PDA

View Full Version : K95X swingweight


sureshs
10-27-2007, 09:54 AM
I have been demoing this stick for 2 sessions now. Is its SW really 360 as claimed by TW? I can swing it so easily.

I know it is 14 pts HL unstrung, but I thought this would be factored into the SW? Is the balance not properly accounted for in the SW then? Because it sure is far easier to swing than I expected a 12.3 oz stick with 360 SW to be.

Anyone noticed this and can explain it?

Bottle Rocket
10-27-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't think anybody has ever done their own measurements, all we really know are the specs by TW.

All I can say is that the swingweight is surely higher than any other modern racket I have hit with it. The first time I played with it, "ridiculous" is the only thought to came that mind.

Now that I have gotten used to it and really got my timing down, I can't imagine ever using a racket of a lesser swingweight. Whether it is actually 360 or not, I don't know. It swings significantly heavier than my Pure Storm Tour Plus's and they should be around 335-340.

Considering the TW values are supposed to be an average of 5 sticks that they measured, that means some of the measured sticks had swingweights over 360!

One important thing to note when looking at the balance point is that because it is an extended length racket, the numbers do not mean the same thing as on a standard length racket. The increased length comes from the handle, and this is below the point where balance is taken. A standard length racket with such a high swingweight would never have a balance as headlight as these, take a look at some of the older Wilson Hammer rackets as an example.

I made a thread about this thing a while ago and there weren't too many replies... Not a lot of interest. I don't mind that, it can be our little secret.

sureshs
10-27-2007, 12:02 PM
I have been playing for more than a year with a 27.5 Vantage with a strung weight of 12 oz and unstrung balance of 7 pts HL. It is supposed to have a SW of 335 strung. The K95X is 12.3 oz. But even with a 360 SW, the head light balance must be playing a significant role. Also, the Vantage is 100 si, K95X is 95. This could also make it much more maneuvarable. Somehow, the 360 number does not seem to have the impact it should.

sargeinaz
10-27-2007, 12:20 PM
Ya my friend demoed that racket and its the hardest racket I have ever swung in my life. I could not use the thing. Granted im not a big guy (5'8'' , 160lbs), but I just remember hating it because I couldnt swing it. If i was strong enough to use it, it wouldve probably been much more fun to use.
________
Medical marijuana card (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

sureshs
10-27-2007, 12:22 PM
Ya my friend demoed that racket and its the hardest racket I have ever swung in my life. I could not use the thing. Granted im not a big guy (5'8'' , 160lbs), but I just remember hating it because I couldnt swing it. If i was strong enough to use it, it wouldve probably been much more fun to use.

I am just an inch taller, but it is as if I don't feel the racquet weight at all. Strange.

haerdalis
10-27-2007, 03:31 PM
I have seen many people say similar things now. Makes me wanna try the racquet. I played the ps 6.1 stretch for a number of years before and played quite well with it, probably better than with the ps tour 90 I switched to later on.

TokyopunK
10-27-2007, 03:36 PM
Best racquet ever!!!! My main stick!!!

Yeah its heavy, but if you believe in your self you can wield it like a sword.

haerdalis
10-27-2007, 05:25 PM
Just looked up some stats and the ps 6.1 stretch was a little heavier (355 g)and a little longer (28 inches) but the sw was lower (341) as was the balance.
I hit my best serves ever with this racquet, I wonder if the k95x serves as well or perhaps even better?

Bottle Rocket
10-27-2007, 06:31 PM
Just looked up some stats and the ps 6.1 stretch was a little heavier (355 g)and a little longer (28 inches) but the sw was lower (341) as was the balance.
I hit my best serves ever with this racquet, I wonder if the k95x serves as well or perhaps even better?

The physics say it could be the best serving racket ever made.

I have to say, as terrible as my serve is, I serve my best with the K95X... I guess I do everything best with this thing... I guess that's why I use it.

Was playing with a 28 inch racket hard to get used to? You don't see too many of those 6.1 stretch's in classifieds.

haerdalis
10-27-2007, 07:18 PM
The physics say it could be the best serving racket ever made.

