PDA

View Full Version : Volkl PB 10 Mid (Pics) VS Prestige Mid... Nobody will ask ever again.


Bottle Rocket
07-18-2009, 09:27 AM
EDIT: Please read my follow-up to this original review a few posts down to get the "final word".

I've been playing with the HEAD Prestige Mid for about a month now as part of my quest to find a new frame. I don't care about specs other than flex at this point, I don't have a set of ideal specs I must have or anything like that. I've played with the K95 18X20 for almost two years and over that period of time slowly killed the entire right side of my body off. All I require is that my new frame is soft, plays well without much adjustment to my game, and helps me to enjoy the game to its fullest. Alright, I'm pickier than that, but you get the point.

Out of a good deal of demos and a few other frames that I tried (Prestige MP, Pure Storm Tour LTD, EXO3 Graphite) and the bunches and bunches of frames I've tried over the years, I've ended up with the Prestige Mid here recently.

I bought a few PB 10 Mid's after I emailed someone about some different frames and got the response "Sold, but I'll cut you a deal on some Volkls!". So, now I have two of them. I've played about 8 hours (including 3 hours of solid hitting with a member on this board who might come leave some comments) on one of them and feel I've got a pretty good feel for the frame.

Craftsmanship

This category is an edit, as I left it out initially. I felt the need to comment on the incredible craftsmanship of the Volkl's as well as the seemingly identical specs and feel between the two I've got. After being a Wilson guy, I had forgotten that this was possible. The paint seems indestructible and the build quality is awesome. The HEAD is great too, significantly better than the Wilson and Prince frames I've had.

Size, weight, Feel:

The Volkl's head is bigger. It actually doesn't seem like a "mid", it fits in well with 95 inch midplus frames in terms of its headsize. It feels larger than the prestige, not only because of its weight, but the noticably larger head.

The Volkl has some more static weight to it and it also has a higher swingweight. The differences don't seem significant at first, but after a few hours, the extra weight in the Voilkl is most definitely noticable.

The Volkl has a much softer feel. The Prestige Mid is very firm and makes that awesome THWAP! sound at impact. The Volkl makes no such sound and for some reason (I think it is the string pattern) it seems more difficult to get the same satisfaction of hitting a clean solid stroke. The Prestige is the best I've ever used in this respect - so solid, so clean, so firm. The Volkl might have more feedback, is definitely softer, and feels slightly more connected with the ball due to the flex. I've got less of an urge to smack winners out of nowhere with the Volkl, the HEAD seems to beg for it. The sound is addicting.

Performance - Forehands (and backhands):

In terms of performance, they aren't as similar as I expected. The Volkl, given the same stroke, most definitely produces more top spin. It has great bite. With the HEAD, I can get great spin, but not as much as the Volkl. I think I am able to hit slightly more penetrating shots with the Pretige on a regular basis and get the feeling of better depth control. The Volkl is a very spinny frame, however.

I don't necessarily consider the Prestige low powered, but I would say that the Volkl is. The added confidence I have with it because of the spin and consistency I was getting seemed to help me counter the loss of power. I think I was hitting confidently just as hard or harder with the Volkl with the benefit of some added spin and comfort. The only downside is that missing THWAP! sound from the Prestige. This wore off eventually though, as the added weight, and the more demanding nature of the Volkl showed itself after a few hours of play.

I think both sticks are great from the baseline and just about any style can work with these sticks - if you can handle the weight. I hit with something between a semi-western and a western forehand and a full semi-western one handed backhand. I think flatter hitters will find great control with both sticks, but I think we have to give the Prestige the nod in this department.

I find that both of these frames will punish you harshly if you get tentative or lazy. If you don't take a full swing, you're going to get what you deserve. Either a ball straight into the bottom of the net or your opponent smacking a winner on you. In this respect, possibly because of the lower power level, I find the Volkl to be slightly more demanding. Both, however, are extremely demanding sticks.

Performance - Slices:

This is tough. I like the firmness on the Prestige, but the Volkl is softer and has that extra bite. Both are great, but without any adjustments in my own game, I was pusing some long with the Volkl. I will get used to it I supposed and might end up with some extra bite using the Volkl. Hard to pick a winner here, but both perform as expected. Both are great.

Performance - Serving:

As far as serving, I think I'd have to pick the Volkl as the winner here. The Volkl's added weight is a nice thing. Definitely more spin/kick as well, more than the majority of frames I have hit with. This was a very pleasant surprise. The Prestige inherently has some added control, but for me, I don't have the accuracy to exploit this type of thing. I feel the Prestige's smaller head and thinner shape also makes it a tad bit more demanding on serve and it the lower swingweight and lower power level, for me, makes the Volkl the superior frame on serve.

Perfrmance - Volleys:

As far as volleys, well, I am bad at them. But I'll take the Prestige at net.The Volkl seems to have better feedback, but I like the firmness and the added manueverability of the HEAD. This is sort of a ******** justification I supposed, but that firmness makes me feel a little bit more confident when playing around near the net.

Conclusion:

I guess the bottom line is that I've played better with the Volkl so far and have had awesome results, but I'm not sure I enjoy it more. I'll just have to bite the bullet and play more tennis. :wink:

Things to note:

I've been using the Prestige Mid with Topspin Cyber Flash at 53 lbs. I meant to string my PB 10 Mid at a higher tension because of the more open string pattern and larger head, but I screwed up, and it is also at 53 lbs. I'd like to go up a few pounds for a firmer stringbed.

Both have an awful grip shape, but the Volkl isn't as bad. I realize some people like it, but I'm still not a fan of HEAD's shape.

The Volkl's head shape is a little odd, but every Volkl I've seen looks the same way. I'll take the HEAD's more natural shape and much more striking (and good looking) paint job. This is obviously subjective though, so I'll shut up. The black and yellow might grow on me if I start beating people.

Everyone has seen pictures of the Prestige Mid in Drakulie's thread, so I won't post more. But here are some pictures of the Volkl:

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/th_VOLKL005.jpg (http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/?action=view&current=VOLKL005.jpg)

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/th_VOLKL009.jpg (http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/?action=view&current=VOLKL009.jpg)

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/th_VOLKL010.jpg (http://s258.photobucket.com/albums/hh265/botlerocketwar/Random/?action=view&current=VOLKL010.jpg)

DustinW
07-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Cool Brian. I've had my eye on the PB10 mid, but didn't want to pay the cash for a new one... so I just bought a DNX10 mid. I haven't played with it yet, but I'm looking forward to trying it out.

Bottle Rocket
07-18-2009, 02:10 PM
Cool Brian. I've had my eye on the PB10 mid, but didn't want to pay the cash for a new one... so I just bought a DNX10 mid. I haven't played with it yet, but I'm looking forward to trying it out.

We need to hit... Soon. We might be doing some racket swapping, too... :wink:

Bottle Rocket
07-19-2009, 05:56 PM
Alright. The verdict is in.

The Volkl is demanding. It is heavier, but doesn't doesn't have as much weight in the HEAD. Yet, it seems to be "slower" than the Prestige. I am going to put this racket into the category of having an "odd balance" - kind of like the N90.

I think what really seperates these two frames, for me, is the string pattern. I find that the Volkl is erratic. The one I used today I had strung at 55 lbs with my favorite poly and found the frame to be unpredictable. What I mean by this, is that I would occasionally hit a shot, and the result surprised me. Even with the bigger head, for some reason, I rarely felt like I got off a clean shot. If I can't feel comfortable with a frame after 12+ hours of playing, then the frame might not be for me.

I also found myself unable to consistently time my one-handed backhand properly, I was often late or lacking in head speed to hit a reliable shot. So, you can attribute this to my skill level, but it also an indicator of the extra swingweight of the Volkl.

My conclusion is that I may not be good enough to consistently swing this frame the way it was meant to be swung for hours at a time, but that isn't to say this frame is not going to be a deadly weapon in the right hands. Even on my mis-hits, I was often surprised at the amount of spin I was getting on everything. In the right hands, someone is going to be producing a ridiculosuly heavy ball with this frame.

I still think the Volkl is a superior serving racket, in terms of both pace and spin. It is entirely possibly that today, using the Volkl, I had one of the best serving sets of my life. In fact, my opponent noticed afterwards - "You were serving better today, have you been working on that?".

