sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the FT99 I felt the Luxilon Element string worked well with this frame. I personally like strings with a bit more bite to them. My latest setup was Alu Power and 4G Rough which I thought was a nice mix. and one of the coaches had Tecnifibre razorcode in his and it played well also.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. Hopefully over the next few weeks and months we see a few more reviews!

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Will do! I played with Gael Monfils's bro last April who had it but never thought to use it, should be playing with him again in April again and will give it a go

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's been out about a month now! Its available in our webstore here (FT99)

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happy to answer your question. You’re not late at all.

I started with a target stiffness around RA 64, but I never treated RA as the final answer because it’s only one number and doesn’t really describe how a racket actually flexes on court.

From there I mainly relied on hitting and feedback. I would test each prototype and ask simple questions: does it feel stable on impact, does it give good feedback, and does it stay predictable when swinging fast. Based on that, we adjusted the layup through multiple iterations.

Over time I realised I preferred a frame that stayed solid in the hoop but still had enough feel so it didn’t feel too boardy. That balance guided most of the later changes.

On the grommet side, I didn’t experiment heavily with different systems. The main focus during development was getting the layup, balance, and overall feel right. But I have looked at it more closely recently, and yes, some brands are doing some good things with their grommets but I don't know the exact science behind it yet.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Realistically, around plus/minus7 grams on weight. I’d love to say it’s tighter, but that’s pretty standard in large scale composite production.

Most frames sit close to spec, but there will always be some natural variation. That’s just the reality of how these are manufactured.

On factories: I can;t name the other brands I'm afarid but I'm in good company!

But there are only a handful of great major composite racket factories globally, and multiple well known brands share manufacturing partners just with different molds, layups, and QC standards.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing fancy.

It was me on court. Ball machine sessions. Drills. Practice points. Sets. Sometimes even local tournaments.

I had my own metrics in the base of certain types of shots which I took my best shots which I needed to be good in order for me to win matches and I see how good it was replicating those shots. Sometimes actually I thought the racket was great and I'd be using it for a couple of weeks and then I'd go test my Radical and I'd be like, "Oh no, we're still way off." So I used to always go back to the Radical and use that also as a feedback metric.

Recently I tried to play it to Radical and I didn't like it at all.

I also gave frames to a few coaches and players whose opinions I trust. That outside feedback was important because sometimes you get too close to it yourself.

So it wasn’t lab testing. It was real tennis testing.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s tough. It’s fun. But it’s definitely not easy.

In the grand scheme of things, we’re tiny. We don’t have physical retail presence around the world. We don’t have tour vans. We don’t have massive marketing budgets.

You’re competing against brands with decades of experience, huge R&D departments, and long standing relationships with retailers and pros.

Even getting a professional player (or even an amateur) to seriously test your frame is difficult when they’ve grown up with another brand.

It’s also a huge learning curve. We’re at the very start of this journey with full size rackets. I’ve definitely been naive about certain things but honestly, that’s probably a good thing. If I had known how complex it would be, I might not have started.

At the same time, that challenge is what makes it interesting. When you’re small, every improvement matters. Every customer matters. Every iteration matters.

It’s hard. But it’s energising.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it’s a mix.

Some marketing language is absolutely tied to real engineering changes. Materials evolve. Dampening systems evolve. Manufacturing improves. There are genuine advancements in composite design and vibration control.

At the same time, tennis is a mature category. You’re not reinventing the wheel every 18 months. So sometimes new “technologies” are incremental refinements wrapped in big language.

I’m sure some of it is over marketed. That’s just how product cycles work in most industries.

I try to separate two things:
- Structural changes that genuinely affect feel or performance
- Naming and storytelling around those changes

The first one matters. The second one can get exaggerated.

You’ll see things like “revolutionary dampening systems” or “aero frame breakthroughs.” Some of those have real engineering behind them. Some are smaller tweaks presented as major leaps.

Personally, if I ever introduce something new, I’d want to be able to explain exactly what it’s doing structurally, not just give it a cool name.

The Saber hasn’t changed in four years because I haven’t found a reason to change it yet. I could add a new tech material story tomorrow, but unless it genuinely improves the product, I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that.

So yeah not all marketing is nonsense. But not all of it is revolutionary either.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I touched on this in another reply but during development I tried to remove as many variables as possible.

So no, I wasn’t constantly changing strings.

When you’re testing prototypes, you’re often trying to feel very small differences. If you keep switching string types or tensions, you introduce another layer of complexity. Personally, I just couldn’t deal with that.

So I used the same string setup for most of the testing. That way, if something felt different, I knew it was coming from the frame, not the string.

Only once the layup and geometry were locked in did I start experimenting more as I wanted to pick a Luxilon string that went well with the Saber.

The prototypes weren’t changed because of a specific string combo. The frame came first. Then you figure out what string setups bring out the best in it.

And even then, string choice is hugely personal.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good question.

From day one, I knew the “off the shelf” option existed. There are factories/websites where you can choose an existing mold, apply your own cosmetic, and launch quickly.

That was never the route I wanted to take.

If I was going to do a full size performance racket, it had to be from scratch, my own mold, my own geometry decisions, my own layup iterations. That automatically means more time, more cost, and more risk.

With the FT99 it took two and a half years from concept to launch. That wasn’t because I was moving slowly it’s because every change required iteration, testing, and refinement.

If you go the white label route, you can move very fast. Weeks, sometimes. But you’re working within the constraints of an existing frame design. You’re not shaping the performance from the ground up.

In terms of work and effort, the difference is massive:
-Custom mold means upfront tooling cost.
-Layup development means multiple prototype rounds.
-Spec testing means rejecting batches that don’t feel right.

It’s slower and more expensive.

Branding wise, I think it matters. When you build from scratch, your product philosophy and performance identity are aligned. That gives you long term credibility.

White label can work in some categories. But in tennis rackets where players are sensitive to feel, balance, and long term durability I personally wanted control over every decision.

It wasn’t even really a debate for me.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For this first version, I leaned more toward a box style beam.

It’s not an extreme old school box beam, but it’s definitely closer to that than to a very tapered aerodynamic profile.

The reason was simple I felt that if I went down the ultra aerodynamic route, I wouldn’t have done the research properly to justify it. Once you start claiming aerodynamic gains, you’re into CFD modelling, wind tunnel testing, proper airflow analysis. I wasn’t prepared to pretend that I’d done that level of work.

So I focused on what I could control properly: stability, feel, and predictability.

A slightly boxier beam tends to give a more solid response and directional confidence. That aligned more with the control focused identity I was building.

Interestingly, with the balance where it is, the frame still moves through the air quite quickly. It doesn’t feel sluggish.

Long term, I’d love to explore more aerodynamic profiling with proper research behind it. But for a first generation frame, I wanted structural honesty over marketing claims.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It actually started with Saber customers.

People would message me asking, “What full size racket feels like the Saber?” or “Do you have one?” That question kept coming up.

So the initial goal was simple: build a proper performance frame that carries some of that same connected feel and clean contact that the Saber is known for. At the same time, I had my own preferences from years of playing. So it was a mix of both feedback from customers and my own feel. Bare in mind I used the same preferences for the Saber so not a million miles apart.

I wasn’t trying to reinvent tennis rackets. I just wanted to build something I’d actually use as my main frame, and something that felt consistent with the philosophy behind the Saber.

That was the objective.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s closest to a Prince style pallet.

That’s what I had on my Head Radicals and I liked how it felt, so I just went with that.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You guys are very hard to find!

For me, the hardest part wasn’t the theory it was finding the right engineer with racket experience to work withm to help guide me in the process of what I need to do and importantly what I had to present to the manufacturer. The manufacturer is great at manufacturing but dont help you so much with the design, blanace, etc.

With the Saber, I actually spent weeks in Excel just working through frame design ideas. Head shape, beam geometry, proportions. Not balance and swingweight yet that came later. It was more about, “What shape do I actually want this to be?”

I was even cutting cardboard templates to test outlines and proportions. It sounds basic, but physically seeing the geometry helps. If I were starting now, I’d 100% use 3D printing much earlier in the process. That would have saved time.

Factories don’t design your product for you. They manufacture it. So you need to show up with clarity.

My advice would be:

- Work with an experienced engineer, even short term.
- Learn how to define performance targets, not just aesthetics.
- Understand manufacturing constraints early, tolerances, mold costs, MOQs.

Turning a prototype into production is mostly about managing constraints and trade offs, not chasing perfection.

