Yeah, at one very brief point. Connors himself admitted that he had an irrational love for the frame, evidenced by the fact he doesn't use them even in recreation anymore, not even for hitting the wall, yet they are very easy to get.
Borg also doesn't use a wood Donnay Borg Pro any more. Doesn't mean that he forgot how to hit the ball with one. Both Connors and Borg would hit the ball just fine with their T-2000, and Borg Pro, respectively, even today. I don't use a Dunlop Maxply Fort anymore, but I can still hit the ball very well with it without shanking.
One thing I would say about the re-introduction of kevlar is I've long thought that a benefit of kevlar was the longevity of consistency in a frame. Frames degrade in their stiffness etc over time and the PS85s seem to have always held their form longer than other frames I tried. Perhaps that is an additional reason to pay the extra to get the 2014 frame instead of a 2012 frame on sale.
The only way to definitively verify that is to cut one open and look for the yellow Kevlar fibers.
True. The PS 6.0 85 broke down too easily which is why Wilson added the SiO2 molecules to the nCode 90 and the K90 to make the frames stronger and last longer. All of them contained Kevlar. Many old PS 85's got softer over time.
You are correct.
Ha ha ha....carbon IS graphite. That's what graphite is!
Well, of course not. The element carbon is everywhere. Heck, even we are carbon-based life forms. But graphite is made of carbon atoms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite Thus, "carbon" is used interchangeably with "graphite" when describing the composition of tennis racquets.
Correct. The specs suggest this and, to rule out any ambiguity, Wilson have confirmed it for us.
No one has said "you need a racquet bigger than 90 sq. in. to hit a tennis ball".
Interesting. So there may be a reason why some racquet companies may not want to tip off to their competitors that their frames contain Kevlar? Hmmmm.....could that be why Babolat never advertised that its Pure Drive contained Kevlar and why Wilson may not want to list Kevlar in the composition of the BLX 90 and 2012 PS 90 BLX?
Then why does this thread even exist?
Hey Spin to Win,
What now Bobby Jr?
(see the materials listed)
Wilson didn't list kevlar in the composition of those two frames because it was never in them in the first instance. Regardless of the borderline or blatant misleading stuff companies may claim about their frames at times they have been clear all along about the use or non-use of kevlar in those frames. The example of the K6.1 Tour does not set any precedence - it was an anomaly according to Wilson themselves.
As with many shops/websites which Breakpoint has been sharp enough to seek out amongst other - what a shop puts on their tag is not what Wilson's own information said, nor what was printed on the frame.
Got it! I agree.
They are mistaken or the local agent/sales-rep was. Wilson have never claimed kevlar to be in those frames so the shop is mistaken. Read the info on the Wilson-supplied info attached to the string-bed. Tell me if it says kevlar on it like the shop printed swing-tag. I can see the back of it right there. Go take another photo and we'll see how consistent your source is.
If you're annoyed ignore my posts. My crusade is not a crusade - it's a dispelling of a long-held myth which was never backed up by anything other than years of Breakpoint pretending to know the facts. As it turns out Wilson know more about their own frames than he does.
Not confirmed - clarified. They did so because I asked specifically about the misconceptions people have held - including retailers.
Not because someone said "you need a racquet bigger than 90 sq. in. to hit a tennis ball".Then why does this thread even exist?
You may want to read the title of this thread again. If you don't need a racquet bigger than a 90 to hit a tennis ball, why even ask the question?
Uhm, because they hit differently?
