McLovin
Legend
Hahahahahah! I was thinking of posting the exact same thing:...if Prince implement all of our ideas, we would end up with the Tennis equivalent of the Homer Simpson Car and Prince would end up broke.
Hahahahahah! I was thinking of posting the exact same thing:...if Prince implement all of our ideas, we would end up with the Tennis equivalent of the Homer Simpson Car and Prince would end up broke.
How did you like the volleys?Played doubles tonight and man it’s a beast. Got some nice depth on the return and some extra pop on the serve.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey Trinity110,A question about recommended stringing tension.
I was looking at both the Prince Phantom 100X 290 and the 305, and see stringing tensions of 45-55 lbs. Is that what the racquet wants, regardless of string material? Like so many people, I'm used to living in a world where your racquet may say 55 lbs, and then for a poly you might do 45 (or lower). Are you now starting with an assumed poly string, and for syn gut we should go up? Or would that harm a racquet? Or, again, should we ratchet those specs downward if using a poly? (35, anyone?)
Do we now live in a world we we need two tension ranges on a racquet, or is the range the range, period? Making 45 the lowest recommended for poly (for best results, based on your research) and 55 the highest for a syn gut or multi?
Your answers have been incredible. You do your company proud!
if you keep talking like this youre gonna dispel all of the rumors and wives tales that keep this board aliveHey Trinity110,
Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.
Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.
Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.
Tyler
How did you like the volleys?
I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?I love the phantom pro line. I use the 100p, switched to it last year and havent looked back. Thin, buttery frames all day. But i want to touch on something not too many people are giving enough props to–
I really dig the new visual design of the 2020 phantom line. It’s a great iteration of the look. Forgive me while i talk shop about the visual design:
With the first Phantom Pros, the look was refreshingly minimal but at the same time a little lifeless. They looked great in an old school, black racquet, no-nonsense way. It even included the classic prince logos on both sides of the yoke, albeit bigger and greener. However, while paint looked fine from afar, it lacked in the visual details. Even bland compared to other “blacked-out” racquets on the market, to be frank.
With this 2020 line, the direction still captures that no-nonsense black silhouette, especially from a far. IMO this is important to the Phantom Pro brand. However the details add a lot more character to the phantom this year. The subtle use of clean typography, indigo sheen and accents, and topographic texture give the look a lot more life than the original Phantoms. Limiting the Prince logo to just one per side is a welcome change as well. Hats off to the visual design team. Best looking minimal/subtle visuals of the last 12 months.
Please release a bag [emoji56]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tyler, thank you. That was so freakin' well answered! I worried the question might seem off the wall, when in fact it was pertinent. I am eventually going to demo, and I will try a few tensions of syn gut and of my fave multi, and see how things feel. (And I love how, in general, your replies avoid the typical "old wives' tales" mentioned here; I'm thinking about comments where you conveyed that poly can be nice for those whose swings are able to take advantage of the snapback - a very important caveat- and instead deal with the real data you guys see in R & D. (I edited this response for clarity, I hope)Hey Trinity110,
Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.
Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.
Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.
Tyler
I have played a couple of sets of Doubles with the new Phantom 100P, it’s a great racket for forecourt play- slicing and dicing- volleys and overheads. Much like other phantoms it is fairly maneuverable for a 100 inch head size and does cut through the air nicely. In my experience it lacks the mass I need to handle heavy balls from the baseline, it gets pushed around in stock form so I went back to my blades. I don’t think phantoms are meant to be a tour level frames, most active Prince pros play with thicker beams and I am starting to understand why. I am a former Textreme Tour 100P user and I felt that provided greater stability and mass than any of the Phantoms. The Phantom 100P is a fun frame that encourages attacking play but not one I could take into competition. Different strokes for different folks ! Still a lifelong Prince fan!I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?
In my experience it lacks the mass I need to handle heavy balls from the baseline, it gets pushed around in stock form so I went back to my blades.
