PDA

View Full Version : C10 Pro vs C10 Pro 2012


ciocc
10-25-2012, 11:42 AM
Does anyone know if there are any differences between the 2012 model and the previous, say 2010 (yellow) or 2008 (black) models?

TW description says they are just cosmetic updates, but their Power Zone Comparison indicates differences in weight, balance, SW, Twistweight and sweet zones ... etc.

Has anybody played with various generations of C10 Pro and noticed any differences?

Don't Let It Bounce
10-25-2012, 01:26 PM
The Power Zone comparisons are between individual frames; unlike the basic measurements included on the TW product description pages, the testers do not average together the results of multiple frames. So, there would be surprisingly different TWU test results even for, say, two 2008 C10 Pro frames.

danix
10-25-2012, 09:49 PM
Those in the know say that yes, there is a significant difference. Search for posts by Rabbit, you may find info there as he played the C10 for a long time.

ciocc
10-25-2012, 10:43 PM
Thanks danix for the info.

Meaghan
10-25-2012, 11:35 PM
I'm pretty sure Rabbit said that the 2008-2012 models are the same.

As for pre 2008, there's a definite difference in the old fishnet version, I have a later bumblebee version and imo that's different to the newer models, maybe a little more solid but we are talking negligible amounts, they perform pretty much the same and I can easily interchange sticks during a game.

danix
10-26-2012, 02:41 PM
Lots of posts here (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback-C10P10.html) saying it is quite different and not as good.

ciocc
10-26-2012, 03:52 PM
Lots of posts here (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback-C10P10.html) saying it is quite different and not as good.

Well, I understand that it was quite different when comparing to the older generations, such as the ones with bumble bee or fishnet paint jobs.

However, from what I have gathered so far from some other posts, the 2008 (black), 2010 (yellow) and the latest 2012 are the same other than the cosmetic difference.

tennis.yellow.balls
10-26-2012, 09:21 PM
One of the things I've really noticed that is different is that, it's really hard to find rackets that have the same balance and weight even with the same production years.

I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

Meaghan
10-26-2012, 11:43 PM
Well, I understand that it was quite different when comparing to the older generations, such as the ones with bumble bee or fishnet paint jobs.

However, from what I have gathered so far from some other posts, the 2008 (black), 2010 (yellow) and the latest 2012 are the same other than the cosmetic difference.
Yes exactly, I think a lot of it is to do with the way rackets are made now.
One of the things I've really noticed that is different is that, it's really hard to find rackets that have the same balance and weight even with the same production years.

I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

Yes this is what I've found too, I've noticed that my older sticks tend to be weightier in the head, which is fine as mine mod up around 370g but if you don't want the static weight too high then you may have some problems.

ciocc
10-27-2012, 04:07 PM
I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

Same experience here. I just picked up two used X10 in stock form. One weights 317g and the other one weights 323g. The second one is close to the manufacturer's spec in both weight and HL balance; but the first one is 1/2cm more head heavy. :(

Meaghan
10-28-2012, 01:24 AM
Same experience here. I just picked up two used X10 in stock form. One weights 317g and the other one weights 323g. The second one is close to the manufacturer's spec in both weight and HL balance; but the first one is 1/2cm more head heavy. :(

Easy mod, just add 6g of lead to top of the handle and they'll be pretty much matched.

http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab44/rmeaghan/2011-11-29102230.jpg

ciocc
10-28-2012, 06:48 PM
My point wasn't whether I knew how or willing to mod the racket. I was simply surprised that this kind of QC issue slipped thru Volkl's store.

In fact, I was glad that the lighter one was closer to the weight of my BA93 and I felt right at home playing with it. :)

gonzalocatalino
10-28-2012, 06:56 PM
i just got 3 C10 PROs (2008). I will weight them tomorrow with a digital scale to see if they have some differences...

Readers
10-29-2012, 12:12 AM
Easy mod, just add 6g of lead to top of the handle and they'll be pretty much matched.



