Why do older rackets have higher tension range?

[bruno hau]

I noticed a lot of the older rackets from the 1980s have a higher tension range than today's rackets. Why is that? Take the Wilson Pro Staff Original. The 1980s version has a range of 55-65 lbs where as the new ones have 50-60 lbs range. Some Prince Original Graphites from 1980s even have a range of 65-75 lbs!

 

[gsquicksilver]

maybe they were built with better quality back then to withstand higher tension?

 

[VGP]

It could be that.....

....or that racket companies got too many "cracked racket" returns and in response lowered the recommended tensions.

My guess it's a combination of the two.

 

[In D Zone]

I believed its because of the type of string. Most Strings at that time were made from natural gut (intestine), so higher tension were recommended. Also, everyone in europe played with natural gut (they were late in adopting synthetic gut) and since most of the racquet manufacturer were outside the US it made sense to specifiy the tension at a higher rating.

I played with a guy this summer who played with PD 85, strung the racquet with natural gut. I beleived his tension is at 75 lbs. He breaks his string after 1 to 2 matches.

2003 Fischer racquets like Pro Number 1, Pro Tour FT, Pro Tour Extreme FT models have their string tension recommended between 55 to 75 lbs.

 

[NoBadMojo]

I noticed a lot of the older rackets from the 1980s have a higher tension range than today's rackets. Why is that? Take the Wilson Pro Staff Original. The 1980s version has a range of 55-65 lbs where as the new ones have 50-60 lbs range. Some Prince Original Graphites from 1980s even have a range of 65-75 lbs!

A couple of reasons

-Modern stringing machines string significantly tighter than machines from the 80s....no mechanical slop

-In spite of the myth that modern racquets are so powerful compared to old racquets thus making the game easy, some of these old widebodies from the 80's and 90's were lots more powerful than many present day frames as they were both heavy and stiff. stringing them at high tensions was necessary to have some sort of control as nobody would use poly back then

 

[leonardtay]

A couple of reasons

-Modern stringing machines string significantly tighter than machines from the 80s....no mechanical slop

-In spite of the myth that modern racquets are so powerful compared to old racquets thus making the game easy, some of these old widebodies from the 80's and 90's were lots more powerful than many present day frames as they were both heavy and stiff. stringing them at high tensions was necessary to have some sort of control as nobody would use poly back then

So in this case, I would need to string my Bumperless St Vincent which is has a recommended stringing tension of 65-70 lbs at nowhere near that tight?

 

[BreakPoint]

In addition, IMO, today's lighter and stiffer racquets should be strung looser to offset some of the frame's stiffness and to give it a bit more power to compensate for the light weight. Older racquets tended to be heavier and more flexible which needed a tighter stringbed to offset some of the power from the weight and to increase the control due to the high flex.

I think the widespread use of poly has also caused the manufacturers to reduce recommended tension ranges.

 

[Michelangelo]

So in this case, I would need to string my Bumperless St Vincent which is has a recommended stringing tension of 65-70 lbs at nowhere near that tight?

Be frank, I don't care about the recommended string tension labelled on the racquet. I only go for what I feel good and perform well.

 

[sureshs]

Older racquets tended to be heavier and more flexible which needed a tighter stringbed to offset some of the power from the weight and to increase the control due to the high flex.

I thought more flexy already meant more control? Shouldn't a flexier racquet be strung lower for more power since the control is already there? Or are you saying the control needed to be increased even further at the expense of further reducing the power, which is available from the weight?

 

[BreakPoint]

I thought more flexy already meant more control? Shouldn't a flexier racquet be strung lower for more power since the control is already there? Or are you saying the control needed to be increased even further at the expense of further reducing the power, which is available from the weight?

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

 

[0d1n]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

I don't think such a rule exists. I think it varies from racket to racket. Take the MSpeed Pro 1 for example...it is a very flexible racket, and it plays it's best (for most people) at lower tensions. I play it at around 25 - 24 kg with a soft multi, and even lower (23, 22 or so) with poly without losing directional control.

 

[sureshs]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

Isn't the PS85 stiff at 66?

I lost you in the last paragraph. Isn't the example of poly/gut you are giving just the opposite of the racquet example?

 

[leonardtay]

I don't think such a rule exists. I think it varies from racket to racket. Take the MSpeed Pro 1 for example...it is a very flexible racket, and it plays it's best (for most people) at lower tensions. I play it at around 25 - 24 kg with a soft multi, and even lower (23, 22 or so) with poly without losing directional control.

