Tecnifibre Official - Racquets

D

DrWang

Rookie
Here are the specs I got for the CES 270 and the powerstab 300. Very good on the tolerances. The specs for the 270 are shown as strung and unstrung for the PS 300. I did get the 255 matched because there was only one left in stock. Being that Technifibre tolerances have looked pretty good for me in the past, I figured the last 255 in stock shouldn't be a problem.

*Note. The columns in the second picture for the PS didn't line up when I took the screenshot so the heading wrapped over. The static weight numbers are the ones showing in the 300ish range and swingweight numbers in the 290's.



 
A

Ashtonbrewer94

Rookie
Notorious_Junkballer said:
I'm right on the brink of joining the hype and making the switch from Dunlop CX 200 Tour to Technifibre TF40 305 (or perhaps 315) but I can't decide what string setup I'd try first. In my Dunlops I've mostly used hybrids (poly+multi, both ways, now playing with Wilson NXT + Yonex Poly Pro in the crosses) but if the TF has more intrinsic power in stock form, I might consider a full bed of poly or poly+poly hybrid. But I want the poly to be somewhat softer with some power as well. Any suggestions? Volkl Cyclone 18 in the mains and Wilson Revolve in the crosses, perhaps?
Click to expand...
I have 2 TF40 305s on the way and will be giving them a go up against my CX 200 Tour 18x20s. But I am in the exact same boat; just would like a tad more pop, so if the TF40 provides, it will be my new gamer. Going with the same string setup as my Dunlops; 4G Soft & Gosen OGSM @ 52/56. If needed, might go with a full bed of Black Widow.
 
Notorious_Junkballer

Notorious_Junkballer

Hall of Fame
Ashtonbrewer94 said:
I have 2 TF40 305s on the way and will be giving them a go up against my CX 200 Tour 18x20s. But I am in the exact same boat; just would like a tad more pop, so if the TF40 provides, it will be my new gamer. Going with the same string setup as my Dunlops; 4G Soft & Gosen OGSM @ 52/56. If needed, might go with a full bed of Black Widow.
Click to expand...
You haven't considered Ice Code? You gotta let me know how it plays compared to CX! I haven't ordered mine yet.
 
Last edited:
tribesmen

tribesmen

Professional
I am looking forward to read your opinion. Maybe it wont be your cup of tea, but it is a great racket. Arm friendly, better feel than Blade, slightly less power than Blade, the control and stability are very close.

Test it with strings of your choice, but also try Icecode (I am using 17, 23kg) because it looks like Tecnifibre has found in development a magical synergy between TF40 and Icecode.
 
A

AA7

Hall of Fame
dgoran said:
Dammit I’ll demo it I am not expecting it to beat blade and strike but let’s see
Click to expand...
hahah... it seems to me this is an easier to use version of blade as in easier power, little bit more maneuverable due to SW but it is also thicker beam so maybe some give and take there. I am sure it's a sweet frame. my slightly under spec v7 18x20 (330 sw) is good for me. Little above my skill level in the sense that when i play higher level players it does not do me any favors.. when i play my level very comfortable b/c i am not as pressed for time. can prep easier and plow. this stick looks awesome but i'm done trying racquets. blade all the way for me.
 
DJ-

DJ-

Hall of Fame
Addxyz said:
If a TF40 305 and a TF40 315 were weighted up to the same spec, would they be the same racquet? For example, add 15-20g in butt cap of TF40 305 and maybe 5g at tip of TF40 315?
Click to expand...

Balance might be close but swingweight would take it to 340-ish. Same mold so they should feel close when weighted
 
dgoran

dgoran

Hall of Fame
Notorious_Junkballer said:
Those of you who have played with both Blade (18x20) and TF40 305, what would you say are the main differences/similarities between the two?
Click to expand...
I will know in about a week and let you know but I asked similar questions under TW comments section where Julie commented on both blade and strike
 
Classic-TXP-IG MID

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Addxyz said:
If a TF40 305 and a TF40 315 were weighted up to the same spec, would they be the same racquet? For example, add 15-20g in butt cap of TF40 305 and maybe 5g at tip of TF40 315?
Click to expand...

That's the question... I am also wondering which would be better, a TF40 305 with mostly weight in the handle, or a TF40 315 with a bit of weight added to 3,9, and 12, and then at 7" above handle to keep the balance as is (if they ended up at a similar static weight)?

I know what my friend @DJ- is going to say... depending on what I'm trying to achieve... I like a more HL balance than what the TF40 305 has, but it has a higher SW, so I was wondering whether a modified TF40 315 would end up being a better racquet since a small amount of weight in the head may result in a higher SW, larger sweet spot, higher TW and a similar balance to a modified TF40 305 with tail-weighting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DJ-
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
The 305 and 315 have almost identical sweet zones, vibration frequencies, and twist weights. I'd be willing to bet the 305 with 10 grams at the bottom of the handle will play almost identically to the 315. Any difference in SW on TWU's listed spec is probably due to manufacturing variance.
 