I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

treblings
10-29-2012, 12:23 AM
I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

interesting, why?

i find that adding just a little lead, 6g might be too much, at the top of the grip helps with my volleys and slice backhand, just my personal experience

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 12:38 AM
My point wasn't whether I knew how or willing to mod the racket. I was simply surprised that this kind of QC issue slipped thru Volkl's store.

In fact, I was glad that the lighter one was closer to the weight of my BA93 and I felt right at home playing with it. :)
Ok I was just trying to help.
I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

Then you must try it, there's a lot of info on these threads that suggest the opposite.

Readers
10-29-2012, 12:47 AM
Tried many times, it add next to no power, stability, spin, and very little plow-though.

It's just dead weight.

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 02:53 AM
Tried many times, it add next to no power, stability, spin, and very little plow-though.

It's just dead weight.

I don't really think its about power, spin or plow but more to do with stability and the science behind how a racket swings. I agree its not for everyone and like any modification it takes time to get the adjustments right to suit your game and swing style etc.

Some interesting threads by John Cauthen and there was another poster who explained some of the science behind it, the weight being just above your hand making the racket swing easier, can't remember his name but interesting posts they were.

smirker
10-29-2012, 04:04 AM
interesting, why?

i find that adding just a little lead, 6g might be too much, at the top of the grip helps with my volleys and slice backhand, just my personal experience

Me too. Lead at the top of the grip added stability and helped to drive through the ball for a low, biting slice.

ciocc
10-29-2012, 08:29 AM
Ok I was just trying to help.

Oops ... my message wasn't personal, and I appreciate your intention to help. :)

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 11:17 AM
Oops ... my message wasn't personal, and I appreciate your intention to help. :)

Ha no worries ;)

corners
10-29-2012, 11:38 AM
Ha no worries ;)

Meaghan, how's the X10 doing for you? I remember feeling really disconnected from that frame when I demoed it. It had the steely hoop of the DNX 10 mid but not the throat flex or raw, rich feel. (But the demo was with mid-upper tension syngut, which I loathe, so it's hard to tell.)

Are you still hitting it side by side with the C10?

Readers
10-29-2012, 12:48 PM
I don't really think its about power, spin or plow but more to do with stability and the science behind how a racket swings. I agree its not for everyone and like any modification it takes time to get the adjustments right to suit your game and swing style etc.

Some interesting threads by John Cauthen and there was another poster who explained some of the science behind it, the weight being just above your hand making the racket swing easier, can't remember his name but interesting posts they were.


If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

dje31
10-29-2012, 01:31 PM
Pure speculation, rumor and hearsay, but I thought I remember reading that---contrary to what's listed on spec sheets on TW---there hasn't been Kevlar in the mix for quite a while.

I could be wrong though...wouldn't be the first or last time...

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 01:48 PM
If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

your scientific fact is quite wrong......

Readers
10-29-2012, 01:53 PM
your scientific fact is quite wrong......

:neutral::neutral::|:-|

I don't have time to explain it, you can either go read more on it or keep ignoring the law of physics.

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 02:12 PM
Meaghan, how's the X10 doing for you? I remember feeling really disconnected from that frame when I demoed it. It had the steely hoop of the DNX 10 mid but not the throat flex or raw, rich feel. (But the demo was with mid-upper tension syngut, which I loathe, so it's hard to tell.)

Are you still hitting it side by side with the C10?

