Dunlop Aerogel 200 bridge v. M-Fil 200 bridge

[Steve F.]

Hi guys -

just a few questions about the frame, based on a few posts and your review.

In a post a few months ago, there was a question to you guys regarding the bridge on the new aerogel 200. Additionally, there is a reference to the "thinner bridge" in the review, but it's unclear if the tester (Ryan) is comparing his usual racquet (Slaz PB) to the aerogel.

Does the aerogel have a thinner bridge than the M-Fil? If so, is it the same bridge as the MW? Also, does the aerogel continue with the ISIS handle that's in the M-Fil?

I can't tell if it's an optical illusion from the aerogel pj, but the head appears slightly more elongated than the M-Fil, HM and MW. Has the head shape changed, or is it an illusion?

Finally, what string and tension was used in your playtest? I'd be particularly curious to learn if Jon, your resident MW user, played with his usual string set up, or left the demo string in.

I've been swinging away with the 200 series since the Max 200g, and imo the stability of the M-Fil throat + the ISIS handle is what seperates it from its predecessors. Your review is informative as always, but leaves a few unanswered questions for long time Dunlop users... Any follow up info would be appreciated!
Best -
Steve

 

[snoflewis]

i actually noticed the thinner bridge on the AG200s too. i think the aerogels do in fact have thinner bridges than the mfil200

 

[Pushmaster]

From the pics I've seen from mileslong the bridge of the AG 200 is thinner than the HM and M-fil, more like the MW. The beam on the MW is 21mm. The beam of the AG, HM, and M-fil is 20mm, just thought I'd point that out. Also, psp2 has stated the AG 200's flex on the RDC was 58! Man, that sounds to good to be true! Could the AG 200 be the MW 200G that I've been dreaming about? Needless to say, the AG 200 has my undivided attention.

 

[Steve F.]

Thanks guys for your posts...

TW testers - still hoping for your response to the questions in the initial post when you have the time

 

[Pushmaster]

Steve, just because the AG 200's bridge is a little thinner like the MW 200G doesn't mean it will play and feel like it. Specs are nice but they don't really tell the whole story. The only way to find out how the AG plays and compare it to the MW, HM, or M-Fil is to try it. I just ordered one from TW based on the great reviews because that's all I have to go on right now. I'll do a AG 200 review when I get some court time in with it, and you bet I'll compare it to the MW and Mfil.

 

[Steve F.]

Steve, just because the AG 200's bridge is a little thinner like the MW 200G doesn't mean it will play and feel like it. Specs are nice but they don't really tell the whole story. The only way to find out how the AG plays and compare it to the MW, HM, or M-Fil is to try it. I just ordered one from TW based on the great reviews because that's all I have to go on right now. I'll do a AG 200 review when I get some court time in with it, and you bet I'll compare it to the MW and Mfil.

Sure PM, what you're posting is awfully clear. Frankly I hadn't expected anything but a quick response from TW in this part of the forums dedicated to questions directed to them. Nice to see the boards here are picking up the slack.

That said, what I'm hoping to achieve with these questions isn't simply a verification of the new frame's specs, but to reinforce TW's awareness that some of us actually expect this information from their review - and it's not there, as is. (Except as an open ended reference to a change in the width of the bridge) A review (written by a company with direct access to the manufacturer) which does not clearly track the changes to a manufacturer's top frame but does mention the brand new technology (which by the way costs twice as much as the previous incarnation still for sale and in plentiful supply) is frustrating. I play tennis, I'm not interested in parsing through marketing hype - I want information. Sure, I'll come to my own conclusions when and if I play with the new model, but I don't expect a blind test for my $150+, I want to know what I'm getting. Hence the questions: how thick is the bridge, is there an ISIS handle, I mean basic stuff that should be in there, that anybody who knows the 200 series would wonder. If TW doesn't know, fine. I'll ask somebody who does - but they brought it up, and I wouldn't mind giving them the business if the answer is what I'm looking for.

Enjoy the aerogel, and I'll keep my eye open for your write up!
Best
Steve

 

[Pro_Tour_630]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1249826#post1249826

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1235893&postcount=26

 

[Steve F.]

Good stuff michael. I missed those threads over there.

Looks like we're in agreement on the need for more hard numbers, less ambiguity in the information TW has released about this frame. Normally, the write-ups don't bother me because hey, their job is to sell racquets, but this is an update to the frame I play with, and the lack of information (and a response) isn't encouraging. I had no idea this was being discussed elsewhere, and I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice the omissions. Of course, TW is a shop out to sell tennis gear, not a tennis journal, so maybe we're expecting too much. Anybody talking about starting up a hard facts tennis tech review site? :idea: