Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Classic Racquet Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Head PT280 MP (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=447563)

BlueB 12-07-2012 10:37 AM

Head PT280 MP
 
This beauty has joined the herd! Price was ridiculous, couldn't pass it!



I had a hit and a set, with the good condition (bud old I guess) syn gut it came with. Wow, first impression was clubby, compared to what I play with, nowadays. However, very quickly I realised that my ground strokes are great and that I can place them with great precission (maybe the best I've ever experienced!). Serve was a b!tch... It took me a while to get used that racquet head just won't whip around like with my lighter SW sticks. Once I figured it out, it was ok.
Btw, no ways this is 97 sqin (630 sqcm) head. I placed it on top of POG (93 sqin) and it is bearly a bit longer, while few mm narrower. I'd say 95 sqin max...
It plays nice and soft, indespite the tight pattern and pretty tight string job. Dwell time is noticable too. It can hit decent spin and very good slice. Easy to volley, but didn't have any "reflex" ones to try.
Over all, very nice. It's a keeper!

Specs with owergrip and rubber band:
W = 342
SW = 333
B = 6 HL


Fearsome Forehand 12-07-2012 11:31 AM

Those look like the stock strings Head put in them at the end of production. Is it a Designed in Austria/chinese version?. If so, those string are probably from around 2001. They were selling them pre-strung with Head Syn Gut 16 for around $59.99. Not bad.

Great rackets, all the versions are great, Austrian, chinese, Czech. No bad PT 280's IMHO. I have them all and use them interchangeably. Really like them.

How much did you steal this one for? :)

Different companies measure racket heads differently. The PT is about 95-ish, 97-ish whatever. It is a mid plus. Beam width is 20 mm. Flex is around 58 give or take a couple of points. Flexy enough but not a wet noodle. Stock weight was right around 12 ounces, think the stock balance was 6 points.

DavaiMarat 12-07-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand (Post 7051743)
Those look like the stock strings Head put in them at the end of production. Is it a Designed in Austria/chinese version?. If so, those string are probably from around 2001. They were selling them pre-strung with Head Syn Gut 16 for around $59.99. Not bad.

Great rackets, all the versions are great, Austrian, chinese, Czech. No bad PT 280's IMHO. I have them all and use them interchangeably. Really like them.

How much did you steal this one for? :)

Different companies measure racket heads differently. The PT is about 95-ish, 97-ish whatever. It is a mid plus. Beam width is 20 mm. Flex is around 58 give or take a couple of points. Flexy enough but not a wet noodle. Stock weight was right around 12 ounces, think the stock balance was 6 points.

Head includes the frame. Wilson does not. That's usually the difference. So 98 is more like a 85 and a 93 is more like a 90.

LeeD 12-07-2012 12:28 PM

There IS discussion on here about Head frames being a wee bit small....
That was the biggest serving racket I ever used. I tried it once in the early '90's, couldn't hit groundies any better than PS-85, but it served BOMBS.
Maybe now I'll try my old Mfil and Aero200's again.

jxs653 12-07-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavaiMarat (Post 7051753)
Head includes the frame. Wilson does not. That's usually the difference. So 98 is more like a 85 and a 93 is more like a 90.

That doesn't seem to explain. Frame is far more than 3 square inch difference.

BlueB 12-07-2012 01:33 PM

I just measured/calcullated the frame area, it's about 14 sqin. So, that theory is pretty much out of the window...

coachrick 12-07-2012 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jxs653 (Post 7051836)
That doesn't seem to explain. Frame is far more than 3 square inch difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueB (Post 7051910)
I just measured/calcullated the frame area, it's about 14 sqin. So, that theory is pretty much out of the window...

Perhaps the measurement is the total area INSIDE the hoop contrasted with the area actually reached by the strings outside the hoop. The difference on my TXE is about 1/4" in radius from the inside edge of the hoop to the actual outer loop of string(that is, the greatest area covered by the strings).

In round numbers: pi x 1/2l x 1/2w so...
pi x 6 x 4.5(inches) is approx 85 sq in
pi x 6.125 x 4.625 is approx 89 sq in
I think it's plausible to believe one company 'measured' from the outside loop of the string where the other measured the actual available hitting area INSIDE the hoop.

It's a stretch to call it a 'string area' vs 'hitting area'; but I don't think the ITF, ATP, NRA, USTA, MLB or any of the other alphabet organizations were in the loop when companies started talking about 'square inches'. :)

coachrick 12-07-2012 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavaiMarat (Post 7051753)
Head includes the frame. Wilson does not. That's usually the difference. So 98 is more like a 85 and a 93 is more like a 90.

