PDA

View Full Version : Why did Dunlop drop ISIS?


Caswell
03-26-2006, 03:31 AM
I love everything about the switch from the Dunlop Revelation Select Pro to the M-Fil 300 except the increased shock to the arm. Obviously a lot of that is caused by the lower weight of the M-Fil, and hopefully it can be corrected by weighting the raquet up. I'm sure the poly mains don't help, but I used to string the Select Pros with nothing but Problend and never had any problems.

All that said, with raquets getting lighter, you'd think the shock absorbing handles would be even more important. What gives?

NoBadMojo
03-26-2006, 11:33 AM
It costs money to put things like shock absorbing systems into the handles. Many companies would rather have the additional profits or choose to hit a lower pricepoint and dont seem to care much about the comfort and safety of the user. I thougt the ISIS system was pretty effectve too and it was used when the racquets were heavier and less stiff in general. One would think something like ISIS is needed even more now.

Caswell
03-26-2006, 12:17 PM
Sad if that's the reason. The shock absorbing handles were one of the few "advancements" that I didn't think were a gimmick.

I thought at first it might have had to do with trying to keep weight down, but then again ISIS is on he Lady M-Fil (a sub 10oz racquet) and not on the M-Fil 200 (a 12+ oz racquet).

Bummer.

louis netman
03-26-2006, 12:35 PM
It costs money to put things like shock absorbing systems into the handles. Many companies would rather have the additional profits or choose to hit a lower pricepoint and dont seem to care much about the comfort and safety of the user. One would think something like ISIS is needed even more now.

netman
03-27-2006, 03:59 AM
I love everything about the switch from the Dunlop Revelation Select Pro to the M-Fil 300 except the increased shock to the arm. Obviously a lot of that is caused by the lower weight of the M-Fil, and hopefully it can be corrected by weighting the raquet up. I'm sure the poly mains don't help, but I used to string the Select Pros with nothing but Problend and never had any problems.

All that said, with raquets getting lighter, you'd think the shock absorbing handles would be even more important. What gives?

Thats a tought comparison. I've got a Select Pro mid that weighs in at 12.5 oz. Its also very flexible. The 300 is around 11 oz and a bit stiffer. While the ISIS system seemed to work well, I agree with you that a lot of the difference is probably due to the weight and material layup.

Select Pro was a great racquet that kind of got lost in the shuffle. I played both the mid and OS. Dunlop put all their marketing behind the Tour Pro and the rest of the line never caught on.

-k-

SteveI
03-27-2006, 04:49 AM
Thats a tought comparison. I've got a Select Pro mid that weighs in at 12.5 oz. Its also very flexible. The 300 is around 11 oz and a bit stiffer. While the ISIS system seemed to work well, I agree with you that a lot of the difference is probably due to the weight and material layup.

Select Pro was a great racquet that kind of got lost in the shuffle. I played both the mid and OS. Dunlop put all their marketing behind the Tour Pro and the rest of the line never caught on.

-k-

Hi,

I have a Mfil-300 and I use(most times) a leaded-up 400G that has the ISIS handle system. The 400G has good feel.. and is very easy on my arm (And I am using a poly/hybid).. the Mfil-300 is not harsh but could use a bit of the ISIS handle system to be sure. You hit a ball off center with the 300 and you are gonna feel it. The 300 is strung mid range with a soft multi/sys gut hybid. People reported that the 400G had a small sweetspot.. but I found the 300 to have a smaller one than the 400G. BTW.. if anyone is looking for a Mfil-300 in 4 5/8.. with like 3 hours on it... drop me a line.

Regards,
Steve

Caswell
03-27-2006, 06:40 AM
Thats a tought comparison. I've got a Select Pro mid that weighs in at 12.5 oz. Its also very flexible. The 300 is around 11 oz and a bit stiffer. While the ISIS system seemed to work well, I agree with you that a lot of the difference is probably due to the weight and material layup.

I'm finding the racquets may be a bit more different than I like, primarily due to the stiffness. I've got the M-Fil up to 11.5oz, and I'm hoping it's a bit less harsh during my match this afternoon. The weight doesn't bother me - I would've gone with the M-Fil 200 but I wanted a more open string pattern.

EDIT: I just noticed that TW has the stiffness of the Select Pro at 65 and the stiffness of the M-Fil 300 at 61. Maybe that's not a concern after all.

Select Pro was a great racquet that kind of got lost in the shuffle. I played both the mid and OS. Dunlop put all their marketing behind the Tour Pro and the rest of the line never caught on.

My old pro was sponsored by Dunlop, so they had a lot of visibility at our club. The only problem I had with the Select Pro was that one was made in China and the other Taiwan, and I swear I can tell the difference between the two.

netman
03-28-2006, 12:00 PM
EDIT: I just noticed that TW has the stiffness of the Select Pro at 65 and the stiffness of the M-Fil 300 at 61. Maybe that's not a concern after all.

I had my OS tested on a Babolat RDC one time. Stiffness came in at 61 which is the same as you have on the m-Fil 300. Interesting.

-k-

Caswell
03-28-2006, 12:30 PM
I think the 61 that TW has for the M-Fil 300 may be wrong. The racquet has a stiffness rating of 64 painted on it, and TW lists the M-Fil 200 at an identical 61.

TW Staff
03-28-2006, 01:35 PM
I think the 61 that TW has for the M-Fil 300 may be wrong. The racquet has a stiffness rating of 64 painted on it, and TW lists the M-Fil 200 at an identical 61.

The spec painted on the racquet is unstrung, our specs are an average of strung racquets. A strung racquet will have a lower RA - typically about 2 pts, so the 61 average is within Dunlop's target spec.

Chris, TW.

Caswell
03-28-2006, 05:18 PM
That's awesome news Chris. I really only wanted the open string pattern of the 300. The more flexible, the better.

Thanks!