PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye DNX 8


vin
04-01-2006, 11:31 AM
Since I've written a lot about the DNX 8 and a few seem to have been following my progress, I figured I owed it to you all to say that the fling is over. :(

I still think it's a great racket, but I've concluded that stiff rackets are just not for me. The typical stiff rackets feel awful to me, so it was only a matter of time that the stiffness of this frame was going to get to me, even with Volkl's great dampening system.

I went as far as trying natural gut (Babolat Tonic @ 54 lbs) and still wasn't pleased, so I declared that as the end.

Luckily, I think I'm on to another good candidate - the Yonex RDS 003. It's not quite as maneuverable as the DNX 8, but judging how I played with it today, that's a good thing! In my opinion, it has a feel that is more similar to a players frame than a tweener and it still has plenty of power. I've hit this frame before and thought it was a little too much, but taking off the little bit of lead I had on it at 10 & 2 (dumb) and maybe also the past month of hard work I've put in at the gym have seemed to make a noticable difference.

DANMAN
04-01-2006, 11:35 AM
vin, before you make any major decisions, you may want to try to acquire a new DNX 9. It has some power, but control is superb.

vin
04-01-2006, 12:28 PM
vin, before you make any major decisions, you may want to try to acquire a new DNX 9. It has some power, but control is superb.

One is already on the way! I'm excited to try it, but I have a feeling that it might not have as much power as I want. We'll see.

Alley Cat
04-01-2006, 02:02 PM
Since I've written a lot about the DNX 8 and a few seem to have been following my progress, I figured I owed it to you all to say that the fling is over. :(

I still think it's a great racket, but I've concluded that stiff rackets are just not for me. The typical stiff rackets feel awful to me, so it was only a matter of time that the stiffness of this frame was going to get to me, even with Volkl's great dampening system.

I went as far as trying natural gut (Babolat Tonic @ 54 lbs) and still wasn't pleased, so I declared that as the end.

Luckily, I think I'm on to another good candidate - the Yonex RDS 003. It's not quite as maneuverable as the DNX 8, but judging how I played with it today, that's a good thing! In my opinion, it has a feel that is more similar to a players frame than a tweener and it still has plenty of power. I've hit this frame before and thought it was a little too much, but taking off the little bit of lead I had on it at 10 & 2 (dumb) and maybe also the past month of hard work I've put in at the gym have seemed to make a noticable difference.

Vin, I hit with the RDS 003 today (a friend's, and only for about 20 minutes) and I agree that it is a sweet frame in the 11 oz. range. Felt very crisp, nice stability and good feel. I am used to heavier frames but this one felt nice! I am definitely going to take one out for a longer spin.

Two Fister
04-01-2006, 09:43 PM
Vin,

I also liked the 003 quite a bit. Did you try the 001? I also liked that one, but if I relaxed my focus a bit with the 001, sometimes the ball went short without much on it.

Funny thing is I'm leaning back towards my DNX 10 right now. I seem to have significantly more control with it than my Purestorm.

Can't wait to try the DNX 9. Am hoping it has very similar qualities to the DNX 10, but with easier spin generation.

TF

vin
04-02-2006, 06:26 AM
Two Fister, yes I tried the 001. It's a really nice stick but not enough power.

gd!
04-06-2006, 10:51 AM
Coming from a T9VE 16/19 weighting 12.4 ounces the DNX8 is a nice hit, but after playing now for about 2 month I need to say that it lacks some substance behind the ball.
Don't get me wrong, this bat is offering enough pace and at serve, net and overheads it's just a striker. Nevertheless I like to feel more meat behind my groundstrokes, and due to that I'll give it another try building it up with a Leather Grip and some lead tape at 2 & 10.
This should bring it to exactly 12 ounces, and after figuring out it will work or not I may have to give the RDS003 a try...or not.

gd!

Django
04-06-2006, 11:15 AM
Don't really mean to oversimplify, but why add an ounce or more of lead tape to a T9VE when there's a T10VE MP available? Why add weight to the DNX8 when there's a DNX9 on the way and a DNX10 available (albeit w/ a different string pattern).

I agree wholeheartedly with NBM who's not a fan of adding lead tape to racquets that the manufacturer has already dialed-in for specific reasons.

louis netman
04-06-2006, 09:58 PM
Don't really mean to oversimplify, but why add an ounce or more of lead tape to a T9VE when there's a T10VE MP available? Why add weight to the DNX8 when there's a DNX9 on the way and a DNX10 available (albeit w/ a different string pattern).

I agree wholeheartedly with NBM who's not a fan of adding lead tape to racquets that the manufacturer has already dialed-in for specific reasons.

