how come couple of inches and 1mm make such difference in swing speed?

shamaho

Professional
Take two sticks with almost exact specs saving for:
-Head size: 95 vs 97
-Beam width: 20,5 vs 21,5 mm
oh... and string pattern:
-18x20 (on 95) vs 16x19 (on 97)

Yet when playing, the thinner n smaller (by ever so small a margin) swings so much easier and faster then the other...
I would understand the difference but so big? how come?
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I imagine it’s merely the beam width and head size combined with a lot of imagination.
Internet is all about wild hyperbole rather than a more moderate assessment that the 95 swings a bit easier.
 

shamaho

Professional
I imagine it’s merely the beam width and head size combined with a lot of imagination.
Internet is all about wild hyperbole rather than a more moderate assessment that the 95 swings a bit easier.

I know what you're saying, but this comes from actual on-court experience with two actual sticks :) and left me wondering about it...

jus not revealing models to leave those potential biases out...
 

BlueB

Legend
I would rather measure the actual strung specs, rather then relying on the spec sheet. You'll probably be surprised...

The string density you can feel, at the same type/tension, the head/beam size not very likely at identical W/B/SW.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

shamaho

Professional
that's the weird thing... the smaller one had higher density... so should offset or eventhings a bit no?
 

BlueB

Legend
No, contrary, smaller head typically has denser strings even at the same string pattern.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
Smaller/thinner might have slightly less twistweight and slightly less stiffness.

Maybe those are the traits that you're picking up on in your hit?
 

shamaho

Professional
Smaller/thinner might have slightly less twistweight and slightly less stiffness.

Maybe those are the traits that you're picking up on in your hit?

nah, definitely not that... :) I felt I could swing the racket or flick the racket much easier with one than the other... especially that forward acceleration of the racket head following the lag of the wrist...
 

shamaho

Professional
ok, so without models... this is too abstract :) lets get some details in...

Wilson PS 97 vs Dunlop CX 200
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
nah, definitely not that... :) I felt I could swing the racket or flick the racket much easier with one than the other... especially that forward acceleration of the racket head following the lag of the wrist...

Well, assuming CX tour 16x19 model,

You're talking 7 units of SW and 1.5 unit of twistweight less than PS97.

That is definitely enough to notice a difference, IME. The lighter SW and less TW will feel much more maneuverable. So, not apples to apples...

http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/twistweight.cgi
 

BlueB

Legend
And with Wilson's QC, that 7 points of SW could easily be 15... that's why I said the actual measurements are required.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

shamaho

Professional
theoretical specs say swingweight of 318 vs 320... so very close... but they feel quite different... might be manufacture variances....
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
nope! it's the CX Tour 18x20 (note I mentioned string patterns on 1st post)

TW of 13.5 (Dunlop) compared to TW of 14.8 (ProStaff).

So, maybe the lower twistweight is what you're picking up on? That definitely affects maneuverability and control of the racket face angle, IME.
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
I have the same experience, Yonex Vcore Pro 97 330 gram vs Wilson Pro Staff Classic 6.1. The Wilson frame is 2mm thicker and I find harder to swing through the air than the Yonex. All other specs are just about identical. I always thought the thinner beam frame just cuts through the air easier, less resistance.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
everyone of those specs are equal... but don't know about twist-weight as they are not in those mini spec-forms for each model

if all specs equal except head and beam size, then wind resistance would account for the difference but I think that could only make a small difference from 95 to 97 head size and 20.5 to 21.5 beam. any new frame will feel a little different but I think you could quickly get accustomed to either of these frames if you like the way they play.

Take two sticks with almost exact specs saving for:
-Head size: 95 vs 97
-Beam width: 20,5 vs 21,5 mm
oh... and string pattern:
-18x20 (on 95) vs 16x19 (on 97)
 

shamaho

Professional
if all specs equal except head and beam size, then wind resistance would account for the difference but I think that could only make a small difference from 95 to 97 head size and 20.5 to 21.5 beam. any new frame will feel a little different but I think you could quickly get accustomed to either of these frames if you like the way they play.

Take two sticks with almost exact specs saving for:
-Head size: 95 vs 97
-Beam width: 20,5 vs 21,5 mm
oh... and string pattern:
-18x20 (on 95) vs 16x19 (on 97)

Yeah I could accustomed to either pretty easy, but that was not the point :) I was quite surprised to see such "big" difference and was getting some feedback from this forum's community.
Most likely it's the wind resistence.
 

BlueB

Legend
Yeah I could accustomed to either pretty easy, but that was not the point :) I was quite surprised to see such "big" difference and was getting some feedback from this forum's community.
Most likely it's the wind resistence.
Air resistance would be negligible. I never understood why lots of people on TT obsess about it...
You are speculating without having checked the actual specs of those racquets.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

brownbearfalling

Hall of Fame
Take two sticks with almost exact specs saving for:
-Head size: 95 vs 97
-Beam width: 20,5 vs 21,5 mm
oh... and string pattern:
-18x20 (on 95) vs 16x19 (on 97)

Yet when playing, the thinner n smaller (by ever so small a margin) swings so much easier and faster then the other...
I would understand the difference but so big? how come?


When referring to advertised specs they don't always tell the whole story. The "inches" you are referring to are actually "square inches" (inchesxinches). 2 sq in difference is bigger than 2 inch difference in linear length. Also this is different than say 2 inches in the length of the racquet (27in to 29in). you would definitely feel the difference there.

When it comes to beam thickness/ profile thickness the side measurement is a good "indicator" but doesn't give other valuable information like geometry, material thickness, material composition and etc. As the thickness changes so does the other variables. For example look at the Babolat Aero Pro. Yes it varies in thickness but look at how it varies in geometry from head to throat. All these things will change the racquet feel.

That being said, if someone were to do an experiment with molding 2 frames equal in every way possible other than 2 sq in and 1mm of beam thickness, you would feel as much of a difference as you would think. So again, one can't single out 1 or 2 specifications or measurements and conclude the feel or performance difference because of those things.
 

shamaho

Professional
I really don't want to obsess about this... fact is.. for me those two very similarly specd sticks swung very very differently.
I thought maybe there woudl be some sort of consensus on on what might cause it, but there isn't...
it's not really important...

thanks for all the feedback.
 

Irvin

Talk Tennis Guru
I really don't want to obsess about this... fact is.. for me those two very similarly specd sticks swung very very differently.
I thought maybe there woudl be some sort of consensus on on what might cause it, but there isn't...
it's not really important...

thanks for all the feedback.
Are you going to published specs or by measured specs? Don’t believe any thing you read and only half of what you measure. If the specs are identical the force needed to swing them is identical.
 
Top