TW Review: Babolat AeroPro Drive 2013 racquets

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

overgrip will lower the SW, not increase it. cause it will make the racket more head light.
Anyway, we were very surprised because the numbers were way way different. 316 from TW and 329 from other guys. That is 13 point difference. that is Unusual. 5 point difference is common.

No, it won't lower SW. The only way to lower SW is to remove mass from the frame, especially towards 12.

The most an OG will do is increase SW a fraction of a point or so if it's very heavy and the grip is long. Under no circumstance will it reduce SW.

It will change a frames balance making it more HL. That's not the same thing as lowering SW.

You can test this yourself: use the TW and add mass at 0" to 5". The SW value will barely budge and it only go up.

[Nostradamus]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

No, it won't lower SW. The only way to lower SW is to remove mass from the frame, especially towards 12.

The most an OG will do is increase SW a fraction of a point or so if it's very heavy and the grip is long. Under no circumstance will it reduce SW.

It will change a frames balance making it more HL. That's not the same thing as lowering SW.

You can test this yourself: use the TW and add mass at 0" to 5". The SW value will barely budge and it only go up.

I don't believe you. My physics calculations prove that by adding weight to the handle, you can loser SW.

[mad dog1]

Originally Posted by Roforot

That's a big difference in racquets. Are you enjoying the playtest so far?

the racquet was sent to JGads, not me, but i've had a chance to hit with it for an extended amount of time on 2 different days and the results from the 2nd day were even better than the 1st. i got the floating slice sorted out the 2nd time out. but yeah, i've really enjoyed hitting w/ the new APD so far. the ability to hit winners is addicting.

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

I don't believe you. My physics calculations prove that by adding weight to the handle, you can loser SW.

Care to post your proof?

Swingweight is the resistance to movement in a circle. Circular motion (as in most stages of a tennis swing) occurs around a center or rotation, let's say the butt end of the handle.

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/lear...r/wtbalswt.php

Swing weight is a measurement of mass in motion. The racquet handle is clamped to an RDC machine and the racuqet is swing back and forth; any mass out from the clamped rotation point is going to to be read by the RDC. How will mass on that point be read?

Originally Posted by mikeler

I never learned that one in physics.

Subconscious Freudian slip.

[mad dog1]

Originally Posted by crosscourt

If you look at the TW playtesters for the review they are all good or very good players. They have no problem generating power with different types of rackets. One of the things about the APD is that although a lot of club players like it because of the power it has, it is best in the hands of a very advanced player.

i find that every racquet is best in the hands of a very advanced player.

[TimothyO]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

I don't believe you. My physics calculations prove that by adding weight to the handle, you can loser SW.

The only way that would work is if the mass in the handle is great enough that its gravitational pull rips the mass in the head into the handle resulting in zero mass in the head.

Not even Babolat uses neutron stars or black holes to make overgrips.

Stop being silly.

[Nostradamus]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

Care to post your proof?



Swing weight is a measurement of mass in motion. The racquet handle is clamped to an RDC machine and the racuqet is swing back and forth; any mass out from the clamped rotation point is going to to be read by the RDC. How will mass on that point be read?



Subconscious Freudian slip.

Frazer, I care about you and lets be friends, please.


Formula 3
\mbox{Inertia force} = m \times {\bf\sf M_{a}}\qquad ({\bf\sf M_{a}} = \mbox{mass field})

The Ea field of an accelerated charge e depends on the magnetic vector potential A:
Formula 4
\mbox{Electric acceleration field} = {\bf\sf E_{a}} = \dfrac{\partial {\bf\sf A}}{\large \partial t} = \dfrac{(e)(\mbox{acceleration})}{4 \pi \varepsilon_{0} c^{2} r}

Where r is the average distance to the matter sources of the space field.

For the analogous particle m, assume an analogous mass acceleration field:
Formula 5
\mbox{Mass acceleration field} = {\bf\sf M_{a}} = \dfrac{m \: (\mbox{acceleration})\: G}{c^{2}\: r}

[sureshs]

There is a long history of discussion on this. Theoretically, MOI is the sum of (mass*distance^2) for all mass points at various distances from the axis of rotation, and since distance^2 is always positive, there is no way mass can be added anywhere to lower swingweight.

However, I have measured lower swingweight when weight is added to the handle (on a Prince machine).

I think it is due to how the instrument works.

From the player's point of view, the added mass in the handle makes the frame more head-light and can give the impression of swinging easier.

[MikeHitsHard93]

Originally Posted by Nostradamus

Frazer, I care about you and lets be friends, please.


Formula 3
\mbox{Inertia force} = m \times {\bf\sf M_{a}}\qquad ({\bf\sf M_{a}} = \mbox{mass field})

The Ea field of an accelerated charge e depends on the magnetic vector potential A:
Formula 4
\mbox{Electric acceleration field} = {\bf\sf E_{a}} = \dfrac{\partial {\bf\sf A}}{\large \partial t} = \dfrac{(e)(\mbox{acceleration})}{4 \pi \varepsilon_{0} c^{2} r}

Where r is the average distance to the matter sources of the space field.

For the analogous particle m, assume an analogous mass acceleration field:
Formula 5
\mbox{Mass acceleration field} = {\bf\sf M_{a}} = \dfrac{m \: (\mbox{acceleration})\: G}{c^{2}\: r}

Whatever......

[MikeHitsHard93]

Oh boy.....

