Volkl DNX10 Review

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by NoBadMojo, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    A couple people asked me to comment on the DNX10. I've had the chance to dance with it for a long session.
    I like this frame a lot. Part of the reason is that it comes stock at about the same way I have modified my Gen1's to play. In fact, I would bet this frame comes from the Gen1 tool (mold), and I like that it is a true thin beamed frame with the classic Volkl kidney shaped profile.. it's typically Volkl and does everything well. it's at the fringe of my ablity to swing fast enough for the duration and played and swung like the specs
    -Compared to my Gen1's it hits a more punishing ball from the backcourt
    -I had no problem at all creating as much spin (both slice and top) as I wanted, so people shouldnt be too concerned about the 18mains pattern. But the only frames I've ever used which couldnt spin as much as i wanted are from the Radical series
    -It also hits a heavier more piercing ball than the VEMid and Gen2, but is slighty harder to swing fast than both. It's almost as powerful as the 10MPVE but you dont get the feeling that the ball could fly on you. It gives you the 'I can swing out with this frame' feel you get with the VEMid, but you dont lose the benefit of the larger sweetspot like you do with the VEMid, which is very important when returnng serves against a good server and for when you must recover defensively.
    Essentially, I feel this frame has some elements from all the 10series frames..it's very versitile and has a really nice soft feel to it, altho you can really feel how the DNX material firms things up.
    18 mains arent my favorites to string and on my cheesy drop weight stringer, I had to rig an extra clamp and scrap piece of string to pull the last main on each side because I didnt have enough string. I dont use pro shop stringing machines on my personal frames. I strung this with 17ga Klip Legend in the mains and 17g Klip Excellerator in the crosses at a true 52.
    This frame would be for people who generate their own power and who have good spin control. it's precise yet you can load it up and hit it hard, flatten it out, and it will pay off for you with powerful piercing heavy shots. For a basic ralley ball, I was getting good net clearance with a nice spinny trajectory and had no trouble hitting deep in the court. Volleys are typical Volkl 10series..they;re great. Am reserving judgment on the serve..it was a bit more work to produce the same results as my tricked up Gen1's, but it's early in the game. it's got a generous sweetspot. i like this frame a lot.
     
  2. McGee

    McGee Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    157
    Great review! Based on your comments it looks like a nice frame.

    BTW, I noticed on another thread that you have a relationship with Volkl ....if that is true, your inside information is really helpful. Thanks!
     
  3. foucapol

    foucapol Guest

    Nobadmojo, if you have played with C7 pro, can you compare it with DNX 10? The specs and overall shapes are looking almost identical.
     
  4. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828
    You da man NBM:mrgreen:
     
  5. lude popper

    lude popper Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Key West!
    that's enough for me. I love this frame already. your comments on the other volkls I've tried have been, in a word, EXACT....> just ordered a demo.
     
  6. Ed Lee

    Ed Lee Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    145
    DNX 10 Comparison

    Nobadmojo,

    Thank you for your thorough review. If you don't mind, I would be interested in your comparison of this racquet to the C10 Pro MP, if you can. Thanks for your consideration on this.
     
  7. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,776
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Yes, nice parameters in this racquet. Thanks for the review.
     
  8. WChiang

    WChiang Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    320
    I'm moving from a LM Prestige mid and looking for something stable, but swings a bit easier, is good on the arm, and has a larger sweetspot (for my over 40 body ;) . This one seems to fit the bill perfectly....time for a demo. Thanks NBM.
     
  9. chess9

    chess9 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,274
    Location:
    1.d4
    Nice review. I have two Volkls and regard their fit and finish as equal to the Yonex sticks in most cases.
    I've been thinking about getting this racquet as my windy day/hangover day/I've just grown two left feet day stick. :) Besides, in a few more years someone will think I'm a senior. :)

    Thanks NBMJ.

    -Robert
    ________
    How to use a whip vaporizer
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011
  10. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    -Thanks McGee

    -foucapol I have never hit the C7, but used the c8pro for several years. Isnt the c7 quite light? the c series frames used the same mold as the c10 I think. the dnx10 seems to come from Tour10 heritage.