Last edited:
dgoran

dgoran

Hall of Fame
gutfeeling said:
The 305 and 315 have almost identical sweet zones, vibration frequencies, and twist weights. I'd be willing to bet the 305 with 10 grams at the bottom of the handle will play almost identically to the 315. Any variance in SW on TWU's listed spec is probably due to manufacturing variance.
Click to expand...
Yeh you are right... I just did twu comparison and it does seem like that otherwise twistweight and or sw would be different
 
L

Longleaf

New User
Classic-TXP-IG MID said:
That's the question... I am also wondering which would be better, a TF40 305 with mostly weight in the handle, or a TF40 315 with a bit of weight added to 3,9, and 12, and then at 7" above handle to keep the balance as is (if they ended up at a similar static weight)?

I know what my friend @DJ- is going to say... depending on what I'm trying to achieve... I like a more HL balance than what the TF40 305 has, but it has a higher SW, so I was wondering whether a modified TF40 315 would end up being a better racquet since a small amount of weight in the head may result in a higher SW, larger sweet spot, higher TW and a similar balance to a modified TF40 305 with tail-weighting.
Click to expand...


I've been pondering a similar thing. Can someone who's better than me at calculating racquet customizations confirm what my calcs have concluded? Say we wanted to make a TF40 5pts HL (seems like the ideal blend between both racquets) with the lowest possible static weight and SW increase. Roughly 5.5 grams of lead at 12 o'clock on the 315 should accomplish this, as would 5.5 grams in the buttcap on the 305, correct? This would make the SW on the 315 jump to 340+, but keep the 305's SW in the high 320s. And, the static weight of the 305 would still be significantly lower than the 315. If true, and if the stability of the racquet is as good at the playtesters said and doesn't require a high static weight to achieve, the 305 seems like the better option (for me and my smallness, at least).

A few of the playtesters mentioned in the review that they tried to tail weight the 305, but none of them expounded upon their success (or lack thereof). I'd like to know how that worked out for them, and also how they liked the 315 with a little weight in the head.
 
Addxyz

Addxyz

Hall of Fame
Longleaf said:
A few of the playtesters mentioned in the review that they tried to tail weight the 305, but none of them expounded upon their success (or lack thereof). I'd like to know how that worked out for them, and also how they liked the 315 with a little weight in the head.
Click to expand...

The problem with tail weighting is since there is no trap door, you'll have to take off the grip and put on another butt cap. With the 305, if you're just adding weight to the 7" part of handle, you'd increase overall weight and SW much faster before you get enough HL balance to match the 315.
 
DJ-

DJ-

Hall of Fame
Classic-TXP-IG MID said:
That's the question... I am also wondering which would be better, a TF40 305 with mostly weight in the handle, or a TF40 315 with a bit of weight added to 3,9, and 12, and then at 7" above handle to keep the balance as is (if they ended up at a similar static weight)?

I know what my friend @DJ- is going to say... depending on what I'm trying to achieve... I like a more HL balance than what the TF40 305 has, but it has a higher SW, so I was wondering whether a modified TF40 315 would end up being a better racquet since a small amount of weight in the head may result in a higher SW, larger sweet spot, higher TW and a similar balance to a modified TF40 305 with tail-weighting.
Click to expand...

Sw as you know is going to be huge. That will make a difference. I think I read on another forum the weight distribution was different in the two models. Let's see what tec official says. Sometimes weighing up lighter frames is a hit n miss. Other times can turn out great
 
dgoran

dgoran

Hall of Fame
If you add 15gr to the handle centering weight distribution 3in from the end of the Buttcap you have 315 version.

I have done similar before where I would simply cover bare handle with lead tape and rewrap it and difference in grip size is negligible and especially with synth grip it will compress a little with time anyway and no one would notice...
 
Classic-TXP-IG MID

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Longleaf said:
I've been pondering a similar thing. Can someone who's better than me at calculating racquet customizations confirm what my calcs have concluded? Say we wanted to make a TF40 5pts HL (seems like the ideal blend between both racquets) with the lowest possible static weight and SW increase. Roughly 5.5 grams of lead at 12 o'clock on the 315 should accomplish this, as would 5.5 grams in the buttcap on the 305, correct? This would make the SW on the 315 jump to 340+, but keep the 305's SW in the high 320s. And, the static weight of the 305 would still be significantly lower than the 315. If true, and if the stability of the racquet is as good at the playtesters said and doesn't require a high static weight to achieve, the 305 seems like the better option (for me and my smallness, at least).

A few of the playtesters mentioned in the review that they tried to tail weight the 305, but none of them expounded upon their success (or lack thereof). I'd like to know how that worked out for them, and also how they liked the 315 with a little weight in the head.
Click to expand...

Everything comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If you're increasing the SW for the sake of having a higher SW but not trying to increase the stability, then 12 o'clock will be the best spot.

I'll have to read the written reviews to see what they said when it comes to stability, and sweet spot size, and differences in SW. If, as @gutfeeling has said, the difference in SW is just manufacturing variance, and both options are stable enough as standard, then the TF40 315 might be a better option for me as it's already more HL. If, however, the TF40 305 is more stable I would then feel like I need to add weight at 3 & 9 o'clock for the TF40 315 in order to increase stability (I automatically add a smidge at 12 o'clock as well) and match the TF40 305. This would increase the SW, TW and size of the sweet spot. I would then need to add a bit at 7" above butt cap to keep the 7 pts HL balance.

