PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the K90 (not for the easily offended)......


brownbearfalling
03-29-2008, 12:17 AM
To summarize my posting, I conclude that Wilson heard all the callings of the fans and satisfied them be making the Kfactor. This racket is perfectly ?identical? to R. Fed's racket. But they did this at the cost of performance of this racket. Showing that all they want is money. And showing that everyone who plays with it is some degree of a Federer wannabe and believes in it so much that he will love and in some cases play exceptionally well with a piece of glamorized junk believing that the racket can help him just like it helps Federer. (I am mainly referring to myself, so don?t be offended)

The main reason I bring up this issue one year after the release of this racket is because of the circulation of this racket. Every single day I check the classifieds, I see new postings for K Factors. People sell them. And people want them. On the average, a brand new posting for a K factor can get up to one hundred views the first day. 25 of those in the first few hours. And they sell quickly.

I myself am a fan of the 85, tour 90, n90 and now k90 line. I just recently bought on for $140. And upon viewing this racket, I have say that the first thing I noticed how hard Wilson tried to make this racket look like the older 85?s and Federer?s racket. The short grip pallet and longer throat to grip piece caught my attention immediately. When I was playing with the Hyper Tour 90?s and the n90?s I always felt that those rackets had no mobility. The ability to swing the racket with smooth transitions throughout the swing is not possible. I felt like swinging a baseball bat where the transition if impacting the ball was purely for hitting all the way flat through the ball. This feeling not ideal for tennis. In the Kfactor the went back to the ps85 and integrated the technology and ideal of the ps85. This aspect is classic. Think head prestiges, that racket has the shortest grip pallet I?ve played with. And it reflects it in the fact that they haven?t changed the mold for the racket. This one change makes the K90 better than the hps90 and n90. The true ps85 name is partially restored.
What they sacrificed to make the grip pallet shorter: Wilson made the frame thicker in the depth of it (from the perspective of the profile) or the width (in the perspective of looking at the racket straight on) a lot thicker compared to original ps85. Each generation of the 6.0 line (the triad 6.0 is a joke and I am not going to start with that racket) has been getting thicker. This might be one way they are making the rackets more stiff but any one who has seen the ps85 and k90 next to each other there is a big difference. Why did they do this? Well for the obvious reason, Wilson wanted a 90 sq in racket. So naturally they have to find a way to integrate this with the same classic feel of the ps85. Big problem. The tour 90 was the new flagship racket. People wanted the ps85 feel back. Wilson integrates the ps85 into the k90 for the first time. They can do better.

One main way they could do better is to not cheat us on the perception that we are playing with the same racket the Fed works his magic with. Fan?s were concerned about having the open string pattern that Federer has. Specifically at the pws there should be only 4 strings not 5 like on the hps90 and n90. The k90 has only 4 strings. How did they do it. They didn?t recalculate the string spacing for all strings. They move the three strings above the pws up. Match up an n90 and tour 90 up with a k90 and look at it. This doesn?t accomplish any performance. The n90 and hps 90 had more strings in the sweet spot to provide more spin and solid feel. People complained. Wilson satisfied them by doing what they wanted. Wilson made it look just like federer?s. What the heck does having three dense strings above the sweet spot going to do for the racket. This racket is all looks.
On the lighter note, this racket does wonders. 30% of tennis is mental confidence. Apart from the thin profile that is unique to only wilson?s flagship racket, if one believes one will do. When people play with this racket they envision what they see on tv. They believe they are federer. It is a magical thing. The moral: don?t believe in this racket too much.
My proposal to Wilson: Modernize the ps85. Not just paintjob. How about some technology. Some real money put into improving racket technology for tennis players around the world.

Well if you bothered to read all the way through, thanks for hearing a piece of my mind. Please reply with your thoughts, regardless of it is complimentary or contradictory. I want to hear it. Don't hesitate to rebuttle or completely humiliate me. Write one of your own if you like.
________
Halfbaked (http://half-baked.com)

herosol
03-29-2008, 12:28 AM
i think the k90 has more spin, and how would wilson know that this 1% of racket geeks even realized there was a pattern difference between the kfactor and ncode?

i dont see why they HAVE to integrate the 85 back?

nickb
03-29-2008, 02:29 AM
I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say!?

The K90 is the best Tour 90 yet for most players...if you cant see/feel that your not good enough to be using the frame.

tarie
03-29-2008, 02:51 AM
I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say!?

The K90 is the best Tour 90 yet for most players...if you cant see/feel that your not good enough to be using the frame.