For me though, the serve has never been my weapon. I think I believe in using the racket that amplifies my strenth as opposed to covering up my weakness. I'll sacrifice the slight serving advantage with my greater consistency, and more importantly, my confidence, from the baseline. I need to get better to serve better.

I guess at the end of the day, I find more control and confidence with the Prestige. It is predictable at all times and I like its weight and balance a little bit more. I wish the Prestige was slightly larger, similar to the PB 10, but I find that I have more confidence with the Prestige than any other frame I've tried recently. The very tight string pattern should get a lot of credit for that, but of course, that is my personal preference.

So... Anybody want a deal on some PB 10's? I've two of them in awesome shape. :wink:

EDIT: Each frame was old to a seperate individual! I full expect both of them to leave their comments here (since nobody else will) once they hit with them. :)

powerslave
07-19-2009, 08:02 PM
^ I am surprised at your observations about the Volkl PB10 vis a vis Head prestige mid.

Check out the specs on TW website

Head prestige mid: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCHEAD-MGPMID.html

Volkl PB10 : http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCVOLKL-VPB10M.html

Although I wonder how come despite having a higher static weight and lower HL balance the swingweight of Head prestige is '328' and for a lighter Volkl with 10 points HL balance it is '337' :?:confused:.

I demo'd a brand new stick from TW 2 weeks ago and it was pretty light (despite being 12.1oz) when compared to K 95 and the Tour 90 and to me even more maneuverable than the K blade tour 93 .

BounceHitBounceHit
07-19-2009, 08:22 PM
I demoed the PB 10 and was not impressed. Since the C 1O Pro and later Tour lO Gen I/II(with the exception at the BB Mid) I think Volkl/BB has More or less gone missing BHBH

furyoku_tennis
07-19-2009, 10:20 PM
^ I am surprised at your observations about the Volkl PB10 vis a vis Head prestige mid.

Check out the specs on TW website

Head prestige mid: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCHEAD-MGPMID.html

Volkl PB10 : http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCVOLKL-VPB10M.html

Although I wonder how come despite having a higher static weight and lower HL balance the swingweight of Head prestige is '328' and for a lighter Volkl with 10 points HL balance it is '337' :?:confused:.

I demo'd a brand new stick from TW 2 weeks ago and it was pretty light (despite being 12.1oz) when compared to K 95 and the Tour 90 and to me even more maneuverable than the K blade tour 93 .

the weight distribution in the volkl sounds more polarized so it has a higher swingweight and more of a headlight balance than the prestige, even though the overall weight is lower.

furyoku_tennis
07-19-2009, 10:23 PM
I demoed the PB 10 and was not impressed. Since the C 1O Pro and later Tour lO Gen I/II(with the exception at the BB Mid) I think Volkl/BB has More or less gone missing BHBH

which tour 10's did you hit with? the mid or mp?

do you think you could compare the pb10 mid to the c10 pro? thanks.

Ross K
07-19-2009, 11:01 PM
I demoed the PB 10 and was not impressed. Since the C 1O Pro and later Tour lO Gen I/II(with the exception at the BB Mid) I think Volkl/BB has More or less gone missing BHBH

Why weren't you impressed bhbh?

AlpineCadet
07-22-2009, 01:34 AM
I'm demoing the PB10Mid tomorrow night. Hopefully I'll be able to share my experience when I get back. :)

AlpineCadet
07-22-2009, 11:34 PM
I hit with the PB10Mid strung with a very thin poly. I didn't use an overgrip. The frame was a very easy swing, even though the swingweight felt like 330ish. Groundies were great and I've never had so much spin before. I'm used to syn gut normally, but with fully poly the frame still played pretty powerful/forgiving. Compared to my regular i.Prestige MP frame, this frame was an upgrade in most of the catagories, except for reaction volleys, which tended to fly deeper than expected. The frame definitely doesn't feel/play like a midsize, and I didn't shank any balls.

corners
07-29-2009, 08:39 AM
^ I am surprised at your observations about the Volkl PB10 vis a vis Head prestige mid.

Check out the specs on TW website

Head prestige mid: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCHEAD-MGPMID.html

Volkl PB10 : http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCVOLKL-VPB10M.html

Although I wonder how come despite having a higher static weight and lower HL balance the swingweight of Head prestige is '328' and for a lighter Volkl with 10 points HL balance it is '337' :?:confused:.

I demo'd a brand new stick from TW 2 weeks ago and it was pretty light (despite being 12.1oz) when compared to K 95 and the Tour 90 and to me even more maneuverable than the K blade tour 93 .

The PB10 is highly polarized, meaning the weight is in the head (high swingweight) and in the butt ( very short, head-light balance). The Prestige is less polarized, with more weight localized in the center of the frame in comparison. These frames are therefore quite different. Here's a breakdown of their relevant specs (TW published specs and USRSA calculations):

Microgel Prestige Mid:

Weight: 346 grams (7HL)
Balance: 32 cm
Swingweight 10cm from butt: 328
Location of Center of Percussion (sweetspot): 20.86 inches
Recoil weight: 161
Hitting weight at center of head (21" from butt): 174.9 grams
Swingweight at wrist axis: 472
Swingweight at shoulder axis: 2375

Volkl Powerbridge 10 Mid

Weight: 343 grams
Balance: 31.2 grams (10 HL)
Swingweight 10 cm from butt: 337
Location of Center of Percussion: 22.18 inches
Recoil weight: 183
Hitting weight at center of head (21" from butt): 178.8 grams
Swingweight at wrist axis: 475
Swingweight at shoulder axis: 2334

The PB10 mid is an extremely polarized frame and this makes some of the specs really jump out in comparison with the Prestige, which is a more traditionally weighted players frame.

Notice the Recoil weights - despite weighing less than the Prestige, the Volkl has a much higher recoil weight, which will give it more stability on volleys and one-handed backhands and will also result in less shock. Combined with the low flex this should make the Volkl a very arm-friendly frame.

Many people think the sweetspots are lower in headlight frames, but the Volkl shows that this is not always the case - the PB10 mid's COP is more than inch higher than the Prestige's.

As expected with a much higher swingweight, the Volkl has a higher hittingweight, which, if you can swing the two racquets at the same speed, makes the Volkl significantly more powerful.

Finally, the Prestige has a swingweight of 328, while the Volkl swings at 337 - a significant difference. We would expect the Prestige to swing quite a bit easier. But remember that swingweight is measured at an arbitrary point 10cm from the butt of the racquet. But in reality the weight we have to manipulate when we swing a racquet can be calculated at distances from this point that correspond to moving joints, such as the wrist and shoulder.

Despite having a swingweight 9 units higher than the Prestige, the Volkl's swingweight at the wrist axis is only 2 units higher (475 vs. 472). At the shoulder axis, however, the Volkl is MUCH easier to swing - the swingweight there is 2334 for the Volkl and 2375 for the Prestige.

Why is this? A racquet as headlight as the PB10mid, which is more headlight than is nowadays fashionable, also having a quite high swingweight, will swing 'lighter' than it's swingweight would indicate as long as its static weight is also low. The static weights of the PB10mid and the Prestige are pretty close, but the very short balance of the PB10 mid more than offsets the higher swingweight, especially at the shoulder.

You see this especially with head-heavy racquets as well - in this case the swingweight at the wrist is about what you'd expect, but the very low static weight of these frames makes the swingweight at the shoulder much lower than a player's frame of the same weight.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what to make of this. Other posters have exclaimed that the PB10 mid swings much lighter than it ought, given it's specs. Well, the data above explains these observations. But, the OP seems to have had the opposite experience.

The OP also observed that the Volkl didn't have much weight in the head. You can see from the swingweight and hittingweight numbers, however, that this is certainly NOT the case. The PB10 mid has significantly more weight in the head than the Prestige. So why did the OP observe this? Maybe his frames were under spec in swingweight; other posters have received PB10mids with lower than spec SW. Or, the very headlight balance gave him this feeling. I know that if I swing two frames with identical specs but balance, that the more headlight one feels lighter in the head to me, even if the swingweights are the same.

Given all this I suggest the the OP's impression that the PB10mid swings slow is incorrect. Most likely if he spent the time to adjust he would find he could actually swing that frame faster and more comfortably than the Prestige. But maybe not. The swingweights at the wrist are almost the same even if the Volkl's swingweight at the shoulder is much lower. Maybe the OP's swings are grooved to a higher swingweight about the shoulder and using a more headlight frame throws off his natural rythm enough not to benefit from a lower swingweight there.

