Why Stopping The Dunlop Max 200g?

stalako

New User
why stopping the production of dunlop max 200 g
It is a fantastic racquet : great control and fantastic touh
Why no other company other than dunlop try to make the graphite/nylon injection production of a tennis racquet????
strange no. because 25 years later some tennis player are still playing with this racquet
 

pow

Hall of Fame
It is more profitable to sell racquets that were made with cheaper materials and easier manufacturing process.
 

stalako

New User
will be profitable

It is more profitable to sell racquets that were made with cheaper materials and easier manufacturing process.
well i think it will still be profitable because if a company will make such a racquet it will be a great hit (like pro staff 85, prestige pro, pog or max 200 g)
 

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
Some factors leading to its demise:

The manufacturing process (injection molding) was rather wasteful, involving melting out of an aluminum core, IIRC.

Expensive to make. Only one factory in England was set up to manufacture it.

Dunlop was not the best-managed company from the late 80's on (and has yet to produce a product as popular as the Max 200g was in the 80's)

The Widebody racket craze of the late 80's/early 90's made more conventional rackets hard to sell - not gimmicky enough, not a crutch for lack of skill, technique, or fitness.

The racket was only available as a midsize (or, as the Max 150g, a standard size!)

The racket could warp under higher string tension
 

JesseT

Rookie
well i think it will still be profitable because if a company will make such a racquet it will be a great hit (like pro staff 85, prestige pro, pog or max 200 g)
While it's fun to play armchair economist, I can assure you that if Dunlop thought the 200G would make significant profit, it'd still be on shelves. Not to mention how career-limiting such a decision would be for an executive...one bad quarter and "buh-bye"

And before you think price - manu.-cost = profit, it's more like:
price -
(batch manu. cost [ie not cost-per-stick but cost-per-1000-sticks] + labor overhead + -(estimated lost revenue due to not producing a newer model) + shipping + returns + marketing to get the product on shelves + marketing to convince people looking at a brand new KBlade to look at a 25yo looking stick) = profit

I'd be surprised if many sticks made a profit at all (considering the requirements for batch production....make 10k, sell 8k. 2k inventory eats profit). Probably the top 5 sellers float the rest that exist solely to prevent market share loss.
 

MAX PLY

Hall of Fame
Dunlop Max 200g

Jesse is absolutely right. If there was profit in it, it would be on the market. Don't forget, Dunlop tried to update the graphics on the 200g in the last couple of years of its manufacture but I don't think the sales were there once Mac was basically out of the game and Steffi had switched to Wilson. Unfortunately, the IM technology did not translate well into a mid-plus (95+) frame. Too bad, it continues to be my favorite frame.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Some factors leading to its demise:

The manufacturing process (injection molding) was rather wasteful, involving melting out of an aluminum core, IIRC.

Expensive to make. Only one factory in England was set up to manufacture it.

Dunlop was not the best-managed company from the late 80's on (and has yet to produce a product as popular as the Max 200g was in the 80's)

The Widebody racket craze of the late 80's/early 90's made more conventional rackets hard to sell - not gimmicky enough, not a crutch for lack of skill, technique, or fitness.

The racket was only available as a midsize (or, as the Max 150g, a standard size!)

The racket could warp under higher string tension
Dunlop did try towards the end to make two 95 sq.inch racquets using the Injection Molding Process. The Max 800i and the Max 500i. The Max 800i had a more aerodynamic shaft that got wider at the head but was still sleek for a IMF racquet. The Max 500i was a wider and bulkier.

Max 800i




Max 500i
 

Deuce

Banned
why stopping the production of dunlop max 200 g
It is a fantastic racquet : great control and fantastic touh
Why no other company other than dunlop try to make the graphite/nylon injection production of a tennis racquet????
strange no. because 25 years later some tennis player are still playing with this racquet
Slazenger - Dunlop's 'sister' company in England - also had a few Injection Molded frames in the '80s.
 

sunflowerhx

Rookie
Dont forget the Max 400i.

An open string pattern version of the 200g - 85sq inch head.
Great feel, but just too soft for the modern power game.

 

max

Legend
Good thread. I've followed the topic, since I used the Max 200 G for about ten years or so.

Dunlop Japan had a RIMBREED injection-molded frame. But I think the word on the street (and if I'm not mistaken, the word from that Paul guy who started Vantage tennis and originally worked in England for Dunlop as a racquet engineer), is that the manufacturing process was enormously cost-prohibitive. Expensive.

