DNX 10 Mid, Flexpoint Prestige Mid, RDS 001 Mid Comparative review now posted

armand

Banned
Cool, thanks Bp!

Couple questions: Why did you say that the 001 is for 4.5-6.5 while the FXP was 4.5-7. What makes them so?

And you also sorta say that the 001 is great at topspin and the other racquets not so good at topspin, but the 001 got the lowest score in topspin. EDIT: I meant it got a lower score than the FXP. And they all have very similar numbers in topspin anyway.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
adely said:
Cool, thanks Bp!

Couple questions: Why did you say that the 001 is for 4.5-6.5 while the FXP was 4.5-7. What makes them so?

And you also sorta say that the 001 is great at topspin and the other racquets not so good at topspin, but the 001 got the lowest score in topspin. EDIT: I meant it got a lower score than the FXP. And they all have very similar numbers in topspin anyway.
You're welcome adely, Jonnyf, and newnuse!

I found the RDS 001 easier to use than the FXP Prestige Mid, and the Prestige seemed more of a tour-level racquet to me, one that ranked pros would use on the tour. I think the RDS would need some customization before top pros would use it, such as adding lead tape to increase its weight. The dense string pattern of the Prestige also seems to be more popular on the pro tour.

Actually, I said the RDS was "easy" to produce topspin with, but that does not mean that it was the best out of the three for topspin. Surprisingly, I was able to produce even more topspin with the Prestige despite its dense string pattern, perhaps due to its greater flex. However, slices were definitely easier with the RDS. For some inexplicable reason, the Prestige was clumsy on slices for me.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
You're welcome adely, Jonnyf, and newnuse!

I found the RDS 001 easier to use than the FXP Prestige Mid, and the Prestige seemed more of a tour-level racquet to me, one that ranked pros would use on the tour. I think the RDS would need some customization before top pros would use it, such as adding lead tape to increase its weight. The dense string pattern of the Prestige also seems to be more popular on the pro tour.

Actually, I said the RDS was "easy" to produce topspin with, but that does not mean that it was the best out of the three for topspin. Surprisingly, I was able to produce even more topspin with the Prestige despite its dense string pattern, perhaps due to its greater flex. However, slices were definitely easier with the RDS. For some inexplicable reason, the Prestige was clumsy on slices for me.
The prestige is 3 pts more HH than the Yonex and 5 pts more HH than the Volkl, while the other specs are similar. The more HH balance has a much bigger effect on spin potential than the openness of the string pattern.
 

Janne

Semi-Pro
Thank you BP for a very good review! Although I have one thing I'd like some clearence on. You say that the RDS 001 is for 4.5+ players but that you also thought that it was very easy to use because of the large sweetspot. You even mentioned that you had a HARD TIME miss-hitting with it ;) So the questions is: Would you recommend it to someone who has played for 6-10 months with a 95 sq inch frame (the person almost never misses the sweetspot)?
 

newnuse

Professional
Breakpoint,

Your review of the Yonex has me thinking now. I didn't consider the RDS001 because of the RDX500. The RDX500 was a decent stick but I had trouble powering through the ball. It seems like all the Yonex rackets has this problem for me. My friend who hits very hard agrees. The "plow thru" is very weak on a Yonex. I contrast this with my PS 6.0 85". It has great feel and control but I can pound the ball on command. I especially notice the lack of power when I volley with the Yonex. How do you feel about the power, especially when volleying?

I enjoy your review. Hope you do a some more in the future. Maybe a review on some of those great 120", 9oz sticks you like so much and always defend to the death here. :)
 

tom4ny

Professional
it is a well written review and i can tell that time and thought was put into the writeup. nice job! i wish i saw this BP more but all that aside i think that you did a very nice and enjoyable review with good info., insight,and qualified opinion. cheers and danke'.
 
S

snoflewis

Guest
gotta agree w/ the others, it was a great review.

but for those interested in the rds001 midsize, if you want a larger headsize racket that plays similar, you might want to give the mp tour-1 98" a shot. the specs are very similar, but the mp tour-1 is more forgiving and has a more open string pattern.
 

