MSV Focus Hex: 1.18 or 1.23?
- Thread starter emmyc
- Start date
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Yes. If you are intermidiate to advanced and hit medium to big, then the difference in durability will be there. 1.23 will last longer. 1.18 might give you more power and spin but last not so long. trade off.
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
Neither.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
its a shaped poly-gon co-polyester string ( poly means multible). when a shaped hexagon polyester think 1.23 as 1.20 to compare with round polys. if 1.27 polygon then think 1.25 round
BallsOfFire
Rookie
WYK
Hall of Fame
Be aware that MSV FH 127 is a completely different string from 123. It is nowhere near as stiff. It is not simply a larger version of 123.
I also string it 1-2kg higher tension than 123.
But it works if you want comfort.
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
WYK
Hall of Fame
Focus hex soft in 120 and 125 are very stiff. Focus Hex 127 is not stiff at all.
Focus Hex 127 is closer to Tour Bite soft(and behaves similarly).
I have used about every string you can imagine. I string for two racquet clubs. There's few strings I haven't tried or at least know someone who has.
Of all the focus hex strings, I like 123 in about everything from closed to open patterns as you can tune it with tension rather well.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Focus hex is very popular in Europe. As soon as they hit the shelf they get sold out again. Has also been reviewed from time to time with very good points by experienced testers. A lot of the very expensive High Street brand strings are not worth their pricetag much. I have played with not so few low priced strings that matches or which are even better than "academy" strings. one of the best syn guts I have played with is also one of the least expensive. most syn guts are made in same factory. same strings but different label. Theres alot of "back street" strings that are equal or better than Luxilon also. Going to the warehouse university tool many strings are equal but so different priced. Even some Pros pro like Black Out plays equal or better to some popular high brands using a lot of money for comercial which the consumer is to redeem by price.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
WYK
Hall of Fame
I dunno what their reasoning was. I assume it was based upon their version of CoFocus.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
If you go by the tools of tennis ware house 'camparison strings'. the data for the MSV focus hex 1.18 and 1.23 and 1.27 has clearly been put in wrongly/ in reverse/upside down. My guess is they have entered the values for 1.23 in the 1.18. or also here there is a difference between the chemical make up as the 1.18 is stated to be way stiffer than the 1.23 which is unlikely.
My home test shows that the MSV 1.27 is equal stiff to Head Lynx Tour 1.25 which has a stiffness in the warehouse tool at 218 but the tool say MSV FH 1.27 is 186. so something do not compute.
Normally the manufacturers do not like to confuse their consumers by altering the strings chemical make up/additives etc in higher or lower gauges. also they look a like. if different additives chemical makeup or different plastic it would be very very hard to hit the exact same colour. most likely they only change the extruder nostril. I cant see a reason for changing the chemical makeup without telling or labelling/branding it different. it doesnt make much sense to make a thicker string calling it the same but it acts softer. that would give a lot of headache.
Last edited:
ngoster
Semi-Pro
Your swing type has an impact on durability as well. Spin will produce more wear vs flat shots. I think I hit with decent pace but I have a flat stroke. I very very rarely break strings from wear. If I do, they are from shanks, otherwise, I have to cut my strings. I've gone as thin as 1.10 FH and hardly ever broken the strings from wear.
Last edited:
WYK
Hall of Fame
MSV Focus Hex 127 feels fairly soft to me, especially compared to MSV Focus Hex 123. What I like about 127 is how low powered and controlled it is.
But it starts to lock up much faster than 123 or Lynx Tour.
I mostly agree with most of what I see in the string tool.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
shamaho
Professional
I play with MSV FocusHex plus 25 1.20 AND regular FocusHex 1.23
Considering two regular FocusHex at 1.18 and 1.23 I'd yes the gauge difference makes them feel different. the 1.18 would tend to provide more spin and grabbing the ball better BUT loose elasticity faster, the 1.23 would feel firmer / crispier and last longer.
WYK
Hall of Fame
When I string on my Comet, I usually have the tension head a full turn out before I start to pull tension. This seems to create a slightly stiffer stringbed.
Let me check my notes on my 1.18 string jobs...
Ahh here it is - Gravity Pro V1, back on May24th, MSV 1.18 red 22.5X21kg '+' And the exact same job in a Speed Pro says the same plus it says 'crisp'.
I see loads of MSV 127 string jobs with a 'meh' by them, btw. Though one job at 25X23 in a Pure Strike 100 says 'good contrl and spin'.
And a full bed of 127 at 24kg is a plus in a Prince 100L
The same string job in an MP-L Prestige says 'meh'
I do show here MSV 120 as well in a Speed Pro back in july at 24X22.5kg with a plus by it. That seems a bit tight for this time of year, tho.
The best-rated string jobs I see in an 18X20 for me are HyperG 120 on top of RPM 125, usually at 50lbs and below, and LT 130 or Confidential 130 on top of RPM 125 in open patterns.
So most other string jobs will be compared to this - thus some will say meh(which usually means the feel was meh, and the performance was meh) etc. + means it stood out.
And I also have notes regarding spin or feel etc.
When I did a full bed of 123 in the 18X20's many of the notes say 'wire-y' or 'stiff'.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
How can it be low powered and controlled and also be soft?
also the university tool says 1.27 MSV FH is 186 and the Lynx Tour 1.25 is 218 in stiffness. To me (and others) that shows an error of input.
Also in order for at 1.18 to be 224 in stifness it has to be called something different and made of kevlar.
Last edited:
WYK
Hall of Fame
Have you tried the similar strings tool?
Plug in MSV Focus Hex 127 and see what it brings up. It will show you a dozen or so strings that are relatively low stiffness for a poly and low powered.
Can Tennis University be wrong about all of these? Do you not trust any of this data?
You appear to be struggling with the whole concept of MSV 127. I suggest you try it out for yourself and see how you get on.
In the meantime, I'll be ignoring you so you stop popping up in my feed.
Good luck.
Last edited:
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Well I am sorry I irritate you. That was not the intension.
I have tried the tool.
I think the data has been put in wrong so some of the 1.18 data belong to either 1.23 or 1.27... because it do not compute when looking at alot of other strings and doesnt compute when having them physically in hand in front of me as the 1.27 is just as stiff as the 1.25 Head Lynx Tour.
The university tool says 1.27 MSV FH is 186 and the Lynx Tour 1.25 is 218 in stiffness. To me (and others) that shows an error of input.
Also in order for at 1.18 to be 224 in stifness it has to be called something different and maybe made of kevlar I think. and for the 1.27 MSV to be at 186 it should maybe be made of nylon. also the co-focus 1.18 is at 186 stiffness. Then it should also be around 186 (not 224) in the hex version. or else its not based on the co-focus. I hope you dont ignore me because I have made a point.
Thanks for the good luck wishes.
Last edited:
BallsOfFire
Rookie
WYK. You make a circular argument.
The thing is that:
If my theory is correct about the 1.27.... that the data is put in wrong in the background spreadsheet... and is really for the 1.23 or the 1.18... then the simular string tool will show simular strings not simular to the 1.27 but for the 1.23 or 1.18...
So yes if the data for the 1.27 really is for the 1.23/1.18 then we can conclude that the simular string tool is also comparing/showing strings in a wrong way... bc properly based on an algorytm... and not by manual linking. and thus the simular string tool will probably also show wrong simular strigns for the 1.23/1.18. so we need a clarification about this from the professor at the warehouse university.
And it supports my theory that at home the 1.27 in my own test set up is equal stiff as the Lynx Tour 1.25 + that the simular string tool shows simular string for the 1.27 that are mostly thinner strings. and MSV do not advertise the 1.27 to be a softer string or a different chemical/molycular make up. They do make strings with different moly/chem make up, which they label differently with different names, so why have this being so much softer in a thicker gauge?. That wouldnt be wise and confuse costumers which is bad buziness.