Actually I would think that a flexible racquet, because of a sort of trampoline effect on impact would be more powerful, same theory as looser strings. So, the more flexible, the more power, same as for looser strings. Also, the stiffer the racquet, the more control, likewise with the tighter the strings. Different people have different limits as to how loose they can string before you start to feel a loss of control.

 

[sureshs]

Actually I would think that a flexible racquet, because of a sort of trampoline effect on impact would be more powerful, same theory as looser strings.

That is interesting. For badminton racquets, I have heard flexier is more powerful due to the trampoline. In tennis, it is the opposite, as a flexier frame absorbs more energy and "reflects" less. Having said that, people with flexier racquets will tend to hit harder, giving the impression of more power. Sort of like polys are actually less powerful, but sometimes people think they are more powerful because it helps them hit harder with topspin and still keep the ball in.

 

[leonardtay]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

Isn't the PS85 stiff at 66?

I lost you in the last paragraph. Isn't the example of poly/gut you are giving just the opposite of the racquet example?

Actually, I think that a flexible racquet ASSISTS you in generating power because of the springboard effect. This springboard effect or trampoline effect also makes directional control more of a challenge, hence the need to offset with tighter string tensions which give more control. Each person react differently in terms of limits of ability to control power hence BP has his points. Sampras did not string his racquet high because it was flexible I feel, he strung his high because he had a surplus of power and wanted more control...
As for the strings, again it depends on the individual what sort of power/ control combination works for them. You offset the stiffness of a poly by stringing looser, but not so loose as to lose control and then you have to consider comfort issues, durability issues etc likewise for any other type of string. It is how you find the balance of power, control and longevity etc that works for you as an individual player.

 

[0d1n]

Actually I would think that a flexible racquet, because of a sort of trampoline effect on impact would be more powerful, same theory as looser strings. So, the more flexible, the more power, same as for looser strings. Also, the stiffer the racquet, the more control, likewise with the tighter the strings. Different people have different limits as to how loose they can string before you start to feel a loss of control.

I agree that different people have different limits where they are feeling a loss of control...however... I don't agree with the rest. Both my experience and the physics I remember tell me that generally a stiffer racket will be more powerful "all else being the same ...or at least similar". I think that's the general consensus around here also... . With that being said ... I think that the string issue is a bit more complicated. I think there's a maximum power zone of tension for each string depending on it's properties (i.e elasticity, thickness ...etc) and if one strings bellow a certain tension (i.e the minimum of that range) the string job will actually start to have less power.

 

[NoBadMojo]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

This is not true on several different levels

Actually I would think that a flexible racquet, because of a sort of trampoline effect on impact would be more powerful, same theory as looser strings. So, the more flexible, the more power, same as for looser strings. Also, the stiffer the racquet, the more control, likewise with the tighter the strings. Different people have different limits as to how loose they can string before you start to feel a loss of control.

no..stiffer frames give you more power (almost always) and flexy less. looser strings give you more depth which many equate to more power, but tension really doesnt affect power much at all if power is being viewed as ball speed rather than depth

 

[Keifers]

I noticed a lot of the older rackets from the 1980s have a higher tension range than today's rackets. Why is that? Take the Wilson Pro Staff Original. The 1980s version has a range of 55-65 lbs where as the new ones have 50-60 lbs range. Some Prince Original Graphites from 1980s even have a range of 65-75 lbs!

The highest recommended tension range I've seen is 70-80 lbs. (Yikes!)

On a Prince Graphite Pro Series 110 from the '80s. Composite of graphite and fiberglass, 18mm beam width, 16x19 string pattern.

 

[sureshs]

This springboard effect or trampoline effect also makes directional control more of a challenge, hence the need to offset with tighter string tensions which give more control.

Interesting. I would call it a trampoline effect if it "bounces back" a lot. In this case, directional control may be sacrificed as a result of deflection. But this might be compensated by more dwell time. A flexier frame will allow a player to "pull" the ball more rather than "push" it. It is all a consequence of the frame transferring less energy to the ball, thus giving the player more of a say with his own power.

 

[BreakPoint]

Isn't the PS85 stiff at 66?

Go play with one (especially a new China model) and you'll see how flexy it feels compared to today's stiff modern racquets.

I lost you in the last paragraph. Isn't the example of poly/gut you are giving just the opposite of the racquet example?

No. Stiff frame or stiff strings = low tensions. Flexy frame or flexy strings = high tensions.

 

[BreakPoint]

I don't think such a rule exists. I think it varies from racket to racket. Take the MSpeed Pro 1 for example...it is a very flexible racket, and it plays it's best (for most people) at lower tensions. I play it at around 25 - 24 kg with a soft multi, and even lower (23, 22 or so) with poly without losing directional control.