Yes there's a similar disconnection like the pb10 mid but weighted up, got about 10g top of hoop and the same to of handle, combined with a lower tension poly (tour bite 1.25) @50 lbs has given me the hoop stiffness of the dnx mid, obviously not the throat flex, but the crispness of the full poly has given me some real nice feel and plow. It really is like having an apd/pb10 mid lovechild. The directional control especially crosscourt to dtl is as good as say the vc95. As for still playing the c10, not really, it feels great but I'm getting similar feel with the x10, ok firmer yes but the feel, connection as you say is as good with my set up. Volleying coming onto the ball with the x10 is as good as it gets but nothing is quite as good as a thin volkl frame and volleying at the net. They are so easily interchangeable that I could easily play one for singles and the other for doubles

Meaghan
10-29-2012, 02:34 PM
:neutral::neutral::|:-|

I don't have time to explain it, you can either go read more on it or keep ignoring the law of physics.

you're being pedantic.....there are more variables in swinging a tennis racket, yes obviously there's an initial difficulty in getting the thing moving but then surely laws of gravity come into play?

Bloody hell what are we going on about.....I only offered some advice about matching rackets and you piped in saying "it does nothing for me", ok, cool, thanks for the input.

corners
10-29-2012, 04:15 PM
If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

You're talking about impact dynamics and Meaghan is thinking about swing dynamics.

There's a whole bunch of stuff on this forum on this topic, and it's all based on modeling a tennis swing as a double pendulum. If you swing the racquet from the handle like a pendulum, adding mass to the top of the grip will make it swing faster. This is pendulum physics, which is different from the things (force, mass, moment of inertia of the racquet, rotational moments applied to the racquet by the hand, etc.) you are thinking about. There is no guarantee that pendulum physics actually applies to tennis strokes, but one of the leading tennis physicists thinks it does - check out the 2nd movie in Rod Cross' paper "The Double Pendulum in Tennis." (http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/doublependulum.php) Notice that the heavier racquet comes through faster than the lighter racquet. What's being demonstrated there is a double pendulum, but to begin a study of the subject, one should become familiar with the frequency of a compound pendulum. You can find the formulas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum

As you can see, the formula for the period of a compounds pendulum contains the swingweight (moment of inertia), mass and balance point (center of mass) of the pendulum. So mass distribution determines the period of oscillation. Adding mass to the top of the grip of a racquet turns out to have the strongest effect when plugging specs into this formula. Mass added there tends to increase mass very much, balance point a moderate amount, and swingweight very little. Because it changes swingweight very little, you're right to say that adding mass at the top of the grip doesn't greatly change the impact dynamics of the racquet, but it does shorten the period of oscillation.

From there you could look into the equations for the frequency of a double pendulum, where the math gets pretty tricky.

Then the question becomes: Does shortening the period of oscillation have any influence on a tennis stroke? This is an open question, but many people on these boards have experimented with adding mass at the top of the grip and reported that it seems to make the racquet swing through contact more quickly, relative to the arm, which is exactly what the equations for a double pendulum predict. So adding mass to this location might have value in changing the swing dynamics in a way that is advantageous to a player.

If we go back and look at the 2nd video in the Cross paper linked above, a racquet with more mass concentrated at the top of the grip than another, even if they both have the same mass and swingweight, will come through contact more like the "heavy" racquet in the videos; it will come through faster in relation to the "arm." That's been my experience, anyway.

This can be useful for counterbalancing mass added to the hoop. Mass added to the hoop increases swingweight quite a lot and mass very little, and so slows down the frequency of the racquet pendulum. This is an example of where common sense and physics formulas agree - we would expect racquets with more mass in the hoop to swing more slowly. Racquets modified with lots of mass in the head tend to feel very sluggish and feel as though they come through contact lagging behind the arm - more like the "light" racquet in the videos. Some players have found that counterbalancing head mass with additional mass at the top of the handle removes this sluggish feeling and makes the racquet feel faster, or quicker, through contact. This is a counterintuitive phenomena, but that doesn't mean at all that it isn't real.