Sadly you wont be reading this due to you ignoring me for some reason I dont understand.
Have a nice evening.
Last edited:
WYK
Hall of Fame
All that said, I am running MSV 123 in about everything now. Usually between 21-23kg.
I particularly like it in my RQIS Tour 1 95 at 21kg. I restring often. When you string yourself and buy it in a reel here in Europe, it's a less than €4 string job.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Copy from another thread:
I think to get to know what is comparable to 1.23 and 1.27 MSV Focus Hex we need to look at MSV Focus Hex soft stat/data. MSV claims the soft version to be 5-8 % softer material ( yet slightly thicker the gauge) than the original.
If we apply that as a denominator we can see that the data must have been put in wrongly, in the Tool of the Tennis Warehouse University, for the Original MSV Focus Hex.
The Focus Hex soft has this stat:
1.25: Stiffness 228, Tension loss 30, Energy Return 91 and spin potiential 6.3
1.20 Stifness 194, Tension Loss 26 Energy Return 26 Spin Potiential 7.3
when looking at these numbers it seems likely that:
Some of the numbers in the original Focus Hex has been swapped a bit, even for the 1.18 MSV Focus Hex.
So I would use the Focus Hex soft numbers, to get a view on what to do and aim for, with the original MSV Focus Hex. and use the MSV Co Focus 1.18 stats/data as the MSV Focus Hex should be based on the MSV Co Focus just with edges. and the sta/data for the 1.18 (17L) is:
Stiffness 186, Tension Loss 31, Energy return 89, Spin Potiential 7.2
I think to get to know what is comparable to 1.23 and 1.27 MSV Focus Hex we need to look at MSV Focus Hex soft stat/data. MSV claims the soft version to be 5-8 % softer material ( yet slightly thicker the gauge) than the original.
If we apply that as a denominator we can see that the data must have been put in wrongly, in the Tool of the Tennis Warehouse University, for the Original MSV Focus Hex.
The Focus Hex soft has this stat:
1.25: Stiffness 228, Tension loss 30, Energy Return 91 and spin potiential 6.3
1.20 Stifness 194, Tension Loss 26 Energy Return 26 Spin Potiential 7.3
when looking at these numbers it seems likely that:
Some of the numbers in the original Focus Hex has been swapped a bit, even for the 1.18 MSV Focus Hex.
So I would use the Focus Hex soft numbers, to get a view on what to do and aim for, with the original MSV Focus Hex. and use the MSV Co Focus 1.18 stats/data as the MSV Focus Hex should be based on the MSV Co Focus just with edges. and the sta/data for the 1.18 (17L) is:
Stiffness 186, Tension Loss 31, Energy return 89, Spin Potiential 7.2
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
What puzzles me are the stiffness numbers on TWU. Focus Hex 1.23 is listed as way stiffer than the thicker 1.27 gauge (219 vs 186). Is this true?
I've only used the 1.23, which I like a lot, untill my arm says no, but the numbers on the 1.27 look really interesting.
I've only used the 1.23, which I like a lot, untill my arm says no, but the numbers on the 1.27 look really interesting.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Clearly a mistake when they put in the data in the spreed sheet behind the tool. I think they mixed it up so some numbers in the 1.23/1.18/1.27 are mixed up. Focus hex is the shaped version of the CO Focus....you can compare them to them. stiffness of the 1.23 shaped should be close to the 1.23 non-shaped and the 1.27 CO Focus to the 1.27 Focus Hex etc.
I noticed more input mistakes across the different tools of comparison...I think they dont look back at it after the initial data input writing...