I'd love to see an injection-molded frame on the market. But there are limits to what that technology can do: frames will always have to be a bit heavier, a bit more fragile.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
These racquets were actually cheaper than other graphite racquets sold during the day, so i dont get how the process was so expensive...good thing they were cheap, because as someone else said, they were very subjected to warping, and not necessarily at high tension. they also easily cracked and sometimes even snapped during play on something like a hard overhead. So I submit to the forum, that these racquets didnt survive because they werent sturdy enough not because they were so expensive to make. if they were costly to make, then Dunlop was really daft for pricing them under the market price for graphite racquets back then. Also, profit margins are huge for tennis racquets <for the principals; ie Wilson, Head, etc>...they must be, as it's a relatively small business lacking significant growth...lower volume product categories survive by high profit margin
 

daveyboy

Rookie
The 300i was a nice frame, too, a little lighter than the 200g, just a touch more pop. I've got that and a pair of 200g's. The 200g's are tough to manuver, but still fun to hit.

I had a 800i, couldn't keep strings in it. Seems that an entire lot of them had problems with the grometing process/drilling or something, so they would break strings. I dono't know if that was the real answer, but I got upgraded to the Dunlop Revelation- the original. Ugh. Awful.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
The 300i was a nice frame, too, a little lighter than the 200g, just a touch more pop. I've got that and a pair of 200g's. The 200g's are tough to manuver, but still fun to hit.

I had a 800i, couldn't keep strings in it. Seems that an entire lot of them had problems with the grometing process/drilling or something, so they would break strings. I dono't know if that was the real answer, but I got upgraded to the Dunlop Revelation- the original. Ugh. Awful.
There were no holes drilled in the Max 800i and all IMF racquets for the grommets. The IMF racquets were grommetless racquets.

The Max 300i was the same weight and balance as the Max 200G. The Max 300i was a little stiffer than the Max 200G.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
These racquets were actually cheaper than other graphite racquets sold during the day, so i dont get how the process was so expensive...good thing they were cheap, because as someone else said, they were very subjected to warping, and not necessarily at high tension. they also easily cracked and sometimes even snapped during play on something like a hard overhead. So I submit to the forum, that these racquets didnt survive because they werent sturdy enough not because they were so expensive to make. if they were costly to make, then Dunlop was really daft for pricing them under the market price for graphite racquets back then. Also, profit margins are huge for tennis racquets <for the principals; ie Wilson, Head, etc>...they must be, as it's a relatively small business lacking significant growth...lower volume product categories survive by high profit margin
Actually the IMF (Injection Molding Frame) process came about as away to manufacture racquets in more cost effective way. There are no holes drilled in the racquets, No layup done by any workers, no smoothing, sanding, or puttying of imperfections when the racquet comes out of the mold.

It is my understanding that the Government in England towards the End imposed certain costly labour protection laws into place because part of the production process was working with a molten alloy. This made the IMF racquets very costly to produce and not a viable product anymore.

The production process is: First there is a casting of a low melting point alloy core. The alloy core is then put in the injection molding machine. A Compound of GRAPHITE and NYLON is Melted and then injected around the alloy core. Once the graphite and Nylon is cooled the Alloy core is heated up so it melts and then poured out of the frame. This leaves individual string holes that have pillars inside the frame. There are no holes drilled in these injection molded frames by Dunlop.

I had used the Dunlop IMF racquets for many years. I think they were fragile only in a sense that if you strung them over 58lbs. they would start to warp. The Max 200G and Max 300i were the most robust of them all. The I broke quite a few Max 400i on the shaft hitting backhands for some reason. I never broke a Max 200G on a miss hit overhead or on a serve.
 
Last edited:

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
These racquets were actually cheaper than other graphite racquets sold during the day, so i dont get how the process was so expensive...good thing they were cheap, because as someone else said, they were very subjected to warping, and not necessarily at high tension. they also easily cracked and sometimes even snapped during play on something like a hard overhead. So I submit to the forum, that these racquets didnt survive because they werent sturdy enough not because they were so expensive to make. if they were costly to make, then Dunlop was really daft for pricing them under the market price for graphite racquets back then. Also, profit margins are huge for tennis racquets <for the principals; ie Wilson, Head, etc>...they must be, as it's a relatively small business lacking significant growth...lower volume product categories survive by high profit margin
I think pricing their racquets lower than the rest of the market and having high production costs is what put Dunlop in financial trouble which eventually led to the sale of the company a couple of years back. It seems Dunlop has always priced their products (e.g., racquets, balls, bags, strings, accessories, etc.) below the market, although in my opinion, their products are of much higher than average quality to the rest of the market.