@tennis347 In what areas would you say the 305X is an improvement over the original? Does it feel a lot firmer than the original? If it doesn't feel like 58RA, what do you think it actually feels like?
With the original, I added around 5-6 grams under the bumper to bring the swing-weight to around 330 strung. Once I did that the frame performed a whole lot better. Before the mod, it would be pushed around a little and didn't really have any pop behind it. The Phantom Pros I had were a very low spec, with a strung swing-weight of 305 with the factory string.
Also the mods at 12 really helped wip the racket through the contact zone and generate spin. It really transformed the frame and I loved it with the mods.
[/QUOTE
I would say that the main difference with new Phantom 100x 305 is much improved stability over the original. I would say that the RA feels like something in the low 60's. The upper portion of the hoop feels alot crisper than the original. There's a tad more power over last year's model. I still think that the Phantom 100x 305 is a bit string sensitive. It probably would play well with a poly strung around 45 lbs. I don't use poly due to some arm issues. Maybe a lower tension will help open up the sweet spot and improve the feel. If I were to restring it again, I would drop to 2 lbs to 51.
The swing weight is a tad low to dish out heavy pace but the stability in the upper hoop is much improved due to the increase in stiffness. IMO this frame will benefit with a couple of grams added at 12 only.
I found when I tried to swing hard for lack of easy pop, the control would suffer a bit.
I am going to hit tomorrow with 2 grams at 12 and report back.
I'm looking at the 100P as well. Is it fairly easy to handle? I normally use 12 ounce frames with about 325 SW. What do you like about it?
@tennis347 In what areas would you say the 305X is an improvement over the original? Does it feel a lot firmer than the original? If it doesn't feel like 58RA, what do you think it actually feels like?
With the original, I added around 5-6 grams under the bumper to bring the swing-weight to around 330 strung. Once I did that the frame performed a whole lot better. Before the mod, it would be pushed around a little and didn't really have any pop behind it. The Phantom Pros I had were a very low spec, with a strung swing-weight of 305 with the factory string.
Also the mods at 12 really helped wip the racket through the contact zone and generate spin. It really transformed the frame and I loved it with the mods.
Nice, good to hear the frame performed more to your liking with the weight at 12.
Will eventually grab one to compare with the original. With the original I thought it was probably to flexy or to thin of a beam but awesome feeling frame. If the new one feels a bit firmer/stable and has a bit more pop while retaining that awesome plush feel it should be a very popular frame for Prince.
Yep 97P with lead at 12 exact same feeling, frame plays better, feels better and offers an unreal all round playability. Players frame with 320 base swing weight can be a little light. I am surprised that no one in the review bothered putting weight on it while stringing it in the 50s when they have added weight previously...
I put Alu Power in it with a 15% prestretch at 50lbs and it might need a little more weight to handle this tension although I just put back a second over grip on the frame which I think suits my stroke, feels more solid. Really enjoying 44lbs 15%. there might be a sweet spot around 48lbs.
@Prince Tennis Official what would be the likelihood of producing a stiff ported phantom to add some power and rigidity to the ported option? If tour players gravitated toward that option is there any benefit from your testing for a stiff phantom? I felt the ported phantom was the best of the previous generation 100s as well, the solid beam came close but missing the spin.
Was Mitsui using an off the shelf JDM ported phantom? He has moved to blades so looks like he was potentially after control or power.
Great question and I hear this a lot....
Think of our power level as simply a silent salesmen. It's really a measure of relative power and not absolute power (i.e. TW's power rating), and honestly is not intended to be the end all be all of how we judge any particular racquet. From our research, the majority of players who are in the market for a racquet are not necessarily well versed in testing equipment and can't always articulate why they like or don't like a racquet. In fact one of the few things that almost ALL players CAN tell you is whether a racquet has too much power (ball sailing all over the place) or not enough power (ball falling in the net or too short in the court). Therefore the Prince Power Level system was put in place to simply assist people in the demo process.
