Federer’s actual Frame specs!

polksio

Semi-Pro
So, what can we gather from these specs?
So at first sight, 335g 31.5cm is factory average.
However, we all know that he has P1 remove all the metal in the handle located around 5-15cm and redistribute it in the form of silicone 20-x possibly 20-0 and on top add 3g at 12 and after all that, the racket only gets up to 31.5. So the racket spec range P1 must be asking for from wilson must be at least 31cm headlight.
So they ask for 335sw, 31cm balance and weight must be a little bit below average imo
Precision: 31cm balance STRUNG with everyting on except handle weight redistribution and the 3g at noon
 
Last edited:

Rafedovic

Rookie
Does Gut become stiffer and shrivel up over time, depending on the environment it is in, or does it behave like poly and just lose tension? Also, when compared to the racquet with poly/gut, rather than gut/poly a higher starting tension may also increase the tension differential between the mains and crosses over time. I think the head size difference is just due to the stringing rather than there being a secret head size dimensions as there’s no reason for this spec to be a secret. The debate is around weight dispersion, really, because head dimensions matter less to the average punter than weight characteristics. A 97sq in head size is not that small.

Another thing I’ve been wondering is if the weights in the handle are easily accessed when the frame is delivered without a handle? Are Roger’s specs attainable by just adding a couple of strips of lead at 12 under the bumper? I’m still not sure that they are. On the one hand, has anyone within his camp ever explicitly stated his racquets specs? If not, then that’s strange. On the other hand, it seems that it would be much easier for Wilson to just manufacture a racquet that is both suitable for the masses and can also be easily specced up for Roger. That’s why I wonder about access to the weights in the handle. Do the weights need to be moved to achieve his spec and if so, can that happen easily before the handle is attached?
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Does Gut become stiffer and shrivel up over time, depending on the environment it is in, or does it behave like poly and just lose tension? Also, when compared to the racquet with poly/gut, rather than gut/poly a higher starting tension may also increase the tension differential between the mains and crosses over time. I think the head size difference is just due to the stringing rather than there being a secret head size dimensions as there’s no reason for this spec to be a secret. The debate is around weight dispersion, really, because head dimensions matter less to the average punter than weight characteristics. A 97sq in head size is not that small.

Another thing I’ve been wondering is if the weights in the handle are easily accessed when the frame is delivered without a handle? Are Roger’s specs attainable by just adding a couple of strips of lead at 12 under the bumper? I’m still not sure that they are. On the one hand, has anyone within his camp ever explicitly stated his racquets specs? If not, then that’s strange. On the other hand, it seems that it would be much easier for Wilson to just manufacture a racquet that is both suitable for the masses and can also be easily specced up for Roger. That’s why I wonder about access to the weights in the handle. Do the weights need to be moved to achieve his spec and if so, can that happen easily before the handle is attached?
A racquet can easily lose 1/8" or more in length from hoop deformation just due to being strung with gut/poly hybrid. My frames strung with kevlar/poly hybrids still shorten 1/8" over time even when I prestretch the poly as much as possible. This also means the swingweight is probably about 5 kg-cm^2 less at the time this guy measured it than when the racquet was freshly strung for use. So if he measured it at 345, it was more like 350 when strung.
 

McEncock

Semi-Pro
So, what can we gather from these specs?
So at first sight, 335g 31.5cm is factory average.
However, we all know that he has P1 remove all the metal in the handle located around 5-15cm and redistribute it in the form of silicone 20-x possibly 20-0 and on top add 3g at 12 and after all that, the racket only gets up to 31.5. So the racket spec range P1 must be asking for from wilson must be at least 31cm headlight.
So they ask for 335sw, 31cm balance and weight must be a little bit below average imo
Precision: 31cm balance STRUNG with everyting on except handle weight redistribution and the 3g at noon
Wouldn't be more simple for P1 to ask the hairpin without the weight in the handle?
I cannot imagine that they remove all the weight of all RF racquets of all batches...

I rememeber a guy posted an old 90 RF hairpin before the handle was molded, and there was a special code on the hairpin, which was not retail RF 90 code ; if he gets a special hairpin from Wilson, that would be absurd not to ask a weight free hairpin!
 
