Tecnifibre Slash Review – Mostafa Asal’s brand new squash racket

What’s new with the Tecnifibre Slash?

Comparing the Tecnifibre Slash to the older Suprem, there’s a few key differences to be aware of:

Shape

The first, and most prominent, is the Slash rackets have a different shape to the older frames. With the previous Suprem, the 125 had a small head, but the 130 and 135 had much larger, wider heads. Owing to their unwieldily shape, they almost felt like a halfway house between squash and tennis rackets.

With the new range, the heads on the 125, 130 and 135 are all uniform in shape. They’re also longer and slimmer than their previous counterparts. This elongated shape, to me, is much nicer than the old shape – a big win for Tecnifibre. They almost feel like ‘hybrid’ rackets, with a stringbed much longer than most ‘traditional’ shaped rackets.

The new 120

The odd-one-out when it comes to shape is the 120. This is a brand new weight for Tecnifibre, with this racket theoretically being the lightest in their entire ‘pro’ line-up.

This racket has a smaller, shorter head size than the other Slash rackets (461cm² vs 485cm²), though is slightly wider. This shape is much more in line with most traditional squash rackets and closely matches the old Suprem 125 shape. The frame of racket itself is also thinner than the rest of the range.

The 120 is Mostafa Asal’s racket of choice. This means it’ll undoubtedly find its way into the hands of most players considering the Tecnifibre Slash range.

Purchase links
Amazon
PDH Sports

The X-Top

Last season, Tecnifibre removed the bumper strip from the top of their Carboflex rackets. They claimed a more head-light balance, a more aerodynamic shape, and the ability to get closer to the walls. 

In its place, they included a new Kevlar fibre section at the top of the racket. This claims to offer the same levels of durability as a bumper strip, while introducing the aforementioned advantages.

This technology has now been adopted across Tecnifibre’s traditional racket shape range, which will likely be welcomed by most players. 

However, this new design hasn’t come without controversy – the potential downside is durability, which we’ll come to later.

Tecnifibre squash rackets – The one problem

Close-together weights – theoretically a good thing

Taking a look at the variety of weights across the new range, you’ll see only 5 grams separate each frame. On first impressions, this is brilliant – players should have the ability to choose a racket exactly to their taste.

However, five grams is a relatively small amount of weight. Therefore, factories have ‘manufacturing tolerances’ that allow them to work within a +/-5 gram window. 

This means, theoretically, a 120 and 130 gram racket could be identical, and still hit the shelf, no-questions-asked. 

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this – it’s common industry practice. Tightening up the tolerances would undoubtedly add time, and therefore cost, to the production process. With racket prices already spiralling over the last few years, I’m sure this is something most players would rather avoid.

Overlap in weights – not ideal

Now, with the batch of Tecnifibre Slash rackets I received, the lightest racket was actually the Slash 130. It weighed less than both the 125 and the 120. Check out the table below for the full breakdown of the ‘actual’ weights (plus some useful ‘similar’ rackets for comparison).

Racket	Weight in head	Weight in grip	Overall weight	Racket balance*
Tecnifibre Slash 120	84	72	156	53.8%
Tecnifibre Slash 125	87	71	158	55.1%
Tecnifibre Slash 130	82	71	153	53.6%
Tecnifibre Slash 135	87	72	159	54.7%
Dunlop Sonic Core Ultimate 132	83	71	154	53.9%
Dunlop Sonic Core Elite 135	84	73	156	53.8%
Head Radical SB120	81	70	153	52.9%
Head Radical SB135	85	70	157	54.1%
305Squash Procell 120	81	69	150	54.0%

On one hand, I want to say it’s not that big of a deal. Not many people are ever going to really notice the difference unless they have both rackets in their hand. And even then, the difference a few grams makes is often hard to notice.

And this problem isn’t solely limited to Tecnifibre. Most other brands have fairly similar weightings across their racket range. I think Tecnifibre have made things much more complicated by advertising rackets at just 5 grams apart, when in reality it seems difficult to achieve this.

Then there’s the matter of principle. If you’re paying a premium for the lightest racket, you would hope it weighs less than cheaper models.

I’ve been assured by Tecnifibre that the light 130 I received is a pre-production one-off. They kindly weighed a few of the rackets from their inventory and things did roughly balance out. However, the weights across the full range were much closer than the advertised weights would suggest.

It’s quite tough to write an accurate review article with this in mind. Therefore, the write-up below is a fairly ‘generic’ take on the range as a whole. I’ve applied some rule-of-thumb principles, on the assumption that the majority of rackets should fall within the correct weight banding.