Wilson Racket-Speak

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by beth14, Mar 7, 2008.

  1. beth14

    beth14 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    middle of the desert
    So I see a Wilson K-factor K six-one 95 16 x 18. I can figure most of it out except the 6.1 thing. I see 6.0's, 6.1's and 6.2's. And they seem to carry some historical conotation; what is it? As always thanks for the wisdom in advance!!!!
     
    #1
  2. hadoken

    hadoken Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    the 6.1 reference is the stiffness index that was on the original design of this particular Pro Staff. The original frame became so popular that everyone simply refers to it as the "6.1" hence Wilson has kept that naming on frames derived from that design.
     
    #2
  3. beth14

    beth14 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    middle of the desert
    So does the 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2 all refer to different flex. And which is stiffer or more flexible?
     
    #3
  4. Eros

    Eros New User

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Milan, Italy
    I'm interested about too!
    Thak you very much
     
    #4
  5. bigmatt

    bigmatt Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Wilson originally had a "Stiffness Index" ratings on their frames, pretty much coinciding with the introduction of the Profile in 1987. It was measured by clamping the handle of the frame and hanging a 15g weight (I believe) from the tip of the head, and measuring how much it bent. Therefore, the "6.1" meant it deflected 6.1mm with the weight attached.
    When Wilson's competition made a big deal about low "Stiffness Index" numbers meaning tennis elbow risks, they changed it to "Swing Index".
     
    #5
  6. Babb

    Babb Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,447
    Location:
    Now down to 4 feet behind the baseline.
    ^^^^
    Wilson seems to have pulled a fast one on us ;)
     
    #6
  7. bigmatt

    bigmatt Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    As the "SI" numbers increase, so does racquet flex. Therefore, a 2.7si is stiffer than a 6.0, etc., and is supposed ot be more powerful, all else being equal.
     
    #7
  8. YULitle

    YULitle Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    4,132
    Location:
    Guymon, OK
    How far over the table does the racquet extend in this test?
     
    #8
  9. bigmatt

    bigmatt Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Michael:
    That I do not know. However, I feel quite confident the frame did not flex enough to allow anything to come into contact with anything else.
    The highest flex I can recall was 8.5, meaning there only needed to be 9mm of clearance.
     
    #9
  10. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    I recall that the weight test was done with the length of the handle in contact with the table......and I think it was a 15 pound weight and not a 15 gram weight.
     
    #10
  11. beth14

    beth14 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    middle of the desert
    Wow great info folks. It all makes sense with my PS classic 6.1 si and all I have read about it. Very cool.
     
    #11
  12. psp2

    psp2 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,102
    From memory.... I believe the weight was 6.4 lbs. not 15g. That value was an approximation of the force exerted by a tennis ball impacting the stringbed.
     
    #12

Share This Page