Volkl Organix 10 325 low powered?

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by luishcorreia, Sep 8, 2013.

  1. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    Does anyone finds this racquet low powered?

    I do... but reading the scpecs and reviews, its not suposed to.

    Maybe is it too head-light? I love the feel, the slice balckhand, .. I love everything.. but I just find it very low powered.

    I feel it needs weight on the head.

    Anyone plays with this racquet? Please share..
     
    #1
  2. vantageboy

    vantageboy Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    249
    i string with nat. gut as much as possible at 48lbs tension usually(50 on a multi) which does help with power some.i need a lower powered stick anyway and to me its perfect. try some lead at 12 to help u with that. very stable head, fantastic comfort, large sweet spot but at 54 i start with my OX10 325 then later i switch to my becker london. love them both . good luck
     
    #2
  3. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    i

    The problem is that the racquet is already at 340g which is my reference weight... And max weight also. I'll try adding 5 g at 12.

    I'm stringing with poly at 52lbls
     
    #3
  4. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    I also found it lower powered than I was expecting. I will note that mine came in well under the advertised specs. The strung weight on mine was 11.6 oz (a full 1/2 oz below the advertised specs).

    Other than the 90 in mids I've tried, it was probably the lowest powered frame I've used. I struggled to get pace and depth and didn't find it all that easy to generate spin. Didn't serve well with it either. Bottom line - it just didn't click with me. For me, it was below par across the board for what I wanted and expected. I don't say it is a bad frame - just a bad one for me. For the right person, it would be fine, IMO.

    I tried it with a poly at lower tension (mid 40s) and with a synthetic gut at 50 (or 55) lbs (can't remember for sure).

    Others have tried it and say they found it to have good pop, so who knows? That is why I felt it important to note that mine was under specs.
     
    #4
  5. DonDiego

    DonDiego Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Same for me, and for most who bought it I think.

    It is low-powered mainly because of the thin beam. I tried putting lead, but it doesn't really work. At least not if you want to replicate (in part) the plow-through of a six one 95, as I tried.
     
    #5
  6. DonDiego

    DonDiego Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,676
    Beam thickness used to be the last criteria on mylist when checking out a model. Now it's the first.
     
    #6
  7. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    I actually try a and look for thin beam racquets... Cause I like the feel. But you are right... It's a spec that most people don't pay attention to.

    I think I will sell it.

    Today I played three sets. One with a volkl v1 classic, one with the OX 10, and one with my vantage racquet. Vantage is the best.
     
    #7
  8. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    I typically don't mind thin beams, but the X10 just didn't work for me. Lead crossed my mind, but in the end there wasn't enough I liked about the racquet to bother trying. It was a great looking stick and felt pretty good, but was a real struggle for me to play with.

    I have a Donnay X-Dual Silver 99 which has a really thin beam and is lighter, but it generates more power and better spin. I wanted to like the X10. Ironically, I traded two of my three Donnays for the X10 and a Tecnifibre TFight 320. I was really excited about the X10 and just got the 320 as something to try. Turns out I loved the 320 and was ready to switch to it until I tried a 315.
     
    #8
  9. LafayetteHitter

    LafayetteHitter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,954
    Location:
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Over the various gen's the Midplus Volkl 10 models have tended to be on the lower end of the power spectrum esp given the specs on paper. I've tended to find I could adjust and rip groundstrokes with them but the MP 10's have always lacked in the serve dept for me, now granted that's just me because not everyone has that issue.
     
    #9
  10. Torres

    Torres Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    4,766
    Low powered. Low swingweight + non-polarized nature + thin beam + flexy / arm comfortable stick all combine to make it relatively low powered. 2g lead at 12 transforms the racquet though in terms of weighting and the ability to hit through the court. Pure 'players' stick, and a demanding one at that.

    Very different stick to the 6.1. Combination of various factors I guess, but it plays really quite differently in stock form at least.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
    #10
  11. Chotobaka

    Chotobaka Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,618
    I found the X-10 Mid to be noticeably livelier than the PB version, so it is not underpowered to me.
     