"good enough" is not totally right.As you said it seems that who uses 90" is better than who uses 95" or 98".
It's just different way of playing.It's better to say that maybe the k90 is not good for him.:)

nickb
03-29-2008, 02:57 AM
"good enough" is not totally right.As you said it seems that who uses 90" is better than who uses 95" or 98".
It's just different way of playing.It's better to say that maybe the k90 is not good for him.:)

People can use what they want yes....

For most people playing to win using the K90 is silly...but there are some players that can use it well (old school, mild grips).

movdqa
03-29-2008, 04:15 AM
It makes for a nice transition racquet from old-school racquets. Way more power and spin capability than my Redondo.

Josherer
03-29-2008, 04:43 AM
I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say!?

The K90 is the best Tour 90 yet for most players...if you cant see/feel that your not good enough to be using the frame.

Exactly......

pmerk34
03-29-2008, 08:42 AM
Exactly......

and i have lost .000000001 sec of sleep over it.

RoddickistheMan
03-29-2008, 08:52 AM
I believe that the k90 is an excellent racquet for those skilled enough to wield it. Compared to teh ps 85 I do feeel that the 85 is a far superior racquet. The k90 is chunky and the SW is a tad too high. I just dont understand why Wilson cant just create a 6.0 85 with a 90 inch head. Nothing more nothing less. Thats all the die hard wilson fans want. We dont need this kfactor or ncode bs just or hypercarbon just give them a bigger head.

luv2volley
03-29-2008, 08:57 AM
To summarize my posting, I conclude that Wilson heard all the callings of the fans and satisfied them be making the Kfactor. This racket is perfectly ďidenticalĒ to R. Fed's racket. But they did this at the cost of performance of this racket. Showing that all they want is money. And showing that everyone who plays with it is some degree of a Federer wannabe and believes in it so much that he will love and in some cases play exceptionally well with a piece of glamorized junk believing that the racket can help him just like it helps Federer. (I am mainly referring to myself, so donít be offended)

The main reason I bring up this issue one year after the release of this racket is because of the circulation of this racket. Every single day I check the classifieds, I see new postings for K Factors. People sell them. And people want them. On the average, a brand new posting for a K factor can get up to one hundred views the first day. 25 of those in the first few hours. And they sell quickly.

I myself am a fan of the 85, tour 90, n90 and now k90 line. I just recently bought on for $140. And upon viewing this racket, I have say that the first thing I noticed how hard Wilson tried to make this racket look like the older 85ís and Federerís racket. The short grip pallet and longer throat to grip piece caught my attention immediately. When I was playing with the Hyper Tour 90ís and the n90ís I always felt that those rackets had no mobility. The ability to swing the racket with smooth transitions throughout the swing is not possible. I felt like swinging a baseball bat where the transition if impacting the ball was purely for hitting all the way flat through the ball. This feeling not ideal for tennis. In the Kfactor the went back to the ps85 and integrated the technology and ideal of the ps85. This aspect is classic. Think head prestiges, that racket has the shortest grip pallet Iíve played with. And it reflects it in the fact that they havenít changed the mold for the racket. This one change makes the K90 better than the hps90 and n90. The true ps85 name is partially restored.
What they sacrificed to make the grip pallet shorter: Wilson made the frame thicker in the depth of it (from the perspective of the profile) or the width (in the perspective of looking at the racket straight on) a lot thicker compared to original ps85. Each generation of the 6.0 line (the triad 6.0 is a joke and I am not going to start with that racket) has been getting thicker. This might be one way they are making the rackets more stiff but any one who has seen the ps85 and k90 next to each other there is a big difference. Why did they do this? Well for the obvious reason, Wilson wanted a 90 sq in racket. So naturally they have to find a way to integrate this with the same classic feel of the ps85. Big problem. The tour 90 was the new flagship racket. People wanted the ps85 feel back. Wilson integrates the ps85 into the k90 for the first time. They can do better.

One main way they could do better is to not cheat us on the perception that we are playing with the same racket the Fed works his magic with. Fanís were concerned about having the open string pattern that Federer has. Specifically at the pws there should be only 4 strings not 5 like on the hps90 and n90. The k90 has only 4 strings. How did they do it. They didnít recalculate the string spacing for all strings. They move the three strings above the pws up. Match up an n90 and tour 90 up with a k90 and look at it. This doesnít accomplish any performance. The n90 and hps 90 had more strings in the sweet spot to provide more spin and solid feel. People complained. Wilson satisfied them by doing what they wanted. Wilson made it look just like federerís. What the heck does having three dense strings above the sweet spot going to do for the racket. This racket is all looks.
On the lighter note, this racket does wonders. 30% of tennis is mental confidence. Apart from the thin profile that is unique to only wilsonís flagship racket, if one believes one will do. When people play with this racket they envision what they see on tv. They believe they are federer. It is a magical thing. The moral: donít believe in this racket too much.
My proposal to Wilson: Modernize the ps85. Not just paintjob. How about some technology. Some real money put into improving racket technology for tennis players around the world.

