PDA

View Full Version : "Actual" headsize of HEAD Liquidmetal Radical OS


strokee
07-16-2010, 10:29 PM
I know that HEAD racquet headsizes are actually smaller than those of other manufacturers (due to measuring techniques). Does anybody know how big the headsize on the liquidmetal radical oversize (107") is? Much appreciated...

Bartelby
07-16-2010, 10:43 PM
You don't know this as it's an urban myth. The best view (that has arisen after long discussions) is that for advertising purposes some of the older moulds were given metric names that did not correspond to their actual measured size and they've stuck with that. I think that only applies to five current models of which I think yours is one, but although I've seen one or two os models I didn't measure them.

I do know as a fact that the Prestige and Radical MP are a bit smaller than a Babolat Storm 98 MP, or at least those that I had access to were.



I know that HEAD racquet headsizes are actually smaller than those of other manufacturers (due to measuring techniques). Does anybody know how big the headsize on the liquidmetal radical oversize (107") is? Much appreciated...

strokee
07-16-2010, 10:47 PM
It's my understanding that HEAD measures their racquets around the frame of the racquet while the other manufacturers only measure the string bed.

pyrokid
07-17-2010, 02:57 AM
You don't know this as it's an urban myth. The best view (that has arisen after long discussions) is that for advertising purposes some of the older moulds were given metric names that did not correspond to their actual measured size and they've stuck with that. I think that only applies to five current models of which I think yours is one, but although I've seen one or two os models I didn't measure them.

I do know as a fact that the Prestige and Radical MP are a bit smaller than a Babolat Storm 98 MP, or at least those that I had access to were.

It's not an urban myth, it's held true for all of their frames people have measured...

Bartelby
07-17-2010, 05:34 AM
I held up a radical pro, a new mould, against an apd and they're identical in size.


It's not an urban myth, it's held true for all of their frames people have measured...

strokee
07-17-2010, 09:47 AM
Would it be safe to say that it would actually be closer to 104" than 107"?

Don't Let It Bounce
07-17-2010, 12:38 PM
It's not an urban myth, it's held true for all of their frames people have measured...Not to speak for the guy, but I think he meant the "myth" part to be that the head sizes are measured from the outside of the frames (they aren't), not that the head sizes are smaller than advertised (they are, as you note).

There's a good thread around here, started by Jack & Coke, in which he does some CAD magic to measure some actual head sizes. He determined, IIRC, that the 600's (93's) are really 89-90 and that the 630's (98's) are really 94-95. I haven't read anything specific about the 690's (107's), but given that Head rounded up to 600 and to 630, 690 starts to look like a suspiciously round number too, doesn't it?

Strokee, if you have a LM Rad OS, try this as a pretty good approximation: measure the string bed width from inner frame surface to inner frame surface, as precisely as possible, and then do the same for the string bed length. The surface area of the stringbed will be 3.1415 * length * width /4. If you have one and decide to measure it, please post what you get here; I too am curious if the 690's are also rounded off. (If you're curious about the "measure from the outside" myth, do the same thing with length and width measured from the outside of the frame. You'll be surprised at how much the frame adds to the area.)

strokee
07-17-2010, 06:38 PM
Not to speak for the guy, but I think he meant the "myth" part to be that the head sizes are measured from the outside of the frames (they aren't), not that the head sizes are smaller than advertised (they are, as you note).

There's a good thread around here, started by Jack & Coke, in which he does some CAD magic to measure some actual head sizes. He determined, IIRC, that the 600's (93's) are really 89-90 and that the 630's (98's) are really 94-95. I haven't read anything specific about the 690's (107's), but given that Head rounded up to 600 and to 630, 690 starts to look like a suspiciously round number too, doesn't it?

Strokee, if you have a LM Rad OS, try this as a pretty good approximation: measure the string bed width from inner frame surface to inner frame surface, as precisely as possible, and then do the same for the string bed length. The surface area of the stringbed will be 3.1415 * length * width /4. If you have one and decide to measure it, please post what you get here; I too am curious if the 690's are also rounded off. (If you're curious about the "measure from the outside" myth, do the same thing with length and width measured from the outside of the frame. You'll be surprised at how much the frame adds to the area.)

Unfortunately I don't have one...I only asked the question because a friend of mine is thinking about buying one.

Icedorb217
07-17-2010, 06:50 PM
I though the head size thing was only with the prestige?

esgee48
07-17-2010, 07:02 PM
I use Head's LM Instinct Tour XL. Says 100 sq inches. Measured them (3.1415*longest Length*longest width/4) and they come out at 99.8 sq inches. When Head had the 600, 630 and 690 sq cm designations, they were equivalent to 93, 97.6 and 107 sq inches. Never understood where the claim of 'undersized' came from.

strokee
07-17-2010, 09:27 PM
I use Head's LM Instinct Tour XL. Says 100 sq inches. Measured them (3.1415*longest Length*longest width/4) and they come out at 99.8 sq inches. When Head had the 600, 630 and 690 sq cm designations, they were equivalent to 93, 97.6 and 107 sq inches. Never understood where the claim of 'undersized' came from.

Well, my Father-In-Law plays with a Head ti.s5 (107") and when I place it up against my Roddick GT (100") there is hardly any noticeable difference in headsize...

When I place the ti.s5 up against my old Pure Drive 107 the ti.s5 seems smaller...

pyrokid
07-18-2010, 06:22 AM
I held up a radical pro, a new mould, against an apd and they're identical in size.

Got any pics? With what's on top switched?

Goose
07-30-2010, 11:05 PM
I measured my new youtek prestige mps and they came out to be 95sq inch.

Holding them up to my old 98sq inch fischers they are also visibly smaller.

Bartelby
07-30-2010, 11:09 PM
Yes, that's what all previous reliable evidence would suggest.



I measured my new youtek prestige mps and they came out to be 95sq inch.

Holding them up to my old 98sq inch fischers they are also visibly smaller.

ace0001a
07-31-2010, 01:18 AM
Well, my Father-In-Law plays with a Head ti.s5 (107") and when I place it up against my Roddick GT (100") there is hardly any noticeable difference in headsize...

When I place the ti.s5 up against my old Pure Drive 107 the ti.s5 seems smaller...

I use Head 690 OS Radicals which are listed as 107...when compared to a Prince Original Graphite 110, they look exactly the same size and so I'm pretty sure Head's measuring system is consistent with industry standards. I noticed the same thing about Pure Drives when I compared a fellow local courts tennis player's Pure Drive against my Radical OS and not noticing much of a difference. I think it's funny how no one says Pros don't us OS racquets anymore when you consider that there are alot of players out there who use Babolat Aeropro and Pure Drive "Midplus" racquets that are about the same size as everyone else's Oversize racquets.

ace0001a
07-31-2010, 01:21 AM
Oops, double post...

strokee
07-31-2010, 10:55 AM
I purchased a microgel radical os for a friend of mine the other day...when I compare it to my pure drive roddick gt there is a noticeable difference.

The microgel os is definitely larger in headsize.

saigonbond
07-31-2010, 01:10 PM
You gotta remember you're talking about square inches (square centimeters), so the difference is not enormous from headsize to headsize. Here's an example:

http://www.hdtennis.com/images/gr/racquet_head_sizes.png

Here's also an old thread talking about the same thing:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100018

ace0001a
07-31-2010, 02:04 PM
I purchased a microgel radical os for a friend of mine the other day...when I compare it to my pure drive roddick gt there is a noticeable difference.

The microgel os is definitely larger in headsize.

Well something doesn't add up, but in my comparison with an older Pure Drive, my Radical Tour OS (which I know is the same size as an MG Radical OS) was only a little bit bigger. To me they looked about the same size.

meowmix
07-31-2010, 02:08 PM
^You'd be surprised at how little difference there is between head sizes. Take a 98 and a 100, and I almost guarantee you won't notice a difference. Take my Spectrum Comp 90 and compare it to my Ipex's... and there's a very small difference.

Outlined
08-23-2010, 05:11 PM
I measured my new youtek prestige mps and they came out to be 95sq inch.

Holding them up to my old 98sq inch fischers they are also visibly smaller.

How did you measured it ?

Outlined
08-23-2010, 05:12 PM
There's a good thread around here, started by Jack & Coke, in which he does some CAD magic to measure some actual head sizes. He determined, IIRC, that the 600's (93's) are really 89-90 and that the 630's (98's) are really 94-95. I haven't read anything specific about the 690's (107's), but given that Head rounded up to 600 and to 630, 690 starts to look like a suspiciously round number too, doesn't it?

got a link to that thread ?

meowmix
08-23-2010, 06:16 PM
Here we go:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295535&highlight=CAD

Don't Let It Bounce
08-24-2010, 12:23 AM
Upon reflection, that 690 doesn't seem like such a suspiciously round number after all. The first 690 Radical was made for Agassi, and he had always gone to great pains to ensure that his post-Prince frames were as much like the Graphite OS as possible.

All the Head 100's I've ever measured (bearing in mind that the area of ellipse calculation above is only an approximation of the actual shape of the stringbed) appeared to be very close to 100; the 98's and 93's appeared to be very close to 95 and 90, respectively.