BLX90 power question

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by gplracer, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. gplracer

    gplracer Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,165
    I see that the BLX90 is rated to have more power than my 6.1 95. The 6.1 is easier to get power with for me. Is that because the assumption is that the rackets are being swung at the same speed and the BLX90 is harder to get up to speed? I think my 6.1 95 has a high static weight. Maybe the swing weight is greater?
     
    #1
  2. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Where is it "rated" as having more power?
     
    #2
  3. gplracer

    gplracer Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,165
    TW University. Maybe I was wrong. I was looking at power but I think that is a percentage of the total power now power potential. Under shot speed the ball comes off the strings of the 95 at .7 miles per hour faster.
     
    #3
  4. Mick3391

    Mick3391 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    WA State
    It's probably because you hit the 95 easier and more consistantly. I think my K95 is more powerful than my BLX90, but I have no idea if that's true, the specs are so close it's probably up to the player.
     
    #4
  5. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    Knowing wilsons QC, your 95 might be heavier or more headheavy than your 90. That would make sense.
     
    #5
  6. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    Yeah, but what 95 are you talking about? TWU has tested six different 6.1 95s (The K, BLX and 2012 BLX versions in both string patterns.) Each of those frames is slightly different. Furthermore, each of those six frames tested is slightly different than than every other 6.1 95 in existence, especially because Wilson's swingweight QC on the 6.1 line is notoriously awful.

    My guess is that you're comparing the BLX 90 to the BLX 6.1 95 18x20. The BLX 90 frame that TWU tested had swingweight of 330 and the 18x20 6.1 95 that TWU tested had swingweight of only 324. Power Potential (the inherent power of the racquet) is almost directly proportional to swingweight. So the BLX 90 with the higher swingweight is going to have a high power potential. But now check out the 16x18 version - the frame they tested had a much higher swingweight and so the power potential is quite a bit higher than both the 18x20 they tested and the BLX 90.

    If you could compare a BLX 90 and a BLX 6.1 95 that had identical swingweights, the only differences you would see is that the 95 is slightly more powerful than the 90 on shots struck near 3&9, 10&2 and towards the tip because of it's stiffer hoop. Shots struck in the center of the stringbed would be about the same.

    Take a look at the K90 and K95s if you want a comparison like this, as the individual frames they tested were all within 1 swingweight unit of each other.
     
    #6
  7. xFullCourtTenniSx

    xFullCourtTenniSx Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,960
    Does it matter? You're the one hitting with the racket. Only your opinion on what is the better racket matters.
     
    #7
  8. gplracer

    gplracer Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,165
    My 6.1 95 is a kfactor 6.1 95 (16x18) TW says the average frame has a swing weight of 337. I will take it to work tomorrow and weigh the actual frames for a better comparison.
     
    #8
  9. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    Yes, the K95, if it within specs, will have a higher swingweight than the
    PS90. That, together with the open string pattern, will give it slightly more inherent power.
    To me, however, the K95 was boardy and doesn't have the feel of the PS90.
     
    #9
  10. xFullCourtTenniSx

    xFullCourtTenniSx Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,960
    TW listed it as 345. At least 340+.
     
    #10

Share This Page