Federer’s actual Frame specs!
- Thread starter Avedissianj1
- Start date
One Handed Dynasty
Semi-Pro
I think it’s hard to say that’s the case when the RF97 model # has already changed from GR187 (H22) for the first generation to GR280Y1 for later models.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Or incredibly busy and serious to actually deal with Fedace level of nonsense all the time. You are lucky that on these boards you are perceived as something of an entertainment.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Or incredibly busy and serious to actually deal with Fedace level of nonsense all the time. You are lucky that on these boards you are perceived as something of an entertainment.
who ?? anyway, I am considered the foremost authority on tennis strings, rackets and everything else, including quantum mechanics and cosmology
1990's Graphite
Hall of Fame
Or incredibly busy and serious to actually deal with Fedace level of nonsense all the time. You are lucky that on these boards you are perceived as something of an entertainment.
Lol nailed it !
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Ron's been on these forums long enough to know who FEDACE is and avoid his nonsense stuff
Why would his lawyers do that? At this point it is his racquet to do what he wants to do with it.
I hope you are being sarcastic with your comment.
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
Imho, you are confused about racquet specs...
Hairpin and mold is the shape of the racquet only, not the racquet itself!
No one has ever said that Head Prestige is the same racquet like PT57 because they have the same mold...
Fed's frame has the same shape but has nothing else common with your RF.
Different materials, different layers, different QC, everything!
The target group of that unfriendly racquet are guys like you imho.
People who they believe that they can have a real pro stock racquet in a retail price!
That's the reason they add the mambo-jampo text too.
Racquet differences weren't about the handles sizes and shapes my friend..
No one can lawsuit you for that!
Drob
Hall of Fame
What is RA? thanks
Unforgiven79
Rookie
I quote @PeterFig here, if I am not missing it, he stated RF97A is the same racquet of Fed, except for handle and customizations. Unless I got it really wrong when reading.
Do not know why materials or layers of such a club should change in the pro room, let alone QC (which, to my knowledge, is performed by the pro player himself who picks his units one by one).
And BTW, Head Prestige and PT57 do not have the same mold by any means. The former is derived from the latter, but it is not the same.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
You don't know that.
SilverLining
New User
There's currently one on sale at the big auction site. Asking price is $35k. Apparently one of the racquets that he played with in the French Open finals against Nadal in 2011.
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
I know it because I believe what official Wilson writes on an official paper...
Not what's mentioned by a friend of mine or no-named Wilson's seller either etc etc
Do you believe that Wilson said lies? I don't think so.
Sorry mate, that's not true...
Actually "after many law suits" Wilson says clearly that Federer DOES NOT play with RF97.
From Wiilson's catalogue, in the red line:
«Racket specifications on endorsed consumer models may vary from the models used by Pros for match-play».
Additionally the promotional text says that the racquet is "co-designed by Roger Federer".
Nowhere the phrase "used by" is written...
PS: The diference on the font sizes is the real one, whatever that means...
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
Additionally the cheaty endorsments has been proven in the "Russell Minoru Ono v. Head Racquet Sports USA" case, although he finally failed to gain something more than the notification that «Racket specifications on endorsed consumer models may vary from the models used by Pros for match-play», which you do not believe beside that Wilson (and all other brand) write it...
Friday, March 17, 2017
All in the game: misleading tennis racquet endorsements don't support class certification
Ono v. Head Racquet Sports USA, Inc., No. CV 13–4222, 2016 WL 6647949 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)|
Ono sued Head for deceiving the public “into believing that top-ranked professional tennis players actually used [Tour–Line Racquets] during competition,” bringing the usual California claims. Although he failed, the allegations—which seem to be substantially uncontested by Head—are of the kind that often draw FTC scrutiny, and the FTC doesn’t have the same problems that putative class representatives do. The FTC does not like misleading endorsements, and Head would be well advised to read the extensive guidance it has offered on the topic, particularly about the endorser’s actual use of the endorsed product.
A press release issued by Head in April 2013, for example, stated that “[Andy] Murray was winning a thrilling match with his HEAD YouTek IG Radical,” that Richard Gasquet was “playing with his HEAD YouTek IG Extreme,” that Tommy Haas was using the HEAD YouTek IG Prestige, and it also mentioned “Maria Sharapova, who swings her new HEAD YouTek Graphene Instinct[.]”Another release from 2011 stated that Novak Djokovic “changed to his new YouTek IG Speed MP at the start of the season” and “Maria Sharapova showed tremendous performances with her brand-new YouTek IG Instinct MP[.]” Ono alleged that “professional tennis players whom Head pays to endorse specific models actually play with different tennis rackets—custom-made rackets that are not available to the general public or older models that have been discontinued or are sold at steep discounts—but which have been painted to look like the latest models that Head sells to the general public[.]”