Well if you bothered to read all the way through, thanks for hearing a piece of my mind. Please reply with your thoughts, regardless of it is complimentary or contradictory. I want to hear it. Don't hesitate to rebuttle or completely humiliate me. Write one of your own if you like.


Amen brother, K90 has better ground strokes but PS85 is still the king for touch and feel at the net.

Robert Johnson
03-29-2008, 09:23 AM
Amen brother, K90 has better ground strokes but PS85 is still the king for touch and feel at the net.

Think you've hit the nail on the head with that comment.

The PS85 comes from a decade where net play was more common (serve and volley + net play in general).

The K90 imo suits the current ground stroke based game more.

It's hard to blame Wilson when they are just making rackets to suit the current market. Saying that, the K90 is the best racket i have used at the net of any 'modern' racket.

int3rsc0p3
03-29-2008, 09:30 AM
I think the problem is simple. You can't expect Wilson to recreate their PS85 for less than 2% of the tennis community. You have to admit, the only people that want the PS85 back are the people on this message board. That's it.

The rest of the tennis community has migrated into lighter, bigger frames. It's not practical to recreate a line just for the people on this board.

Azzurri
03-29-2008, 09:52 AM
Uhhh, did any of you see/watch the Sampras/Fed match? Pete is playing a new prototype Wilson racquet. Most likely a PS 90. This whole thread is wanting this racquet, yes? Well you will have to wait until August. The OP, while I disagree with 90%, makes one good point; make a modern PS 85, hence Wilson already thought of that. They discontinued the 85 and with some luck, we should see a new PS 90 by the US Opne.

Radical Shot
03-29-2008, 08:04 PM
I've never really understood how so many people swear by the 6.0.85 and seem to want all other 6.0 racquets from Wilson to be exactly like the 6.0.85, but in a 90 configuraton!?

If the 6.0.85 is such a great racquet and people are happy with it, why not just play with it? If 5 square inches makes such a difference in power, why not just string your "Pete" with gut, or loosen the tension by a pound or 2?

There can never be such a thing as a 85 inch racquet in a 90 inch frame. It's ridiculous to keep expecting Wilson to come up with this.

BreakPoint
03-29-2008, 08:14 PM
I've never really understood how so many people swear by the 6.0.85 and seem to want all other 6.0 racquets from Wilson to be exactly like the 6.0.85, but in a 90 configuraton!?

If the 6.0.85 is such a great racquet and people are happy with it, why not just play with it? If 5 square inches makes such a difference in power, why not just string your "Pete" with gut, or loosen the tension by a pound or 2?

There can never be such a thing as a 85 inch racquet in a 90 inch frame. It's ridiculous to keep expecting Wilson to come up with this.
Actually, I don't want a PS 6.0 85 with a 90 sq. in. head.

What I want is a PS 6.0 95 with a 90 sq. in. head.

There is a difference.

Radical Shot
03-29-2008, 08:21 PM
OK, so what's the difference then? Why do you want a 95 inch racquet to be 90?

...and what's wrong with the current (or previous) crop of 90's?

Josherer
03-29-2008, 09:09 PM
and i have lost .000000001 sec of sleep over it.

Good for you. Enjoy your 120" racket.

BreakPoint
03-29-2008, 10:24 PM
OK, so what's the difference then? Why do you want a 95 inch racquet to be 90?

...and what's wrong with the current (or previous) crop of 90's?
Have you played extensively with both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95? If so, you'd know what the differences are.

I want a 95 to be a 90 because the smaller headsize gives me more control and the smaller headsize results in a less open stringbed with the same string pattern. Smaller headsizes are also more maneuverable than larger headsizes, all else being equal.

Lendl and Federer Fan
03-29-2008, 10:55 PM
I feel K90 provides less control than N90 because of 4 cross strings at the PWS, and it is 1mm thicker than N90. These 2 factors probably explain why my forehand tends to sail long. With the same long and fast swing, my forehand with N90 stays in the court.

chiru
03-29-2008, 11:31 PM
Actually, I don't want a PS 6.0 85 with a 90 sq. in. head.

What I want is a PS 6.0 95 with a 90 sq. in. head.