I've been looking at wrist/shoulder swingweight ratios as I try to figure out which balance suits my strokes best. At this point it's pretty much a mystery to me. Anyone know about this stuff?

MrAWD
07-29-2009, 09:04 AM
This is very interesting analysis corners. Where did you get these extended specs for these racquets? Is there a way to get the same thing for the Redondo MID frame as well?

Thanks

Fedja

TourTenor
07-29-2009, 10:40 AM
I demoed the PB 10 and was not impressed. Since the C 1O Pro and later Tour lO Gen I/II(with the exception at the BB Mid) I think Volkl/BB has More or less gone missing BHBH
BHBH - Did you demo the PB10 MP or the mid?? I hear they are very different. I've played the mid but not the MP. For me, the mid shines vs. my BB11 mids. Can you give us some more insights regarding your experience with the PB?

Bottle Rocket
07-29-2009, 10:42 AM
The PB10 is highly polarized, meaning the weight is in the head (high swingweight) and in the butt ( very short, head-light balance). The Prestige is less polarized, with more weight localized in the center of the frame in comparison. These frames are therefore quite different

The PB10 mid is an extremely polarized frame and this makes some of the specs really jump out in comparison with the Prestige, which is a more traditionally weighted players frame.

Yep, this is true. I didn't comment much on this other than claiming that the Volkl felt heavier and "slower" to me. The TW measured swingweight specs agree with me. As far as the swingweights number you posted which correspond to rotation about another axis, we'll get back to that - very interesting stuff.

Notice the Recoil weights - despite weighing less than the Prestige, the Volkl has a much higher recoil weight, which will give it more stability on volleys and one-handed backhands and will also result in less shock. Combined with the low flex this should make the Volkl a very arm-friendly frame.

This is all true and I completely agree. On a cleanly struck ball, the lack of impact shock is noticeable. It felt like like the racket just smoothly plowed through the ball without being bothered much. The Prestige on the other hand offers a solid "thud" at impact - seems to be a much more violent strike. The Volkl is one of the softest feeling frames I have ever hit with, even with a poly at 55. The Prestige feels soft, yet still very firm. This is all about personal preference and priorities. My elbow/arm is a priority, but I simply prefer the feel of the Prestige which I think provides better feedback.

I think that feeling that that you're just not going to get jerked around is one of the benefits of the polarized setup. I suspect players stronger than myself up against higher level guys would probably prefer the Volkl in stock form than the Prestige for this reason.

Anyway, just some subjective thoughts there on your objective analysis...

Many people think the sweetspots are lower in headlight frames, but the Volkl shows that this is not always the case - the PB10 mid's COP is more than inch higher than the Prestige's.

Isn't the stringbed of the Prestige longer? This would lower the COP, relative to the PB 10. I'm not sure it actually is longer, but just something that came to mind.

The Volkl, as you noted, has a small amount of weight concentrated near the tip of the hoop. The actual weight distribution contributes more to the COP's location than the balance. The Prestige, as you noted, has ma significant amount of weight near the center of the frame which can explain the lower sweetspot. Maybe. Hmm...

As expected with a much higher swingweight, the Volkl has a higher hittingweight, which, if you can swing the two racquets at the same speed, makes the Volkl significantly more powerful.

Yeah, but for me to consistently swing them both at the same speed is unlikely. I suspect that will be difficult for most on this board. The Prestige feels leaner and quicker, in some respects, I might even call the Volkl a little clumsy feeling.

Finally, the Prestige has a swingweight of 328, while the Volkl swings at 337 - a significant difference. We would expect the Prestige to swing quite a bit easier. But remember that swingweight is measured at an arbitrary point 10cm from the butt of the racquet. But in reality the weight we have to manipulate when we swing a racquet can be calculated at distances from this point that correspond to moving joints, such as the wrist and shoulder.

This number, I would assume, is calcuated directly from the measurement for the "traditional" swingweight? If so, do they use their own meaurement for swingweight? I would love more information on all this as I've never seen these specs used to compare frames. I'll do some research.

Despite having a swingweight 9 units higher than the Prestige, the Volkl's swingweight at the wrist axis is only 2 units higher (475 vs. 472). At the shoulder axis, however, the Volkl is MUCH easier to swing - the swingweight there is 2334 for the Volkl and 2375 for the Prestige.

Why is this? A racquet as headlight as the PB10mid, which is more headlight than is nowadays fashionable, also having a quite high swingweight, will swing 'lighter' than it's swingweight would indicate as long as its static weight is also low. The static weights of the PB10mid and the Prestige are pretty close, but the very short balance of the PB10 mid more than offsets the higher swingweight, especially at the shoulder.

You see this especially with head-heavy racquets as well - in this case the swingweight at the wrist is about what you'd expect, but the very low static weight of these frames makes the swingweight at the shoulder much lower than a player's frame of the same weight.

I wish now that I had taken some measurement of the Volkl's that I had. The Volkl was noticably heavier than the Prestige Mid. The difference in swingweight was also noticable. It felt headlight (compared with the Prestige), but this didn't translate into a fast swinging frame for me. It felt sluggish with the weight distribution and the feeling that there was something "missing" from the center portions of the frame. Had the feeling of an "odd" weight distribution, like Wilson N90 "odd", but for different reasons.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what to make of this. Other posters have exclaimed that the PB10 mid swings much lighter than it ought, given it's specs. Well, the data above explains these observations. But, the OP seems to have had the opposite experience.

Definitely does not swing lighter than the specs indicate, but I have also seen others that feel differently, so I understand that you may think I am nuts.

I hit with a DNX 10 mid (DustinW, from above, let me try his) for about 5 minutes. Not enough time to really get a feel for the frame or the differences, but I instantly noticed how much lighter it swung compared to the PB 10. The swingweight felt exactly as published, right near 330. Felt more headlight than my Prestige, as well. So either this DNX 10 didn't match up to the TW specs or the PB 10's I had both came above the specs. I used to play with frames with swingweights that were well over 340, but the PB 10 stood out as extremely demanding - but the rewards may be worth it. Just not for me.

The OP also observed that the Volkl didn't have much weight in the head. You can see from the swingweight and hittingweight numbers, however, that this is certainly NOT the case. The PB10 mid has significantly more weight in the head than the Prestige. So why did the OP observe this? Maybe his frames were under spec in swingweight; other posters have received PB10mids with lower than spec SW. Or, the very headlight balance gave him this feeling. I know that if I swing two frames with identical specs but balance, that the more headlight one feels lighter in the head to me, even if the swingweights are the same.

I was simply giving my impressions. I think a lot of what you said is true, if you look purely at the specifications. The Volkl does feel more headlight and definitely has a decent swingweight, but because of the polarized setup and what feels like an "odd" balance to me, it felt like it was lacking some weight in the head. It was just a feeling I had, but I won't claim there is physically more weight in the head of the Prestige. It just feels like there is, surely due to the more even balance.

Given all this I suggest the the OP's impression that the PB10mid swings slow is incorrect. Most likely if he spent the time to adjust he would find he could actually swing that frame faster and more comfortably than the Prestige. But maybe not. The swingweights at the wrist are almost the same even if the Volkl's swingweight at the shoulder is much lower. Maybe the OP's swings are grooved to a higher swingweight about the shoulder and using a more headlight frame throws off his natural rythm enough not to benefit from a lower swingweight there.

I've been looking at wrist/shoulder swingweight ratios as I try to figure out which balance suits my strokes best. At this point it's pretty much a mystery to me. Anyone know about this stuff?

Not sure how my impression can be incorrect, since it is MY impression. But I get your point and I think you made an awesome post with a alot of great information. It was very interesting to ready.

I haven't thought too much into the swingweight at my shoulder business, bvut I will now. I'd been playing for quite a long time with the Wilson K95 18X20's with swingweights near 345. The balance and weight distribution on those frames was absolutely perfect for me. I find the Prestige to be similar in a slimmer, tighter, more comfortable package. Just feel's right. The Volkl didn't.

I've had the feeling since letting them go that If I would have given them more time, things might have changed. It is entirely possibly I would adapted to them better and felt more comfortable with them, but there is also still a part of me that just thinks they are too demanding for me and I just can't quite pinpoint why.