The court found commonality, but not predominance. Head argued that most of its ads didn’t claim that an athlete used a specific racket. The court commented that most of Ono’s claims about Head’s ads were supported by the record, which included more than 60 pages of press releases claiming that various professional athletes use specific Tour–Line Racquets in their professional matches. When the Senior Category Manager for Head’s tennis division was asked why Head did that, he answered “it’s always been that way.” Head provides lists to retailers that include “the player and the racquet that they are endorsing or playing with,” even if they weren’t playing with it in professional matches, and even without any knowledge of whether a player is or isn’t using it. Head’s president testified that players’ custom raquets are painted to look like standard Tour-Lines sold to the public, and,. in response to a question about whether that was “dishonest,” he simply said, “it’s inaccurate.”
Further, there was evidence that Head decisionmakers “knew that certain customers care a lot about what racquets their tennis idols use, and the evidence suggests that Head intended to maintain the ‘inaccuracy’ described in the preceding paragraph.” One 2009 employee email discussed Andy Murray’s use of a racquet with a different number of strings than the racquet Head claimed he used: “t just makes it look like he is really not using the racquet we say he is and when this starts getting around on the message boards, it will not help our cause.... [P]eople like to have the same racquet (especially he [sic] techy-geeks) and we are making it impossible.” Another employee email: “[o]ne of our concerns, of course, is that now those serious players that want to play with what our pros play with will doubt they get the chance to play the actual Djokovic racquet.”
A manager: “I am aware that players do not play with the retail version and I have no problem with that but we should have tried to make this as invisible to the public as we could, especially on a new series.” Cf. Endorsement Guidelines, § 255.1(c) (“When the advertisement represents that the endorser uses the endorsed product, the endorser must have been a bona fide user of it at the time the endorsement was given. Additionally, the advertiser may continue to run the advertisement only so long as it has good reason to believe that the endorser remains a bona fide user of the product.”).
...
Friday, March 17, 2017
All in the game: misleading tennis racquet endorsements don't support class certification
Ono v. Head Racquet Sports USA, Inc., No. CV 13–4222, 2016 WL 6647949 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)|
Ono sued Head for deceiving the public “into believing that top-ranked professional tennis players actually used [Tour–Line Racquets] during competition,” bringing the usual California claims. Although he failed, the allegations—which seem to be substantially uncontested by Head—are of the kind that often draw FTC scrutiny, and the FTC doesn’t have the same problems that putative class representatives do. The FTC does not like misleading endorsements, and Head would be well advised to read the extensive guidance it has offered on the topic, particularly about the endorser’s actual use of the endorsed product.
A press release issued by Head in April 2013, for example, stated that “[Andy] Murray was winning a thrilling match with his HEAD YouTek IG Radical,” that Richard Gasquet was “playing with his HEAD YouTek IG Extreme,” that Tommy Haas was using the HEAD YouTek IG Prestige, and it also mentioned “Maria Sharapova, who swings her new HEAD YouTek Graphene Instinct[.]”Another release from 2011 stated that Novak Djokovic “changed to his new YouTek IG Speed MP at the start of the season” and “Maria Sharapova showed tremendous performances with her brand-new YouTek IG Instinct MP[.]” Ono alleged that “professional tennis players whom Head pays to endorse specific models actually play with different tennis rackets—custom-made rackets that are not available to the general public or older models that have been discontinued or are sold at steep discounts—but which have been painted to look like the latest models that Head sells to the general public[.]”
The court found commonality, but not predominance. Head argued that most of its ads didn’t claim that an athlete used a specific racket. The court commented that most of Ono’s claims about Head’s ads were supported by the record, which included more than 60 pages of press releases claiming that various professional athletes use specific Tour–Line Racquets in their professional matches. When the Senior Category Manager for Head’s tennis division was asked why Head did that, he answered “it’s always been that way.” Head provides lists to retailers that include “the player and the racquet that they are endorsing or playing with,” even if they weren’t playing with it in professional matches, and even without any knowledge of whether a player is or isn’t using it. Head’s president testified that players’ custom raquets are painted to look like standard Tour-Lines sold to the public, and,. in response to a question about whether that was “dishonest,” he simply said, “it’s inaccurate.”