    #11
  12. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    Just added 5g at 12. I'll see how it plays tomorrow
     
    #12
  13. fuzz nation

    fuzz nation Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,657
    I've been up to my eyeballs in these frames over the last few months as I try to get settled in with them. I used the Volkl C10's for more than a couple of years and I've loved their combo of performance and comfort. I'm now 47, a reformed S&V player (now an all-courter), and I hit a one-handed backhand. The C10's have been especially kind to my arm, even when tensioned in the low-mid 60's with syn. gut - much nicer than my previous 6.1 Classics.

    I sampled a spare O10 that a pal let me try out, but I hated it in its stock setup. My C10's had some lead on their handles for extra HL balance, but were also more hefty and stable though the hoop (and more powerful) than this O10, despite the inherent hoop flex in the design of the C10's. The stock O10 gave me not-so-good handling, bad feel (with snug syn. gut), and seemed generally uninspiring.

    I figured what the heck, let's see what some lead does to this thing. I put some on both the grip end and at 3/9 o'clock to give the hoop a shade of extra stability - oh, and I did this at the practice court with no scale or measurements. Just dialed it in by feel.

    The difference was incredible for me. Nice handling in a racquet that seemed slightly more lean than my C10's, acceptable stability with a touch of lead on the hoop, and that wonderful "bow-whup" feel that comes from many softer frames at contact - I didn't get that in stock form. The tuned version also gave me all the spin that I could never get from my C10's. Suddenly I could keep my full rips down on the court with the extra spin, I found more snappy response around the net with my volleys, and my hitting partners have seen no fall off in the power on my harder shots, including my flat first serves.

    At home on the scale, I found that I nearly cloned the setup I had in my C10's, but the O10 was only lighter by 0.1 oz. with similar balance. Now I have three of these with the same lead tuning and no complaints. I even compared a stock O10 with one of my tuned racquets and the stock frame gave me that same impression of "yuck". Anyone that is used to a 6.1 95, etc. probably won't find a similar ride in the O10 325g unless they also do some of their own tuning. At least for me, the difference "after lead" was night-and-day.
     
    #13
  14. rlau

    rlau Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    NL
    Be aware that 5 grams at 12 is a lot -- it adds 15 points in swingweight. I'd start with 2 or 3 grams at most.
     
    #14
  15. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    Very interesting. Can you tell me the exact location and amount of weight you out on the racquet? Thanks in advance.
     
    #15
  16. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    Roger that. I will proceed with caution.
     
    #16
  17. AYone

    AYone Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    I tried the X 10 325 for a bit. I echo the other observations in this thread. My shots seemed unpredictable at times. It seemed like I needed almost perfect contact to hit a good ball. However, I did find a lot of pop with a full bed of ALU rough. I think the muted feel in the handle, although comfy, reduces the sense of power.

    I'm a six.one loyalist and enjoy the plow through from the six.one series too much to dabble with any more frames.
     
    #17
  18. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    To me, there was no comparison between the 6.1 and the X10.

    And I can second the view that it felt like you had to hit perfect to hit a decent shot. I couldn't hit a decent serve. About the only good thing in stock form was a good first serve%.
     
    #18
  19. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    I actually have no problems with the racquet. Feels really great. Just lack of power and depth
     
    #19
  20. goose guy

    goose guy New User

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    81
    I echo fuzznation's post.
    Stock- yuck
    Leaded- wow! big difference!

    I have 6g at 12 oclock spanning from 11-1.
    I wrapped 1/4" lead tape around the handle 6x around to make it about 6pt HL. 356g total. I'm currently trying out an additional 3g at handle near the butt for a 8pt HL setup.

    I string with gut/poly 52/48.

    Try it!
     