I'm not overly concerned with particular SW numbers per se, I'm much more concerned with the feel when hitting the ball, comfort, size of the sweet spot, feel when hitting off-centre, and manoeuvrability (balance of racquet). I have no issue swinging racquets that are 340-360g static weight. Of course, if I can achieve all that I have mentioned and have a static weight between 330-340g, I will do that. If the racquet is stable against hard hitters at this weight, then great.
 
shaneno

shaneno

Professional
Tecnifibre Official said:
Hello everyone!

This is Eric/Nick here with Tecnifibre and we’re here to create a new thread to better engage with the community and answer all of your questions. Below is a brief introduction on the two of us, how we got into tennis, and what we do for Tecnifibre. We look forward to meeting you and helping in any way we can!



Eric:

I am originally from upstate N.Y. and I found my passion for tennis in my freshman year of college. This was the first time I had ever picked up a racquet but I instantly fell in love with the sport and knew I wanted to work within the industry. Throughout school, I had completed two internships at tournaments hosted here in the U.S. The first was at The Western and Southern Open in Cincinnati where I did a mix of preparing the grounds and player security. The other as at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, R.I. which focused more on the management side of things. Both tournaments were wonderful experiences and only further fueled my interest in the sport.

Upon graduating, I reached out to Tecnifibre and was hired in 2014 to spearhead their college sales and customer service efforts. Two years later, I was offered and accepted the position to manage the Western territory which includes AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, and WY. So far, it has been a great opportunity to grow within the Tecnifibre family and to see the other half of country.

I look forward to hearing about your experiences in the sport as well and hope to provide some further insight on our products!

Equipment: T-Fight 305 DC strung with 17g HDX Tour @ 56lbs.



Nick:

I was born and raised in Atlanta and love getting to call it home! I am a huge fan of all Atlanta sports teams, which pretty much always leads to disappointment (just don’t mention the Super Bowl and we’ll be good). I had never picked up a tennis racquet until my junior year of college when I started working for Tecnifibre. I was offered an internship with our National Sales Manager, who I have known since my elementary school days, and I haven’t looked back since! I was brought on full time after graduating college as our Communication Manager and College Sales Manager and have since moved into a new role as our Relationship Manager, while still maintaining all of our Communication efforts here in the US. My role has allowed me to travel quite a lot over the past couple years for both tennis and squash.

Being an “outsider” in the tennis industry, it has been fun learning about both the industry and the sport over the last few years and I fall more in love with it seemingly day by day. I personally have arm/shoulder issues which hinder my game a little, but it also helps give me a good knowledge on our products that are very arm friendly, including NRG. Looking forward to tag teaming this with Eric and hopefully providing answers to all of your questions!

Equipment: T-Fight 300 DC strung with 18g NRG @ 55lbs.


Eric definitely has more technical knowledge than I do so he will handle most of the super technical questions/topics while I can take more general questions, launch dates, new product info, etc. Look forward to talking to all of you and hopefully we can help you be more connected to all things TF!
Click to expand...
Hi Eric and Nick,

Does your brand sponsor coaches?

Thanks
 
L

Longleaf

New User
Classic-TXP-IG MID said:
Everything comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If you're increasing the SW for the sake of having a higher SW but not trying to increase the stability, then 12 o'clock will be the best spot.

I'll have to read the written reviews to see what they said when it comes to stability, and sweet spot size, and differences in SW. If, as @gutfeeling has said, the difference in SW is just manufacturing variance, and both options are stable enough as standard, then the TF40 315 might be a better option for me as it's already more HL. If, however, the TF40 305 is more stable I would then feel like I need to add weight at 3 & 9 o'clock for the TF40 315 in order to increase stability (I automatically add a smidge at 12 o'clock as well) and match the TF40 305. This would increase the SW, TW and size of the sweet spot. I would then need to add a bit at 7" above butt cap to keep the 7 pts HL balance.

I'm not overly concerned with particular SW numbers per se, I'm much more concerned with the feel when hitting the ball, comfort, size of the sweet spot, feel when hitting off-centre, and manoeuvrability (balance of racquet). I have no issue swinging racquets that are 340-360g static weight. Of course, if I can achieve all that I have mentioned and have a static weight between 330-340g, I will do that. If the racquet is stable against hard hitters at this weight, then great.
Click to expand...

It seemed that the only area in which the 315 outperformed the 305 in the reviews was on volleys, which should be an easy fix by boosting recoil weight and HL-ness of the 305 with tailweighting...which now appears to be a PITA. But is it likely that the topspin potential, stability, and extra "pop" of the 305 could be easily recreated in the 315 without adding a significant amount of weight to the hoop? I'm a lilghtweight gal and recently demoed the Vcore Pro 97 (330) and absolutely loved the feel of the extra mass, but I often found myself too gassed by the end of the point to create much put-away power. I worry the 315 is going to surpass the weight of the Vcore Pro in short order if I start messing with it, in which case, I would just buy the Vcore Pro and start working out harder...:unsure:
 
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
10 grams added 4.5” from the bottom of the handle drops the balance from 32.5cm to 31.5cm (roughly 3 points more HL). You could add less weight (say 6 or 7 grams) closer to the bottom of the handle and arrive at the same result. I still think the 315 is simply just the 305 with more weight in the handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
L

Longleaf

New User
gutfeeling said:
10 grams added 4.5” from the bottom of the handle drops the balance from 32.5cm to 31.5cm (roughly 3 points more HL). You could add less weight (say 6 or 7 grams) closer to the bottom of the handle and arrive at the same result. I still think the 315 is simply just the 305 with more weight in the handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It seems that way based on the specs, but then I don't understand why the 315 would've performed worse in power and spin potential for the playtesters. Wouldn't the more HL balance of the 315 result in more RHS and therefore more spin access? And wouldn't the mass-based power of two racquets with such a similar SW produce the same power? (I'm not sure my understanding of SW and power is correct...) It seems that the 305 performed better in categories where the 315 should've logically been equal or better, if it is in fact the same racquet with more weight in the handle. Maybe it's just that intangible effect that different racquet balance has on the user.

