PDA

View Full Version : pro staff six one 95 "real" weight?


Edo
01-13-2012, 07:32 AM
Today my local store received 6 ps 6.1 95 and we weighted them all together (strung with factory wilson sensation, no overgrips) and here's the results: one was 329, 2 were 332, 2 333 and one 334. Both wilson and tw specs say strung weight is 326, while unstrung weight should be 313. So my question is: are strings heavier than 13 grams (which would give 326) or are all racquets weighted differently (and all above 313gr)?? thoughts? Anyone who's got a demo or has bought one can share strung weight without overgrip/dampener?

Bartelby
01-13-2012, 07:37 AM
They are all built to a wide tolerance and none wider than Wilson.

bluetrain4
01-13-2012, 07:43 AM
Today my local store received 6 ps 6.1 95 and we weighted them all together (strung with factory wilson sensation, no overgrips) and here's the results: one was 329, 2 were 332, 2 333 and one 334. Both wilson and tw specs say strung weight is 326, while unstrung weight should be 313. So my question is: are strings heavier than 13 grams (which would give 326) or are all racquets weighted differently (and all above 313gr)?? thoughts? Anyone who's got a demo or has bought one can share strung weight without overgrip/dampener?

WOW! Six Wilson frames within 5 grams of each other. Believe it or not, that's pretty impressive.

Edo
01-13-2012, 07:43 AM
yeah, I know that, but 8grams..!!! that's a superwide tolerance people shouldnt tolerate!!! :D

esgee48
01-13-2012, 07:50 AM
What gauge was the Wilson Sensation? 16 or 17? To answer your question, yes, if 16 ga, the strings could be 15 grams.

Did you guys remove the plastic wrap from the handle before weighing the racquets?

kybb
01-13-2012, 07:59 AM
I have seen 10g and 8mm difference... frames were bought at the same time and from the same seller.

My experience is with wilsons that the lightest ones need only weight added to the grip area and you can get the same weight and balance. Newer had need to add some weight to the head. I have had only 4 pairs of Wilsons tough.

Edo
01-13-2012, 08:10 AM
What gauge was the Wilson Sensation? 16 or 17? To answer your question, yes, if 16 ga, the strings could be 15 grams.

Did you guys remove the plastic wrap from the handle before weighing the racquets?

yes, we did remove everything (wrap from the handle, plastic from the stringbed etc) and the sensation are 16ga. But still, if they added 15 grams, then the unstrung stick at 334 would be 319 as opposed to 313... So you reckon heavier sticks add overall weight or is it just in the handle/head?

Geology_Rocks!
01-13-2012, 08:26 AM
Seriously, when I saw the thread I was expecting a 10g gap between each frame, based on my previous experience and the reports around here.

Those are pretty good.

Edo
01-13-2012, 08:31 AM
Seriously, when I saw the thread I was expecting a 10g gap between each frame, based on my previous experience and the reports around here.

Those are pretty good.

Well, the gap I mentioned is between a stick at 329 and a stick at 334.. if you consider that the "official" weight is 326, i'm sure there will be some 320/322 sticks somewhere in the world!

Vasuri
01-13-2012, 10:58 AM
The strung weight is 329 gr on the wilson website, unstrung 313 gr, so difference is 16 gr.

http://www.wilson.com/en-us/tennis/rackets/prostaff-sixone-95/

Automatix
01-13-2012, 11:08 AM
Believe it or not but quality control is getting worse and worse...

Recently a friend of mine bought a YouTek Radical MP because he wanted something lighter.

It felt heavy so he measured it...
Weight (unstrung): 304g
Balance (unstrung): 332 mm

And according to the Polish distributor it is within the acceptable variance range. SIC!

bluetrain4
01-13-2012, 11:23 AM
Wilson's horrible consistency is going to be a problem for me.

I want to buy two of the new BLX 95 6.1 16x18s (2012) that are coming out in a couple of weeks. For financial reasons, it would be easier to stagger the purchase of the two frames. Buy one in Jan or Feb, buy another in March or April. But, if I do that, I can't take advantage of TW matching service and could end up with noticeably different frames.

On the other hand, I guess it's not that far-fetched to get two frames that are nearly the same and don't feel that different. But, it's a gamble.

TennisCJC
01-13-2012, 11:31 AM
Wilson's horrible consistency is going to be a problem for me.

I want to buy two of the new BLX 95 6.1 16x18s (2012) that are coming out in a couple of weeks. For financial reasons, it would be easier to stagger the purchase of the two frames. Buy one in Jan or Feb, buy another in March or April. But, if I do that, I can't take advantage of TW matching service and could end up with noticeably different frames.

On the other hand, I guess it's not that far-fetched to get two frames that are nearly the same and don't feel that different. But, it's a gamble.

When you buy the 2nd won, send TW the specs of the first one and ask if they will get you one as close a possible. I expect they will do it and charge you the $10 match fee. If you pay the $10 match fee on the first one, they will likely send you weight, balance, and SW and you can use this for the second one's specs.

