PDA

View Full Version : New Racquets on TWU database (2-24-12)


TW Professor
02-24-2012, 08:27 AM
The following Wilson racquets were added to the TWU database today:

BLX Five
BLX One
BLX Pro Limited 110
BLX Pro Lite
BLX Pro Open (2012)
BLX Six.One 95 16x18
BLX Six.One 95 18x20 (2012)
BLX Six.One Team (2012)
Juice 100 BLX
Juice 108 BLX
Juice Pro BLX
Pro Staff 6.0 85
Pro Staff Six.One 100 BLX
Pro Staff Six.One 90 BLX
Pro Staff Six.One 95 BLX
Steam 100 BLX

scotus
02-24-2012, 09:03 AM
Hi TW Prof,

Thanks for the great work you are sharing with us.

I have a question for you.

Why do some racquets in the database not have the vibration frequency info? Will they be provided at some point in the future?

Many thanks.

DavidNERODease
02-24-2012, 09:05 AM
Thanks TW, I still find the power ratings quite useful.

ArliHawk
02-24-2012, 09:06 AM
So the Wilson Pro Open is just a tad lighter than last year's version?

Is there any other major difference?

Like the paintjob on the 2012 better.

corners
02-24-2012, 09:16 AM
Thanks to TW Professor and TW! Great stuff.

I was very curious to see how the new Wilson BLX Pro Staff 6.1 95 would compare to other "lightweight player's" racquets, given the reviews and reports that it is severely underpowered.

Below is a screen grab from TW University's Racquet Select SPEC-tacular tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/racquetspecs2.cgi). The list includes most of the lightweight player's frames that have been tested by TW University, and sorted for power and sweetzone size. For those unfamiliar with this data, TW University tests for intrinsic racquet power at various locations on the racquet face. Below, the POWER column shows the power potential in the center of the stringbed, and SWEET ZONE shows how forgiving the frame is, ie, how large of an area you have around the center of the strings where you can still expect a reasonably fast shot if you miss the middle of the strings.

As you can see, the Pro Staff 6.1 95 actually compares pretty well with other frames in this category. You can see that it performs nearly identically to the Yonex Vcore 98d, a frame that is stiffer and has a larger headsize. This is a very good comparison because the 98d and PS95 tested were almost the same in terms of static weight, balance and swingweight, so it's apples to apples.

So, are reports of this stick being gutless greatly exaggerated?

http://s18.postimage.org/nq051abop/Racquet_Specs_1330102497017.jpg

Power Player
02-24-2012, 09:36 AM
So the Wilson Pro Open is just a tad lighter than last year's version?

Is there any other major difference?

Like the paintjob on the 2012 better.

I think it is the same. Specs just vary a little because TW averages them, but I believe the stick has not been changed.

corners
02-24-2012, 09:52 AM
I think it is the same. Specs just vary a little because TW averages them, but I believe the stick has not been changed.

TW averages them, but TWU tests only one frame.

Shangri La
02-24-2012, 10:59 AM
The BLX PS 95 has a surprisingly high twistweight..

charliefedererer
02-24-2012, 11:18 AM
Thank you for the updates.

I don't know why, but I get a real kick out of all this data.

One of my observations is how the Power/Hitting Zone Size of the new Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 90 BLX is almost identical to the original Pro Staff 6.0 85, and almost exactly the same swing weight (324 v. 325), despite being lighter (354 v. 362 gm).

By contrast to these two [the newest and the original], the K90 has a larger power zone greater than 40%, with a higher swingweight (338), although an actual weight (361 gm) closer to the original PS 85.

[One can also see that last year's BLX 6.1 Tour has somewhat smaller areas in the >30% and >40% compared to all three of the other versions. And it's swingweight (329) put it in between that of the K90 (338) and that of the almost identical swing weights of the newest/oldest versions in the line (324/325).]



So my initial hitting impressions of the new 6.1 90 BLX seem to be in line with the data.