Further, there was evidence that Head decisionmakers “knew that certain customers care a lot about what racquets their tennis idols use, and the evidence suggests that Head intended to maintain the ‘inaccuracy’ described in the preceding paragraph.” One 2009 employee email discussed Andy Murray’s use of a racquet with a different number of strings than the racquet Head claimed he used: “t just makes it look like he is really not using the racquet we say he is and when this starts getting around on the message boards, it will not help our cause.... [P]eople like to have the same racquet (especially he [sic] techy-geeks) and we are making it impossible.” Another employee email: “[o]ne of our concerns, of course, is that now those serious players that want to play with what our pros play with will doubt they get the chance to play the actual Djokovic racquet.”
A manager: “I am aware that players do not play with the retail version and I have no problem with that but we should have tried to make this as invisible to the public as we could, especially on a new series.” Cf. Endorsement Guidelines, § 255.1(c) (“When the advertisement represents that the endorser uses the endorsed product, the endorser must have been a bona fide user of it at the time the endorsement was given. Additionally, the advertiser may continue to run the advertisement only so long as it has good reason to believe that the endorser remains a bona fide user of the product.”).
...
Last edited:
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
...
Head’s target market for the Tour-Line could, in its own words, be described as “die-hard tennis freak…. They play competitively 5 to 7 times a week and follow the game religiously. They know what’s going on and who’s who in the international Tennis scene and ... are mainly influenced by their player idols, coaches and other players at their age and level of play.”
Head’s key argument was that its ads were varied and diverse, and “[m]ost do not include the allegedly false claim at the heart of this dispute—that a professional athlete used a specific racket in competition play.” Much of the advertising featuring professional endorsements “explain the type of player each racket line or model is designed for and/or encourages consumers to visit the website to choose a racket best suited for their needs.” E.g., “The new YouTek IG Speed is specially designed for the needs of players like Novak Djokovic. It offers a stiffer feel for hard hitters with a long, fast swing style.” The ads didn’t say which specific variant a player is using, or that they’re using a variant available to the public. Also, Head argued that the reach of its marketing efforts was relatively limited. “Between 2009 and 2013, it placed print ads in two publications circulated to tennis teaching professionals, four tennis publications circulated to consumers …, and some tennis tournament programs; banner advertisements on tennis-focused websites; television advertisements on the subscription-only Tennis Channel; and press releases on its own website, the majority of which have been viewed 59 to 118 times or less in the United States.”
Even if the ads didn’t claim that an athlete used a particular racket in competition, a jury could find that the ads were nonetheless misleading “because reasonable consumers would understand them to mean that professional tennis players are using racquets that Head makes available to the general public.” Minimal ad exposure also didn’t defeat commonality, which was a question of whether the advertising itself was materially misleading. Head’s survey witness Hal Poret also conducted a survey in which only six percent of respondents answered “both that endorsement of a racket by a professional tennis player would be a factor in their decision and that they believe[d] from [a sample] ad[vertisement] that Andy Murray plays with the identical version of the racket sold to the public.” Of those who called endorsement an important factor, only 1.5% believed that Andy Murray used the racquet in question. Still, variations in what class members might have believed or desired didn’t defeat the “relatively minimal showing required to establish commonality,” especially given that some elements of the California claims can be satisfied “without individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury.”
Still, the case foundered on predominance, for the reasons largely given above. Likely deception isn’t automatically a classwide question. Ono failed to show that it was reasonable to assume that all, or even most, of class members were exposed to the allegedly deceptive ads, “and thus the question of exposure would have to be resolved on an individual rather than classwide basis.” Even if Head’s target super-fans were more likely to be exposed than other people, the class definition wasn’t just super-fans.
Even painting racquets used in pro tournaments didn’t necessarily expose consumers to the deceptive practices. There was no evidence that Tour’s customers generally watch tennis tournaments, or that they’d notice or be able to determine the model used by a pro on TV or even live. There was no evidence of an extensive decades-long campaign that might be used to infer exposure.
Nor was it reasonable to find that materiality and thus reliance could be litigated with common evidence. While Head may have targeted its marketing at a segment of the population, there was no evidence that the target consumers were the actual consumers. “It would therefore be inappropriate for the court to presume that Head’s knowing that ‘tennis freaks’ would likely regard celebrity use of racquets as important is the same as Head’s knowing or having reason to know that purchasers of Tour–Line Racquets are similarly influenced.” [This strikes me as wrong: the reason that we infer deception from intent to deceive is that the fact that the seller thinks its representation will help sell its products is good evidence that it will do so; sellers who tout only unappealing features rarely last.] Ono responded to Head’s survey evidence only by arguing that “those consumers who have purchased or are likely to purchase a tennis racket” in the price range of Tour–Line Racquets weren’t “representative of Head’s target Tour Consumer,” but the court already rejected Ono’s reliance on the target consumer.
