PDA

View Full Version : WHY??? Six.One 95s


heninfan99
02-27-2012, 04:45 AM
Why is there suddenly a huge difference in swingweight between the new six.one 95s. The 16x18 is 324 and the 18x20 is 333.

The last BLX models were listed about the same.
If the numbers are correct on the new versions then you are forced to go 18x20 if you want the same plow through as my trusty BLX 16x18.

WTF?

corners
02-27-2012, 05:22 AM
Why is there suddenly a huge difference in swingweight between the new six.one 95s. The 16x18 is 324 and the 18x20 is 333.

The last BLX models were listed about the same.
If the numbers are correct on the new versions then you are forced to go 18x20 if you want the same plow through as my trusty BLX 16x18.

WTF?

The two models are not intended to have different specs. This is a Wilson quality control issue that's plagued the 6.1 95 series for many years. If you look at the specs for the 16x18 and 18x20 at other online retailers you'll see swingweight figures ranging from 320 to 338 for both string patterns. Take a look at the two racquets tested last week by Tennis Warehouse University - they test only one frame of each string pattern and both sticks they tested - one 16x18 and one 18x20 - had 335+ swingweights. Swingweight is a very difficult spec to get consistent in manufacturing. A couple grams of extra epoxy in the tip of the racquet-head can mean 10 extra swingweight units. Prince is the only manufacturer that prints swingweight in their official specs (catalog and on frame) and they can do this because they mold racquets in two separate pieces and then glue them together - any errors are smaller when working on only one half of a racquet at a time.

Your best option is to spec out your current stick: precisely measure the static weight, balance and swingweight. And then ask TW to pull a frame from their inventory that best matches these numbers. And getting a matching pair is probably smart if you're going to stick with that model.

Manufacturers need to do better with this. Not too long ago, most players had no notion of swingweight, so racquet companies could afford to be imprecise and have bad swingweight quality control. But many players now realize that swingweight is probably the most crucial spec, especially in terms of matching racquets. We should demand better QC. If Prince made a bigger deal of their swingweight QC maybe it would put pressure on the other manufacturers to tighten things up. In the age of CAD and automated manufacturing, smaller tolerances in spec variations should be possible. It might cost a little more, but if it becomes a competition-driven trend the manufacturers will be compelled to do it.

heninfan99
02-27-2012, 05:38 AM
"A couple grams of extra epoxy in the tip of the racquet-head can mean 10 extra swingweight units."

Fascinating and scary. Thanks for the info. I need to get my racquet weighed and measured on a fancy machine. I didn't think even the much derided Wilson QC could vary that much.

The two models are not intended to have different specs. This is a Wilson quality control issue that's plagued the 6.1 95 series for many years. If you look at the specs for the 16x18 and 18x20 at other online retailers you'll see swingweight figures ranging from 320 to 338 for both string patterns. Take a look at the two racquets tested last week by Tennis Warehouse University - they test only one frame of each string pattern and both sticks they tested - one 16x18 and one 18x20 - had 335+ swingweights. Swingweight is a very difficult spec to get consistent in manufacturing. A couple grams of extra epoxy in the tip of the racquet-head can mean 10 extra swingweight units. Prince is the only manufacturer that prints swingweight in their official specs (catalog and on frame) and they can do this because they mold racquets in two separate pieces and then glue them together - any errors are smaller when working on only one half of a racquet at a time.

Your best option is to spec out your current stick: precisely measure the static weight, balance and swingweight. And then ask TW to pull a frame from their inventory that best matches these numbers. And getting a matching pair is probably smart if you're going to stick with that model.

Manufacturers need to do better with this. Not too long ago, most players had no notion of swingweight, so racquet companies could afford to be imprecise and have bad swingweight quality control. But many players now realize that swingweight is probably the most crucial spec, especially in terms of matching racquets. We should demand better QC. If Prince made a bigger deal of their swingweight QC maybe it would put pressure on the other manufacturers to tighten things up. In the age of CAD and automated manufacturing, smaller tolerances in spec variations should be possible. It might cost a little more, but if it becomes a competition-driven trend the manufacturers will be compelled to do it.

BC1
02-27-2012, 05:51 AM
As corners stated - it's all poor quality control.
I'm convinced Wilson racquets are like snow flakes - no two are the same. Which is a shame because I actully like them.

If you look at Wilson's own website the specs for the new models are EXACTLY the same as the old ones. And the 16x18 specs are exactly the same as the 18x20, so in a perfect world there wouldn't be any differences - except for the difference the strings make.