I wish the demo would show up so I could stop analyzing and just play. ;)
 
Classic-TXP-IG MID

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Longleaf said:
It seemed that the only area in which the 315 outperformed the 305 in the reviews was on volleys, which should be an easy fix by boosting recoil weight and HL-ness of the 305 with tailweighting...which now appears to be a PITA. But is it likely that the topspin potential, stability, and extra "pop" of the 305 could be easily recreated in the 315 without adding a significant amount of weight to the hoop? I'm a lilghtweight gal and recently demoed the Vcore Pro 97 (330) and absolutely loved the feel of the extra mass, but I often found myself too gassed by the end of the point to create much put-away power. I worry the 315 is going to surpass the weight of the Vcore Pro in short order if I start messing with it, in which case, I would just buy the Vcore Pro and start working out harder...:unsure:
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be that hard, nor would it take that much weight to make a significant difference. I think 1-1.5g at 3,9, and at 12 o'clock respectively would be just fine (we're talking for the TF40 315). I would match that with approximately the same amount of weight at 7" above the butt cap. This would mean that at the lower end there would be 3g added to the head in total and about 4g on the top of the handle (underneath the base grip). This would be 7g total and would bring the static weight to 322g. The heavier end of the spectrum would result in a static weight of 325.5g.

This would mean that even with an overgrip, the total static weight would be less than the VCore Pro 330 (without the overgrip).

Adding weight to the handle is not going to be a PITA unless you're looking to add silicone or something into the handle (for this racquet), which in itself can be a more complicated and messy job that I would not recommend unless you feel it's absolutely necessary. You could, theoretically, take the base grip off and wrap the entire handle in lead tape or Tungsten tape (I'm not suggesting you do that, but you could), then put the base grip back on. This would add 20g+ to the handle and it would take you 5 mins and wouldn't increase the grip size.

As outlined in the initial paragraph, I'm talking about adding small amounts of weight (you could go even lower and see if it makes things better for you or not... it's all personal.

At the end of the day, we are all individuals and need to do what works for us. Therefore, if you don't feel that this would suit you, or you find a different racquet works better for you, then that is perfectly fine.

All the best :)
 
Classic-TXP-IG MID

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Longleaf said:
It seems that way based on the specs, but then I don't understand why the 315 would've performed worse in power and spin potential for the playtesters. Wouldn't the more HL balance of the 315 result in more RHS and therefore more spin access? And wouldn't the mass-based power of two racquets with such a similar SW produce the same power? (I'm not sure my understanding of SW and power is correct...) It seems that the 305 performed better in categories where the 315 should've logically been equal or better, if it is in fact the same racquet with more weight in the handle. Maybe it's just that intangible effect that different racquet balance has on the user.

I wish the demo would show up so I could stop analyzing and just play. ;)
Click to expand...

In the case of the TFight XTC models, the TFight 305 XTC had more material at 3, 9, and 12 o'clock positions in the head than some of the heavier static weight TFight XTC models. This resulted in a racquet that was much more stable than its heavier brothers/ sisters. It also had a much bigger sweet spot. I'm not sure if they did the same with the TF40 models, but if they did, it could explain some of the differences. Again, I'm not sure if that is the case or not.

That is what I would need to find out by playing with them. I understand your frustration at the demo not arriving yet... hope it does soon and then you can let us know your thoughts.
 
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
Longleaf said:
It seems that way based on the specs, but then I don't understand why the 315 would've performed worse in power and spin potential for the playtesters. Wouldn't the more HL balance of the 315 result in more RHS and therefore more spin access? And wouldn't the mass-based power of two racquets with such a similar SW produce the same power? (I'm not sure my understanding of SW and power is correct...) It seems that the 305 performed better in categories where the 315 should've logically been equal or better, if it is in fact the same racquet with more weight in the handle. Maybe it's just that intangible effect that different racquet balance has on the user.

I wish the demo would show up so I could stop analyzing and just play. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. Also don’t discount the effect of added weight. The 315 has more inherent power due to the higher overall mass, assuming it has similar head weighting and flexibility as the 305. In theory. But the playtesters may not have been able to realize that inherent power for many reasons, including athleticism. Also keep in mind they may have played frames that were out of spec. I highly recommend you put any frame you try on a diagnostic machine. Manufacturing variance is incredible. I’ve tested the same model of a frame with swing weight variance of 30 points!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Winners or Errors

Winners or Errors

Legend
The 305, at the same swingweight and a little less headlight while being lower massed, has a more polarized setup, hence easier access to spin and power while maintaining stability. Weight is not a static thing and momentum doesn't have to do with the whole weight of the racquet, which is 27" long, so much as where that weight is located and how much of it comes to bear upon striking the ball. That's why the 305 is more powerful while being lighter.
 
