PDA

View Full Version : M-Fil 300 vs M-Fil 200 2006


SteveI
11-19-2006, 01:10 PM
Hi,

I have had the chance to hit with both frames and really feel that the 200 2006 is a fine frame and a real "sleeper". The 300 gets much of the ink here, but IMHO the 200 seems to be the better all round frame. I would love to hear insights and observations from players on these two frames. Also, if anyone wants to share their string set-ups for either frame that would be awesome...

Regards,
Steve

bertrevert
11-19-2006, 02:07 PM
How did you find the 16x19 in a 95 sq in. frame? Enough access to spin?

What racquet are you using now that you can compare it to?

blubber
11-19-2006, 02:32 PM
I agree that the 2006 is a nice frame. It has good control, decent power, and nice spin potential. I like its balance and stiffness level, not too hard or soft. It's really easy to customize too because of the trap door.

I've been playing the 2006 in stock form and at times the upper hoop can feel brittle. If you add lead the racquet is more stable. However, with winter coming I haven't had enough time to find the right amount that allows me to play well. From my limited exsperiences leading the frame I think a very small amount is all I need. The addition of lead also helps on my flat serve and 2HBH b/c the 2006 at times feels that it needs more pop.

I also found that a softer string produces a better feel in the upper hoop. I've tried this racquet with 3 different types of string all strung between 57-59 lbs. I tried a poly (result = too little power but awesome spin), Gosen 17g (result = good spin and power but some upper hoop problems) and X-1 Biphase 16g (result = less spin good power fewer upper hoop problems).

Out of the 10-15 racquets I tried this past year, the 2006 is probably my overall favorite.

FuriousYellow
11-19-2006, 02:39 PM
The 200 06 is listed as a 97 sq in frame. Is it another one of those like the LM Prestige that's really a 95 sq in frame?

My impressions of the 200 06 were the same as yours. I thought it felt pretty solid for a mid-11oz racquet. The 300 felt tinny to me.

The 200 06 is a great bargain at 80 bucks. I'm playing with something else, but I may pick one up just for the heck of it. I was looking forward to the Aerogel version, but it looks like it won't be part of Dunlop's initial release.

hoosierbr
11-19-2006, 03:37 PM
I found the MFil 200 2006 to be a very nice frame but a bit light. Didn't produce the heavy ball on serves and groundies that I like. But I think, rather than lead, you can stick a leather grip on it and it'll bring up the weight just enough to make it nice and solid. I'm gonna try it and see!

bertrevert
11-19-2006, 04:39 PM
I was looking forward to the Aerogel version, but it looks like it won't be part of Dunlop's initial release.
Yes it is part of it, or rather it is now subsumed into the upcoming range. It is still there as a 200 have a look here
http://www.teamdunlop.de/dunlop-products/include.php?path=content/content.php&contentid=90

bertrevert
11-19-2006, 04:45 PM
At last, some feedback on this frame. Excellent work many thanks. I thought it would require some customising. New version is
http://www.teamdunlop.de/dunlop-products/include.php?path=content/content.php&contentid=90

I'd bring either version up to 12oz, 340g. That gives the plow-through. I now know that that is the perfect weight for me. I'd add it at the buttcap because I like HL frames.

Heck I think I'll get the outgoing m-Fil 200 2006 too.

The new Dunlop series have altered the head shape and I wonder that it might alleviate the upper hoop problems mentioned here.

FuriousYellow
11-19-2006, 06:37 PM
Yes it is part of it, or rather it is now subsumed into the upcoming range. It is still there as a 200 have a look here
http://www.teamdunlop.de/dunlop-products/include.php?path=content/content.php&contentid=90

I should have said, "In the U.S.". I often forget this is an international forum.

See Thomas Martinez's comments on Page 7 of the Dunlop Aerogel thread.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100948&page=7

According to him, no 200 16x19, 300 16x18, or 100 for the initial release in the U.S..

Rafa's best friend
11-19-2006, 06:38 PM
I say that Aerogel blows away both of these just cause it comes in extra long..

blubber
11-19-2006, 08:32 PM
I agree that the stock 2006 doesn't hit a heavy ball. The stock 2006 isn't a serve and volleyers or baseliners frame. It's low to medium powered and it doesn't really have a single outstanding characteristic. It's pretty good at a lot of things and as a result its geared towards all court players.

