PDA

View Full Version : Dunlop Bio200 vs 200 Light


steve260z
08-21-2011, 06:52 PM
Been playing with the 200 Light for about 6 months and bought the 200 for the heck of it. Both frames strung with BHBR at 54/52 and leather grips.

Bio 200:
Great slice backhands here. Stays very low and deep through the court. Very stable and massive weighty feel behind the ball. Good topspin but not Babolat territory. (Not suppose to be) Slice off both sides is great. Kicker serves work very well. The power tends to come from the frames plow through and mass verses the strings and racquet head speed. Volleys have to be nailed. No free power on at the net.

200 Lite:
Power tends to come from the strings and pocketing. Not as weighty and massive as the 200 but not light either. Better topspin off both sides compared to the 200. Backhand slice works very well but not quite the depth as the 200 or as stable, but not far behind. More power on serves. Much more pop on volleys and much more agile at the net than the 200.

Both frames can flatten out and crush forehands off the ground. IMO the 200 does not make up for its additional weight, lack of agility at the net and low power there. Its a great frame but I just don't see enough added benefit of its hefty SW compared to the 200 Light. Yes, its more stable but more work and more control off the ground. The 200 light can feel as if it "sprays" the ball around once and while (Compared to the 200) but not a big enough difference. The differences are really what you'd expect. A slightly lighter 16 x19 verses a heavier 18 x 20. More control and weight verses slightly more power and quicker racquet head speed.

Keifers
08-21-2011, 07:10 PM
Very interesting comments. Thanks.

Can you compare their stiffnesses? TW measured the 200 at 57 and the 200 Lite at 65 -- does that seem right?

maxpotapov
08-21-2011, 09:21 PM
Very interesting comments. Thanks.

Can you compare their stiffnesses? TW measured the 200 at 57 and the 200 Lite at 65 -- does that seem right?

I wonder why in TW reviews no one mentions words "soft" or "plush" concerning Bio 200. I'm still trying to understand the nature of Bio's 57 rating from other people's perspective as my possibilities to demo are limited.

Netspirit
08-21-2011, 09:26 PM
I demoed both and I believe that 200 lite can be made very close to 200 with some lead tape.

I did suffer a bit from the insufficient plow-through of 200 lite in its stock form (after playing with K90 that gives you lots of free power and makes your swing a bit lazy). It is like you swing out of your mind at the ball, but the resulting speed is only "decent", not crushing. For some reason the lite does add a few MPH on serves compared to 200.

I ended up buying the lite.

steve260z
08-22-2011, 06:16 AM
I wonder why in TW reviews no one mentions words "soft" or "plush" concerning Bio 200. I'm still trying to understand the nature of Bio's 57 rating from other people's perspective as my possibilities to demo are limited.

Yeah, I intended to touch on this but forgot. Dunlop puts the 200 flex at 62 and the light at 63. Granted these frames very similar its not ideal comparing frame stiffness when the string patterns are different but IMO Dunlop has the specs correct. The 200 does not feel anywhere near 57. The light actually feels more flexy due to the "give" created by the open string pattern. To me the flex between the frames feels the same. 200 actually feels stiffer due to the 18 x 20 pattern.

wilfreb
08-22-2011, 09:17 AM
i want to buy a bio 500tour sooo bad!!!

maxpotapov
08-22-2011, 10:10 AM
Yeah, I intended to touch on this but forgot. Dunlop puts the 200 flex at 62 and the light at 63. Granted these frames very similar its not ideal comparing frame stiffness when the string patterns are different but IMO Dunlop has the specs correct. The 200 does not feel anywhere near 57. The light actually feels more flexy due to the "give" created by the open string pattern. To me the flex between the frames feels the same. 200 actually feels stiffer due to the 18 x 20 pattern.

Thanks for clarification, just as I suspected...

Timbo's hopeless slice
08-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Ok, well, I beg to differ. I have 200s, and they are VERY soft.. Totally love them, couldn't play with the Lite on account of the colour!

beeveewee
08-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Same here. 200 lite was a bit too harsh for me and my balls tended to land short with the 16x19 and less weight. 200 on the other hand feels soft and smooth but still crushes the ball. Very unique feeling soft racquet. I think this is explained by the flex profile which is apparently flexy in the throat but stiffer in the hoop. I've pretty much narrowed my racquet search to the Dunlop Biomimetic 200 and the Prince Exo3 tour 100. Volleying with the 200 made me look and feel like a brilliant volleyer (which I am not). That was one of the highlights for me. I plan to tinker with string tension in the 200 and demo the exo3 100 in 16x18 before making my decision later this week.

steve260z
08-22-2011, 07:53 PM
Timbo, whats ur set up?

Keifers
08-22-2011, 08:50 PM
Ok, well, I beg to differ. I have 200s, and they are VERY soft.. Totally love the, couldn't play with tehe Lite on account of the colour!
Timbo, I was hoping you would chime in on the 200's stiffness (or lack thereof).

Same here. 200 lite was a bit too harsh for me and my balls tended to land short with the 16x19 and less weight. 200 on the other hand feels soft and smooth but still crushes the ball. Very unique feeling soft racquet. I think this is explained by the flex profile which is apparently flexy in the throat but stiffer in the hoop. I've pretty much narrowed my racquet search to the Dunlop Biomimetic 200 and the Prince Exo3 tour 100. Volleying with the 200 made me look and feel like a brilliant volleyer (which I am not). That was one of the highlights for me. I plan to tinker with string tension in the 200 and demo the exo3 100 in 16x18 before making my decision later this week.
Well said. I've also found volleying with the 200 a real pleasure -- imo, it's a highlight of this racquet's overall performance.

steve260z
08-23-2011, 05:22 AM
Timbo, I was hoping you would chime in on the 200's stiffness (or lack thereof).