Anyway, corners, great post. I'll definitely see what I find out about the wrist and shoulder swingweight issues which you mention.

klementine
07-29-2009, 10:52 AM
Very interesting read.... oh... back to work.. right??..work!

jrod
07-29-2009, 11:11 AM
I have to agree with corners here regarding the SW of the PB10mid. I am one of the ones who has mentioned that the frame swings lighter than the TW posted weight, but there is a caveat in my case: I specifically asked TW to select the lightest SW frames in stock for my grip size. The measured unstrung SW's were 294 and 299 for each frame. The estimated strung SW's were 324 and 329, respectively.

What is perplexing is the potential variance in SW associated with this frame. The TW posted 338 is considerably higher than either of my frames and indicates substantial manufactured variance. I think corners has suggested that SW can be rather sensitive to a variety of things, so it's not clear to me how much of this variance from frame to frame is real or imagined.

I can tell you this: I used to use the BB11mid, both with SW's of 330 (they were matched byTW at purchase). Both my PB10mids swing easier than them. Also, I do not consider the PB10mid to be any more demanding than the BB11mid, and less demanding than my k90's.

Bottle Rocket
07-29-2009, 11:39 AM
What is perplexing is the potential variance in SW associated with this frame. The TW posted 338 is considerably higher than either of my frames and indicates substantial manufactured variance. I think corners has suggested that SW can be rather sensitive to a variety of things, so it's not clear to me how much of this variance from frame to frame is real or imagined.


Swingweight is very senstive to small amounts of weight if that weight is in the right location.

If you have one of these Volkl's at 12.1 ounces (343 grams) with a swingweight of 330 and you add 2 grams near the top of the hoop, you've now got a swingweight of 337.

It doesn't take much to change the swingweight noticeable, especialyl on a frame that clearly has some weight near the tip to acheive its relatively high swingweight with such a headlight balance. A slight variation can give change things dramatically.

Now we're having this discussion in two different threads... :lol:

jrod
07-29-2009, 11:46 AM
Swingweight is very senstive to small amounts of weight if that weight is in the right location.

If you have one of these Volkl's at 12.1 ounces (343 grams) with a swingweight of 330 and you add 2 grams near the top of the hoop, you've now got a swingweight of 337.

It doesn't take much to change the swingweight noticeable, especialyl on a frame that clearly has some weight near the tip to acheive its relatively high swingweight with such a headlight balance. A slight variation can give change things dramatically.

Now we're having this discussion in two different threads... :lol:


Ok, I'm back here. I agree with the sensitivity on SW as I have experimented with weighting my lighter PB10mid some.

What I find disturbing here is the manufacturing tolerances. I know about Wilson and some others, but Volkl? I expected better.

Bottle Rocket
07-29-2009, 11:56 AM
I know about Wilson and some others, but Volkl? I expected better.

What we need is someone else other than me who who thinks they are heavy...

DustinW
07-29-2009, 12:11 PM
You guys sure are sensitive to specs. :)

I don't hardly notice a difference in swingweights if the static weight is similar. The only time I've thought a racket swung heavy is with extended length rackets.

I think it would be interesting to start a poll and see what single spec everybody is most sensitive to... static weight, swing weight, balance, flex, beam width, head size, string pattern.

Brian-
I'm giving the DNX10 Mid another go tonight. I liked it for the brief time I hit with it last week, so I guess we'll see.

Bottle Rocket
07-29-2009, 12:26 PM
You guys sure are sensitive to specs. :)

I don't hardly notice a difference in swingweights if the static weight is similar. The only time I've thought a racket swung heavy is with extended length rackets.

I think it would be interesting to start a poll and see what single spec everybody is most sensitive to... static weight, swing weight, balance, flex, beam width, head size, string pattern.

Brian-
I'm giving the DNX10 Mid another go tonight. I liked it for the brief time I hit with it last week, so I guess we'll see.

The engineer in me loves this kind of stuff. Besides physically playing, watching, or trying to get in shape to play, this is the next best thing. I think the equipment is one of the things that has kept me interested in tennis for so long. Would be very boring if everyone had to play with the exact same thing - guys would actually have to come up with legitimate excuses when they lose.

Speculating on the differences of each different frame, the advantages or disadvantages, and trying to get that small edge that one can convince themselves might actually make the difference is fun. Sort of addicting.

Most guys aren't as sensitive to specs as others, some just know what they like and what they don't after play testing. I'm interested in why I do or do not like a frame and I think a lot of other guys are too, and for some reason, some guys just want to narrow it down to their "ideal" specs - then go on an endless search to find that frame.

Screwing around with all this nonsense keeps it interesting - especially when I'm at work. :wink:

corners
07-29-2009, 06:50 PM
Screwing around with specs, yep, sure is fun and awfully distracting from work. I made the mistake of returning to the game when my physical powers were in decline but my curiosity ascendent. At some point I guess I decided that I was going to build my holy grail myself. I've got a light frame (AK90) that feels like the frames of my youth, and lots of lead:)

But I'm planning a big demo session when I return to the States this autumn - lots of Volkls on that list.

Anyway, recoil weight, COP, hittingweight, various swingweights, etc. can be calculated using the tools at USRSA. com. Most of these measures require membership, but if you're looking to waste some serious time you can pick up a one-month trial for cheap. Playing with these tools reveals a lot of interesting things about racquets.

Regarding swingweights at various axes: swingweight is calculated with an equation (parallel axis theorem) containing weight, balance, distance and time. It can be calculated at any point along the frame by hanging the frame from that point, taking your measurements and timing how long it takes to swing to and fro. Once you have the swingweight for any point you can use the parallel axis theorem to find the swingweight for any other point, including points beyond the racquet, like at various points along your arm.

The published swingweight spec is always calculated for an axis 10cm from the butt of the racquet. Since we actually don't hold the racquet that high up , the parallel axis theorem can be used to calculate the swingweight about axes along the handle that are more realistic. Many people choke down on the grip for the serve and a 5cm axis can be used to compare the swingweight on the serve to other strokes (7cm is often used to calculate forehand swingweight).

USRSA has a parallel axis calculator that allows you to find the swingweight for any distance from that 10cm reference axis.

From goofing around, it appears that at the wrist the swingweight is sensitive to changes in reference (10cm) swingweight and balance, but not weight. At the shoulder, swingweight is very sensitive to reference swingweight, weight and balance: increasing any of them makes the racquet more difficult to swing at the shoulder. (increasing balance means to make a racquet less headlight). I think, as I mentioned in the previous thread, this is what the hammer/headheavy frames were all about: high swingweight with low static weight leads to low swingweight at the shoulder. I hear that the serve is especially sensitive to this shoulder axis swingweight. It appears that polarized players frames (high static weight, high swingewight, very headlight balance) are exploiting this same dynamic but in a way that results in high hittingweight (power) and recoil weight (stability on volleys, arm health), while with hammer-weighted racquets you get only the former.

In fact, playing with the calculators gives me the feeling that polarized weighting is almost without drawback: you can have higher swingweight, hittingweight (power), recoil weight (stability, comfort) and sweetspot location while the frame swings lighter (theoretically) than a traditionally weighted frame of similar weight but less swingweight. So what's the catch?

Bottle Rocket - your observations are very interesting. I certainly didn't mean to imply your subjective impressions and observations are incorrect. You mentioned that the PB10mid felt like it was 'missing' something from the center of the frame. This perception is pretty much spot on compared to the Prestige. In some discussions last year, the poster BounceHitBounceHit - the TW comparitive review champion - said he felt the BB11mid swung noticeably faster than the DNX10mid and attributed this to the DNX10 having a 'heavy throat'.

I've been intrigued by that observation, the opposite of yours, ever since, especially since many players feel that polarized frames swing more quickly, are whippier, or more 'mercurial' as J011y puts it.

So your observation appears to be that a frame can be too polarized and feel strange, or at least feel strange to someone who prefers (and grew up playing?) more traditionally weighted players sticks.

There's one more factor here that I don't understand at all - balance. We've seen how it affects swingweight about the various axes of the arm, but how does it affect the way the racquet swings around 'itself', and is that important to stroke dynamics? At this point, many readers will start to shout that I should just shut up and play, experiment with lead and find out what suits me best without dithering about with calculators and theories. They are right, but I'm the kind of guy that needs to know how & why something works, not just that it works.