I wish the stock 2006 hit a heavier ball but unfortunately you can't have everything you want in a racquet. Like NBMJ and others say there are trade offs to all frames. I definitely found that out with all of the racquets I tried this past year. Racquets that hit heavy balls are either heavy or have high swing weights. I wish I could play well with a heavier racquet with a higher swingweight but I've come to realize I can't. Although I might get pushed around a bit by bigger hitters, with the 2006 I can get around on all my shots (low swing weight) and I can swing pretty hard without worrying about balls sailing (decent but not great power). I'm more consistent and playing better.

I forgot to mention I also tried the Mfil 300. I just didn't like it. Maybe it was the string I was using but shots outside of the sweetspot sent shocks through my arm.

Why do some people keep saying that the Aeorgels will have different headshapes than the Mfils? I don't see it. Is there proof?

bertrevert
11-19-2006, 08:57 PM
Why do some people keep saying that the Aeorgels will have different headshapes than the Mfils? I don't see it. Is there proof?

I don't know but have a look at
http://i15.tinypic.com/2qki0rk.jpg

It's a rough comparison. Now before anyone yabbers on about paint jobs can I just say I'm just comparing frames ok. The current m-Fil 300 is on the right compared to Mauresmo holding what is perhaps the 500 in the upcoming Dunlop range.

It does appear that the upper hoop is "more square-ish", but perhaps the overall effect is a bit more teardrop. Anyway I'm interested in this development because I've used Dunlop frames a lot but am hitting with a Yonex right now and wouldn't mind a combination of the two - if that's waht appears to be happening.

SteveI
11-20-2006, 05:23 AM
I agree that the stock 2006 doesn't hit a heavy ball. The stock 2006 isn't a serve and volleyers or baseliners frame. It's low to medium powered and it doesn't really have a single outstanding characteristic. It's pretty good at a lot of things and as a result its geared towards all court players.

I wish the stock 2006 hit a heavier ball but unfortunately you can't have everything you want in a racquet. Like NBMJ and others say there are trade offs to all frames. I definitely found that out with all of the racquets I tried this past year. Racquets that hit heavy balls are either heavy or have high swing weights. I wish I could play well with a heavier racquet with a higher swingweight but I've come to realize I can't. Although I might get pushed around a bit by bigger hitters, with the 2006 I can get around on all my shots (low swing weight) and I can swing pretty hard without worrying about balls sailing (decent but not great power). I'm more consistent and playing better.

I forgot to mention I also tried the Mfil 300. I just didn't like it. Maybe it was the string I was using but shots outside of the sweetspot sent shocks through my arm.

Why do some people keep saying that the Aeorgels will have different headshapes than the Mfils? I don't see it. Is there proof?

Hi,

I also found the 300 had a less than live sweetspot and did sent shocks through my arm. I also think that the 200 2006 is a bit softer than the 300 and really feels like an extension of the hand. The 300 just feels "clunky" to me. I guess the fact that the 200 2006 is much more HL than the 300 accounts for that "feeling" issue. The fun factor is there with the 200 2006.. as you seem to be able to create a # of shots. The fact that it does not produce a heavy ball could be an issue playing 4.5 and up. I do not see that below that level where control and placement seems to be the way to win more matches. As far as the head shape goes.. the Dunlop line could be made more round for my tastes. It is now more of a true TOUR shape.

The 200 2006 reminds me of the Wilson 7.1 Zone.. but a bit more stiff. I loved that frame but had trouble winning matches with it. I had to hit about 5 winners to get each point.

Regards,
Steve

ksm
11-20-2006, 09:32 AM
Great review guys.

I am happy that few players have posted their experience with 200 2006 and it is a positive one. I was considering the M-fil 300 but somehow the specs of 200 2006 are very appealing to me as it is more head-light compared to the M-fil 300.

I have just one worry about the 200 2006. Few players had written that the actual specs of this racquet don't match the TW specs and the racquet felt quite sluggish considering the low swingweight according to TW site. Can you all please give your inputs on the maneuverability of the 200 2006 as I don't like sluggish racquets?