BallsOfFire
Rookie
The 1.23 is the most spin friendly. so the numbers for the 1.27 hex is for the 1.23
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
What about the stiffness? There just can't be that big of a difference between 1.23 and 1.27, can it? Even if the numbers were the other eay around.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
The Focus Hex is the shaped brother of the Round Focus Hex. Same material. Check what is stiffness for the CO Focus at 1.23 and tell yourself that the stiffness is about the same for the Focus Hex at 1.23 and so on
WYK
Hall of Fame
A noticeable difference. I dunno why, but MSV went very soft by comparison on their 127 version.
If you are new and have a rather open string pattern, you may not notice it too much?
Shrug
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Or the data is put in wrong. Its quite obvious that some of the data for 1.27, 1.18 is mixed up and put in the colums for one of the other gauges. The evidence is:
The Focus hex is the same material as the CO-Focus just in shaped version. Its known that some manufacturers make some of the thinner strings a bit more stiff to counter the thinness, but not to this extend. And the trend is to make thinner strings a bit stiffer and not make the thicker strings softer. MSV is a lowcost string company and need to keep things lowcost. extra additives are costly. therefore making the thicker gauge more soft is not cost efficient.
The numbers for the Co-focus are the ones to read on TW-university when somebody wants to know what the Focus Hex is about. Here the data makes sense. On MSV webpage they say its the same exact material as the CO-Focus just shaped. And the fact is that the numbers then on the TW University dont add up with the Focus Hex and they should. And reading the data for Focus hex everyone instantly can see theres something wrong. They didnt make the 1.27 like butter and the 1.18 like steel.
I have also found other data input-errors for other strings on TWU (like the Signum Pro Plasma Hextreme)... also misspelings and lacking info/no data etc....so the person who has done this data input has done it quickly without looking back at it to look for and correct errors. maybe it was given to an intern to do. The MSV focus Hex is a perfect example of this. I have both the 1.23 and 1.27 Focus Hex at home.
Last edited:
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Thicker strings have more string to string friction. and going by that, then the data put in for
1.23 Focus Hex in TWU is the data for 1.27
and what data is put in the slot for the 1.27 is the data for 1.18
1.18 is the data for 1.23
So MSV Focus Hex:
1.27 -> 1.18
1.18 -> 1.23
1.23 -> 1.27
now the numbers for stiffness and frictions and spin makes sense...................tension loss and energy return maybe not..../still in the "right" place..
MSV Focus Hex is very comparable to Head Lynx Tour and with Head Lynx Tour the data is in the right place for the right gauge.
For Head Lynx Tour you can see that the thicker gauge has higher stiffness, more tension loss, more string to string friction and less energy return.
Last edited:
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
Hard to believe that Focus Hex 1.18 would have 186 in stiffness. That would be really soft.
BallsOfFire
Rookie
I dont think so. It makes sense. Not hard to believe at all.
Tour Bite 18 has that stiffness. Solinco Barb Wire 17 has that stiffness. Yones Poly Tour Pro 1.20 has that stiffness. Babolat RPM Blast 18/1.20 has 189 stiffness rating.
Its not soft for that thickness/gauge. But its ofcourse not as stiff as a 1.30 in same material.
Normally the stiffness correspond to the thickness in same material. And many popular poly strings at 1.18 is just below the 200 mark.
natural Gut 1.30 has 85-100 in stiffness. The Head Lynx, a poly on the softer side, has in thickness 1.30 about 185 in stiffness.... so A thinner stiffer chemical mix string... is about as stiff (stiffness rating).... as a thicker softer chemical mix string.
Last edited:
BallsOfFire
Rookie
Another "evidence" for my assumption of the data input mixup, is that MSV Focus Hex and Lynx Tour is assumably/propably made in same factory and is 99.9 same material and shape.
The Lynx Tour's data for 1.30 correspond with the data put in for the MSV Focus Hex 1.18. Therefore the data for 1.18 MSV Focus Hex is the data for the 1.27 Focus Hex.
The Lynx Tour's data for 1.30 correspond with the data put in for the MSV Focus Hex 1.18. Therefore the data for 1.18 MSV Focus Hex is the data for the 1.27 Focus Hex.