Oh, and travlerajm, if you're out there, please step in and educate:)

FitzRoy
07-29-2009, 09:33 PM
Looking at the PB 10 Mid specs, it's one of the most polarized stock weight frames I've seen. The swingweight is fairly high relative to the static weight, and the balance is fairly low relative to the static weight. Essentially the definition of a polarized frame.

A swingweight near 340 while still being 10 points head light at that weight suggests to me that a lot of the weight in the head is concentrated toward the top of the frame. So it wouldn't surprise me that someone might say that it feels like it's missing something in the head.

Corner, I see that you referenced travlerajm there. One of the things he was always a proponent of was having a high twistweight. This required a reasonable amount of weight at 3 and 9; my understanding of his ideas would suggest to me that he would consider this a good frame for customization. His frames always ended up at 350-360+ swingweight, IE, a lot more weight in the head than this has. I don't think his goal was purely to have a polarized frame, but rather to have a polarized frame that had a lot of weight in the head.

In fact, I recall that a lot of his customization was done with the Prince NXG Oversize, which has fairly similar balance, weight, and swingweight to this PB10. I recall him adding various amounts of lead to the head for different setups.

Fed Kennedy
07-30-2009, 12:20 AM
I like this true headlight balance. I just hit pb10 for a few hours. Put me in the camp that thinks it swings lighter. For me it was a more knifey n95.

jrod
07-30-2009, 05:11 AM
corners- It's posts like your last one here that keep me and probably others coming back to this board. Extremely informative and interesting.

Keep 'em coming...

corners
07-30-2009, 05:37 AM
Corner, I see that you referenced travlerajm there. One of the things he was always a proponent of was having a high twistweight. This required a reasonable amount of weight at 3 and 9; my understanding of his ideas would suggest to me that he would consider this a good frame for customization. His frames always ended up at 350-360+ swingweight, IE, a lot more weight in the head than this has. I don't think his goal was purely to have a polarized frame, but rather to have a polarized frame that had a lot of weight in the head.

In fact, I recall that a lot of his customization was done with the Prince NXG Oversize, which has fairly similar balance, weight, and swingweight to this PB10. I recall him adding various amounts of lead to the head for different setups.

Hey FitzRoy,

I think Travlerajm was a little obsessed with twistweight. The source of this obsession was probably Sampras's PS85 leadmonster. All the K88 users are now finding the benefits of very high twistweight (14.55) midsize frame - phenomenal stability and resistance to off-center shots. I don't know the twistweight of the PB10mid but the Microgel Prestige mid measured 12.42 for the TW Professor - not great, but respectable for a mid. The DNX10 mid measured 12.16 at a swingweight of 322, so I would expect the PB10mid to come somewhere thereabouts, or a little higher.

Yeah, if you could handle a higher swingweight the PB10mid could take 6 grams at 3&9 and end up at 350 SW and 13+ twistweight (Pure Drive territory). Even without counterbalancing it would still be 9 points headlight too. Very polarized frame indeed.

corners
07-30-2009, 05:38 AM
corners- It's posts like your last one here that keep me and probably others coming back to this board. Extremely informative and interesting.

Keep 'em coming...

Thanks JRod, I feel a little better about wasting all that time this morning!

jrod
07-30-2009, 05:58 AM
Thanks JRod, I feel a little better about wasting all that time this morning!

I had to laugh when I saw you're post on Nadal and Borg...like watching moths to the flame.

corners
07-30-2009, 04:27 PM
I had to laugh when I saw you're post on Nadal and Borg...like watching moths to the flame.

No kidding, I'm pretty dissapointed by the reaction:)

Bottle Rocket
07-31-2009, 03:54 PM
Bottle Rocket - your observations are very interesting. I certainly didn't mean to imply your subjective impressions and observations are incorrect. You mentioned that the PB10mid felt like it was 'missing' something from the center of the frame. This perception is pretty much spot on compared to the Prestige. In some discussions last year, the poster BounceHitBounceHit - the TW comparitive review champion - said he felt the BB11mid swung noticeably faster than the DNX10mid and attributed this to the DNX10 having a 'heavy throat'.

I've been intrigued by that observation, the opposite of yours, ever since, especially since many players feel that polarized frames swing more quickly, are whippier, or more 'mercurial' as J011y puts it.

Interesting stuff. I'll have to think about the frames that I've thought were whippy and check out the specs and see if there is any pattern. I wish someone would measure and confirm some more PB 10 specs to see if there are frames out there that actually come close to the specs that I felt.

I definitely find the Prestige to be "whippier" than most frames I have hit with.

So your observation appears to be that a frame can be too polarized and feel strange, or at least feel strange to someone who prefers (and grew up playing?) more traditionally weighted players sticks.

Definitely feels strange. Everytime I've ever added lead to the head of a lighter frame for experimentation purposes, I've never been able to get used to it. Seems to take all the feel away from the shot - makes everything feel "distant". I don't know how else to describe it?

The only added weight I've ever been able to stand for any extended length of time was lead added near the top of the handle - one of the few locations that doesn't seem to ruin the feedback provided by the frame. Doesn't feel like I've lost touch with the ball in this location.

However, I still can't deal with a frame with added lead. FitzRoy, a good friend of mine, mentioned (jokingly?) that it's because I'm an engineer and I have to believe that the engineers got it right. This might be more truthful than I'd like to admit. He's got a more open mind and probably a more objective perspective on these things.

I didn't grow up playing. I picked up a racket seriously for the first time less than 5 years ago. I suspect mentioning that may not help my credibility much, but if so, go ahead and ask the guys from this thread (DustinW, FitzRoy) about my game, skill, or whatever - if you care.

There's one more factor here that I don't understand at all - balance. We've seen how it affects swingweight about the various axes of the arm, but how does it affect the way the racquet swings around 'itself', and is that important to stroke dynamics? At this point, many readers will start to shout that I should just shut up and play, experiment with lead and find out what suits me best without dithering about with calculators and theories. They are right, but I'm the kind of guy that needs to know how & why something works, not just that it works.


I'll get back to you on this when I've got some more time, but, I'd never say shut up and play... Unless you brought this stuff up on a change-over. :wink:

samster
08-08-2009, 10:22 AM
I finally got the chance to hit with the PB 10 Mid I bought from Bottle Rocket today after a 3-week hiatus from tennis.

I have used several Becker/Volkl frames in the past 4 years, including:

BB11 Mid
BB11 MP
BB V1 MP
Volkl T10 Gen 1
Volkl T10 Gen 2
Volkl C10 Pro
Volkl DNX 9
Volkl DNX 10 MP

The PB 10 Mid is by far the best frame I have ever used from the Volkl/BB line.

I bought this particular frame used from Bottle Rocket and restrung it with Global Gut 17g at 55#/Isospeed Professional Classic 17 at 58#. I had demoed the DNX 10 Mid couple years back and I thought the DNX 10 Mid was nice but not enough to sway me from my K90s.

samster
08-08-2009, 10:32 AM
After hitting just 3 balls with the PB 10 Mid, I knew this was a keeper. Very consistent response from the stringbed and nice plowthrough. Similar to my US K90 in terms of hitting a "heavy ball" minus the stiffness and 20 grams of static weight. More comfort due to the flex.

My favorite shot with the PB 10 Mid was the forehand, easy to hit the ball with good variety of spin, depth, and pace. Serving took some adjustment, as some of you might know, I am not a big fan of the grip shape. But after a few games and turning of the grip away from the continental grip, I thought my serves were as good with the PB 10 Mid as my K90. I found good success with slice and kickers with the PB 10 Mid.

Backhand slice had good bite and depth. I wasn't as comfortable with it on the topspin 1hbh but I suspect that can be remedied with a few more outings.

Return of serve, I felt it wasn't quite as good as the K90 but still very positive experience with good stability and control.

Overall, I was impressed with this PB 10 Mid on this 1st outing.

bad_call
08-08-2009, 12:10 PM
I finally got the chance to hit with the PB 10 Mid I bought from Bottle Rocket today after a 3-week hiatus from tennis.