However, for whatever reason, many users of the new racquets feel the SW is less.

VGP
02-27-2012, 05:55 AM
Manufacturers need to do better with this. Not too long ago, most players had no notion of swingweight, so racquet companies could afford to be imprecise and have bad swingweight quality control. But many players now realize that swingweight is probably the most crucial spec, especially in terms of matching racquets. We should demand better QC. If Prince made a bigger deal of their swingweight QC maybe it would put pressure on the other manufacturers to tighten things up. In the age of CAD and automated manufacturing, smaller tolerances in spec variations should be possible. It might cost a little more, but if it becomes a competition-driven trend the manufacturers will be compelled to do it.

Why?

Why should the racket companies incur definite increased cost and risk for what is sure to be minimal benefit? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the racket buying public are still have "no notion" of swingweight. I bet most players do several things that would oppose the necessity to have better "quality control."

1. purchase and play with only one racket
2. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of a totally different model
3. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" be the older model having "upgraded" with the older model now considered obsolete and therefore rarely used
4. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of the same model and never or rarely use it
5. purchase several of the same model and simply not caring for differences in manufacturing, string type and tension, grip size, varying layers of overgrip

So, if the VAST majority of players are doing this (which I'm sure they are), then there would be very little incentive for a manufacturer to increase costs to service the 0.001% of consumers that "require" precision. Look what happened to Fischer and their "zero tolerance" guarantee (which was only applicable to weight but not balance).

If players want precisely matched gear, there are several ways to do so. Ask the retailers to weigh and balance from their stock. Weigh and balance as you purchase and adjust as you go. Or go all out with services from Priority 1, RPNY, or Bosworth that they apply to frames from the various racket manufacturers.

If anything this "awareness" of swingweight has just made people more paranoid that it has to be their gear as to why they suck so bad at tennis. Among the people that think they require precisely matched gear, I'm sure they're not as good as they think they are to truly benefit. Racket matching services will gladly take your money to stick on some lead tape and apply a "premium" leather grip.

SFrazeur
02-27-2012, 05:56 AM
If both frames are exactly the same save for the drill patterns then the 18x20 should average a slightly higher swing weight due to the extra mass of the strings. However, it shouldn't reach nearly 10 point higher.

-SF

SFrazeur
02-27-2012, 06:05 AM
Why?

Why should the racket companies incur definite increased cost and risk for what is sure to be minimal benefit? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the racket buying public are still have "no notion" of swingweight. I bet most players do several things that would oppose the necessity to have better "quality control."

1. purchase and play with only one racket
2. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of a totally different model
3. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" be the older model having "upgraded" with the older model now considered obsolete and therefore rarely used
4. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of the same model and never or rarely use it
5. purchase several of the same model and simply not caring for differences in manufacturing, string type and tension, grip size, varying layers of overgrip

So, if the VAST majority of players are doing this (which I'm sure they are), then there would be very little incentive for a manufacturer to increase costs to service the 0.001% of consumers that "require" precision. Look what happened to Fischer and their "zero tolerance" guarantee (which was only applicable to weight but not balance).

If players want precisely matched gear, there are several ways to do so. Ask the retailers to weigh and balance from their stock. Weigh and balance as you purchase and adjust as you go. Or go all out with services from Priority 1, RPNY, or Bosworth that they apply to frames from the various racket manufacturers.

If anything this "awareness" of swingweight has just made people more paranoid that it has to be their gear as to why they suck so bad at tennis. Among the people that think they require precisely matched gear, I'm sure they're not as good as they think they are to truly benefit. Racket matching services will gladly take your money to stick on some lead tape and apply a "premium" leather grip.

You are correct sir!

Fischer/Pacific "No/Zero Tolerance" guarantee is a joke of a marketing ploy. Weight is the easiest and lest important spec to be matching.

I agree that most rec players have no real need for precisely matched racquets, however, if buying two of the same racquet at once I would suggest that people order from TW and have them matched. Might as well.

-SF

Power Player
02-27-2012, 06:25 AM
I posted this a ton of times, but I truly do not think there is a difference in the new 6.1 compared to the prior model besides the amplifeel handle. I have a heavier 6.1 and a lighter one with the same PJ, and one is 320 in SW, the other more like 330.

The Pro Open is the same thing. The new Pro Open is just a PJ.

Why mess with a good thing? I actually like that Wilson has not changed the racquets.

For some reason the 2 Pro Opens I have are much closer in terms of specs than other Wilsons I have used.

