PDA

View Full Version : TW Racquet power rating question


rallyguy
02-29-2012, 10:26 PM
So any ideas why say the new 6.1 blx 16 by 18 with a score of 83 in power gets a "low" in it's description by TW and just for one example the BB London with a score of 81 gets a "low-medium"

Any thoughts? TW?

spaceman_spiff
03-01-2012, 03:23 AM
So any ideas why say the new 6.1 blx 16 by 18 with a score of 83 in power gets a "low" in it's description by TW and just for one example the BB London with a score of 81 gets a "low-medium"

Any thoughts? TW?

Pay no attention to the power level listed on the specs tab for a racket; it's meaningless.

The best way to check the power is to click on the Racket Power Map button to get into TWU. From there, you can check power zones and other data. Just keep in mind that the fames with big power zones are usually harder to swing than those with smaller power zones; the power comes from the swing weight (with other factors playing a smaller role). So, higher SW gives you more power generally speaking but is more difficult to swing.

TimothyO
03-01-2012, 05:10 AM
Ditto spaceman.

The written description is utterly meaningless. I've seen frames in the upper right corner of the TWU power/sweet spot chart listed as low powered and other in the bottom left as medium powered.

In fact, I think the power rating is probably one of the most misleading values you can use in racquet selection. For whatever reason that particular test and value can fail to capture the real world playing qualities of a frame as it relates to real ball speed. I've tried frames with relatively high power ratings that played low and vice versa.

You're better off looking at string denisty (not just pattern), head size, stiffness, swingweight, and plow as predictors for power. Obviously string plays a HUGE role too. Open density, big head, stiff, and higher SW/plow means more power. Dense strings, smaller head, soft, and lower SW/plow means less power.

BC1
03-01-2012, 06:24 AM
Ditto spaceman.

The written description is utterly meaningless... You're better off looking at string denisty (not just pattern), head size, stiffness, swingweight, and plow as predictors for power. Obviously string plays a HUGE role too. Open density, big head, stiff, and higher SW/plow means more power. Dense strings, smaller head, soft, and lower SW/plow means less power.

How much does beam width factor into this? I'm assuming a thicker beam usually means a stiffer frame and therefore more power.

corners
03-01-2012, 06:46 AM
How much does beam width factor into this? I'm assuming a thicker beam usually means a stiffer frame and therefore more power.

Looking at the Power Potential data, beam width and stiffness is a distant third behind swingweight and twistweight. The Power Potential in the center of the strings is almost directly proportional to swingweight and other specs like stiffness have very little to do with it. Outside the center, other specs come into play: For shots hit right and left of center twistweight becomes really important and hoop stiffness kind of important. For shots hit high in the hoop swingweight is still most important but stiffness really comes into play as well.

This article explains it well and has graphs showing correlation of specs to Power Potential: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/specsandspeed.php

The only spec that correlates well with power at all impact locations is swingweight because swingweight is essentially a measure of how much mass is located in the head of the racquet. The more mass "represented" at each impact location the faster the ball will rebound from that location. You can also see this mass representation in the spec "hittingweight", which is also in the TWU database, here: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/hittingwtrac.cgi

Hittingweight is also known as Effective Mass. This calculator lets you input racquet specs and will tell you the effective mass at any position on the racquet: http://www.racquettech.com/store/learningcenter/lc_effectivemassgeneral.html

The Tennis Warehouse University Customization and Reverse Engineering Tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/customizationReverse.php) automatically calculates effective mass behind the scenes and gives you the new power potential of your frame after adding mass with lead tape.

BC1
03-01-2012, 07:20 AM
^^^^^ Thanks Corners. Very helpful!!

Ramon
03-01-2012, 07:22 AM
I don't pay much attention to TW's power ratings and sweet zones. According to their charts, the Babolat Aero Storm GT has more power and a larger sweetspot than the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT. That's just flat out wrong!

corners
03-01-2012, 07:57 AM
I don't pay much attention to TW's power ratings and sweet zones. According to their charts, the Babolat Aero Storm GT has more power and a larger sweetspot than the Babolat AeroPro Drive GT. That's just flat out wrong!