Even with their lower price points, Dunlop used to also give you free stuff for buying one of their racquets, like free packs of balls, ball baskets, racquet bags, hats, grips, etc., and even a free Citizen watch that was worth almost as much as the racquet itself! I guess they just don't mind having lower profits as compared to the rest of the industry.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
The standard joke question we used to ask a max200g player who had game was......

'which lasts longer, your racquet or the stringjob?'

that frame was Blue Star of the racquet biz.
 

max

Legend
Interesting post. I used Max 200 Gs for ten years, quite a bit, and broke just one, shanking a service return. Mine didn't warp, but then, I'd learned that, for myself, the recommended 55 lbs. tension worked best.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I used the Dunlop Max 200G for 13 years and never had one break, crack, nor warp, even the ones that were 13 years old. I still have one that I purchased in 1992 in my closet and it's not warped at all even though it's always been stored strung over all those years.
 

m1stuhxsp4rk5

Professional
they really are great rackets very flexible love the feel on that racket seems to serve very well for me and i get some excellent spin it is a shame they dont make it anymore
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
Jesse is absolutely right. If there was profit in it, it would be on the market. Don't forget, Dunlop tried to update the graphics on the 200g in the last couple of years of its manufacture but I don't think the sales were there once Mac was basically out of the game and Steffi had switched to Wilson. Unfortunately, the IM technology did not translate well into a mid-plus (95+) frame. Too bad, it continues to be my favorite frame.
I thought it was the other way round? Wasn't it that Graf had to switch to Wilson because Dunlop closed their Max200G factory?

Graf's custom Wilson was apparently quite close in spec to her Max, she use 18x20, soft racquet low power, 85si. In an interview she was asked about her new Wilson racquet, she said that she could string it tighter than Max200G (which would crack or warp over 55 lb) and she thought she could hit the ball harder.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
why stopping the production of dunlop max 200 g
It is a fantastic racquet : great control and fantastic touh
Why no other company other than dunlop try to make the graphite/nylon injection production of a tennis racquet????
strange no. because 25 years later some tennis player are still playing with this racquet
Do a search on the all the posts of racketdesign.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/member.php?u=2218

racketdesign was once the head of design for Dunlop. He said in one of his posts that Dunlop, sometime in 2002, wanted to bring back the Max200G, he was a big supporter of the idea but they studied the costs, just wasn't economically feasible to do it.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
But if TW is listening, I'm really hoping that someday they might do a Donnay Pro One and somehow bring back a limited run of this great great racquet. Probably it will never ever happen. :cry:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I thought it was the other way round? Wasn't it that Graf had to switch to Wilson because Dunlop closed their Max200G factory?
I'm pretty sure that's right. I believe Graf had no choice but to switch because Dunlop stopped making the Max 200G and closed the factory.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Slazenger - Dunlop's 'sister' company in England - also had a few Injection Molded frames in the '80s.
I believe the regular size Slazenger Phantom (red and black with double throat brace) was molded in that process.






 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I believe the regular size Slazenger Phantom (red and black with double throat brace) was molded in that process.






That is not a injection Molded Frame. That is a very old Slazenger frame from the late 70's to very early 80's time period. It is grommet-less frame similar in construction to the Original Prince Graphite of 1979.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Banned
Dunlop did not buy Slazenger until 1985. Before 1985 Dunlop and Slazenger were two separate companies.
If that is true, then how do you explain Slazenger's Injection Molded frames which very much resembled the Max 200G?

When were those Slazenger frames produced?
 
Last edited:

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
If that is true, then how do you explain Slazenger's Injection Molded frames which very much resembled the Max 200G?

When were those Slagenger frames produced?
Well, Dunlop didn't stop production of the Max 200G and close that factory until 1992, so they could have made some Slazenger branded frames in the same factory between 1985 and 1992.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
If it were up to me, I'd make this the one and only allowed racquet for the atp :twisted: :evil::evil::evil: /vent
 

AndrewD

Legend
Dunlop did not buy Slazenger until 1985. Before 1985 Dunlop and Slazenger were two separate companies.
That's not actually true. Slazenger was bought out by Dunlop Rubber back in the the late 50's. However, it was only in 85', after a buy-out of Dunlop Rubber, that the two sports groups were brought under the one banner.

Remember, when John McEnroe signed with Dunlop he had actually been negotiating with Slazenger (John Barrett was in charge at the time). However, the parent company - Dunlop- decided that he should be aligned with their brand so he was snapped up by them instead.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
If that is true, then how do you explain Slazenger's Injection Molded frames which very much resembled the Max 200G?

