PDA

View Full Version : Which Racket is Stiffer?


Pistol Pete
01-12-2005, 02:38 PM
Which Racket is stiffer?
The Ncode tour 90 or the Pro Staff Tour 90?
The Ncode 90 says 66 rdc stiffness and the Tour 90 says 67?
Yet people say the ncode is stiffer which 1 is actually stiffer?

StringBreaker
01-12-2005, 03:53 PM
The Tour 90.

People who say the ncode is stiffer are what is technically known as... wrong.

man-walking
01-12-2005, 03:55 PM
Most people feedback (those have tried both Tours) I have red says that nCode feels a little more flexier and comfortable.

K!ck5w3rvE
01-12-2005, 06:38 PM
ditto @ StringBreaker......BTW, its only 1 point, so its not going to be extremely obvious.

tedmeister
01-13-2005, 11:10 PM
The Tour 90.

People who say the ncode is stiffer are what is technically known as... wrong.
We better get more opinions on this for as far as I recall during my playtest, the n code tour played stiffer and I remember the tour 90 having a lot more vibes or feel as some would like to call it :) The flex ratings, like age is only a number. My present racquet also has a flex of 66 but it hits like a pillow compared to any of the above frames.

BreakPoint
01-13-2005, 11:38 PM
I agree that the Tour 90 is stiffer than the nCode 90.

StringBreaker
01-14-2005, 03:12 AM
We better get more opinions on this for as far as I recall during my playtest, the n code tour played stiffer and I remember the tour 90 having a lot more vibes or feel as some would like to call it :) The flex ratings, like age is only a number. My present racquet also has a flex of 66 but it hits like a pillow compared to any of the above frames.
It's not an opinion, it's a measurement. You may think an ncode "feels" or "plays" stiffer, this bit is an opinion and could be due to many things - e.g string type and tension, grip, or the T90 might have been used for a year, in which case the racquet's stiffness would have dropped considerably, compared to a brand new n90, many factors could make a racquet feel comparatively stiffer than another.

But you cant argue with a Babolat RDC machine. If you put 2 racquets on it, frame A measures 66 and frame B measures 67, then frame B is stiffer, it's as simple as that.

PrestigeClassic
01-14-2005, 09:43 AM
It's not an opinion, it's a measurement. You may think an ncode "feels" or "plays" stiffer, this bit is an opinion and could be due to many things - e.g string type and tension, grip, or the T90 might have been used for a year, in which case the racquet's stiffness would have dropped considerably, compared to a brand new n90, many factors could make a racquet feel comparatively stiffer than another.

But you cant argue with a Babolat RDC machine. If you put 2 racquets on it, frame A measures 66 and frame B measures 67, then frame B is stiffer, it's as simple as that.

Just like how an i.prestige at 60 is so much more flexible than almost anything else, huh?

For the record, I found that the nCode feels more flexible than the Tour 90.

b.
01-14-2005, 01:18 PM
Sticks are mish-mash of materials. You can have two rods, which flex the same when force F1 applied, but different when force F2 is applied. It's simple (or complicated) as that.

Serve-And-Volley
01-14-2005, 02:41 PM
When I demoed these racquet I enjoyed the feel and felt that the N-Code was less stiff and helped me to control the racquet at the net. I love the feel of the N-Code, the balance and the ability to drive with the weight of the racquet and my loopy style. I hope that helps

StringBreaker
01-14-2005, 03:16 PM
Sticks are mish-mash of materials. You can have two rods, which flex the same when force F1 applied, but different when force F2 is applied. It's simple (or complicated) as that.
?? An RDC machine only applies 1 force.

b.
01-15-2005, 04:22 PM
As far as I know RDC doesn't measure flex in more than one range of force. I beleive they picked sensible force for measuring, but it obviously doesn't double as a hit. It applies force slowly (~static force). Better than nothing, but limited.

protour280
01-15-2005, 07:49 PM
I still play with the old PT 280 which is very flexible. What would a stiffer racquet feel or play like? Can someone explain how the flexibility translates into how the racquet plays?

Ronaldo
01-15-2005, 07:56 PM
Pro, my prediction for a stiff racquet, pain

gregraven
01-15-2005, 08:45 PM
(snip) But you cant argue with a Babolat RDC machine. If you put 2 racquets on it, frame A measures 66 and frame B measures 67, then frame B is stiffer, it's as simple as that.

