Gravity, Flex and Beam Width!

[backhand101]

So folks help me out a little with my concepts here.
From my previous understanding, I assumed that thinner beams mean a more flexible racket while a thicker beam means a stiffer racket while the RA rating is the direct measure of stifness.
This seemed contradictory when I checked out the specs for Gravity Pro and Gravity Tour. Gravity Pro has a higher stiffness rating but a thinner beam while Gravity Tour has a relatively flexier RA rating but a thicker beam. Which racket do you think is more comfortable overall?

 

[blablavla]

So folks help me out a little with my concepts here.
From my previous understanding, I assumed that thinner beams mean a more flexible racket while a thicker beam means a stiffer racket while the RA rating is the direct measure of stifness.
This seemed contradictory when I checked out the specs for Gravity Pro and Gravity Tour. Gravity Pro has a higher stiffness rating but a thinner beam while Gravity Tour has a relatively flexier RA rating but a thicker beam. Which racket do you think is more comfortable overall?

I think the RA measure is more influenced by the lay-up, which material mix is used to cover the mold. Which doesn't contradict that a thicker beam might by default have higher stiffness than thinner beam.

To my understanding thicker beam allows for more power and spin, while thinner beam provides more control and a bit easier RHS generation.
Pure Aero, Pure Drive, Head Extreme, Head Instinct - they are all frames with thicker beam and known for the amount of "free power" / "free spin"
Gravity, Radical, Prestige, Pure Strike - they are all frames with thinner beam than the ones mentioned in prev line and known for more control

 

[Big Bagel]

First, RA is just one measure of stiffness, but it is not the only one. Also, you are correct, the general rule is that a thing frame is more flexible than a thicker frame, but that doesn't mean that that is always the case. Take a look at the Clash for example: thicker frame than a lot of racquets right now, yet it is super flexible. The flexibility really changes more based on the layup of the racquet, frame thickness is just a general guide.

As for the gravity pro vs the tour, I cannot say because I haven't used both of them.

 

[blablavla]

also, if by "comfortable" you are referring to the probability of having or not having wrist pain, TE, and other problems that are associated with stiffer frames, the frame stiffness is not the only variable.

Strings setup is another dimension, which includes tension.

Frame weight that is comfortable to you is yet another dimension.
You can take a flexy and heavy frame, which probably will be fine for your elbow, and kill your shoulder if you will try to hit fast services.

Then technique probably plays its roles as well.

Might be other factors as well, which are not discussed as much as the frame stiffness.

 

[fuzz nation]

I would expect an extra measure of comfort with the Gravity Pro over the Tour, but I'm talking about what's more comfortable for me in a racquet's layout and not necessarily what's more cozy for everybody.

I've always liked a heavier racquet for the inherent stability and decent power I can get with reasonable swing speeds. The Pro would likely have some extra stability that I need for decent performance at the net and also for my one-handed backhand. That's just me.

Usually as beam width gets wider in a racquet, that naturally makes it more stiff - not always, but usually. Even though the Tour lists at one point lower on the RA scale, it's hard for me to believe that it would feel softer than the Pro. My regular players have 20mm beam width and whenever I compare them to other frames listing similar flex, but wider beams, those other racquets typically feel more rigid.

The tricky aspect with beam width is that it doesn't tell us about the cross section of the hoop. If a hoop is a little more tube-shaped than flat from its outside edge to the inside edge, that can make it play and feel more firm. Beam width also doesn't tell us how much a racquet is designed to flex at the throat. The Wilson Clash has a 24.5mm beam width, which looks to me like a very stiff design at a glance. But the low flex rating tells me that it's probably built to flex mostly at the throat and not through the hoop.

I also agree with out pals above - string choice will have a significant effect on an frame's comfort level. Racquets with extra flex do not protect us from stiffer strings like polys. If you're looking for a comfortable racquet in terms of a certain feel that you like, that will take some trial and error for you to track down what's right for you. But if "comfortable" also includes arm-friendliness, stay with softer strings in any racquet you play.

 

[backhand101]

also, if by "comfortable" you are referring to the probability of having or not having wrist pain, TE, and other problems that are associated with stiffer frames, the frame stiffness is not the only variable.

Strings setup is another dimension, which includes tension.

Frame weight that is comfortable to you is yet another dimension.
You can take a flexy and heavy frame, which probably will be fine for your elbow, and kill your shoulder if you will try to hit fast services.

Then technique probably plays its roles as well.

Might be other factors as well, which are not discussed as much as the frame stiffness.

yeah I get your point but by comfort i meant the shock to the arm which translates to elbow and wrist pain

 

[backhand101]

I would expect an extra measure of comfort with the Gravity Pro over the Tour, but I'm talking about what's more comfortable for me in a racquet's layout and not necessarily what's more cozy for everybody.