I'll take a guess this is a typo...so, "98 is more like a 95" rather than 85.

coachrick 12-07-2012 03:09 PM

AND...I'll throw in that the PT 280 m+ was my last HEAD racket before spending a decade or so with Volkl. The PT 280 was a darned fine racket!

BlueB 12-07-2012 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coachrick (Post 7052031)
Perhaps the measurement is the total area INSIDE the hoop contrasted with the area actually reached by the strings outside the hoop. The difference on my TXE is about 1/4" in radius from the inside edge of the hoop to the actual outer loop of string(that is, the greatest area covered by the strings).

In round numbers: pi x 1/2l x 1/2w so...
pi x 6 x 4.5(inches) is approx 85 sq in
pi x 6.125 x 4.625 is approx 89 sq in
I think it's plausible to believe one company 'measured' from the outside loop of the string where the other measured the actual available hitting area INSIDE the hoop.

There is a math error somewhere there... 1/4" = 0.25", that's on every side of the frame, no?
Inside the frame: 6 x 4.5 x 3.14 = 84.8 sqin
Outside string: 6.25 x 4.75 x 3.14 = 93.2 sqin

BlueB 12-07-2012 04:01 PM

On the side note, any good stringing ideas for the 280?

I'm thinking nat gut mains, at 55 or so, slippery poly crosses at 45-50...
Mind you, it plays very well with the existing ancient syn gut, that I estimate to be well over 55 tension. Strings do not move at all.

mad dog1 12-07-2012 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueB (Post 7052111)
On the side note, any good stringing ideas for the 280?

I'm thinking nat gut mains, at 55 or so, slippery poly crosses at 45-50...
Mind you, it plays very well with the existing ancient syn gut, that I estimate to be well over 55 tension. Strings do not move at all.

the strings are so old they're rusted or seized in place! ;) :lol:

i tried kirschbaum super smash orange 17 in mine and really enjoyed how it played.

coachrick 12-07-2012 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueB (Post 7052107)
There is a math error somewhere there... 1/4" = 0.25", that's on every side of the frame, no?
Inside the frame: 6 x 4.5 x 3.14 = 84.8 sqin
Outside string: 6.25 x 4.75 x 3.14 = 93.2 sqin

Well, heck...that's what I get for giving 'half' effort .
You are correct, of course. 1/4" per radius, not 1/2 of 1/4"
Where's that head-smack smiley when I need it?

On the topic of strings, the PT 280 was one of the frames that played wonderfully(IMO) with 18 or 19 ga Kevlar at a very low tension(45 or so) on the mains paired with a skinny playable multi at normal tension(58-ish) on the crosses. I could teach or play with that combo daily.

Don't Let It Bounce 12-08-2012 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueB (Post 7051910)
I just measured/calculated the frame area, it's about 14 sqin. So, that theory is pretty much out of the window...

You are right. It's surprising how persistent the "Head measures from the outside of the frame" myth is. I guess if you hear a thing often enough it starts to seem undeniably true.

Here is the only plausible explanation I have heard: At one point Head rounded off their frame head size designations to 600, 630, and 660 cm^2. It was for marketing purposes; 577, 613, and 660 aren't as easy to get customers to remember. Head maintains these designations to this day, presumably to keep some consistency from one line of rackets to the next.

This was not an uncommon practice. The Prince "Series 110" rackets, for example, ranged from ~102 sq" to ~108 sq", while the "Series 90" rackets (that I know of) had 93 sq" heads. It is only in the last decade or two that head size more precise than "oversize", "midplus", "mid", and "standard" even mattered to consumers.

BlueB 12-20-2012 05:58 PM

So, I strung the beast with nat gut at 55 and poly cross at 45... Just bouncing the ball around the house, it doesn't feel as nice as the original old syn gut!? I'm still to play with it - our bubble collapsed under heavy snow...

BlueB 12-21-2012 08:43 PM

Oh boy, was I wrong with the first impression of the new string setup!
I took it today to another club and played a set. I just couldn't miss. I rediscovered the mega spin on very short angled BH cross-court, which I somehow lost towards the end of summer. Serves were still slower then with my lighter racquets, but precise and I could put a lot of side spin to it. Love it.

cengland7211 11-09-2013 07:49 AM

i used to have 3 of these, only heas rackets i have ever had, loved em!


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse