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

[corners]

Originally Posted by murky69nz

Funny, that's exactly what I'm in the process of doing.....

I've got a PS95 and PS100 that I'm finding a little light (previously used a K90).

Never bothered modding frames previously, and think the idea of digging out the foam/silicon/wrapped lead tape etc was all a bit messy. I've purchased a range of stainless bolts (M8 and M6 guage, from 40mm to 100mm in 10mm increments), will drill out an equivalent hole through the foam, and slot them in there. The best part is I can just swap the bolt out for a shorter or longer one to vary the weight (there's only 3-4 gm between each size).

On the 95/100 - seems to me they're both ideally spec'd to beef us - majority of weight in the handle (one larger stainless bolt, or two smaller/narrower ones), and a little at 12 (or little more at 3&9) to up the swing weight......

Easy as pie....

Just be careful your bolts don't touch the inside walls of the handle or the metal bars Wilson puts inside their handles, otherwise you'll get a rattle or funky vibration. The metal bars span the gap of the cavity, usually about 1/2" from the butt end. But maybe they didn't need to put them into the lighter Pro Staff models.

[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!

[corners]

Originally Posted by 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...

The sweetzones are primarily a function of swingweight, with twistweight and stiffness coming in a distant second and third. The TWU Power Potential data shows that there is a nice, tidy relationship between swingweight and Power Potential of 10 swingweight units = 1.0 Power Potential units. Looking only at the sweetzones (20%, 30%, 40%) makes it hard to compare sticks with very different swingweights. If you switch to the location view, you see that the 90 has Power Potential of 41.2% in the center of the stringbed and the 95, 38.8%. The swingweights of the specimens tested were 324 and 303, respectively. So we can add 2.1% to the 95's number to get 40.9%. In other words, this is what it would be if we added lead tape to bump the swingweight to 324. So matched, the 95's PP is slightly less than the 90, which is probably down to the slightly lower stiffness of the 95.

So the numbers are actually about what you'd expect. You can do the same addition at other impact zones above, below and to the sides of the stringbed center to project what the Power Potential would be with lead tape added, but it because a less precise approximation outside the center due to how twistweight and local stiffness change depending on lead tape location.

Anyway, Fed K's perceptions seem to belie all this, but then again he may be experiencing and reporting something quite different from the objective quality of Power Potential (Apparent Coefficient of Restitution).

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!

Yeah, I would like that too. I don't think the measurements for the 90 are correct. I know the K90 measurements are correct, and TWU has that .25 inches narrower 21 inches from the buttcap than the PS90. I haven't measure the PS90, but I've seen them and didn't notice any difference in headshape.

[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...

[kaiser]

Originally Posted by corners

The sweetzones are primarily a function of swingweight, with twistweight and stiffness coming in a distant second and third. The TWU Power Potential data shows that there is a nice, tidy relationship between swingweight and Power Potential of 10 swingweight units = 1.0 Power Potential units. Looking only at the sweetzones (20%, 30%, 40%) makes it hard to compare sticks with very different swingweights. If you switch to the location view, you see that the 90 has Power Potential of 41.2% in the center of the stringbed and the 95, 38.8%. The swingweights of the specimens tested were 324 and 303, respectively. So we can add 2.1% to the 95's number to get 40.9%. In other words, this is what it would be if we added lead tape to bump the swingweight to 324. So matched, the 95's PP is slightly less than the 90, which is probably down to the slightly lower stiffness of the 95.

So the numbers are actually about what you'd expect. You can do the same addition at other impact zones above, below and to the sides of the stringbed center to project what the Power Potential would be with lead tape added, but it because a less precise approximation outside the center due to how twistweight and local stiffness change depending on lead tape location.

Anyway, Fed K's perceptions seem to belie all this, but then again he may be experiencing and reporting something quite different from the objective quality of Power Potential (Apparent Coefficient of Restitution).


Yeah, I would like that too. I don't think the measurements for the 90 are correct. I know the K90 measurements are correct, and TWU has that .25 inches narrower 21 inches from the buttcap than the PS90. I haven't measure the PS90, but I've seen them and didn't notice any difference in headshape.

Thanks for your detailed reconstruction, corners. I was aware that the sweetzones of a racket are related to swingweight, but it is very instructive to see that you can explain the differences in the sweetzones between both rackets down to a T from their differences in swingweight. In other words, headsize indeed plays a negligible role in the size of the sweetzones.

The big question for me, then, is: where does the proverbial difference in 'forgiveness' between 90 and 95 sq in rackets come from??