I have a friend who uses the M-Speed Pro 1 98 and he strings it with full Luxilon ALU Power (a poly) at 65lbs. and still finds he loses control. He says he's going to string it even tighter next time.

 

[LES]

Interesting. I would call it a trampoline effect if it "bounces back" a lot. In this case, directional control may be sacrificed as a result of deflection. But this might be compensated by more dwell time. A flexier frame will allow a player to "pull" the ball more rather than "push" it. It is all a consequence of the frame transferring less energy to the ball, thus giving the player more of a say with his own power.

I agree with your assessment. A flexy racquet is like a springboard but the stringbed is like a trampoline. You want a stiff stringbed to control a springboard.

 

[sureshs]

No. Stiff frame or stiff strings = low tensions. Flexy frame or flexy strings = high tensions.

That is where you are confusing. The reasons are the opposite. Flexy or more resilient strings like gut provide more power, and require higher tensions to control. A flexy racquet provides less power, and increasing the tension would reduce power further, increasing control. The strings case is the "opposite directions" you mentioned - the racquet case is simply more control, not for power and control balancing.

BTW, as someone mentioned, Pete strung tight because he wanted maximum control when he hit the ball really hard. Don't think a "flexy" 66RA racquet was the root cause.

 

[BreakPoint]

That is where you are confusing. The reasons are the opposite. Flexy or more resilient strings like gut provide more power, and require higher tensions to control. A flexy racquet provides less power, and increasing the tension would reduce power further, increasing control. The strings case is the "opposite directions" you mentioned - the racquet case is simply more control, not for power and control balancing.

Maybe this is all just above your head?

Did you see this?

I agree with your assessment. A flexy racquet is like a springboard but the stringbed is like a trampoline. You want a stiff stringbed to control a springboard.

Flexy racquets, just like flexy strings, need higher tensions to control. If they didn't, it would be a paradox. If flexy strings need higher tensions, why wouldn't a flexy frame? They are part of the same "system" when you hit the ball. They both flex on impact. Flex is flex. When something flexes, by definition, you lose directional control.

Same for stiff racquets and strings. Stiff strings need lower tensions just like stiff racquets do as they are part of the same "system" and both flex when you hit the ball. A stiff frame strung with a stiff string at high tensions will take your arm off.

BTW, as someone mentioned, Pete strung tight because he wanted maximum control when he hit the ball really hard. Don't think a "flexy" 66RA racquet was the root cause.

Doesn't everyone want more control? Sampras used a flexy racquet with very flexy natural gut strings, that's why he needed the high tension to maintain control. His racquet was also weighted up to 14 oz. so he needed the higher tension to harness all that power and momentum.

Let me ask you this: Have you ever played with the PS 6.0 85 strung with natural gut at low and then at high tensions? If not, then please get off this subject as you're arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

[LES]

Actually I get what Suresh is saying. A flexy racquet doesn't mean more power it's just that it flexes so you want to reduce the angle of deflection off the racquet. Hence the higher tension

The power comes from technique more so than the equipment. But you can increase power by increasing the mass of the racquet or increasing its acceleration before ball impact.

I think it's like this: First there was heavy wood racquets and gut. The power came from the mass of the racquet. (plow through). Then graphite made racquets lighter and stiffer. You can take faster swings at the ball so the string tension is increased to control the increased power from graphite. But at some point the tension is too high and its uncomfortable. Then poly being a stiff material allowed tensions to go back down.

Power mostly comes from technique & equipment is to control that power and also for comfort.

But BP is also correct: Stiff strings likes low tensions & Flexy strings likes high tensions - for balance of control & power

 

[Orly_Yarly]

Breakpoint youre confusing .... are you saying flexy frame = more power?

 

[saram]

Breakpoint youre confusing .... are you saying flexy frame = more power?

He's not being confusing on purpose. What he is stating is that a flexible frame is not as much of a precision instrument as a stiffer stick. With the added flex of the frame comes less control. So, to offset the less control you get in a flexible stick, you string it tighter as tighter strings mean more control.

The reason for stringing the stiffer stick slightly looser is to lessen the 'jarring' of the stick on the joints.

As well, the larger the head on a stick, the more power (generally) and thus, a tighter stringbed will increase the control...

 

[BreakPoint]

Breakpoint youre confusing .... are you saying flexy frame = more power?

No, where do you see that?