L

Longleaf

New User
Classic-TXP-IG MID said:
It wouldn't be that hard, nor would it take that much weight to make a significant difference. I think 1-1.5g at 3,9, and at 12 o'clock respectively would be just fine (we're talking for the TF40 315). I would match that with approximately the same amount of weight at 7" above the butt cap. This would mean that at the lower end there would be 3g added to the head in total and about 4g on the top of the handle (underneath the base grip). This would be 7g total and would bring the static weight to 322g. The heavier end of the spectrum would result in a static weight of 325.5g.

This would mean that even with an overgrip, the total static weight would be less than the VCore Pro 330 (without the overgrip).

Adding weight to the handle is not going to be a PITA unless you're looking to add silicone or something into the handle (for this racquet), which in itself can be a more complicated and messy job that I would not recommend unless you feel it's absolutely necessary. You could, theoretically, take the base grip off and wrap the entire handle in lead tape or Tungsten tape (I'm not suggesting you do that, but you could), then put the base grip back on. This would add 20g+ to the handle and it would take you 5 mins and wouldn't increase the grip size.

As outlined in the initial paragraph, I'm talking about adding small amounts of weight (you could go even lower and see if it makes things better for you or not... it's all personal.

At the end of the day, we are all individuals and need to do what works for us. Therefore, if you don't feel that this would suit you, or you find a different racquet works better for you, then that is perfectly fine.

All the best :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed suggestions! I've never customized a recquet before and it seems like you can sure drive yourself crazy trying to create the "perfect" weapon. I'll take your suggestions and share what I find. Thanks again!
 
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
Winners or Errors said:
The 305, at the same swingweight and a little less headlight while being lower massed, has a more polarized setup, hence easier access to spin and power while maintaining stability. Weight is not a static thing and momentum doesn't have to do with the whole weight of the racquet, which is 27" long, so much as where that weight is located and how much of it comes to bear upon striking the ball. That's why the 305 is more powerful while being lighter.
Click to expand...

Just curious, can you explain your reasoning about why the 305 is more polarized? Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
djNEiGht

djNEiGht

Legend
As age catches up to me...I need something easier to play with or something a bit modern. When I was playing a lot more I was enjoying the iPrestige. I also have a TC97 18x20 similarly weighted to the iPrestige. As of late I like my TC95 16x19 or my Graphene XT Prestige Pro...but miss the 18x20

I wonder how the 305/315 would behave with a leather grip
 
Winners or Errors

Winners or Errors

Legend
gutfeeling said:
Just curious, can you explain your reasoning about why the 305 is more polarized? Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It is an assumption based on feel and swing weight and weight. To make a light racquet with a heavy sw, there needs to be some weight in the head, which there clearly is in my XTC 305s, and to keep the balance point hL requires more in the handle than the center.
 
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
Winners or Errors said:
It is an assumption based on feel and swing weight and weight. To make a light racquet with a heavy sw, there needs to be some weight in the head, which there clearly is in my XTC 305s, and to keep the balance point hL requires more in the handle than the center.
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about the TF40 305, but it seems like you are talking about the XTC 305.
 
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
Winners or Errors said:
Same principle. I'd be shocked if it was radically different in that regard, but perhaps someone who has played both can chime in.
Click to expand...

If we are comparing apples to apples when talking about how polarized one frame is compared to another, then we need to establish some parameters, such as static weight and balance. So if two frames are the same weight and balance, but one has higher swing weight, then that frame is more polarized.

I don't know how you can say with any certainty that the 305 is more polarized than the 315. It doesn't have the same weight or balance. What we do know is that both frames have almost identical twist weights, swing weights, and sweet zones. That tells us that their head weighting is very similar. So the 315, which is heavier and has a lower balance point, obviously has more weight in the handle. But I do not think you can say the 305 is more polarized, not until you match it to the weight and balance of the 315. So logically that would require 10 grams in the handle. That would make it roughly the same balance as the 315. So they both appear to have the same degree of polarization to me.
 
JeanF

JeanF

New User
Winners or Errors said:
Same principle. I'd be shocked if it was radically different in that regard, but perhaps someone who has played both can chime in.
Click to expand...

Interesting discussions here going on about the TF40 305/315 and indirectly about the TFight 305 XTC.... :cool:

I have played for a longer time with the TFight 305 XTC (and also 315 XTC) but made the switch to the TF40 305 directly when it was available here in Europe.
I really enjoyed the TFight 305 XTC and the way it performed, and to my opinion it's by far the best stock form playing frame in the whole TFight XTC range.
Stability, control, and plow (due to the high SW) were very impressive, especially for a frame with a static weight of just 305 gram.
The only less positive thing I experienced with it was some lack of speed and maneuverability at net, so I decided to lower the balancepoint 8 mm. with some extra tail weight; achieved by milling out the stock foam filling in the shaft and adding 8 gram of black Sikaflex 221 (known for its low volume/high weight ratio and very good dampening capacity)
After the addition of 8 gram Sikaflex the balancepoint lowered from 33,4 cm (strung + overgrip) to 32,6 cm and the overall static weight raised up to 334,5 gram.
With this customization it was like ''the icing on the cake'' for me and my TFight 305 XTC played great and absolutely well balanced, just the way I wanted.