BC1
02-27-2012, 06:29 AM
If anything this "awareness" of swingweight has just made people more paranoid that it has to be their gear as to why they suck so bad at tennis. Among the people that think they require precisely matched gear, I'm sure they're not as good as they think they are to truly benefit. Racket matching services will gladly take your money to stick on some lead tape and apply a "premium" leather grip.


I agree 100%. However, for me personally, it's not even about "matching". I can feel the difference in sw if it is significant and at times i just want to be able to buy what i demoed or what i think i should be getting (in weight or in SW) - without having to have it pre-weighed or modified. But regardless, you're right, the slight variances shouldn't affect my play, at least at my 3.5 or 4.0 level, but it is a psychological and paranoid thing. I was oblivious to all of this before finding this site a few years ago - Now I know too much! Now I know why they say "ignorance is bliss".

courtking
02-27-2012, 06:37 AM
we all should signed a petition to Wilson to do better in QC.. Wilson racquets are getting worse and worse in QC department specially in the new line PS BLX.. they all under weight in 6.1 90 tour.. and some are in 6.1 95.. it seems Wilson does not care much about their QC.. it's just trying to crank out as many new rackets as they can without caring about the specs..

corners
02-27-2012, 07:39 AM
Now I know too much! Now I know why they say "ignorance is bliss". I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. I'm inclined to believe the opposite. So I guess I disagree with both you and VGP. To each their own.

heninfan99
02-27-2012, 07:41 AM
I agree. It doesn't have to be precisely the same but closer than a 10pt diff.

If both frames are exactly the same save for the drill patterns then the 18x20 should average a slightly higher swing weight due to the extra mass of the strings. However, it shouldn't reach nearly 10 point higher.

-SF

corners
02-27-2012, 07:47 AM
If both frames are exactly the same save for the drill patterns then the 18x20 should average a slightly higher swing weight due to the extra mass of the strings. However, it shouldn't reach nearly 10 point higher.

-SF

The mass of the four extra strings amounts to less than two grams. I wonder how much mass is removed in drilling the eight extra holes. It might be a wash, or end up being less than one gram difference between the two patterns.

heninfan99
02-27-2012, 08:08 AM
Well my coach whose a Div. 1 player had the new 16x18 and tried mine and he also commented on how much heavier and club-like mine is. We use the same string and mine didn't even have an over-grip. Such a difference is even noticeable to the good club player, IMO.



I posted this a ton of times, but I truly do not think there is a difference in the new 6.1 compared to the prior model besides the amplifeel handle. I have a heavier 6.1 and a lighter one with the same PJ, and one is 320 in SW, the other more like 330.

The Pro Open is the same thing. The new Pro Open is just a PJ.

Why mess with a good thing? I actually like that Wilson has not changed the racquets.

For some reason the 2 Pro Opens I have are much closer in terms of specs than other Wilsons I have used.

SFrazeur
02-27-2012, 08:12 AM
The mass of the four extra strings amounts to less than two grams. I wonder how much mass is removed in drilling the eight extra holes. It might be a wash, or end up being less than one gram difference between the two patterns.

The lost mass from the extra drilling is possible. Didn't think of that.

However, even if there is only 1g of additional weight at say 3&9 about 21 inches from the end-cap that would add almost 2pts to the swing weight. 2g almost 4pts. That's certainly noticeable territory. Although, considering how bad Wilson's "quality" control is the whole issue is a bit pointless. :D

-SF

borgpro
02-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Why mess with a good thing? I actually like that Wilson has not changed the racquets..

But the flex is quit different too isn't it?
That means that the lay-up must be somewhat different..

BC1
02-27-2012, 09:43 AM
I don't believe that ignorance is bliss. I'm inclined to believe the opposite. So I guess I disagree with both you and VGP. To each their own.


I said that ("Ignorance is bliss") comment because when I was less aware of SW and racquet specs I focused more on my playing and ways to improve my game. Now that I'm addicted to this forum I find myself obsessing over the racquet(s), even though I know I need to worry more about my strokes then a slight difference in specs. The racquet, or SW, was never an issue - now it seems to be the only issue as I try to find the "perfect' racquet. And now SW variances are more important to me then they should be.

Bruce X.
02-27-2012, 11:23 AM
Refresh my memory; is the swing weight measured with or without strings?

I have the BLX 95 16x18 and demoed the Amplifeel version this weekend. The Amplifeel does have more feel compared to BLX and to me felt easier to maneuver than my current racquet. My shots were more consistent and precise but that could be strings and tension.

