PDA

View Full Version : K6.1 95 16x18 Swingweight


Craig Sheppard
04-10-2007, 11:54 AM
I don't get this... I very briefly hit with a K6.1 95 recently and was shocked that it felt easier to swing than my n6.1 95. TW lists the K6.1 95 swingweight at 340, while the n6.1 95 is listed as 330.

a) Is TW's spec wrong?
b) Has anyone else who's used the K6.1 95 felt it swung lighter than the n6.1 95?

Nick b
04-10-2007, 11:56 AM
this may be a noob q but wat do u mean by swingweight

Craig Sheppard
04-10-2007, 12:00 PM
this may be a noob q but wat do u mean by swingweight

Here's what it says on TW's Learning Center page of Racquet & String Terms (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/RacquetStringTerms.html):

"Swingweight: Measure of how heavy a racquet feels when swung, i.e. maneuverability. Also known as Moment of Inertia or Second Moment, swingweight is dependent on several factors, including racquet weight, length, balance, head size. A heavy swingweight racquet is more powerful than a light swingweight racquet (ATBE), but will be less maneuverable. Also, a heavy swingweight racquet can be relatively light in overall weight by placing the majority of weight in the head. A trend initiated by Wilson with their Hammer racquets, the objective is to retain maneuverability without sacrificing power by distributing most of the overall weight to the upper hoop, where ball contact is made. Swingweight can be increased by adding weight above the pivot point (where the racquet is gripped) or by increasing length. Swingweight (like overall weight) cannot be reduced unless the bumper is removed or racquet length is reduced. Keep this in mind when selecting a racquet to purchase - better to error on the light side and add weight if needed."

Craig Sheppard
04-10-2007, 12:18 PM
I just noticed another retailer web site lists the K6.1 95 swingweight at 322. I know TW actually measures racquets for their specs, but come on... 20 points difference?

bad_call
04-10-2007, 01:12 PM
I just noticed another retailer web site lists the K6.1 95 swingweight at 322. I know TW actually measures racquets for their specs, but come on... 20 points difference?

maybe they factored in SW2 for those that lead...

FuriousYellow
04-10-2007, 02:04 PM
I don't get this... I very briefly hit with a K6.1 95 recently and was shocked that it felt easier to swing than my n6.1 95. TW lists the K6.1 95 swingweight at 340, while the n6.1 95 is listed as 330.

a) Is TW's spec wrong?
b) Has anyone else who's used the K6.1 95 felt it swung lighter than the n6.1 95?

My experience was the opposite. I thought the n6.1 95 felt noticeably easier to swing. My max SW comfort range is right around 330. I've hit with the Hybrid Tour which is listed at 340 and the K6.1 95 felt about the same as it.

TalkingTennis91
04-10-2007, 02:34 PM
I'm interested to hear how this discussion will play out because I am a bit intrigued by the K6.1 95 16 x 18.

I too looked at it earlier and was taken aback by its listed swingweight of 340.

sabi
04-10-2007, 02:50 PM
Craig,

Don't forget about Wilson's 'quality control problem' (thanks bluescreen). I swung a number of different k6.1 95s at a shop and the swingweights varied noticably. Most were indiscernable from the average, some were clearly heavier and others lighter. I have one of these sticks, and while I've never really played with the n6.1 counterpart, I find the K6.1 to play much lower than a 340 swingweight. I compare it to the Dunlop Aerogel 200. That racquet is rated about the same in swingweight but feels much heavier to swing, almost head heavy, whereas the k6.1 95 swings really quite easily. For a heavy stick I get a fair amount of action through the strike zone. Still prefer the team version (I think) though. And the Aerogel 200 is a fine stick, just a little too heavy for me on my 1hbh. For a two handed player or stronger player I would suggest it in a hearbeat for a demo.

bluescreen
04-10-2007, 04:40 PM
as sabi hinted to, i think this is really a quality control problem. swingweights on wilson racquets of the same model can vary sometimes. this seems to be the case w/ craig's experience.

Craig Sheppard
04-10-2007, 05:58 PM
Hmm... quality control? I gueeeeeeeesss we can chalk it up to that... but I'd notice 20 points of swingweight, methinks. I guess my point was that swinging it around, it felt a lot closer to the 322 SW number on other sites than the 340 SW posted on TW. I would really like to know how many they sampled to get that number...

Jim Hendricks
04-11-2007, 04:28 AM
I've played with both and while I can't say the K95 swings easier than the n95, it certainly doesn't swing heavier than the n95.

IT WAS IN!!!
04-11-2007, 04:35 AM
the n6.1 felt like the swingweight was less but that is called the perceived swingweight.

KFwinds
04-11-2007, 10:08 AM
I've never hit with the n6.1, but I just hit with a K6.1 95 (16x18 ) last night and didn't find it that difficult to swing (used it for a full 1 1/2 hrs). I was shocked to see the 340 number listed by TW. My normal tolerance is right around 330 max, and I actually loved the K6.1.

For reference, my regular sticks are Radical MP's (FXP and LM with lead).

Pusher
04-11-2007, 10:49 AM
Hmm... quality control? I gueeeeeeeesss we can chalk it up to that... but I'd notice 20 points of swingweight, methinks. I guess my point was that swinging it around, it felt a lot closer to the 322 SW number on other sites than the 340 SW posted on TW. I would really like to know how many they sampled to get that number...

I think TW measures SW on a strung racquet while many others do not. I don't know how much that would affect the numbers but it could be a lot.

My son just finished demoing the N6.1 and the Babolat Pure Control which are both near the 330 SW. The Babolat felt much lighter. I guess thats one reason to demo.

Pete.Sampras.
04-11-2007, 01:12 PM
All my K95s are easier to swing than 340 (SW) and a lot easier to swing than the K90 (336 SW)... I can't compare it to the ncode though...

vkartikv
04-11-2007, 02:16 PM
Did atleast the stiffness feel like the indicated #?