If a 90 will have the same sized sweetzones as a 95 of the same swingweight, the only remaining factors I can think of
that could contribute to this difference in forgiveness are:

• Effective width of the stringbed (TWUs 'spinwindow'), which is a function of the actual width of the stringbed, frame thickness and impact angle. This would determine the risk of 'framing' or 'shanking' the ball, especially in a topspin shot

• Length of the main strings, this would affect the amount of 'resilience' of the stringbed as in how much it contributes to shotspeed. But it seems to me that this factor could easily be compensated for by lowering the stringbed tension in a 90 frame

I think the general consesus among playtesters, not just on this board, is that a 90 is less forgiving than a 95 (hence the desire for a PS95 that plays like a PS90...). Is this difference, then, attributable to only a difference in effective width of the stringbed? Even when you compare the PS95 with the K90, TWU lists spinwindows of 5.50 in for the PS95 and 5.45 in for the K90 (location withs of 9.13 in and 8.98 in, respectively). That's a difference of less than 1%! So you'd have a 1% higher risk of shanking with the K90 as compared to the PS95...

So what's going on here? Is the perceived difference in forgiveness between a 90 and a 95 mostly subjective? Is it because we know that the 90 has a smaller stringbed that we convince ourselves that it must be less forgiving? Is it because 90s tend to be more hefty than 95s (certainly not always true, I play with the 4D200T myself!)? What am I missing in my list above? Can you enlighten me on this one as well, corners?

[ramos77]

you can barely tell the difference when you compare a 90 to a 95 frame, there are only millimeters in it...

[kaiser]

Thanks, that confirms the TWU numbers. Do you feel a 90 as more unforgiving than a 95 yourself?

[ramos77]

Probably not, the PS90 blx is a much better racquet than the 95 though

[Fed Kennedy]

Originally Posted by ramos77

Probably not, the PS90 blx is a much better racquet than the 95 though

I like to look at the numbers too, but the above ^ is exactly how I feel. I couldnt seem to milk any advantage from a modded 95 over the 90...it wasnt even close really...the only sticks Ive used that kind of transcend the old rules of mass and play better than the specs are the 100 si yonex vcore and xi.

[Kyrock]

I have the BLX PS 90, and the PS 95. i put on a leather grip,and i wrapped a .5 oz ontop of the leather, and then an wilson perforated grip over it. my hand gets pretty damp when playing. will my sweat make the lead leech out?

[JGads]

I undertook the 95 experiment a few weeks ago before going out of town and didn't have bad results, actually. Stock frame weighed 11.7. Initially went with lead beneath grip and at 12 and frame felt a bit slugglish/off. Then went with six grams at the 7-inch mark beneath grip, about 2.5 grams total at 2 and 10, along with an overgrip on top of the Wilson Pro Hybrid. Frame weighs in at 12.4 total (strung with Silverstring) but swings lighter than that, as 12.4 is usually too much meat for me. ...

Pluses: I can hit cannon serves with this frame and it volleys sensationally.
Minuses: Pretty nice and controlled groundstrokes, but not walloping groundstrokes. Sometimes I'd go for the kill shot and the other guy got a stick on it. Also, some slices floated a bit more than I'm used to. But all in all, it still hit pretty consistently and like I said, serves, volleys and touch shots were outstanding

At one point I even brought out the experimental stick after losing a first set 6-3 and won the next two sets 0 and 2. Then went out of town for a couple weeks so haven't been playing a ton of tennis lately, but the frame is still in the bag for some further dabbling going forward.

[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?

[Johnny-Cage]

Hey there. I have arm problems and am currently thinking of shifting to the pro staff 100. Is it advisable? Is the pro staff 100 an arm friendly racket? Thanks.

[Johnny-Cage]

Since the pro staff 100 has a stiffness of 65, I am having doubts of buying this racket because of my elbow problems. What are better alternatives for people with arm issues?

[Cheapskate227]

I bought a PS100 this summer, which I weighted to around 11.25 oz. After a month of using it, my arm and shoulder were getting very stiff. I traded a guy for a PS95, and the stiffness went away. So, I would personally not recommend the PS100 as an arm-friendly racquet.

[kaiser]

Originally Posted by Kyrock

I have the BLX PS 90, and the PS 95. i put on a leather grip,and i wrapped a .5 oz ontop of the leather, and then an wilson perforated grip over it. my hand gets pretty damp when playing. will my sweat make the lead leech out?

If ever you have some spare time to waste and a ruler at hand, I'd be very interested to know the exact widths of the stringbeds of your PS90 and PS95 at 21 inch from the butt to allow comparison with the TWU measurements I posted above. Thanks in advance!

[Johnny-Cage]

Originally Posted by Cheapskate227

I bought a PS100 this summer, which I weighted to around 11.25 oz. After a month of using it, my arm and shoulder were getting very stiff. I traded a guy for a PS95, and the stiffness went away. So, I would personally not recommend the PS100 as an arm-friendly racquet.

Thanks! Deeply appreciated. I guess I'll go for the BLX Blade team instead. I'll just have to adjust to a bigger head.