Well said. I've also found volleying with the 200 a real pleasure -- imo, it's a highlight of this racquet's overall performance.

Interesting.........I prefer the Light at the net. Crisper volley and more punch. Your volley mechanics are probably better.

Keifers
08-23-2011, 08:27 AM
Interesting.........I prefer the Light at the net. Crisper volley and more punch. Your volley mechanics are probably better.
The 200 might have actually improved my volleying. Because I know the frame is going to give a little on impact, I squeeze the grip a little more than I would with a stiffer frame, which makes for a nice firm wrist and less swing (too much swing is my old bugaboo when volleying).

Have not tried the Lite. I bought an AG 200 16x19 back when they were the latest and didn't do well with its lighter weight and low swingweight. I can imagine, though, that the Lite is a lot of fun at net.

Timbo's hopeless slice
08-23-2011, 05:01 PM
Timbo, whats ur set up?

full poly @ 55lbs, an overgrip and a dampener, that's it!

I use fairly soft poly such as BB flouro or similar.

I have HEAD sonic pro black in them at the moment 'cos it's easy to get in Australia. I am waiting for another reel of Dunlop's Black Widow 17 which is also great.
(I think it might have been quicker to just buy it myself, hello, rep???)

beeveewee
09-01-2011, 07:51 PM
tried both, didn't like the 200 lite, too stiff and tinny. 200 was fantastic in a lot of ways. Best volleying racquet I demoed.

PJayhawk
09-18-2011, 12:30 PM
Totally agree with Timbo. I just concluded a 4-month racquet search with a pair of non-lite 200s. I'm still deciding if I should distinguish them from the 200 Lite by referring to them as "straight-up 200s", "full-on 200s", or maybe "200 non-filters".

At any rate, I found the 200 to be wonderfully soft. My runner-up choice was the Pacific X Feel Pro 95, which is also soft, but didn't quite open up the court for me the way that the 200 does. I have one strung with Dunlop Silk 17 at 62, and the other with Black Widow 17 at 58. My initial preference is for the full bed of poly, mostly because the frame is plush enough for it. Has anyone found other strings that they would recommend for the "full-on 200"?

TheBoom
09-18-2011, 01:20 PM
Anyone compare the 200 lite or 200 with the 200 tour?

Timbo's hopeless slice
09-18-2011, 09:18 PM
god, Boom!

I reckon you are going to end up with SOOO many racquets...

TheBoom
09-19-2011, 02:06 AM
I rekon not! I figure asking questions costs me less than demoing or buying a new frame :) sorry if it annoys you

slice bh compliment
09-19-2011, 02:11 AM
200 is good, but the Babolat PS Limited is similar and just a little better in terms of control.

The 200 lite is awesome, especially if you are handy with the lead.

THe 200tour has all of the benefits of both (heavy, stable, great feel, cool look, 16 mains rather than 18). The 200tour will be one of the finest racquets of our time -- their best racquet since the max 200g.

steve260z
09-27-2011, 07:18 AM
Ok, I'm the OP on this tread and I'm totally changing my mind.
Been using the 200 for a couple of weeks strung a bit lower at 49/47 with BHBR. This racquet rocks....kicks the crap out of the 200 Lite. More power/More control and effortless power with amazing plow through. My arm does get a bit sore after playing but time for some arm curls.

Keifers
09-27-2011, 12:00 PM
^^ Glad it's working out for you.

Do you think you might try a hybrid string job next?

steve260z
09-27-2011, 02:55 PM
^^ Glad it's working out for you.

Do you think you might try a hybrid string job next?

Probably not. (Unless you have a strong suggestion) I have some Black Code 18g around. I'll try that next.

Keifers
09-27-2011, 04:21 PM
^^ I was just reacting to your report of some arm soreness after playing, but maybe you were saying that some strengthening exercises would take care of that.

In terms of a softer stringbed, Black Code 18g could give you that. I've really been enjoying Pacific Prime 16L mains / PK IQ Poly XT 17 crosses -- excellent comfort, control and feel for my game.

ghia
09-27-2011, 11:01 PM
Sorry to intrude, but I have a couple of questions:

First if you could compare the bio 200 to the 4D200 in terms of sweetspot at ease of swing ?

Second how would you compare the bio 200 lite to the 4D 200 ?

I am/was a 4D200 user and I am determined to return to the brand and the series of 200's. I am questioning wether to go with the bio 200 or the lite. I need a soft racquet (elbow issues), I kind of need a bit larger of a sweetspot and just a tad more power for on the run return shots (reference beeing the 4D 200). Should I add into the equation the 200 plus also, does it fill the bill more so then the others ?

Thanks in advence.

slice bh compliment
09-27-2011, 11:17 PM
200 lite is nice, but it's light, relatively speaking, so you might miss some of the stability and power of the 200.

The 200 plus, I've tried. Large head and huge sweetspot. I like it.

The new 200 is good, too, but the string pattern is dense.

The new 200 tour might be the best of them all in terms of ease of swing (it's this weird combination of aerodynamic and also boxy). I demoed one last month. I am a Babolat Pure Storm Ltd guy, too, ghia, but this might turn me if it's strung right. I have ordered one. We'll see. BTW, I'm like you....a former 200 guy who likes a stable, heavy stick....a thin beam and some good flex.

steve260z
09-28-2011, 05:42 AM
The 200 Light is not light in general, its over 11oz but it's certainly light feeling compared to a regular 200 of any model line. The SW of the 200L is around 307 verses 322 (or so) of the Bio 200. I haven't played with the 4D but I believe the SW a bit higher than the Bio 200. Can't help either regarding the 200 plus or Tour.