Actually, it's not wrong. Here is the comparison:

http://s15.postimage.org/62mvtbox7/APD_vs.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Notice that the AeroProDrive has lower power potential in the center of the strings than the AeroStorm. That is what you're objecting too because you find it to be the opposite. But if you read my post above you now know that power potential is proportional to swingweight. The boxes below the power maps show the swingweight of each of the frames tested. The APD had 316 and the AeroStorm 332. This is proportional to the power potential in the center of the frames: 39.3% for APD and 40.6% for the AeroStorm.

You find the APD to be more powerful. Why? Well, what the power potential numbers mean is that if both racquets are swung at the same speed, at the same ball, the Aero Storm will produce a faster shot. But swingweight is also proportional to swingspeed so many players will swing the APD faster than they will the AeroStorm. Swingspeed trumps power potential, meaning that if you can swing the APD even two miles per hour faster than the AeroStorm, the APD will be more powerful - it will hit the ball faster - for you. So your experience is correct: you think the APD is more powerful, and for you it is. But someone else who's more accustomed to higher swingweight and can swing the AeroStorm just as fast as the APD might say that the AeroStorm is more poweful, and they would be right too, for them.

What's so cool about the Power Potential data is that it tells us how powerful a racquet is independent from the player swinging it. The most useful way to use the comparison tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/contours.php) shown above is to find two frames with swingweights that are very similar or the same. Then you have an apples to apples comparison and can really see the effects of stiffness, string pattern and headsize on sweetzone size. Those effects are smaller than most people think, but when comparing two frames with the same swingweight we can see them.

And here is a really good article explaining how power potential (aka ACOR or Rebound Power) is proportional to swingweight: http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/02/raw_racquet_power.html

fuzz nation
03-01-2012, 09:50 AM
Very much in agreement (and even occasionally awestruck :shock:) with the info from our pal corners. "Power" is a tricky term and sometimes needs to be qualified. We often bring it up around here, but it can mean different things depending on the context.

I've come to appreciate softer racquets and the inherent control they give me over my ground strokes. Even though they offer me a bit less liveliness or "pop", they actually let me hit a lot harder because their extra control helps me ultimately keep the ball down on the court. A bit of a paradox, but this might help with illuminating the difference between the "power" in our gear and the "power" in our games.

Stiffness in our racquets deserves consideration because it contributes to the liveliness and "pop" I mentioned. A racquet's weight has much to do with "power potential" when we take a swing at the ball, but blocked shots including volleys and compact service returns are different. A decent amount of "pop" in a frame can make a huge difference for a player who needs to be able to punch the ball through the court with some authority. Weight and inherent stability can certainly help with this, but even a heavy frame can have very diminished response (yes, "pop") if it also has too much flex.

So if different shots demand different sorts of "power" and we all have our own comfort zones in terms of reasonable racquet weights that we can use, I can't put much faith in the usefulness of a general power rating.

Ramon
03-01-2012, 12:21 PM
Actually, it's not wrong. Here is the comparison:

http://s15.postimage.org/62mvtbox7/APD_vs.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Notice that the AeroProDrive has lower power potential in the center of the strings than the AeroStorm. That is what you're objecting too because you find it to be the opposite. But if you read my post above you now know that power potential is proportional to swingweight. The boxes below the power maps show the swingweight of each of the frames tested. The APD had 316 and the AeroStorm 332. This is proportional to the power potential in the center of the frames: 39.3% for APD and 40.6% for the AeroStorm.

