PDA

View Full Version : 2012 TW Head Racquet Lineup Diagram


gameboy
01-26-2012, 09:41 AM
There were some earlier threads about confusion among folks with numerous Head offerings.

To alleviate some of the confusion, I created this chart to clarify some things. These are all of the Head 2012 line listed on TW. I have charted them based on their weight vs stiffness. The size of the dots indicate the size.

I hope this helps a bit.

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p7Zy9s29aoxF-0u-Xb1Vu8ysZdJPeEdNxB2YEZCdy3a8UAPkRsb7MCqlxgDhOXhR2j nyxbIXw5pXDGi9NsdPELw/HeadRacquets2012.jpg?psid=1

SFrazeur
01-26-2012, 09:44 AM
Diagram does not load.

-SF

gameboy
01-26-2012, 09:54 AM
It has been fixed...

ZeroSkid
01-26-2012, 12:01 PM
It has been fixed...

I wouldn't follow TW stiffness ratings, they are always wrong, for example the radical mp(64) is lightly stiffer than the prestige mp(63). Other than that it seem great, so thanks

retrograde
01-26-2012, 01:15 PM
That's a nice diagram for visualizing Head's lineup.

Did you use an Excel spreadsheet to generate it? If so, it should be easy to make other versions (e.g. balance or swingweight instead of weight, etc.).

jdunnie014159
01-26-2012, 01:25 PM
Thanks for the diagram, as I'm getting ready to switch racquets.

How are TW's stiffness ratings "always wrong"? I've read this before on these boards. I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand. Don't they just hook the frame up to the same basic RDC machine everyone uses? Or are you referring to the frame 'playing' softer or stiffer than its advertised rating? If this is the case, why do they even bother using that machine to measure the flex of the racquet?

Thanks.

retrograde
01-26-2012, 01:38 PM
^^^

I've read TW makes the RDC flex measurement on mutliple racquets and publishes the average. If the number differs from what the manufacturer states, I suppose that could be due to a number of factors ... manufacturing variations, RDC machine calibration, strung vs unstrung.

I've noticed the RA measurement is made with the fulcrum positioned at a certain point near the throat. So its good to keep in mind that flex measurements would be different if the fulcrum were at a different location (e.g. middle of the hoop or middle of the shaft). But publishing more than one RA number would probably confuse consumers :)

I've always wondered if the RA measurement varies with the tension of the stringbed (I seem to recall the machine pushes down at the top edge of the hoop).

gameboy
01-26-2012, 02:07 PM
Did you use an Excel spreadsheet to generate it? If so, it should be easy to make other versions (e.g. balance or swingweight instead of weight, etc.).

Yes, it is an Excel chart. I do have all of the other TW stats in the spreadsheet so I can make other charts as well.

Let me know what you want in each axis.

retrograde
01-26-2012, 02:26 PM
Yes, it is an Excel chart. I do have all of the other TW stats in the spreadsheet so I can make other charts as well.

Let me know what you want in each axis.
If it's no trouble, I'd like to see balance on the V axis. Balance in units of points would be nice, but mm would be OK too. Then another with balance on the V axis and swingweight on the H axis.

I've always wished Head's lineup were more head-light in stock form.

Maui19
01-26-2012, 02:38 PM
^^^

I've read TW makes the RDC flex measurement on mutliple racquets and publishes the average. If the number differs from what the manufacturer states, I suppose that could be due to a number of factors ... manufacturing variations, RDC machine calibration, strung vs unstrung.

I've noticed the RA measurement is made with the fulcrum positioned at a certain point near the throat. So its good to keep in mind that flex measurements would be different if the fulcrum were at a different location (e.g. middle of the hoop or middle of the shaft). But publishing more than one RA number would probably confuse consumers :)

I've always wondered if the RA measurement varies with the tension of the stringbed (I seem to recall the machine pushes down at the top edge of the hoop).

I just read that manufacturers test stiffness with unstrung racquets. TW takes an average from several strung racquets. Personally, I think TW delivers a better number.

retrograde
01-26-2012, 02:49 PM
I just read that manufacturers test stiffness with unstrung racquets. TW takes an average from several strung racquets. Personally, I think TW delivers a better number.
Good info. Where did you see the bit about mfgr measurements? I tried searching RSI's website but their search engine isn't all that hot.

gameboy
01-26-2012, 03:22 PM
Here is one for Weight vs Balance...

http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1p6yAfUwLchD_E2ozl1Q0PIWRSBV5CdqdKpwxZZJaecm90XIY J1Gr4ESJxoudoL69rwXCBn63O33sdxjlRVKQtnw/HeadWeightVBalance.jpg

tennistomcat
01-26-2012, 04:47 PM
awesome work gameboy. Thanks for taking the time. very easy to read

ZeroSkid
01-26-2012, 05:02 PM
Thanks for the diagram, as I'm getting ready to switch racquets.