In addition, “[e]valuating materiality using common evidence would be particularly challenging in this case due to the different representations regarding different racquets by different celebrity tennis players. While some press releases say outright that a certain professional player plays with a particular Tour–Line Racquet model, other advertisements merely link a player with a particular racquet silo [sub-brand], or describe a particular player’s style of play.” Each would require separate deception analysis. Also, the extent of deceptiveness varied—some pro players used racquets very similar to the models available at retail, and others used custom frames that differed more significantly. Although Ono contested whether these sub-brands were designed for players like the respective endorser, that was a different misleadingness argument than the one about whether the endorser actually used the racquet.
Originally posted by Rebecca Tushnet, Professor of law at Harvard Law School.
Head’s target market for the Tour-Line could, in its own words, be described as “die-hard tennis freak…. They play competitively 5 to 7 times a week and follow the game religiously. They know what’s going on and who’s who in the international Tennis scene and ... are mainly influenced by their player idols, coaches and other players at their age and level of play.”
Head’s key argument was that its ads were varied and diverse, and “[m]ost do not include the allegedly false claim at the heart of this dispute—that a professional athlete used a specific racket in competition play.” Much of the advertising featuring professional endorsements “explain the type of player each racket line or model is designed for and/or encourages consumers to visit the website to choose a racket best suited for their needs.” E.g., “The new YouTek IG Speed is specially designed for the needs of players like Novak Djokovic. It offers a stiffer feel for hard hitters with a long, fast swing style.” The ads didn’t say which specific variant a player is using, or that they’re using a variant available to the public. Also, Head argued that the reach of its marketing efforts was relatively limited. “Between 2009 and 2013, it placed print ads in two publications circulated to tennis teaching professionals, four tennis publications circulated to consumers …, and some tennis tournament programs; banner advertisements on tennis-focused websites; television advertisements on the subscription-only Tennis Channel; and press releases on its own website, the majority of which have been viewed 59 to 118 times or less in the United States.”
Even if the ads didn’t claim that an athlete used a particular racket in competition, a jury could find that the ads were nonetheless misleading “because reasonable consumers would understand them to mean that professional tennis players are using racquets that Head makes available to the general public.” Minimal ad exposure also didn’t defeat commonality, which was a question of whether the advertising itself was materially misleading. Head’s survey witness Hal Poret also conducted a survey in which only six percent of respondents answered “both that endorsement of a racket by a professional tennis player would be a factor in their decision and that they believe[d] from [a sample] ad[vertisement] that Andy Murray plays with the identical version of the racket sold to the public.” Of those who called endorsement an important factor, only 1.5% believed that Andy Murray used the racquet in question. Still, variations in what class members might have believed or desired didn’t defeat the “relatively minimal showing required to establish commonality,” especially given that some elements of the California claims can be satisfied “without individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury.”
Still, the case foundered on predominance, for the reasons largely given above. Likely deception isn’t automatically a classwide question. Ono failed to show that it was reasonable to assume that all, or even most, of class members were exposed to the allegedly deceptive ads, “and thus the question of exposure would have to be resolved on an individual rather than classwide basis.” Even if Head’s target super-fans were more likely to be exposed than other people, the class definition wasn’t just super-fans.
Even painting racquets used in pro tournaments didn’t necessarily expose consumers to the deceptive practices. There was no evidence that Tour’s customers generally watch tennis tournaments, or that they’d notice or be able to determine the model used by a pro on TV or even live. There was no evidence of an extensive decades-long campaign that might be used to infer exposure.
Nor was it reasonable to find that materiality and thus reliance could be litigated with common evidence. While Head may have targeted its marketing at a segment of the population, there was no evidence that the target consumers were the actual consumers. “It would therefore be inappropriate for the court to presume that Head’s knowing that ‘tennis freaks’ would likely regard celebrity use of racquets as important is the same as Head’s knowing or having reason to know that purchasers of Tour–Line Racquets are similarly influenced.” [This strikes me as wrong: the reason that we infer deception from intent to deceive is that the fact that the seller thinks its representation will help sell its products is good evidence that it will do so; sellers who tout only unappealing features rarely last.] Ono responded to Head’s survey evidence only by arguing that “those consumers who have purchased or are likely to purchase a tennis racket” in the price range of Tour–Line Racquets weren’t “representative of Head’s target Tour Consumer,” but the court already rejected Ono’s reliance on the target consumer.
