While what I said earlier was a bit tongue-in-cheek, that's likely the range you'll get regardless. Wilson's QC is notoriously bad, so unless you pay for TW's matching service, you will be hard pressed to find frames with the 'published specs'.
Definitely posting my reading here as soon as I get mine in.
Agree & my interpretation was same as yours.
. When TW was releasing PT2.0 we had posters (myself included) & TW themself post our specs to gather data. There were a few 67 & 68 all the way down to some at 61 too. Mine were 64 and 65 I believe & TW notes 65 as average. Check out the PT2.0 thread too.
Head, Wilson, Babolat all have very poor QC. I'd say Wilson's is the worst of the three but rather marginally. Yonex's QC is on point, unfortunately their racquets are more often than not - not for me.Agree & my interpretation was same as yours.
Regarding RA variance it is also not outside the realm of possibility
But this raises another point. Is Head QC any better then? Because not just this RA experiment but overall I have seen their specs pretty off spec as well in last 40 years I have been playing tennis too.
This sums up exactly how I feel. Wilson has the worst QC and everyone else is marginally better with the exception of Yonex who is clearly better. I want to love Yonex racquets for this reason and others, but unfortunately I rarely do.
Indeed, not much difference between the three. In my case I've seen Head beat Wilson for worse QC but marginally like you said. Even some of their now coveted MIA frames had sometimes crazy variances. Yes I like Yonex & same boat as you. Just never got along with any of the frames.
Yep, I feel u....I worked part time at a pro shop for 5 years during college and we had a certified racquet technician who specialized in customizing frames for touring pros as well as weekend hacks.. part of my job was also to take specs for every unit item and enter in store database spreadsheet (including tasks like stringing & even putting on overgrips etc)...
Not +- 7RA, +-3.5 is what I meant. Honestly I have no idea what true 'RA' is as its a huge black hole for me. People here have mentioned that true 'RA' is hard to quantify as it depends on the machine's calibration, and how it is mounted as well.
Maybe if we unite we can get Yonex to somehow make us a racquet we like! We'll call it - the Yonex Uragirimono, which according to Google translate is the Japanese word for traitor
That is what I meant but also in the sense that the average RA would fall in that range. We know with most manufacturers (except maybe Yonex) that there will be some variability in that RA figure.
That's really interesting. Is there a significant correlation between strung and unstrung RA? I wonder if that would account for some of the range that was seen.Agree & my interpretation was same as yours.
Regarding RA variance it is also not outside the realm of possibility
But this raises another point. Is Head QC any better then? Because not just this RA experiment but overall I have seen their specs pretty off spec as well in last 40 years I have been playing tennis too.
It's the era of mass production. For the big brands, it's more about the number of racquets they can ship out rather than the quality of each individual one. No argument about Yonex QC though. It's truly the industry standard. I think I may need to go ahead and revisit the 97HD very soon because I got along very well with that frame even though it was low powered.
Which time?
You're just begging me to go make a Stiffness Index vs. RA thread, aren't you?
RA number for strung frames will always be lower. These were all strung RA numbers (TW provides strung specs as well). The range was definitely QC related.
I would like to say I'm surprised. But I'm not.
lol. I've been an on-again/off-again user of Yonex since...1980? R22/24, R50, RQ420, RD Power 10 Long, Original VCORE Tour, Ai98, now VCORE 98 +. Admittedly there is an 'adjustment' period, but once you get there, they are nice frames.
Actually due to the mess of quarantine I haven't gotten to hit that one and I've really been itching too. May also try out the Vcore 95 again.
A couple years ago I got my hands on an RD Ti-70 Midplus Long and it plays really nice, just had trouble with the low SW, extreme HL balance, and really high mass.
It's not like mounting and machine calibration is going to throw the RA way off...more like 1-2 points. And while RA can be a useful measure, it only measures one part of the layup of the racquet...the amount of flex at a specific spot in the throat. It is a good indicator of how a racquet will play and feel, but it's not the entire story. Ex: I can't play with the new Head 360/360+ speeds, even though I love how they feel and hit the ball. I always end up aggravating an old wrist injury pretty quickly (2-3 days), and I've even had some sharp shoulder pain too, even spec'd the same as my sticks of choice. The RA is in the lower end of the 60s, and Wilson measured them as less stiff than pro staffs and blades, and I can play both of those pain free, same string and tension--I can string blades in the mid-to-high 50s will full poly and no pain. So, I'd have to guess that something in the Speeds' layups is pretty stiff--the hoop feels really crisp to me--and could be the main contributor to how much shock I get from the racquet. I know plenty of folks who play those sticks without complaint, though.
Yes, but if the QC tolerances are, say +-2 'RA' values, and your published spec is 66, then manufacturing tolerances + measuring tolerances can result in +- 4 RA points, so 62-70.
As I've learned, there can't be one "be all, end all" type of measurement. Typically, I've enjoyed frames with an RA from 57-63. But the nCode 6.1 has a published RA of 65 and it is one of my all-time favorites. Other frames have a higher RA but have a lot of flex in the hoop, making for an incredibly comfortable hit. This of course just feeds into the nearly endless amount of tinkering that we fanatics can do with our frames in the pursuit of that perfect hit and feel.
This captures the essence of a good attitude when it comes to trying out racquets. Whenever a racquet's mass starts off too high and the SW isn't high enough it's impossible to get to spec but that's really the only limiting factor. Other than that I prefer the headsize below 98 sq in and I like my beams thin but that's more or less it for me.
Head has been pretty sneaky with their flexy throats and stiff hoops lately. Surprisingly the 360+ Extreme Tour has been the opposite and it seems the Gravity line has some nice hoop flex too. There are other racquet diagnostic machines that give a better picture of hoop flex. If anyone is interested I suggest you check out John Gugel’s content on his RacquetQuest website. He is super knowledgeable and friendly too if you want to reach out to him directly with questions.
I don't think that's fair to say. I'd venture that the variance we see from frame to frame is more a result of the lack of precision in mounting the frame on the RDC when measuring RA.
I only know they’ll be on sale 9/28. Have asked if specs will be released prior to launch and was simply told to “stay tuned”. In regards to paint, I would speculate gloss, but do not know for certain.
We have reason to believe that they will be gloss.
Green/black for the blades, blue/black for the ultras.
I think you will likely be disappointed.
I'm guessing since the Ultra Pro has been out a few months already that they ultras will carry that paint scheme, and the H22 blades will match the current paint scheme. I can't imagine that they'll update the Ultra Pro at least in such short time.
I thought there maybe some PJ differences between the current Blade/Ultra and the soon to be released Pro Lab lines H22/H19..... so the 15 year old on the court next to me knows my I stand increase of my self rated rating. Lol
Probably just a gloss version of the current PJ
Is the only difference the gloss paint?This is what I suspect the Pro Labs Blade will look like.
You have the spec on that bad boy?