I agree with your statement, Django. I'd rather not add lead either. However there are other reasons for adding lead: Sometimes one will add leather and/or some sort of grip mod that adds weight to handle area, consequently lead is added to the hoop to counterbalance. The typical player stick is designed with a strong 25 year-old, player with grooved strokes and good technique in mind. These 25 year olds, however get older and lose strength. They get to their 40's and 50's still desiring a heavier, player stick (e.g.DNX 10), but this low-power player model takes too much strength to hit continuous pace with, especially during a long match. The next in the line (usually a lighter player model, but stiffer) typically takes even more of a swing (due to the lack of mass) but has similar power due to it's stiffness. Adding weight to this stiffer frame (possibly even making it similar in weight & balance to the heavier/flexier "low-power" model) may just do the trick for the older player. That is, a nice hefty weight/balance of the classic player model, but with a bit more oomph due to the increased weight & stiffness..:-)

NoBadMojo
04-07-2006, 06:05 AM
I agree with your statement, Django. I'd rather not add lead either. However there are other reasons for adding lead: Sometimes one will add leather and/or some sort of grip mod that adds weight to handle area, consequently lead is added to the hoop to counterbalance. The typical player stick is designed with a strong 25 year-old, player with grooved strokes and good technique in mind. These 25 year olds, however get older and lose strength. They get to their 40's and 50's still desiring a heavier, player stick (e.g.DNX 10), but this low-power player model takes too much strength to hit continuous pace with, especially during a long match. The next in the line (usually a lighter player model, but stiffer) typically takes even more of a swing (due to the lack of mass) but has similar power due to it's stiffness. Adding weight to this stiffer frame (possibly even making it similar in weight & balance to the heavier/flexier "low-power" model) may just do the trick for the older player. That is, a nice hefty weight/balance of the classic player model, but with a bit more oomph due to the increased weight & stiffness..:-)

I gotta disagree here. With aging players it is mostly a function of losing racquetheadspeed and most aging players who are making the right gear moves think racquethead speed before they think powerlevels. You can change the powerlevels with the strings to a large degree. A stiffer more powerful frame doesnt work very well if someone leads it up to the point where they cant swing it fast enough..in fact, it usually has a negative effect. As golf is about clubheadspeed, baseball is about batspeeed (hence all the roids and stuff), tennis is all about racquetheadspeed, and aging players <and those w.o good technique> need lighter racquets to keep their racquethead speed up there....
Yes, I think some manufacturers really take great care in tweaking their layups to play optimally stock, and that some really good frames get ruined by people screwing them up by adding lead for stablity and stuff like that. If they want more stablity they should just buy a frame with a sweetspot large enough for them to hit...if they really need a heavier racquet, they should just buy a heaver racquet to begin with..there's tons of good choices out there.

louis netman
04-07-2006, 08:48 AM
I gotta disagree here. With aging players it is mostly a function of losing racquetheadspeed

Pardon my egocentricity in this post. I realize not everyone perceives things the way I do, however, I tend to think that racquet-head-speed may be a function of strength....Any orthopedic physicists out there? :-)

vin
04-07-2006, 09:10 AM
I tend to think that racquet-head-speed may be a function of strength....

And strength can be a function of age (in a bad way) if you don't get your butt to the gym to maintain it. That's probably what Mojo meant.

NoBadMojo
04-07-2006, 09:21 AM
Pardon my egocentricity in this post. I realize not everyone perceives things the way I do, however, I tend to think that racquet-head-speed may be a function of strength....Any orthopedic physicists out there? :-)

that's my point...you lose strength with age...therefore racquetheadspeed..lighter racquets are easier to swing fast....racquethead speed is your friend...gives you power...gives you spin to control the power...swinging a lighter frame fast is better than swinging a heavy frame slow to play the game how it is played these days i think.

Bolt
04-07-2006, 09:24 AM
How about swinging a medium weight frame at a medium speed?

tarkowski
04-07-2006, 11:12 AM
How about swinging a medium weight frame at a medium speed?

Bolt - I gotta ask about your tag line?! :D

Django
04-07-2006, 02:53 PM
I love the succinct "swinging a lighter frame fast is better than swinging a heavy frame slow." So true! Trouble is, on volleys and returns of serve especially -- two key components of the doubles game so many of us play -- I'm working to make my swings more compact, with LESS takeback, and less swing. That's where the heavier 12-ounce frames feel great with their stability.

It's all about tradeoffs.

bcaz
04-07-2006, 07:49 PM
[quoting NBMJ] "I gotta disagree here. With aging players it is mostly a function of losing racquetheadspeed and most aging players who are making the right gear moves think racquethead speed before they think powerlevels. You can change the powerlevels with the strings to a large degree. A stiffer more powerful frame doesnt work very well if someone leads it up to the point where they cant swing it fast enough..in fact, it usually has a negative effect. As golf is about clubheadspeed, baseball is about batspeeed (hence all the roids and stuff), tennis is all about racquetheadspeed, and aging players <and those w.o good technique> need lighter racquets to keep their racquethead speed up there....
Yes, I think some manufacturers really take great care in tweaking their layups to play optimally stock, and that some really good frames get ruined by people screwing them up by adding lead for stablity and stuff like that. If they want more stablity they should just buy a frame with a sweetspot large enough for them to hit...if they really need a heavier racquet, they should just buy a heaver racquet to begin with..there's tons of good choices out there."

I agree -- I belive all of this is true.

[quoting Louis Netman] "Pardon my egocentricity in this post. I realize not everyone perceives things the way I do, however, I tend to think that racquet-head-speed may be a function of strength....Any orthopedic physicists out there?"

This is true, too, but being an older guy, I am living it and it's not just about strength, it's about speed and quickness. Baseball hitters move to lighter bats or retire not because they can lift less weight but because they can't bring it around as fast. It's why you don't see old guys driving Formula 1, except Paul Newman, I guess ... How often do you see an 80 year-old guy driving 80 miles an hour? Reflexes? There's a reason for that. I'm in damn good shape and even stronger in some ways than I was 20 years ago at age 32 but I'm just not as fast, not as quick ...