I've always liked a heavier racquet for the inherent stability and decent power I can get with reasonable swing speeds. The Pro would likely have some extra stability that I need for decent performance at the net and also for my one-handed backhand. That's just me.

Usually as beam width gets wider in a racquet, that naturally makes it more stiff - not always, but usually. Even though the Tour lists at one point lower on the RA scale, it's hard for me to believe that it would feel softer than the Pro. My regular players have 20mm beam width and whenever I compare them to other frames listing similar flex, but wider beams, those other racquets typically feel more rigid.

The tricky aspect with beam width is that it doesn't tell us about the cross section of the hoop. If a hoop is a little more tube-shaped than flat from its outside edge to the inside edge, that can make it play and feel more firm. Beam width also doesn't tell us how much a racquet is designed to flex at the throat. The Wilson Clash has a 24.5mm beam width, which looks to me like a very stiff design at a glance. But the low flex rating tells me that it's probably built to flex mostly at the throat and not through the hoop.

I also agree with out pals above - string choice will have a significant effect on an frame's comfort level. Racquets with extra flex do not protect us from stiffer strings like polys. If you're looking for a comfortable racquet in terms of a certain feel that you like, that will take some trial and error for you to track down what's right for you. But if "comfortable" also includes arm-friendliness, stay with softer strings in any racquet you play.

if I talk purely in terms of stiffness and shock to the arm aka wrist and elbow problems, do you still thing pro is gonna be better than tour?

 

[PD1978]

I own and play with both the tour and pro. The pro is more taxing on my shoulder and arm because of the swing weight. Both are very comfortable. I like the Pro better overall, but I’m playing more doubles these days and find the Tour easier for me to volley with, so it’s my go to at the moment.
Your string set up will be a key factor as to which is more comfortable. Mine are both strung up with gut/poly hybrid.

 

[backhand101]

I own and play with both the tour and pro. The pro is more taxing on my shoulder and arm because of the swing weight. Both are very comfortable. I like the Pro better overall, but I’m playing more doubles these days and find the Tour easier for me to volley with, so it’s my go to at the moment.
Your string set up will be a key factor as to which is more comfortable. Mine are both strung up with gut/poly hybrid.

So happy to find someone who owns both. If I ask purely in terms of stiffness and arm discomfort in terms of elbow and wrist. which one do you think is more comfortable in terms of transmitting less shock and more buttery feel?

 

[PD1978]

So happy to find someone who owns both. If I ask purely in terms of stiffness and arm discomfort in terms of elbow and wrist. which one do you think is more comfortable in terms of transmitting less shock and more buttery feel?

They both feel very comfortable, if you want a “buttery” feel I’d say the pro is perhaps the one. But if I’m playing 3 sets of singles my arm is tired after because of the Pros swing weight.
I have a history of arm issues and neither flare up old injuries, especially with gut/poly hybrid.

I find the Pro a bit more of a challenge to serve with. I have to remind myself to let the racquets weight do the work and swing around. So getting the timing down has taken a bit longer then I anticipated.

I use to use a Clash 100 Tour before and the Gravity is far more consistent.

 

[fuzz nation]

if I talk purely in terms of stiffness and shock to the arm aka wrist and elbow problems, do you still thing pro is gonna be better than tour?

I would expect the Pro to be a little bit better.

 

[megamind]

They both feel very comfortable, if you want a “buttery” feel I’d say the pro is perhaps the one. But if I’m playing 3 sets of singles my arm is tired after because of the Pros swing weight.
I have a history of arm issues and neither flare up old injuries, especially with gut/poly hybrid.

I find the Pro a bit more of a challenge to serve with. I have to remind myself to let the racquets weight do the work and swing around. So getting the timing down has taken a bit longer then I anticipated.

I use to use a Clash 100 Tour before and the Gravity is far more consistent.

right now I'm trying to figure out whether i get a gravity tour or a gravity pro or a wilson blade 98

I love the pro. Incredible racquet. It's just a tad heavy.

Tour feels a bit flimsy. Isn't as good as the pro, but is sort of a "compromise" for the lighter weight.

Kinda like the wilson blade too. Not as much power as the tour, but better control.

Haven't quite made up my mind.

 

[PD1978]

right now I'm trying to figure out whether i get a gravity tour or a gravity pro or a wilson blade 98

I love the pro. Incredible racquet. It's just a tad heavy.

Tour feels a bit flimsy. Isn't as good as the pro, but is sort of a "compromise" for the lighter weight.

Kinda like the wilson blade too. Not as much power as the tour, but better control.

Haven't quite made up my mind.

I added a little weight to the handle of the Tour and it had a positive result.