By the way, I bought 2 blx 6.1 95 16x18 locally about 2 years ago - the previous gen. I had the local pro shop weigh them and they were within 3 grams. The balance was exact or at least within 1/16 of an inch. You could check weight and balance at any local shop with a postal scale, flat table and measuring tape. Lay the head of the racket on a flat table with the measuring tape under it. Balance it at the point where it just barely stays on the table without tipping. If 14.5 inches are on the table side (head side), the racket is 8 pts HL (27-14.5=12.5 which is 8 HL). Use the head side on the table because it is flat unlike the handle.

I did not measue SW as the goofy manual method where you swing it and count sways is too inexact and I don't have a RDC measure.

UCSF2012
01-13-2012, 11:36 AM
Rackets are handmade tools: graphites pieces are cut by hand, graphite sheets handrolled, etc. They're gonna have variations.

bluetrain4
01-13-2012, 11:37 AM
When you buy the 2nd won, send TW the specs of the first one and ask if they will get you one as close a possible. I expect they will do it and charge you the $10 match fee. If you pay the $10 match fee on the first one, they will likely send you weight, balance, and SW and you can use this for the second one's specs.

Great idea. Thank you.

bluetrain4
01-13-2012, 11:38 AM
Rackets are handmade tools: graphites pieces are cut by hand, graphite sheets handrolled, etc. They're gonna have variations.

No one disputes that. It's the amount of variation that is acceptable which is debatble.

Torres
01-13-2012, 11:54 AM
we weighted them all together (strung with factory wilson sensation, no overgrips) and here's the results: one was 329, 2 were 332, 2 333 and one 334.

Static weight is a bit of red herring - unless there's an enormous difference it doesn't really mean much of anything.

What's more important is swingweight, balance and distribution of mass throughout the frame, all of which are subject to manufacturing variances.

I have two 6.1s for example. One weighs 355g and the other 350g. The one that weighs 350g plays like a tree log. The 355g plays much better and is much more manouverable. That's my main stick, the other spends most of the time in the cupboard.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the ProStaff 95s. They're light enough and have enough headroom in terms of weight for lead to be added and the racquets matched to preference.

corners
01-13-2012, 11:54 AM
Here are the specs posted by two other online retailers for the ProStaff BLX 95:

Mdieswt:
328 grams
32 cm balance
318 swingweight
65 flex

Eprxses:
328 grams
32 cm balance
310 swingweight
63 flex

808
01-13-2012, 11:55 AM
The one I got a couple of days ago weighs just shy of 323g strung w/ VS Touch 16. Pretty light. Balance is 32.4cm.

UCSF2012
01-13-2012, 12:04 PM
No one disputes that. It's the amount of variation that is acceptable which is debatble.

No amount will ever be acceptable, esp to people with electronic scales. For most my Wilsons, I can't tell the difference among them. (Only 1 in 5 I sense a difference, with a subtle change in shots produced.) But all the sudden the electronic scale measures a difference, it's the end of the world.

The biggest determinant in how different same-model rackets play will always be the string age. Whether the ball launches, misses wide, etc... all come with old strings. Players with high needs should focus on re-stringing their rackets often, not whine about a few grams difference in their rackets.

UCSF2012
01-13-2012, 12:08 PM
Here are the specs posted by two other online retailers for the ProStaff BLX 95:

Mdieswt:
328 grams
32 cm balance
318 swingweight
65 flex

Eprxses:
328 grams
32 cm balance
310 swingweight
63 flex

Important point made here. Even electronic machines have variances. All measurements are accurate within a range. You have to take multiple measurements and average them together. You also have to re-calibrate your machines to make sure they're accurate.

corners
01-13-2012, 12:50 PM
Here are the specs posted by two other online retailers for the ProStaff BLX 95:

Mdieswt:
328 grams
32 cm balance
318 swingweight
65 flex

Eprxses:
328 grams
32 cm balance
310 swingweight
63 flex

Important point made here. Even electronic machines have variances. All measurements are accurate within a range. You have to take multiple measurements and average them together. You also have to re-calibrate your machines to make sure they're accurate.

Wait a minute. Why do you think the variation seen in these numbers is due to measurement error? I assume that it's variation between racquets tested. That seems much more likely to me.

If we take the numbers for static weight reported above and the Mdwiset, TW and Express measurements from the various racquets in their inventories we have ranges like so (all specs strung):

Static weight: 323 - 335 grams
Balance: 31.5 - 32.5 cm
Swingweight: 298 (Geoff) - 318 (Express)

That's pretty bad QC, but not surprising. Look at the range of swingweights for BLX 95s on the market: I've seen swingweight anywhere from 320 to 338 reported. That's huge variation and has come to be typical for Wilson.

UCSF2012
01-13-2012, 01:09 PM
Wait a minute. Why do you think the variation seen in these numbers is due to measurement error? I assume that it's variation between racquets tested. That seems much more likely to me.

