Matched Pro Staff 6.1s: 90, 95, 100?

[corners]

Has anyone matched both the Pro Staff 6.1 95 and 100 versions with the signature 90?

Seems like a very good project for TW's Chris

[ART ART]

Could you be more precise?

Match specs?
the new PS95 16x19, to reach the specs of the new PS90 ?

Right now I am playing with the new PS95 16x19, with this specs:
350gr
BP: 33,2cm
SW: 362
It's a dream to play with...

[corners]

Originally Posted by ART ART

Could you be more precise?

Match specs?
the new PS95 16x19, to reach the specs of the new PS90 ?

Right now I am playing with the new PS95 16x19, with this specs:
350gr
BP: 33,2cm
SW: 362
It's a dream to play with...

Yeah, I meant match the 95 and 100 to the 90 specs. Lots of people seem to think the new 90 is a really good frame with specs very similar to the PS85. Lots of people also think the feel of the 95 and 100 is very good but complain about the low weight. I'm just wondering if anyone has matched all three and made an apples to apples comparison.

[Mig1NC]

Originally Posted by corners

Yeah, I meant match the 95 and 100 to the 90 specs. Lots of people seem to think the new 90 is a really good frame with specs very similar to the PS85. Lots of people also think the feel of the 95 and 100 is very good but complain about the low weight. I'm just wondering if anyone has matched all three and made an apples to apples comparison.

Good question...

[ART ART]

The mold/constrution/stiffness of these 3 rackets is different, so the fell will allways be different.

Even with 2 rackets from the same mold, they could feel different, just because they can differ in stiffness.

Another important thing is the pattern, in a 90" the spaces will be allways different in some parts, from the others.

Swinging a 90" will allways be different than swinging a 95" or a 100" racket, even if they all share the same specs.

... so, they will never be same

[corners]

Originally Posted by ART ART

The mold/constrution/stiffness of these 3 rackets is different, so the fell will allways be different.

Even with 2 rackets from the same mold, they could feel different, just because they can differ in stiffness.

Another important thing is the pattern, in a 90" the spaces will be allways different in some parts, from the others.

Swinging a 90" will allways be different than swinging a 95" or a 100" racket, even if they all share the same specs.

... so, they will never be same

Of course they will still be different racquets even if the specs are made to match. But how good could they be if made to match a true Pro Staff spec?

Anyway, it's something I'd like to try but don't have the time. I was thinking some other aging Pro Staff afficianado might have tried it. The lighter 95 and 100 Pro Staffs have been largely written off because they are so light. But that's an easy thing to fix. I'm really curious how the 100 would play if brought up to player's spec.

[Fed Kennedy]

Corners, Im on it, I have a 95, taking suggestions on how to build it.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Fed Kennedy

Corners, Im on it, I have a 95, taking suggestions on how to build it.

Good man

I reckon you've got two nice smooth avenues:

1) Match it to its little big brother, the Pro Staff 6.1 90. People really seem to enjoy the lower swingweight of this version compared to the K and BLX90s. The specs (354 grams / 31.5 cm balance (9HL) / 324 swingweight are very similar to the Pro Staff 6.0 85 after all.

Add 7 grams at 12 o'clock. Two layers of 3.5" strips starting either side of the two center mains. (If you're not worried about restringing then go 2 layers of 7" strips centered.

The 95 has a higher twistweight stock (lots of mass at 3&9 to try and compensate for the low swingweight, I guess) than the 90. So adding lead at 3&9 would make it pretty sluggish, especially for someone grooving on the VCore 95.

To counterbalance: 21 grams 4 inches from the butt. This is the hard part. The stock grip is already as heavy as leather, so that easy route is closed. Best way would be to inject silicone in the handle, but that's quite a production. Another option would be to wrap 11 grams at the top of the handle and cram 10 grams of tape (or some fishing weights!) inside the buttcap trapdoor. Kind of a pain, and that's why Wilson uses metal rods inside the handle and metal plates under the handle foam to do their counterbalancing. You could always tape on a padlock

Edit: No, no. No padlocks required. Just take off the stock grip and wrap 84 inches of 1/4" leadtape (or 42 inches of 1/2" tape) from just above the buttcap to the top of the handle. If you're careful you'll get a nice smooth wrap because the tape is maleable enough to spiral without overlap. Then put the grip back on. The handle will be a little bigger.

2) Match it to your 95d. This is much easier because we don't need so much handleweight:

5 grams at 12 o'clock
+
6 grams inside the trap door. 6 grams of folded lead tape fits nicely inside the trap door. Just fold it so that it fits into the little "box" shape of the inside trap door cover. The thick Babolat 1/2" tape is really nice for this, but you could do it with regular tape too - just takes a bit more time. It there is any space left over between the lead inside the trap door cover and the black plastic end of the hairpin just cut a little piece of overgrip so it spaces the gap and prevents any vibration.