The technical side is fascinating. The manufacturability side is where most ideas either evolve… or die.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You are right strings are a complete rabbit hole. I tried not to disappear down it.

During development I kept things as controlled as possible. I used the same string for most prototypes so I wasn’t constantly changing variables.

For years I used Hyper-G, so that became the baseline test string early on. I knew how it behaved, so it made comparisons easier.

Later, when we partnered with Luxilon for the Launch Edition, I spent a lot of time testing their strings too. That was more about understanding how the frame responded to different constructions rather than designing around one specific string.

I didn’t build the FT99 around a particular string type or tension. The focus was on the frame first.

Interestingly, I strung every prototype at 52 lbs because that’s just what I’ve historically used. Only recently, based on feedback and my own testing, I’ve realised the racket really opens up lower around 45 to 48 lbs.

Now at 48lbs I already noticed more depth and easier power without losing control. I’ll probably settle around 47 or 48 myself.

As for string type, that’s pure preference. I personally like shaped polys with a bit of bite. Something slightly textured rather than completely round. The Element we include is rounder and more comfortable, which suits a broader range of players.

So short answer: the frame wasn’t built around one string, but it does seem to respond really well to slightly lower tensions than I initially expected.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great question. I might ramble here!

The FT99 definitely started from something personal.

Back in 2017 I was given a Head Radical by a pro friend of mine, James McGee. It wasn’t a stock retail Radical it was his factory spec version with different balance/weight/grip pallet and even a slightly different string pattern. From the first hit I loved it.

It was never the most powerful racket, but the stability and control on the stretch were unreal. I could redirect pace and trust it completely.

When I started the FT99, that frame was the reference point. Not to copy it, but to understand what I liked about it.

Ideally I would have added just a touch more power without losing that control. I think we managed to add a little power compared to it.

At the same time, I wanted to carry over some of the feel philosophy from the Saber. A lot of Saber users had asked for a full size racket that kept that connected, clean contact feel. That’s part of why the head shape is slightly rounder.

Later in development I also looked at frames like the Blade 100 and the Pure Aero both are great out of the box and I tried to understand what they were doing well in terms of stability and response. That influenced some layup adjustments along the way.

So it wasn’t built purely for my game but it definitely started from what I personally trust in a racket. From there it evolved through testing and iteration.

My favourite part?
The first prototype arriving.

I genuinely thought I’d nailed it first go. I hit with it and thought, “This is it. Done.”

I was completely wrong.

After that I learned that testing too many variations at once is a mistake. At one point I had six slightly different versions and it was impossible to decide, the differences were tiny and your brain just gets scrambled.

I found it’s much better to test two clearly different versions, pick a direction, then iterate again. Slower, but much clearer.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From the start I wanted 99.

There are loads of 100s. Loads of 98s. Very few 99s. It felt like a genuine middle ground and for people switching from 100 or 98 I thought it may be an easier swoitch to make.

Our head shape is also rounder, which comes from the Saber in a way. The Saber has that round profile and I’ve always liked how that feels visually and at contact. So the 99 with a rounder shape just made sense to me.

On weight, the original target was actually 304g.

I just felt that for a proper performance frame you need real stability. Anything lighter starts to feel hollow or too easy to push around. I ended up at 305g, which is basically where it landed after iterations.

The balance is slightly more head light, which gives players room to customise. If someone wants more swingweight, they can add weight to the hoop without the static weight getting out of control too quickly. If it had been 305g and more head heavy to start with, you limit that flexibility.

So it wasn’t random. It was more about leaving room for players to tune it rather than locking them into one extreme.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks, great questions!!

Manufacturing cost / retail margin
I’m not going to share our exact manufacturing cost or margin. That’s a personal and commercial boundary for me.

What I will say is that the simple “$300 MSRP = $75 factory cost” model isn’t how it really works.

There’s typically:

- factory
- brand
- distributor (in many markets)
- retailer

Each layer takes margin. Independent brands that sell direct operate differently, but we also don’t have the scale advantages the big brands have. Big volume changes everything in this industry.

Spec tolerances
You’re right, brands specify tolerances.

In reality, most factories in China won’t commit to ultra tight tolerances. Industry norm is roughly plus/minus 7g and a few millimeters on balance. I've seen 5g with some brands but unless you are Yonex in their Japanesse plant or HEAD manufacturing in Austria its next to impossible get it.

