User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,507
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Disappearance of "one-piece" Rackets?

    another thread asked how long a racket usually lasts and a lot of people, myself included, had mentioned it would last a long time until there's a clash in a doubles game, which reminded me of the one clash i had with an RSL racket that's one piece down to the cone. from my limited experience i've only seen not even a handful of rackets made that way. now there is virtually no racket made as one piece, is that true? if not, who still makes "one-piece" rackets?

    i would love to get more info on it, thank you!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK / Belgium
    Posts
    551
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most new rackets are one piece ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,507
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    not the ones that goes past the cone.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,293
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Carlton used to have loads of racquets made as "one piece". I remember the old powerflow racquets in the 90's were laregly "one piece". But imo there's no real advantage of having an integrated cone.

  5. #5
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,507
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R20190 View Post
    Carlton used to have loads of racquets made as "one piece". I remember the old powerflow racquets in the 90's were laregly "one piece". But imo there's no real advantage of having an integrated cone.
    yes i have a carlton powerflo G85 that's one piece down to the cone. for some reason, when do a backhand drive, it's more responsive with the integrated cone than the conventional way where the shaft and the cone is separate. thought?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Maklike Tier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wherever you have a break in materials, or a change from one component to another, you create a feature where you change the resonance of the object. I think rackets have evolved the way that they have so that the shock of hitting the shuttle doesn't resonate all the way to your hand. That's a big reason they still use wood for the handles, because it's light and has good damping properties.

    As for the 'one piece' method, rackets don't break at the T, so it doesn't matter how the T is constructed from a strength point-of-view. Generally what happens is that the head and shaft is glued together using a 'T' shaped insert, and than there is a finishing layer of carbon binding it all together. Once vacuumed and autoclaved, it's a homogeneous structure, so it makes no difference to the strength, handling or responsiveness of the design as a whole.

  7. #7
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,507
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maklike Tier View Post
    Wherever you have a break in materials, or a change from one component to another, you create a feature where you change the resonance of the object. I think rackets have evolved the way that they have so that the shock of hitting the shuttle doesn't resonate all the way to your hand. That's a big reason they still use wood for the handles, because it's light and has good damping properties.

    As for the 'one piece' method, rackets don't break at the T, so it doesn't matter how the T is constructed from a strength point-of-view. Generally what happens is that the head and shaft is glued together using a 'T' shaped insert, and than there is a finishing layer of carbon binding it all together. Once vacuumed and autoclaved, it's a homogeneous structure, so it makes no difference to the strength, handling or responsiveness of the design as a whole.
    thank you for the explanation!

  8. #8
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,796
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe it would have been useful to illustrate the ones you mean from the get-go :

    Name:  DSC00091 (Medium).jpg
Views: 182
Size:  47.3 KB

    (pic found on BC)
    Last edited by demolidor; 11-17-2012 at 07:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Maklike Tier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So does the shaft morph into the cone which morphs into the handle - ie: no joints?

    Seems the most interesting part of the racket isn't actually in the photo!

  10. #10
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,796
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maklike Tier View Post
    So does the shaft morph into the cone which morphs into the handle - ie: no joints?

    Seems the most interesting part of the racket isn't actually in the photo!
    Yep, shaft morphs into the cone which was meant by "one piece" in this case . Thought I'd show you the pic. thinking you might have imagined something else here. Remember them from when I just started, thought they looked pretty awesome but can imagine they might perhaps have been too fragile as a reason for their disappearance (not that I have heard or remember comments on that) in my time away from the sport.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Maklike Tier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,193
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They shouldn't be fragile, they should be stronger than any other method because there's no stress-risers. The question is whether the design can be adequately damped.

    Actually the real question is whether the production costs can be amortised within standard sell-prices, which I suspect would be 'no'.

    Current production methods are pretty low-skilled / high margin, all things considered.
    Last edited by Maklike Tier; 11-17-2012 at 08:19 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •