Category Archives: elbow
Our Questron in Action!
As you know, Racquet Quest is a data-driven business, and data requires numbers. To generate those numbers, we have designed and built several devices.
One device is the Questron!
The Questron is used to test every string we receive, and the data is compiled to understand where that particular string fits.
So, instead of talking about it we have included a short video!
Thank you for watching our Questron in Action! If you have a question, or a particular string of interest, please let us know. We may have already taken the data! On GASP.network there are many graphs of previous tests. GASP.network is a membership ($40.00 one time) site.
The Elephant in the Room!
I suspect we all have heard that expression!
It means there is something that everyone tries to ignore, but it is too large to do so!
I recently read an article in Racquet Sports Industries authored by Georgetta L. Morque. The title is “Tackling Tennis Elbow.” Tennis elbow is an important topic and deserves much attention. Georgetta is writing about ways to mitigate tennis elbow after the fact.
Let’s try to prevent tennis elbow, so it does not need to be treated!
When we say stiff, it means a string with less than 4% elongation at 60 pounds which is our testing parameter. Most strings, and for this discussion, strings exhibiting that property will be monofilament PET-based (polyester).
Fully understanding this required a lot of testing, both lab and play, for many playing styles and racquets. To make a long story short, as a racquet technologies business, we decided not to promote polyester strings for most players. That sounds silly, but why take a chance when you don’t have to!
Our success is based on helping you, the player, perform the best you can, so it does not make sense to promote something contrary to that philosophy. Probably 75% of our clients have come to us for something different, so we have a “head start.”
So why do so many players use it or want to use it?
We believe it is because they have not been exposed to alternative string materials. Some outstanding players at the pro level use it, so it must be good, and it is for about 10-11 games. Of course, manufacturers and marketers of polyester string stand to make a nice profit! It is in their best interest to promote products by adding some terminology and material to make the string less stiff.
A polyester string is deficient in power and needs to be walloped, and the harder it is hit, the stiffer it becomes, which is the problem. Developing bodies can’t tolerate that level of impact for long.
Head Boom Team 2022…BOOM!
It is here, and I bet you heard another big BOOM recently!
The Head Boom Team 2022 has arrived and is ready for you to try! The Boom Team is a valuable addition to the Head lineup.
For years players have been asking for a 102 square inch racquet that has the “player” characteristics they wanted.
Player characteristics can mean different things to different players, but here is what the Head Boom Team 2022 has:
A fairly thin beam
A thin head cross-section
A modified box beam shaft cross-section
This racquet continues with Graphene and fresh Auxetic material that has been popular in the Boom Pro and Boom MP!
All specifications are in the chart below but suffice to say; this is a significant step in the right direction!
Looking at the inside of the shaft, you will notice the transitional shape from a thin box beam into a slightly thicker trapezoidal beam.
The head shape also continues with the broader upper section like the Boom Pro and Boom MP. Most “aggressive” shots are hitting the string bed in this area, so giving it more energy makes sense!
The density of the string in that area should contribute to good string life.
The first thing you notice upon pickup (first moment) is the weight distribution. While this is still a “headlight” model (see the specs below), the weight is toward the tip of the racquet.
We have had great results with the Boom Pro and Boom MP in both “retail” and full custom racquets, so, If you are considering a racquet upgrade, this one should be on your list!
Manufacturer | Head |
---|---|
Racquet Model | Head Boom Team 2022 |
Reference Tension | 55 lbs - 24.9 kg |
String | Head Reflex MLT 17 |
Machine Used | True Tension Professional |
ASPS, RDC | 48.0 |
ASPS, FlexFour | 64 |
Racquet Flex, RDC | 61 - After stringing |
Racquet Flex, FlexFour | 45.0 |
Racquet - In Plane Stiffness | 389.6 lbs/Inch |
Weight, Grams | 300 |
Weight, Ounces | 10.58 |
Balance, mm | 337 |
Balance, Inch | 13.27 |
Length, Cm | 68.6 |
Length, Inch | 27.008 |
Head Width | 9.97 |
Head Length | 13.065 |
Head Area, cm2 | 659.7 |
Head Area, Sq. Inch | 102.3 |
Number of Main Strings | 16 |
Number of Cross Strings | 19 |
Ratio Cross/Mains | .642 |
Main String Grid | 7.80 |
Cross String Grid | 10.80 |
Density (% of head filled with string) | .845 |
Average Cross String Space | .568 |
Average Main String Space | .500 |
Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT | 33 |
Dynamic Tension, Lbs/in | 184.57 |
First Moment, Nm | .786 |
Polar Moment | 320 |
Torsional Stability | 15 |
Swing Weight, Kg/cm2 | 305 |
Swing Weight, Ounces | 10.76 |
Swing Weight Calculated | 340.7 |
Power, RDC | 46 |
Control, RDC | 54 |
Manueverability, RDC | 83 |
Power, Calculated | 1921.4 |
Head Points | 1.89 |
Head Weight, % | 49.1% |
Center of Percussion | 20.8 |
Dwell Time, ms | 9.18 |
Efective Stiffness - lbs | 26.9 |
K, Lb/In | 153.85 |
Recoil Weight | 138.76 |
Twist Weight | 222.21 |
End Weight | 114.3 |
Tip Weight | 187.8 |
9 O'Clock | 91.5 |
3 O'Clock | 93.6 |
Butt Cap | 114.8 |
What’s The Difference?