I'm saying that heavy racquets have more power. A flexy frame allows a player to swing out and generate their own power without fear of hitting the back fence as you would with a stiff frame if you swung out. That's why good players can hit hard with a flexy frame - because they swing out and can generate their own power. So combine a heavy and a flexy racquet and you have a potentially very powerful combination in the right hands, e.g., Sampras and his PS 6.0 85, Safin and his PC600, etc.

 

[Kirko]

I noticed a lot of the older rackets from the 1980s have a higher tension range than today's rackets. Why is that? Take the Wilson Pro Staff Original. The 1980s version has a range of 55-65 lbs where as the new ones have 50-60 lbs range. Some Prince Original Graphites from 1980s even have a range of 65-75 lbs!

the BEST play is from high tenson from a well at least a 12 oz. frame. low tension are for very good "odd ball" players or rank beginners.

 

[saram]

the BEST play is from high tenson from a well at least a 12 oz. frame. low tension are for very good "odd ball" players or rank beginners.

Roger strings his sticks in the 40's. Is he "odd ball" or "rank beginner"?

 

[gerikoh]

simply because they weren't stiff enough

 

[Deuce]

maybe they were built with better quality back then to withstand higher tension?

It could be that.....

....or that racket companies got too many "cracked racket" returns and in response lowered the recommended tensions.

My guess it's a combination of the two.

Of all the 'theories' put forth in this thread, I agree with these two.

When graphite racquets were in their first few years on the market, much was unknown in terms of longer term use.
I think they figured at first that the frames could withstand up to 70 - 75 pounds of tension over a significant period of time, with multiple stringings, etc. - but then saw that this was not the case, and so adjusted the tension range twoard a lower medium.

As well, I believe that frames were better made, with higher quality workmanship and materials, 25 years ago, than they are today.
But, then again, what wasn't?

 

[BreakPoint]

As well, I believe that frames were better made, with higher quality workmanship and materials, 25 years ago, than they are today.
But, then again, what wasn't?

How about cars? Much better today than they were 25 years ago. Not even close. Same with computers.

 

[AndrewD]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

Wrong. A heavy, flexy racquet does not have a 'best' tension range. It's an individual choice (what Sampras used is irrelevant to anyone but himself and others who can generate similar power and consistancy- which excludes any of us).

Wrong. Every racquet allows you to generate your own power. Only difference is that a flexible racquet requires you to generate more of it to get the same result as a stiffer one.

 

[Keifers]

I like a firm stringbed in a heavy (~360g), thin-beamed (~18mm), flexy (low 60s/high 50s) racquet -- because I want to feel the frame flex on impact, and I can't feel it if the stringbed itself is flexy.

I tried 65 lbs in the Graphite Pro 110 I mentioned above (post #18 ), and ran into all kinds of control problems. The ball was flying and I couldn't feel any racquet flex/ball dwell time.

 

[BreakPoint]

Wrong. A heavy, flexy racquet does not have a 'best' tension range. It's an individual choice (what Sampras used is irrelevant to anyone but himself and others who can generate similar power and consistancy- which excludes any of us).

Wrong. Every racquet allows you to generate your own power. Only difference is that a flexible racquet requires you to generate more of it to get the same result as a stiffer one.

Wrong. Or else why do manufacturers even bother to print recommended tension ranges on the frames? And are you claiming that Sampras weighing his racquet up to 14 oz. didn't help him to generate power at all? I don't know about you, but I get more power from a heavier racquet than a lighter racquet, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, and I need to tighten the stringbed to harness that extra power.

Wrong. A stiff, powerful racquet like a Pure Drive Plus helps to generate the power for you. Don't forget that it was originally designed for weak, little old ladies. I know guys that couldn't hit their way out of a paper bag with a racquet like a RDX 500 Mid, then switch to a Pure Drive and with the same exact strokes, begin to blast shots all over the place at twice the pace and power as they were getting before. Since the only thing that has changed is the racquet, it's obviously the racquet that's generating the power for them and not themselves that are generating all that extra power. If they decide to also start generating their own power with that PD with big, long strokes, they'd be hitting the back fence half the time.

That's why flexible racquets allow you to generate your own power rather than having the racquet do it for you. A stiff racquet doesn't really allow you to do that because it generates so much power for you already, and if you took anything bigger and longer than a short, compact swing, you'd be sending balls to the moon.

 

[0d1n]

I have a friend who uses the M-Speed Pro 1 98 and he strings it with full Luxilon ALU Power (a poly) at 65lbs. and still finds he loses control. He says he's going to string it even tighter next time.

Your friend needs to find a new racket then. This one will never give him the control he seeks . Maybe a wood one will satisfy his control needs.