You tried the Beast 100 (Power Level 1000) and though it was too powerful...go try the 875 (Beast 98). You don't even need to remember the model name or head size. With something like 50-75 new racquets coming out each year from all the brands...navigating a brands range while demoing can be a lot to take in if you don't know every model name. Our approach was to simply try to make it easier.
Now, for folks on this board....it's not really as helpful as there are a lot of nuances that can not easily be explained through a simple set of #'s. For that, there's no substitute for a good old fashioned demo session to make up your own mind.
Tyler
Hi Tyler
Thank you for your efforts here. As I posted a few days ago I'm making the transition from the TXT tour 310 to the 100X 305 but struggled with the volleys esp mid court and groundies higher up in the frame esp a slice. This appears much better after adding lead to 10' and 2' overall 2g. One question that confuses me about the power level is the 100X 305 appears lower that the thinner beam new phantom 100P and with the same string pattern, almost identical weight but higher SW on the 100P. I am waiting "impatiently" to demo this along side the 100X 305 but it seems odd to be relatively higher power for a thinner beam frame....
I too am glad to see you guys on the board. I have always hoped Prince would be able to give the other mfg a run. I personally started with a Price classic (which I still have) I then went to the Prince Pro. When I came back to the game several years ago I ended up playing several frames and the played the Textreme Tour 95 (2015) I have tried others but I can not seem to find one that works for me the way the TT95 2015 does. It has now been my go to for 4 years. one of the best Prince frames ever. One day I may try one of the newer frames.
@Prince Tennis Official Welcome to the forum! I am playing with the Phantom Pro 100 (non ported) and recently bought the 100x 305g and experimenting with it right now. Thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions that the forum users are bombarding you with haha. I have been waiting for the right tennis backpack to purchase and the Prince Tour Backpack/Dufflepack looks like it would be it., except...... I really wish there was some kind of thermal lining to protect the racquets. I have never seen any manufacturer make a backpack/dufflebag that covers the entire racquet and has thermal lining. Are there any upcoming new backpacks that prince is releasing? Maybe this is a good suggestion to your R&D team and would definitely differentiate your backpack/dufflebag from all the others in the market.
Lots of crossbar love on this thread.....might be too much to ignore
Great to see the Prince name on the comeback trail and really rooting for you to have a lot of success!
- From a marketing perspective, is it advantageous to have so many options in a product line? Phantom 93, 97, 100, P, X, O3, 18x20, 305, 290, etc.? Many variations would seem to create confusion - or at least it did when I was working in shops and selling 20+ years ago. But perhaps the game has changed with online sales and the demand for more tailoring from the customer? Or is it more conducive to manufacturing efficiency? Would love to hear your thoughts.
- Is a 93 head size viable commercially? Obviously there are vocal proponents on the boards here, but I've always been suspicious that sub 95 frames are a bit like blade irons in a golf shop - sexy to look at, but tough for most players to handle in the modern game. Do you actually sell a lot of 93s?
Hi Stephen, sorry if I sounded defensive in the previous comment. I think you might be onto something regarding the beam section, and the combination of a round, very wide head and a box beam affecting flexibility and causing this harshness on off center hits. Maybe this is something that @Prince Tennis Official can comment on?
In any event, I have managed to source a PCG 100 (there's a couple of online retailers that still carry it), and the specs are quite close to the PP100P: 100 sq. in. / box beam / 16x18, only a slight variation in weight (+5g) and balance (+1pt HL, I believe). I will hit with the same set-up I am using for the PP100P (Hyper G 16 @ 48/50) and share my impressions. I think that the pattern is more evenly distributed, though, so it will be interesting to compare.
Zone | Deflection |
I | 70 |
II | 63 |
III | 63 |
IV | 49 |
TORSION | 148 |
Zone | Deflection |
I | 82 |
II | 69 |
III | 52 |
IV | 61 |
TORSION | 183 |
That certainly helps to explain some of the confusion that I have experienced testing rackets with similar RA (and other specs) that feel significantly different. Anything with babolat written on it comes to mind.This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:
Phantom 100P
Zone Deflection I 70 II 63 III 63 IV 49 TORSION 148
Phantom 100X
Zone Deflection I 82 II 69 III 52 IV 61 TORSION 183
Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.
All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.
I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.
Tim
Hi Prince Official,
One area that I am happy to see an improvement in is the graphic design of the racquets as exemplified by the new Phantom line which has a really great look. The current line up was really lacking in terms of the typography and use of colors and graphic placements, which is where other brands were doing a much better job. I think this visual refresh should be extended to all of the other lines. Currently the Beast line is the worst looking with that Blade-Runner typeface and the use of Gold on the number at the hoop, but I hear some new ones are coming out and I hope they look better. Prince is a fantastic brand, I am a long-time user and love your products.
I think Tyler may have already discussed this earlier in the thread but the power level, as it exists now, is certainly a lot more of a subjective reference than an absolute value for the power of the racquet. It used to be created with a formula but in reality this would give some strange looking results as racquets with higher static weight and swing weight might actually produce higher power ratings than racquets that would normally be selected by players needing more power (that actually couldn't swing the heavier racquet fast enough to generate the power from the extra mass). The huge number of string options also negated the need for such an exact value.
We really use this more as a reference in playtest or demo sets where you can go up or down the power rating scale to find a relatively more or less powerful option, or as in the case of the Phantom 100X rating we keep the same rating as on a previous version of a racquet, particularly when we change names so that a player can find which is most closely related in the new range. So there are certainly some issues with the system as it stands as the new Phantom 100X is definitely more powerful than the previous Phantom Pro 100 but hopefully its still easy enough to navigate in general.
I'm definitely interested to know how you all use the power level scale. Does it influence your decisions on certain racquets? Do you have preconceived ideas about certain racquets based on the power level? Is it just used as a loose reference or do you not take any notice of it at all?
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:
Phantom 100P
Zone Deflection I 70 II 63 III 63 IV 49 TORSION 148
Phantom 100X
Zone Deflection I 82 II 69 III 52 IV 61 TORSION 183
Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.
All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.
I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.
Tim
Hey Trinity110,
Honestly, I kind of loathe the idea of recommended string tension on the racquets the way that we have always done them. That practice was born during a time where the amount of variety in strings was 1/100 of what it is today. So you are correct that it's virtually impossible to create a standard recommendation for the exact points that you are making.
Generally speaking, yes, we are expecting a MAJORITY of Phantom users to be using poly which is why the range is lower. Truthfully, racquets today are designed to withstand tensions that are just not practical in today's terms so it's really not about protecting the frames integrity. So, the long answer to a simple question is it's better to follow a tension strategy that aligns with your string choice more so than your racquet choice. Given the low flex and control oriented nature of the Phantom line, our experience tells us that a poly with a lower tension is a really nice pairing. However if you are a multi or a nylon user you'll likely need to bump it up as going too low might alter the launch angle in such a way that it will require you to change your strokes to keep the ball in play.
Remember this, tennis is a game of consistency not winners. The goal should be to find a set up that allows you to swing the same way all the time. Don't fall in love with a racquet because you love the way it feels on one shot. That one shot might be amazing, but it's unforced errors and not winners that generally lead to who's on the right side of the scoreboard at the end of the day.
Tyler
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:
Phantom 100P
Zone Deflection I 70 II 63 III 63 IV 49 TORSION 148
Phantom 100X
Zone Deflection I 82 II 69 III 52 IV 61 TORSION 183
Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.
All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.
I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.