[NetNinja68]

I almost did not want to look at the review scores, as I knew they would be totally inflated but had to see how inflated. As expected/as usual they were, but at least we're not in the 90's yet. Guess we will save that mark until the next version comes out.
I'll go out on a limb and award the next version a conservative 94 even though it will not even hit the design table for another year or so. Great strategy for selling crap loads of Babolats but not so good for the other manufactures also investing in innovations and selling products through this online marketplace...
Just saying, if I were Wilson, Head, Dunlop, Prince etc, I'd be pretty ticked off by now...

[Power Player]

Don't sweat it. I bet the Steam 99s will set the score record.

[djdannyj25]

Originally Posted by NetNinja68

I almost did not want to look at the review scores, as I knew they would be totally inflated but had to see how inflated. As expected/as usual they were, but at least we're not in the 90's yet. Guess we will save that mark until the next version comes out.
I'll go out on a limb and award the next version a conservative 94 even though it will not even hit the design table for another year or so. Great strategy for selling crap loads of Babolats but not so good for the other manufactures also investing in innovations and selling products through this online marketplace...
Just saying, if I were Wilson, Head, Dunlop, Prince etc, I'd be pretty ticked off by now...

Didn't the Head IG Extreme Pro 2.0 also receive a score of 88?
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/revi...IGXreview.html

The new Blade 93 received a score of 87.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Revi...D93Review.html

The Yonex VCORE Tour 89 got a score of 86.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Revi...T89Review.html

My point is, ALL OF THE SCORES ARE BEING INFLATED, not just Babolats'. Instead of consistently complaining about reviews, just be thankful that TW makes good reviews in the first place.

[TennisJC]

Originally Posted by Power Player

Don't sweat it. I bet the Steam 99s will set the score record.

And what is Steel? Compared to the hand that wields it?
- Conan the Barbarian

[crosscourt]

Originally Posted by mad dog1

i find that every racquet is best in the hands of a very advanced player.

Good point. But for advanced players the difficulties of some rackets disappear by comparison with less good players. So you may find an APD much easier than a Tour 90 but for them the differences are less significant. Their comparison is based on different criteria to yours. But the real point here is that while lots of people think that the APD is a tweener, the sheer number of average to good players on these boards who say that it is simply "too powerful" and that they hit the ball out too much tells the story. That is not a problem for Nadal. The APD is a racket that works better for very good players than for average or good players.

[Candide]

Originally Posted by crosscourt

Good point. But for advanced players the difficulties of some rackets disappear by comparison with less good players. So you may find an APD much easier than a Tour 90 but for them the differences are less significant. Their comparison is based on different criteria to yours. But the real point here is that while lots of people think that the APD is a tweener, the sheer number of average to good players on these boards who say that it is simply "too powerful" and that they hit the ball out too much tells the story. That is not a problem for Nadal. The APD is a racket that works better for very good players than for average or good players.

Couldn't agree more. I had one of these for a month or two and could never really warm to it but more importanty it killed my arm. Went to a Volkl Organix 10 which was better for me but settled on a BLX Six One 16X18. It's a hundred times more forgiving and easier to use for a club hacker like me. People get freaked by the weight but that's red herring. Half the people I see around still have the yellow and black monster though - and plenty of them are even worse than me.

[mad dog1]

Originally Posted by crosscourt

Good point. But for advanced players the difficulties of some rackets disappear by comparison with less good players. So you may find an APD much easier than a Tour 90 but for them the differences are less significant. Their comparison is based on different criteria to yours. But the real point here is that while lots of people think that the APD is a tweener, the sheer number of average to good players on these boards who say that it is simply "too powerful" and that they hit the ball out too much tells the story. That is not a problem for Nadal. The APD is a racket that works better for very good players than for average or good players.

i am aware of it and i'm in agreement with you.

[Broly4]

Originally Posted by crosscourt

Good point. But for advanced players the difficulties of some rackets disappear by comparison with less good players. So you may find an APD much easier than a Tour 90 but for them the differences are less significant. Their comparison is based on different criteria to yours. But the real point here is that while lots of people think that the APD is a tweener, the sheer number of average to good players on these boards who say that it is simply "too powerful" and that they hit the ball out too much tells the story. That is not a problem for Nadal. The APD is a racket that works better for very good players than for average or good players.

Not just the the level but the style, and especially the grip, only reaches its potential with a full western forehand grip.

[Nostradamus]

Originally Posted by grimmbomb21

Just ordered mine.

Thanks

YOu would order a racket without even trying it out or demoeing it first ?

[Power Player]

Originally Posted by crosscourt

Good point. But for advanced players the difficulties of some rackets disappear by comparison with less good players. So you may find an APD much easier than a Tour 90 but for them the differences are less significant. Their comparison is based on different criteria to yours. But the real point here is that while lots of people think that the APD is a tweener, the sheer number of average to good players on these boards who say that it is simply "too powerful" and that they hit the ball out too much tells the story. That is not a problem for Nadal. The APD is a racket that works better for very good players than for average or good players.

I would agree with this, but plenty of higher level players may still tell you the frame is too powerful because it doesn't suit their game. I know a few teaching pros currently entering and winning some fairly big open tournies who asked me why I was demoing the new one, and they said it was too powerful for how they liked to hit.

Guess the point is that there are grey areas. If you hit with a lot of spin and a western grip, the APD is a great option. If you want to go more SW and also drive through the ball a little more, you may find the stick to have too much power for how you like to hit. I could definitely adjust and play with an APD if it was not so stiff on my arm, but the way I like to hit the ball is better suited for more of a control frame.

I bolded the last statement because that applies to a ton of racquets in the player and tweener category.

In my review I said I think this stick is best for a junior who hits with a ton spin and prefers a defensive style of play. Still feel like that is accurate. What makes the racquet so cool is that anyone can use it, but definitely it takes someone with a lot of energy, endurance and developed footwork to really tap into the frame.