It's actually a bit less simple than that. The Babolat RDC machine -- for all its virtues -- holds the racquet handle a certain way during flex testing. This method of holding the frame -- in my opinion -- masks the amount of any flex that occurs in the shaft. And, because the fulcrum point is so close to the head, it may show a racquets as being stiffer than it actually is. By way of comparison, I understand that Wilson holds the racquet only by the end of the handle when taking their flex measurements.

Therefore, it seems entirely possible to me that if frame B (to use your designations) has a stiffer hoop than frame A, but more flex between the RDC fulcrum point and the butt cap than frame A, the RDC machine might show it as being stiffer, while in reality it might be more flexible.

However, most of us have only the RDC machine for obtaining racquet specs, so at least our comparisons are "apples to apples," so for the most part your statement is correct.

P.S. Of course, when you're really concerned about frame flex, you have to test both sides of any racquet of interest, as many frames will have a difference of one or two flex points from one side to the other.

tedmeister
01-16-2005, 09:44 AM
It's actually a bit less simple than that. The Babolat RDC machine -- for all its virtues -- holds the racquet handle a certain way during flex testing. This method of holding the frame -- in my opinion -- masks the amount of any flex that occurs in the shaft. And, because the fulcrum point is so close to the head, it may show a racquets as being stiffer than it actually is. By way of comparison, I understand that Wilson holds the racquet only by the end of the handle when taking their flex measurements.
This entirely explains my bewilderment as to how a frame with a flex of 63 felt so stiff compared to mine at 66. So the RDC is then more useful for measuring hoop fatigue and not as good for predicting feel then? Do all the manufacturers follow the same procedure for measuring flex? ie. the Wilson way?

gregraven
01-16-2005, 02:22 PM
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with all the manufacturer's test procedures, so I can't answer that part of your question. As for the RDC, I think it's a great machine even though I would change a few things if I were re-designing it. It does measure some shaft deflection, but my concern is that by have a fulcrum point toward the midpoint of the racquet as it does, it is introducing an aspect into the measurement that isn't there during play.

b.
01-16-2005, 04:59 PM
gregraven,

can you please tell me where are RDC fixing points, fulcrum and where are the acting forces through numbers on picture?

(example - fixed on 13/27, force on 4, or fixed on 11 through 14 / 25 through 28...)


http://www.geocities.com/nicewoodywordgorn/CRW_4024.jpg

Thanks!

gregraven
01-17-2005, 07:48 AM
I'm not certain how to include images in these posts, but if you'll go to:

http://webpages.charter.net/gregraven/restringinfo.html

you'll see a small-ish image of an RDC machine at the top of the page, with a racquet mounted for flex testing. If you squint, you can see that the handle in secured at a point 10 cm up from the butt cap, and the fulcrum is roughly 35 cm up -- near the throat. The yellow appliance at the tip of the racquet is the thing that pulls down on the frame.

Hope this helps.

Hal
01-17-2005, 09:30 AM
IMO, the NCode 90 felt like a wet noodle compared to the Tour 90 (and my PS 6.0 Original 95). I was hoping the NCode 90 would be just slightly more headlight version of the Tour 90, but it was too flexible for me.

b.
01-17-2005, 12:04 PM
Thanks Greg.

When I take into consideration that Babolat is what it is (very informative statement :) ), before I jump into conclusion that they made serious machine (like they usualy do) and made such blatant mistakes, I will very thoroughly contemplate WHY they made it that way.

There must be explanation (besides possible difficulty in totaly fixing the handle that is wraped with grip ).


Nicely concentrated essence on your site.

(Sorry for off topic discussion)

gregraven
01-17-2005, 03:51 PM
I love the Babolat RDC machine, and even though I might have done things differently, I can think of a couple of reasons why they did things the way they did. I'm not knocking the RDC machine, just pointing out that there is more to measuring racquet flex than slapping a racquet on the RDC and saying "See?" It's the best we have, but someday racquet measurements will have to move beyond what the RDC machine can tell us. In the cases of certain racquets, manufacturers are making claims for materials and/or designs that cannot be confirmed or denied using an RDC machine (think Intellifibers, for just one example).