In addition, “[e]valuating materiality using common evidence would be particularly challenging in this case due to the different representations regarding different racquets by different celebrity tennis players. While some press releases say outright that a certain professional player plays with a particular Tour–Line Racquet model, other advertisements merely link a player with a particular racquet silo [sub-brand], or describe a particular player’s style of play.” Each would require separate deception analysis. Also, the extent of deceptiveness varied—some pro players used racquets very similar to the models available at retail, and others used custom frames that differed more significantly. Although Ono contested whether these sub-brands were designed for players like the respective endorser, that was a different misleadingness argument than the one about whether the endorser actually used the racquet.
Originally posted by Rebecca Tushnet, Professor of law at Harvard Law School.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Wow, what a lot of words to not prove that Federers racket is "Different materials, different layers, different QC, everything!"
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
I don't want to prove anything to you. You're free to live your dream!
But in case of wanting to play a real pro-stock racquet, imho you have to:
a) pay big bucks to get one or
b) look for old 90's racquets when the tennis brands use to sell the one an only version to anybody.
polksio
Semi-Pro
Nobody even tries to claim that Federer uses the same racket as the RF97A not even Wilson or Federer. THEY TELL YOU it's not the same racket. Why would anyone have to disprove something nobody claims?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, and ofcourse I totally respect your beliefs as well
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I have yet to see that Federer says he does not play the RF97. And «Racket specifications on endorsed consumer models may vary from the models used by Pros for match-play» does not say that Federer does not play it either. Of course his specifications are different due to customizing by P1.
I dont get it...Federer, Djokovic, Nadal or any other top 100 players frame are most likely customized, regardless of what "standard frame" they are base on. They are customized to that specific players preferences, this means that the racquets are the way they like them, and seemingly suits them the best. A very few of us would play any better with a racquet from one of these top 100 players. But of course playing with an actual racquet from "insert your favorite players name" might make you think "Yeah, this is it, its sooo much better....". The interesting would be to playtest 3-4 blacked out racquets, all at the same specs as your favorite player, but only one being the actual pro-frame. A very few of us would be able to pic the pro-frame, I would fail for sure. My opinion is to never mind who plays with what. Pic your weapon of choice, and then try to find if there are modifications that can be made to suit your playstyle better, without trying to copy someone else.
When I started playing tennis (again!) in late 2010 after an almost 25 year long lay off I got 4 racquets from my father, 2 Wilson Triad 6 (257 g unstrung) and 2 Head Radical MP MicroGel (295 g unstrung). I went for the Wilson, they felt just GREAT! So light and easy to swing, but I was still playing with the oldschool "eastern-ish" forehand grip. After a few months of playing someone told me "Why are you using that old forehand-grip?" Try to hold more like this, and then showing the semi-western-ish grip. And then I made the switch, it went fairly easy, after just a few hours I was sure I would never go back to the old grip, but still playing with the Triad. I did play with the Triad for over a year and really loved it, but my father told me to try the Radical, but I was sceptic, lower powered frame with dense string pattern. Finally I did try it, and it was way better than the Triad. I played with it in standard form for a year and then started to customize it to my preference. At one point I went too far so I had to take a step back and then I "knew" this is the setup for me, Since then I'm always buying 18/20 and making them have the same balancepoint as the Radical. But I did change one more thing when buying new racquets (Prestige MP, first Graphene XT and then Touch), that was to go a gripsize smaller (from 3 to 2) and to add an overgrip (no overgrip on 3). The reason was than my forehand grip was getting more and more western (full western today) and it was easier to grab and hold a slightly thinner handle with that grip. I do not care at all what specs, molds, layups or whatever the pros are playing with, my racquet suits me very good, and thats all that matters to me. And remember, my racquet might not suit a lot of players at all, while others might think "Yeah, this the sort of feel I like..."
When I started playing tennis (again!) in late 2010 after an almost 25 year long lay off I got 4 racquets from my father, 2 Wilson Triad 6 (257 g unstrung) and 2 Head Radical MP MicroGel (295 g unstrung). I went for the Wilson, they felt just GREAT! So light and easy to swing, but I was still playing with the oldschool "eastern-ish" forehand grip. After a few months of playing someone told me "Why are you using that old forehand-grip?" Try to hold more like this, and then showing the semi-western-ish grip. And then I made the switch, it went fairly easy, after just a few hours I was sure I would never go back to the old grip, but still playing with the Triad. I did play with the Triad for over a year and really loved it, but my father told me to try the Radical, but I was sceptic, lower powered frame with dense string pattern. Finally I did try it, and it was way better than the Triad. I played with it in standard form for a year and then started to customize it to my preference. At one point I went too far so I had to take a step back and then I "knew" this is the setup for me, Since then I'm always buying 18/20 and making them have the same balancepoint as the Radical. But I did change one more thing when buying new racquets (Prestige MP, first Graphene XT and then Touch), that was to go a gripsize smaller (from 3 to 2) and to add an overgrip (no overgrip on 3). The reason was than my forehand grip was getting more and more western (full western today) and it was easier to grab and hold a slightly thinner handle with that grip. I do not care at all what specs, molds, layups or whatever the pros are playing with, my racquet suits me very good, and thats all that matters to me. And remember, my racquet might not suit a lot of players at all, while others might think "Yeah, this the sort of feel I like..."