Kevo

Legend
newnuse said:
The RDX500 was a decent stick but I had trouble powering through the ball. It seems like all the Yonex rackets has this problem for me. My friend who hits very hard agrees. The "plow thru" is very weak on a Yonex. I contrast this with my PS 6.0 85". It has great feel and control but I can pound the ball on command. I especially notice the lack of power when I volley with the Yonex. How do you feel about the power, especially when volleying?
I find the Yojnex RDX 500 to reward excessive swing speed with pace and control. Without excessive swing speed, your best bet is to string it in the low 50s. You'll get plenty of power and still have control. So my guess is that your RDX 500 was strung a little too tight for your preferred swing speed. I found the RDS to play similar with a little more pop and maybe a smidgen less laser-like control. As far as volleying goes, there is not a lot of inherent power in the frame. It is flexible and low powered. That is really what I like about it. There is plenty of stick-um on the volleys though if you get your weight moving forward into the volley.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Excellent review. Many thanks. It would be interesting if TW could stick a midsize Prince 03 tour in your hands so you could revisist your earlier appraisal of the midplus. It would add to the mix. A review of the PD, the rds001 MP and perhaps the new PD would be informative. One could kind of second guess a certain person's switch from a Yonex to to PD. I must confess I find the Yonex rdx500MP to play with great beauty, but have indeed strung it at 51/53 with a FXP17 string and only now found any power. I might try 3 or 4 grams at the ten and two positions. Yonex seems indeed to make their racquets too head light and also does not do standard length racquets at anything less than 310/315 unstrung whereas they have a host of extended length racquets around 280/295. This is quite annoying, but their racquets have the best feeling that I have known in my albeit limited experience of tennis.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Janne said:
Thank you BP for a very good review! Although I have one thing I'd like some clearence on. You say that the RDS 001 is for 4.5+ players but that you also thought that it was very easy to use because of the large sweetspot. You even mentioned that you had a HARD TIME miss-hitting with it ;) So the questions is: Would you recommend it to someone who has played for 6-10 months with a 95 sq inch frame (the person almost never misses the sweetspot)?
You're welcome, Janne!

The RDS 001 Mid does indeed have a very large sweetspot, perhaps even bigger than some MP's with small sweetspots. Since you've been only playing for 6-10 months, the swingweight of the RDS 001 Mid might be a bit demanding for you, but that would depend on which 95 sq. in. frame you're using now. If you never miss the sweetspot on your current frame, may I ask why you're looking to switch and what you're looking for in a new racquet?

In any case, if you're really keen on the RDS, I would recommend demoing both the RDS 001 Mid and the RDS 001 Midplus since, according to its specs, the MP swings much easier with a swingweight rating of only 310, so it should be much less demanding for a non-advanced player.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
newnuse said:
Breakpoint,

Your review of the Yonex has me thinking now. I didn't consider the RDS001 because of the RDX500. The RDX500 was a decent stick but I had trouble powering through the ball. It seems like all the Yonex rackets has this problem for me. My friend who hits very hard agrees. The "plow thru" is very weak on a Yonex. I contrast this with my PS 6.0 85". It has great feel and control but I can pound the ball on command. I especially notice the lack of power when I volley with the Yonex. How do you feel about the power, especially when volleying?

I enjoy your review. Hope you do a some more in the future. Maybe a review on some of those great 120", 9oz sticks you like so much and always defend to the death here. :)
Thanks, newnuse!

The RDS 001 Mid is not going to have the same plow-through as the PS 6.0 85 due to its lighter weight and lower swingweight. However, it does plow thought a bit better than the RDX 500 Mid on both groundstrokes and on volleys. Overall, you get a "crisper" feel with the RDS than with the RDX. You can feel the flex more on the RDX than on the RDS. I had no trouble nailing my volleys with the RDS.

If you'd like more plow-through with the RDS, you can always add some lead tape to it, which I did not do during the playtest. You may want to ask member adely how adding lead to the RDS increased its plow-through as compared to the PS 6.0 85, since that's what he has done with his RDS and he used to play with the PS 6.0 85. FYI, you may want to confirm this with adely, but I believe he likes his leaded-up RDS even more than his PS 6.0 85 and he's been touting how he's found his true PS 6.0 90 but it's not made by Wilson, but by Yonex. ;)
 

armand

Banned
Ok, I finally read the whole thing and I have a couple more questions your honour :cool:

Please tell us what strings and tensions you used. It may be important.

Your scores for power seem to be a little high. If you reviewed the PD, what score would it get for power?

Thanks again BP, I appreciate all your work.