The post Travlerajm introduced all these ideas to these boards. His thoughts on the value and application of pendulum physics to tennis equipment have been hotly debated, but the physics behind his ideas is textbook stuff. If you've avoided trying lead at the top of the grip you might be surprised on how strongly it can effect the "feel" of a swing, if that's important to you.

corners
10-29-2012, 04:32 PM
Yes there's a similar disconnection like the pb10 mid but weighted up, got about 10g top of hoop and the same to of handle, combined with a lower tension poly (tour bite 1.25) @50 lbs has given me the hoop stiffness of the dnx mid, obviously not the throat flex, but the crispness of the full poly has given me some real nice feel and plow. It really is like having an apd/pb10 mid lovechild. The directional control especially crosscourt to dtl is as good as say the vc95. As for still playing the c10, not really, it feels great but I'm getting similar feel with the x10, ok firmer yes but the feel, connection as you say is as good with my set up. Volleying coming onto the ball with the x10 is as good as it gets but nothing is quite as good as a thin volkl frame and volleying at the net. They are so easily interchangeable that I could easily play one for singles and the other for doubles

Cool, thanks. I definitely have to try that frame with my usual string setup.

Readers
10-29-2012, 05:40 PM
you're being pedantic.....there are more variables in swinging a tennis racket, yes obviously there's an initial difficulty in getting the thing moving but then surely laws of gravity come into play?

Bloody hell what are we going on about.....I only offered some advice about matching rackets and you piped in saying "it does nothing for me", ok, cool, thanks for the input.

I am only going to reply to the part that can be discussed, the gravity.


The only time that helps is slice, on sever and overhead, you spend most of the time swing upward, where gravity only hinders you. On forehand, even with the free fall motion at start, you still have to swing up and forward, unlike overhead, your muscle has to do all the work to change the motion from downward to up and forward.


Also even if we are talking about slice it's still going to make it slower, since a slice is not going to be 100% straight down.


G is a constant, so extra weight will not help you swing faster downward, it would help to you get more momentum and kinetic energy, both are not important on slice.

So no, it's not going to be easier physically, you might feel that way, which I can't argue with, but you said you want to think about science...

Readers
10-29-2012, 05:46 PM
Then the question becomes: Does shortening the period of oscillation have any influence on a tennis stroke? This is an open question, but many people on these boards have experimented with adding mass at the top of the grip and reported that it seems to make the racquet swing through contact more quickly, relative to the arm, which is exactly what the equations for a double pendulum predict.

The post Travlerajm introduced all these ideas to these boards. His thoughts on the value and application of pendulum physics to tennis equipment have been hotly debated, but the physics behind his ideas is textbook stuff. If you've avoided trying lead at the top of the grip you might be surprised on how strongly it can effect the "feel" of a swing, if that's important to you.


I had the opposite experience, after taking all the lead off the top of handle and put them on hoop and butt-cap, it swings much better for me.

I did read Travlerajm and stoneage's thread, and I am not sure who is right, the theory of stoneage is more sounding to me, but Travlerajm has empirical data to back him up, yet we should also not confuse correlation for causation.

corners
10-29-2012, 06:16 PM
I had the opposite experience, after taking all the lead off the top of handle and put them on hoop and butt-cap, it swings much better for me.

Well, everyone's different. And you haven't mentioned how "better" is better for you. To me, your setup feels whippy with the head lagging behind. I really like that on serve, but it feels uncomfortable on groundies. Maybe it feels that way to you too but you like it?

I did read Travlerajm and stoneage's thread, and I am not sure who is right, the theory of stoneage is more sounding to me, but Travlerajm has empirical data to back him up, yet we should also not confuse correlation for causation.

As far as I could tell, stonage didn't have a theory, as such. He was just applying the parallel axis theory to determine the swingweight at various axes of rotation. Travlerajm and others were posting about that five years ago on these boards. (Stonage did provide a very nice spreadsheet though.)

I still don't think stonage ever quite grasped that the whole "MgR/I" thing is about timing and swing feel. He seemed to get hung up on trying to prove that MgR/I had no value, and was pretty peevish about it, I thought. I don't think it can be proved or disproved through equation-augmented argument. A person would have to set up some experiments - use science in other words - to really put the idea to the test. Math alone isn't going to get to a conclusion because there are too many unknowns - whether a double pendulum is a good model for a tennis groundstroke, for starters. For me, the value of MgR/I is about customizing racquets with different specs so that they have the same swing feel or timing. We see questions about this all the time - "I've added weight, should I try to match the balance point so that it swings the same as before?", etc. MgR/I is the only coherent attempt I know of to make timing and swing feel quantifiable.