As tennis players, you must constantly ask “what’s the difference” when it comes to tennis racquets and string! Well, as racquet technicians we ask the same questions!
This post is intended to showcase the differences of string in testing, not playing, however, some of the data may be noticeable to the player in certain situations.
What this graph shows us, in addition to our trying to save a tree by printing on the back of previously used paper, is that each of these stings will provide almost the same performance. This is indicated by the curve and how closely related the strings are.

Tensile Strength Comparison
The differences you do see here can be attributed to the gauge, or diameter, of the string, with the largest diameter (Tour Bite) having the highest tensile strength. Down in the “hitting” displacement range (way below the 39.9mm!), there is very little difference.
The tensile strength can be a factor as the string begins to “notch” or otherwise come apart. Each of the strings in this graph is monofilament so notching would be the failure mode in a racquet.
Head Prestige Tour 2021
This racquet has the potential to be the hottest new Prestige in a long time. The “Tour” series is not new to the Prestige line but this one has some differences that are meaningful, we think!
This new Tour is a 16×19 string pattern inserted into a 95 square inch hitting area! Compare that to the previous Tour with a 18×19 string pattern in a 99 square inch head(now the new Prestige MP)…so you can see where this one is headed!
Also included in the Prestige Tour is the Auxetic material and construction that is intended to provide a better feeling impact and maybe a little more “energy”. The shaft has a slightly different geometry and is a little shorter than some other models, however, the graphics indicate the shaft is “elongated”.
The “box” beam is a relatively constant 22mm from start to finish and is beautifully done in matt black transitioning into the Prestige maroon.
Manufacturer | Head |
---|---|
Racquet Model | Head Prestige Tour 2021 |
Reference Tension | 53 lbs - 24.0 kg |
String | Victrex 7718 (PEEK) |
Machine Used | True Tension Professional |
ASPS, RDC | 50.0 |
ASPS, FlexFour | 63.5 |
Racquet Flex, RDC | 63 - After stringing |
Racquet Flex, FlexFour | 42.5 |
Racquet - In Plane Stiffness | 384.6 lbs/Inch |
Weight, Grams | 336 |
Weight, Ounces | 11.85 |
Balance, mm | 326 |
Balance, Inch | 12.83 |
Length, Cm | 68.5 |
Length, Inch | 26.968 |
Head Width | 9.406 |
Head Length | 12.78 |
Head Area, cm2 | 608.9 |
Head Area, Sq. Inch | 94.4 |
Number of Main Strings | 16 |
Number of Cross Strings | 19 |
Ratio Cross/Mains | .620 |
Main String Grid | 7.20 |
Cross String Grid | 9.125 |
Density (% of head filled with string) | .695 |
Average Cross String Space | .464 |
Average Main String Space | .445 |
Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT | 34 |
Dynamic Tension, Lbs/in | 190.16 |
First Moment, Nm | .844 |
Polar Moment | 347 |
Torsional Stability | 16 |
Swing Weight, Kg/cm2 | 331 |
Swing Weight, Ounces | 11.68 |
Swing Weight Calculated | 357.1 |
Power, RDC | 53 |
Control, RDC | 47 |
Manueverability, RDC | 66 |
Power, Calculated | 1968.0 |
Head Points | 5.20 |
Head Weight, % | 47.6% |
Center of Percussion | 21.1 |
Dwell Time, ms | 9.00 |
Efective Stiffness - lbs | 27.9 |
K, Lb/In | 160.26 |
Recoil Weight | 161.61 |
Twist Weight | 223.59 |
End Weight | 136.8 |
Tip Weight | 200.6 |
9 O'Clock | 99.5 |
3 O'Clock | 101.4 |
Butt Cap | 134.9 |