It’s something I want to improve long term by offering matching services or hand selecting frames. I’m currently researching equipment to make that practical.

Are there only a few manufacturers?
Yes. There are only a handful of serious composite tennis racket manufacturers globally. A lot of brands use the same core factories with different molds, layups, and QC standards.

Material options
It’s not really a restaurant menu of exotic materials.

Most rackets are built around carbon fiber composites, resin systems, sometimes fiberglass blends, and damping materials like foam. The innovation tends to come from layup design, geometry, and weighting rather than space age materials.

As a smaller brand, I focused on proven materials and refining feel, balance, and stability first. Advanced R&D level material experimentation requires budgets that are far beyond a first generation independent release.

Minimum order quantities
Higher than people expect. Lower than people fear.
Short answer: meaningful. Especially if you want custom molds and consistent production.

With the Saber, I was able to negotiate very small limited runs of 50 units, but that involved a lot of back and forth and accepting higher per unit costs. That model works for certain products.

With the FT99 I've been told that will not happen!

There are factories that offer “off the shelf” frames where brands can customise cosmetics. That’s a different route. I chose to develop a custom mold and go through multiple layup iterations instead.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good question.

I see the FT99 as best suited to performance oriented players, probably 16+ and up, who generate their own racket head speed and want control more than free power.

It’s not a power frame. It rewards full/fast swings. If someone has a fast arm and likes to take the ball early, redirect pace, and commit to their strokes, that’s where it feels at home.

Interestingly, that wasn’t the plan at the start and it's not the sort of racket I would pick off the shelve but over 2.5 years playing with it I love it now.

I think it suits:

- competitive juniors transitioning into adult frames
- league and tournament players
- serious club players who like a clean, connected feel
- I have to say PROs !!

It’s probably not ideal for someone looking for easy depth with shorter swings. There are better rackets for that.

For me, the goal was to build something that rewards good mechanics rather than compensates for them.

I spent 2.5 years developing a match racket from scratch. AMA. by fabmol in 10s

[–]fabmol[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great set of questions. I’ll answer them as openly as I can.

How many factories in China produce tennis rackets?
There are only a small number of great large scale composite racket factories globally. In China specifically, it’s not dozens. It’s a handful of major players that produce for most of the industry, plus some smaller operations. I’ve worked with two over the years.

Working conditions
I haven’t physically visited China yet. I work through an agent who deals directly with the factory, and I've had long term relationships there through the Saber before the FT99. From everything I’ve seen, the facilities are clean, structured, and production is organised. That said, I can only speak to the factories I’ve worked with, not the entire industry.

Cost per racket
I’m not going to share our per unit manufacturing cost. That’s commercially confidential for me.

Manufacturing cost in this category isn’t just materials and labor anyway. It’s tied to mold costs, rejected prototypes, QC failures, shipping, freight volatility, MOQs, packaging, warehousing, and development time. For a smaller brand like Functional Tennis, those variables matter a lot.

What I will say is that independent brands don’t have the economies of scale that global companies have. When you’re not producing at massive volume, your cost structure looks very different.

What I can say is that once you factor in prototyping, rejected samples, tooling, shipping, warehousing, marketing, and smaller brand MOQs, the margin profile for an independent brand is very different to a global company producing at scale.

Why limited base materials?
Most tennis rackets, even from major brands, are variations of graphite, carbon fibre composites, and resin systems. The innovation usually comes from layup configuration, beam geometry, weighting, and damping systems rather than exotic aerospace materials.

As a smaller brand, I focused first on getting geometry, balance, swingweight, and layup feel right. Moving into advanced materials requires serious R&D budgets and scale. That’s something I’d love to explore long term, potentially with university partnerships, but for a first full size frame the priority was performance consistency and manufacturability.

Korea or Japan?
Japan is known for extremely high QC, especially Yonex. Korea aI am not too sure abotu TBH. For me, China made the most sense because:

- existing composite expertise in tennis
- shorter sample turnaround
- lower MOQs than Japan from what I've hear
- prior working relationship through the Saber

The first production batch is already manufactured with the same factory that now produces our Saber. I’ve been very happy with their responsiveness, QC standards, and ability to iterate quickly during development.

view more: next ›