There is a difference.

i'm very much the opposite ;) . i could never really handle the 6.0 95, it just felt...different...

Radical Shot
03-30-2008, 02:24 AM
Have you played extensively with both the PS 6.0 85 and the PS 6.0 95? If so, you'd know what the differences are.

I want a 95 to be a 90 because the smaller headsize gives me more control and the smaller headsize results in a less open stringbed with the same string pattern. Smaller headsizes are also more maneuverable than larger headsizes, all else being equal.

I do have extensive experience with the 6.0.85 and currently use it as my main racquet. Have done for years, however I've never played with the 6.0.95. I'd love to have a hit with it one day. I'm interested in your thoughts on what the differences are. I've read that the 95 is a little more flexible. Is this true?

TennisDawg
03-30-2008, 09:02 AM
One main way they could do better is to not cheat us on the perception that we are playing with the same racket the Fed works his magic with. Fanís were concerned about having the open string pattern that Federer has. Specifically at the pws there should be only 4 strings not 5 like on the hps90 and n90. The k90 has only 4 strings. How did they do it.


I have a kfactor 90 and Ncode90. Also, If you compare the two racquets, you find that the length of the PWS is shorter on the kfactor90 and that would make sense since you don't have to accomodate 5 cross strings, anymore. I don't know what a shorter PWS does to the racquet dynamics, either.

I was watching the Federer-Monfils match last night. I don't see how the average tennis spectator would know that Federer is not playing with a stock Kfactor 90. I didn't even see any lead weighting on his racquet.

My initial impressions of the Kfactor 90 is that it is more solid at the net than the Ncode90. The ncode90 is more lively on groundies and serve. Albeit, I am going to re-string the Kfactor 90 as I bought the racquet used with luxilon in the cross strings and kevlar in the crosses, strung at 54#. I'm not sure if that is the best hybrid for this racquet. The verdict is still open for me and the kfactor90. Many on this forum, love the kfactor 90, though.

quest01
03-30-2008, 09:38 AM
i'm very much the opposite ;) . i could never really handle the 6.0 95, it just felt...different...

I agree but don't you think you would play better with the 95 opposed to the 90?

NLBwell
03-30-2008, 09:56 AM
Kevlar poly hybrid - ow!

BreakPoint
03-30-2008, 10:16 AM
I do have extensive experience with the 6.0.85 and currently use it as my main racquet. Have done for years, however I've never played with the 6.0.95. I'd love to have a hit with it one day. I'm interested in your thoughts on what the differences are. I've read that the 95 is a little more flexible. Is this true?
Yes, the 95 feels much more flexible, especially in the hoop. The more open stringbed due to the same 16x18 pattern in a head that's 10 sq. in. bigger probably adds to the more flexible feel. It also swings MUCH easier and is MUCH more maneuverable than the 85. These are also qualities that NONE of the 90 sq. in. Tour 90's (PST90, n90, K90) have. That's why I use the lighter Asian n90 and Asian K90.

If done properly, a PS 6.0 90 should have the same sweet, raw, uncolored feel of the PS 6.0 85/95 and be easier to swing and maneuver than all 3 versions of the Tour 90's.

supermario343
03-30-2008, 10:21 AM
i personally like the K90 because it gives me great control with power...i have a fast swing through my shots so im able to generate all the power i need...I now own 4 of them and love them :D

TennisDawg
03-30-2008, 10:24 AM
Kevlar poly hybrid - ow!

I bought the racquet used. Strung with that-a-way! I did get a great bargain 9.5/10 condition-$110.

quest01
03-30-2008, 11:36 AM
Yes, the 95 feels much more flexible, especially in the hoop. The more open stringbed due to the same 16x18 pattern in a head that's 10 sq. in. bigger probably adds to the more flexible feel. It also swings MUCH easier and is MUCH more maneuverable than the 85. These are also qualities that NONE of the 90 sq. in. Tour 90's (PST90, n90, K90) have. That's why I use the lighter Asian n90 and Asian K90.

If done properly, a PS 6.0 90 should have the same sweet, raw, uncolored feel of the PS 6.0 85/95 and be easier to swing and maneuver than all 3 versions of the Tour 90's.

I'm just curious so if you play better with the 95 square inch racquet why do you stick with the asian K90? Why not just stay with the racquet you play your best with?

BreakPoint
03-30-2008, 12:11 PM
I'm just curious so if you play better with the 95 square inch racquet why do you stick with the asian K90? Why not just stay with the racquet you play your best with?
Where did I say I play better with the 95? :confused:

I play better with the 90's and that's why I use them. That's also why I've been wanting Wilson to make a PS 6.0 90 for almost 4 years now: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=8110

dacrymn
03-30-2008, 03:00 PM
Good for you. Enjoy your 120" racket.

