Originally Posted by travlerajm
I am one of the volunteer playtesters for this racquet. I haven't posted my review in the official playtest review thread yet. But I've hit with it a few times, so I'll chime in.
Brief Summary: It's a stiff tweener that's stable for it's weight, but can really use a bit of extra mass in the head. Seems stiffer than the older versions, and very similar to a PD (I was going to guess 69 RA, so I guessed right). So anyone who enjoys a stock PD will like it. I thought it really came alive and had a much more arm-friendly and solid feel and hit a heavier, more controlled ball when I leaded it up with about 12g in the upper hoop and a few grams in the butt (i.e., the Nadal configuration).
It's too light in stock form for me personally and was not balanced to my liking for my forehand, but it would be a solid choice as a customization platform.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with the frame but 88 overall score? Come on. I think it's time for a score recalibration. What will they do when a truly great perfectly balanced frame comes along?
On a side note, the frame I demo'd had a 325 SW, considerably higher than the 316 listed. I probably would have liked the stock balance better had mine had the same specs as the TW official specs. Also, my demo was 26.9" and not 27", but since I don't plan on restringing it, I can't tell if 26.9" is the relaxed length or if it's due to a squashing stringjob.
Wow, I'm not diligent enough to measure SW or discern that degree of difference in the length. I do agree w/ your assessment of the frame. I'm one of the testers as well; the email didn't prohibit adding lead to the frame... is TW okay w/ us doing so? I think I would like the frame more w/ a half ounce of lead added on.
That being said, I would plan to play it stock for another week at least so I can give a fair report to others... and there may be something to it being so light that it lets me take huge brushes on the swing and keep the ball in play.