    -thanks Luder. appreciate you

    -thanks Jackson vile

    -my pleasure Marius

    -wChiang. Indeed the DNX10 may fit the bill for you. think you'll enjoy the demo

    -Ed. vs the C10Pro it's similar but also quite different. Both seriously headlight thin beamed. C10Pro a lot more flexy in the upper hoop and more flexy overall. Both great all courters frames. DNX10 gives you bigger shots and seems a bit less work and that more of the energy gets transfered into the ball rather than absorbed in the flex of the frame altho the DNX10 has a very nice soft feel to it...the feel is kind of addicting as you get diff things going on within the sweetspot.
     
  11. louis netman

    louis netman Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,386
    Location:
    SoCal
    Thanx NBMJ! Although it may be a natural tendency for one to think that you may be "contractually" biased toward a specific brand, I find your reviews to be quite accurate and insightful. Your praise of the Slaz X1 and publicized discontent with the T10VE MP in the TW comparative is exemplary... I especially can't complain when you make comparisons between different (discontinued and current) 10 series frames...We all love your work (despite whatever misunderstandings sometimes develop in this forum ;-) )!!!
     
  12. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    Thanks, NBM, excellent review. I'm really hitting well with my T10VEMid but am looking for something with slightly larger sweetspot. Sounds like the DNX10 is the one I'm looking for. BTW, is this the 325 that you reviewed? Also, is it the same frame that Martin Damm was using for the AO men's doubles?
     
  13. vin

    vin Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,296
    Hey Mojo,

    Great review! Do you know if the ligher version (295g I think) of the DNX 10 is coming to the US?
     
  14. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,532
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    I noticed that the DNX 10 has the same bumper guard configuration as the older C10. It does not have the full wrap bumper guard that later models do.
     
  15. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    thanks Louis. i'm an objective guy and i call em' as i see em' in spite of people feeling the need to constantly badger about 'alleged' sponsorships along with all the other insecuritues and crap that goes on around here. i'm aware that more than one manufacturer can make good products, and i'm sure not opposed to giving props to other products <or people>.
    thanks jono. i should have specified, but i'm working out with the 325g version. yes, Martin Damm is using the DNX10 and playing it stock as I understand it. that was quite a dubs match eh?
    vin there arent plans to bring the lighter one to the States at this time that i am aware of. i really doubt that will happen but you never know.
    Rabbit, seems Volkl has gone away from the Power Rap bumpers on all the DNX frames..makes sense with them concentrating the weight on the wings rather than weighting it all around the head like w. the PRaps.
     
  16. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    Rabbit:

    Any thoughts on the dnx 10 or the 8. Always interesting on ones perception of heaviness of ball struck or power, If you look at the power formula( head size X Swing wt X flex divided by 1000) the Gen 1 and 2 come in at 2020 and the dnx will be in the 1900 range. Also TW 5.5 Reviewer Granville gave the gen 1 a very low power score and most of the reps at TW agree. So I am a bit dubious about the piercing heavy ball comment on the new dnx. So any other Volkl officianados comments are welcome. Also Rabbit your comments on an older skilled player taking advantage of a lighter rkt to keep up with the youngsters is what has gotten me thinking about some new demos the dnx would not fit your category or would it? Also thoughts on the dnx 8
     
  17. Ed Lee

    Ed Lee Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    145
    DNX 10 vs C10

    Thanks for your quick reply and the information, NBM. Your input is invaluable to these boards!

    Ed
     
  18. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I'm not Rabbit, but since you wish to be dubious about my review, may I please suggest that your formula for power level is seriously incomplete. Secondly, having played with the Gen1 for at least 3 years, I am here to say that this frame can be set up to play VERY powerfully as almost all heavier frames can, and it is significantly more powerful than the Gen2. Thirdly, I was hitting a very niece heavy piercing ball with the DNX10 as I reported and feel I am qualified to discern the differences.
    To sumarize, if you wish to be dubious and discredit peoples' reviews, I suggest that you at least start with correct information (formula) and if good enough to tell, base your dubiosity (that aint a word) on actual on court experiences as power formulas (even when correct) are rough guidelines at best. Additionally, you really went out of your way to try and discredit what I wrote by digging up Granville's review of a discontinued frame.
    I think having the DNX material at 3 and 9 and above the collar cuff does indeed have something to do with power levels, as does materials in the layup, tweaking weight distrbution, string density, and a bunch of other abba dabba not included in the power level formula. People who know tennis also know that pretty much all modern racquets are powerful racquets when the sweetspot is struck (especially heavier ones provided someone has te ability to swing them fast enough). it's when the sweetspot is missed that the stiffness of a frame helps maintain power.
     