Last edited:
Current Tennisnerd video confirms that Roger does play with the RF97A, but that his actual frames are picked from production as heavier units with SW of 340 or so. This makes perfect sense since that SW or above seems to be what’s necessary at that level. I think it’s also been confirmed that he has custom handles. So, I guess everyone is right, not the production frame if there is a custom handle, but it’s close enough to for me. It’s closer than anyone else to using a production frame. BTW, I have also read that Fed’s frames are slightly shorter than 27”. All six of my matches tuxedo RF97A frames are slightly shorter than 27” which would be consistent with that.
I do t really care because the RF97A is a legitimate tour level spec that you can buy without having to do a bunch of customization. I don’t have the skill or conditioning to play my best tennis with it, but the mass and stability have me completely injury free for the first time in a few years and I’m happier playing with it because of that. And, hitting a clean ball in the sweet spot is just a magical feeling. That’s enough for me.
I do t really care because the RF97A is a legitimate tour level spec that you can buy without having to do a bunch of customization. I don’t have the skill or conditioning to play my best tennis with it, but the mass and stability have me completely injury free for the first time in a few years and I’m happier playing with it because of that. And, hitting a clean ball in the sweet spot is just a magical feeling. That’s enough for me.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Hairpins, matched spec are shipped to P1 (no lead in the channel under molded handle)...
P1 molds his custom handle, puts silicone in the handle and lead at 12 under the bumper to achieve his spec.
What we do not know for sure is if those rackets shipped from Wilson have the same layup as the retail sticks.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
The discussion here was more that some people claim to "know" that Federer does not play with the RF97 (or earlier, the K90). More or less agree with your other points.
Simplicius
Semi-Pro
Could you please post a link or at least the title of that video?
In his article about Fed actual racquet he is only uses phases like "I believe", "I guess" etc.
I believe the opposite, if that proves anything!
polksio
Semi-Pro
But do you have a website and a youtube channel tho? \s
Addxyz
Hall of Fame
Roger Federer Autographed 2019 Roland Garros Racquet
www.tennis-warehouse.com
Someone with an extra $20k want to help the community?
Is it a OBO since it is used?Roger Federer Autographed 2019 Roland Garros Racquet
Someone with an extra $20k want to help the community?
polksio
Semi-Pro
You know of any retsil rackets that dont come with that lead in the channek under the handle? I suppose those rackets would come even balanced or even head heavy ready for silicone injection ...
Been looking at the wilson k fac team, the yonex rqis 1 tour xl 95 lite
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Head rackets do not.
I am not sure about the rest of Wilsons.
However, I was able to take off the molded handle on my Ultra Tour, remove the lead from the channel, then put on the TK82 Head pallets on it.
teachingprotx
Legend
20 grand yikes!
Is it me or is there still no specs given for this racket ?
Is it me or is there still no specs given for this racket ?
polksio
Semi-Pro
Interesting about how you can remove the metal by removing the pallets.
Im pretty sure head do have metal in the handle too i just held a manet to one and it stuck, you mean pro stock heads?
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Wilson has no pallets so it is a bit more complex
Head does have some weight added inside the handle on retail sticks but would be hard to remove.
polksio
Semi-Pro
What did you mean by "head rackets do not" ?
Theyre not allowed to. If you ask them theyre required to copy paste the retail rf97a specs
teachingprotx
Legend
Wow. That’s weird .right ?
we need a rdc ninja ...
Alexh22
Professional
Keep in mind the nerd is here on TT a LOT. He has good contents but sometimes it is a guesstimate.
Zoolander
Hall of Fame
Head racquets actually mold the metal weight in between the 2 sides of the hairpin so its pretty much impossible to remove without total destruction, which I of course I did just to prove it to myself.
I have just removed some of the metal weight from the handle of my RF97..... its now 330g 4HL strung with o/g. There was still more weight in there but i didnt need any more gone.
