It occurred to me that in light of the low swingweight for the static weight of the n90 and the fact that it tests around the mid 320's from multiple places even though it really is a club, that Wilson must have loaded up this frame with weight in the handle. That would be the only way something with so much mass could measure such a low swingweight. In thinking about how the racquet plays, that makes sense..it's headlight and still a club and has a disporportionate amount of mass concentrated in one place and that is what i think gives the frame that goofy hoop oscillation especially when struck a little high in the stringbed. it really is a bad use of weight i think. I wonder what's in the handle of these..anyone know? the k90 seems to very marginally improve the weight distribution and i think the k90 is a very marginal improvement over the n90 depending upon how one looks at it.. the hoop oscillation is slightly less, the ball feel is slightly better..the sweetspot is every bit as demanding but you get a bigger response in the sweetspot, but a larger drop off relatively speaking on slight misshits. truly a 5.0 precision flatter hitters frame
Weight distribution of the n90 and k90
- Thread starter NoBadMojo
- Start date
To me the n90 feels as if it has most of the weight located in the neck and throat, with what seems to be just balancing weight in the handle. The hoop as very little mass in it. I once tried for the heck of it to move the sweet spot higher to center. Normally you can just add lead at 12 to a racquet to get some movment, but I had to add five inches of lead at 3&9 before the lead at 12 really did anything. This seem to indicate how little mass there is in the hoop of the racquet.
Pro_Tour_630
Legend
I agree with SF that the weight seems to be concentrated in the middle throat area of the ncode 90. It also has an extra one inch of foam and an extra two inchs of leather wraped twice around the grip vs the k90. This weighs something folks dont know how much but it does have weight, I think at least 5grams if not more. Even with that my 3/8 K90 balanced at 31.5cm was more head light by .5cmm than my 1/2 ncode90 ?!?! yet they both had exact weight of 342gs strung with identical strings. This means that Wilson has leaded or beefed up the handle on the K90. The K90 I had was an improvement in how it swings IMO over the ncode90. One can only know the exact SW by testing at least three K90 and three ncode90 of identical setup. From what i have heard not %100 sure that Wislon does not have high quality contol with very tight tolerence.
Wilson's quality control directer must go by the old phrase: "Variety is the spice of life."
If the weight was concentrated in the throat you wouldnt get that really abnormal swingweight measurement..you would get a higher swingweight reflective of how this frame swings. TW does test multiple racquets and posts the average, and the swingweight also matches pretty much what the usrsa posts altho they only test 1 (TW is way better). it swings to me like far too much weight is located far too far at the bottom of the frame...racquets that swing as though they have more mass in the throat area are typically frames with a more even balance i think <in general>..here you have a significantly headlight frame which is flimsy in the hoop and oscillates in the hoop and measures a disporportionately low swingweight...i say they've got too much weigh in the handle and thats what screws up the swingweight measurement. wilson doesnt even tell you what their swingweights are..their swingweights are all over the place...even worse than their ststic weight variances..i would rather play with frames of matching swingweight anyday, as opposed to frames which happen to match more by staticweight....people shouldnt rush right out and weigh their frames to try and bust manufacturers for making frames which dont weigh what they should..as long as the swingweight is within tolerance, you're good to go.
armand
Banned
Haha, nice one SFrazeur. And I also agree that the nCode Tour 90 has weight concentrated in the throat area but also 3+9. It swings weird, it isn't as headlight as one would imagine and it is still very stable.
_________
But let's stop fooling around. You want a 90sq" racquet that is the successor to the 85 Original? You got it. And it's been out for a while; it's called the RDS001 Mid. Add lead and you're in. I pity the fool who doesn't try it!
_________
But let's stop fooling around. You want a 90sq" racquet that is the successor to the 85 Original? You got it. And it's been out for a while; it's called the RDS001 Mid. Add lead and you're in. I pity the fool who doesn't try it!
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
I think that the swingweight distances are measured from 8 or 10 cm from the butt so I guess putting a lot of weight near the butt would contribute negatively to swingweight. Now the way that SW
is measured doesn't reflect that every person holds
their racquet a little differently but you have to pick
something to get values useful for comparison.
BTW, the characteristics described of low hoop weight, low swingweight and high static weight
characterize what I use. I recently calculated the
SW of my frame and was surprised at how low it
was despite being a high static weight frame.
If the weight is actually in the upper neck and
throat as a few posters mentioned, then that
doesn't match my setup. I think that I tried adding
weight in the throat before and didn't like the
results.
is measured doesn't reflect that every person holds
their racquet a little differently but you have to pick
something to get values useful for comparison.
BTW, the characteristics described of low hoop weight, low swingweight and high static weight
characterize what I use. I recently calculated the
SW of my frame and was surprised at how low it
was despite being a high static weight frame.
If the weight is actually in the upper neck and
throat as a few posters mentioned, then that
doesn't match my setup. I think that I tried adding
weight in the throat before and didn't like the
results.