  19. McGee

    McGee Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    157
    Dude, chill out :) I don't think that TennisMD was attacking your review at all. He had just heard conflicting opinions re: power levels and "in his opinion" the information was in doubt for his needs. Based on my short time here, TennisMD appears to be one of the good ones! Actually, other opinions from Volkl users such as Rabbit re: the DNX 10 and 8 for us "aging" players would be helpful.
     
  20. texcoug

    texcoug Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    277
    This must be a great review because the thread has those cool stars! How did those pop up?
     
  21. foucapol

    foucapol Guest

    OK, the C7 I have is 12.1oz strung (with no added weight), 7pts HL, 19mm, 18*20 pattern. It is a little flexy frame. So, I expect DNX10 plays very closely to C7 Pro. Thanks anyway.
     
  22. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    thanks man.......
     
  23. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,532
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    mojo, I don't think tennismd was in the attack mode either.

    Tell you the truth, guys, I haven't hit with the DNX 10. The local pro shop here is cutting back on stocking so called players' frames because quite frankly, the sales aren't there for them. I may order a demo from TW and give it a whirl. I think mojo's reviews have been in-line with what I feel. The only difference we have had is on the Gen II. IMO, it played much stiffer than the C10. The amazing thing was the C10's second ingredient was kevlar and the Gen II was fibreglass. This seems contradictory to the ingredients, but there you have it.

    From just looking at the specs of the new DNX 10, it appears that it is very close to the original C10. I should also note that I am very happy with my Cat 8's and once I settle into a frame, I kind of like to stick with it. When it warms up, I'll see about getting a DNX 10 to hit with and post a review.
     
  24. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    McGee and Rabbit thank you for your thoughts. I do not wish to turn this into another animosity session. However i do know what i read and the rkt sports industry list certain intinsic power ratings to rkts and the numbers listed for the gen 1 and the gen 2 are right out of the 2004 and 2005 magazine and the formula I quoted is one formula used. Now before paranoia set in my question was are these accurate in other hitters opinions and as I stated my only purpose in this thread is I have been interested in the theories both rabbit and Mojo have stated about lighter SW and giving an advantage as an older player, as rabbit switched from a C10 to the Cat8 V engine. So again just questions this is a fun hobby for me nothing more
     
  25. emerckx53

    emerckx53 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    523
    There are some around here that don't allow free speech...when it comes to reviews of their reviews....:rolleyes: the dick sizing contest continues. I got a DNX 10 demo today...I am 45 years of age. I will be able to compare it to the ve93 only however...I will let you know tennis md-
     
  26. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,828
    I don't think anyone else currently on this board is more qualified to review and judge the Volkl rackets.


    I trust NBMJ opinions as I have many times found the exact same to be true, so now I listen instead of blabing.:mrgreen:
     
  27. texcoug

    texcoug Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    277
    I still want to know about the gold stars.
     
  28. DANMAN

    DANMAN Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,100
    The stars are the rating of the thread. You can rate the thread at the top of the page. Also, Nobadmojo, in my opinion, is one of the best posters on the board. Keeping 'em coming mojo.
     
  29. louis netman

    louis netman Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,386
    Location:
    SoCal
    Spec-wise it's similar. However, I think the differences will theoretically, be related to the disimilarity in material composition and handle system. The C7, I believe, is all graphite whereas the DNX 10 is a composite of graphite, fiberglass, and DNX (whatever that is). In addition, the old C7 pallets are glued straight onto the frame shaft/handle, as opposed to the DNX 10 having the Sensor Tour System (a layer of shock absorbing foam uander the pallet, at the frame-handle/pallet junction).
     
