What's the Power Level Formula?

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by Power Game, Dec 19, 2004.

  1. Power Game

    Power Game Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,151
    What's the Power Level Formula? The one that Nobadmojo was using....
     
    #1
  2. rich s

    rich s Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,539
    Location:
    ATL
    (SW x Flex x Headsize x (1+((Length-27)/10))/1000)
    (325 x 64 x 98 x (1+((27-27)/10))/1000)
    (325 x 64 x 98 x 1)/1000
    (2038400)/1000
    2038.4

    Example - LM Radical MP

    Swingweight 325
    Flex 64
    Headsize 98
    Length 27
     
    #2
  3. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,330
    rich, thanks for the formula. Cannot believe these 90" head racquets can possibly have the pop or power of 95" head racquets of yesteryear. But according to that formula, yes they do.
     
    #3
  4. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Ronaldo, I agree. Very interesting to see how the racquets match up on the scale.

    Made me laugh when I did the sums and found out my Prince Precision Mono rated below (1991) the Prince Graphite Original mid (2197) and two of the name player racquets, Volkl C10 Pro (1994) and Vokl Tour 10 (1993) I've been told to avoid as I'm not at that skill level yet. Funnier still that the Mono rated above one racquet I was advised to look at, the Wilson Hyper Hammer 6.2 (1901).

    Of course, all of that is purely academic. A racquet with a stiffness rating over 62 will have more power but wont give me enough feel so, you gain one thing, you lose another.
     
    #4
  5. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,330
    Btw, try finding those racquets with an RDC below 62. Funny thing about that Mono was it seemed shorter than 27"
     
    #5
  6. Roforot

    Roforot Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,198
    While such formulas make for interesting discussion, I do not put much stock into them. The experience of playing w/ a racquet tends to often differ from the numbers. In example, I'm now playing w/ a 13.3 oz racquet that is 16pts headlight. Although I know that the swingweight is greater than my previous POG mid, playing w/ this racquet, it feels equally agile and seems to swing just as easily.

    Similarily I've had friends who've used Racquet research's list of best racquets and found that they were more comfortable in cases w/ racquets ranked below others!

    You can use the numbers to group or categorize what to try; but not to decide or suggest one is superior to the other.
     
    #6
  7. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    I can't understand why my post questioning the validity of the formula was deleted.
     
    #7
  8. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    I never got that feeling Ronaldo. Have always felt the Mono was the best serving and volleying racquet I've used.

    Roforot, I agree it is very much a case of individual feel, I just find the numbers interesting and always nice to know how it is they apportion the rating.

    I actually remember the first, or one of the first Tennis Magazine or World Tennis (think that was the name) reviews of the original Prostaff 85. In a nutshell, they said it was a fair quality baseliners racquet. Guess someone forgot to tell Edberg LOL
     
    #8
  9. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    AAAA the board was hacked and went down and posts were lost. maybe yours was one of them. i think the power formula is a really good guideline to help you in choosing the right frame..if you are selecting some demos to try, it gives you a good clue as to what frames will perform w. similar power given of course that power level changes alot w. string selection and tension. i have found these numbers to be <mostly> pretty relevant. they dont consider string density other than headsize..maybe someone w. the skills could come up the right factor for that to make the denser stringbeds (18mains) less powerful. IMO this is one of the few really good <and unbiased> stats that the USRSA has.
     
    #9
  10. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    I think the formula gives qualitative results, whether one racquet is more powerful than another in general cases. I don't think the actual percentage difference in power level scores has a direct 1 to 1 mapping to percentage changes in actual power. This is relavant because a racquet with a 20% higher score may translate to just a minimal power increase in actual play. Also if the racquet is very short, less than 17 inches, the score will be negative the head flex is not taken into account.

    IMO hacking a tennis forum and doing damage is pretty pointless.
     
    #10
  11. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    I think there is a certain usefulness in the power ratings.

    Given that 'power' is used as a highly influential marketing tool - beyond even the word 'tour' in any equipment title- many players can be fooled into thinking that it is the single most important element in improving their game.

    If you can honestly say that you get good depth and pace on your shots without having to over-swing and manage all that on a frame with a low 'power rating' but a very high 'comfort for you' rating then you can bypass the marketing and start to look at elements such as control and consistency.

    Knowing the rating on the racquet you currently use can stop you from buying into that hype, as well as giving you a rough idea what other frames you might like to change to, if necessary.
     
    #11

Share This Page