Head MG Prestige Pro <--> Volkl PB10 mid

[Dutchman]

Hey there!

I am a new member to this forum, all the way from the Netherlands, and I would like to hit off with an interesting question!

No I'm not going to ask you to debate whether or not the PB10 mid is better/worse than the Head racket... Very differently, I would very much like to know your opinion on the head size of the rackets.

I'll explain:

The PB10 mid is 93 square inch (600square cm as we would say in my part of the world.
The Head MG prestige pro, is 98 sq inch... much bigger right?

Well here we go:

If you look carefully, you will spot the Head racket, underneath my brand new D) PB10mid

here from a different angle:

and for good measure the other way around:
(I did my utmost best not to photograph my horrible feet, but I'm afraid I failed)

Can a genious please explain this?

greets from the Netherlands!

 

[Tennis Is Magic]

Hey there!

I am a new member to this forum, all the way from the Netherlands, and I would like to hit off with an interesting question!

No I'm not going to ask you to debate whether or not the PB10 mid is better/worse than the Head racket... Very differently, I would very much like to know your opinion on the head size of the rackets.

I'll explain:

The PB10 mid is 93 square inch (600square cm as we would say in my part of the world.
The Head MG prestige pro, is 98 sq inch... much bigger right?

Well here we go:

If you look carefully, you will spot the Head racket, underneath my brand new D) PB10mid

here from a different angle:

and for good measure the other way around:
(I did my utmost best not to photograph my horrible feet, but I'm afraid I failed)

Can a genious please explain this?

greets from the Netherlands!

Headsize isn't about the negligible surface gained near the frame of the racquet, it's about the sweet spot. The sweet spot on a bigger head is bigger simply because there's more surface area there. Assuming the sweet spot on a racquet that's 93 sq in and one on a 98 sq in racquet take up equal percentages of the stringbed, it will be larger on the 98. A larger racquet also increases the effective stringbed of a racquet when you hit with it, because when you close your racquet face, part of your stringbed is basically useless because the angle it's at makes it impossible for you to hit the ball with it, you'll just hit the frame, which isn't the case when your racquet face is neutral or open.

Not only that, but a larger racquet has longer mains and crosses. The longer string result in more power because the strings deform more. Think off it as jumping on a miniature trampoline, and jumping on a full-size trampoline. It also results in more spin because it creates larger holes in the stringbed, increasing their ability to slide amongst each other. This also decreases the durability because the strings slide over a much greater surfaces of each other.

In theory, the size of the head is unimportant, and when compared side to side, is even less important. But when you look at how it actually changes the dynamics of the way the racquet plays, there's a noticeable difference, even if it's only 5 sq inches.

 

[BobFL]

Well, the prestiges MPs are actually 95". PB10Mid is narrower 3-9 than the prestige.

 

[BobFL]

Headsize isn't about the negligible surface gained near the frame of the racquet, it's about the sweet spot. The sweet spot on a bigger head is bigger simply because there's more surface area there. Assuming the sweet spot on a racquet that's 93 sq in and one on a 98 sq in racquet take up equal percentages of the stringbed, it will be larger on the 98. A larger racquet also increases the effective stringbed of a racquet when you hit with it, because when you close your racquet face, part of your stringbed is basically useless because the angle it's at makes it impossible for you to hit the ball with it, you'll just hit the frame, which isn't the case when your racquet face is neutral or open.

Not only that, but a larger racquet has longer mains and crosses. The longer string result in more power because the strings deform more. Think off it as jumping on a miniature trampoline, and jumping on a full-size trampoline. It also results in more spin because it creates larger holes in the stringbed, increasing their ability to slide amongst each other. This also decreases the durability because the strings slide over a much greater surfaces of each other.

In theory, the size of the head is unimportant, and when compared side to side, is even less important. But when you look at how it actually changes the dynamics of the way the racquet plays, there's a noticeable difference, even if it's only 5 sq inches.

Very nicely said!

