PDA

View Full Version : Racquet power level


keithchircop
09-26-2007, 12:55 AM
Power levels on TW:

Wilson PS85 - Low
Head PC600 - Low
Wilson PS95 - Low
Head Microgel Radical OS - Low
Avery M5 - Low
Wilson nFury 100 - Low-Medium
Wilson W5 Divine Iris - High
Gamma Big Bubba - High

The Avery M5 and the MG Radical OS may be low powered for OS racquets but compared to mids they are more powerful. I think you should start defining some racquets as "Very Low" when it comes to power. In the Big Bubba's case as "Very High".

Also, I never hit with it but according to the USRSA the nFury is as powerful as a 1980's Dunlop Max 200G.

My 2cents.

gjoc
09-26-2007, 01:39 AM
Personally, I’d like to see TW drop the qualitative characterization altogether, and just go with a quantitative scale, like the USRSA power level, for example.

Wilson PS85 - 1839
Head PC600 - 1880
Wilson PS95 - 2007
Head Microgel Radical OS - 1870
Avery M5 - 2096
Wilson W5 Divine Iris - 2409
Gamma Big Bubba - 5428

A simple number gives a lot more information, and makes apples-to-apples comparisons a lot easier, imo.

Just my 2¢.

keithchircop
09-26-2007, 02:02 AM
Personally, I’d like to see TW drop the qualitative characterization altogether, and just go with a quantitative scale, like the USRSA power level, for example.

Can you link me to that list please?

gjoc
09-26-2007, 02:40 AM
Can you link me to that list please?

Sure--if you’re not a USRSA member, you can still get to the USRSA data through Tennis magazine’s site:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/racquetfinder/index.html

keithchircop
09-26-2007, 05:43 AM
Sure--if you’re not a USRSA member, you can still get to the USRSA data through Tennis magazine’s site:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/racquetfinder/index.html

Thanks a bunch, man.

TW Staff
09-26-2007, 08:01 AM
Interesting. Thanks for the input and feedback guys.

Spencer, TW.

keithchircop
09-26-2007, 11:06 PM
Head PC600 - 1880

Just so you know, I just realized the USRSA's power calculation for the PC600 is based on it having a 93 sq in head. Since it has an 89.5 sq in head its power would be more like 1735.

gjoc
09-27-2007, 12:47 AM
Just so you know, I just realized the USRSA's power calculation for the PC600 is based on it having a 93 sq in head. Since it has an 89.5 sq in head its power would be more like 1735.

Huh?!? :confused:

The PC600 is 600 (cm²), which is a 93 in² head.

600 cm² = 93 in² (600/2.54/2.54=93.0).

And, if it were 89.5, the USRSA number would be 1809, which you can calculate here (http://www.usrsa.com/members/tools/racquet_power.html) if you’re a USRSA member.

AlpineCadet
09-27-2007, 01:13 AM
Huh?!? :confused:

The PC600 is 600 (cm²), which is a 93 in² head.

600 cm² = 93 in² (600/2.54/2.54=93.0).

And, if it were 89.5, the USRSA number would be 1809, which you can calculate here (http://www.usrsa.com/members/tools/racquet_power.html) if you’re a USRSA member.


Where's breakpoint? We need him to varify this with his own eyes, lol.

BreakPoint
09-27-2007, 02:37 AM
Huh?!? :confused:

The PC600 is 600 (cm²), which is a 93 in² head.

600 cm² = 93 in² (600/2.54/2.54=93.0).

And, if it were 89.5, the USRSA number would be 1809, which you can calculate here (http://www.usrsa.com/members/tools/racquet_power.html) if you’re a USRSA member.
Yes, that's exactly why people presume it's 93 sq. in., because of the name "PC600". What people don't realize is that, "PC600" is just a made up marketing name and not an indication of its true headsize. They chose "600" because it's a nice round number. It sounds much better than calling it "PC578", right? I mean, who would even remember that name when it came to asking for it in the store? ;)

keithchircop
09-27-2007, 03:02 AM
I've been using the racquet for years. I think I know its headsize.

If you use USRSA specs it's 1809 power. I used TW's.

gjoc
09-27-2007, 03:20 AM
Yes, that's exactly why people presume it's 93 sq. in., because of the name "PC600". What people don't realize is that, "PC600" is just a made up marketing name and not an indication of its true headsize. They chose "600" because it's a nice round number. It sounds much better than calling it "PC578", right? I mean, who would even remember that name when it came to asking for it in the store? ;)

Makes sense they’d round off 578, if that’s what size it is, although it seems like, if they did, they’d want to go with 570, since that’d be the next step in their logical 30 cm² marketing progression (seeing as how 570 is no harder to remember than 630).

