TW Review: Dunlop Biomimetic M 3.0
 

Video review now available. Full written review to follow.

http://bit.ly/O0VddN

Jason, TW

Looks Interesting... but sounds like the 3.0 Tour has it beat.. amazing what .5 oz does for a racquet.

wow....pretty surprised at the lukewarm reviews.

I thought Dunlop upped the power on this new line? Most didn't mention anything about good power and a couple said the power was still too low??. I though the 4D 300 was a pretty powerful frame. How could this one be low powered? Kind of confused.

I would have liked to see Chris and Andy review this frame. I think it would make a nice platform racquet for modification. Brittany and Siobahn are great players but tend to gravitate toward more of a tweener spec stick for which I don't think this is intended as.

Usually advanced players end up adding lead weight to make it more stable with these rackets due to such a low static and swing weight. but once you get the balance to your liking, people find it very good playing racket.

Is the improvements that much better on these new lines.?

Any idea the demos will be available?

Demos should be available when the racquets become available. So around 10/17.

Jason, TW

Full written review now available:

http://bit.ly/QSJEWp

Jason, TW

I don't understand how some rackets are described as lacking power. I am only an intermediate and I find plenty of controlled power with my Bio 300. The Bio 300 allows me to ping the ball from corner to corner with relative ease, I would have expected this new version to be broadly the same as the previous but with a different PJ.

Queston for the TWU professor!
 

The Bio M 3.0 scores 40.8% in the center. If I understand this right, this is pretty high. Especially if you compare it with the BIO 300. Also weight and swingweight has increased.

Still the players say it has not a bunch of power. All spec changes should give it a huge boost..

I saw the same when the IG Radical MP was measured by you, also big increase in power potential but in real life there was no difference.

So how much does this power potential mean with real life power?

Is there something like a fomula to forecast how powerfull a frame is based on these specs? For example swingweight x power potential x flex?


Any kind of feedback would be welcome.

Racquet sport industry magazine, in their annual racquet roundups, uses a formula like headsize x swingweight x (length-27) x stiffness. Or something like that. And then they rank the racquets against each other

Check it out.

It isn't the most scientific, but it gives a rough idea how all of the components play together.

Yes, i know the formula.

But really interested how the power index of TWU fit in this. Just add it to the formula?

The new PR has a lower sw, but stll has the same amount of power or maybe even more. Power potential is about the same.

really interested what TWU professor thinks about this.

I was not on this review, but I have hit the racquet a lot and I didn't have any power issues. The same goes for the F 3.0 Tour for me. I found some added zing on my shots with both when comparing each to their predecessors.

I would likely add weight to both, but felt the F 3.0 Tour was closer to where I wanted it and would only require a small amount.

Chris, TW

Thanks Chris, but are the new ones more powerfull or not?

And can you aks the TWU professor about how important the power index is in the total power package? Thanks a lot.

The new racquets are definitely lively feeling -- much more so than the ones they replace. The feel is different, too. Whereas the existing sticks had that classic Dunlop feel, these feel more modern. I would say the feel is somewhere between a Dunlop 300 and an AeroPro Drive, with the Dunlop DNA exacting slightly more influence.

Hope that helps,
Chris, TW

it definitely does. One more question: in comparison with BIO 400. Same kind of power and modern feel? Or would you say the M has some more feel and less power?

Chris... What exactly is this "modern feel" u speak of? Do u simply mean more stiff or is there more to it than that?

I would say: more crisp without the more nasty vibrations?

Like the pd12?

I have to say all these conflicting comments by the TW folks on the power of the 3.0M are quite confusing. I thought the Dunlop 4d 300 was a pretty powerful racquet. These new models are supposed to have been revamped with stiffer beams and more powerful, but most of the reviewers are commenting about desiring more power and these are accomplished players with pretty fast swings. I just don't get it. Only way seems to be to demo yourself and see what u think for yourself.

When I say modern, I mean away from the classic box beam type of feel you would find in an older Dunlop, Wilson or Prince racquet. For instance, Six.One 95 has a classic box beam feel to it, whereas a Blade 98 has a more modern feel to it. The difference for me is in the way the frame responds. In the Blade/SIx.One comparison, the Blade feels faster and snappier in its response whereas the Six.One flexes in a more classic, relaxed way. I'm not talking about stiffness alone, more in how the frame feels as it flexes, where it flexes and the feel of where the racquet face has flexed to (how far it is still laid back) as the ball leaves the strings. We are getting pretty deep into racquet feel here, and I don't want to make this sound confusing.

However, if you really want to confuse the issue, hit the Slaz Pro Braided -- it's almost as if it combines both the classic and modern feel into one, and that's part of what makes it a great racquet IMO, but I digress . . .

The new Dunlops feel like they are snapping back faster and feel more responsive when I hit them compared to the older ones. I thought comfort was just fine from the new racquets and power improved. I did not find easy access to depth from the existing Bio 300. On the plus side, it was tough to miss with it as I could take a full swing on almost everything. With the M 3.0, I was getting some added zing.

Chris, TW