PDA

View Full Version : DNX 10 Mid vs Power Bridge 10 Mid


cork_screw
07-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Can anyone who's played with BOTH racquets do a critical comparison. An indepth comparison would be greatly appreciated. I've heard many things here and there that were general like, "racquet rocks," "best control racquet in the world," etc... But nothing that really breaks it down. Strengths weaknesses etc...

Thank you everyone.

crosscourt
07-12-2009, 10:29 AM
The PB10 mid is the DNX 10 mid that might have been made by Wilson. Much firmer - though still very comfortable - it doesn't have the "roundness" of feel of the DNX 10 mid. Everything else follows from that. The PB10 is a particularly easy stick to serve with. It doesn't have anything like the feel/response of the DNX10 off the ground. I am not using either frame stock.

db379
07-12-2009, 11:01 AM
The PB10 mid is the DNX 10 mid that might have been made by Wilson. Much firmer - though still very comfortable - it doesn't have the "roundness" of feel of the DNX 10 mid. Everything else follows from that. The PB10 is a particularly easy stick to serve with. It doesn't have anything like the feel/response of the DNX10 off the ground. I am not using either frame stock.

Crosscourt,

Would you care expanding some more on your experience with both sticks. I am contemplating getting a pb10mid as well. I played the dnx mid and I always felt it could have been a nice stick but something was missing. I liked the heavy ball, and good serving capability of the dnx but I found the flex not quite right (sometimes too flexy, sometimes not enough ... ). GRoundstrokes were good for the most part. It could have been my next stick if I didn't have this issue with the weight distribution of the racquet. No matter how I customized it, it always felt a bit too slow to swing... Strange, since I can swing much heavier sticks faster than the dnx. Anyway, let us know your thoughts. What do you mean also when you say the pb10mid "doesn't have anything like the feel/response of the DNX10 off the ground". I didn't actually like too much the feel off the stringbed with the dnx10, it wasn't bad, but it was a bit too muted/disconnected from what I remember. What's your experience on this? Thanks.

jrod
07-12-2009, 04:19 PM
The PB10 mid is the DNX 10 mid that might have been made by Wilson. Much firmer - though still very comfortable - it doesn't have the "roundness" of feel of the DNX 10 mid. Everything else follows from that. The PB10 is a particularly easy stick to serve with. It doesn't have anything like the feel/response of the DNX10 off the ground. I am not using either frame stock.


I don't understand the comment on "roundness", but the feel with the PB10 mid is incredible. I used to use the BB11 mid and it compared favorably to the DNX10 mid, but was slightly easier to swing. The PB10 mid has a nice flex to it, but the head is still firm on impact. You can feel both the flex and pocketing on big cuts, yet still hit the finesse shots on demand. The feedback and connectivity this stick offers is the best I've ever felt. The BB11 mid and DNX10 mid did not have this level of feedback in my experience.

The more I play with the PB10 mid, the more I like it. The frame is unique in that it swings lighter (at least mine do) than either the DNX 10 mid or BB11 mid do, yet can hit as bigger ball due to faster bat speed. The added maneuverability really helps on both groundies and volleys, and I feel like I'm in better position with this frame than either the BB11 mid or DNX10 mid. Flat balls (something I've struggled with in the past) are simply better with this frame. Targeting and control is exceptional with the PB10 mid, and spin is enhanced due to higher bat speed.

The one area where I initially struggled with the PB10 mid was serving. I've finally managed to dial it in and am serving bigger than I ever had with the BB11 mid, and I thought it was the best serving frame I had ever used. Both the BB11 mid and DNX10 mid have a heavier feel to them so it's easier mentally to allow yourself to let the frame do the work. I finally managed to relax with the PB10 mid on my service motion and the end result is bigger serves.

My overall feeling is the PB10 mid outperforms both the BB11 mid and DNX10 mid, but I think the key is you have to play more aggressively with the frame to experience this.

Bud
07-13-2009, 12:17 AM
Does the PB10 mid have Teflon grommets? I notice they are different where the sweet spot would be...

http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/big/VPB10M-4.JPG

0d1n
07-13-2009, 01:42 AM
Does the PB10 mid have Teflon grommets? I notice they are different where the sweet spot would be...

http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/big/VPB10M-4.JPG

The grommets on the DNX 10 mid had a similar look to them, and no ... they were just "regular grommets", no Teflon involved. Basically it was just some clear plastic instead of black plastic. I highly doubt they added teflon for the PB.

crosscourt
07-13-2009, 03:29 AM
db379 -- I think my experience with the DNX10 mid and the PB 10 mid is very different from that of say jrod, so these may be rackets that are very string sensitve or are acquired tastes. I have my DNX10s and the PBMid that I have been experimenmting with weighted to 355 grams with a 337 swingweight. They are all about 6 pts headlight.

My comments are therefore based on the rackets as modified.

I find the DNX10s to offer excellent feel and responsiveness. I like to keep and feel the ball on my strings and the DNXs allow me to do that in the same way as the Yonex RD7s that I have enjoyed playing but that are now past their best. I like to play with quite a lot of topspin, and the DNXs really help with that part of the game.

I don't find the PB10mid to have anything like the same feel and responsiveness as the DNXs. It is harder and fster to play with. It shines on serves where what feels to me to be extra stiffness in the frame makes it easier to point and shoot. To me, so far, that doesn't make up for the loss in feel. But I will experiment with some different strings and see how I go.

cc

moketrumpet@hotmail.com
07-13-2009, 04:13 AM
I felt that the DNX10 had more plow through on every stroke. the PB10 is better for pick up shots/approaches. Overall, I liked the DNX10 better.
FYI, I have a new PB10 4 5/8 with a leather grip. $60. :)

jrod
07-13-2009, 05:03 AM
Good points crosscourt and moketrumpet. I agree on the plow through, as both the DNX10 mid and BB11 mids had better plow through than the PB10 mid. That said, the PB10 mid seems just as stable as they do. So overall, it's more of a perception thing and not really a performance issue.

Just for clarification, I asked TW to pull the lightest SW PB10's they had in stock. My frames are stock and have SW's of 324 and 329, respectively (lighter than the published 337). I'm still experimenting with the lighter frame in dubs before commiting to match them.

For strings I use Tonic mains (15g) at 55 lbs and WeissCannon Silverstring Crosses (1.20) at 53 lbs. I've started using stringsavers again to prevent the mains from shredding inside 4 hours. I hit with big topspin on a large % of my shots.

corners
07-13-2009, 05:28 AM
Good points crosscourt and moketrumpet. I agree on the plow through, as both the DNX10 mid and BB11 mids had better plow through than the PB10 mid. That said, the PB10 mid seems just as stable as they do. So overall, it's more of a perception thing and not really a performance issue.

Just for clarification, I asked TW to pull the lightest SW PB10's they had in stock. My frames are stock and have SW's of 324 and 329, respectively (lighter than the published 337). I'm still experimenting with the lighter frame in dubs before commiting to match them.

For strings I use Tonic mains (15g) at 55 lbs and WeissCannon Silverstring Crosses (1.20) at 53 lbs. I've started using stringsavers again to prevent the mains from shredding inside 4 hours. I hit with big topspin on a large % of my shots.

Hey Jrod,

You're not the first poster to comment on the PB10 mid being easier to swing than its predecessors. I recall the Chris at TW also mentioned the PB10 midplus to swing "like a 26" junior racquet". I thought this was quite a comment when referring to a 340gram, 320SW frame. Looking at specs I can't quite see how these frames are swinging easier than those specs would indicate - a mystery. On the other hand, quite a few posters have mentioned over the years that the DNX10 mid swings heavier than it ought, given the specs. Has Volkl/Klip somehow found the magic of racquets swinging faster than physics says they should? Holy Grail: racquet that hits like a heavy racquet, swings like a light racquet.

For clarity, what are the swingweights of your BB11mids and DNX10mids?