P.S. Is it my imagination, or was the review edited to say you serve+volley 1/3 of the time? I think a few hours ago it said you serve+volley 50% of time. Just curious as to why.
 

armand

Banned
BreakPoint said:
If you'd like more plow-through with the RDS, you can always add some lead tape to it, which I did not do during the playtest. You may want to ask member adely how adding lead to the RDS increased its plow-through as compared to the PS 6.0 85, since that's what he has done with his RDS and he used to play with the PS 6.0 85. FYI, you may want to confirm this with adely, but I believe he likes his leaded-up RDS even more than his PS 6.0 85 and he's been touting how he's found his true PS 6.0 90 but it's not made by Wilson, but by Yonex. ;)
All true! I thought I would stick with the 6.0 85 for doubles but I love the 001 so much that it's now my main frame, in all things. Anyway, my thread chronicling my adventures in high class affairs with different supermodels :cool: that concluded with me ending up and marrying the 001 can be found here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=92237

P.S. I'm not abandoning my 6.0 85 just yet and I will try it again for dubs very soon. Volleying is better and it serves a heavier ball which means much more than I had thought before.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
adely said:
Ok, I finally read the whole thing and I have a couple more questions your honour :cool:

Please tell us what strings and tensions you used. It may be important.

Your scores for power seem to be a little high. If you reviewed the PD, what score would it get for power?

Thanks again BP, I appreciate all your work.

P.S. Is it my imagination, or was the review edited to say you serve+volley 1/3 of the time? I think a few hours ago it said you serve+volley 50% of time. Just curious as to why.
The strings were Wilson NXT 16g strung at 2 lbs above the midpoint. This is typical of what TW strings all their demo racquets at.

You're right about the power scores. I probably shouldn't have given them such high absolute numbers. I was thinking more of how the three scored relative to each other. I just checked and in my past review, I gave the RDX 500 Mid a power rating of 62, and the RDS 001 Mid is definitely more powerful, but perhaps not by 12 points. Maybe 70 would have been a better number? However, the DNX 10 Mid is indeed a pretty powerful racquet, but not 80, maybe 75 would have been a better number. I would rate the PD only slightly higher in power.

I actually wrote that I serve and volley one-third of the time, but the editor must have cut and pasted that part from one of my old reviews which said "50% of the time". I pointed this error out and they've now corrected it. :D I don't S&V as much as I used to since I think I can't get to the net as quickly as I used to. Either that or my opponents are just returning better. :(
 

Redflea

Hall of Fame
Kevo said:
I find the Yojnex RDX 500 to reward excessive swing speed with pace and control. Without excessive swing speed, your best bet is to string it in the low 50s. You'll get plenty of power and still have control. So my guess is that your RDX 500 was strung a little too tight for your preferred swing speed. I found the RDS to play similar with a little more pop and maybe a smidgen less laser-like control. As far as volleying goes, there is not a lot of inherent power in the frame. It is flexible and low powered. That is really what I like about it. There is plenty of stick-um on the volleys though if you get your weight moving forward into the volley.
This is a spot-on analysis from my experience as well...nice summary, Kevo.
 

Janne

Semi-Pro
BreakPoint said:
You're welcome, Janne!

The RDS 001 Mid does indeed have a very large sweetspot, perhaps even bigger than some MP's with small sweetspots. Since you've been only playing for 6-10 months, the swingweight of the RDS 001 Mid might be a bit demanding for you, but that would depend on which 95 sq. in. frame you're using now. If you never miss the sweetspot on your current frame, may I ask why you're looking to switch and what you're looking for in a new racquet?

In any case, if you're really keen on the RDS, I would recommend demoing both the RDS 001 Mid and the RDS 001 Midplus since, according to its specs, the MP swings much easier with a swingweight rating of only 310, so it should be much less demanding for a non-advanced player.
I´ve only been playing for 3 months but I´m getting to the point where I almost always hit the sweetspot so I just made the assumption that I'll get there in 3-6 more months. Right now I play with a Prince TT Bandit 95 which I dont like because of the stiffness, lightness and head heaviness. I'm looking for a very head light, heavy and flexible/not so stiff (58-66 stiffness rating) racquet with low power (I think the Bandit is too powerful as I cant take full swings without it sailing long and I really want to develop full strokes). This past week I've also noticed this pain in my right elbow when playing with the bandit on some shots (serve and sometimes forehand) so I'm getting kind of scared since I really dont want to get TE. Though the pain doesnt come everytime I serve or hit a forehand so is there a small chance that it ISNT TE?
 