  30. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Rabbit, I didnt say the guy was attacking me, i said he was disputing me based upon some formula and no grounds whatsoever. He said he was dubious that the DNX10 would hit a heavy piercing ball based upon a formula tied to the formula of another racquet which some playtester said was low powered, after I just spent an hour 45 hitting heavy piercing balls with this frame. that's very much a stretch and really looking for any little possible way to disagree.
    I think you would agree that if you put 12.5 ozs on a ball, hit it flush, swing it fast using good technique, with gut strung at 52 pounds that it is reasonable you would hit a heavy ball. These are all only tennis racquets after all..none of them have magical properties. He also says that the Gen1 and gen2 must have identical power levels because of the formula when they arent even close (I say this havng played the Gen1 for 3 years and carrying a Gen2 in my bag for a few months as well). if he wishes to base his decisions on some formula which is a guideline at best, then why even ask people what they think.
    It's fine to disagree with me, but I dont think it reasonable to be disputed in unreasonable and ridiculous ways..ways that are really a stretch.,,if someone spent some time with this frame. knows what they are talking about, then fine...we disagree, but even at that racquets obviously work differently in different peoples hands. this guy was just looking for anything to pick away at. see ya Rabbit.
     
  31. Richie Rich

    Richie Rich Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,274
    NBM,

    did you get a chance to hit some serve returns and b/h slice approaches? i've hit with the T10Gen II and the T10VE mid and found both racquets kind of "mushy" when blocking back hard serves. is the DNX 10 a little stiffer?

    how i wish i could have my c10PT's back :(
     
  32. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    aye Rich. I put a frame through every shot i can think of when i playtest them. Service returns were great with this frame as were bh sliced approaches and those chipped backhand service returns hit up high on kickers you follow into the net. I hear what you are saying about the mushiness of the gen2 and VeMid, and that is why i've been using the Gen1's..it's better at those types of shots and the head holds up better and returns more energy into the shot i think. I had trouble with my service returns on the VEMid because while the sweetspot is plenty long, it wasnt wide enough for me on service returns and the frame was a bit too mushy for me with those slight misshits and I coughed up some exploitable balls. The Gen2 was easier to flush hit, but I just couldnt get enough work on my shots.
    If you've played the Gen1, the DNX10 plays like a more headlight version of that frame. The DNX material must be stiff and it really does put the crispness and pace into those types of shots, but you still get a really nice softer feel.
     
  33. mark1

    mark1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    517

    i would be very interested in that comparison. I play with the ve93 as well. If you could comment also on swingweight, flex, and power level comparisons that would be perfect.

    Thanks, Mark
     
  34. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    Hear, hear!
     
  35. kinsella

    kinsella Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    562
    NBM -- I thought your original post was articulate and thoughtful. Most of us are grown ups and keep our grains of salt handy in everything we read and hear. I think it is fair for people to consider things like power formulas to get another perspective on racquets but agree with you that they miss so many important factors that I would give them very little weight in my consideration. I can look at the weight, balance, string pattern, beam and flex and get an idea of the stick's power.

    But I believe the most powerful thing a racquet can do is give a player the comfort and confidence to hit out. For some, that is a stiff, light, head heavy racquet. I prefer heavier, HL, flexible sticks, but who cares? The game you play is the thing, not the stick.

    Am I getting too philisophical so late at night? Can I possibly stay up so late to watch the AUssie final in real time? I think not.

    Good night. Be kind to each other.
     
  36. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    IMO, I used to play very well and confidently with my Volkls until I made a mistake of experimenting outside the circle. I tried first with a Head FXP Tour, and then also with a Wilson Pro Staff 7.5. I did that for 3 months and totally lost the support of my playing partners. They commented that my game had gone down the drain and advised me to get rid of the new frames.

    I did so, and with no regrets! All of a sudden I was a transformed player once more. I could hit my groundstrokes with ease and make no mistake. My volleys were solid and well-directed.