TourTenor
07-13-2009, 08:15 AM
Hey Jrod,

You're not the first poster to comment on the PB10 mid being easier to swing than its predecessors. I recall the Chris at TW also mentioned the PB10 midplus to swing "like a 26" junior racquet". I thought this was quite a comment when referring to a 340gram, 320SW frame. Looking at specs I can't quite see how these frames are swinging easier than those specs would indicate - a mystery. On the other hand, quite a few posters have mentioned over the years that the DNX10 mid swings heavier than it ought, given the specs. Has Volkl/Klip somehow found the magic of racquets swinging faster than physics says they should? Holy Grail: racquet that hits like a heavy racquet, swings like a light racquet.

For clarity, what are the swingweights of your BB11mids and DNX10mids?
Corners,
I concur with what JRod has said (the only minor exception for my game is the need to string the PB10 mid a bit lower to access the good pop I want) ... I have the BB11mids and the DNX10 mids as well. Although, no official measurement involved the BB11mids seem to have about a 330 SW and the DNX10 mids about 337 or so. The two PB10mids that I have played with seem around 322-324 SW. All figures with no racquet mods.

powerslave
07-13-2009, 08:27 AM
Fwiw I demo'd the Volkl PB10 midplus ; TW shipped me a brand new wrapped in plastic :). I have to agree with the general consensus i.e. this racket swings faster than the others in the same weight category (perhaps the distinct shape of the head is the key and ofcourse the knife like thin beam construction).

Btw folks I have a general question: How is the 'beam' spec measured ? I see that K factor tour 90 has 18" 'beam' while the PB10 mid has 19" 'beam' but I have played with both and from the front side (when you look through the string face) Tour 90 has a 'flat' and a broad profile ; it is onlly from the 'side view' the Tour 90 looks leaner than the PB10 .:-?

jrod
07-13-2009, 08:38 AM
Hey Jrod,

You're not the first poster to comment on the PB10 mid being easier to swing than its predecessors. I recall the Chris at TW also mentioned the PB10 midplus to swing "like a 26" junior racquet". I thought this was quite a comment when referring to a 340gram, 320SW frame. Looking at specs I can't quite see how these frames are swinging easier than those specs would indicate - a mystery. On the other hand, quite a few posters have mentioned over the years that the DNX10 mid swings heavier than it ought, given the specs. Has Volkl/Klip somehow found the magic of racquets swinging faster than physics says they should? Holy Grail: racquet that hits like a heavy racquet, swings like a light racquet.

For clarity, what are the swingweights of your BB11mids and DNX10mids?


My BB11 mids were just a shade over 330 SW. Strings on them were identical to the PB10 mid.

Also, I don't own any DNX10 mids...my comments were in reference to a demo I test drove for less than 1 week from TW. Strings on the demo were synth gut (PSG?) probably in the middle 50's (guess).

javierjavier
07-13-2009, 08:49 AM
Hey Jrod,

You're not the first poster to comment on the PB10 mid being easier to swing than its predecessors. I recall the Chris at TW also mentioned the PB10 midplus to swing "like a 26" junior racquet". I thought this was quite a comment when referring to a 340gram, 320SW frame. Looking at specs I can't quite see how these frames are swinging easier than those specs would indicate - a mystery. On the other hand, quite a few posters have mentioned over the years that the DNX10 mid swings heavier than it ought, given the specs. Has Volkl/Klip somehow found the magic of racquets swinging faster than physics says they should? Holy Grail: racquet that hits like a heavy racquet, swings like a light racquet.

For clarity, what are the swingweights of your BB11mids and DNX10mids?
i think it's the distribution of the weight. imo the dnx10mid feels heavier in the throat area while the pb10mid feels more polarized.

i agree with everything that's been stated on this thread about the pb10mid: easier to swing, slightly less feel, stiffer/ crisper response off the strings.