I have used several Becker/Volkl frames in the past 4 years, including:

BB11 Mid
BB11 MP
BB V1 MP
Volkl T10 Gen 1
Volkl T10 Gen 2
Volkl C10 Pro
Volkl DNX 9
Volkl DNX 10 MP

The PB 10 Mid is by far the best frame I have ever used from the Volkl/BB line.

I bought this particular frame used from Bottle Rocket and restrung it with Global Gut 17g at 55#/Isospeed Professional Classic 17 at 58#. I had demoed the DNX 10 Mid couple years back and I thought the DNX 10 Mid was nice but not enough to sway me from my K90s.

samster - so i'm reading u like the PB10 Mid more than the BB11 Mid. how do u rank those listed racquets? i ask cause i was considering the BB11 Mid to test but the PB10 Mid maybe a better option. thanks.

jrod
08-08-2009, 12:34 PM
....

Backhand slice had good bite and depth. I wasn't as comfortable with it on the topspin 1hbh but I suspect that can be remedied with a few more outings.

Return of serve, I felt it wasn't quite as good as the K90 but still very positive experience with good stability and control.

....

samster- I found that the k90's mass helped with both these shots you had trouble with. With the PB10mid, I discovered that I needed to be more aggressive to get the same effective response as with the k90. I find the frame performs better all the way around when I play this way. Also, the lighter SW allows me to take the ball on the rise more often.

samster
08-08-2009, 02:18 PM
samster - so i'm reading u like the PB10 Mid more than the BB11 Mid. how do u rank those listed racquets? i ask cause i was considering the BB11 Mid to test but the PB10 Mid maybe a better option. thanks.

Yes, I do feel the PB10 Mid is the better frame of the 2.

With the BB11 Mid, it just feels a little sluggish (less maneuverable) compared to the PB10 Mid. The PB10 Mid, despite its higher SW measurements by TW, moves through the strikezone faster than the 11 Mid.

I also enjoy the feedback from the stringbed more from the PB10 Mid.

samster
08-08-2009, 02:24 PM
samster- I found that the k90's mass helped with both these shots you had trouble with. With the PB10mid, I discovered that I needed to be more aggressive to get the same effective response as with the k90. I find the frame performs better all the way around when I play this way. Also, the lighter SW allows me to take the ball on the rise more often.

Yes, there is no question the mass of the K90 helps big time during return of serve or hitting crazy angled shots on the run with slight flick of the wrist.

Regarding the topspin 1hbh, I suspect I will need to make some slight adjustment to the way I am holding the frame due to the grip shape difference.

jrod
08-08-2009, 03:31 PM
Yes, I do feel the PB10 Mid is the better frame of the 2.

With the BB11 Mid, it just feels a little sluggish (less maneuverable) compared to the PB10 Mid. The PB10 Mid, despite its higher SW measurements by TW, moves through the strikezone faster than the 11 Mid.

I also enjoy the feedback from the stringbed more from the PB10 Mid.


As a former BB11mid user, I couldn't have stated it any better than samster has. Spot on.

anirut
08-08-2009, 06:56 PM
Corners, thanks for the very informative posts. I love the technicals. Please keep 'em comin'.

Bottle Rocket
08-13-2009, 11:05 AM
The PB10 Mid, despite its higher SW measurements by TW, moves through the strikezone faster than the 11 Mid.


So, since you now have the stick I was describing in all my posts, it sounds like you don't think it swings as slowly as I thought?

Now that you've got significant time on it, do you still feel the same way?

samster
08-13-2009, 05:54 PM
So, since you now have the stick I was describing in all my posts, it sounds like you don't think it swings as slowly as I thought?

Now that you've got significant time on it, do you still feel the same way?

Bottle Rocket,

I appreciate your review as it was good and thorough. The PB10 Mid has a generous sweetspot for a mid. Very good spin machine. The swing weight issue is subjective, I think, in part of which frame one is accustomed to. Coming from using the US K90 for most of the past year, the PB10 Mid was easier to swing for me.

That said, it is not as easy to swing as my Dunlop AG 100, 200 16x19, or 300 16x18; however, the PB10 Mid rewards you with the effort you put in with a heavy ball.

Bottle Rocket
08-13-2009, 07:31 PM
Bottle Rocket,

I appreciate your review as it was good and thorough. The PB10 Mid has a generous sweetspot for a mid. Very good spin machine. The swing weight issue is subjective, I think, in part of which frame one is accustomed to. Coming from using the US K90 for most of the past year, the PB10 Mid was easier to swing for me.

That said, it is not as easy to swing as my Dunlop AG 100, 200 16x19, or 300 16x18; however, the PB10 Mid rewards you with the effort you put in with a heavy ball.

Ah, well, compared with the K90, yeah, it swings pretty easy. Every K90 I had was almost 13 ounces with an extremely high swingweight and significantly more demanding than those Volkls. So all that makes sense.

On another, sort of related note, I got my *** whooped tonight by someone sporting a brand new BB 11 Mid... :evil:

db379
08-30-2009, 12:44 PM
I am interested in a comparison between the pb10 mid and the original PC600. It looks like these two could almost be twins. Anyone?

EikelBeiter
10-16-2009, 03:25 AM
And I am interested in a comparison between the Pb 10 mid and the yonex rdx 500 mid. anyone? :)

thebuffman
10-06-2010, 12:19 PM
after being a head fan for years i demoed the youtek prestige mid as well as the volkl pb10 mid. these are both incredible sticks! i took them both out along with the pro kennex rendondo and the yonex rdis 100 mid to a hitting session against the old ball machine.

the yonex was removed from the test pool immediately. i did not like the feel of it (felt too stiff) whatsoever.

now all of my current sticks (all head) are leaded up to 13oz or more so i am accustomed to swinging a heavy racquet. i had to say that to lay the ground work so that you know where i am coming from. typically weight of a racquet doesn't bother me and i actually can't stand a light stick. if it aint 12oz at minimum i wont even bother with it.

to shorten this report i will say that after hitting between the three, i discarded the redondo. the redondo is a solid stick and i see why it is a classic. off both wings it played well however it just seemed to lack technology. other words it felt like an old classic but i did not feel the racquets technology doing anything extra for me.

so i kept going between the prestige and the volkl and they were both solid off of both wings. the prestige hit very hard and flat on my 1hbh wing whereas i could generate more spin with the volkl. this had a lot to do i suppose with the difference in string pattern. really i have no string pattern preference for my 1hbh as the dense string pattern does offer a more stable stroke especially against pressure but the open string pattern allows me to easily generate the quick dipping topspin passes when my opponent hits to my backhand and comes into net.

the forehand is where i made my decision for the pb10 instead of the prestige. i had to work harder with the prestige to get the same depth. with the volkl i could get good depth with my normal 80% effort stroke. they both played solid off the forehand but the depth was not there with the prestige mid as it was with the volkl pb10.

the volkl also was a better serving stick for my spin serve. flat serves i really don't care about as i can pretty much drop a bomb with any stick i use once i get dialed in. i get a lot of weight behind my serve at 235lbs 6'2" tall so hitting flat and hard is not my issue. my 2nd serve is where my concerns are and the volkl whips right across that ball for nice spin action.

i did not have time to test the two at volley. i will say that volleying is where i fell in love with the volkl pb10 though. i am saying this without exaggeration. I HAVE NEVER VOLLEYED THIS WELL WITH ANY STICK IN ALL OF MY LIFE. this thing is sickening at the net. the dnx technology is real as this thing does remains incredibly stable.

even though i chose the pb10 as the select winner i did discover a problem with it. i took it out to play a match against some hefty competition in singles and found that he did not have any problems whatsoever with my ball. typically my ball is known for its spin and pushing people back. it is not uncommon for me to have people pinned against the back fence off of my forehand. totally not the case with the pb10. the ball was spinning but it was not HEAVY. after the match i added 1.1oz of lead to the racquet and brought it up to a hefty 13.2oz. i put lead at 3&9 and also at 7" above the buttcap to depolarize the stick. i took it out to play doubles and singles and the heavy ball was back. it was great watching the revolution on my ball and then seeing the heavy affect on the opponent. most of the time the opponent would hit a short ball allowing me to come into the court to finish off the point.

after my play testing i decided that i will be getting rid of my head racquets and will begin accumulating the volkl pb10 mid. i love the fact that this racquet is begging for lead tape being already so polarized with 10pt hl configuration. i will probably get 3 sticks, configure them differently (polarized & depolarized setups) and determine which is best for my game. and then go with one homogeneous configuration.

thanks for reading

TennisMaverick
10-06-2010, 07:26 PM
Touring pros have their prospective stick choices customized to their preferred specs before even demoing so that all variables are eliminated.