    I will always be an ardent Volkl supporter, but only for the best reasons. Volkl makes no-frills (marketing wise), old-school feel racquets in modern packaging. Wonderfully buttery and effortless on groundstrokes, powerful flat bombs and extremely forgiving on mishits.

    And once again, it's great to have a person like NoBadMojo contribute his invalubale advice on this board!!!
     
  37. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Thanks guys.......

    thanks John. grains of salt it is as none of this is a biggie in the greater cosmos........and I cant stay awake for the Open either..thank goodness for TIVO. be well.
     
  38. bamboo

    bamboo Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    316
    NBM has no objectivity - he is as over-the-top a Volkl promoter as the Vantage guy was of his company. Anyone who makes the slightest comment that is not slavish flattery to him and Volkl is attacked as knowing nothing about the game, and driving worthwhile posters off the board. Guess what? Most teaching pros don't know anything - NBM denies stability is a factor in racquet evaluation when it gets an entire chapter in The Physics and Technology of Tennis.
     
  39. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,532
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    mojo - on the other hand, this is clearly an unwarranted attack.
     
  40. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    Just ignore him.
     
  41. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Stuff like this always happens around here..it's too bad especially since his comments are way off base and a total distortion of something I may have said. All I said is that I believe the term 'stablity' is not the right term unto itself. I believe the term to be used properly should be 'stablity on miss hits', as I think all racquets (even modern light ones) are stable within the sweetspot.
    And to compare my praising Volkl and Fischer, and some PK frames and the Slaz X1, etc in any way to what happened here with the over the top Vantage stuff is ludicrous.
    Amazing this is what the guy THINKS he has on me and that somehow warrants an attack..pathetic.
     
  42. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    To borrow from the moniker of one of the the other posters, OH PLEASE. Getting back to the facts.
    1) First of all I addressed this to rabbit and other volkl users for a second opinion.
    2) the reason being that mojo has stated the volkl gen 1 hits with power, that is his opinion, However other skilled players ,TW Granville, rated it as underpowered. Also RSI magazine does use an intrinsic power formula which would give the new DNX a lower intrinsic power than the Gen 1. Also mojo in his address to Marcus H stated the gen 2 was low powered. So one can see the confusion. So there are two issues 1) what do other skilled hitters think? my original intention for this post. 2) maybe the RSI formula does not take into ac**** technology and I like to hear others opinion, I personally do not think the formula is an accurate assesment of rkt power. Thank you for all answers regarding these two points.
     
  43. louis netman

    louis netman Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,386
    Location:
    SoCal
    I have performed fairly controlled experiments with all the 10 series MP frames, minus the DNX 10. Here is my assessment of power levels from low to high: Gen 2, C10, Gen 1, VE....

    Although controlled, there may be potential flaws in the findings. I swung the rackets as opposed to a mechnical swinging device. In addition, power level was rated subjectively by myself and my hitting partner. To minimize bias/error due to fatigue effects, I engaged in multiple outings with different chronological order of frames.

    Hope this helps...
     
  44. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Even though TennisMD isnt looking for additional input from me, perhaps we can bring this part of the discussion to conclusion since nobody else is bellying up to the bar
    #1 - TennsMD sez the USRSA shows the power levels of the Gen1 and Gen2 to be precisely the same. While that is what they may say, that is an error since the Gen1 is of greater swingweight and also greater stiffness and therefore the power level of the Gen1 would be higher than the Gen2
    As an aside, as i understand it, the USRSA publishes specs based upon the testing of a SINGLE frame and I think people can see how these power numbers can be flawed for a myriad of reasons if only ONE frame is tested. TW specs are far more trustwothy because they take the ave of test results of several frames. Even given a frame which is on spec, and assuming the manufacturer hasnt changed specs since the single frame was tested, these power level numbers are only a guideline at best.
    #C - The Gen1 is a matrix of graphite and titanium and the Gen a matrix of Graphite and Fiberglass. I would hope most would agree that the Gen1 is<by its nature> a more powerful layup. I realize therecan be exceptions to everything, but not in this case here
    #5 - I've been playing the Gen1's for over 3 years and have a couple months hitting exeriences with the Gen2 and my hitting experiences indicate that the Gen1 has significantly more juice (not a technical term i know nor based upon a formula) than the Gen2
    As to the DNX10, it's really a nice hit and much along the lines of the Gen1, but a bit more headlight. It's really a really good solid all around frame, and the graphics are really nice (i realize this is one thing that is subjective). I am getting that 'I can swing out' precise feel with the DNX10 and with the Gen1 I can get more of a 'loosey goosey' <not a technical term> feel

