FLO Optimisation: Our First Experiment

For years, padel has sold rackets by placing players into boxes.

Beginner.

Intermediate.

Advanced.

Professional.

Then come the familiar choices:

Round or diamond.

Soft or hard.

Control or power.

At FLO, we have started wondering whether we have been asking the wrong questions.

A player is not a level. A player is a collection of behaviours.

How do they generate pace?

What happens when the ball arrives quickly?

Do they create power through their legs, rotation and core—or mostly through their arm and hand?

Do they block volleys or accelerate through them?

What happens on an overhead?

Do they need the racket to help create energy, or control the energy they already produce?

Those questions form the beginning of the FLO Optimisation Tool.

Before asking customers to trust it, we wanted to test the thinking on someone we know rather well.

Me.

Experiment No. 1: Tariq

I have played racket sports for a long time, so I thought I understood my game reasonably well.

The Optimisation questions made me look at it differently.

One characteristic became obvious very quickly:

Feel in my hands is one of the strongest parts of my game.

At the net, I can use an opponent’s pace, soften the ball, change direction and manipulate the racket face.

I enjoy volleying because I can feel what is happening at contact.

But the questions were not only interested in what I do well.

They began exposing how I do it.

That is where things became more interesting.

Because my hands are good, I have spent years allowing them to do too much.

I do not always generate acceleration efficiently through my legs, rotation and core.

When there is already pace on the ball, that is not necessarily a major problem. I can borrow the opponent’s energy and control it with my hands.

Take away that incoming energy and the weakness becomes easier to see.

The Shots That Exposed It

My accelerated—or slap—volley is a good example.

When I need to attack a slower ball, I tend to ask my arm and hand to produce the additional speed rather than generating it efficiently through the complete kinetic chain.

My overhead tells a similar story.

I can control and place overheads, but I do not currently generate enough racket-head acceleration to make them consistently explosive.

Consequently, I do not produce the easy tap-outs available to players with better acceleration and overhead mechanics.

That gave us the first important lesson from Optimisation:

Do not only identify a player’s favourite shots. Understand where their energy comes from.

We had observed a strength.

We had identified a limitation.

Now we had to translate that information into a racket.

From Player Behaviour to Materials

This is where FLO Optimisation moves from questionnaire to engineering.

We did not ask:

Which racket would Tariq like?

We asked:

What physical characteristics might suit someone who plays like this?

The word might matters.

At this point, every material choice remains a hypothesis.

Protect the Strength First

My touch and volley game told us not to sacrifice manoeuvrability.

We therefore began with the Edge Control mould and an even balance target.

A heavily head-loaded racket might provide more momentum on overheads, but it could also interfere with one of the best parts of my game: the ability to position and manipulate the racket quickly at the net.

We did not want to chase one weakness by unnecessarily compromising a strength.

So we kept the platform controllable and manoeuvrable.

Then came the foam.

Hard or Soft?

Historically, I have preferred soft EVA.

But simply placing soft foam into the racket would not necessarily suit the rest of my playing behaviour.

When I block a volley or redirect an opponent’s pace, I do not want the response to feel excessively lively or unpredictable.

I want stability and control.

On the other hand, a completely hard core could demand greater acceleration precisely where my game currently struggles to produce it.

That led to our first layered-EVA experiment:

Hard–Soft–Hard.

Our hypothesis is that the harder outer layers will contribute structure and stability while the softer middle introduces additional compression and assistance.

Whether the finished racket actually behaves that way depends on much more than the names of the foam layers.

Density, thickness, placement, face construction, resin, curing and the complete lay-up will all contribute to the final result.

Instead of deciding that I am simply a “hard-foam player” or a “soft-foam player,” we are testing whether one construction can provide different characteristics depending on the type of contact I produce.

Why We Selected 18K

The face presented another interesting choice.

We selected an 18K carbon construction.

Not because 18K is automatically an “advanced” material.

Not because a higher number necessarily makes a racket better.