 

[0d1n]

I like a firm stringbed in a heavy (~360g), thin-beamed (~18mm), flexy (low 60s/high 50s) racquet -- because I want to feel the frame flex on impact, and I can't feel it if the stringbed itself is flexy.

I tried 65 lbs in the Graphite Pro 110 I mentioned above (post #18 ), and ran into all kinds of control problems. The ball was flying and I couldn't feel any racquet flex/ball dwell time.

That's because of the oversize head. Take a DNX 10 mid or a Head Prestige and you can string those between 50 and 55 and still have plenty of control.

Wrong. ...
<snip>
If they decide to also start generating their own power with that PD with big, long strokes, they'd be hitting the back fence half the time.
</snip>
...
That's why flexible racquets allow you to generate your own power rather than having the racquet do it for you. A stiff racquet doesn't really allow you to do that because it generates so much power for you already, and if you took anything bigger and longer than a short, compact swing, you'd be sending balls to the moon.

Sorry but that just not true. It may be FOR YOU but it's certainly no rule. The pure drive is plenty controllable if you find the right strings/tension and don't hit late...and I'm saying that from the perspective of a Vacuum Pro 90/MSpeed/10 mid/ ...etc user which are regarded as control rackets (I also have pretty close to classical strokes with an eastern 1hbh and a forehand somewhere in between eastern and semi western...depending on court position and the ball I receive from "my enemy").
Frankly, what makes the difference for me between the PD and the aforementioned rackets is the impact feel and the "touch shots" (which are pretty much related to the impact feel I prefer).
It's certainly not the lack of control on serve/ground strokes (i.e. hitting the back fence on half of my shots). Frankly if a Pure Drive type frame with similar power would give me the ball feel and comfort of the MSpeed I would switch in a heartbeat. There are PLENTY of uncontrollable rackets out there, but the Pure Drive, Maxply Mc Enroe, Instinct ... types are NOT among them for me and most of the players I know who have sound technique.
Now...combine a pure drive type of stiffness and string pattern with something like a 115 head size ... and then yes ... you will have a pretty hard to control racket ...but as it stands ... the PD type rackets are plenty controllable if you hit on time and with some spin (you don't have to be Nadal).
Heck ... I think Kim Clijsters was stringing hers with FULL GUT and I think she had pretty damn good control. If you're telling me that you're hitting the ball harder than her off the ground ... sorry ....I just don't believe you.

 

[BreakPoint]

Your friend needs to find a new racket then. This one will never give him the control he seeks . Maybe a wood one will satisfy his control needs.

But he loves the racquet, loves the feel, can hit great shots with it when the strings are tight, and he hasn't had them for very long yet.

 

[BreakPoint]

Sorry but that just not true. It may be FOR YOU but it's certainly no rule. The pure drive is plenty controllable if you find the right strings/tension and don't hit late...

Don't forget that when I compare the power of frames, I'm assuming that ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, meaning that they are strung with the same string, same tension, you use the same exact strokes, hit with the same amount of spin or lack of spin, etc. The ONLY variable that changes is the frame.

So if you're used to generating your own power with a RDX 500 Mid by taking huge, long, flat swings on every shot and then all of a sudden you switch to a Pure Drive Plus and continue to use the same huge, long, flat swings, you'll likely be hitting the back fence because now the PD+ is also generating power for you on top of the power you're generating yourself. Can you eventually adjust? Sure, you can shorten your strokes and hit with more spin and less flat to keep the ball in, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the PD+ generates more of the power for you than the RDX 500 Mid did. Thus, the RDX 500 Mid allows YOU to generate more of the power than the PD+ does.

 

[proracketeer]

If you've ever played with a heavy, flexy racquet, you'd soon realize that a higher tension will work better. Sampras didn't string his PS 6.0 85's at 75lbs just for the heck of it.

A flexy racquet allows you to generate your own power, but you need a higher tension to control all that power that you're generating.

String a flexy racquet at a low tension and you begin to lose directional control. For the same reason why you should string a stiff string like poly at a lower tension and a very flexy string like gut at a higher tension, the same goes for frames. One needs to offset the other.

I second that.
SGs racquet (heavy and flexy) only worked with high tensions.

 

[Keifers]

That's because of the oversize head. Take a DNX 10 mid or a Head Prestige and you can string those between 50 and 55 and still have plenty of control.

...

I'm not familiar with the DNX 10 mid or Head Prestige, but I have a Graphite Pro 90 as well (same material composition as the 110) and I wouldn't go below 60 in that frame, for the same reason.