Last edited:
Zoolander
Hall of Fame
So the original red black RF97 had the same model # and mold as H22? And after that one they changed model number to GR280Y1? What changed between those models that necessitated a change in model # do you know?
polksio
Semi-Pro
Thats interesting thanks! And how does wilson do it? How did you remove the weight from the wilson?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I would be very surprised if the RF was a H22, and changed mold after that. But what do I know
polksio
Semi-Pro
Thats interesting thanks! And how does wilson do it? How did you remove the weight from the wilson?Head racquets actually mold the metal weight in between the 2 sides of the hairpin so its pretty much impossible to remove without total destruction, which I of course I did just to prove it to myself.
I have just removed some of the metal weight from the handle of my RF97..... its now 330g 4HL strung with o/g. There was still more weight in there but i didnt need any more gone.
For curiosity just checked out my pure storm and they do it like head, I can see bumps in the inner tubes in the handle
Zoolander
Hall of Fame
Sometimes looking inside you can see the bumps or channel in the centre graphite strut part. In Head the weight is actually in the centre strut and the graphite encases it,because they then stick pallets onto the graphite hairpin. So its pretty much inaccessible.
In wilson, babolat etc that channel is often open on one side. After the frame has been made they glue a metal strip into the channel, then mold the foam handle over it. However with my RF97 they did it a little different, no channel in the middle (that i can see anyways), they just got some thin metal weights and glued them to the outside of the hairpin, then molded the foam handle over them.
I use a magnet to find the metal then a 3 mm drill bit on slow like a router to expose it, then a pointy penknife to cut the foam away just enough to remove the metal. All very careful like, since i dont want to wreck the edge of the bevels! Then i fill the gap with strips of balsa and finish it off with some selleys spakfiller. I only try this if the metal seems to be within the large side bevels, not the smaller ones on top.
One Handed Dynasty
Semi-Pro
The metal plates were put the same way in mine. I actually took off the entire molded handle and had a slightly different shape put on. After it was all done I had ~15g to redistribute so I put some lead at 12 to bring the SW up to my preferred spec and the counterbalanced with silicone in the handle and lead at 7”. I’d highly recommend getting the unstrung customs 3D printed pallets to anyone wanting to try this. The entire process took around an hour, extremely low difficulty, and the weight redistribution has made the racquet feel so plush and maneuverable it’s like unlocking the full frame. Here are some pics:
Hairpin with the foam handle and lead weights removed.
Unstrung customs 3D printed pallets and flared butcap put on.
Lead at the top of the handle to bring the racquet to spec.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alexh22
Professional
This is my dream setup. How difficult it is to get started with 3D printing ?The metal plates were put the same way in mine. I actually took off the entire molded handle and had a slightly different shape put on. After it was all done I had ~15g to redistribute so I put some lead at 12 to bring the SW up to my preferred spec and the counterbalanced with silicone in the handle and lead at 7”. I’d highly recommend getting the unstrung customs 3D printed pallets to anyone wanting to try this. The entire process took around an hour, extremely low difficulty, and the weight redistribution has made the racquet feel so plush and maneuverable it’s like unlocking the full frame. Here are some pics:
Hairpin with the foam handle and lead weights removed.
Unstrung customs 3D printed pallets and flared butcap put on.
Lead at the top of the handle to bring the racquet to spec.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One Handed Dynasty
Semi-Pro
Not difficult at all, you just need €20 and a few days to wait for shipping. Hit up Fran at Unstrung Customs, he’s the man. I put in my order with him on a Monday and got them Friday of the same week.
Crashbaby
Semi-Pro
This is exciting stuff! Where exactly were the metal weights positioned? As in how high on the handle? And for plush feel would up high or down low on the handle give best results in relation to plushness? I’m guessing the weights were in the middle and now you have lead up high and silicone inside down low? How much lead and how much silicone? I’m super keen to try this. I’m wanting to come down in gripsize anyway, this sounds like the way to do it. Love my Yonex’s but the Fed sticks have a special appeal and your mod sounds really good.The metal plates were put the same way in mine. I actually took off the entire molded handle and had a slightly different shape put on. After it was all done I had ~15g to redistribute so I put some lead at 12 to bring the SW up to my preferred spec and the counterbalanced with silicone in the handle and lead at 7”. I’d highly recommend getting the unstrung customs 3D printed pallets to anyone wanting to try this. The entire process took around an hour, extremely low difficulty, and the weight redistribution has made the racquet feel so plush and maneuverable it’s like unlocking the full frame. Here are some pics:
Hairpin with the foam handle and lead weights removed.
Unstrung customs 3D printed pallets and flared butcap put on.