Sometimes i think it's difficult to describe one's experience with a racket as there are too many variables to account for and each of them relative to personal preference. why i think every review should be comparative reviews as it provides a benchmark for your ratings and otherwise ambiguous adjectives.

that said, i think if you like the feel and plow-through of the dnx10 mid, but thought it was a bit unwieldy and/or a bit "muted" for your taste then the pb10mid might be the racket for you. the heritage of the dnx10 mid is there, but it's easier to swing and has a stiffer/ "crisper" response of the string.

crosscourt
07-13-2009, 10:46 AM
On the question o0f the swingweight of the PB10mid, I will look for the data I was given, but I have had the swingweight made up to 337. This involved adding a fair amount of lead. The swingweight on the stock version I had was nowhere near 337.

cc

cork_screw
07-13-2009, 05:36 PM
Wow, keep the comments coming. I just wanted to thank everyone for their responses. I'm sure many of us had this question in mind; also feel free to chime in with these two racquets with the addition of the Boris Becker 11 MID. Forgot to throw that into the mix. But I originally created this thread because I loved my DNX 10 Mid but sold it based on money reasons. Now regret it and might buy it back or the PB10 Mid. Not sure that's why I started this thread. But also, a lot of times racquet manufacturers will make a new "update" or create a new line of racquets and sometimes the previous one was actually better than the current one. But that quickly goes away as people forget that there was actually a V-Engine before the DNX and so forth. So hopefully this will shed new light on new and olds. Thanks again, keep 'em coming. Great responses!

powerslave
07-13-2009, 06:12 PM
C_S I am relatively new to tennis however do follow the game and have been playing at least 2 hrs on a daily basis for past 4 months. I have a medium built and a all court game , I don't claim to crush the ball but manage to use the angles of the court a fair bit (1HBH and Eastern/SE FH). I like to play with midplus frames and a couple of weeks back demo'd the pb10 MP, Kfactor tour 90, and BB11 mid.

Now based on my body strength I found the Volkl PB10 MP to be the most maneuverable of the lot (12.1oz and 10points HL you can trust the specs on TW site for all three they are pretty accurate ) ; BUT...when the balls were in my comfort zone i.e. at or below my waist and short enough the Kfactor literally crushed the balls with a sweet POP.

The Volkl PB10 mp was a beauty when it came to my 1HBH (I still struggle on those high balls which have plenty of topspin) ; at least I was not shuffling to make a shot and my full blooded blows were landing within the baselines.

Again when the ball was low and kind of dropping on me I was getting enough time to lean into the shot Kfactor had the best POP. Kfactor literally owns the other two when it comes to vollying and the slice .

I did not play much with the BB11 (7 days is not enough to demo 3 good rackets) ; however as per the specs it is somewhere in between the PB10 and the tour90 .

My impressions of BB11 as compared to PB10.

1. More stiffer frame
2. A tad heavier (swingweight wise) ,I could feel the difference while hitting the 1HBH.
3. For me it was the best of the lot for serving i.e. not as unwieldy as the Tou90 (sorry perhaps Tour90 aint for my shoulders) and not as HL as the PB10 which I found a bit ineffective while trying to serve kick serves.

---Btw despite all this I placed the order for Kfactor tour 90 with BB ALU mains (56 lb) and Klip Nat gut (55lbs) for 200.5$ from TW :twisted:

Ross K
07-13-2009, 11:07 PM
Just to add a few words as I think this frame seems to have slightly fallen off the rada - or even out of favour slightly - and I'm not entirely sure why...

It serves with marvelous pop (apart from the AG 100, I can't think of a recent frame I've more enjoyed this aspect with.) I personally find it very effective as RE maneuverability. The weight is just about spot on. It hits some nice driving topspin on a groundie. The control is very good (as I belatedly realised after experimenting with string set ups.) It is easy - especially for those not so familiar with mids - to use imo (easier than the AG 100, for example.) It is super comfy. Touch is pretty nice indeed... etc, etc.

