How HL is Rogers racquet after customizing?

[Hollywood2]

Usually pros get their racquets fairly light then their racquet mechanics go in and change handles and balance points etc.

My question is how HL is Rogers racquet after his custom work is done. Specifically, how much weight is inserted in the handle because I know he likes his racquets head light and with weight in the handle for more whip and control.

The question is ~5g ~8g ~10g of extra silicone weight in the butt?

Does anyone have any recent info for his RF97 racquets. Any good info is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Cheers.

 

[Bendex]

Why would Wilson design a frame specifically for him, then release it to the public with different specs? Or did he decide he wanted to change the balance after production started?

 

[hirschi80]

he usualy has a 32,2-32,5cm balance strung.

 

[Bash and Crash]

Wonder also whats in the handle when this is at the top.

[/IMG]

 

[oble]

He used to have around 6~7 pts HL balance with his old PS90 sticks. Not too sure about the current one.

Why would Wilson design a frame specifically for him, then release it to the public with different specs? Or did he decide he wanted to change the balance after production started?

Probably because Federer's usual racquet spec is around 360+ grams and 350+ SW with custom handle pallet made by P1 specifically for him, and Wilson knows that the stick will not be as popular with the general public with the exact same specs.. Sales always comes first..

Also, my guess is that manufacturing the stick slightly under spec allows for some wiggle room in spec variation, which in turn makes it easier for Fed's racquet technicians to match his sticks after (kind of like a secondary benefit).

Wonder also whats in the handle when this is at the top.

[/IMG]

 

[TennisCJC]

Yes, Roger's racket is not exactly stock. They send the stock frames to P1 for customization. Lot's of pro's customize their rackets including Federer, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Verdasco, and many (most?) others.

But, the fact that Federer starts with a retail RF97 and Nadal starts with an old APD model before minor customization with lead tape, custom handles and possibly silicon in the handle is good. Many pros use paint jobs that you cannot buy. You can buy the Federer racket or a racket reasonably close to Nadal's if that floats your boat.

 

[Raul_SJ]

Why would Wilson design a frame specifically for him, then release it to the public with different specs? Or did he decide he wanted to change the balance after production started?

I could envision Wilson designing a racquet for Federer and then releasing it with the same name, but with different specs, in order to maximize sales.

Yes, Roger's racket is not exactly stock. They send the stock frames to P1 for customization.

What is P1?

How much weight does Roger add to the RF97?

 

[drakulie]

What is P1

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=438964

 

[Ghost3789]

The Pro Staff RF97A that are available to the public are VERY close to the ones Roger using.

 

[Racquet-Priority]

Maybe a bit of topic but: Roger Federer raised his string tension a lot since he switched to the more powerful 97 inch head! He is stringing up to 27 KG.

 

[Raul_SJ]

The Pro Staff RF97A that are available to the public are VERY close to the ones Roger using.

Interesting.

I had thought retail buyers would generally not find the specs of pro players racquets to be comfortable.

Maybe Wilson does not have high sales expectations for this model and just put it out for the niche market that would find the racquet comfortable.

I checked out the TW review and even some of the 4.5+ playtesters said they found it to be a little heavy and would not use it as their main racquet.

 

[Bobby Jr]

The Pro Staff RF97A that are available to the public are VERY close to the ones Roger using.

Actually, there isn't a lot out there yet to support this.

It is easier to make a racquet stiff than it is to make it (consistently) flexible. You can make them stiff using the cheapest materials but you need to make them with more care, precision and (most likely) expensively to give them a plush feel. Production frames are made with far less care than for pros like Federer so I don't think it's a stretch to see this being the case.

I would not be surprised to find he used a frame which was more flexible than the retail frame. Then again, he uses a string set up which is very softening and which would cost the average tennis player too much to be practical - maybe stiff frame with really soft string set-up is what he found works best for him with a bigger head size.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Actually, there isn't a lot out there yet to support this.

It is easier to make a racquet stiff than it is to make it (consistently) flexible. You can make them stiff using the cheapest materials but you need to make them with more care, precision and (most likely) expensively to give them a plush feel. Production frames are made with far less care than for pros like Federer so I don't think it's a stretch to see this being the case.

I would not be surprised to find he used a frame which was more flexible than the retail frame. Then again, he uses a string set up which is very softening and which would cost the average tennis player too much to be practical - maybe stiff frame with really soft string set-up is what he found works best for him with a bigger head size.

If that's the case, then how come babolat's most flexible frame, the PC95 costs $30 less than their stiff tweeners? Also, keep in mind that higher modulus carbon fiber costs far more (and is far stiffer) than regular and intermediate moduli? Also, why did the wilson hyper carbon racquets cost twice as much if ultra high modulus being the stiffest modulus? I think it's easier to make a more flexible racquet due to materials. That all.

 

[frinton]

If that's the case, then how come babolat's most flexible frame, the PC95 costs $30 less than their stiff tweeners? Also, keep in mind that higher modulus carbon fiber costs far more (and is far stiffer) than regular and intermediate moduli? Also, why did the wilson hyper carbon racquets cost twice as much if ultra high modulus being the stiffest modulus? I think it's easier to make a more flexible racquet due to materials. That all.

Hyper carbon, higher modulus carbon, nano, karaphite black... etc.
Do they really exist or only in the brains of some Marketing guys?

 

[Bobby Jr]

If that's the case, then how come babolat's most flexible frame, the PC95 costs $30 less than their stiff tweeners? Also, keep in mind that higher modulus carbon fiber costs far more (and is far stiffer) than regular and intermediate moduli? Also, why did the wilson hyper carbon racquets cost twice as much if ultra high modulus being the stiffest modulus? I think it's easier to make a more flexible racquet due to materials. That all.

