mm-37mm-28mm Dual Taper Beam (37mm!!!)
Composition: High Modulus Graphite / Kevlar
Power Level: High
Swing Index: 2.7
String Pattern: 18 Mains / 20 Crosses
String Tension: 53-63 pounds

http://woodtennis.com/wilson/wilson_profile1.tiff
I think some of the late 80's "Inertial" Kuebler widebodies (like the 280HZ) were stiffer than the earlier mid 80's kuebler Resonance/Profile racquets. For example the Wilson Profile 2.7 110 had an RA of about 80 as far as I remember reading!

The 280HZ was marketed as the worlds fastest ever racquet, and was possibly the stiffest. But I need some evidence which I don't have at the moment.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
How did that old Prince Boron stack up and the old black Wilson Ultras ?

I hit with the Ultra for a few shots and promptly put it down. Nice frame, but not for me. It cost about $200 in the early-mid-1980's here in the U.S..
Yes these were stiff, but how stiff I don't know?

I do think the Kueber's were stiffer than these though.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
how do the profile 110 and the kuebler 280 differ? is it possible that the profile 95 is even stiffer?
The Kuebler 280HZ was one of the "Inertial" series of rackets Kuebler made in the late 80's. A technical expert would need to point out the differences as they are certainly similar to the earlier Resonance/Profile racquets. And yes I'd have thought the Profile 95 would be stiffer than the 110. Although I still think the 280HZ would be stiffest of them all. I hoping someone would know for sure, as evidence is lacking at the moment.
 

Don't Let It Bounce

Hall of Fame
The Kuebler 280HZ was one of the "Inertial" series of rackets Kuebler made in the late 80's. A technical expert would need to point out the differences as they are certainly similar to the earlier Resonance/Profile racquets. And yes I'd have thought the Profile 95 would be stiffer than the 110. Although I still think the 280HZ would be stiffest of them all. I hoping someone would know for sure, as evidence is lacking at the moment.
I'm not that tech expert, but I'd be willing to wager on the 280HZ. It came later and was clearly an attempt to maximize stiffness. Plus, I'm under the impression that 200 Hz (the threshold at which the first racquet vibration is completed before the ball leaves the strings) was the goal of the prototype that became the Profile.

I would expect the Profile 95 and 110 to have near-identical stiffness, at least as measured by frequency. Both got their stiffness relative to other HM graphite frames primarily from their thickness, and the 110 was thicker–as though to make up for the practical stiffness the 95 got from its smaller head.

Also, now I covet a 280HZ. (Thanks for that.) I bet it would be so solid you wouldn't even be able to hear the ball's cries of pain and terror.
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
I have a Wilson Staff DTS which looks identical to the original Profile 110 except that it is deep red in color and is 18x20 rather than 16x20. It mentions the Kuebler design and West German patent # 34 34 898. It also shows no Si and states the early tension range of 58+-5#, so it appears to be an early model. SCT code on the butt cap. Anyone familiar with this one?
 

-Kap-

Rookie
I used to hit occasionally with a guy who used a Wilson Profile.
He also wore a tennis elbow strap. Go figure. :-|
 

big bang

Hall of Fame
as far as I remember from the pro shop I worked at after school many years ago, the early kueblers was wider than the wilson profiles. I only hit with 2 different kueblers( cant remember the exact models) but they felt stiffer than the profiles.
I played one season with wilson profile hammer (first hammer ever) and it was even stiffer than the other profile models. still got 2 of them around here somewhere.
 

joe sch

Legend
I used to hit occasionally with a guy who used a Wilson Profile.
He also wore a tennis elbow strap. Go figure. :-|
The only way I can explain it is that players get very attached to rackets and dont want to switch even when they are hurting and causing injury. I hope they are atleast using a very soft string at very low tensions.

Its really a shame that with the current racket materials (hard carbon graphite) rackets can not be made with much flex. I think about 55 rdc is as flexible as most new rackets can be produced and most are closer to 70. I believe many of the best players like the Head rackets because they are more flexible.
 
Last edited:

coachrick

Hall of Fame
The only way I can explain it is that players get very attached to rackets and dont want to switch even when they are hurting and causing injury. I hope they are atleast using a very soft string at very low tensions.
One of my regular customers in '91-'92 LOVED his Profile 110 strung with ProBlend @ 65#...OUCH! A little tough on the eardrums, as well!
 

meowmix

Hall of Fame
The only way I can explain it is that players get very attached to rackets and dont want to switch even when they are hurting and causing injury. I hope they are atleast using a very soft string at very low tensions.