How are TW's stiffness ratings "always wrong"? I've read this before on these boards. I'm not doubting you, I just don't understand. Don't they just hook the frame up to the same basic RDC machine everyone uses? Or are you referring to the frame 'playing' softer or stiffer than its advertised rating? If this is the case, why do they even bother using that machine to measure the flex of the racquet?

Thanks.

Yes I too heard they take an average but they seem to really get it far off, for example the radicals have generally been on the flexible side, but when the youtek version was released HEAD stiffened it up from 59 to 64. I have played with both the youtek prestige and radical mp and the radical was stiffer and felt very stiff, tennis express has it at 63, as does many other sites, even on a YouTube video I saw the radical had a felx of 64. TW has it at 59!


http://www.*************.com/head-YOUTEK-Radical-MP-Tennis-Racquets-11679


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg469RQoZ8E

retrograde
01-26-2012, 09:44 PM
Thanks gameboy! I keep a spreadsheet of all the racquets I demo, so you've motivated me to graph them and see if I've been consistent in my choices.

TW Staff
01-28-2012, 08:26 AM
Yes I too heard they take an average but they seem to really get it far off, for example the radicals have generally been on the flexible side, but when the youtek version was released HEAD stiffened it up from 59 to 64. I have played with both the youtek prestige and radical mp and the radical was stiffer and felt very stiff, tennis express has it at 63, as does many other sites, even on a YouTube video I saw the radical had a felx of 64. TW has it at 59!


http://www.*************.com/head-YOUTEK-Radical-MP-Tennis-Racquets-11679


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg469RQoZ8E

So because that's what we measured, we must be "always wrong"? We've been doing this same procedure for a long long time, as we feel it gives the best, more realistic idea of actual specs. Do the Radicals typically have a softer, lower rated flex than the Prestiges? Yes. Does that mean our measurements are wrong? No. We don't publish specs on what they should be, but what they are.

Spencer, TW.

Teski
01-28-2012, 09:36 AM
So because that's what we measured, we must be "always wrong"? We've been doing this same procedure for a long long time, as we feel it gives the best, more realistic idea of actual specs. Do the Radicals typically have a softer, lower rated flex than the Prestiges? Yes. Does that mean our measurements are wrong? No. We don't publish specs on what they should be, but what they are.

Spencer, TW.

It's typical of Internet forums Spencer. You see the same thing in photography forums. Canon or Nikon published their specs so they must be exactly so! If DPReview says something different, the fan boys come out and try to discredit the reviewer to make themselves feel better about their purchase or preferred brand. :-) Those of us who can see through all the bs know that your specs are based on what you measure, not what you read or guess, and that your reviews are based on your opinions...Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks for all the good work!

corners
01-28-2012, 12:15 PM
I just read that manufacturers test stiffness with unstrung racquets. TW takes an average from several strung racquets. Personally, I think TW delivers a better number.

Not only does TW publish an average from five strung frames, but TWU also publishes the dynamic stiffness, or vibration frequency, which is a better indication of how a frame will feel, for each racquet. It takes them awhile to get this info up on their site, because the test method is labor-intensive, but like everything on TWU it's free added value for TW customers and anyone else.

Dynamic stiffness data: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/vibfrequency.cgi

retrograde
01-28-2012, 02:11 PM
corners,

I have an accelerometer that I can plug into the mic input of a sound card. This allows me to record vibrations and run frequency-domain analyses using the audio recording program Audacity.

Assuming my system is linear at these low frequencies, can I just tie a string around the end of a racquet's butt, hang the racquet vertically, and strike the stringbed at 25" from the butt to mimick TW's dynamic stiffness measurements?

Also, I'm curious to know if the Babolat RDC machine's static stiffness test reflects more upon the flex of the hoop, shaft, or overall flex? I'd guess hoop because pressure is applied at the top of the hoop and there's that rail support under the throat. Agree?

TennisMaverick
01-28-2012, 04:08 PM
So because that's what we measured, we must be "always wrong"? ....We don't publish specs on what they should be, but what they are.

Spencer, TW.

No, not at all Spencer...but, if you use the typical Bab diagnostic machine, which stresses the frame in the center, you do not take into account frames which have varied flexes in different parts of the frame. For example, if you use this methodology with a Volkl X-frame, you totally discount and ignore the stiffness of the X material in the four distinct parts of the head, and then, how the flex in the throat, softens the feel of the head stiffness.

The same thing can be said for a stick which beam shape or thickness varies throughout its length. The feel to the hand becomes far more sophisticated then a simple stiffness rating, which makes said ratings less precise. A stiffness rating for the throat, shoulders, center of the head, and upper hoop, all in combination, would be far more precise and informative to a player whose hand is sensitive enough to discern these qualities.