Therefore...has it dawned on anyone that since the people who make their living with a racquet in their hands do so, does it not make sense for all non-money making players to do the same, as opposed to the endless obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining, money wasting racquet purchases, and lastly, the support for GS analysts' opinion to buy stock based just on TW's mega crying posts in Kleenex tissues alone?

Let's get with the program; if it's good enough for Federer and Nadal, it's good enough for everyone else!

Ross K
10-06-2010, 10:31 PM
Touring pros have their prospective stick choices customized to their preferred specs before even demoing so that all variables are eliminated.

Therefore...has it dawned on anyone that since the people who make their living with a racquet in their hands do so, does it not make sense for all non-money making players to do the same, as opposed to the endless obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining, money wasting racquet purchases, and lastly, the support for GS analysts' opinion to buy stock based just on TW's mega crying posts in Kleenex tissues alone?

Let's get with the program; if it's good enough for Federer and Nadal, it's good enough for everyone else!

Yeah, but where's the fun in that?:)

TennisMaverick
10-06-2010, 10:52 PM
Yeah, but where's the fun in that?:)

Ha! I guess that you own stock in Kleenex!

AlpineCadet
10-06-2010, 11:08 PM
Touring pros have their prospective stick choices customized to their preferred specs before even demoing so that all variables are eliminated.

Therefore...has it dawned on anyone that since the people who make their living with a racquet in their hands do so, does it not make sense for all non-money making players to do the same, as opposed to the endless obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining, money wasting racquet purchases, and lastly, the support for GS analysts' opinion to buy stock based just on TW's mega crying posts in Kleenex tissues alone?

Let's get with the program; if it's good enough for Federer and Nadal, it's good enough for everyone else!

More filler gives the retail frames strength. Warranty issues are kept lower, and these companies get to save money in the long run. Good luck with those wishes.

thebuffman
10-07-2010, 01:04 AM
ummm...i am completely confused by tennismaverick's post. someone care to interpret for me?

Ross K
10-07-2010, 05:32 AM
ummm...i am completely confused by tennismaverick's post. someone care to interpret for me?

buff,

Hey, I know what you mean :) ... you go to the trouble to post an insightful, articulate, altogether very interesting comparison/review etc, to be greeted by... by that response?! Anyhow, as someone who knows both frames (though I preferred the Pres mid actually, though a bit too demanding and not quite for me ultimately), just wanted to say thanks for the great post.:cool:

R.

AlpineCadet
10-07-2010, 01:42 PM
ummm...i am completely confused by tennismaverick's post. someone care to interpret for me?

buff,

Hey, I know what you mean :) ... you go to the trouble to post an insightful, articulate, altogether very interesting comparison/review etc, to be greeted by... by that response?! Anyhow, as someone who knows both frames (though I preferred the Pres mid actually, though a bit too demanding and not quite for me ultimately), just wanted to say thanks for the great post.:cool:

R.

He wants to play with pro stock.

big bang
10-07-2010, 03:36 PM
I am interested in a comparison between the pb10 mid and the original PC600. It looks like these two could almost be twins. Anyone?
I own a couple of both and they are completely different frames. On my way to bed now so dont have time for a full comparrison sorry.

AlpineCadet
10-07-2010, 03:47 PM
There's so much flex in the PB10 Mid, but the polarized weight helps with racket head speed. The PC600 has an even flex to it, so I thought it was more predictable/solid. What I destinctly remember about the PB10 Mid was that it absorbed too much pace compared to the PC600, which shot back the ball much easier (prob. the string pattern.)

JT_2eighty
10-07-2010, 04:04 PM
Touring pros have their prospective stick choices customized to their preferred specs before even demoing so that all variables are eliminated.

Therefore...has it dawned on anyone that since the people who make their living with a racquet in their hands do so, does it not make sense for all non-money making players to do the same...

Let's get with the program; if it's good enough for Federer and Nadal, it's good enough for everyone else!

Are you trying to say the racquets you buy off the shelves that are advertised as "Federer's" and "Nadal's" are the actual "customized preferred specs" of these players? HAHAHAHA.

Otherwise, are you saying we all need to buy "pro stock" frames which typically go for $300+ each? so again, HAHAHAHA.

If you're trying to say something else, then your run-on sentence was lost on all of us in the failed attempt at humor. Better break out your kleenex this time around, bud. This is a tennis forum, if you don't like to listen to people's playtesting reviews and comparisons, you're in the wrong place, so either chill or go back to your video game forums, troll.

TennisMaverick
10-07-2010, 06:16 PM
"Better break out your kleenex this time around, bud. This is a tennis forum, if you don't like to listen to people's playtesting reviews and comparisons, you're in the wrong place, so either chill or go back to your video game forums, troll."

WOW!

Inappropriate personal attacks...I must have hit a weak nerve...My bad.

JT_2eighty
10-07-2010, 09:46 PM
WOW!

Inappropriate personal attacks... the endless obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining, money wasting racquet purchases,

Ha! I guess that you own stock in Kleenex!



ok, go on...?

TennisMaverick
10-07-2010, 10:33 PM
ok, go on...?

Dude...Is there a language problem here? I'm not an English tutor, so I really can't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TennisMaverick
the endless obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining, money wasting racquet purchases,

And...who is SPECIFICALLY being attacked?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TennisMaverick
Ha! I guess that you own stock in Kleenex!

Do you not understand Ross K's response? How is supporting his response an attack?

db379
10-08-2010, 03:35 AM
I own a couple of both and they are completely different frames. On my way to bed now so dont have time for a full comparrison sorry.

Since my lasy post in this thread (more than 1 year ago...), I have played ith the PB10mid. As a long time user of the PC600, and having played quite a biot with other volkl mids (tour 10, VE mid and dnx mid), I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed by the PB10 mid... It's a good frame, but somehow there's somthing missing. In retail, it lacked plow, and the ball I was hitting felt very light. Spin is ok. I customized it quite a bit, tried different weights and balance points, change the strings (I string low 50s), but there's still something missing. I have to say, this sticks serves and volleys like a dream! But groundies are not good compared to my other volks... Not sure what I should change to make it as good as my other volkls.

AlpineCadet
10-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Are you trying to say the racquets you buy off the shelves that are advertised as "Federer's" and "Nadal's" are the actual "customized preferred specs" of these players? HAHAHAHA.

Otherwise, are you saying we all need to buy "pro stock" frames which typically go for $300+ each? so again, HAHAHAHA.

If you're trying to say something else, then your run-on sentence was lost on all of us in the failed attempt at humor. Better break out your kleenex this time around, bud. This is a tennis forum, if you don't like to listen to people's playtesting reviews and comparisons, you're in the wrong place, so either chill or go back to your video game forums, troll.

I had no worries/problems understanding his posts, maybe you just need to chill out on youtube or something. :confused:

JT_2eighty
10-08-2010, 02:15 PM
I had no worries/problems understanding his posts, maybe you just need to chill out on youtube or something. :confused:

Perhaps I misread Maverick, so apologies to all.

But, If you look at the detailed and sincere remarks from buffman's post #45, then followed by the obvious derailment post #46, it looked like Maverick (in his 6th ever post on TT) was indirectly poking fun at both buffman and everyone else in this thread who were "obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining"... etc.



And...who is SPECIFICALLY being attacked?


Looked as if you were criticizing anyone on these boards doing spec analysis.

So, if that's not what Mav' was trying to say, ignore my remarks, because that's what I was responding to.

Typically, when a new user's first few remarks start off by telling people in a tennis forum to stop "obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining..." then why bother visiting a forum like this?? The majority of the forum is about "spec analyzing" that most of us would agree is not "useless". So that is the context of my remarks. Sorry if I came off a bit too strong, but far too often do we all see new users immediately come on the boards solely to instigate and criticize all the "spec analyzing", when that happens to be the gist of these forums. So, all I was trying to say is, if you don't like what you feel to be "immensely useless spec analyzing," then move on, albeit a bit harshly, my bad. Can we all be friends again?