Its really a shame that with the current racket materials (hard carbon graphite) rackets can not be made with much flex. I think about 55 rdc is as flexible as most new rackets can be produced and most are closer to 70. I believe many of the best players like the Head rackets because they are more flexible.
Wilson made a couple of rackets, the Fury's and the Brave's, that had flexes ranging from around 48-51.
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
I'm not that tech expert, but I'd be willing to wager on the 280HZ. It came later and was clearly an attempt to maximize stiffness. Plus, I'm under the impression that 200 Hz (the threshold at which the first racquet vibration is completed before the ball leaves the strings) was the goal of the prototype that became the Profile.

I would expect the Profile 95 and 110 to have near-identical stiffness, at least as measured by frequency. Both got their stiffness relative to other HM graphite frames primarily from their thickness, and the 110 was thicker–as though to make up for the practical stiffness the 95 got from its smaller head.

Also, now I covet a 280HZ. (Thanks for that.) I bet it would be so solid you wouldn't even be able to hear the ball's cries of pain and terror.
Sorry about that:-?

But yes I agree that the 280HZ was designed to maximise speed and stiffness!
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
I have a Wilson Staff DTS which looks identical to the original Profile 110 except that it is deep red in color and is 18x20 rather than 16x20. It mentions the Kuebler design and West German patent # 34 34 898. It also shows no Si and states the early tension range of 58+-5#, so it appears to be an early model. SCT code on the butt cap. Anyone familiar with this one?
I'm not familiar with that one, but the 280HZ is very similar itself to the Profile 110, only with an obviously different siffer layup!
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
as far as I remember from the pro shop I worked at after school many years ago, the early kueblers was wider than the wilson profiles. I only hit with 2 different kueblers( cant remember the exact models) but they felt stiffer than the profiles.
I played one season with wilson profile hammer (first hammer ever) and it was even stiffer than the other profile models. still got 2 of them around here somewhere.
Yes I agree that the early Kueblers were slightly wider than the Profiles and probably slightly stiffer. I'd really like to know the RA of the those early Kueblers (guessing 85) and those first Profile Hammers (guessing 80)?
 

jimbo333

Hall of Fame
The only way I can explain it is that players get very attached to rackets and dont want to switch even when they are hurting and causing injury. I hope they are atleast using a very soft string at very low tensions.

Its really a shame that with the current racket materials (hard carbon graphite) rackets can not be made with much flex. I think about 55 rdc is as flexible as most new rackets can be produced and most are closer to 70. I believe many of the best players like the Head rackets because they are more flexible.
At the time Kuebler came up with this racquet, he thought he was designing a racquet that would be gentle on the arm, just don't ask me how he worked this out:shock:
 

vwfye

Semi-Pro
The thought was stiff = less vibration. Just as they use to think big American cars of the 50s and 60s would be more safe than a modern car. They found out over time that the big American iron was so stiff, that it amplified the impact to the cab just as the stiff frame amplified the vibration to the elbow. Theory vs. results. Sometimes the complete opposite of what is expected happens.
 

kalic

Professional
The thought was stiff = less vibration. Just as they use to think big American cars of the 50s and 60s would be more safe than a modern car. They found out over time that the big American iron was so stiff, that it amplified the impact to the cab just as the stiff frame amplified the vibration to the elbow. Theory vs. results. Sometimes the complete opposite of what is expected happens.
Stiff = bigger frequency, but smaller amplitude (if everything else is the same, of course).
 

Don't Let It Bounce

Hall of Fame
It occurs to me: there are two ways to amp up the VF of a frame: increasing stiffness and decreasing weight. Kuebler did not go light with the racquets that became the Profile; does anyone know if he went light with the 280HZ?

Incidentally, when I went looking for references to the 280HZ, I learned that there are still Kuebler racquets.

Also, now I covet a 280HZ. (Thanks for that.) I bet it would be so solid you wouldn't even be able to hear the ball's cries of pain and terror.
Sorry about that:-?
In case it was unclear, I was joking about holding someone else responsible for what is obviously my own racquet-lust.
 

foetz

Rookie
The thought was stiff = less vibration. Just as they use to think big American cars of the 50s and 60s would be more safe than a modern car. They found out over time that the big American iron was so stiff, that it amplified the impact to the cab just as the stiff frame amplified the vibration to the elbow. Theory vs. results. Sometimes the complete opposite of what is expected happens.
well something must have been right about it because for me and many other players i knew back then those kueblers indeed were great when it came to arm problems.
around that time in the 90s i had serious arm probs over quite some time and switching to a kuebler solved that completely. i felt damn nasty pain whenever i hit with a stick that was vibrating after ball contact which was totally gone with the kuebler.
the only problem was that i really had a hard time controlling the power :)

btw i still have a 280hz and this thread here makes me want to string it again for a little trip down memory lane :p
 
Last edited:

jimanuel12

Semi-Pro
I'm wondering what is the stiffest tennis racquet ever made?

I would suggest the "Kuebler - Widebody 280HZ" made in about 1990!



Has a VF (Vibration Frequency) of, yes, 280HZ and am guessing an RA of over 100?

Edit. I'm now guessing RA for this would be in the 90's, but currently still think it's the stiffest racquet ever made!
there was also the wilson profile 3.2 stiffness rating 80!!!!!
 

VGP

Legend
One of my regular customers in '91-'92 LOVED his Profile 110 strung with ProBlend @ 65#...OUCH! A little tough on the eardrums, as well!
I used to have my Prince CTS Thunderstick 110 strung with Prince ProBlend at 70 pounds.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
I still have a few of my Wilson Profile 2.7 110"s.

They are supposedly RA 84. They weigh about 13 oz., with a swingweight of about 350.

I strung mine at 78 lbs with Problend to prevent it from being a rocket-launcher, and it was still quite powerful for serves.
 

tennistiger

Semi-Pro
The mold of the Widebody 280Hz is totally different from the Profile/Rezonanz Racket. The racket RA is 92 but it is crosswise much softer than the Profile. It is absolutely NOT for Topspin play. It twists despite its stiffness. Kuebler made a prototype in 1993 with 330 Hz !!! What could be possible with the modern materials today...
 

hadoken

Semi-Pro
92 RA? My elbow's throbbing just thinking about it... :shock:
People need to remember that the old monster 1980's widebodies have 1 major difference in construction than today and that is weight & weight distribution. That counters the stiffness issues dramatically with respect to tennis ailments.

Up until 2007, I was playing with a Prince CTS Approach 90 which back in the day (1987) considered semi-powerful but it was quite heavy. Not sure the stiffness. I switched to a Babolat Storm which was about 1-2 oz lighter for 1 season and my wrist was wrecked and has never been the same. The combination of stiffness and lightness/weight distribution from a modern frame just didn't work for me. I've played with a Profile 3.6 as well and it was very playable and comfortable so stiffness from a rating perspective is way overblown without all other factors considered.
 

PBODY99

Legend
I think you can say that for the entire line of the Hyper Carbon's until the Hyper Carbon 6.1 Tour 90 came along.
In the Wilson line I have owned and used everything from the original Wilson Ultra, which felt the stiffest to the Outer Limits, since the 80's the lowest SI Largest head frame has been listed as the stiffest.
On the players frame side 4.0 Prostaff
 

jimanuel12

Semi-Pro
The stiffest I've ever played with personally was a Bard Jade Fire. But, I've never hit with a Profile or a Kuebler.
good thing you didn't - racket from hell (wislon profile) - so stiff you could bounce bullets off that thing. i played one set with mine - my arm hurt for a week and then i sold it - glad to see it gone.
 

GeekG

New User
The higher the stiffness index of wilson the lower the ra right?
So a wilson 2.3 is stiffer than 6.0.
But how come many people think the pro staff classic is stiff?
 

Don't Let It Bounce

Hall of Fame
The higher the stiffness index of wilson the lower the ra right?
So a wilson 2.3 is stiffer than 6.0.
But how come many people think the pro staff classic is stiff?
Roughly speaking, yes: high S.I. (originally stiffness index, later re-marketed as "Swing Index" so a higher number would intuitively mean more "S") meant more flexible. But there are two factors that created exceptions:
  1. Wilson measured stiffness differently than Babolat's RDC does. Instead of measuring the frame's resistance to a bending force applied mid-racket, they suspended a weight (1 kg, maybe? Don't remember...) from the frame's tip and measured how much it dipped. Thus, the varying stiffness in different parts of the frame could produce a divergence from the RA / SI correlation.
  2. As with most industries, what the engineering dept puts a lot of thought to, the marketing dept ignores entirely. There was certainly a point in the days of Wilson's S.I. labeling where the S.I became part of the marketing appeal of the racket. For example, "6.1" came to mean "powerful player's racket", "6.2" came to mean "player's Hammer" and later "Serena's racket", etc. instead of meaning "this is precisely how many mm the tip moves".
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
i have a profile in my bag.. i use it when i come across a big banger.. i use it to block back powerful flat hitters. it plays pretty well and causes no issues. it is about as different as you can get from my ps90's..yet i can adjust to it in a short period and play pretty well with it.
 

rockbox

Semi-Pro
The stiffest "feeling" racquet I ever played with was the Wilson Ultra 2. You could feel the fuzz on the ball when you hit it.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
i have a profile in my bag.. i use it when i come across a big banger.. i use it to block back powerful flat hitters. it plays pretty well and causes no issues. it is about as different as you can get from my ps90's..yet i can adjust to it in a short period and play pretty well with it.
There is a Profile 3.0 95 with an 18x20 pattern that has it all. Stiff, tight string pattern, damped.
 
Top