I have to say, it doesn’t make much sense though, that if you were going to lie/exaggerate about the size of the racquet you were selling, that you would lie/exaggerate about how big it was, if you were specifically trying to sell it to the smaller-is-better crowd. ;)

I guess USRSA and everybody else that thinks it’s 600 got fooled.

How did you find out that it was 578?

gjoc
09-27-2007, 03:31 AM
I've been using the racquet for years. I think I know its headsize.

So you’ve actually measured it--cool! I don’t have one here to check at the moment.

What were the dimensions?

If you use USRSA specs it's 1809 power. I used TW's.

Apparently you mix and match, since TW says it’s 93 in²! ;)

keithchircop
09-27-2007, 05:11 AM
So you’ve actually measured it--cool!

I just placed it against other 93s and saw it was smaller, compared it to 90s and saw it was identical.

Apparently you mix and match, since TW says it’s 93 in²! ;)

Every single webstore says it's 93, because that's what Head says it is. You'll only find out it's smaller from message boards or players at a club etc.

I'd like to know where USRSA gets the specs from. Do they use an RDC like TW or just print the specs the manufacturer supplies them with?

gerikoh
09-27-2007, 05:21 AM
Sure--if you’re not a USRSA member, you can still get to the USRSA data through Tennis magazine’s site:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/racquetfinder/index.html
cool!! but there is no asian k90 :(

BreakPoint
09-27-2007, 12:59 PM
Makes sense they’d round off 578, if that’s what size it is, although it seems like, if they did, they’d want to go with 570, since that’d be the next step in their logical 30 cm² marketing progression (seeing as how 570 is no harder to remember than 630).

I have to say, it doesn’t make much sense though, that if you were going to lie/exaggerate about the size of the racquet you were selling, that you would lie/exaggerate about how big it was, if you were specifically trying to sell it to the smaller-is-better crowd. ;)

I guess USRSA and everybody else that thinks it’s 600 got fooled.

How did you find out that it was 578?
Actually, "570" is harder to remember because it doesn't start with a "6". They rounded all the numbers to make it simple in equal increments - i.e., 600, 630, 660, etc. This is their "6-series" of racquets, just like BMW has their "5-series" of sedans, e.g., 525i, 530i, 535i, 540i, etc. That makes it much easier to remember.

How did I find out it's not 93 sq. in., but only about 90 sq. in.? You can either hold it up to other 90 sq. in. racquets or you can measure the length and width of the head and calculate it.

Use this formula: Pi x (L x W)/4

ThePro101
09-27-2007, 01:10 PM
Actually, "570" is harder to remember because it doesn't start with a "6". They rounded all the numbers to make it simple in equal increments - i.e., 600, 630, 660, etc. This is their "6-series" of racquets, just like BMW has their "5-series" of sedans, e.g., 525i, 530i, 535i, 540i, etc. That makes it much easier to remember.

How did I find out it's not 93 sq. in., but only about 90 sq. in.? You can either hold it up to other 90 sq. in. racquets or you can measure the length and width of the head and calculate it.

Use this formula: Pi x (L x W)/4

According to this formula, my 93 sq.in Wilson ROK is only 578 or 89.6 sq.in
Pi x (32 x 23)/4 = 578

Spalding ATP Tour Pro Stock 200 90sq.in
Pi x (31.3 x 23.3)/4 = 572.8 or 88.8sq.in.

I don't like this formula because all head shapes are not the same... this appears to be just a rough estimation... (I do think it would probably work very well on an old Spalding Orbitech - a round head)

Rafa freak
09-27-2007, 01:15 PM
Sure--if you’re not a USRSA member, you can still get to the USRSA data through Tennis magazine’s site:

http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/racquetfinder/index.html

that is cool.

BreakPoint
09-27-2007, 01:38 PM
According to this formula, my 93 sq.in Wilson ROK is only 578 or 89.6 sq.in
Pi x (32 x 23)/4 = 578

Spalding ATP Tour Pro Stock 200 90sq.in
Pi x (31.3 x 23.3)/4 = 572.8 or 88.8sq.in.

I don't like this formula because all head shapes are not the same... this appears to be just a rough estimation... (I do think it would probably work very well on an old Spalding Orbitech - a round head)
You forget that the Wilson ROK was supposed to be a knock-off of the PC600, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that its head is exactly the same size as that of the PC600 (i.e., ~89.5 sq. in.). Wilson came out with the ROK to try and get PC600 users to switch over (since it was being discontinued).

And, yes, many manufactures round off to make it easier to remember and market and so they fit into a certain group. What's easier, calling your racquet "88.8 sq. in." or "90 sq. in."? It's just like the car companies round off sizes of their engines. A car with a "3.0 liter" engine may only actually be 2.93 liters.

BTW, if the head was perfectly round, you can use a simplier formula, Pi x (D/2)^2

gjoc
09-27-2007, 01:56 PM
How did I find out it's not 93 sq. in., but only about 90 sq. in.? You can either hold it up to other 90 sq. in. racquets or you can measure the length and width of the head and calculate it.