Readers
10-29-2012, 06:28 PM
^^ No matter how you look at it, he did at least get one part(IMO more) right, which is you don't need the g in MgR/I.

Meaghan
10-30-2012, 12:30 AM
Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

treblings
10-30-2012, 01:13 AM
well that thread is definitely hijacked:)
any body feel up to the task to explain to a really stupid person(that would be me) how to measure MgR/I on a racket? a how-to rather than a why:)

corners
10-30-2012, 08:14 AM
well that thread is definitely hijacked:)
any body feel up to the task to explain to a really stupid person(that would be me) how to measure MgR/I on a racket? a how-to rather than a why:)

Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Basically, if you have two racquets with the same mass and swingweight, but with difference balance points, the one with balance point furthest from the butt will have higher MgR/I. The frequency of oscillation will be higher and it will feel like it comes through the contact zone faster, in relation to the speed of the arm and hand. At least it feels that way to some people.

If you have two racquets with the same mass and balance point, the one with the lesser swingweight will have higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

If you have two racquets with the same swingweight and balance point, the one with the greater mass will have the higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

The equation is Mass (kg) * balance point (R, in cm) * g (981) divided by I (swingweight 10 cm beyond the buttcap (the approximate wrist joint axis))

The equation for I is (Swingweight + (20*mass(kg)*balance (cm)) - M(kg)*100)

So a frame with the specs, 340g, 31.5 cm, 320 swingweight, would be .34*31.5*981/(320+(20*.34*31.5)-34) = 21.0

Travlerajm contends that the highest-ranked pros use racquets that cluster around an MgR/I = 21.0, or within 20.8 and 21.2, with women tending to prefer higher values, presumably because their arms are shorter. But there are important outliers, especially on the low end - Nadal is closer to 20 than 21, as was Justine Henin.

But the formula is useful to me because I figured out that all my favorite-swinging racquets were around 21.2 (I'm shorter, so this fits the theory.) And I found that if I matched the MgR/I ratio of two racquets with very different swingweights and balance points that they would both swing with the same feel and timing.

So for me, a racquet with the specs 340g, 31.5cm, 320 swingweight feels very similar to one 350 g, 32.5cm, 330 swingweight. I can switch between them and have little difficulty with timing adjustments, and have found that heavier racquets feel lighter and quicker if they are close to my preferred MgR/I value. Knowing this, I can experiment with heavier and lighter racquets and know that I can get them to swing the way I like them to.

People often find a racquet that they just love, in terms of the way it swings. It feels like it swings lighter than the swingweight would suggest, for example. But they also have this other frame that has the impact feel that can't be beat, but it swings sluggish, or whatever. They wish they could combine the swing feel of the one racquet with the impact feel of the other. If this theory is correct, they can use the MgR/I ratio to tune the frame with the great impact feel so that it has the same sweet swing feel of the other one.

But opinions on the value of this thing vary. Who knows? I did notice that the average MgR/I of nearly the entire range of Head's new IG line (the Prestiges in particular) increased by about .2 as compared to the older Youtek line.

corners
10-30-2012, 08:17 AM
Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

Yeah, I don't think we can say with confidence that gravity should be ignored in modeling any stroke.

ciocc
10-30-2012, 09:06 AM
Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Well, what the heck, let's discuss Obama vs Romeny ...:twisted: LOL

Readers
10-30-2012, 10:21 AM
Yeah, I don't think we can say with confidence that gravity should be ignored in modeling any stroke.

In the case of MgR/I, it should because it's just a consistent, why do you need it?