D

Deleted member 6835

Guest
great review BP, and your definitely right, the 001 needs some lead in the hoop before its perfect.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Janne said:
I´ve only been playing for 3 months but I´m getting to the point where I almost always hit the sweetspot so I just made the assumption that I'll get there in 3-6 more months. Right now I play with a Prince TT Bandit 95 which I dont like because of the stiffness, lightness and head heaviness. I'm looking for a very head light, heavy and flexible/not so stiff (58-66 stiffness rating) racquet with low power (I think the Bandit is too powerful as I cant take full swings without it sailing long and I really want to develop full strokes). This past week I've also noticed this pain in my right elbow when playing with the bandit on some shots (serve and sometimes forehand) so I'm getting kind of scared since I really dont want to get TE. Though the pain doesnt come everytime I serve or hit a forehand so is there a small chance that it ISNT TE?
Hmmm....I would say that if you've only been playing for 3 months that the RDS 001 Mid would most likely be too demanding for you. You may want to try the RDS 001 MP or the RDS 003 first, if you're partial to Yonex. If not, there are lots of less demanding racquets out there for beginners that are not as powerful nor stiff as the Bandit, such as the Dunlop M-Fil 300. You may also want to give that one a try. Good luck!
 

Janne

Semi-Pro
BreakPoint said:
Hmmm....I would say that if you've only been playing for 3 months that the RDS 001 Mid would most likely be too demanding for you. You may want to try the RDS 001 MP or the RDS 003 first, if you're partial to Yonex. If not, there are lots of less demanding racquets out there for beginners that are not as powerful nor stiff as the Bandit, such as the Dunlop M-Fil 300. You may also want to give that one a try. Good luck!
Not partial to Yonex, I´ve just heard so many good things about the new RDS line and they seem to have everything I want to try out in a racquet and you confirmed that they have a huge sweetspot. When the time comes, I'll demo them both and the Dunlop. Thanks again!
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Thanks for the kind words - tom4ny, snoflewis, scotus, Bartelby, tarheels2323, and tennis_nerd22!

I'm glad you all enjoyed the review. :D

I'll try to continue to do my best! ;)
 

tennisguy11

Semi-Pro
Breakpoint,

would you mind reading my post in the customized yonex rds 001 mp thread? ithink you may be able to help me out. By the way, your review was great, I hope you do more in the future!
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Hi tennisguy11,

Thanks! I just took a look at your thread on customizing your RDS 001 MP. However, I'm probably not the best guy to ask about customizing racquets since I play with most of my racquets stock. I haven't even used lead on any of my racquets for a long, long time. And since I've never hit with the RDS 001 MP, it would be hard for me to compare it to the Mid and know how to make the MP feel like the Mid. Sorry that I couldn't be more helpful, but I'm sure there are plenty of lead customizing experts on this board that could help you in your other thread. Good luck.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
bigdaddy said:
Great review. Do you think the DNX 10 Mid is more powerful than the DNX 9.
Thanks, bigdaddy! :D

I can't really say since I've never hit with the DNX 9. You may want to do a search for posts by NoBadMojo, since he has hit with both the DNX 10 Mid and the DNX 9, or you can ask him directly in a post (like in the thread on the DNX 9). Hope that helps.
 
bigdaddy said:
Great review. Do you think the DNX 10 Mid is more powerful than the DNX 9.
Just hit the DNX 10 mid this AM, and the answer is a strong yes!! I found it noticeably more powerful than the DNX 9.

Detailed (read that obsessive compulsive approved) review of the DNX 10 mid to follow in the next few days. :cool:

CC
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jayserinos99 said:
^ i can't wait to read your review CC!!!

edit: forgot to write, good review BP!
Thanks, jay!

Yes, I'm looking forward to CC's review as well to see how much (or how little) we're in sync. ;)

BTW, jay, I saw in another thread that you've received your DNX 10 Mid's, too, and that you've already hit with it. Just wondering if your assessment of it so far agrees or disagrees with mine?
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
I dont think the DNX10Mid is a powerful frame. It's pretty low powered. it's certainly not nearly the type of frame a Pure Drive is in the power department..nowhere close. I spent about 3 weeks with this frame with a couple diff types of strings.
 

jayserinos99

Hall of Fame
bp, I haven't hit w/ the rds001 and fxp prestige mid yet so I can't do that comparison but as far as the dnx10 goes, I think it swings a bit heavier than 321 (by my non-scientific estimates, more around 328 or so). Just wondering, what were the strings and tensions on the frames that you tested? Also what were the grip sizes of the frames? If they were TW demos, I would assume the test frames were strung with some multifilament at mid+2 lbs. tension.
 

