PDA

View Full Version : Comparing head sizes


Tennis Man
10-02-2006, 11:38 AM
I compared the head sizes of my 3 faves and what a surprize.

The 90sq head of nCode Tour 90 looks larger than the 93sq head of my LM Prestige. I'm wondering now how exactly do they measure them? My PS 85 is just bit smaller than LMP.:(

http://i9.tinypic.com/2wrq7h3.jpg

haerdalis
10-02-2006, 12:21 PM
I guess some measure the frame(head) and others the hitting area (wilson).

Tennis Man
10-02-2006, 01:30 PM
I guess some measure the frame(head) and others the hitting area (wilson).

Is that true?

NYCEnglish
10-02-2006, 02:47 PM
I've noticed that my n6.1 95 is only slighty smaller than my APD - so maybe Wilson measure the hitting area and Babolat measure the frame area?

McStud
10-02-2006, 04:02 PM
head measures from outside of the frame where as wilson measures from the inside of it..

Tennis Man
10-02-2006, 05:55 PM
head measures from outside of the frame where as wilson measures from the inside of it..

Hmmmm, I've never heard this before. How can I confirm that? Do you have any link?

Tennis Man
10-03-2006, 01:02 PM
Anyone? bump

LowProfile
10-03-2006, 01:50 PM
Right. Wilson's nSix-One also has the PWS, which will increase the racquet head a little, as Wilson measures the area of the hitting surface.

snoflewis
10-03-2006, 02:26 PM
Hmmmm, I've never heard this before. How can I confirm that? Do you have any link?

it's been discussed a LOT of times. some companies, including head do in fact measure the entire frame while others like wilson and yonex only measure string surface area. its already been established countless times that the head 98 is actually a 95 sq in. and the head 93 is an 89.5 sq in.

Will888
10-03-2006, 06:26 PM
it's been discussed a LOT of times. some companies, including head do in fact measure the entire frame while others like wilson and yonex only measure string surface area. its already been established countless times that the head 98 is actually a 95 sq in. and the head 93 is an 89.5 sq in.

wait, so does that mean that my rds mp is really like 101 sq. inches?? and your rds mid is like 93 sq. inches? If that's right then my racquet is bigger than the PD?:(

snoflewis
10-03-2006, 08:05 PM
wait, so does that mean that my rds mp is really like 101 sq. inches?? and your rds mid is like 93 sq. inches? If that's right then my racquet is bigger than the PD?:(

no...headsize is generally perceived as the string surface area. so when we refer to a 90 sq in. headsize, we mean that the string surface area is 90 sq in.

your idea is partially correct, in that compared to HEAD frames and other brand frames that measure the outside of the frame for the headsizes, the rds001 mid can be measured as 93 and the MP can be measured as 101. HOWEVER, since babolat's headsize are measured in string surface too, that would be a higher number than your rds001 MP. (very unfortunate...) however, let's not confuse anybody here :)

AndrewD
10-03-2006, 08:43 PM
Prince is another example, but one I find mildly amusing as, over the years, their oversize frames have gone 'down' in size from 110sq to 107sq but their midsize frames have gone 'up' from 90sq to 93sq (and are now called 'midplus').

Will888
10-03-2006, 09:20 PM
no...headsize is generally perceived as the string surface area. so when we refer to a 90 sq in. headsize, we mean that the string surface area is 90 sq in.

your idea is partially correct, in that compared to HEAD frames and other brand frames that measure the outside of the frame for the headsizes, the rds001 mid can be measured as 93 and the MP can be measured as 101. HOWEVER, since babolat's headsize are measured in string surface too, that would be a higher number than your rds001 MP. (very unfortunate...) however, let's not confuse anybody here :)

yeah I thought my old Prestige mp looked slightly smaller than my rds mp. I may just want to swith to the mid now. I don't wan't a racquet bigger than 100 sq. inches. I've never gone over 98. Then the Original Prostaff is not really 85! Wow, this is new to me.

Tennis Man
10-03-2006, 09:56 PM
Thanks. I know this is "old news" to some and new to others but why doesn't TW lists more "uniform" specs like they do with head balances and strung weights. It's really confusing. :(

varuscelli
10-03-2006, 10:06 PM
no...headsize is generally perceived as the string surface area. so when we refer to a 90 sq in. headsize, we mean that the string surface area is 90 sq in.


I agree that it should be the string surface area, but even that could be interpreted two different ways: either as the visible string surface area or the extended string area as it extends into the racquet frame. That, too, could be considered legitimately the string surface area, along with racquet size being measured either as inside diameter or outside diameter.

Looks to me that from the manufacturer's standpoint, they could pick any one of those three and present it however they wanted (to measure head size). Thus, any given racquet could have three conceivable/arguable head "sizes."

anirut
10-03-2006, 10:26 PM
To avoid confusion in head size, I think the whatever governing body should come out with a standard rule for racket headsize publication.

I would favor the "ball-contact surface" area (AKA: racket face) than the outter-frame crap.

Although you can use the frame to hit the ball, I don't think this should count as "ball-contact surface" area. ;)

MTChong
10-03-2006, 10:47 PM
To avoid confusion in head size, I think the whatever governing body should come out with a standard rule for racket headsize publication.

I would favor the "ball-contact surface" area (AKA: racket face) than the outter-frame crap.

Although you can use the frame to hit the ball, I don't think this should count as "ball-contact surface" area. ;)

Well, the racquet does cost more than the strings... ;)

Tennis Man
10-04-2006, 09:58 AM
Most web sites refer to the head size as the size of the hitting area ...

varuscelli
10-04-2006, 10:40 AM
To avoid confusion in head size, I think the whatever governing body should come out with a standard rule for racket headsize publication.

Yeah, that was pretty much the point of my previous post, in that I see three distinct possibilities for measuring racquet head size and each manufacturer could use whichever they chose to use.

It would be nice if there were at least some type of agreed-upon formula between the manufacturers, but I can't envision anything that would actually be enforceable.

But I bet it's marketing people and not the racquet tech folks who decide how to measure head size -- and it could be that they measure the head sizes differently (within the same manufacturer company) to cater to different customer bases who might buy different types of racquets, you never know (measure larger for large headed racquets, measure smaller for "players" racquets. If the marketing folks decide that it's better to present the racquet heads as larger because they think they'll sell more that way, the company might decide (from a strategic standpoint) to measure head size by the outer diameter of the racquet.

I'd bet there would be no incentive to them to merely adhere to a common practice merely "because it makes sense" if they indeed thought that customer perception of racquet head size would affect sales. I dunno. That's just one way it could be rationalized.

I do believe, though, that most measure the string bed as it exists within the confines of the inner diameter of the racquet frame. They should, anyway... ;)

Tennis Man
10-04-2006, 01:31 PM
here's the answer from TW:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1177002#post1177002

varuscelli
10-04-2006, 02:00 PM
here's the answer from TW:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1177002#post1177002

Thanks for the link, Rafaello. I'm assuming this is the part of their answer that is the most meaningful (in relation to the "who knows?" part of our thread):

We have yet to determine how the various manufacturers measure head size and will post here once we find out.

Other than that, the measurement formula provided by TW is to be the general consensus on how the racquet head size should be measured, but not necessarily how it is measured and expressed by various manufacturers. Ahh, strange stuff... ;)

Tennis Man
10-08-2006, 11:22 AM
I'm still wondering where to find the answer?. Now, I'm thinking of trying some ligher MP frames and I want to make sure that the heads are comparable and not too big for me:

LM Radical MP: stated size 98 but actually is around 95sq inch hitting area
RDX 500 MP: stated size 98 but feels like OS (105) b/c of its shape
RDX 500 Mid: stated size 90 but feels like MP (95) b/c of its shape
Pince Tour Diablo: stated size 93 but plays larger, more like 95 due to it's string pattern and shape

Go figure?

http://i12.tinypic.com/4cv126d.jpg

bertrevert
10-09-2006, 05:52 PM
I'd say some sort of standard would or should be possible. A computer could simply take photo of a racquet frame and work out down to the billionth decimal point what the area is measured on the inner frame of the hoop...

Deuce
10-09-2006, 10:36 PM
I think the reason that Head claim that the Prestige Mids are 93 sq. in. is simply a marketing strategy. Unfortunately, today many people will feel very intimidated by a racquet claiming to be less than 90 sq. in. Of course, this fear is ridiculous - but then, so are the majority of humans.

anirut
10-09-2006, 11:23 PM
I think the reason that Head claim that the Prestige Mids are 93 sq. in. is simply a marketing strategy. Unfortunately, today many people will feel very intimidated by a racquet claiming to be less than 90 sq. in. Of course, this fear is ridiculous - but then, so are the majority of humans.

I was thinking the same ...

sloe_torture
10-10-2006, 12:19 AM
A reasonable headsize standard would be the rectangular area covered by the intersecting main and cross strings.

If you want to reasonably measure the area of the stringbed:
1) Find the rectangular area covered by the intersecting strings.
2) The the areas bounded by the frame and the outer mains and crosses are, for the most part, trapezoids (ignore curving between grommets). By measuring the sides of the trapezoids and using right triangle geometry you'll be able to calculate the area of each trapezoid (~70-80 trapezoids per racquet).
3) For 'semi-squares' which consist of 5 sides... again use geometry.
4) Add up all the areas (trapezoids + semi-squares + intersecting main/cross area) to get strung area. Remember that a racquet face is symmetric on its main, long, axis. You only need to calculate 1/2 of the trapezoids and the semi-squares and then multiply both by two to get the area of the trapezoids and the semi-squares.

or

1) Draw an outline of the inner-loop of the frame.
2) Draw lines in the outline with the purpose of avoiding semi-squares.
3) Copy steps 2 and 4 from above.

or.

1) Contact racquet manufacturer, ask to speak to a racquet engineer (not sales) to get racquet specifications.
2) If you ask them smartly and nicely, they'll have one of their junior engineers or interns to do all the mathwork for you.

Tennis Man
10-10-2006, 06:52 AM
A reasonable headsize standard would be the rectangular area covered by the intersecting main and cross strings.

If you want to reasonably measure the area of the stringbed:
1) Find the rectangular area covered by the intersecting strings.
2) The the areas bounded by the frame and the outer mains and crosses are, for the most part, trapezoids (ignore curving between grommets). By measuring the sides of the trapezoids and using right triangle geometry you'll be able to calculate the area of each trapezoid (~70-80 trapezoids per racquet).
3) For 'semi-squares' which consist of 5 sides... again use geometry.
4) Add up all the areas (trapezoids + semi-squares + intersecting main/cross area) to get strung area. Remember that a racquet face is symmetric on its main, long, axis. You only need to calculate 1/2 of the trapezoids and the semi-squares and then multiply both by two to get the area of the trapezoids and the semi-squares.

or

1) Draw an outline of the inner-loop of the frame.
2) Draw lines in the outline with the purpose of avoiding semi-squares.
3) Copy steps 2 and 4 from above.

or.

1) Contact racquet manufacturer, ask to speak to a racquet engineer (not sales) to get racquet specifications.
2) If you ask them smartly and nicely, they'll have one of their junior engineers or interns to do all the mathwork for you.

thanks, but I think you missed the point. It's not that I can't measure the head. I did study math at some point :). It's about finding the standard for comparing the heads (stated vs actual). TW does some of its own measurements for specs they list but leave heads alone and that comfuses people :(

Keifers
10-10-2006, 08:14 AM
I agree that it should be the string surface area, but even that could be interpreted two different ways: either as the visible string surface area or the extended string area as it extends into the racquet frame. That, too, could be considered legitimately the string surface area, along with racquet size being measured either as inside diameter or outside diameter.
Good point. One company - Volkl - used to list standard and "effective" head sizes for their racquets equipped with Big Grommets. For example, one of their Hot Spot racquets was listed as 98/105 sq. in.


But then we all know what drakulie thinks of Volkl... ;)

Keifers
10-10-2006, 08:16 AM
I think the reason that Head claim that the Prestige Mids are 93 sq. in. is simply a marketing strategy. Unfortunately, today many people will feel very intimidated by a racquet claiming to be less than 90 sq. in. Of course, this fear is ridiculous - but then, so are the majority of humans.
Good one, Deuce ! I laughed out loud... :D

Tennis Man
10-13-2006, 07:27 AM
Good one, Deuce ! I laughed out loud... :D

That's probably true though :)

Will888
10-13-2006, 09:27 AM
wait wait wait, I have a good theorized question. OK, if they said that all of the racquets that say that they are 98, 93, 90 sq. inches, (example, RDX Mid, MP, Head radical ext.) then how could they physically be larger than what the manufactures say? It is practically impossible, because if one company says the measured it at 90 but they measured the string bed and not inclueding the frame, then that means the racquet really truely is a 90 sq. inch racquet. And if they have a 98 sq. inch racquet and they measure it up but inclueding the frame size, then that means the actual string bed is smaller than what the manufacture really says. So unless they can some how make frames seem smaller but really are bigger, I have no idea what i am saying then.

Does anyone agree with me? Please critique me if you can. (misspell)

varuscelli
10-13-2006, 09:58 AM
I have no idea what i am saying then.

None of us do, but we're all saying the same thing. See? :p

Will888
10-13-2006, 10:02 AM
None of us do, but we're all saying the same thing. See? :p

In the end I came to realize it was the same thing over and over.:p

varuscelli
10-13-2006, 10:09 AM
I think what we all agree on (and would like to see) is that it would be nice if a standard existed that was consistent, clearly stated, easily understood, and used by all the manufacturers. Good luck to us in getting that, though. ;)