Readers
10-30-2012, 10:21 AM
Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

Affect, yes, help you swing easier, no. Stop putting word in other people's mouth please.

My point was add weight above where your hand hold the racquet can't help you swing easier, even when account for gravity, except slice(maybe, maybe not). Stop the straw man.

Note that I am not counting very rare shot such as smash at waist high near the net. I mean, who customize racquet for those shot?

corners
10-30-2012, 10:34 AM
In the case of MgR/I, it should because it's just a consistent, why do you need it?

It's in the formula because MgR/I is simply a derivation of the natural frequency of a pendulum. Why take it out? It's just splitting hairs, which is what the whole stonage vs. MgR/I suit ended up coming down to.

corners
10-30-2012, 10:45 AM
Affect, yes, help you swing easier, no. Stop putting word in other people's mouth please.

My point was add weight above where your hand hold the racquet can't help you swing easier, even when account for gravity, except slice(maybe, maybe not). Stop the straw man.

Note that I am not counting very rare shot such as smash at waist high near the net. I mean, who customize racquet for those shot?

You're assuming that gravity does not play a role in groundstrokes, except for clear low to high forward swings (slice). You can assume whatever you want, but there is no evidence to support your position. Models for tennis swings are really quite primitive, and the scientific literature on how the mass distribution of a tennis racquet impacts strokes is almost non-existent. New models, such as a double-pendulum model, are only now being developed by people like Rod Cross, and are mainly theoretical anyway. I really have no idea if gravity is a significant factor in a tennis swing, or the timing of a tennis swing, but I know that it is a factor. All you have to do is consider that pro forehands gain about 20 mph from the top to the bottom of the backswing as the racquet drops. This is due to gravity, or largely due to it. Is it a big deal to the business end of the stroke, at impact? Who knows? But to simply assume that it's not important seems premature to me, especially if the person doing the assuming has not read all the literature on the topic. But anyway, we got to get this thread back on topic, so I'm out.

Readers
10-30-2012, 10:46 AM
It's in the formula because MgR/I is simply a derivation of the natural frequency of a pendulum. Why take it out? It's just splitting hairs, which is what the whole stonage vs. MgR/I suit ended up coming down to.

Not really, they had a lot more disagreement than that, but this is the only thing I see a simple answer.

Again, nothing wrong with keeping it, it's just not needed, it works just as well as a tool to help mod your racquet with or without it.

Readers
10-30-2012, 10:51 AM
All you have to do is consider that pro forehands gain about 20 mph from the top to the bottom of the backswing as the racquet drops.

Speed, I am talking about velocity, downward speed doesn't really help a swing that needs to hit the ball forward and up. Unlike some bike/car jumping platform, there is no ground to do the work(apply force to change direction) for you.

Since you don't want to drift this further, I guess we just agree to disagree.

treblings
10-30-2012, 12:53 PM
Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Basically, if you have two racquets with the same mass and swingweight, but with difference balance points, the one with balance point furthest from the butt will have higher MgR/I. The frequency of oscillation will be higher and it will feel like it comes through the contact zone faster, in relation to the speed of the arm and hand. At least it feels that way to some people.

If you have two racquets with the same mass and balance point, the one with the lesser swingweight will have higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

If you have two racquets with the same swingweight and balance point, the one with the greater mass will have the higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

The equation is Mass (kg) * balance point (R, in cm) * g (981) divided by I (swingweight 10 cm beyond the buttcap (the approximate wrist joint axis))

The equation for I is (Swingweight + (20*mass(kg)*balance (cm)) - M(kg)*100)

So a frame with the specs, 340g, 31.5 cm, 320 swingweight, would be .34*31.5*981/(320+(20*.34*31.5)-34) = 21.0

Travlerajm contends that the highest-ranked pros use racquets that cluster around an MgR/I = 21.0, or within 20.8 and 21.2, with women tending to prefer higher values, presumably because their arms are shorter. But there are important outliers, especially on the low end - Nadal is closer to 20 than 21, as was Justine Henin.