Thanks.

ksm

blubber
11-20-2006, 12:23 PM
SteveI, I agree that as long as you're not 4.5 and above you can win, although maybe with some extra effort, with a stock 2006. Up to that level consistency is the biggest factor in matches. It's less about hitting winners and more about letting your opponent mess up first. I'm not at that level so the most important thing for me is to refine my strokes. So, as for now, I'm pretty happy staying with this frame. I don't think anyone would say the 2006 is their "Holy Grail" but it's a good all around stick.

ksm, I think TW's specs are close to being spot on. Although the 2006 has a lower swingweight than the 300, the 2006 is heavier. Maybe the people that found the 2006 sluggish compared to the 300 weren't expecting the extra weight. I don't think the 2006 is sluggish, I find it pretty easy to whip around.

bertrevert, according to your side by side comparison the head shapes do look different. The Racquet Mauresmo is holding looks more like a terdrop shape. Are all the new models that ways or just the 500 (assuming Mauresmo is holding a real 500)?

SteveI
11-20-2006, 12:30 PM
SteveI, I agree that as long as you're no more than a 4.0-4.5 you can win, although maybe with some extra effort, with the 2006. Up to that level consistency is the biggest factor in matches. It's less about hitting winners and more about letting you're opponent mess up first. I'm not even at that level so the most important thing for me is to refine my strokes. So, as for now, I'm pretty happy staying with this frame. I don't think anyone would say the 2006 is their "Holy Grail" but it's a good stick.

ksm, I think TW's specs are close to being spot on. Although the 2006 has a lower swingweight than the 300, the 2006 is heavier. Maybe the people that found the 2006 sluggish compared to the 300 weren't expecting the extra weight. I don't think the 2006 is sluggish, I find it pretty easy to whip around.

Hello All,

I found the 200 2006 to be very easy to get moving...funny I found the 300 sluggish compared to the 200 2006. If anything I found the TW spec to be just about right on. The 67 flex printed on the frame is too high.. it is very much about 64 or 63 (TWs Spec).. where as the 300 plays stiffer than the printed Dunlop spec. I may pick up another 200 2006 before they are gone.. :-). It is a FUN frame to hit with to be sure.

Regards,
Steve

blubber
11-20-2006, 12:35 PM
I don't think the 2006s will be gone any time soon. I emailed TW and they said that its a pretty popular frame and they expect to get more in. Also, the Aerogels aren't due out until February. But I agree, at $79 its a steal.

Redflea
11-20-2006, 01:18 PM
Great review guys.

I am happy that few players have posted their experience with 200 2006 and it is a positive one. I was considering the M-fil 300 but somehow the specs of 200 2006 are very appealing to me as it is more head-light compared to the M-fil 300.

I have just one worry about the 200 2006. Few players had written that the actual specs of this racquet don't match the TW specs and the racquet felt quite sluggish considering the low swingweight according to TW site. Can you all please give your inputs on the maneuverability of the 200 2006 as I don't like sluggish racquets?

Thanks.

ksm

ksm:

I believe it is my comment (on the 200 2006 feeling sluggish) that you are referring to. I don't know if others have posted about that issue as well, I don't remember. A buddy of mine had the same comment (he's a 6.0 95 and POG user).

I noted in my post on the issue that the 200 2006 that I demo'd could have been out of spec...there have been some posts that Dunlops can vary a bit.

I ended up w/the M-Fil 300...in spite of just slightly larger head, the sweet spot was more accessible for me, and the overall feel was equally comfy for me between the two, didn't get the harshness unless I was at or almost on-frame w/my shots. (I use multis.)

I believe both the 300 and 200 2006 demos I tried were strung with Dunlop's M-Fil Tour 16g string.

So I wouldn't let my comments dissuade you from the 200 2006...could have been an issue w/a particular demo, heck, maybe there was some lead on the demo that I didn't see (I didn't inspect the racquet closely at the time).

I do think that the M-Fil 300 is definitely worth a look as well, and has the added benefit of providing a lot of room for customization.

bertrevert
11-20-2006, 03:26 PM
bertrevert, according to your side by side comparison the head shapes do look different. The Racquet Mauresmo is holding looks more like a terdrop shape. Are all the new models that ways or just the 500 (assuming Mauresmo is holding a real 500)?

Yeah all the models look that way. I know "assuming" it really is the upcoming 500.

But anyway the M-Fil 200 2006 is described as a sleeper by many. It seems like the afterthought to the current range. However it is of course fully integrated in the upcoming range. I'm liking the sound of this current model as a work out racquet before the upcoming replacement

The TW review described the 2006 as anything but sluggish
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCDUNLOP-200P06.html

I wonder at what it works out like for an all-court game? Can it duke it out from the baseline too? Just wondering how versatile it is...