If we take the numbers for static weight reported above and the Mdwiset, TW and Express measurements from the various racquets in their inventories we have ranges like so (all specs strung):

Static weight: 323 - 335 grams
Balance: 31.5 - 32.5 cm
Swingweight: 298 (Geoff) - 318 (Express)

That's pretty bad QC, but not surprising. Look at the range of swingweights for BLX 95s on the market: I've seen swingweight anywhere from 320 to 338 reported. That's huge variation and has come to be typical for Wilson.

Because machines have to be calibrated in order to be accurate. They also have to be re-calibrated often in order to stay accurate. I've weighted myself on a generic scale then immediately on a scientific scale, and there was a 10lb difference in my own weight.

Some machines are precise, some are accurate, and some are both precise and accurate. The quality of the numbers depend on the quality of the machine making the measurements.

When numbers are so off (TW vs MW vs TE), I suspect machine calibration first.

Odonnell
01-13-2012, 01:14 PM
Got mine yesterday.
314g unstrung
31.2cm Balance

Fed Kennedy
01-13-2012, 01:16 PM
Bottom line: this thing is too light.

user92626
01-13-2012, 01:26 PM
Wow, this is the thread I've been looking for.

I'm very interested in this racket, but my weight range is 320-328 (328 is pushing it).

I'm with the OP. The increase variation is just too much. I have had a similar experience with Donnay XRed 99. TW lists 326gr but I couldn't get it down below 330 without removing all the grips, OGs. This is with a 17g poly strung.

Now i'm torn about this PS racket!

corners
01-13-2012, 01:41 PM
Because machines have to be calibrated in order to be accurate. They also have to be re-calibrated often in order to stay accurate. I've weighted myself on a generic scale then immediately on a scientific scale, and there was a 10lb difference in my own weight.

Some machines are precise, some are accurate, and some are both precise and accurate. The quality of the numbers depend on the quality of the machine making the measurements.

When numbers are so off (TW vs MW vs TE), I suspect machine calibration first.

I know what you are talking about. But given the widespread reports of spec variation in Wilson racquets I think it's more likely that TW's 5-frame average compared to the one-frame measurements done by those other retailers, shows up the bad QC everyone is talking about in this thread. But maybe you're right; maybe it's the machines. But if you look at those other retailers numbers for other frames you'll see no clear pattern. Sometimes they report higher numbers than TW, sometimes they report lower numbers. I suspect spec variations, frame to frame, is what is going on here. It's pretty easy to calibrate these machines.

UCSF2012
01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
I know what you are talking about. But given the widespread reports of spec variation in Wilson racquets I think it's more likely that TW's 5-frame average compared to the one-frame measurements done by those other retailers, shows up the bad QC everyone is talking about in this thread. But maybe you're right; maybe it's the machines. But if you look at those other retailers numbers for other frames you'll see no clear pattern. Sometimes they report higher numbers than TW, sometimes they report lower numbers. I suspect spec variations, frame to frame, is what is going on here. It's pretty easy to calibrate these machines.

The reason why I suspect the machine calibration is the flex measurement. Every other measurement deals with mass distribution, how much graphite the worker placed and how well they placed them based on racket design. Flex is a property of the graphite itself. Rackets should have the same flex, regardless of QC. Assuming, of course, the racket molds were brought up to the correct temperature.

Odonnell
01-13-2012, 01:54 PM
Wow, this is the thread I've been looking for.

I'm very interested in this racket, but my weight range is 320-328 (328 is pushing it).

I'm with the OP. The increase variation is just too much. I have had a similar experience with Donnay XRed 99. TW lists 326gr but I couldn't get it down below 330 without removing all the grips, OGs. This is with a 17g poly strung.

Now i'm torn about this PS racket!

Change the grip and you'll have something around 325 strung.
The pro hybrid grip weight on the stick is 24g.

corners
01-13-2012, 02:53 PM
The reason why I suspect the machine calibration is the flex measurement. Every other measurement deals with mass distribution, how much graphite the worker placed and how well they placed them based on racket design. Flex is a property of the graphite itself. Rackets should have the same flex, regardless of QC. Assuming, of course, the racket molds were brought up to the correct temperature.

It seems to me that how much and how well the graphite is placed could also impact the flex of the stick. I suspect, and believe I've read, that flex does vary from stick to stick, just like other specs. Probably not as widely, but...

But you seem to know about manufacturing processes. Maybe you're right. In the case of these new Prostaffs, they have gone back to the braided graphite construction, apparently sans Kevlar. Do you know how consistent that type of layup is from stick to stick? I would think it would be more consistent since they are dealing with continuous graphite strands rather than discontinuous, shorter sheets of graphite.

tlm
01-13-2012, 08:26 PM
The demo i received weighs 327 grams.

tenapasi
01-13-2012, 08:44 PM
Just a suggestion.
If you concern about quality, why not buy other brand with higher QC like dunlop, volkl, or yonex ?

Davro
01-13-2012, 10:26 PM
Does anyone know if those measurements are taken under the same circumstances? Are they all measuring flex based on strung racquets? Are any of them just using Wilson's listed specs? Seems like there is a lot of talk about numbers and not a lot of anecdotal evidence. Just an observation.