    #20
  21. fuzz nation

    fuzz nation Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,657
    My stock O10 weighed 11.8 oz. strung with syn. gut and a Tourna Grip added on. I placed only a 3" strip of 1/4" lead tape at both 3 and 9 o'clock, and then what I call a "stirrup" of 1/2" lead on the handle under my overgrip. This is essentially two strips of 6" or 6 1/2" tape on bevels 1&5, along with roughly 1 1/2 turns of the same 1/2" tape around the butt cap for better handling.

    This gave me a layout weighing 12.4 oz. and about 10 pts. HL balance.
     
    #21
  22. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    About how I felt...although I wouldn't say it felt great. It felt fine, but I didn't find it to be anything special or exceptional there. Just more or less middle of the road...neither stiff nor soft.

    The lack of power was just too much for me. Outside of the three mids I've tried (Pro Staff 90, VCORE 89 and Prestige Mid), it was the lowest powered stick I've tried. In fact, the Pro Staff and VCORE may have had more pop due to their mass and swingweight. In my experience, the X10 played more like those mids than any midplus or tweener I've ever used.
     
    #22
  23. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    The big difference between the X10 and the C10 Pro is in radial hoop stiffness. This is how much the sides of the hoop resist compressing towards the center when the ball tensions the strings. When the ball hits the strings they stretch but also pull, very hard, on the hoop, pulling the sides of the hoop toward the center of the strings. The X10 resists this deformation much more than most thin beam racquets because it is actually rather fat in the plane of the stringbed, in other words, if you have the strings in full sight, the width of the frame at 3&9 is quite wide compared to something like the C10, which is 20mm wide in the plane perpendicular to the stringbed, but much thinner in the plane parallel to the stringbed.

    We normally associate stiffness with power, so how does greater radial stiffness make a frame lower in power? I'm not sure, but recall that softer, more flexible strings are more powerful because they deform more. When the strings deform more it means that the ball deforms less. The ball is much less elastic than strings, so the more it squashes the less "powerful" its bounce. So stiffer strings are less powerful because they squash the ball more. So what happens if the hoop doesn't collapse toward the center of the strings?

    Effectively, when the hoop does collapse the strings become effectively shorter, and therefore are at lower tension. We know that lower tension means less ball squashing and greater shot speed. So it stands to reason that less hoop collapse results in effectively tighter, stiffer strings on impact - and therefore less power. So if you compare the C10 Pro, with it's flexible hoop, with the X10, with its stiff hoop, and string the identically, the string stiffness at the peak of impact forces will actually be greater in the X10, and that greater stiffness will result in less power. Caveat, this is just theorizing.

    But this could explain why many players describe this frame as "stringing up crazy tight." Even though you may string it the same as any other frame the effective tension at impact will be greater. The strings will feel stiffer and play stiffer (lower power) in the X10 than something like the C10.

    The upside of that high radial stiffness should be in precision and control, as the hoop staying stout and sturdy on high-speed impacts can only increase the chance of a consistent rebound from shot to shot.

    That's my 2 cents.

    Oh, and fuzz nation's observations about lead on the X10 are, of course, worth listening to. Some X10s come in around 310 swingweight. If you're not used to heavy sticks with low swingweights you will definitely find such configurations low powered.
     
    #23
  24. liam1

    liam1 New User

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    Messages:
    69
    I put 3g at 3 and 9 and 1g at 12 just as an experiment and I have to say I much prefer this set up over a stock racket. It just feels more "solid".BTW 3g is divided between 3 and 9, it's not 3g each side. It doesn't sound like a lot but it does make a considerable difference.
     
    #24
  25. luishcorreia

    luishcorreia Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    356g is heavy for me. I practiced today with the racquet with 4g at 12 o'clock and felt a bit better. Not much. Will try to add more 2g.
     
    #25
  26. ahoomira

    ahoomira New User

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    41
    Used this for a small bit. It weighed in at 12.2 stock and I strung it with Cyclone at 52 and it was very underpowered. I got rid of it thereafter. It looked great but wasn't what I was after.
     
    #26

Share This Page