It seems slightly easier to swing than the K90 or last year's BLX model, and more like the original PS 85.
It seems the "control" is somewhat better than the K90, but still more "pop" than the older BLX model.

On serving, it felt more like the original PS 85 (and that's a good thing).
I think I often serve relatively high in the string bed, and noticed that the racquet felt "better" or "more stable" if I hit one a little high. Checking on the racquet power level at the highest listed point on the racquet, I saw an "improvement" to 14.6% from that of the older BLX (12.7%) and that of the K90 (13.2%).
Ah-hah I thought. Finally that fancy new carbon/BLX silicon bonding nanotechnology is making a difference in being able to maintain higher power higher into the frame.
But when I checked against the oldest technology with the original PS 85, the power level was virtually identical (14.5%).
Could this be why the old PS 85 have felt like such a smooth serving racquet?
Could the new BLX 90 really be duplicating that old time feel by getting such similar power distribution and swing weight?

nyc
02-24-2012, 11:24 AM
The BLX PS 95 has a surprisingly high twistweight..

..and that's not a bad thing, right?

I actually quite enjoyed hitting with it. I read the reviews after my hit, and was surprised about the "lack of power" issue. I certainly didn't encounter those.

It's a maneuverable stick, and while it doesn't create a heavy ball like a Prestige, I was consistently hitting deep shots right off the bat.

Sorry - I know, wrong forum.

Shangri La
02-24-2012, 12:21 PM
..and that's not a bad thing, right?

I actually quite enjoyed hitting with it. I read the reviews after my hit, and was surprised about the "lack of power" issue. I certainly didn't encounter those.

It's a maneuverable stick, and while it doesn't create a heavy ball like a Prestige, I was consistently hitting deep shots right off the bat.

Sorry - I know, wrong forum.

Certainly not. Now it makes me really look forward to my demo. Just hope its not off spec by too much.

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 01:16 PM
Thanks to TW Professor and TW! Great stuff.

I was very curious to see how the new Wilson BLX Pro Staff 6.1 95 would compare to other "lightweight player's" racquets, given the reviews and reports that it is severely underpowered.

Below is a screen grab from TW University's Racquet Select SPEC-tacular tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/racquetspecs2.cgi). The list includes most of the lightweight player's frames that have been tested by TW University, and sorted for power and sweetzone size. For those unfamiliar with this data, TW University tests for intrinsic racquet power at various locations on the racquet face. Below, tje POWER column shows the power potential in the center of the stringbed, and SWEET ZONE shows how forgiving the frame is, ie, how large of an area you have around the center of the strings where you can still expect a reasonably fast shot if you miss the middle of the strings.

As you can see, the Pro Staff 6.1 95 actually compares pretty well with other frames in this category. You can see that it performs nearly identically to the Yonex Vcore 98d, a frame that is stiffer and has a larger headsize. This is a very good comparison because the 98d and PS95 tested were almost the same in terms of static weight, balance and swingweight, so it's apples to apples.

So, are reports of this stick being gutless greatly exaggerated?

http://s18.postimage.org/nq051abop/Racquet_Specs_1330102497017.jpg

I demoed both and the vcore 98 has much more pop than the ps95. Its not even close.

The power map can be kind of misleading...the ps85 hax a bigger sweetspot than the juice ...

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 01:31 PM
Just looking at some of these again...can wilson fail any harder with the quality control??
Their 16x18 6.1 is at 339 sw...no wonder it has a massive sweetspot. Too bad thats waaay off spec.

Shangri La
02-24-2012, 01:34 PM
Just looking at some of these again...can wilson fail any harder with the quality control??
Their 16x18 6.1 is at 339 sw...no wonder it has a massive sweetspot. Too bad thats waaay off spec.

It would be really nice if TWU's sample racquet is close to TW's posted specs.

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 01:42 PM
It would be really nice if TWU's sample racquet is close to TW's posted specs.

