Power rating of rackets bogus?

[blackdiamond]

How exactly do they measure a racket's power rating? Is this rating how much power a relatively weak player would have swinging the racket? I'm confused because I see how some rackets with a low swingweight(less than 290) are rated as "high power", whereas the high swingweights(greater than 330) are rated "low power". A racket with such a low swingweight would lack sufficient hitting weight to generate a lot of power unless swung really fast. Something with a high swingweight could generate the same power swung more slowly. It's my experience that a strong player will have much more power with the high swingweight rackets. You can swing it almost as fast but generate much more power.

 

[El Diablo]

Perhaps tennis can catch up to golf in this respect - there are swing robots that golf clubs can be bolted into to test their power (or the distance potential of balls). Such a device could be built and racquets could be rated at several (slow, medium, fast) swing speeds, with balls being shot out of a well-calibrated ball machine.

 

[jaap deboeck]

Yes, but a well designed oversize with a 25mm+ hoop will have much more power with slow to medium swings than a mid or MP player stick. Not even close! A good OS will cause the ball to explode off the strings. This is why so many lesser players when accustomed to these things can hit pretty hard with only average effort. A high SW player stick will give your typical player with that slow swing and moderate swing length no power at all, like when the power grid fails and you try to put on the lights. True, less advanced players if they swing hard can generate good pace, but the big key "if they swing long and fast." You may be confusing stability with power.The other day I picked up a well made OS power type stick for the first time in a long while and just stopped and said "Allelujah, I am Safin!" Big difference in power. Control is another story.

 

[mark rodgers]

The fact that manufacturers do not have a standardized methodology for providing a numeric power level rating has always puzzled me. TW does a so-so job at providing a very basic power level rating. I guess this is better than nothing. I don't know if Prince still does it but I remember they had a power rating scale with many of their racquets. I'm not a fan of Prince racquets but I thought that part was great. Anyway, a couple years ago, when I was a member of the USRSA, they published a math formula to compute the power level. Here it is:

Multiply (Length Index * Head size * RDC flex rating * swingweight) then divide all that by 1000

Length index is computed by 1 + ((Length in inches - 27) / 10)

For example, the Babolat Pure Drive standard

(1 * 100 * 70 * 310) / 1000 = 2170

Compare that to the plus version:

(1.05 * 100 * 70 * 332) / 1000 = 2440

Thus the plus version is about 15% more powerful than the standard version.

From here you can adjust it plus or minus 5% with strings. Some will claim more but that's just my experience.

Each year USRSA publised the list of current rackets and their specs minus the power level. I used to input the numbers in a spreadsheet and calculate the power level. It was very helpful in narrowing down my choices. Hope that helps..

 

[Tennis Guy]

The fact that manufacturers do not have a standardized methodology for providing a numeric power level rating has always puzzled me. TW does a so-so job at providing a very basic power level rating. I guess this is better than nothing. I don't know if Prince still does it but I remember they had a power rating scale with many of their racquets. I'm not a fan of Prince racquets but I thought that part was great. Anyway, a couple years ago, when I was a member of the USRSA, they published a math formula to compute the power level. Here it is:

Multiply (Length Index * Head size * RDC flex rating * swingweight) then divide all that by 1000

Length index is computed by 1 + ((Length in inches - 27) / 10)

For example, the Babolat Pure Drive standard

(1 * 100 * 70 * 310) / 1000 = 2170

Compare that to the plus version:

(1.05 * 100 * 70 * 332) / 1000 = 2440

Thus the plus version is about 15% more powerful than the standard version.

From here you can adjust it plus or minus 5% with strings. Some will claim more but that's just my experience.

Each year USRSA publised the list of current rackets and their specs minus the power level. I used input to the numbers in a spreadsheet and calculate the power level. It was very helpful in narrowing down my choices. Hope that helps..

Thanks, that's really helpful.

 

[mucat]

Cool equation!!!!!!!

I just did some calculation:

TiRad
1*107*60*323/1000= 2074

iRad
1*107*62*302/1000= 2003

LmRad
1*107*58*330/1000=2049

I heard everyone said the TiRad is the least powerful of the three, but the equation says otherwise.

And one more
1*85*66*329/1000=1846
Damn, no wonder I have to swing so hard with this one...

 

[mark rodgers]

There's probably a "Technology" multiplier needed in there as well. A number like .997 or 1.002 that takes into consideration the technology impact on the power. This is why the manufactureer needs to get involved in order to give a more precise number.

My power range is between 2000 and 2050. It also has to have a flex of 65 plus or minus 1 and a head light balance. Anything on either side of that is considered experimentation.

By the way, I know 1846. That's the Wilson Pro Staff Original. Obviously not for me

 

[BLiND]

Does the beam width not factor-in on power levels?

 

[Tennis Guy]

Does the beam width not factor-in on power levels?

It shouldn't, because all a thinker beam width does is make it stiffer. The flex rating takes that into account.

String pattern also makes a difference. The RDX500 and the RDX500 HD would have almost exactly the same power level, but the HD would have less power.