    It isnt important that I prove anyone wrong..my motivation is merely trying to make sure people get good information, and maybe by way of this people may have a better understanding about things like 'power levels'. I think the power level coupled with swingweight and sweetspotsize can get you well on track to choosing a right racquet . I think the power level formula can be improved. I think they should also put a multiplier in there for string density, as typically denser strngbeds are less powerful stringbeds given the same string and tension altho the 18mains patern of the DNX10 doesnt play so dense. I previously suggested to TW that they include power levels with the rest of their specs as a general guideline. If others agree, maybe they can start a thread in the TW Q's portion of the forum
     
  45. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    oops..didnt see your post Louis and I agree with your sequence. additionally <and purely from a power level> i would add the rest of the 10series frames ---> Gen2 and VEMid ---> C10Pro98 --> Gen1 and DNX10 ---> T10MPVE.
    Cant help with any of the other Volkl Midsizers.
     
  46. louis netman

    louis netman Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,386
    Location:
    SoCal
    NBMJ, you make an excellent point about the statistical calculations. The slight inaccuracy that results from the manufacturing tolerances/inconsistencies may have a monumental impact in the overall calculation of power, especially with the multiplier in the formula. These inconsistencies may arise in all the variables except headsize (thankfully so ;-)).Therefore, it is imperative that the mean/average of several randomly selected samples should be used in determining the specs. Another good point is your mention of string pattern, which is not accounted for in the formula, but has quite a tremendous effect on a frame's overall power level...
     
  47. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    Thanks Louis.....any idea what sort of multiplier you would put for a more dense stringbed? You really have to be careful with multipliers as they also radically change the outcome depending upon the position in the formula. I know with the power level formula, they put the length multiplier first, so maybe the stringbed multiplier would go second? or first? ..i know! maybe we could stick it at the end??? It would simply be some fraction of 1 for a dense stringbed. Maybe someine could play with the multiplier with some examples to come up with something reasonable.
    For reference the formula is ----> (length index x headsize x flex x swingweight) / 1000
    I dont have the current power levels in Excel format to stick the multiplier on, but we could easily do that and maybe TW can post it within the forum somewhere, and it may help people?
     
  48. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    Mojo;
    your input is welcome and this what I was looking for as I also believe the formula does not really re flect the rkts playing power. The formulae would give the Head FP tour a low rating too and I find it has juice on the goundies and volleys, my discontent was that it is unpredictable re serves. I have two not really used gen 1 that can be strung up. I needed feed back before stringing since I use gut. So thanks for the info.
     
  49. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    Mojo;
    your input is welcome and this what I was looking for as I also believe the formula does not really re flect the rkts playing power. The formulae would give the Head FP tour a low rating too and I find it has juice on the goundies and volleys, my discontent was that it is unpredictable re serves. I have two not really used gen 1 that can be strung up. I needed feed back before stringing since I use gut. So thanks for the info.
     
  50. jonolau

    jonolau Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,090
    Location:
    Singapore
    TennisMD, I would personally have to say that the FXP Tour is extremely low-powered compared to the Volkl Tour 10 VE Mid. The FXP tour felt like a snail on groundstrokes and I really had to accelerate with explosive force just to give it that extra power on flat returns. However, with the t10vemid or c10Pro, flat shots were a breeze and was so much smoother and easier to generate topspin with an Eastern grip compared to the FXP tour. Sorry to say this, but I'm trashing my FXP Tour and have put it up for sale.

    Volkls are really addictive, and for good reason. You get great bang for your buck, and nothing, and I mean nothing, comes close to the feel and flex on these smooth buttery babies!
     

Share This Page