These racquets are impossible to review. You never know what youre getting. Someone says "the new one swings lighter" it doesnt mean anything...it just means they got a light one. This is their flagship racquet...just embarrassing.

corners
02-24-2012, 01:53 PM
I demoed both and the vcore 98 has much more pop than the ps95. Its not even close.

That was your experience but how do you actually know that one hits the ball faster than the other? And I don't mean to discount your experience, but there are all sorts of things going on that could lead one to judge one frame as having more pop or power than another. But unless you have a speed gun and some controlled method of comparing speed of shot with either racquet it's impossible to know for sure.

I haven't tried either frame so I'm in no position to dispute your experience. But the data is in a very good position to do so.

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 01:59 PM
That was your experience but how do you actually know that one hits the ball faster than the other? And I don't mean to discount your experience, but there are all sorts of things going on that could lead one to judge one frame as having more pop or power than another. But unless you have a speed gun and some controlled method of comparing speed of shot with either racquet it's impossible to know for sure.

I haven't tried either frame so I'm in no position to dispute your experience. But the data is in a very good position to do so.

I agree with you in theory. It probably has to do with feel. Feel builds confidence which leads to better shots. And feel is just different for everyone.

JGads
02-24-2012, 02:07 PM
I've played with two different 6.1 95 demos from the new batch. They were about identical weight wise but one swung so nicely and the other was a log. Granted they were different string pattern, but that shouldn't excuse what felt like a 20-plus difference in swingweight. When ordering Wilson, I'll always order through TW's matching service because the frames cannot be trusted spec wise like a Yonex or (to a lesser extent) a Head. Always thought the quality control thing with Wilson was blown out of proportion but no longer.

corners
02-24-2012, 02:17 PM
Just looking at some of these again...can wilson fail any harder with the quality control??
Their 16x18 6.1 is at 339 sw...no wonder it has a massive sweetspot. Too bad thats waaay off spec.

It is over the average spec reported by TW, but the numbers are still useful because the ACOR numbers can be pretty easily adjusted if you want to see how a 95 with lower swingweight would perform. If that adjustment is made, the 16x18 is roughly as powerful, and with roughly as large a sweetzone, as both the new Pro One and the new Pure Drive Roddick, according to this data. This appears to be a result of it's much higher twistweight as compared to the BLX version (14.22 vs. 11.5 !!).

So why does everyone say the Roddick is so powerful? I think it's a very interesting question. One explanation suggested by Cross and Lindsey in "Technical Tennis" and "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" is that stiff racquets, because they have shorter dwell times than flexible ones, give the player the impression that the ball is coming off the strings at a faster speed. And it is: stiff racquets have shorter dwell time - the ball is on the strings for a shorter time than it is on a flexible frame. But the resulting speed of shot might be the same. The time the ball is on the strings is a different thing than the rebound speed, but most players don't realize this and interpret a short dwell time, with its accompanying greater shock to the hand, as evidence that their shot was very "powerful". It feels powerful, the ball comes off the strings quicker than they are used to, the shock to the hand feels very impressive, and they conclude that the resulting shot is much more powerful than with their normal racquet. This is just a hypothesis, so please lets not turn this into some big hubbub.

In reality, all evidence provided to date shows that stiffness differences between racquets resulting pretty pretty trivial differences in racquet power (rebound speed), except at the top of the hoop. One recent paper showed that you'd have to triple the stiffness of a racquet (from say 60 RDC to 180 RDC!) to get the same rebound speed gains you could get by increasing your swingweight by 35 units (from, say, 305 to 340). Of course, you can't swing a 340 swingweight frame as fast as a 305 swingweight frame, whereas stiffness doesn't influence swingspeed, and so stiffness does offer "free" power. (If you tripled the stiffness of your frame, though, your elbow would tell you differently.)

Similarly, I've analyzed lots of this power potential data and when comparing frames with the same swingweight, headsize, string pattern and twistweight, the stiffest frames (~76RDC) offer the player only about 1-2 more miles per hour on a given shot than the most flexible ones (~54 RDC). I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom of thousands of players, salesmen and admen, but there it is. I don't know what to make of it. The scientific data could be wrong, but I'm inclined to doubt my perceptions (and especially other people's impressions :) ) more than empirical data.