When were those Slazenger frames produced?
There was only one Slazenger Frame that was Injection Molded, the Slazenger Phantom IMF from 1987-1988.

That's not actually true. Slazenger was bought out by Dunlop Rubber back in the the late 50's. However, it was only in 85', after a buy-out of Dunlop Rubber, that the two sports groups were brought under the one banner.

Remember, when John McEnroe signed with Dunlop he had actually been negotiating with Slazenger (John Barrett was in charge at the time). However, the parent company - Dunlop- decided that he should be aligned with their brand so he was snapped up by them instead.
Correct but Dunlop Sport and Slazenger operated as two separate companies and did not share technologies or distribution (they did not share distribution in the U.S. until after 1985) until after 1985 . A example of this new cooperation between Dunlop and Slazneger was line of traditionally manufactured Graphite Composite frames that came out in 1986. The Slazenger Panther Pro line that was made in Germany shared the same mold and factory as the Dunlop Black Max II, Silver Max, Max Competition, SG, Max Carbon and a bunch more that I can't remember at the moment.

Slazenger did not get a Injection Molded Frame until after the Merging of Dunlop and Slazenger.
 
Last edited:

AndrewD

Legend
Correct but Dunlop Sport and Slazenger operated as two separate companies and did not share technologies or distribution (they did not share distribution in the U.S. until after 1985) until after 1985 .
That is vastly different to
Dunlop did not buy Slazenger until 1985. Before 1985 Dunlop and Slazenger were two separate companies.
.

Obviously, Dunlop did buy Slazenger before 1985 and, obviously, if Dunlop were able to step in and take McEnroe away from Slazenger, they DID operate as the same company when it suited Dunlop.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Didn't Dunlop produce the IMF for the Japanese market a few years ago?
Impossible, as there was only one factory in the world that produced the IMF and that was the Dunlop factory in England which shut down in 1992. I understand you couldn't make IMF frames today even if you wanted to as the manufactuing equipment required doesn't exist anymore.
 

Deuce

Banned
There was only one Slazenger Frame that was Injection Molded, the Slazenger Phantom IMF from 1987-1988.
I seem to recall seeing two different injection molded frames from Slazenger.
I have no clue what the model names were, but I'm quite sure I've seen two different ones.

Two different sizes of the same model name, perhaps?

It is possible that what I saw was two different sets of graphics for the same frame, but I do seem to recall that it was two different frame models.

I found a 'Slazenger Panther Tour Plus' injection molded RACQUETBALL racquet that seems fairly recent...
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:U-sZcQw0THkJ:sports-and-outdoors.become.com/squash-and-racquetball/dunlop-squash-racquet+slazenger+%22panther+tour+plus%22+racquetball&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
(scroll about halfway down the page)

Here's a brief description of the injection molding process, as compared to the more popular compression molding...
http://tennis.quickfound.net/training/handbook_of_tennis.html
 
Last edited:

hrstrat57

Hall of Fame
I played the max 200g on and off for about 15 yrs....alternating with ps85 and pog mid....all fantastic sticks.

I still have 3 200g's one is nearly mint without a mark on it. The other two are pretty beat up, all the flaky print is gone, they are all black now.

Never warped or cracked one, these are the 3 I bought, 2 I think in 86 or 87 and the newer one(which has the 2nd gen graphics, gold and green vs all green of the 1st gen)

They are perfect at 55 lbs, never even considered stringing tighter....experimented a bit with looser stringing......55 was spot on.

I actually had them in the bag again last season for a couple of weeks. If you serve and volley they are still a formidable weapon. Agree tho with the poster who commented that they don't hold up so well in modern rally tennis vs a real big hitter......which makes the racquet a compromise I think for most all court players.

I scored the 2 i prestige mp's which sent them back to the closet.

IMO only a st vincent ps85 compares for touch at net for an attacking player.

I have never played a Head Prestige classic tho, I've been told those were right there too......
 

Be Cool

New User
The frame is weak by today's standards for sure, especially with all the racket abuse you see on tour. It took A. Rod serveral swings to the heal of his shoe before his broke (Roger was punishing Andy again). The 200 G would have broke within one swing like that.
 