And not because every 18K face behaves in exactly the same way.

My hands already provide touch. What I want from this particular face construction is a clean, stable and predictable response.

We expect the selected 18K lay-up to complement my blocks, controlled volleys and placement.

Beneath it, the Hard–Soft–Hard EVA is intended to stop the overall construction from becoming unnecessarily unforgiving.

Again, that is the theory.

The completed racket still has to prove it.

FLO Core™ Infinity

Finally, V1 uses FLO Core™ Infinity, continuing the internal foam through the racket structure and handle as part of our approach to feel and vibration behaviour.

Its effect cannot be judged from the technology name alone.

We need to compare what we expect with what I actually experience during repeated play.

Suddenly, a collection of answers had become a physical specification:

• Edge Control mould

• Even balance target

• Selected 18K carbon face

• Hard–Soft–Hard EVA

• FLO Core™ Infinity

That is Experiment No. 1.

That is Tariq V1.

But We Do Not Know Whether We Got It Right

This may be the most important sentence in the article:

We do not know yet.

Optimisation should not become marketing dressed up as science.

We have formed a hypothesis.

We examined a player’s behaviour, translated that behaviour into material choices and developed a racket we believe may complement it.

Now I have to play with it.

The court gets the final vote.

Does the harder outer EVA provide the stability we expected?

Can I feel assistance from the softer middle when I need additional depth?

Does the selected face give me the response I wanted?

Does the racket help my accelerated volleys without compromising my touch?

What happens to my overhead?

Does the even balance preserve manoeuvrability?

How does the racket feel after a long session rather than ten impressive minutes?

And, just as importantly:

Where were our assumptions wrong?

Those answers become evidence for the Optimisation Tool.

What We Need to Record

“I like it” or “I do not like it” is useful, but it is not enough.

During testing, we need to record the situations producing those reactions.

For example:

• Defensive blocks

• Controlled volleys

• Accelerated volleys

• Serves

• Bandejas

• Viborás

• Overheads

• Off-centre contact

• Longer matches

• Fatigue

• Vibration and comfort

• Confidence under pressure

If the racket feels excellent at the net but becomes demanding from the back of the court, that distinction matters.

If it produces more depth but reduces confidence in short volleys, that matters too.

The purpose is not to collect positive comments.

The purpose is to understand the relationship between the specification and the player.

This Is Not My Finished Racket

There is another difference between this experiment and purchasing a conventional model.

We are going to save the specification.

This is:

Tariq — Version 1.

As I play with it, we can record what works and what does not.

Perhaps Version 2 keeps the mould and changes the foam.

Perhaps we adjust the balance.

Perhaps we discover that this particular 18K construction is not the face I need after all.

Perhaps the original hypothesis works well and V2 requires only a small adjustment.

Or perhaps something more important changes.

I might change.

The Player Is Allowed to Evolve

If I improve how I use my legs, rotation and core, my accelerated volley should behave differently.

If my overhead technique develops and my racket-head speed increases, the assistance I need today may no longer be the assistance I need tomorrow.

That does not mean everything learned from V1 becomes useless.

We do not throw away the record and begin shopping again.

We return to my saved Player DNA and change the relevant variable.

Version 1 becomes Version 2.

Over time, something more interesting begins to happen.

We stop searching for the mythical perfect racket.

Instead, we build a record of the relationship between:

• Player behaviour

• Technique

• Materials

• Construction

• Measured characteristics

• On-court performance

• Personal experience

The racket develops.

The player develops.

And the record helps us understand how the two are connected.

What FLO Optimisation Should Become

We do not want FLO Optimisation to say:

Tell us your level and we will tell you which racket to buy.

We want it to say:

Tell us how you play.

We will translate your game into a material hypothesis.

Then we will test it and learn together.

Tariq is Experiment No. 1.

Version 1 is not the answer.

It is the first properly documented question.

Now let us see where it takes us.

Player → DNA → Materials → Racket → Play → Learn → Evolve

Feel the FLO.