Once I demo those frames - with the same string at the same stringbed stiffness, on the same day - I might have something different to say (not that anyone would or should care).

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 02:21 PM
I've played with two different 6.1 95 demos from the new batch. They were about identical weight wise but one swung so nicely and the other was a log. Granted they were different string pattern, but that shouldn't excuse what felt like a 20-plus difference in swingweight. When ordering Wilson, I'll always order through TW's matching service because the frames cannot be trusted spec wise like a Yonex or (to a lesser extent) a Head. Always thought the quality control thing with Wilson was blown out of proportion but no longer.

I playtested the new fed frame for tw: I was like damn this thing is beefy, it feels like a k90 injected with k88 hormones...a month later they roll this frame out with its defining feature being that its way lighter...I know Im not crazy bc I had the blackout frame on court with a b90 and a k90 and it tipped noticeably head heavier than both...get it together W!!!!!!

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 02:28 PM
It is over the average spec reported by TW, but the numbers are still useful because the ACOR numbers can be pretty easily adjusted if you want to see how a 95 with lower swingweight would perform. If that adjustment is made, the 16x18 is roughly as powerful, and with roughly as large a sweetzone, as both the new Pro One and the new Pure Drive Roddick, according to this data.

So why does everyone say the Roddick is so powerful? I think it's a very interesting question. One explanation suggested by Cross and Lindsey in "Technical Tennis" and "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" is that stiff racquets, because they have shorter dwell times than flexible ones, give the player the impression that the ball is coming off the strings at a faster speed. And it is: stiff racquets have shorter dwell time - the ball is on the strings for a shorter time than it is on a flexible frame. But the resulting speed of shot might be the same. The time the ball is on the strings is a different thing than the rebound speed, but most players don't realize this and interpret a short dwell time, with its accompanying greater shock to the hand, as evidence that their shot was very "powerful". It feels powerful, the ball comes off the strings quicker than they are used to, the shock to the hand feels very impressive, and they conclude that the resulting shot is much more powerful than with their normal racquet. This is just a hypothesis, so please lets not turn this into some big hubbub.

In reality, all evidence provided to date shows that stiffness differences between racquets resulting pretty pretty trivial differences in racquet power (rebound speed), except at the top of the hoop. One recent paper showed that you'd have to triple the stiffness of a racquet (from say 60 RDC to 180 RDC!) to get the same rebound speed gains you could get by increasing your swingweight by 35 units (from, say, 305 to 340). Of course, you can't swing a 340 swingweight frame as fast as a 305 swingweight frame, whereas stiffness doesn't influence swingspeed, and so stiffness does offer "free" power. (If you tripled the stiffness of your frame, though, your elbow would tell you differently.)

Similarly, I've analyzed lots of this power potential data and when comparing frames with the same swingweight, headsize, string pattern and twistweight, the stiffest frames (~76RDC) offer the player only about 1-2 more miles per hour on a given shot than the most flexible ones (~54 RDC). I know this contradicts the conventional wisdom of thousands of players, salesmen and admen, but there it is. I don't know what to make of it. The scientific data could be wrong, but I'm inclined to doubt my perceptions (and especially other people's impressions :) ) more than empirical data.

Once I demo those frames - with the same string at the same stringbed stiffness, on the same day - I might have something different to say (not that anyone would or should care).

I agree with you and I love geeking out on the tw power map and in general find it a good predictor of racquet performance.
In the end though, we actually have to play tennis with these things and the idiosyncrasies of peoples games muddle the results greatly.
I probably cant hit harder with a vcore98 than a ps95, but Im pretty sure I could play better.

corners
02-24-2012, 02:39 PM
I agree with you and I love geeking out on the tw power map and in general find it a good predictor of racquet performance.
In the end though, we actually have to play tennis with these things and the idiosyncrasies of peoples games muddle the results greatly.
I probably cant hit harder with a vcore98 than a ps95, but Im pretty sure I could play better.