I have to say, as terrible as my serve is, I serve my best with the K95X... I guess I do everything best with this racket... I guess that's why I use it?

Was playing with a 28 inch racket hard to get used to? You don't see too many of those 6.1 stretch rackets coming along too often in the classifieds.

At the time I had no problem that I can remember. Sure it wasnt the most maneuverable of sticks but it had other benefits. And from the specs I'd say it played fairly similar to the k95x. Heavier and longer but more headlight and a lower sw.
I hope I can find a k95x to try. Havent with any kfactors yet actually, which is weird considering I was a wilson player for 15 years before.

sureshs
10-28-2007, 05:31 PM
Played doubles for the first time with the K95X demo today. First 3 games were a nightmare - two shanks off the frame, and couple of low-powered off-center returns. Then, I adjusted and found that I had supreme confidence with this frame. Not that I played too well (even though we won), but I was not at all afraid of serves and shots coming wide to my backhand. This is the first racquet where I felt everything was reachable and under (K)ontrol and I did not panic. I was also able to put away high bouncing balls on the backhand with reasonable power. Was able to serve my first ever authentic kick serve which hit a 6 ft+ player on his chest.

But I would caution that it is not a very easy doubles racquet. If you play quick opponents, you could be too slow to react. On the other hand, it really gives total confidence.

I am still undecided about this stick, after 2 singles and 1 doubles session.

Bottle Rocket
10-28-2007, 07:04 PM
The first couple times I used it, I sort of felt the same way as you. It has great feel, tons of power, and also gave me more confidence on my weaker shots. I wasn't sure until I went back to a "normal" racket, like my Pure Storm Tour. Now everytime I hit with another racket, the decision is pretty clear. This is the one!

Are there any other distributors that list racket specs on their website? I wish Wilson would put a swingweight spec on the racket and/or their website just for comparison.

vkartikv
10-31-2007, 06:13 PM
I tried this frame after reading suresh's comments. I got it as a demo from the local store which has an RDC machine. The SW was only 346, not 360 as listed on the TW website. Of course, they average out scores but 346 is still a big difference. I am not sure this would be an apt replacement for my 200Gs which I stopped using after wrist pain but the racquet swings pretty light for its SW rating. Serves, of course, are the best part so if you have a good serve it will help you setup the rest of your game. I really didn't notice the extra length on groundstrokes. The weight of the ball coming off my backhand was as good as ever. I rarely play doubles so I don't think this would pose a problem. It is certainly a stiff frame but not so stiff as to render it uncomfortable.

Bottle Rocket
10-31-2007, 08:08 PM
The SW was only 346, not 360 as listed on the TW website. Of course, they average out scores but 346 is still a big difference. .

First of all, thanks for posting those numbers. I've been wondering if these things really come out to be 360 and I never believed it.

Yours coming out to 346 is interesting. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, for TW to get an average of 360, with some of them being 346, there had to be some coming in significantly higher than 360. Of course there are all kinds of combinations possible, but they could have had one around 375. Something is fishy about their data.

sureshs
10-31-2007, 09:12 PM
The SW was only 346, not 360 as listed on the TW website. Of course, they average out scores but 346 is still a big difference.

Is this another big Wilson tolerance problem? I suppose the strings and overgrip etc can make a difference, but looks like the range is 346 - 360 - 360+something.

If I buy it thinking it is 346, and I get a 365 one, I just cannot play with it.

BTW, I played doubles a second time against a 4.5 opponent, and hit singles with him for 10 minutes before that. Against him, I could feel the racquet slowing me down. He hits fast, quick and deep, and I was late. I suppose this is the real test - if the racquet is a liability against a better player, time to ditch it.

I will play again on Friday.

vkartikv
10-31-2007, 09:43 PM
Is this another big Wilson tolerance problem? I suppose the strings and overgrip etc can make a difference, but looks like the range is 346 - 360 - 360+something.

If I buy it thinking it is 346, and I get a 365 one, I just cannot play with it.