NoBadMojo

G.O.A.T.
bigdaddy said:
Great review. Do you think the DNX 10 Mid is more powerful than the DNX 9.
If you can swing the DNX10 as fast as the DNX9, the power of the two may be similar...the 9 is significanty lighter and a bit stiffer. They're both make your own power frames and if someone cant swing the 325 swingweight fast enough or long enough, theyre just not going to get much power out of it..really sweet frames..both of them I think
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
jayserinos99 said:
Just wondering, what were the strings and tensions on the frames that you tested? Also what were the grip sizes of the frames? If they were TW demos, I would assume the test frames were strung with some multifilament at mid+2 lbs. tension.
Yes, all three racquets were strung with NXT 16g at 2 lbs. above the midpoint, and all were 4 1/2 grips.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Breakpoint,

Thanks for the detailed review.

I noticed that you gave the Volkl the worst stability rating of the 3, but you rated it the best on volleys. Since most people equate good stability with a good volley racquet, could you please elaborate?

I suspect it has to do with the fact that the Volkl has a very large recoil weight (188 kg-cm^2), which improves depth control on volleys. But it also has a very low hitting weight (~9.0 kg-cm, measured at 4cm), which tends to destabilize the racquet and allow it to twist more on off-center hits.

Also, I noticed that you say that the Volkl swung the lightest even though it had the highest SW, while the Head swung the heaviest even though it had the lowest SW. I'd like to note that if you use the parallel axis theorem to calculate the effective SW about the 4cm axis, the Volkl actually has a lower effective SW than the Head.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
travlerajm,

Thanks. The DNX actually felt a little less stable on groundstrokes than on volleys (perhaps due to the "whipping" action of the racquet when you swing it fast?), and it was only the least stable relative to the other two racquets, which were very stable due to their higher static weights. I gave the DNX the best rating for volleys mostly due to its terrific maneuverability at the net. It was just very easy to get the racquet up and in front of the ball no matter how hard my opponent was drilling the ball at me. The extra power of the DNX over the other two racquets also helped me to nail volleys and put the ball away a bit easier.

I think the fact that the DNX swung easier to me and the Prestige swung heavier to me, despite their relative rated swingweights has to do with their respective unique weight distributions. I'm starting to realize that the swingweight ratings may not take weight distribution, and other factors, like aerodynamics, beam shape/width into account. For example, the nSix-One Tour 90 is rated at a SW of 326, but its weight distribution makes it feel like it swings much heavier IMO.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
travlerajm,

Thanks. The DNX actually felt a little less stable on groundstrokes than on volleys (perhaps due to the "whipping" action of the racquet when you swing it fast?), and it was only the least stable relative to the other two racquets, which were very stable due to their higher static weights. I gave the DNX the best rating for volleys mostly due to its terrific maneuverability at the net. It was just very easy to get the racquet up and in front of the ball no matter how hard my opponent was drilling the ball at me. The extra power of the DNX over the other two racquets also helped me to nail volleys and put the ball away a bit easier.

I think the fact that the DNX swung easier to me and the Prestige swung heavier to me, despite their relative rated swingweights has to do with their respective unique weight distributions. I'm starting to realize that the swingweight ratings may not take weight distribution, and other factors, like aerodynamics, beam shape/width into account. For example, the nSix-One Tour 90 is rated at a SW of 326, but its weight distribution makes it feel like it swings much heavier IMO.
Thanks for the explantation about the volleys.

About the SW, I think you missed my point that the way to tell how heavy a racquet swings is to calculate the SW about the 4cm axis (the wrist). If you do this, the result will always agree with your perceived SW. It has nothing to do with beam shape or aerodynamics.

It's an easy check to do; just use this simple equation:

I' = I + M*(12*R - 84)

I' = effective swingweight (4cm axis)
I = specified SW (10 cm axis)
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm

If you plug in the numbers for the Tour 90, it has a much higher effective SW than other racquets of comparable specified SW.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
travlerajm said:
It's an easy check to do; just use this simple equation:

I' = I + M*(12*R - 84)

I' = effective swingweight (4cm axis)
I = specified SW (10 cm axis)
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm

If you plug in the numbers for the Tour 90, it has a much higher effective SW than other racquets of comparable specified SW.
Hmmm...I just plugged in the numbers for the DNX 10 Mid according to the specs on TW's product page (M=0.340kg, R=30.48cm, I=331), and I got an effective SW of a whopping 427! So wouldn't that mean the effective swingweight is even higher than the specified SW, which is 331? Even though I felt that it swung lighter than the specified SW of 331? What am I missing here? :confused:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
artworks said:
BTW, Breakpoint - why have you given up on your PS 95 infavour of the ncode Tour 90 Asian version?
They're both very good racquets and I still use the PS 6.0 95 sometimes. I guess I just feel the nCode 90 is a bit more solid feeling and a bit more stable, and the smaller headsize gives me a bit more precision.
 

artworks

Rookie
BreakPoint said:
They're both very good racquets and I still use the PS 6.0 95 sometimes. I guess I just feel the nCode 90 is a bit more solid feeling and a bit more stable, and the smaller headsize gives me a bit more precision.
Last question so as not to divert the topic, I thought you have the US version of the nCode Tour 90? I find it more stable than the Asian version which I junked in favour of the US version. The Asian version is only 11.3oz if my memory serves me right.

My romance with the X1 is over. Went back with the nCode Tour 90 US version during tournaments. Now, I'm hitting with a PS 6.6 85 and loving it.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
artworks,
I use the Asian version. Mine are 12.2 oz. strung with overgrip. It still has a pretty hefty swingweight though due to the weird weight distribution. The US version's even higher swingweight is too much for my shoulder over a long match in hot weather.

BTW, have you sold your Asian versions already?
 

artworks

Rookie
BreakPoint said:
artworks,
I use the Asian version. Mine are 12.2 oz. strung with overgrip. It still has a pretty hefty swingweight though due to the weird weight distribution. The US version's even higher swingweight is too much for my shoulder over a long match in hot weather.

BTW, have you sold your Asian versions already?
I gave it as a gift to an old friend of mine who happens to love the racquet. Thanks for the reply.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Hmmm...I just plugged in the numbers for the DNX 10 Mid according to the specs on TW's product page (M=0.340kg, R=30.48cm, I=331), and I got an effective SW of a whopping 467! So wouldn't that mean the effective swingweight is even higher than the specified SW, which is 331? Even though I felt that it swung lighter than the specified SW of 331? What am I missing here? :confused:
The DNX10 comes out to 427. But you wouldn't compare it to the SW about the 10 cm axis. (The effective SW would be 331 if you choked up on the handle by 6 cm).

Rather, you can compare the effective SW of 427 against the effective SW of other racquets. The Tour 90 comes out to 429. So even though the Tour 90 has a specified SW that is 5 kg-cm^2 less than the DNX 10 (326 vs 331), the Tour 90 has a higher effective SW than the DNX 10 (429 vs 427), which is why you perceive it to swing heavier.

Does this make more sense?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
travlerajm said:
The DNX10 comes out to 427. But you wouldn't compare it to the SW about the 10 cm axis. (The effective SW would be 331 if you choked up on the handle by 6 cm).

Rather, you can compare the effective SW of 427 against the effective SW of other racquets. The Tour 90 comes out to 429. So even though the Tour 90 has a specified SW that is 5 kg-cm^2 less than the DNX 10 (326 vs 331), the Tour 90 has a higher effective SW than the DNX 10 (429 vs 427), which is why you perceive it to swing heavier.

Does this make more sense?
Yes, it's 427. I just corrected it. It was late last night when I posted so I must have made a typo or read my calculator wrong or something.

Anyway, I have to say that the nCode 90 feels like it swings significantly heavier than the DNX 10 Mid to me, and much more than just a difference of 2 SW points.
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
BreakPoint said:
Yes, it's 427. I just corrected it. It was late last night when I posted so I must have made a typo or read my calculator wrong or something.

Anyway, I have to say that the nCode 90 feels like it swings significantly heavier than the DNX 10 Mid to me, and much more than just a difference of 2 SW points.
Remember that this definition of effective SW uses 4cm axis, which assumes that the wrist is the only axis of rotation. This a reasonable assumption for the serve, but for a forehand, there is actually probably more rotation about the elbow. Which means that it would be better to use an axis of rotation well beyond the butt of the racquet.

Using the parallel axis theorem, with -30cm as axis of rotation:

Tour 90 = 1634
FP Prestige = 1625
RDS001 = 1601
DNX 10 = 1568

This gives 4% higher SW for the Tour 90 on a forehand than for DNX10, which would feel like 13 Kg-cm^2 difference if you convert to the SW range in the 300s that we use for comparison.

Do these look more like your perceived swingweights relative to each other?
 
Top