I personally would be interested in buying the new one if the swing weight is in the 325 range. I called my tennis shop and they have one left in my size. I would hate to buy it if it has the same swing weight as my current racquet. I'm going to check it out after work.

As a comparison, they checked out the swing weight on their Babolat machine of the Amplifeel 18x20 weight and that one came in at 344 SW! That is in line with what Tennis Warehouse is showing; that the current 18X20's are coming in at heavier SW's than the 16x18 versions.

We're going to measure the SW of the demo I have when I bring it in this evening. If it comes in around 325, I'm going to buy. If not, I'll just keep my current racquet.

bluetrain4
02-27-2012, 11:51 AM
When I playtested the 6.1 95 16x18, I raved about how it was easier to swing than the previous BLX.

I finally ordered the new verison and it seeme a little heavier-swinging than my playtest frame, but not remarkably different. Also, I have a heavier leather grip on my new frame vs. the playtest frame. I've had no problems with it and love the frame.

BC1
02-27-2012, 11:56 AM
^^^ I have found that if the demo feels "perfect" and you are happy with the condition of the racquet and the string set-up, see if the dealer will sell you the demo. It seems like the new racquet never feels quite the same as the demo, or the specs may be different. That goes for any model or brand.

Bruce X.
02-27-2012, 12:04 PM
I'll ask about the demo once we weigh the swing weight. If it's what I'm looking for I'll ask about buying the demo.

TW confirmed swing weights are measured strung. When buying a racquet new they measure and weigh unstrung racquets and do some calculations to get swing weight you are seeking.

So BlueTrain, what about the new version do you think makes it swing/play better than the previous BLX 6.1 16x18?

blipblop
02-27-2012, 12:10 PM
Why?

Why should the racket companies incur definite increased cost and risk for what is sure to be minimal benefit? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of the racket buying public are still have "no notion" of swingweight. I bet most players do several things that would oppose the necessity to have better "quality control."

1. purchase and play with only one racket
2. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of a totally different model
3. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" be the older model having "upgraded" with the older model now considered obsolete and therefore rarely used
4. purchase a "main" racket and have a "backup" of the same model and never or rarely use it
5. purchase several of the same model and simply not caring for differences in manufacturing, string type and tension, grip size, varying layers of overgrip

So, if the VAST majority of players are doing this (which I'm sure they are), then there would be very little incentive for a manufacturer to increase costs to service the 0.001% of consumers that "require" precision. Look what happened to Fischer and their "zero tolerance" guarantee (which was only applicable to weight but not balance).

If players want precisely matched gear, there are several ways to do so. Ask the retailers to weigh and balance from their stock. Weigh and balance as you purchase and adjust as you go. Or go all out with services from Priority 1, RPNY, or Bosworth that they apply to frames from the various racket manufacturers.

If anything this "awareness" of swingweight has just made people more paranoid that it has to be their gear as to why they suck so bad at tennis. Among the people that think they require precisely matched gear, I'm sure they're not as good as they think they are to truly benefit. Racket matching services will gladly take your money to stick on some lead tape and apply a "premium" leather grip.

As customers, I think we have a right to know more transparently the exact specs of the rackets in the first place.

You're right, the "awareness" of more specs may cause some people to lose sleep (and I admit, I am one of those who takes comfort in matched rackets, whether or not I can tell the difference of 5 grams). BUT awareness is not intrinsically bad, we just need the right awareness.

For instance, I think the manufacturers should give tolerances on their specs. All they list is the nominal spec, but it says nothing about what kind of capability they have to reproduce that spec. For instance, if Wilson listed 350+/-20 grams for its BLX Six.One 95 18X20, then you would know "Ok mine weighs 329g, I can return this for a refund." The same applies to swingweight, balance, stiffness, etc. This way at least the customer has a better idea of what they are getting. I would respect a company more for openly listing tolerance ranges, even if that range was large, it's better than none.

bluetrain4
02-27-2012, 01:15 PM
^^^ I have found that if the demo feels "perfect" and you are happy with the condition of the racquet and the string set-up, see if the dealer will sell you the demo. It seems like the new racquet never feels quite the same as the demo, or the specs may be different. That goes for any model or brand.