BTW, I played doubles a second time against a 4.5 opponent, and hit singles with him for 10 minutes before that. Against him, I could feel the racquet slowing me down. He hits fast, quick and deep, and I was late. I suppose this is the real test - if the racquet is a liability against a better player, time to ditch it.

I will play again on Friday.

Please let us know your approx. rating and string setup. The racquet I demoed had nxt 16 @ 55 lbs. It's certainly better to go in expecting 360 than 346, isn't it?!

FYI, the flex rating was 66 and the static weight (no overgrip since it was a demo) was 352 grams.

vkartikv
10-31-2007, 09:45 PM
First of all, thanks for posting those numbers. I've been wondering for a long time if these things really come out to be 360 and I never believed it.

Yours coming out to 346 is interesting. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, for TW to get an average of 360, with some of them being 346, there had to be some coming in significantly higher than 360. Of course there are all kinds of combinations possible, but they could have had one around 375. Something is fishy about their data... Sort of suspicious?

Wilson has never been known for quality control. I had some 6.0 85s (latest China models) that had flex ratings of 64, 66 and 69. How consistent is that?!!
BTW, I think the k90 definitely feels heavier to swing than the 95X. Shocking!!

psp2
10-31-2007, 10:37 PM
I measured the SW of a demo 95X today at my local shop. 357!!

sargeinaz
10-31-2007, 11:09 PM
Wilson has never been known for quality control. I had some 6.0 85s (latest China models) that had flex ratings of 64, 66 and 69. How consistent is that?!!
BTW, I think the k90 definitely feels heavier to swing than the 95X. Shocking!!

Really? I would definitely have to disagree. I thought the K90 was much easier to swing than the K95X. I got no power from the K90, but it was way easier to swing. Weird.
________
FIX PS3 (http://fixps3.info/)

Dumbledore
11-01-2007, 12:38 AM
I don't think anybody has ever done their own measurements, all we really know are the specs by TW.

All I can say is that the swingweight is surely higher than any other modern racket I have hit with it. The first time I played with it, "ridiculous" is the only thought to came that mind.

Now that I have gotten used to it and really got my timing down, I can't imagine ever using a racket of a lesser swingweight. Whether it is actually 360 or not, I don't know. It swings significantly heavier than my Pure Storm Tour Plus's and they should be around 335-340.

Considering the TW values are supposed to be an average of 5 sticks that they measured, that means some of the measured sticks had swingweights over 360!

One important thing to note when looking at the balance point is that because it is an extended length racket, the numbers do not mean the same thing as on a standard length racket. The increased length comes from the handle, and this is below the point where balance is taken. A standard length racket with such a high swingweight would never have a balance as headlight as these, take a look at some of the older Wilson Hammer rackets as an example.

I made a thread about this thing a while ago and there weren't too many replies... Not a lot of interest. I don't mind that, it can be our little secret.


Sorry to bothe you but colud you send me the link to the thread you're referring about? I'm interest in but didn't find. Thanks

keithchircop
11-01-2007, 04:21 AM
I have been demoing this stick for 2 sessions now. Is its SW really 360 as claimed by TW? I can swing it so easily.

I know it is 14 pts HL unstrung, but I thought this would be factored into the SW? Is the balance not properly accounted for in the SW then? Because it sure is far easier to swing than I expected a 12.3 oz stick with 360 SW to be.

Anyone noticed this and can explain it?

Some people around here might have brainwashed you into thinking your shoulders would dislocate after 1 swing of that racquet.

SW is 359 according to the USRSA.

sandflea
11-01-2007, 07:17 AM
I agree with keith, my wife has 3 k95x's. She didn't have any adjustment period coming off a 10 year hiatus from tennis and she's 37 years old 5'9 and slender. The last racket she used was a wilson ceramic. Any racket that I demo nowadays feels like a toy to her, I have to force her to try new stuff. She loves this racket. As for swingweight, I do think there is a quality control issue. 2 of her rackets seem to be around 360 and one in the 340 range.

sureshs
11-01-2007, 07:53 AM
Please let us know your approx. rating and string setup. The racquet I demoed had nxt 16 @ 55 lbs. It's certainly better to go in expecting 360 than 346, isn't it?!