After a couple of months playing with my TFight 305's I got the chance to buy a new TFight 315 XTC for an interesting and low price, so I decided to buy it to playtest it as a comparison with my TFight 305 XTC.
After just 15 minutes of playing with the TFight 315 XTC it was clear to me that it (despite the higher static overall weight) definitely lacked the stability, control, and plow through of the 305 XTC.
The differences were most noticeable with heavy groundstrokes and returns. Even after adding some lead tape at 3/9 position my slightly customized 305 XTC outperformed the 315 XTC completely in almost all aspects.
When I discussed my experiences with an employee of Tecnifibre (who I know reasonably well) he told me that the 305 XTC is the only frame in the TFight XTC range which has an exeptional addition of three integrated stabilization parts which are located at the 3/9/12 position in the hoop of the frame.
These integrated stabilization parts provides the better stability and plow, but are also the reason for the reasonably high swingweight of the 305 XTC.

I do not know yet (have to ask my Tecnifibre ''source'') if the above mentioned stabilization parts of the 305 XTC are also integrated in the frame of the TF40 305, but I shouldn't surprised if this will be the case, although the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 vs TF40 315 is smaller than the difference in swingweight between the TFight 305 XTC vs TFight 315 XTC...
In several posts here I read that people mentioned that the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 and the TF40 315 is minimum, but personally I have the opinion (based on experiences) that even smaller differences in swingweight value are absolutely feelable/noticeable in the playability of a frame, especially with control oriented frames like the TF40 which delivers lots of feel and feedback.
There must be a technical based reason for the better reviews that the TF40 305 is currently receiving, but personally I'm having absolutely no regrets that I went for the 305 gram version.
Even as with the TFight 305 XTC I lowered the balance point of my TF40's with some extra tail weight in the frame shaft to get a bit more maneuverablity and now it's completely according my personal taste and preferences (y)



TFight 305 XTC (before foam removing and filling shaft with 8 gram of black Sikaflex)



Balancepoint (strung + overgrip) of 32,6 cm (instead of 33,4 cm in stock form) after the Sikaflex addition



Swingweight of 337 (stock form, exept the addition of 8 gram tail weight)



Overall (strung, overgrip, plus 8 grams of Sikaflex) static weight of 334,5 gram




Two of my three beloved TF40 305's, one strung with Luxilon Element Rough 1.30 mm. and the other one with Völkl Cyclone 1.25 mm.
These two strings are my personal favorites in the TF40 305 after a test period with Ice Code, Black Code 4S and RS Lyon

 
Last edited:
G

gutfeeling

Hall of Fame
JeanF said:
Interesting discussions here going on about the TF40 305/315 and indirectly about the TFight 305 XTC.... :cool:

I have played for a longer time with the TFight 305 XTC (and also 315 XTC) but made the switch to the TF40 305 directly when it was available here in Europe.
I really enjoyed the TFight 305 XTC and the way it performed, and to my opinion it's by far the best stock form playing frame in the whole TFight XTC range.
Stability, control, and plow (due to the high SW) were very impressive, especially for a frame with a static weight of just 305 gram.
The only less positive thing I experienced with it was some lack of speed and maneuverability at net, so I decided to lower the balancepoint 8 mm. with some extra tail weight; achieved by milling out the stock foam filling in the shaft and adding 8 gram of black Sikaflex 221 (known for its low volume/high weight ratio and very good dampening capacity)
After the addition of 8 gram Sikaflex the balancepoint lowered from 33,4 cm (strung + overgrip) to 32,6 cm and the overall static weight raised up to 334,5 gram.
With this customization it was like ''the icing on the cake'' for me and my TFight 305 XTC played great and absolutely well balanced, just the way I wanted.

After a couple of months playing with my TFight 305's I got the chance to buy a new TFight 315 XTC for an interesting and low price, so I decided to buy it to playtest it as a comparison with my TFight 305 XTC.
After just 15 minutes of playing with the TFight 315 XTC it was clear to me that it (despite the higher static overall weight) definitely lacked the stability, control, and plow through of the 305 XTC.
The differences were most noticeable with heavy groundstrokes and returns. Even after adding some lead tape at 3/9 position my slightly customized 305 XTC outperformed the 315 XTC completely in almost all aspects.
When I discussed my experiences with an employee of Tecnifibre (who I know reasonably well) he told me that the 305 XTC is the only frame in the TFight XTC range which has an exeptional addition of three integrated stabilization parts which are located at the 3/9/12 position in the hoop of the frame.
These integrated stabilization parts provides the better stability and plow, but are also the reason for the reasonably high swingweight of the 305 XTC.