It's not as simple as looking at the price. Frames are marketed and made in many ways - but there is not a consistent correlation between the more expensive frames (which would, on average, cost more to make) being stiffer. There sometimes is - but often not. It is **** easy to make a wide-beam tweener-type frame really stuff with cheap materials. Making a narrow beam frame that stiff requires more effort - and usually more cost.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Hyper carbon, higher modulus carbon, nano, karaphite black... etc.
Do they really exist or only in the brains of some Marketing guys?

They do. I don't know much about karophite black, but extensive research has been done on carbon fiber modulus (even a Google search will do) and nano materials (graphene, nanotubes, etc) are very real and same saying goes for that as for carbon fiber modulus in terms of searchability. I don't know if the companies really use them to a useful extent however (except for ultra high carbon fiber and high modulus carbon fiber as stiffness ratings show compared to higher moduli)

 

[LapsedNoob]

PDs and APDs probably cost more because their more prominent players endorse them which in turn means demand is higher and can support a higher price.

 

[dr325i]

Actually, there isn't a lot out there yet to support this.

It is easier to make a racquet stiff than it is to make it (consistently) flexible. You can make them stiff using the cheapest materials but you need to make them with more care, precision and (most likely) expensively to give them a plush feel. Production frames are made with far less care than for pros like Federer so I don't think it's a stretch to see this being the case.

I would not be surprised to find he used a frame which was more flexible than the retail frame. Then again, he uses a string set up which is very softening and which would cost the average tennis player too much to be practical - maybe stiff frame with really soft string set-up is what he found works best for him with a bigger head size.

Bravo Junior!

 

[El_Yotamo]

It's not as simple as looking at the price. Frames are marketed and made in many ways - but there is not a consistent correlation between the more expensive frames (which would, on average, cost more to make) being stiffer. There sometimes is - but often not. It is **** easy to make a wide-beam tweener-type frame really stuff with cheap materials. Making a narrow beam frame that stiff requires more effort - and usually more cost.

But the question is if fed's frame is stiff or plush. It's true that wide beam racquets are easier to make, but it's not too difficult to make thinner beamed racquets, especially more plush ones. In my opinion, it would be stupid to make a stiff yet thin beamed racquet, no? Especially for the likes of top players like fed. Even Nadal (whose racquet is certainly thick beamed) likes his racquet over 5 points softer (I think) than his racquet. I wouldn't like to believe top pros like stiff racquets, wide beam or no. That's all I'm saying.

 

[El_Yotamo]

Let me add though (seeing the reason for your original post) that I also strongly believe that fed's frame is probably not very close to retail, and certainly not as stiff/stiffer.

 

[T21D]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=438964

Great read and interesting!!!!

 

[Bogdan_TT]

Hyper carbon, higher modulus carbon, nano, karaphite black... etc.
Do they really exist or only in the brains of some Marketing guys?

It's marketing. Meaning, lying by omission. It's basically how we got to be with girls when we were teenagers - by telling them what they want to hear... It's the same here, putting half truths into a fake message. Life's a biatch when it bites back, ain't it?

For example, Head's Graphene. According to Wikipedia, if one's curious, "Graphene is pure carbon in the form of a very thin, nearly transparent sheet, one atom thick. [...] Graphene can be described as a one-atom thick layer of graphite".

Basically, the HEAD marketing team thought that it would be very cool if they would just say that since Graphene is a 1 atom layer of graphite, and their stick is made of graphite, it means that they have several million 1 atom layers of graphene Since, the new magic material Graphene with better spin, plowthrough, lighter but tougher and now it knows how to bake bread!

However, a layer of Graphene is extremely expensive to produce. Also, according to the same Wikipedia, "The global market for graphene is reported to have reached $9 million by 2014 with most of these sales being concentrated in the semiconductor, electronics, battery energy and composites industries.".

Meaning that the whole market for Graphene last year was only 9m USD. Therefore, any intelligent person will call bullsh on Head.

But it sounds soooo cool, isn't it? You want the new Head Graphene Prestige MP, as it brings crisper response and more power in the same controllable package blah blah blah

Yeah, right!

 

[El_Yotamo]

It's marketing. Meaning, lying by omission. It's basically how we got to be with girls when we were teenagers - by telling them what they want to hear... It's the same here, putting half truths into a fake message. Life's a biatch when it bites back, ain't it?

For example, Head's Graphene. According to Wikipedia, if one's curious, "Graphene is pure carbon in the form of a very thin, nearly transparent sheet, one atom thick. [...] Graphene can be described as a one-atom thick layer of graphite".

Basically, the HEAD marketing team thought that it would be very cool if they would just say that since Graphene is a 1 atom layer of graphite, and their stick is made of graphite, it means that they have several million 1 atom layers of graphene Since, the new magic material Graphene with better spin, plowthrough, lighter but tougher and now it knows how to bake bread!

However, a layer of Graphene is extremely expensive to produce. Also, according to the same Wikipedia, "The global market for graphene is reported to have reached $9 million by 2014 with most of these sales being concentrated in the semiconductor, electronics, battery energy and composites industries.".

Meaning that the whole market for Graphene last year was only 9m USD. Therefore, any intelligent person will call bullsh on Head.

But it sounds soooo cool, isn't it? You want the new Head Graphene Prestige MP, as it brings crisper response and more power in the same controllable package blah blah blah

Yeah, right!

Though the marketing bullsh is most certainly correct, I think it's important to set things straight. Head actually puts (negligible amounts) of grahene powder into the epoxy matrix. This is also why the new graphene racquets are far stiffer with higher SW. By the way, wilson actually did use formidable amounts of hyper carbon, but the racquets were lower level racquets anyways (and way stiffer).
Just thought you'd be interested in knowing the full truth!