Tim
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:
Phantom 100P
Zone Deflection I 70 II 63 III 63 IV 49 TORSION 148
Phantom 100X
Zone Deflection I 82 II 69 III 52 IV 61 TORSION 183
Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.
All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.
I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.
Tim
This is certainly and interesting conversation. RA is often discussed as a measure of stiffness and one racquet is compared to another in terms of its RA but I can design two racquets with the same frame shape, string pattern, weight, balance, swingweight and RA, that can play quite differently. RA is just a measurement of the overall racquet deflection under load, with the less overall deflection at the tip producing a higher RA. However much like we all accept that there can be two racquets of 300g with massively different mass distribution (balance, swingweight, PMOI etc.) we can also have very different stiffness profiles for the same RA. In fact we measure the localized deformation under load at various different stiffness zones along the length of the racquet, for example the Phantom 100P and Phantom 100X 305 have the same RA, however the stiffness profiles are different:
Phantom 100P
Zone Deflection I 70 II 63 III 63 IV 49 TORSION 148
Phantom 100X
Zone Deflection I 82 II 69 III 52 IV 61 TORSION 183
Note here that these numbers are deflection, so the higher the number the more flexible it is in that zone (opposite to RA). Zone I is close to the tip, zone II is middle of hoop, Zone III is lower hoop and top of shaft, zone IV is lower shaft and top of handle. So in this example the Phantom 100X is actually stiffer in the lower hoop and shaft than the Phantom 100P but softer higher in the hoop, however they still have the same overall RA. Then we still have torsional stiffness values and in plane "twitch" stiffness which measure the stiffness of the hoop (imagine squeezing the frame between 3 and 9 or between 12 and 6 as examples, although we measure these in plane stiffness profiles across more zones also). These in plane stiffness also can make a dramatic difference to the response and feel of the frame.
All of this can be controlled through layup design, material choices, fiber angles etc. and we do tailor different racquets to have different stiffness profiles by design based on what we are trying to achieve in terms of racquet performance and feel.
I hope this helps, but I'm happy to elaborate on this if needed.
Tim
I wish that I knew this 10 years ago...what a shameI was shamed 10 years ago on TTW for basically making this assertion about RA. [emoji56]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It's not on our immediate radar to produce another ported Phantom frame, but we appreciate the input here. I'm not entirely sure what Mitsui was using, but chances are that he was playing a stock O3 Phantom frame since we don't really do pro-stock lay-ups or molds for that racquet.Yep 97P with lead at 12 exact same feeling, frame plays better, feels better and offers an unreal all round playability. Players frame with 320 base swing weight can be a little light. I am surprised that no one in the review bothered putting weight on it while stringing it in the 50s when they have added weight previously...
I put Alu Power in it with a 15% prestretch at 50lbs and it might need a little more weight to handle this tension although I just put back a second over grip on the frame which I think suits my stroke, feels more solid. Really enjoying 44lbs 15%. there might be a sweet spot around 48lbs.
@Prince Tennis Official what would be the likelihood of producing a stiff ported phantom to add some power and rigidity to the ported option? If tour players gravitated toward that option is there any benefit from your testing for a stiff phantom? I felt the ported phantom was the best of the previous generation 100s as well, the solid beam came close but missing the spin.
Was Mitsui using an off the shelf JDM ported phantom? He has moved to blades so looks like he was potentially after control or power.
The simple answer is yes, anytime you are purchasing item's directly from the supplier there are always minimum order requirements. However, we have systems in place where they can combine orders with other territories to meet those minimums. Ultimately, it's the local licensee decision on which of the in-line models to stock for their market, so if there's something that you don't see you need to make sure that your local retailer knows that you're looking for it! Also happy to share this feedback directly if you want to drop us a private message and let us know where you are from.@Prince Tennis Official
You mentioned earlier in the thread you have licences that countries have to sell the product. Do countries have a minimal order size on each item they want to carry? Where I am, they seem to carry only certain Prince items vs the USA.