That's a good idea, but this wasn't a normal "demo" as I would usually do through TW, for example. This was the Wilson 2012 play test where I received a blacked-out prototype frame and had to write a review.

corners
02-27-2012, 04:49 PM
I said that ("Ignorance is bliss") comment because when I was less aware of SW and racquet specs I focused more on my playing and ways to improve my game. Now that I'm addicted to this forum I find myself obsessing over the racquet(s), even though I know I need to worry more about my strokes then a slight difference in specs. The racquet, or SW, was never an issue - now it seems to be the only issue as I try to find the "perfect' racquet. And now SW variances are more important to me then they should be.

Don't worry, it's probably just a phase. I've seen lots of players come to this forum, geek out for a while, learn a bunch, get confused, demo lots of racquets, etc. Eventually they find what they were looking for and then migrate to the instruction forum and never come back here again. :)

BC1
02-27-2012, 08:16 PM
Don't worry, it's probably just a phase. I've seen lots of players come to this forum, geek out for a while, learn a bunch, get confused, demo lots of racquets, etc. Eventually they find what they were looking for and then migrate to the instruction forum and never come back here again. :)

Corners, possibly, but i dont see me going away for long. So fa its been a three yar phase.I have taken a couple months off here and there but l enjoy this racquet obsession and forum way too much to give it up. I love it all!

Back to the original topic... i agree there needs to be some limits established and manufacturers need to be held accountable. The variance ranges are too high. And consumers should be able to EASILY exchange for an appropriately made racquet if it is obvious there was a manufacturing error, including significant differences in SW.

Fwiw, i went to the shop today and swung/held a new 6.1 95 and an old, it was too close to tell for sure, but the new did feel a little lighter, but it could have all been in my head. Too close to tell without a scale.

Bruce X.
02-27-2012, 10:23 PM
Bought the Amplifeel 6.1 this evening. Had them weigh the demo and the one I purchased using their Babolat machine. They both came in at 12.2 strung. The swing weight of the demo was 342, and the one I purchased came in at 333. Both are higher than TW's specs. I guess TW got a batch of lighter than normal racquets. We'll see if Amplifeel makes a difference for me during match play at league this Wednesday night. I sure hope so!

heninfan99
02-29-2012, 10:55 AM
I weighed my current BLX 6.1 95 today. It's 12.5 with strings and Wilson dampener and no over-grip. The Wilson Ace dampener is 0.1 oz.

Tonight I get a new one --the same model racquet with the same string job. I will weigh it tomorrow with dampener and report back. I hope it feels/swings similarly.

heninfan99
03-01-2012, 03:44 AM
My new BLX 6.1 95 with the same setup weighs 12.4 oz. .1 oz less than my original. It is a grip size smaller which may explain the discrepancy.
Of course, I'm about to put an over-grip on it will with make its static weight heavier.

Wish I could check SW.

BC1
03-01-2012, 05:32 AM
My new BLX 6.1 95 with the same setup weighs 12.4 oz. .1 oz less than my original. It is a grip size smaller which may explain the discrepancy.
Of course, I'm about to put an over-grip on it will with make its static weight heavier.

Wish I could check SW.

Regarding SW - I want to check the same, but haven't tried yet because it appears so complicated and possbily innacurate the do-it-yourself way. Here are the TWU instructions: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/howto_swingweight.php

I imagine once you do it a couple of times its fairly simple. Any comments on the accuracy, tips, or easier/better ways to measure SW?

diegoeste
03-05-2012, 11:14 AM
Hi everyone, I use to play in clay surface and I dont know why for me is easier to play with the BLX 6.1 16x18 than my current raquet (a customized HEAD MP FXP RAD).
To be honest I have to work harder with the RAD FXP in order get the same 6.1s heavy ball . Something has change, Im not defending so much as usual with this new racquet.
I suggest to strung the 6.1 with full Pacific Force, it plays fantastic is this raquet.
May be this is my honey moon period, but the new 16x18 swings smoothly. I dont know how it plays in fast surfaces but for clay is a must demo.
Im between 4.0 and 4.5 level.

corners
03-05-2012, 11:38 AM
Regarding SW - I want to check the same, but haven't tried yet because it appears so complicated and possbily innacurate the do-it-yourself way. Here are the TWU instructions: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/howto_swingweight.php

I imagine once you do it a couple of times its fairly simple. Any comments on the accuracy, tips, or easier/better ways to measure SW?

It's accurate. In fact TW once used this method to calibrate their RDC machines. But you have to do the time measurement carefully. Many people find that timing 40 swings, rather than 10, and then dividing that time by 4, is a good way to minimize problems with your reaction time (pushing the button to start and stop your stopwatch).