FYI, the flex rating was 66 and the static weight (no overgrip since it was a demo) was 352 grams.

The demo has Lux and Reaction hybrid, no dampener, on overgrip.

352 gms = 12.4 oz, which is as per spec. Did you check the balance?

sureshs
11-01-2007, 07:58 AM
346, 357, 359, 360 are the numbers we have heard for the SW

sureshs
11-01-2007, 08:00 AM
Some people around here might have brainwashed you into thinking your shoulders would dislocate after 1 swing of that racquet.

SW is 359 according to the USRSA.

I already play with a 27.5 stick with a 335 SW and 12 oz, so I was not worried about that. But it does seem to slow me down.

sureshs
11-01-2007, 08:01 AM
I agree with keith, my wife has 3 k95x's. She didn't have any adjustment period coming off a 10 year hiatus from tennis and she's 37 years old 5'9 and slender. The last racket she used was a wilson ceramic. Any racket that I demo nowadays feels like a toy to her, I have to force her to try new stuff. She loves this racket. As for swingweight, I do think there is a quality control issue. 2 of her rackets seem to be around 360 and one in the 340 range.

A woman using K95X? That has got to be a first. Hats off to her if she can handle it.

keithchircop
11-01-2007, 08:03 AM
346, 357, 359, 360 are the numbers we have heard for the SW

I just go with what the USRSA says. Otherwise it's total confusion. Just look at the nBlade OS. Think about how many people didn't even demo it because TW says it's got a SW of 335, when in fact it plays like a 315-320 because IT IS.

Gimmick
11-01-2007, 08:12 AM
It is curious that the Microgel Radical OS has the same weight and balance as the Nblade OS but one has a swingweight listed of 318 and the other 335? This doesn't really make sense.

keithchircop
11-01-2007, 08:16 AM
It is curious that the Microgel Radical OS has the same weight and balance as the Nblade OS but one has a swingweight listed of 318 and the other 335? This doesn't really make sense.

The SWs of those 2 racquets is the same.

sureshs
11-01-2007, 08:22 AM
I just go with what the USRSA says. Otherwise it's total confusion. Just look at the nBlade OS. Think about how many people didn't even demo it because TW says it's got a SW of 335, when in fact it plays like a 315-320 because IT IS.

It is getting weirder. I checked the USRSA specs, and the K95X balance comes out to be 6 pts HL.

It is supposed to be 11 or 12 pts HL (strung)!

Wilsons's tolerance is about +/- 3 pts in balance (and +/- 0.25 oz in weight). The weight seems OK from all the numbers we have seen so far.

But the balance is 6 pts off, double their limits.

This is just unacceptable. If I ever buy it, I will have TW measure the unstrung weight and balance.

keithchircop
11-01-2007, 10:20 AM
I hope it's not crappy quality control. I'm hoping TW's specs are totally off.

sureshs
11-01-2007, 01:14 PM
I hope it's not crappy quality control. I'm hoping TW's specs are totally off.

TW's specs match USRSA: 360 to 359, 7 to 6 pts HL, 12.3 to 12.2 oz.

My demo clearly says 14 pts HL. That should be 12 or 11 after stringing. If it is 6 or 7, it is a big deal.

Can someone from TW explain how the balance can be so off, and why they have not complained to Wilson after taking the measurements? This product should be recalled if it is this much off.

sandflea
11-01-2007, 07:18 PM
She can and hits harder than most men 4.0's that I've seen forehand and backhand, the only area that she lacks real power is on the serve... we're working on that.

A woman using K95X? That has got to be a first. Hats off to her if she can handle it.

vkartikv
11-01-2007, 07:19 PM
Returned the demo today and just for you guys I requested that it be put on the RDC machine again. SW = 347 (no overgrip or dampener). The specs on this frame say 11.7 oz. and 31 cm for unstrung weight and balance. And I noticed the buttcap doesn't mention the country of manufacture. I had to play in 39 degree windchill weather today so I am not going to comment on how I played with this racquet today. It would be biased :)

Yonex.
11-01-2007, 07:23 PM
Returned the demo today and just for you guys I requested that it be put on the RDC machine again. SW = 347 (no overgrip or dampener). The specs on this frame say 11.7 oz. and 31 cm for unstrung weight and balance. And I noticed the buttcap doesn't mention the country of manufacture. I had to play in 39 degree windchill weather today so I am not going to comment on how I played with this racquet today. It would be biased :)
Hmm. interesting.

keithchircop
11-02-2007, 01:08 AM
My demo clearly says 14 pts HL. That should be 12 or 11 after stringing.