Yeah, I totally agree, it's all about what we like, feel comfortable and confident with, and win with. Probably, for me, not having easy access to demos, I put more value on this data than practicing racquetaholics :) You guys have access to a totally different dataset, and probably have much more fun accumulating it.

I really wanted the new PS95 to be great - especially to have good pop - so nuzzling up to the data as I'm doing may be driven by wishful thinking. Hopefully the data doesn't lead me to ignore my own perceptions if I find it an underpowered noodle when I get around to trying it.

Fed Kennedy
02-24-2012, 02:45 PM
Yeah, I totally agree, it's all about what we like, feel comfortable and confident with, and win with. Probably, for me, not having easy access to demos, I put more value on this data than practicing racquetaholics :) You guys have access to a totally different dataset, and probably have much more fun accumulating it.

I really wanted the new PS95 to be great - especially to have good pop - so nuzzling up to the data as I'm doing may be driven by wishful thinking. Hopefully the data doesn't lead me to ignore my own perceptions if I find it an underpowered noodle when I get around to trying it.

Its very strange...for years I dreamed of two racquets that actually got made this year, an open patterned radical98 and a box beamed pro staff 95.

Finally got what I wanted and didnt care for either stick. Sigh.

Anyway after years of quiet Yonex hating I think the whole vcore line is awesome, a little bit of money for nothing in these sticks...excellent pop to weight ratio.

corners
02-24-2012, 02:48 PM
Its very strange...for years I dreamed of two racquets that actually got made this year, an open patterned radical98 and a box beamed pro staff 95.

Finally got what I wanted and didnt care for either stick. Sigh.

Having to wait until Spring to demo, I guess I get to postpone my disapointment.

Anyway after years of quiet Yonex hating I think the whole vcore line is awesome, a little bit of money for nothing in these sticks...excellent pop to weight ratio. At least I have the 95D to look forward to. I'll be trying it in the same batch as the 98D and BLXPS95.

nyc
02-24-2012, 03:08 PM
Anyway after years of quiet Yonex hating I think the whole vcore line is awesome, a little bit of money for nothing in these sticks...excellent pop to weight ratio.

I ALSO really enjoyed hitting with the VCore 95D very much. Not a big Yony fan, but had a blast playing with that stick.

Need to spend more time with both the PS 95 BLX and the VC 95 D.

Funnily enough, I used the TWU tool to narrow down specs to my "comfort" wheelhouse and both racquests as well as my current one (Donnay 94 Plat) were among the 6 racquets in that search - yet the specs are so different on paper.

While I chose the demos purely on a whim, the tool ultimately confirmed the comfort I felt on the court with all three. So thanks TW for putting in all that work - highly useful!!

sargeinaz
02-24-2012, 05:15 PM
Its very strange...for years I dreamed of two racquets that actually got made this year, an open patterned radical98 and a box beamed pro staff 95.

Finally got what I wanted and didnt care for either stick. Sigh.

Anyway after years of quiet Yonex hating I think the whole vcore line is awesome, a little bit of money for nothing in these sticks...excellent pop to weight ratio.

I actually laughed to myself when I read this because I said the exact same thing. They say be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. The BLXPS95 I just plain hated. The IG Rad Pro wouldve been great if it wasnt so flexible. The 95D is just plain awesome and I am NOT a yonex guy at all. The only yonex I have ever likes was the RDS001 mid because well...it feels kinda like a prostaff.

corners
02-24-2012, 05:19 PM
I actually laughed to myself when I read this because I said the exact same thing. They say be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. The BLXPS95 I just plain hated. The IG Rad Pro wouldve been great if it wasnt so flexible. The 95D is just plain awesome and I am NOT a yonex guy at all. The only yonex I have ever likes was the RDS001 mid because well...it feels kinda like a prostaff.