Gee, the second mod sure does look easier. Wilson should have put a lighter stock grip on the 95, which would have made it much simpler to bring it up to 90 spec by slapping leather on.

[kaiser]

Originally Posted by Fed Kennedy

Corners, Im on it, I have a 95, taking suggestions on how to build it.

Hi Fed, have you ever gone ahead with this? I would be very interested to hear your verdict!

[Fed Kennedy]

Originally Posted by kaiser

Hi Fed, have you ever gone ahead with this? I would be very interested to hear your verdict!

I tried it, man. So disappointing. The racquet is just weak. Inferior to the 90, inferior to the vcore95, inferior to the pure storm tour. If you want a fedesque stick in 95 you are better of hitting the bay for old 95 or ultra fpks.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Fed Kennedy

I tried it, man. So disappointing. The racquet is just weak. Inferior to the 90, inferior to the vcore95, inferior to the pure storm tour. If you want a fedesque stick in 95 you are better of hitting the bay for old 95 or ultra fpks.

Epic bummer

[kaiser]

I compared the stringbed and sweetzones of the BLX Pro Staff 6.1 95 to the PS90 in TWU (posted before in another thread):

Measurement .......... BLX PS90 ... BLX PS95 ... Difference
Spin Window (in) .......... 5.71 ........ 5.5 ......... 0.21
Location width (in) ........ 9.29 ........ 9.13 ...... -0.16
Power > 20% (in^2) ..... 26.5 ........ 24.0 ........ 2.5
Power > 30% (in^2) ..... 16.0 ........ 13.7 ........ 2.3
Power > 40% (in^2) ....... 4.7 ......... 2.7 ........ 2.0

This suggests that in terms of EFFECTIVE headsize, the PS95 would actually be LESS forgiving than the PS90! Does that tally with your experience, Fed? Of course, if you lead up the PS95, its sweetzones will increase, but stock we're talking differences of 10-75% in favor of the PS90 here...

I was surprised to find that at the middle of the stringbed (21 inchfrom buttcap) TWU lists the PS95 as only 0.16 of an inch wider (4 mm) than the PS90! Could anyone who has access to both rackets check this? Much appreciated!

[T.P3D0R]

Originally Posted by Fed Kennedy

I tried it, man. So disappointing. The racquet is just weak. Inferior to the 90, inferior to the vcore95, inferior to the pure storm tour. If you want a fedesque stick in 95 you are better of hitting the bay for old 95 or ultra fpks.

I tried the BLXPS95 first when it first came out -didn't like it one bit.

Tried it again a few days ago - found it to be a very solid frame, one that I will continue to demo. I am, however, weary in doing this since I'm aware of Wilsons QC issues. This is indicative between the two different demos that I've tried - one liked, one didnt. The fear is that I'll like the recent demo, buy a pair, then get very different frames and not like them at all.

Of course, when I say that I enjoyed hitting with the BLXPS95, it should be known that I've never hit with the old "fedesque" 95 frames...

[FlyingAce]

I have PS95. Tried to match to PS90.

Added 15 grams overall:
5grams at 12, 3 at 6 & 9 and 7grams at the handle.

I have tried to make it depolorized.

Now :
Weight 360 gram, 7 HL.

Yet to try it.

[Anton]

Originally Posted by FlyingAce

I have PS95. Tried to match to PS90.

Added 15 grams overall:
5grams at 12, 3 at 6 & 9 and 7grams at the handle.

I have tried to make it depolorized.

Now :
Weight 360 gram, 7 HL.

Yet to try it.

How did it go?

[FlyingAce]

I mean polorized. any edit function available?

[mykoh]

awesome post corners. i'd feel like a mad scientist sticking all that weight on.

[Mig1NC]

Well, why don't you just go here: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/lear...tomization.php

plug the 100 specs into the left, and plug the 90 specs into the right, and click "Customize my racquet".

[Mig1NC]

Ok, so I went ahead and did it anyway. These are the results:

Two Location Solution
Weight / Location
10.0 gms / 22.8 in
43.0 gms / 4.3 in


Three Location Solution
Weight / Location
4.5 gms / 22.8 in
5.9 gms / 22.0 in
42.6 gms / 4.7 in

[corners]

Originally Posted by Mig1NC

Ok, so I went ahead and did it anyway. These are the results:

Two Location Solution
Weight / Location
10.0 gms / 22.8 in
43.0 gms / 4.3 in


Three Location Solution
Weight / Location
4.5 gms / 22.8 in
5.9 gms / 22.0 in
42.6 gms / 4.7 in

Why add 50+ grams to a 326 gram racquet if you're trying to match it to a 355 gram racquet?

Anyway, the calculators are awesome, but with matching problems like this the challenge is getting all that mass onto or in the handle. Actually, laying lead strips, or spiralling lead tape under the stock grip is probably the way to go. I've edited my first post above.