Have someone tried the ProKennex C5 Ki Sling tour

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by spinbalz, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. spinbalz

    spinbalz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,676
    Any review of it?

    Only things I know about it are : 312 grams unstrung, 310mm headlight balance unstrung, 16X20 String pattern, 22mm beam with a shape very close to the shape of the Kinetic Pro 5G, stiffness in high 60' Ra, I don't know the headsize, and wonderfull paintjob.

    What is sling technology?
     
    #1
  2. andirez

    andirez Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Yep, saw it too in a tennis catalogue. These are the specs listed:

    C5 KI SLING TOUR
    - head size: 665 cm2
    - Unstrung weight: 312g
    - Flex: 69 RA
    - Length: 68.5 cm
    - Balance: 31 cm
    - Pattern: 16 x 20

    There is also a C2 Classic Tour in there with the following specs:
    - head size: 660 cm2
    - Unstrung weight: 320g
    - Flex: 63 RA
    - Length: 68.5 cm
    - Balance: 31.5 cm
    - Pattern: 18 x 20
     
    #2
  3. wally

    wally Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    371
    I'm sorry I just couldn't resist :)

    Would this then be a SLING Blade ?????

    Would billy-bob Thornton endorse this raquect?

    I'm assuming it allows razor sharp placement and thunderous overheads, the perfect stick to hack apart your opposistion....
     
    #3
  4. spinbalz

    spinbalz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,676
    The headsize listed astonishes me, I wonder if 665cm² is the real headsize or if there is a typo error (it arrives very often) in the tennis catalogue, then the true headsize should be perhaps 645cm² or 660cm²?
     
    #4
  5. andirez

    andirez Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    It is a strange number, isn't it? Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a typo. I know some listed specs in this catalogue are wrong (for instance for the tecnifibre racquets), but haven't noticed this yet for any PK frame. If I compare the pictures of the frames, it looks closer to 660 than 645, but what can you tell from a picture... I'm curious to know more about this frame. Sounds like a more powerful PK5 which would be very nice.
     
    #5

Share This Page