But the formula is useful to me because I figured out that all my favorite-swinging racquets were around 21.2 (I'm shorter, so this fits the theory.) And I found that if I matched the MgR/I ratio of two racquets with very different swingweights and balance points that they would both swing with the same feel and timing.

So for me, a racquet with the specs 340g, 31.5cm, 320 swingweight feels very similar to one 350 g, 32.5cm, 330 swingweight. I can switch between them and have little difficulty with timing adjustments, and have found that heavier racquets feel lighter and quicker if they are close to my preferred MgR/I value. Knowing this, I can experiment with heavier and lighter racquets and know that I can get them to swing the way I like them to.

People often find a racquet that they just love, in terms of the way it swings. It feels like it swings lighter than the swingweight would suggest, for example. But they also have this other frame that has the impact feel that can't be beat, but it swings sluggish, or whatever. They wish they could combine the swing feel of the one racquet with the impact feel of the other. If this theory is correct, they can use the MgR/I ratio to tune the frame with the great impact feel so that it has the same sweet swing feel of the other one.

But opinions on the value of this thing vary. Who knows? I did notice that the average MgR/I of nearly the entire range of Head's new IG line (the Prestiges in particular) increased by about .2 as compared to the older Youtek line.

thanks for answering:) as you can tell from my questions, im a novice at that
do i understand you correctly that if i have two frames with the same mass and the same balance point, than the swingweight could still be different?
Even if its the same racquet, for example two prestige mids?

corners
10-30-2012, 12:54 PM
Speed, I am talking about velocity, downward speed doesn't really help a swing that needs to hit the ball forward and up. Unlike some bike/car jumping platform, there is no ground to do the work(apply force to change direction) for you.

Since you don't want to drift this further, I guess we just agree to disagree.

OK, cheers

Meaghan
10-30-2012, 12:58 PM
Well, what the heck, let's discuss Obama vs Romeny ...:twisted: LOL

Have you picked up a c10 yet?

Peedub
10-31-2012, 07:03 AM
Sorry to hijack this thread - Meaghan, I have replied to your message via your hotmail. Contact me again if you didn't get it.

ciocc
10-31-2012, 09:03 AM
Have you picked up a c10 yet?

Well, I bought a C10 from this board but it never showed up at my door even though UPS insisted that they delivered it. It was either stolen or delivered to the wrong person. :(

I demo'ed a C10 but the demo racket was strung with SG and was too springy (or lively). Instead of getting another C10, I got a pair of used X10s from a local guy and I like the X10 better.

Meaghan
10-31-2012, 11:33 AM
Give us your opinion of the x10 then...

ciocc
11-05-2012, 10:55 PM
Well the verdict is still out ... The X10 has been reviewed/discussed by so many people (from immediate to very high level players); so I don't really have much to say about it.

It really comes down to what one likes and how it helps one's game. For me, I am looking for something that is at least as stable as my BA93 but with better controlled power and forgiveness. The X10 isn't really that hard to play with. It enhances my ground strokes, but I struggle on serve because of its heavier weight and lesser HL than my BA93.

I had demo'ed a Q5 before and I really liked it. So, I went ahead and got one from a fellow TT member. I think it fits my playing level and skills better.

Quick Summary:
1. Comfort: BA93 > Q5 >= X10
2. Power: (Q5 ~ X10) > BA93 (Bigger SP on Q5 and X10)
3. Control: BA93 > (Q5 ~ X10)
4. Maneuverability: BA93 > Q5 > X10
5. Stability: X10 >= Q5 > BA93
6: Feel: BA93 > Q5 >= X10

I may end up switching over to Q5; but I need more time to decide.

My 2 cents.

dje31
03-21-2013, 08:26 AM
Haven't seen Meaghan chime in for a while, who I thought was dabbling with the C10 Pro, in addition to the Melbourne and various X10s. Anyone know?