You're demoing an unstrung racquet that has 14pts HL written on it?

sureshs
11-02-2007, 08:45 AM
You're demoing an unstrung racquet that has 14pts HL written on it?

No, I don't frame the balls that much :-)

Yes, the frame has 30.5 cm and 14 pts HL written on it.

Is there something very special about balance specs for 27.5 inch racquets?

Azrael
11-02-2007, 04:29 PM
Well, on the [K]Team, it says 4 points headlight, but TW claims it as even, so let's assume that the strings make the frame 4 points head heavier. So that's about 10 pt headlight. Also, the center of balance on a 27" frame is going to be closer to the handle than that of a 27.5" racquet. Those are the only variables I can think of if that helps.

sureshs
11-03-2007, 02:54 PM
Well, on the [K]Team, it says 4 points headlight, but TW claims it as even, so let's assume that the strings make the frame 4 points head heavier. So that's about 10 pt headlight. Also, the center of balance on a 27" frame is going to be closer to the handle than that of a 27.5" racquet. Those are the only variables I can think of if that helps.

Strings make it 2 or 3 pts more HH max. In fact, some say only 1 pt.

The other factor 27.5 - I already thought about it. If the measurement was wrt a 27 inch reference, (which should not be the case) that would only make it 2 pts more HL.

sureshs
11-03-2007, 02:58 PM
Got my demo measured now. Strung weight is exactly 12 oz, about 0.2 oz away from spec. It is within Wilson's tolerance but makes a huge difference in play. Maybe that is why my demo felt so easy to swing.

The balance came out to be 6 pts HL strung, consistent with 6 or 7 as per USRSA and TW. This means 8 pts HL unstrung.

The pro-shop owner agreed with me that the 14 pts HL label (at least on the Karbon Black sticks he has - we did not have the later Karophite Black sticks to look at) is a clear typo. It should spec at 8 pts HL unstrung.

I don't know if this has been corrected in later models. Can someone check and post?

vkartikv
11-03-2007, 04:44 PM
Got my demo measured now. Strung weight is exactly 12 oz, about 0.2 oz away from spec. It is within Wilson's tolerance but makes a huge difference in play. Maybe that is why my demo felt so easy to swing.

The balance came out to be 6 pts HL strung, consistent with 6 or 7 as per USRSA and TW. This means 8 pts HL unstrung.

The pro-shop owner agreed with me that the 14 pts HL label (at least on the Karbon Black sticks he has - we did not have the later Karophite Black sticks to look at) is a clear typo. It should spec at 8 pts HL unstrung.

I don't know if this has been corrected in later models. Can someone check and post?

The demo I tried said 31 cm or 11 pts headlight. That's about 8 pts when strung.

sureshs
11-04-2007, 12:08 PM
The demo I tried said 31 cm or 11 pts headlight. That's about 8 pts when strung.

Then they have corrected the typo. But still, 11 pts unstrung would be 8 or 9 pts HL. It seems to be 6 or 7 pts in reality. Within Wilson's +/- 3 pts tolerance, but shows how this tolerance is really intolerable.

Is this some kind of arrangement with racquet customizers? Recall how Microsoft's anti virus software is never good? Keeps Norton and others in business. Those guys actually went to court asking Microsoft to open up their internals so they could build a better product. Microsoft makes an anti virus product, other companies explain how their product is so much superior, Microsoft avoids anti-trust issues, everybody makes money except the consumer.

Bad racquet tolerance -> good business for racquet techs. In return, they don't "tell" about paintjobs in public. Everybody makes money, consumer loses money.

Just speculation of course - a conspiracy theory.