For me, then, it boiled down to feel and stability/solidness... the feel is very soft and... (how can I put it?)... a tad reminiscent of it's 'relative' the C10 Pro... and in the stability/solidness stakes, I sometimes felt it wasn't quite as pronounced as I'd prefer. That said though, I've played it subsequently and thought: "What was your problem? This frame is perfectly solid enough!... and it's so great in all these other areas too!"...

Anyhow... yes... it all comes down to tiny things... the smallest of fractions or whatever... anyhow. Thought I'd add that...

R.

corners
07-14-2009, 05:36 AM
Thanks for all the swingweight data/impressions guys.

It sounds like every PB10mid owner that's posted in this thread has received them at under TW's published average swingweight spec of 337. In addition, it sounds like everyone's DNX10 mids and BB11mids have higher swingweights than their PB10mids. Combined with the shorter balance of the PB10mid it's no wonder that this frame is swinging lighter than the others. I don't have an opportunity to demo right now, and I'm not knocking anyone's perceptions, but I think the lower swingweight and more head-light balance is the explanation for the quick swing of the PB10mid, rather than aerodynamics or some undefined weight distribution characteristic.

At TW specs - 343g, 337 SW, 10 HL - the PB10mid is very polarized. At the lower swingweights posters have reported/estimated, it is less so.

Too bad Rush n' Crush got banned, for aside from his inability to accept any kind of challenge of his views whatever, he made some nice contributions to the forum. For one thing, had a fresh perspective on demoing racquets. I recall he suggested that the proper way to evaluate a new frame was to lead it up to match the frame you were using previously - this way you can separate the inherent characteristics of a frame (feel, flex, vibration, torsional stability, the ability to swing mysteriously fast, etc.) from those attributes that are purely spec dependent. Of course this view assumes that we know our ideal specs, which most of us probably don't - thus the need for constant demoing. We're still looking for the specs that suit us most and hope the racquet engineers are going to come up with something that fits us just right.

Anyway, Rush wrote that he was able to get the same performance out of the PB10mid at a weight some 20 grams less than his DNX10 (both leaded), due to the enhanced stability characteristics he claimed were inherent in the new model. Interesting.

I'm certainly open to hearing more of this 'light swinging' characteristic of the PB10 mid - perhaps there's an explanation other than lower swingweight and shorter balance someone can come up with.

Just went back and re-read Crosscourt's posts. It sounds like you do just what Rush was advocating. Have you noticed any quicker swinging with your modded PB10mids vs. your DNX10 mids?

jrod
07-14-2009, 06:17 AM
^^^ Corners (and others)- Regarding the SW of the PB10 mid, I had TW measure the unstrung SW's of both frames I purchased. They measured at 294 and 299, respectively. That was not an estimate but a direct measurement. Then you computed the SW using the reverse engineering tool after stringing and they measured out to 324 and 329, respectively. While I agree this is an estimate, its hard to see it being off by more than a couple of points.

Now I specifcally asked for the lightest frames TW had in stock, so it's quite plausible that other stock frames come in heavier. I'm still struggling with the posted 337 SW however, since one would anticipate a Gaussian (i.e. normal) distribution when measuring over a representative sample set of frames. The fact that many posters feel the PB10 mid SW is lighter than 337 suggests that when TW measured the PB10 mid, they may have measured a small sample set that was somewhat higher than the actual median SW for this frame.

I've asked for clarification from TW and even asked for the measurement procedure and measured values, but it's likely their agreement with Volkl does not permit them to disclose this information. Whatever the reason, I remain unconvinced the average (or median) SW of the PB10 mid is 337.

corners
07-14-2009, 07:03 AM
Hey jrod, yeah I think the estimates of your swingweights are likely pretty spot-on, maybe two units higher if your strings are a little heavier than I estimated.

I noticed that another online tennis outlet, as as well as USRSA, have the PB10 midplus listed at 310SW, while TW has it at 322 (TW university has 320). Maybe Volkl quality control is slipping (I'm not making an accusation Volkl faithful) or maybe TW messed up. However, it's been known for some time that the TW specs and the USRSA specs often don't line up.

