PDA

View Full Version : Wilson Racket-Speak


beth14
03-07-2008, 12:39 PM
So I see a Wilson K-factor K six-one 95 16 x 18. I can figure most of it out except the 6.1 thing. I see 6.0's, 6.1's and 6.2's. And they seem to carry some historical conotation; what is it? As always thanks for the wisdom in advance!!!!

hadoken
03-07-2008, 01:15 PM
the 6.1 reference is the stiffness index that was on the original design of this particular Pro Staff. The original frame became so popular that everyone simply refers to it as the "6.1" hence Wilson has kept that naming on frames derived from that design.

beth14
03-07-2008, 11:58 PM
So does the 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2 all refer to different flex. And which is stiffer or more flexible?

Eros
03-08-2008, 11:45 AM
So does the 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2 all refer to different flex. And which is stiffer or more flexible?

I'm interested about too!
Thak you very much

bigmatt
03-08-2008, 12:10 PM
Wilson originally had a "Stiffness Index" ratings on their frames, pretty much coinciding with the introduction of the Profile in 1987. It was measured by clamping the handle of the frame and hanging a 15g weight (I believe) from the tip of the head, and measuring how much it bent. Therefore, the "6.1" meant it deflected 6.1mm with the weight attached.
When Wilson's competition made a big deal about low "Stiffness Index" numbers meaning tennis elbow risks, they changed it to "Swing Index".

Babb
03-08-2008, 12:13 PM
^^^^
Wilson seems to have pulled a fast one on us ;)

bigmatt
03-10-2008, 07:51 AM
As the "SI" numbers increase, so does racquet flex. Therefore, a 2.7si is stiffer than a 6.0, etc., and is supposed ot be more powerful, all else being equal.

YULitle
03-10-2008, 08:09 AM
Wilson originally had a "Stiffness Index" ratings on their frames, pretty much coinciding with the introduction of the Profile in 1987. It was measured by clamping the handle of the frame and hanging a 15g weight (I believe) from the tip of the head, and measuring how much it bent. Therefore, the "6.1" meant it deflected 6.1mm with the weight attached.
When Wilson's competition made a big deal about low "Stiffness Index" numbers meaning tennis elbow risks, they changed it to "Swing Index".

How far over the table does the racquet extend in this test?

bigmatt
03-10-2008, 08:45 AM
Michael:
That I do not know. However, I feel quite confident the frame did not flex enough to allow anything to come into contact with anything else.
The highest flex I can recall was 8.5, meaning there only needed to be 9mm of clearance.

VGP
03-10-2008, 01:54 PM
I recall that the weight test was done with the length of the handle in contact with the table......and I think it was a 15 pound weight and not a 15 gram weight.

beth14
03-10-2008, 08:07 PM
Wow great info folks. It all makes sense with my PS classic 6.1 si and all I have read about it. Very cool.

psp2
03-10-2008, 10:26 PM
Wilson originally had a "Stiffness Index" ratings on their frames, pretty much coinciding with the introduction of the Profile in 1987. It was measured by clamping the handle of the frame and hanging a 15g weight (I believe) from the tip of the head, and measuring how much it bent. Therefore, the "6.1" meant it deflected 6.1mm with the weight attached.
When Wilson's competition made a big deal about low "Stiffness Index" numbers meaning tennis elbow risks, they changed it to "Swing Index".

From memory.... I believe the weight was 6.4 lbs. not 15g. That value was an approximation of the force exerted by a tennis ball impacting the stringbed.