I do not know yet (have to ask my Tecnifibre ''source'') if the above mentioned stabilization parts of the 305 XTC are also integrated in the frame of the TF40 305, but I shouldn't surprised if this will be the case, although the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 vs TF40 315 is smaller than the difference in swingweight between the TFight 305 XTC vs TFight 315 XTC...
In several posts here I read that people mentioned that the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 and the TF40 315 is minimum, but personally I have the opinion (based on experiences) that even smaller differences in swingweight value are absolutely feelable/noticeable in the playability of a frame, especially with control oriented frames like the TF40 which delivers lots of feel and feedback.
There must be a technical based reason for the better reviews that the TF40 305 is currently receiving, but personally I'm having absolutely no regrets that I went for the 305 gram version.
Even as with the TFight 305 XTC I lowered the balance point of my TF40's with some extra tail weight in the frame shaft to get a bit more maneuverablity and now it's completely according my personal taste and preferences (y)



TFight 305 XTC (before foam removing and filling shaft with 8 gram of black Sikaflex)



Balancepoint (strung + overgrip) of 32,6 cm (instead of 33,4 cm in stock form) after the Sikaflex addition



Swingweight of 337 (stock form, exept the addition of 8 gram tail weight)



Overall (strung, overgrip, plus 8 grams of Sikaflex) static weight of 334,5 gram




Two of my three beloved TF40 305's, one strung with Luxilon Element Rough 1.30 mm. and the other one with Völkl Cyclone 1.25 mm.
These two strings are my personal favorites in the TF40 305 after a test period with Ice Code, Black Code 4S and RS Lyon

Click to expand...

Wow nice post! Thank you for validating a lot of my thoughts about the XTC line! The XTC 305 is an absolute beast. I agree that the XTC 305 and 315 are very different in many ways other than static weight. They even have different RA. However, I still believe the TF40 305 and 315 are the same frame with different handle weighting. Interested to see what your contact says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Classic-TXP-IG MID

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
JeanF said:
Interesting discussions here going on about the TF40 305/315 and indirectly about the TFight 305 XTC.... :cool:

I have played for a longer time with the TFight 305 XTC (and also 315 XTC) but made the switch to the TF40 305 directly when it was available here in Europe.
I really enjoyed the TFight 305 XTC and the way it performed, and to my opinion it's by far the best stock form playing frame in the whole TFight XTC range.
Stability, control, and plow (due to the high SW) were very impressive, especially for a frame with a static weight of just 305 gram.
The only less positive thing I experienced with it was some lack of speed and maneuverability at net, so I decided to lower the balancepoint 8 mm. with some extra tail weight; achieved by milling out the stock foam filling in the shaft and adding 8 gram of black Sikaflex 221 (known for its low volume/high weight ratio and very good dampening capacity)
After the addition of 8 gram Sikaflex the balancepoint lowered from 33,4 cm (strung + overgrip) to 32,6 cm and the overall static weight raised up to 334,5 gram.
With this customization it was like ''the icing on the cake'' for me and my TFight 305 XTC played great and absolutely well balanced, just the way I wanted.

After a couple of months playing with my TFight 305's I got the chance to buy a new TFight 315 XTC for an interesting and low price, so I decided to buy it to playtest it as a comparison with my TFight 305 XTC.
After just 15 minutes of playing with the TFight 315 XTC it was clear to me that it (despite the higher static overall weight) definitely lacked the stability, control, and plow through of the 305 XTC.
The differences were most noticeable with heavy groundstrokes and returns. Even after adding some lead tape at 3/9 position my slightly customized 305 XTC outperformed the 315 XTC completely in almost all aspects.
When I discussed my experiences with an employee of Tecnifibre (who I know reasonably well) he told me that the 305 XTC is the only frame in the TFight XTC range which has an exeptional addition of three integrated stabilization parts which are located at the 3/9/12 position in the hoop of the frame.
These integrated stabilization parts provides the better stability and plow, but are also the reason for the reasonably high swingweight of the 305 XTC.

I do not know yet (have to ask my Tecnifibre ''source'') if the above mentioned stabilization parts of the 305 XTC are also integrated in the frame of the TF40 305, but I shouldn't surprised if this will be the case, although the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 vs TF40 315 is smaller than the difference in swingweight between the TFight 305 XTC vs TFight 315 XTC...
In several posts here I read that people mentioned that the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 and the TF40 315 is minimum, but personally I have the opinion (based on experiences) that even smaller differences in swingweight value are absolutely feelable/noticeable in the playability of a frame, especially with control oriented frames like the TF40 which delivers lots of feel and feedback.
There must be a technical based reason for the better reviews that the TF40 305 is currently receiving, but personally I'm having absolutely no regrets that I went for the 305 gram version.
Even as with the TFight 305 XTC I lowered the balance point of my TF40's with some extra tail weight in the frame shaft to get a bit more maneuverablity and now it's completely according my personal taste and preferences (y)



TFight 305 XTC (before foam removing and filling shaft with 8 gram of black Sikaflex)



Balancepoint (strung + overgrip) of 32,6 cm (instead of 33,4 cm in stock form) after the Sikaflex addition



Swingweight of 337 (stock form, exept the addition of 8 gram tail weight)



Overall (strung, overgrip, plus 8 grams of Sikaflex) static weight of 334,5 gram




Two of my three beloved TF40 305's, one strung with Luxilon Element Rough 1.30 mm. and the other one with Völkl Cyclone 1.25 mm.
These two strings are my personal favorites in the TF40 305 after a test period with Ice Code, Black Code 4S and RS Lyon

Click to expand...

Thanks for such a thorough review... (y)

I'm also interested in what your contact will say.
 