I'm waiting for the TW University profile of the PB10 mid to come out - for some reason I think the measurements coming out of the professor's lab are, if not more accurate, better - perhaps because they are complete with twistweight, hittingweight, ACOR, etc.

crosscourt
07-29-2009, 10:32 AM
corners -- maybe the PB10 does swing a little quicker than the DNX 10 mid. I wouldn't say this is a pronounced characteristic. I have now restrung the PB 10 mid in a couple of ways and my thoughts on it are pretty much the same as they were at the start. This is a stiffer feeling stick that serves like a dream. But it doesn't have the feel on groundstrokes that I like in the DNX 10 mid. So if anyone is interested in a (leaded up) PB10 mid in very good condition let me know.

cc

Bottle Rocket
07-29-2009, 11:09 AM
Now I specifcally asked for the lightest frames TW had in stock, so it's quite plausible that other stock frames come in heavier. I'm still struggling with the posted 337 SW however, since one would anticipate a Gaussian (i.e. normal) distribution when measuring over a representative sample set of frames. The fact that many posters feel the PB10 mid SW is lighter than 337 suggests that when TW measured the PB10 mid, they may have measured a small sample set that was somewhat higher than the actual median SW for this frame.

I've asked for clarification from TW and even asked for the measurement procedure and measured values, but it's likely their agreement with Volkl does not permit them to disclose this information. Whatever the reason, I remain unconvinced the average (or median) SW of the PB10 mid is 337.

How did they know which were the lightest in stock? Did they measure every single PB 10 they have? They will willingly do this?

Either way, if they measured the lightest frames, I'd call it more than plausible that other stock frames come in heavier. I'd call it likely.

Anyway, I had two of them, and the swingweight had to have been higher than 330 (see here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=275474). Never had anything measured, but I've had my hands on a DNX 10 for a brief few minutes, and the PB 10's I had most definitely had a higher swingweight.

As far as TW's specs, I've never had much faith in them. It always seemed like their specs came from the initial batch of frames and might have even been measured in the order that they were produced. This is a total guess, of course, but it never seemed like a random sampling of frames.

Of course, the manufacturers are to blame for a lot of this, but frames produced a few weeks or months after the first few runs never seem to have the same specs, sometimes, not even close. Just look at Wilson. I owned 3 different K90's and all of them weighed nearly half an ounce more than the TW specs. Half an ounce!!

I'd assume Volkl is much better, but they are still going to suffer from the same manufucturing issues. Wouldn't suprise me at all to find a PB 10 with a swingweight of 340.

Also, we have no idea what strings they were using when TW mesures the frames. I always use poly, and they noticably increase the swingweight over most synthetic guts.

javierjavier
07-29-2009, 11:32 AM
How did they know which were the lightest in stock? Did they measure every single PB 10 they have? They will willingly do this?

Either way, if they measured the lightest frames, I'd call it more than plausible that other stock frames come in heavier. I'd call it likely.

Anyway, I had two of them, and the swingweight had to have been higher than 330 (see here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=275474). Never had anything measured, but I've had my hands on a DNX 10 for a brief few minutes, and the PB 10's I had most definitely had a higher swingweight.

As far as TW's specs, I've never had much faith in them. It always seemed like their specs came from the initial batch of frames and might have even been measured in the order that they were produced. This is a total guess, of course, but it never seemed like a random sampling of frames.

Of course, the manufacturers are to blame for a lot of this, but frames produced a few weeks or months after the first few runs never seem to have the same specs, sometimes, not even close. Just look at Wilson. I owned 3 different K90's and all of them weighed nearly half an ounce more than the TW specs. Half an ounce!!

I'd assume Volkl is much better, but they are still going to suffer from the same manufucturing issues. Wouldn't suprise me at all to find a PB 10 with a swingweight of 340.

