PDA

View Full Version : What's the Power Level Formula?


Power Game
12-19-2004, 05:43 PM
What's the Power Level Formula? The one that Nobadmojo was using....

rich s
12-19-2004, 07:07 PM
(SW x Flex x Headsize x (1+((Length-27)/10))/1000)
(325 x 64 x 98 x (1+((27-27)/10))/1000)
(325 x 64 x 98 x 1)/1000
(2038400)/1000
2038.4

Example - LM Radical MP

Swingweight 325
Flex 64
Headsize 98
Length 27

Ronaldo
12-19-2004, 07:28 PM
rich, thanks for the formula. Cannot believe these 90" head racquets can possibly have the pop or power of 95" head racquets of yesteryear. But according to that formula, yes they do.

AndrewD
12-20-2004, 09:51 PM
Ronaldo, I agree. Very interesting to see how the racquets match up on the scale.

Made me laugh when I did the sums and found out my Prince Precision Mono rated below (1991) the Prince Graphite Original mid (2197) and two of the name player racquets, Volkl C10 Pro (1994) and Vokl Tour 10 (1993) I've been told to avoid as I'm not at that skill level yet. Funnier still that the Mono rated above one racquet I was advised to look at, the Wilson Hyper Hammer 6.2 (1901).

Of course, all of that is purely academic. A racquet with a stiffness rating over 62 will have more power but wont give me enough feel so, you gain one thing, you lose another.

Ronaldo
12-21-2004, 04:24 AM
Btw, try finding those racquets with an RDC below 62. Funny thing about that Mono was it seemed shorter than 27"

Roforot
12-21-2004, 07:17 AM
While such formulas make for interesting discussion, I do not put much stock into them. The experience of playing w/ a racquet tends to often differ from the numbers. In example, I'm now playing w/ a 13.3 oz racquet that is 16pts headlight. Although I know that the swingweight is greater than my previous POG mid, playing w/ this racquet, it feels equally agile and seems to swing just as easily.

Similarily I've had friends who've used Racquet research's list of best racquets and found that they were more comfortable in cases w/ racquets ranked below others!

You can use the numbers to group or categorize what to try; but not to decide or suggest one is superior to the other.

AAAA
12-21-2004, 09:19 AM
I can't understand why my post questioning the validity of the formula was deleted.

AndrewD
12-21-2004, 01:58 PM
I never got that feeling Ronaldo. Have always felt the Mono was the best serving and volleying racquet I've used.

Roforot, I agree it is very much a case of individual feel, I just find the numbers interesting and always nice to know how it is they apportion the rating.

I actually remember the first, or one of the first Tennis Magazine or World Tennis (think that was the name) reviews of the original Prostaff 85. In a nutshell, they said it was a fair quality baseliners racquet. Guess someone forgot to tell Edberg LOL

NoBadMojo
12-21-2004, 02:17 PM
AAAA the board was hacked and went down and posts were lost. maybe yours was one of them. i think the power formula is a really good guideline to help you in choosing the right frame..if you are selecting some demos to try, it gives you a good clue as to what frames will perform w. similar power given of course that power level changes alot w. string selection and tension. i have found these numbers to be <mostly> pretty relevant. they dont consider string density other than headsize..maybe someone w. the skills could come up the right factor for that to make the denser stringbeds (18mains) less powerful. IMO this is one of the few really good <and unbiased> stats that the USRSA has.

AAAA
12-22-2004, 01:38 AM
AAAA the board was hacked and went down and posts were lost. maybe yours was one of them. i think the power formula is a really good guideline to help you in choosing the right frame..if you are selecting some demos to try, it gives you a good clue as to what frames will perform w. similar power given of course that power level changes alot w. string selection and tension. i have found these numbers to be <mostly> pretty relevant. they dont consider string density other than headsize..maybe someone w. the skills could come up the right factor for that to make the denser stringbeds (18mains) less powerful. IMO this is one of the few really good <and unbiased> stats that the USRSA has.

I think the formula gives qualitative results, whether one racquet is more powerful than another in general cases. I don't think the actual percentage difference in power level scores has a direct 1 to 1 mapping to percentage changes in actual power. This is relavant because a racquet with a 20% higher score may translate to just a minimal power increase in actual play. Also if the racquet is very short, less than 17 inches, the score will be negative the head flex is not taken into account.

IMO hacking a tennis forum and doing damage is pretty pointless.

AndrewD
12-22-2004, 03:27 AM
I think there is a certain usefulness in the power ratings.

Given that 'power' is used as a highly influential marketing tool - beyond even the word 'tour' in any equipment title- many players can be fooled into thinking that it is the single most important element in improving their game.

If you can honestly say that you get good depth and pace on your shots without having to over-swing and manage all that on a frame with a low 'power rating' but a very high 'comfort for you' rating then you can bypass the marketing and start to look at elements such as control and consistency.

Knowing the rating on the racquet you currently use can stop you from buying into that hype, as well as giving you a rough idea what other frames you might like to change to, if necessary.