Yes, some people say how close size wise 90 is to 93, 93 to 95, 95 to 98 and 98 to 100. Of course they are close but I think that power increases (in many cases) exponentially and the ss is getting much bigger hence the 'forgiveness'.

 

[Photoshop]

Head measures the racket headsize differently.

I happen to have PD10 mid (93sq in) and microgel prestige mid (93) lying around. Prestige mid is noticeably smaller. 3-9 width is about the same too.

 

[6-2/6-4/6-0]

Well, I think the thing that he was asking is how is it that one racket that he thought was 93 sqin and one that he thought was 98 sqin are so close in actual dimension. If that is, in fact, his question, it comes down to 3 things: 1) the MP being 95 sqin rather than 98; 2) the difference between 93 and 95 is only 2.2% which is very small; 3) area adding a couple millimeters to the length or width at the outside edge of a racket face adds dramatically more surface area - that's all it takes to get your extra 2sqin...

 

[Dutchman]

allrighty then

this means tho, that the Prestige is 95 eventhough Head claims it to be 98? wierdo's over at head, I'm happy I got myself the Volkl

I'll see for myself how it is with this sweetspot thing as soon as my ankle ligaments are grown together again, for now, thanks!

 

[UCSF2012]

Very nicely said!

Nicely said? It's completely wrong.

An increase of 5 inches squared often means nothing in terms of increased radius. If you begin with a 1 in^2 circle, and you increase the surface area by 5 in^2, the radius/diameter multiplies by several times. When you begin with a 93 in^2 and increase the surface area by 5 in^2, you increase the radius/diameter by a small fraction of an inch.

If you're framing hits with a 90 in^2 racket, moving to a 95 in^2 racket means that you have an extra 1/8th inch leeway. You're better off improving your coordination.

 

[Tennis Is Magic]

Nicely said? It's completely wrong.

An increase of 5 inches squared often means nothing in terms of increased radius. If you begin with a 1 in^2 circle, and you increase the surface area by 5 in^2, the radius/diameter multiplies by several times. When you begin with a 93 in^2 and increase the surface area by 5 in^2, you increase the radius/diameter by a small fraction of an inch.

If you're framing hits with a 90 in^2 racket, moving to a 95 in^2 racket means that you have an extra 1/8th inch leeway. You're better off improving your coordination.

I never said a bigger racquet would make you frame less balls. I frame as many balls playing with a PS85 as I do with a tweener racquet. I said even though the surface area appears minimal, there's still a difference in the sweet spot and an increase in the playable string bed. I didn't mean to say THIS was significant, but I meant that how a racquet plays is noticeable and there's an increase in useable string bed; I never said how much.

 

[BobFL]

Nicely said? It's completely wrong.

An increase of 5 inches squared often means nothing in terms of increased radius. If you begin with a 1 in^2 circle, and you increase the surface area by 5 in^2, the radius/diameter multiplies by several times. When you begin with a 93 in^2 and increase the surface area by 5 in^2, you increase the radius/diameter by a small fraction of an inch.

If you're framing hits with a 90 in^2 racket, moving to a 95 in^2 racket means that you have an extra 1/8th inch leeway. You're better off improving your coordination.

You don't understand. What you said is maybe mathematically correct but it is irrelevant for tennis. Using bigger frame changes several variables in your game and your perception as well. Furthermore, there is no such thing as 2 frames that have all specs the same but the head size.

 

[dgoran]

Yeah its hard to compare just head sizes since most of the time differences are not that big to the naked eye but in the game its night and day.

I owned those rackets and some other mids and I can tell you that I can use PB Mid and Prestige MP and derivatives (pt630, Pro ) they are the same 95 sq inch (98 advertised)) interchangeably nearly w/o noticing too many differences in head size while pro staff 85 pro staff 90 and Presitge Mid 89 (93 advertised) definitively have to "worry"

IMHO PB Mid is closer to 95 than 93 and Prestige is definitively 95 rather than advertised 98