Lead at the top of the handle to bring the racquet to spec.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One Handed Dynasty
Semi-Pro
Thanks! There was a metal plate at around the halfway point of the handle and another further down. I think it went all the way to the butcap but I don’t 100% remember. You’ll need to know the specs you’ll be ending with first. Every racquet is slightly different so you need to add different amounts of weight at different locations to end up with your target specs. My steps were:
1) Play with the racquet in stock form and experiment with weight until specs are dialed in. I have a general range of specs that I use, but you need to fine tune them for a different model.
2) Cut out strings, remove OG, and measure unstrung specs.
5) Remove leather grip and butcap.
6) Remove molded foam handle.
7) Attach double sided tape to cover the hairpin shaft and then install the pallets.
8) Install butcap onto pallets and staple in place.
9) Install leather grip
10) Measure specs
11) Calculate weight placement locations and amounts using an app like RacquetTune. For example, I know the I like a lot of silicone in the bottom of the handle, so I calculate how many grams I can add there until I’m a few MM away from my target balance point. I’ll then add the remaining weight needed to get to my target static weight to the top of the handle.
12) Unwrap leather grip, add lead, re-wrap, pop off the butcap trap door, dam the handle with cotton balls, put the racquet on a scale, and inject silicone until the right amount has been added.
13) Hang racquet upside down to cure for a day
14) Measure specs, make any adjustments needed to the weight in the hoop, and replace bumper and grommets, hiding the lead underneath.
15) Measure specs to triple check, then string that bad boy up, slap on an OG, and play!
I find that adding 7g or more of silicone gives me a plush and buttery feel, but your results might vary. It’s the same with the lead at the top of the handle. You’ll want to try out a few different amounts and locations until you find what works for you. I find that if I do multiple layers of the 1/4 inch tape then I’ll feel some uncomfortable vibrations, while one layer of the 2g/in density lead tape doesn’t. It’s definitely highly personal, but worth it IMO.
1) Play with the racquet in stock form and experiment with weight until specs are dialed in. I have a general range of specs that I use, but you need to fine tune them for a different model.
2) Cut out strings, remove OG, and measure unstrung specs.
5) Remove leather grip and butcap.
6) Remove molded foam handle.
7) Attach double sided tape to cover the hairpin shaft and then install the pallets.
8) Install butcap onto pallets and staple in place.
9) Install leather grip
10) Measure specs
11) Calculate weight placement locations and amounts using an app like RacquetTune. For example, I know the I like a lot of silicone in the bottom of the handle, so I calculate how many grams I can add there until I’m a few MM away from my target balance point. I’ll then add the remaining weight needed to get to my target static weight to the top of the handle.
12) Unwrap leather grip, add lead, re-wrap, pop off the butcap trap door, dam the handle with cotton balls, put the racquet on a scale, and inject silicone until the right amount has been added.
13) Hang racquet upside down to cure for a day
14) Measure specs, make any adjustments needed to the weight in the hoop, and replace bumper and grommets, hiding the lead underneath.
15) Measure specs to triple check, then string that bad boy up, slap on an OG, and play!
I find that adding 7g or more of silicone gives me a plush and buttery feel, but your results might vary. It’s the same with the lead at the top of the handle. You’ll want to try out a few different amounts and locations until you find what works for you. I find that if I do multiple layers of the 1/4 inch tape then I’ll feel some uncomfortable vibrations, while one layer of the 2g/in density lead tape doesn’t. It’s definitely highly personal, but worth it IMO.
Last edited:
Zoolander
Hall of Fame
The metal plates were put the same way in mine. I actually took off the entire molded handle and had a slightly different shape put on. After it was all done I had ~15g to redistribute so I put some lead at 12 to bring the SW up to my preferred spec and the counterbalanced with silicone in the handle and lead at 7”. I’d highly recommend getting the unstrung customs 3D printed pallets to anyone wanting to try this. The entire process took around an hour, extremely low difficulty, and the weight redistribution has made the racquet feel so plush and maneuverable it’s like unlocking the full frame. Here are some pics:
Hairpin with the foam handle and lead weights removed.
Unstrung customs 3D printed pallets and flared butcap put on.
Lead at the top of the handle to bring the racquet to spec.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice! 3D printing sounds great but how do you know the unstrung custom pallets will fit on your hairpin? ie what are the inside dimensions of the printed pallet?
Before i start anything on the handle i measure the dimensions of the graphite hairpin i can see inside the buttcap, and at the top of the handle using the groove i cut. Just to know that if i stuff up badly, i can take off the molded handle and put Head pallets on. But Head pallets measure about 17 x 25mm on the inside and are pretty small, they wont fit on most racquet hairpins..... but the RF97 seems to be one of the rare Wilsons that have a hairpin handle small enough for the Head pallets to fit, and i think they must have done that deliberately.
Similar threads