That's not really necessary. Reading this, you're being just a little elitist, like you feel superior to whoever you spoke to just because he doesn't feel he needs to risk his game level just to use a certain racket. Can you absolutely say you wouldn't play better/more easily with another racket? Of course you say you can, but i doubt it.

pmerk34
03-31-2008, 05:35 AM
That's not really necessary. Reading this, you're being just a little elitist, like you feel superior to whoever you spoke to just because he doesn't feel he needs to risk his game level just to use a certain racket. Can you absolutely say you wouldn't play better/more easily with another racket? Of course you say you can, but i doubt it.


He Dacrymn,

LOL it's fine. Dick Enberg who has been interviewing professional athletes for what 4 decades said by far the nastiest snobbiest athletes are professional tennis players (even Agassi wasn't always a great guy earlier on). Unfortunately this filters down the to the high school and club level and these message boards.

rocket
03-31-2008, 05:48 AM
I believe that the k90 is an excellent racquet for those skilled enough to wield it. Compared to teh ps 85 I do feeel that the 85 is a far superior racquet. The k90 is chunky and the SW is a tad too high. I just dont understand why Wilson cant just create a 6.0 85 with a 90 inch head. Nothing more nothing less. Thats all the die hard wilson fans want. We dont need this kfactor or ncode bs just or hypercarbon just give them a bigger head.

100% accurate!
RoddickistheMan for President!

brownbearfalling
04-03-2008, 11:49 PM
Int3sc0p3-
In a practical sense, yes it is ?recreating the ps85?. But the main idea is to integrate what so many liked in the ps85 and what made this racket line Wilson?s flagship racket into the modern games and the players of it. I can see that you play with the k90. Well then unknowingly you want them to perfect a modern ps85 too because they intergrated some ideals of the ps85 going from the n90 to k90. And obviously you prefer the k90? Or did you just buy the racket because of its connotation? ( I sincerely do not want to offend you. I only intend to gain some knowledge of your history of the flagship line)

Robert Johnson-
Not much to say here but I feel that in examining retrospect of the hps 90, n90 and now going to the k90, I am trying to bring up comments about how they are going to further integrate the two rackets. More appropriately though how is the ps85 going to be brought into the modern game?
And sorry for bashing the K90. It is good enough for now. : )

Roddickistheman-
I am so glad someone has pointed out how chunky the k90 is. I think that it is mainly a perception piece that makes the k90 look very proportional. The flashy pj and black inner paint (especially the very perceptive paint in the throat) makes the k90 look as slim as the ps85. But I think they had no choice. With the tour90 the changed the entire racket proportions. And what did they say was the only main difference between that and the ps85, the bigger more accommodating head size. I have to point out they wanted to integrate some other ideals to, i.e. beam thickness, both width and depth, the pws placement relative to the kinetics of the racket and the overall weight of the racket. In choosing these aspects as more important to some of the others, they completely changed the mold and proportions, which turned out to be a big deal. Well this could have been a good thing. The tour 90 and n90 could have accommodating the modern game. But as we all know, it doesn?t do it well enough and they are still trying their best. Optimistically speaking they are going to make a racquet that I will arbitrarily replace the ps85 and ps85 finally be a part of history.
To all:
I would very much like someone to back me on the subject of the string pattern. It took me a while to notice but if you match up a kfactor to an hps90 or even n90, look closely the first and last strings are virtually in the same position. Assuming the facts that the pws is in the same position on the head, the racket heads are indentical and there is the same number of strings, I think that they only moved a section of the strings. Yes this does cause a more open sweet spot but doesn?t hinder balance in other places. It is very hard to see this and I doubt myself. Can any one elaborate?
josherer, pmerk34-
Well we all agree that it can be better and will one day be superior to every racket in Wilson?s flagship lines, just like the ps85 killed all of Wilson?s other frames and put them in the history books.


Ending thoughts-
I realize that this posting is very in cohesive and would be very more impacting, meaningful, and sensible if it were posted in separate sections and more precise to a single subject. But I didn?t know how to address every aspect of my concern. I apologize for a rather confusing and cumbersome posting. I am a rookie. And for those people who think I spend way to much time on this forum and I write way too much, I do. This is my first posting like this and I don?t plan on posting issues like this anymore.
________
Maine Marijuana Dispensaries (http://maine.dispensaries.org/)