Deuce

Banned
The frame is weak by today's standards for sure, especially with all the racket abuse you see on tour. It took A. Rod serveral swings to the heal of his shoe before his broke (Roger was punishing Andy again). The 200 G would have broke within one swing like that.
No.
.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
i hit with the racquet a couple years it ago, 'be cool' is right its not a good racquet by todays standards, it played like a noodle with no power at all, if it was such a great racquet they would still make it, even courier said when he practiced with mcenroe recently, mac took out a max200g and courier said he lost 15-20mph on his serve instantly.. its a good racquet to play with for fun i suppose but it cant compete with todays game.. thats why they make the more modern version hotmelt/gel 200g, etc...
 

ilian

Semi-Pro
The frame is weak by today's standards for sure, especially with all the racket abuse you see on tour. It took A. Rod serveral swings to the heal of his shoe before his broke (Roger was punishing Andy again). The 200 G would have broke within one swing like that.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry! Do you remember what kind of abuse this racquet took from John McEnroe? And you are talking about hitting shoes... Get real. This was a very strong frame. The only way to brake it is to string it with a really high tension.
 

ilian

Semi-Pro
i hit with the racquet a couple years it ago, 'be cool' is right its not a good racquet by todays standards, it played like a noodle with no power at all, if it was such a great racquet they would still make it, even courier said when he practiced with mcenroe recently, mac took out a max200g and courier said he lost 15-20mph on his serve instantly.. its a good racquet to play with for fun i suppose but it cant compete with todays game.. thats why they make the more modern version hotmelt/gel 200g, etc...
Did Courier have a measuring device in his pocket or something? The fact that John McEnroe still uses this racquet today tells you that he hasn't really found a better frame! Everything else is rubbish. The racquet was and still is great.
 

Jack & Coke

Professional
don't forgot all of the punishing forehands this little girl used to abuse the 200g with also..



imo, probably the best forehand in women's tennis ever..
 

max

Legend
Dunlop Japan also used injection moulding for a Japan-only frame, the Rimbreed, in the early 2000s.
 

Rorsach

Hall of Fame
All the pics i can find of the Dunlop Rimbreed show a normal everyday frame, NOT a injection molded frame.
 

Azzurri

Legend
I owned 9-11 of these racquets from 1985ish to 1992. I broke every one of them. How? My temper (when I was younger). These racquets took a TON of abuse. I would throw them around, smack the fence, skid off of the ground, but they would only break when I seriously smashed them into the ground. These racquets were well built in my "expert" opinion. I never had one warp either. I did string them at 52 lbs if I remember correctly. No other racquet felt so sweet when hit right..not even the SV.

I have one in near new conditon I play with once in a while and I baby it. I no longer abuse my racquets.

As for the price...I paid around $75 for the 200g in the mid to late 80's. The racquets were cheaper than the PS 85 and POG.
 

Virginia

Hall of Fame
I now have seven 200G's. Two black 200G Pros, three standard black 200G's and two blue/green 200G's. Yes, I have a certain fascination for them, mainly because my favourite player (JMac) used to play extensively with them. :)

They are all in at least 8/10 condition, though a couple of them have slightly faded graphics. Four of them however have no flaws in the graphics whatsoever.

I was extremely lucky in that even the most expensive was only NZ$50 and all the others were $30 or less. All but one had a case in perfect condition and my last two purchases also each included a Dunlop bag in perfect condition which holds two racquets.

I played with one today for the first time. Magnificent racquet! The small head (83si) was only a problem at the net and I duffed a few volleys. Groundstrokes and serving were fantastic though.

Yes, it's relatively heavy to swing, but that weight lends a lot of power to the stroke. I consider it good exercise for the muscles in my upper arm and will play with it on a regular basis as a good training aid. Not to mention the sheer pleasure of handling this beautiful frame!
 

ilian

Semi-Pro
I now have seven 200G's. Two black 200G Pros, three standard black 200G's and two blue/green 200G's. Yes, I have a certain fascination for them, mainly because my favourite player (JMac) used to play extensively with them. :)

They are all in at least 8/10 condition, though a couple of them have slightly faded graphics. Four of them however have no flaws in the graphics whatsoever.

I was extremely lucky in that even the most expensive was only NZ$50 and all the others were $30 or less. All but one had a case in perfect condition and my last two purchases also each included a Dunlop bag in perfect condition which holds two racquets.

I played with one today for the first time. Magnificent racquet! The small head (83si) was only a problem at the net and I duffed a few volleys. Groundstrokes and serving were fantastic though.

Yes, it's relatively heavy to swing, but that weight lends a lot of power to the stroke. I consider it good exercise for the muscles in my upper arm and will play with it on a regular basis as a good training aid. Not to mention the sheer pleasure of handling this beautiful frame!
You have an amazing website there! I too share the opinion that the eighties were the most exciting tennis era!
 
Top