The only Yonex I have ever hit was the 001 mid. How does the feel compare to the 95D?

sargeinaz
02-24-2012, 10:05 PM
The only Yonex I have ever hit was the 001 mid. How does the feel compare to the 95D?

The vcore 95 is firm and muted. The rds001 mid is crisper and has more feel. It feels like a prostaff 85 (close, not exact so nobody crucifies me for this) that's easier to use. It's lower powered than the vcore as well. It's a great frame, I wish I had bought one earlier, but I get to hit with my friends all the time. I think a lot of mid users would enjoy the rds001 mid.

bertrevert
02-25-2012, 04:06 AM
I noodle/nerdle over these power maps as well...

For better, for worse, (in sickness, in health) I use the maps as a key determinant in a racquet purchase.

I have always been chasing a little extra power than the typical racquet I seem to play well with (Radical, 300g).

So these little power gauges dotting the grey oval shape are literally crystal ball gazing, with all the wishing and hoping that goes along with that!

The way the power drops off or doesn't away from the sweetspot has always been a very good indicator of whether off centre hits of mine will make it over the net or not.

While there are other determinants to how a rqacquet plays I can't help believeing power is the main one...

CHOcobo
02-25-2012, 02:29 PM
http://s18.postimage.org/nq051abop/Racquet_Specs_1330102497017.jpg

how do i get to this table?

TW Professor
02-26-2012, 08:31 AM
how do i get to this table?

Click the "TW University" link at the top of this page and then click "Racquet Finder" in the "Racquet Comparisons" drop-down menu. Then create your own search.

CHOcobo
03-03-2012, 07:48 PM
.....thanks!

corners
04-09-2012, 01:20 PM
Misposting here

corners
04-09-2012, 01:21 PM
I demoed both and the vcore 98 has much more pop than the ps95. Its not even close.

The power map can be kind of misleading...the ps85 hax a bigger sweetspot than the juice ...

Hey KFed, I got a chance to hit the PS95 BLX the other day in a wall session. I couldn't get the 95D or 98D out at the same time but did compare it to another low-swingweight stick, the XV1 midplus. The PS95 did feel very under-powered. Hitting against the wall, the same swing that got me a nice boom against the wall with the V1 dribbled below the net line with the PS95. I'm not sure that the PS95 really hits such a slow ball, as I don't have a radar gun in me head, but definitely the launch angle seemed to be very low - the ball kind of dribbled into the wall. But these twos sticks are so different in terms of weight and ball feel that it's hard to separate the perceptions of these differences - shock to hand, launch angle, etc. - from any assessment of true ball speed. Next time I take out the PS95 I'll bring the Yonexes, which are weighted much more similar, and see how the PS95 stacks up. But it's not looking good for the 95. I also have to say that the feel of this PS95 is completely inferior to my AK90s, sadly.

Fed Kennedy
04-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Hey KFed, I got a chance to hit the PS95 BLX the other day in a wall session. I couldn't get the 95D or 98D out at the same time but did compare it to another low-swingweight stick, the XV1 midplus. The PS95 did feel very under-powered. Hitting against the wall, the same swing that got me a nice boom against the wall with the V1 dribbled below the net line with the PS95. I'm not sure that the PS95 really hits such a slow ball, as I don't have a radar gun in me head, but definitely the launch angle seemed to be very low - the ball kind of dribbled into the wall. But these twos sticks are so different in terms of weight and ball feel that it's hard to separate the perceptions of these differences - shock to hand, launch angle, etc. - from any assessment of true ball speed. Next time I take out the PS95 I'll bring the Yonexes, which are weighted much more similar, and see how the PS95 stacks up. But it's not looking good for the 95. I also have to say that the feel of this PS95 is completely inferior to my AK90s, sadly.

Yeah man. I think the ps95 needs a serious mass infusion to hit like a true wilson. Wilson 95 seekers are better off delving into the bay for ultra fpks, tours, 6.095s etc...