Which did you do, to come to your conclusion that it’s 90?

Obviously, the only way to know is to measure it, since there’s no reason to think the “90” you think you’re comparing it to is any more credible.

If you have one, and if you measured it, what dimensions did you get?

As I said in the other post, I don’t have one here to check at the moment.

I guess till someone credible can measure one and see, I’ll still side with the elephants, all of whom say it’s 93.

gjoc
09-27-2007, 02:06 PM
I'd like to know where USRSA gets the specs from. Do they use an RDC like TW or just print the specs the manufacturer supplies them with?

They measure them (size 4 3/8), strung, w/an RDC.

Not sure if they measure the head size or not, though.

BreakPoint
09-27-2007, 02:16 PM
Which did you do, to come to your conclusion that it’s 90?

Obviously, the only way to know is to measure it, since there’s no reason to think the “90” you think you’re comparing it to is any more credible.

If you have one, and if you measured it, what dimensions did you get?

As I said in the other post, I don’t have one here to check at the moment.

I guess till someone credible can measure one and see, I’ll still side with the elephants, all of whom say it’s 93.
I've held it up to several different 90's, and many others here have measured it. BTW, if you're familiar with Mids, you can just take one look at it and know it's much closer to a 90 than a 93.

Also, I'd say the Wilson 90's are the benchmark for a 90 sq. in. size.

BreakPoint
09-27-2007, 02:22 PM
BTW, it's obvious that the USRSA (from that Tennis link) does not measure the headsizes because every racquet you click on has a nice round number for headsize. They are just using the number the racquet is marketed as by the manufacturer. If they actually measured them, they'd be getting numbers like - "94.3, 101.2, 89.3, etc.", instead of nice round numbers like - "95, 100, and 90", because every model racquet's head is slightly different since they come from different molds.

LafayetteHitter
09-27-2007, 02:42 PM
BP the Rok Mid is smaller than 93" in my opinion. The headshape is a tiny bit different compared to a Prestige classic but the headsize is very close. Then we have Volkl who has 93" frames that appear closer to a Wilson 95" but thats a whole different story I suppose.

gjoc
09-27-2007, 04:06 PM
BTW, it's obvious that the USRSA (from that Tennis link) does not measure the headsizes because every racquet you click on has a nice round number for headsize. They are just using the number the racquet is marketed as by the manufacturer. If they actually measured them, they'd be getting numbers like - "94.3, 101.2, 89.3, etc.", instead of nice round numbers like - "95, 100, and 90", because every model racquet's head is slightly different since they come from different molds.

Well, I think we must have different standards for what is “obvious,” lol. ;)

Just because they only publish a number to the nearest square inch is hardly a smoking gun that proves they didn’t get the number by measuring it themselves.

As I said, I don’t know whether USRSA measures head size themselves or not, but I know that TW has said that TW does not, and I suspect that USRSA probably does not as well, but then again, maybe they do.

Rainalkar
11-06-2010, 05:09 PM
Is there a way to get a list of power levels for newer rackets? The link provided doesn't work anymore. Thanks

FedError
11-07-2010, 09:09 PM
Are there any racquets that have a power level of over 9000?

Don't Let It Bounce
11-08-2010, 02:23 AM
Which did you do, to come to your conclusion that it’s 90?

Obviously, the only way to know is to measure it, since there’s no reason to think the “90” you think you’re comparing it to is any more credible.

If you have one, and if you measured it, what dimensions did you get?

As I said in the other post, I don’t have one here to check at the moment.

I guess till someone credible can measure one and see, I’ll still side with the elephants, all of whom say it’s 93.Here's (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4206246) a thread you might enjoy; it's the best I've seen on this topic. See the first post for a description of the OP's methodology.

It's actually tough enough to measure string area that it's no surprise that companies so often call it by whatever number might help sell the frame. Visual inspection of two racquets isn't much help due to head shape variation, to parallax distortion, and (as you note) not knowing the control racquet's size either.

The elliptical area formula posted above is a good approximation and yields some surprising results (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=328652), but it too is slightly distorted since racquet faces are rarely perfect ellipses. (They're more egg-shaped. For most racquets the bottom half is a narrower and more pointed half-ellipse.) It would be a little better to measure it as if it were a perfect ellipse based on the bottom half, then to do the same based on the top half, then to average the two – but I've never gotten around to trying that out.

To really do it right, I guess you'd have to calculate the slopes of the curves of the hoop, etc., but neither my Math Fu nor my curiosity are that strong.

lonux
11-10-2010, 10:19 AM
Sorry for the bump here, but it seems the link from tennis.com is broken. Does anybody know how to get back there or another way of measuring power?