PDA

View Full Version : Dunlop 300 tour VS Dunlop bio 200


Supermange
03-21-2012, 03:51 PM
After 2-3 weeks of playtesting I've settled on a led up dunlop 500 tour.
But I also would like something for control to mix it up once in a while.

I intend to led up the 300 tour so it feels more stable. maybe 15-20 g led.
I can't demo the bio 200 (live in sweden). I've found that I prefer stability and plowthrough but a bit more power than a head prestige MP. Which of these two will fit the bill. I'm your average 3.5 player.

Supermange
03-21-2012, 03:56 PM
I forgot to add that I really don't know that much about racquets. What are the difference between these 2? I guess I want a control oriented racquet that's not super demanding like the 6.1 95 blx.(u can never relax)
Is the Dunlop 300 tour (with led) better than a Dunlop 200 then? As I said I wan't a control oriented racquet to complement my Dunlop 500 tour.

LeeD
03-21-2012, 04:05 PM
Ohhhh, tough one there.
They also make a Dunlop200Lite, 98 sq's. 11.5oz.
But generally, 200's are softer in flex, and already heavier, than 300's.
I think shape of the head might be the determining factor. 200 seems closer to the roundness of your 500's. 300 is very oval. You gotta try that one, as lots of players don't like the headshape.
JohnMcE likes that oval head.

vegasgt3
03-21-2012, 05:06 PM
I play with the Bio 200 and it is sweet, but it is demanding. I wouldn't recommend it to a 3.5 unless you have very flat strokes.

The 300 tour is a bit larger and more forgiving, but I recommend you try the 400 tour. Very forgiving, powerful and should be customized with some lead.

I am considering switching to it myself for doubles.

LeeD
03-21-2012, 05:10 PM
OP is looking for a different racket.
400 and 500 are very similar.

vegasgt3
03-21-2012, 05:43 PM
A 400 TOUR leaded up is pretty sweet. I would call it a forgiving control racquet for a 3.5. Just my opinion.

I've never hit a 400, so I can't comment.

mmk
03-21-2012, 05:54 PM
Ohhhh, tough one there.
They also make a Dunlop200Lite, 98 sq's. 11.5oz.
But generally, 200's are softer in flex, and already heavier, than 300's.
I think shape of the head might be the determining factor. 200 seems closer to the roundness of your 500's. 300 is very oval. You gotta try that one, as lots of players don't like the headshape.
JohnMcE likes that oval head.

The TW page shows the Bio 200 Lite as 95 sq. inches, not 98.

Backhanded Compliment
03-22-2012, 12:24 AM
The 200 lite sounds like a good idea if you want contrast though the 200 with a dense pattern is a softer and very slightly more powerful version of the Prestige MP that you seem to want. The Bio 200 is a somewhat demanding frame and every day I think I might want to pick one up some day... for those days I wish my prestige was flexier. Something tells me Id use it one ever month at best though.

I like collecting rackets... but I favor just one particular frame, even though Ive got 3 95 inch prestiges.

Supermange
03-22-2012, 02:19 AM
Thanks guys. Seems like you all favor 200 lite and 400 tour. I've played with the 200 lite and I agree might just be what I should use. 400 tour might be to close to my 500 tour. I guess playtesting is the way to go. Wonder if they will allow me leading up the demo 300 tour racket? heh

Backhanded Compliment why do you think 200 (regular) is a bit to demanding it seems to be rougly the same weight as a 200 lite. 7-10 gram dif. Is a lightly leaded 200 lite preferable over the 200?
As I said in another post I don't wan't the racket to hold me back.(if that's possible at my level)

NicoHK
03-25-2012, 03:57 AM
Supermange, why do you think about the 400 Tour and the Bio200? Why don't you think of the 300 classic Version? I figure out it could be a nice blend of what you are looking for, just between the 400T and the 200Lite. More oval than round, less stable than the 200Lite but definitely with more pop, it will help you progressing in your game IMO.

ghia
03-25-2012, 04:56 AM
I've tried all the newer dunlop's.
I favor the 200 lite. Perfect weight and balance for my swing style. The sweet spot is higher in the hoop wich I love. The hoop feels just as solid as the regular 200 and more solid than the prestige.
The regular 200 has indeed a little more power (and a slightly larger sweet spot) than a prestige. But because of the higher swing weight it tires my arm after 1 hour or so.
I do not find that much of a difference between the 500T and 400T. They have just a bit to much power than I need so I prefer the 200 lite.

ghia
03-25-2012, 05:14 AM
Forgot to mention, I like the 200 lite strung with bkack code 17. It gives me the prefect combination of depth and spin. The ball goes high and curves wickedly and drops just inside the back court line.

neverstopplaying
03-25-2012, 06:19 AM
I forgot to add that I really don't know that much about racquets. What are the difference between these 2? I guess I want a control oriented racquet that's not super demanding like the 6.1 95 blx.(u can never relax)
Is the Dunlop 300 tour (with led) better than a Dunlop 200 then? As I said I wan't a control oriented racquet to complement my Dunlop 500 tour.

Ive owned many dunlops and played extensively with 200,300,400, & 500.

The 200s and 300s dont supply ant free power and are demanding. My current racquet of choice is the 400T. It offers better control than the 500s, imore power than the 300s, and is not stiff like a 500.

Supermange
03-25-2012, 10:45 AM
Tryed the 200 lite liked it alot. Tryed the 300 tour, it was a bit to demanding every once in a while i would hit outside of the sweetspot and it would kill the boll totally.

NicoHK is the 300 classic with lead that much different than a 300 tour?

Tryed the 400 tour and it was like neverstopplaying described it.

ZeroSkid
03-25-2012, 12:09 PM
300 tour................