As a model that fits inbetween the "classic" models is it perhaps underated and perhaps with reason...?

dewey2110
11-20-2006, 06:11 PM
do you guys think that If I lead the 2006 up around ~ 12oz. it will hit heavy shots like other 12oz. racquets?

bertrevert
11-20-2006, 06:52 PM
do you guys think that If I lead the 2006 up around ~ 12oz. it will hit heavy shots like other 12oz. racquets?
Hear hear I second that question.

BounceHitBounceHit
11-20-2006, 06:57 PM
I found the MFil 200 2006 to be a very nice frame but a bit light. Didn't produce the heavy ball on serves and groundies that I like. But I think, rather than lead, you can stick a leather grip on it and it'll bring up the weight just enough to make it nice and solid. I'm gonna try it and see!

Let me Know what you find. I have eye-balled that frame but suspected it would be too light. :sad: Craig

BabolatFan
11-20-2006, 07:07 PM
do you guys think that If I lead the 2006 up around ~ 12oz. it will hit heavy shots like other 12oz. racquets?

I've tested just 3 grams at 12 and I started hitting rockets or flat bombs. The drawback is your groundstroke hitting with it. It becomes a bit sluggish. So I put lead on 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock (6 inches on each side) now and I can generate heavy shots. It's gives it some good heft.

blubber
11-20-2006, 09:23 PM
I'd say that the frame hits a quick ball, not a heavy ball.

I think the 2006 can get pushed around a bit by heavy hitters from the baseline but its not too bad. If you hit cleanly, which I often don't, you'll be ok. It's definitely not a frame for those who want to baseline bash.

Most find that the 2006 is weak for flat bomb serves but good when serving with spin.

I haven't experimented too much with lead but from my limited experiences the racquet is more solid and hits heavier with some added weight. But if you're planning on adding a lot of weight why not just use a heavier stock frame. I plan on adding only a small amount of lead (I'm not sure how much) b/c I can't swing the racquet fast enough if I put too much on.

Here's some info about the 2006's power level from tennis magazine. They don't list the 2006 but they provide info on the mfil 300. Most people find the mfil 300 is slightly more powerful than the 2006.

mfil 300 = 1902

For comparison's sake Pure Drive = 2222 and Volkl DNX 10 mid = 1830

I don't know how reliable that data base is or how those levels are derived so take it for what it is.

Craig, if you're capable of swinging and playing well with frames like the i.prestige and DNX 10 mid why would you even consider the 2006. I like the 2006 but one of the main reasons I use it is because I can't swing heavier frames with higher swingweights. My range of racquets is more limited than yours. Surely there is a better frame for you to use than this. If you really want to try a racquet in this weight and swing weight range maybe you should try the TF 320. I like that racquet better but for some reason (my lack of skill) my forehand was inconsistent with it.

dewey2110
11-20-2006, 11:05 PM
I just happen to like this frame's head shape, straight flat beam, and open string pattern. I'm trying to figure out what to get between this one and the Tfight 320 (16x19). In your opinion, which one feels more solid? I've experienced a Tecnifibre before and wasnt impressed with the feel of the texalium material. I thought it felt cheap and not solid. (I tried the Tfeel 305). Thanks.

SteveI
11-21-2006, 05:25 AM
I just happen to like this frame's head shape, straight flat beam, and open string pattern. I'm trying to figure out what to get between this one and the Tfight 320 (16x19). In your opinion, which one feels more solid? I've experienced a Tecnifibre before and wasnt impressed with the feel of the texalium material. I thought it felt cheap and not solid. (I tried the Tfeel 305). Thanks.

Hello Again,

Just wanted thank everyone that posted to this thread. Excellent insights and great review. I found most of what folks posted to be right on. Sometimes it is just nice to read what others have found and compare others results to your own. TW will read these posts and move the price back up....:-)

Regards and Happy Hitting... Just love this site... Thanks TW.. I am very thankful for your efforts and the efforts of all the excellent posters, players, coaches.. and tennis nuts!

Steve

ksm
11-21-2006, 06:55 AM
Many thanks from my side too to all for the valuable feedback on the 200 2006. It is really helpful specially when we don't have a racquet demo system out here.