You find the APD to be more powerful. Why? Well, what the power potential numbers mean is that if both racquets are swung at the same speed, at the same ball, the Aero Storm will produce a faster shot. But swingweight is also proportional to swingspeed so many players will swing the APD faster than they will the AeroStorm. Swingspeed trumps power potential, meaning that if you can swing the APD even two miles per hour faster than the AeroStorm, the APD will be more powerful - it will hit the ball faster - for you. So your experience is correct: you think the APD is more powerful, and for you it is. But someone else who's more accustomed to higher swingweight and can swing the AeroStorm just as fast as the APD might say that the AeroStorm is more poweful, and they would be right too, for them.

What's so cool about the Power Potential data is that it tells us how powerful a racquet is independent from the player swinging it. The most useful way to use the comparison tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/contours.php) shown above is to find two frames with swingweights that are very similar or the same. Then you have an apples to apples comparison and can really see the effects of stiffness, string pattern and headsize on sweetzone size. Those effects are smaller than most people think, but when comparing two frames with the same swingweight we can see them.

And here is a really good article explaining how power potential (aka ACOR or Rebound Power) is proportional to swingweight: http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/02/raw_racquet_power.html

All of this sounds good in theory. Even IF it was correct, there's very little practical application to it because the APD will result in a more powerful shot anyway.

I would say, though, that the numbers are so deceiving you might as well say the test method is flawed. As much as I like my new racquet, the Pro Kennex Ki 5x, I know it doesn't belong as high in the list as it is. It is a low powered players racquet.

spaceman_spiff
03-02-2012, 02:21 AM
Actually, it's not wrong. Here is the comparison:

http://s15.postimage.org/62mvtbox7/APD_vs.jpg (http://postimage.org/)


Notice that the AeroProDrive has lower power potential in the center of the strings than the AeroStorm. That is what you're objecting too because you find it to be the opposite. But if you read my post above you now know that power potential is proportional to swingweight. The boxes below the power maps show the swingweight of each of the frames tested. The APD had 316 and the AeroStorm 332. This is proportional to the power potential in the center of the frames: 39.3% for APD and 40.6% for the AeroStorm.

You find the APD to be more powerful. Why? Well, what the power potential numbers mean is that if both racquets are swung at the same speed, at the same ball, the Aero Storm will produce a faster shot. But swingweight is also proportional to swingspeed so many players will swing the APD faster than they will the AeroStorm. Swingspeed trumps power potential, meaning that if you can swing the APD even two miles per hour faster than the AeroStorm, the APD will be more powerful - it will hit the ball faster - for you. So your experience is correct: you think the APD is more powerful, and for you it is. But someone else who's more accustomed to higher swingweight and can swing the AeroStorm just as fast as the APD might say that the AeroStorm is more poweful, and they would be right too, for them.

What's so cool about the Power Potential data is that it tells us how powerful a racquet is independent from the player swinging it. The most useful way to use the comparison tool (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/contours.php) shown above is to find two frames with swingweights that are very similar or the same. Then you have an apples to apples comparison and can really see the effects of stiffness, string pattern and headsize on sweetzone size. Those effects are smaller than most people think, but when comparing two frames with the same swingweight we can see them.

And here is a really good article explaining how power potential (aka ACOR or Rebound Power) is proportional to swingweight: http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/02/raw_racquet_power.html

All of this sounds good in theory. Even IF it was correct, there's very little practical application to it because the APD will result in a more powerful shot anyway.

I would say, though, that the numbers are so deceiving you might as well say the test method is flawed. As much as I like my new racquet, the Pro Kennex Ki 5x, I know it doesn't belong as high in the list as it is. It is a low powered players racquet.

I can offer an explanation for the disagreement you two are having.

The TW specs page lists the SW for the AeroPro Drive GT as 331. But, the TWU measurements list the SW as 316 (also notice the 320-g strung weight compared to 310 g on TWU). The TW specs tab is the average of measurements made on several frames, whereas the TWU page takes a single frame for the tests. So, it's quite possible that the TWU tests were done on a frame that was well below average specs (gotta love that quality control).

Now, if a player were to hit with an AeroPro Drive GT that was around average spec or even heavier, he/she would experience a frame that is much more powerful than the 310-g frame that was tested for the TWU measurements.