I believe the weight is in the pallets (?), so a hairpin comes without the weight. Sorry if I am wrong. Anyway, makes sense P1 gets them without weight, to have full control over modifications.
 

tavarua

New User
Ah I getcha. I was wondering how you could edit a post down to “o”. I thought alcohol must have been involved
:laughing::laughing:
Ha! No alcohol involved. I couldn't find a delete button, and when I just deleted it, the video would just pop back up! So I just deleted and inserted a 0 and that did the trick. And you busted me! Ha!
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
A racquet can easily lose 1/8" or more in length from hoop deformation just due to being strung with gut/poly hybrid. My frames strung with kevlar/poly hybrids still shorten 1/8" over time even when I prestretch the poly as much as possible. This also means the swingweight is probably about 5 kg-cm^2 less at the time this guy measured it than when the racquet was freshly strung for use. So if he measured it at 345, it was more like 350 when strung.
@travlerajm So what does this mean? If he measured it now (5 years after stringing) and the SW is maybe 5 points less than when freshly strung, doesn't it imply that the deformation is also gone?
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
@travlerajm So what does this mean? If he measured it now (5 years after stringing) and the SW mayvbe 5 points less than when freshly strung, doesn't it imply that the deformation is also gone?
No. The racquet was strung with gut mains and poly crosses. The tension stability of natural gut is much better than for poly, especially an early-gen poly like ALU that has no special treatment to improve tension stability.

Over time, the tension in the poly will try to relax. It also creeps and gets longer, because the tension from the gut compresses the hoop shorter. Eventually the frame reaches an equilibrium length that is several mm shorter than when it was originally strung. This change in length (and change in sw also would happen much faster during the hour or two while Roger plays with it, as hitting with the racquet will accelerate the deformation).

Ironically, Roger’s old racquet was much more stable in length, because a smaller narrower hoop resists squashing a lot better due to stiffer geometry. As a racquet squashes, its sw gets lower, and the racquet comes around faster on a forehand, making shanks more likely. I suspect he shanked less on his forehand with his smaller head.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
No. The racquet was strung with gut mains and poly crosses. The tension stability of natural gut is much better than for poly, especially an early-gen poly like ALU that has no special treatment to improve tension stability.

Over time, the tension in the poly will try to relax. It also creeps and gets longer, because the tension from the gut compresses the hoop shorter. Eventually the frame reaches an equilibrium length that is several mm shorter than when it was originally strung. This change in length (and change in sw also would happen much faster during the hour or two while Roger plays with it, as hitting with the racquet will accelerate the deformation).

Ironically, Roger’s old racquet was much more stable in length, because a smaller narrower hoop resists squashing a lot better due to stiffer geometry. As a racquet squashes, its sw gets lower, and the racquet comes around faster on a forehand, making shanks more likely. I suspect he shanked less on his forehand with his smaller head.
He certainly shanked MORE on the backhand when he was using a 90
 

FIRETennis

Semi-Pro
Isn't that the older RF in the video?
The 'new' RF97 has a lower SW than the one in the TennisSpin video.
It's around 340SW, not 345SW.

Mine are:
Unstrung from the shop: 342g 306SW 30.7cm ~11HL
Strung & modded to: 357.5g 340SW 31.9cm 7.5HL - Wilson Sublime + Pacific Dampener + Wilson Pro Comfort Overgrip + VS Touch 1.30 / ALU Rough 1.25 + 1.5g Lead in the tip at 12
 

polksio

Semi-Pro
A racquet can easily lose 1/8" or more in length from hoop deformation just due to being strung with gut/poly hybrid. My frames strung with kevlar/poly hybrids still shorten 1/8" over time even when I prestretch the poly as much as possible. This also means the swingweight is probably about 5 kg-cm^2 less at the time this guy measured it than when the racquet was freshly strung for use. So if he measured it at 345, it was more like 350 when strung.
What does it look like to you?
I think like 2mm shorter
 

myth

Semi-Pro
The average retail RF97 swingweight is 335, so 3g at 12 would add around 10kgcm^2. Agreed that it would have been nice to get the flex and see how the handle was made, but I get the owner not wanting to tank the racquet’s value and P1 for keeping their trade secrets.

From personal experience putting a new handle and 3g of lead at 12 on a retail RF97, I can tell you it completely changes the feel of the racquet. I don’t know why Wilson insists on using metal shanks under the foamed grip on retail racquets to control weight and balance, the feel is much harsher than when silicone is injected. I’m not sure if it is because of the change in material or the weight placement being moved down from the middle of the handle to the butcap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What specs does the RF 97 need to have to be able to match Fed's racket?

~305~344~30.6
 

myth

Semi-Pro
What specs does the RF 97 need to have to be able to match Fed's racket?

~305~344~30.6
Sorry i'm new to swing weight calculation.

With 3g at noon on a retail RF 97 what would be the unstrung Swing weight Static weight and balance if i want the numbers above?
 
Top