I am again torn between M-fil 300 & 200 2006. Both are good racquets but I can but only one. Which one???????


ksm

SUV Steve
11-21-2006, 08:41 AM
Many thanks from my side too to all for the valuable feedback on the 200 2006. It is really helpful specially when we don't have a racquet demo system out here.

I am again torn between M-fil 300 & 200 2006. Both are good racquets but I can but only one. Which one???????


ksm

You can always lead up the 300 to approximate the weight/balance of the 2006, but not the other way around. (Actually that is my next project... I picked up a used 300 to try and make into a slightly more powerful backup for my 200/2006.)

ksm
11-21-2006, 09:49 AM
You can always lead up the 300 to approximate the weight/balance of the 2006, but not the other way around. (Actually that is my next project... I picked up a used 300 to try and make into a slightly more powerful backup for my 200/2006.)

Thanks. I think adding lead tape to the M-fil 300 will make it pretty powerful & also increase the swing-weight which is not to my liking.

Can anyone compare the 300 & 200 2006 in terms of serving (accuracy, spin/kick, power, etc.)

ksm

Redflea
11-21-2006, 10:04 AM
I didn't serve enough w/the 200 2006 to compare the two, but I can tell you the 300 serves very accurately...I came from an RDX Mid that provided surgical accuracy on my serves, and I am finding the 300 also allows me to pick my corners/lines, with added pace and spin. Definitely a great serving racquet - that was one benefit that I really hadn't expected, and appreciate very much.

I expect the 200 2006 serves very well as well....

blubber
11-21-2006, 10:41 AM
Compared to the 2006 the TF 320 is just as easy, if not easier, to swing. Both frames have the same head size and similar flex. I liked the stable feel and additional power of the 320. Overall I thought the 320 was a better frame but I just wasn't as consistent with it. Chalk that up either to lack of skill or the 320's teardrop head shape.

As you might be able to tell from my posts I don't think the 2006 is unbelievably good. As I said before I doubt this is anyone's "Holy Grail." However, it is the racquet I play best with. Whenever I switch to a different frame my hitting partners say, "why did you change you were more consistent with that blue racquet." The 2006 isn't bad, in fact its good at a lot of things. It just doesn't wow you. I guess I want too much.

Choosing between the 2006 and 300 shouldn't be such a difficult decision b/c to be honest they're not extremely different. I liked the 2006 better because it's more head light and has a lower swing weight. My swing weight limit is pretty low (less than 320) so I rather choose a frame that I can add a little lead to and still keep the swing weight manageable. Unlike Redflea I found the 2006 to be more comfortable but maybe that's b/c I mishit a lot. Most seem to say the 300 is better for serving flat. You really should demo both if you can. If you can't demo them buy one of each, they're cheap enough.

ksm
11-22-2006, 09:54 AM
Thanks all once again. I think 200 2006 would be suitable for me considering I like head-light, low swing-weight racquet which also has a low static weight.

ksm

Redflea
11-22-2006, 01:42 PM
OMG, no, don't do it, you'll be sorry!! ;)

Kidding.

Glad you made your decision...it's too bad you can't demo. Hope you like it a lot.

ksm
11-23-2006, 07:22 AM
OMG, no, don't do it, you'll be sorry!! ;)

Kidding.

Glad you made your decision...it's too bad you can't demo. Hope you like it a lot.

It is thanks to you all who post their valuable inputs that help me finalize the racquet as we don't have a demo system out here. Thanks TW for the messgae boards.

The Aerogels also seem to be very exciting. Hope they are not a disappointment.

ksm

superjumbo
11-23-2006, 08:17 AM
ksm, I'd like to send you an email.

contact me at

superjumbo123@yahoo.com

TeNNiS_SPieLeR
11-23-2006, 04:27 PM
Blubber- what's the trapdoor you speak of? Is it part of the butt-cap?

blubber
11-23-2006, 09:11 PM
Some makers like Dunlop have an opening in the racquet butt cap that is covered by a detachable panel. This allows you to easily add weight inside the racquet handle.

TeNNiS_SPieLeR
11-23-2006, 09:40 PM
thanks...never heard of that before

Redflea
11-23-2006, 09:41 PM
Yup...it's one of the nice features on Dunlop racquets...at least the one's I've hit with.