Since the same new guy started another thread saying the PB10 is not a 'club-level' stick, I made the assumption he's here to criticize all of these so-called "unworthy of the PB10, under 5.0" users (like buffman who is doing just great with his PB10, even though he is a 3.5, which I say, more power to ya, it's good to see someone find a stick they like, Regardless of what the descriptions say who it's for). If I read too much into these posts, then I do apologize. Move on.

AlpineCadet
10-08-2010, 02:38 PM
Perhaps I misread Maverick, so apologies to all.

But, If you look at the detailed and sincere remarks from buffman's post #45, then followed by the obvious derailment post #46, it looked like Maverick (in his 6th ever post on TT) was indirectly poking fun at both buffman and everyone else in this thread who were "obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining"... etc.



Looked as if you were criticizing anyone on these boards doing spec analysis.

So, if that's not what Mav' was trying to say, ignore my remarks, because that's what I was responding to.

Typically, when a new user's first few remarks start off by telling people in a tennis forum to stop "obsessing, complaining, ranting, immensely useless spec analyzing, whining..." then why bother visiting a forum like this?? The majority of the forum is about "spec analyzing" that most of us would agree is not "useless". So that is the context of my remarks. Sorry if I came off a bit too strong, but far too often do we all see new users immediately come on the boards solely to instigate and criticize all the "spec analyzing", when that happens to be the gist of these forums. So, all I was trying to say is, if you don't like what you feel to be "immensely useless spec analyzing," then move on, albeit a bit harshly, my bad. Can we all be friends again?

Since the same new guy started another thread saying the PB10 is not a 'club-level' stick, I made the assumption he's here to criticize all of these so-called "unworthy of the PB10, under 5.0" users (like buffman who is doing just great with his PB10, even though he is a 3.5, which I say, more power to ya, it's good to see someone find a stick they like, Regardless of what the descriptions say who it's for). If I read too much into these posts, then I do apologize. Move on.

If you wanted to understand it that way and then rant about it, then sure, we now understand your POV. Thanks.

thebuffman
10-17-2010, 09:03 AM
Not sure what I should change to make it as good as my other volkls.
what modifications have you made precisely to the stick? the mods i've made to mine have me playing very good tennis. i have a depolarized setup:

mod #1 - 7.5" strips of lead tape are used which places 15grams at the 22" mark from buttcap which places the center mark of the tape about an inch above 3&9 position. so that's (4) strips cut at 7.5". then 10grams of tape equating 20" is wrapped around the handle 7" above the buttcap.

mod #2 - (4) 5" strips and (4) 2.5" strips of tape are placed at the 3&9 position 21" from buttcap. 10 grams of tape is wrapped around the handle 7" above the buttcap.

approximate specifications from modification:
mod#1
swing weight = 370
balance = 7pts head light
power increase @ center = 7%
plow thru increase = 17%
string tension = 57#
weight = 13oz
mod #2
swing weight = 366
balance = 8 pts head light
power increase @ center = 6.5%
plow thru increase = 15%
string tension = 55#
weight = 13oz
i am hitting ground stroke winners with these setups, getting great penetration and spin. since this is my first 93" racquet i thought i would definitely have to play this stick with string @ 50-52# in order to keep it deep. this is not the case at all. with the significant addition of swingweight i found that stringing it higher helps me swing out more and i am still finding great depth on my strokes. i can definitely feel the racquet flex more with mod#1 as compared to mod#2 which gives a sensation that the racquet is doing more work which means i'm doing less work. with both of these setups though all i have to do is just get the racquet going in the preferred direction and WHAM! that ball goes flying. mod#2 allows me to whip over the ball easier when attacking short balls as i hit a lot of balls out when i played with mod#1 last night. but then again "out" is very subjective as i thought i was catching the back line but some people i play with are very lets say unforgiving on line calls. i bit my lip a LOT last night.

anyways those are my current setups and if you like depolarized mods then i highly suggest them for the volkl pb 10. of course though you have to be able to wield a big stick as 13oz can be daunting for some but its perfect for me.

if you prefer a lighter setup along the same lines, you could go with 10grams of lead in the hoop and 4grams 7" from buttcap. this would lower the racquet weight to 12.6oz and still give you incredible swingweight of 355+ with a plow thru increase above 10% and power increase above 4%. as a bonus you would still retain nice head lightness at 8.5 pts.

let me know what you think.

TennisMaverick
10-17-2010, 11:06 AM
what modifications have you made precisely to the stick? the mods i've made to mine have me playing very good tennis. i have a depolarized setup:

mod #1 - 7.5" strips of lead tape are used which places 15grams at the 22" mark from buttcap which places the center mark of the tape about an inch above 3&9 position. so that's (4) strips cut at 7.5". then 10grams of tape equating 20" is wrapped around the handle 7" above the buttcap.

mod #2 - (4) 5" strips and (4) 2.5" strips of tape are placed at the 3&9 position 21" from buttcap. 10 grams of tape is wrapped around the handle 7" above the buttcap.

approximate specifications from modification:
mod#1
swing weight = 370
balance = 7pts head light
power increase @ center = 7%
plow thru increase = 17%
string tension = 57#
weight = 13oz
mod #2
swing weight = 366
balance = 8 pts head light
power increase @ center = 6.5%
plow thru increase = 15%
string tension = 55#
weight = 13oz
i am hitting ground stroke winners with these setups, getting great penetration and spin. since this is my first 93" racquet i thought i would definitely have to play this stick with string @ 50-52# in order to keep it deep. this is not the case at all. with the significant addition of swingweight i found that stringing it higher helps me swing out more and i am still finding great depth on my strokes. i can definitely feel the racquet flex more with mod#1 as compared to mod#2 which gives a sensation that the racquet is doing more work which means i'm doing less work. with both of these setups though all i have to do is just get the racquet going in the preferred direction and WHAM! that ball goes flying. mod#2 allows me to whip over the ball easier when attacking short balls as i hit a lot of balls out when i played with mod#1 last night. but then again "out" is very subjective as i thought i was catching the back line but some people i play with are very lets say unforgiving on line calls. i bit my lip a LOT last night.

anyways those are my current setups and if you like depolarized mods then i highly suggest them for the volkl pb 10. of course though you have to be able to wield a big stick as 13oz can be daunting for some but its perfect for me.

if you prefer a lighter setup along the same lines, you could go with 10grams of lead in the hoop and 4grams 7" from buttcap. this would lower the racquet weight to 12.6oz and still give you incredible swingweight of 355+ with a plow thru increase above 10% and power increase above 4%. as a bonus you would still retain nice head lightness at 8.5 pts.

let me know what you think.

It's only logical that the heavier the stick, the tighter you would string it.

Did you stop play testing the set-up on the stick that I sold to you? How did it compare to your set-up?

thebuffman
10-18-2010, 06:36 PM
Did you stop play testing the set-up on the stick that I sold to you? How did it compare to your set-up?
your mod felt very smooth even though the weight was close to 14oz. i believe it was somewhere above 9pts HL even. i didn't hit very long with it though before changing the customizations because i believed i could get just as much plow through and power with less lead. the handle on your mod was pretty heavy but i believe the less weight in the handle the better. i think that lead should only be placed in the handle for the purpose of balance. any other purpose for added weight in the handle introduces inefficient use of added weight. to increase efficiency of lead placement in the handle, i am of the opinion that it should be placed higher up in the handle so that it is closer to the power zone (for depolarized setups).

in comparison, my setup produced just as solid a hit with more spin as i was able to whip the racquet around faster. this is just my opinion and i am sure an objective tester might have a completely different opinion.

GoodSamaritan
12-04-2010, 03:17 PM
I am interested in a comparison between the pb10 mid and the original PC600. It looks like these two could almost be twins. Anyone?
Would be interested in a comparison as well :)

PrinceMoron
12-05-2010, 02:47 AM
It's only logical that the heavier the stick, the tighter you would string it.



I have 2 Pb Mid 10s at 40lbs Alu Rough leaded up to 397 and they are probably my favourite set up. That is pretty much the extremes of weight and tension I can manage. I have a bunch of other set ups, but they don't seem to make it out of the racket bag.

I have found the heavier the racket, the less I care about tension. At 340g I can tell the difference between 55 and 52lbs, and if I leave a racket a week the tension has noticeably dropped.