C

Circa 1762

Rookie
JeanF said:
Interesting discussions here going on about the TF40 305/315 and indirectly about the TFight 305 XTC.... :cool:

I have played for a longer time with the TFight 305 XTC (and also 315 XTC) but made the switch to the TF40 305 directly when it was available here in Europe.
I really enjoyed the TFight 305 XTC and the way it performed, and to my opinion it's by far the best stock form playing frame in the whole TFight XTC range.
Stability, control, and plow (due to the high SW) were very impressive, especially for a frame with a static weight of just 305 gram.
The only less positive thing I experienced with it was some lack of speed and maneuverability at net, so I decided to lower the balancepoint 8 mm. with some extra tail weight; achieved by milling out the stock foam filling in the shaft and adding 8 gram of black Sikaflex 221 (known for its low volume/high weight ratio and very good dampening capacity)
After the addition of 8 gram Sikaflex the balancepoint lowered from 33,4 cm (strung + overgrip) to 32,6 cm and the overall static weight raised up to 334,5 gram.
With this customization it was like ''the icing on the cake'' for me and my TFight 305 XTC played great and absolutely well balanced, just the way I wanted.

After a couple of months playing with my TFight 305's I got the chance to buy a new TFight 315 XTC for an interesting and low price, so I decided to buy it to playtest it as a comparison with my TFight 305 XTC.
After just 15 minutes of playing with the TFight 315 XTC it was clear to me that it (despite the higher static overall weight) definitely lacked the stability, control, and plow through of the 305 XTC.
The differences were most noticeable with heavy groundstrokes and returns. Even after adding some lead tape at 3/9 position my slightly customized 305 XTC outperformed the 315 XTC completely in almost all aspects.
When I discussed my experiences with an employee of Tecnifibre (who I know reasonably well) he told me that the 305 XTC is the only frame in the TFight XTC range which has an exeptional addition of three integrated stabilization parts which are located at the 3/9/12 position in the hoop of the frame.
These integrated stabilization parts provides the better stability and plow, but are also the reason for the reasonably high swingweight of the 305 XTC.

I do not know yet (have to ask my Tecnifibre ''source'') if the above mentioned stabilization parts of the 305 XTC are also integrated in the frame of the TF40 305, but I shouldn't surprised if this will be the case, although the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 vs TF40 315 is smaller than the difference in swingweight between the TFight 305 XTC vs TFight 315 XTC...
In several posts here I read that people mentioned that the difference in swingweight between the TF40 305 and the TF40 315 is minimum, but personally I have the opinion (based on experiences) that even smaller differences in swingweight value are absolutely feelable/noticeable in the playability of a frame, especially with control oriented frames like the TF40 which delivers lots of feel and feedback.
There must be a technical based reason for the better reviews that the TF40 305 is currently receiving, but personally I'm having absolutely no regrets that I went for the 305 gram version.
Even as with the TFight 305 XTC I lowered the balance point of my TF40's with some extra tail weight in the frame shaft to get a bit more maneuverablity and now it's completely according my personal taste and preferences (y)



TFight 305 XTC (before foam removing and filling shaft with 8 gram of black Sikaflex)



Balancepoint (strung + overgrip) of 32,6 cm (instead of 33,4 cm in stock form) after the Sikaflex addition



Swingweight of 337 (stock form, exept the addition of 8 gram tail weight)



Overall (strung, overgrip, plus 8 grams of Sikaflex) static weight of 334,5 gram




Two of my three beloved TF40 305's, one strung with Luxilon Element Rough 1.30 mm. and the other one with Völkl Cyclone 1.25 mm.
These two strings are my personal favorites in the TF40 305 after a test period with Ice Code, Black Code 4S and RS Lyon

Click to expand...
Great review. Been wondering this for a while: is the head shape any different on the TF40 versus the 305 XTC? From photos, the TF40 looks a little rounder while the 305 XTC looks more oval, but it might just be an optical illusion caused by the paint job.
 
JeanF

JeanF

New User
Circa 1762 said:
Great review. Been wondering this for a while: is the head shape any different on the TF40 versus the 305 XTC? From photos, the TF40 looks a little rounder while the 305 XTC looks more oval, but it might just be an optical illusion caused by the paint job.
Click to expand...

Checked it today but can not really discover significant differences in head shape between these two frames.
Something which is clearly noticeable is the difference in thickness and width of both frames.


photo sharing


photo sharing


photo sharing


photo sharing
 
mavsman149

mavsman149

Hall of Fame
We’re the newest 315 limiteds only sold at TW? Wanted to grab one or 2 more since they’re getting discontinued and I don’t have any in the new cosmetic but they no longer have my grip size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tecnifibre Official
Tecnifibre 2015
2 3
Replies
136
Views
23K
sundaypunch
S
Tecnifibre Official
Tecnifibre Official - Strings
2 3 4
Replies
184
Views
20K
Reyrevilla
R
TripleB
Tecnifibre T Fight 315 Dynacore - Opinions?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Fed Kennedy
Fed Kennedy
Myrko
Tecnifibre T-Fight ISO
Replies
2
Views
890
Myrko
Myrko
Ronny
Just ordered my Tecnifibre T-Fight 320's!!!!
Replies
9
Views
942
smittysan89
smittysan89
Top