Also, we have no idea what strings they were using when TW mesures the frames. I always use poly, and they noticably increase the swingweight over most synthetic guts.
i think tw measures every racket they have in stock, if not they measure them if you ask for the lightest, most h.l., etc... they usually put a small sticker with the measurements. most retailers are willing to do this for you if you just ask. if not then just another reason tw is great.

i've owned both and the pb10 mid had a noticeably lower swing weight than the 2 dnx10 mids i owned. it wasn't close actually. i didn't measure them, but i didn't have to. it was obvious just playing with them. BUT, i also asked tw to send me the one with the lowest swing weight.

i don't doubt that your pb10 mid had a higher swing weight than your dnx10 mids, but the consensus on the boards is that it's definitely more maneuverable than the dnx10 mid.

either way if you have a preference, i'd definitely recommend purchasing from tw or another retailer with a large stock of the rackets and ask them to send one to your measured preference.

javierjavier
07-29-2009, 11:39 AM
corners -- maybe the PB10 does swing a little quicker than the DNX 10 mid. I wouldn't say this is a pronounced characteristic. I have now restrung the PB 10 mid in a couple of ways and my thoughts on it are pretty much the same as they were at the start. This is a stiffer feeling stick that serves like a dream. But it doesn't have the feel on groundstrokes that I like in the DNX 10 mid. So if anyone is interested in a (leaded up) PB10 mid in very good condition let me know.

cc
agreed, the pbmid is definitely stiffer and as a result more "crisp" and doesn't quite have the same soft buttery feel that the dnx offers on contact. i think it just comes down to preference in feel.

if you loved the dnx10 mid but just thought it was a bit muted and/or cumbersome then the pb10 mid should be a definite demo.

jrod
07-29-2009, 11:41 AM
How did they know which were the lightest in stock? Did they measure every single PB 10 they have? They will willingly do this?



Yes they will if you ask them, which I did. The SW's provided to me were unstrung...see my other post in your thread comparing the PB10mid to the Prestige.

Also, Corners makes some very good points and has impressed me with his analysis. In general, his analysis is entirely consistent with my observations, which is somewhat reassuring I guess.

stronzzi70
07-29-2009, 06:07 PM
corners -- maybe the PB10 does swing a little quicker than the DNX 10 mid. I wouldn't say this is a pronounced characteristic. I have now restrung the PB 10 mid in a couple of ways and my thoughts on it are pretty much the same as they were at the start. This is a stiffer feeling stick that serves like a dream. But it doesn't have the feel on groundstrokes that I like in the DNX 10 mid. So if anyone is interested in a (leaded up) PB10 mid in very good condition let me know.

cc

Hello crosscourt
I would like buy your racquet VOLKL PB 10 MID, please let me know : tennismedd@yahoo.com
Thanks

Murray_fan1
07-29-2009, 07:57 PM
corners -- maybe the PB10 does swing a little quicker than the DNX 10 mid. I wouldn't say this is a pronounced characteristic. I have now restrung the PB 10 mid in a couple of ways and my thoughts on it are pretty much the same as they were at the start. This is a stiffer feeling stick that serves like a dream. But it doesn't have the feel on groundstrokes that I like in the DNX 10 mid. So if anyone is interested in a (leaded up) PB10 mid in very good condition let me know.

cc

I am interested as well contact m.seabrook1@gmail.com

DukeLit
08-02-2009, 09:21 AM
On the question o0f the swingweight of the PB10mid, I will look for the data I was given, but I have had the swingweight made up to 337. This involved adding a fair amount of lead. The swingweight on the stock version I had was nowhere near 337.

cc

Crosscourt, if you haven't already sold your PB10 mid, could you say how much lead you added and where?

I have the demo coming from TW next week and if I end up purchasing one I wouldn't mind hearing about others' experiments.

crosscourt
08-02-2009, 12:29 PM
I leaded it up to 355grams, 337 swingweight and 6 points headlight. The lead is between 3 and 5 and 7 and 9, and just above the handle in the throat.

Murray fan and Stronzzi -- apologies, I forgot to check the thread to see if anyone wanted to buy. I have a sale though.

cc