Pro Kennex Ki Q15 (310)

[Jackson Heights]

Haven't tried it yet. This racquet, the PK Ki Q15 (310),
has a very high stiffness rating of 72.
Yet it's supposed to be very arm friendly.
Is that possible? What do they put in the racquet to
counteract the very high stiffness?

 

[CopolyX]

Did you read there spiel...?
http://www.prokennex.com/

 

[Jackson Heights]

I didn't see much explanation on their website. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

 

[kailash]

I didn't see much explanation on their website. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

Kinetic technology, plus something in the handle. Here is some info: http://www.prokennex.com.sg/technology/kinetic.html. An MIT experiment has also validated this scientifically. Among all the racquets that I tried so far, ProKennex racquets are the most arm friendly.

That said, is there a specific reason you want to try Q15 310? How about Q5 315 or Ki 5 300? I would recommend those two over Q15.

 

[CopolyX]

Q15 has one fat beam. Also head sizes mean squat and they can be deceiving/misleading . Grith matters / racquet width / spin window - matters.
Q15
Spin Window: 5.98 in. / 5.32 in.
Q5
Spin Window: 5.92 in. / 5.32 in.
Notice the difference! not much ...
Reference:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/trajectory_maker.cgi

Spin Window: MAXIMUM window onto the string without clipping frame (in or out) for the given shot parameters and impact location.

 

[Jackson Heights]

Kinetic technology, plus something in the handle. Here is some info: http://www.prokennex.com.sg/technology/kinetic.html. An MIT experiment has also validated this scientifically. Among all the racquets that I tried so far, ProKennex racquets are the most arm friendly.

That said, is there a specific reason you want to try Q15 310? How about Q5 315 or Ki 5 300? I would recommend those two over Q15.

Thanks for the info, appreciate it. I will try to answer your question:
I currently have the PK Ki 5 100 inch racquet and like it a lot. But I would like a bigger head and some more power. Last year I did a demo and then bought a 105 inch racquet of another company, not Pro Kennex. The 105 inch head size made it much easier to volley and hit overheads. And gave me more power on groundstrokes. I liked that racquet a lot!

But I had to stop using it because it caused elbow pain after a while. But I decided I should at least demo, and possibly buy, another 105 inch racquet. (Or maybe even a 107 inch racquet). PK is known for arm friendly racquets. Maybe I'll demo the Ki Q15(310) and another 105 inch racquet by Pro Kennex. But I was nervous about the high 72 stiffness rating by TW for the Q15(310). Another website gave that racquet an even worse 74 stiffness rating. So I wondered if it could really be arm friendly.

Other than stiffness, the specs for the Q15(310) look good (but maybe a little too heavy?). Also, the Q15(310) got very good customer feedback reviews on the TW website. They said it played well and was good for their arms.
I am a very steady 4.0 player, but could use more power.
I also have a history of tennis elbow.

 

[kailash]

Thanks for the info, appreciate it. I will try to answer your question:
I currently have the PK Ki 5 100 inch racquet and like it a lot. But I would like a bigger head and some more power. Last year I did a demo and then bought a 105 inch racquet of another company, not Pro Kennex. The 105 inch head size made it much easier to volley and hit overheads. And gave me more power on groundstrokes. I liked that racquet a lot!

But I had to stop using it because it caused elbow pain after a while. But I decided I should at least demo, and possibly buy, another 105 inch racquet. (Or maybe even a 107 inch racquet). PK is known for arm friendly racquets. Maybe I'll demo the Ki Q15(310) and another 105 inch racquet by Pro Kennex. But I was nervous about the high 72 stiffness rating by TW for the Q15(310). Another website gave that racquet an even worse 74 stiffness rating. So I wondered if it could really be arm friendly.

Other than stiffness, the specs for the Q15(310) look good (but maybe a little too heavy?). Also, the Q15(310) got very good customer feedback reviews on the TW website. They said it played well and was good for their arms.
I am a very steady 4.0 player, but could use more power.
I also have a history of tennis elbow.

You are welcome. I demoed the Q15 sometime back; it is arm friendly despite the stiffness rating because of the kinetic system. A definite demo.

You could also demo the Head MicroGel Radical Oversize and Volkl V1 Oversize.

 

[ricardo]

Maybe I'll demo the Ki Q15(310) and another 105 inch racquet by Pro Kennex. But I was nervous about the high 72 stiffness rating by TW for the Q15(310). Another website gave that racquet an even worse 74 stiffness rating. So I wondered if it could really be arm friendly.

Other than stiffness, the specs for the Q15(310) look good (but maybe a little too heavy?). Also, the Q15(310) got very good customer feedback reviews on the TW website. They said it played well and was good for their arms.
I am a very steady 4.0 player, but could use more power.
I also have a history of tennis elbow.

You can also demo PK KI 15 PSE.

I am using this racket and for me it is the best PK racket that I have used in terms of power, spin, comfort.

 

[t-swede]

what about the wide 27mm beam on the q15 would it lead to more mishits when going for extreme spin ?

 

[Jackson Heights]

You can also demo PK KI 15 PSE.

I am using this racket and for me it is the best PK racket that I have used in terms of power, spin, comfort.

Actually, I was very curious about doing a demo on that racquet, the PK KI 15 PSE. But I read on TW it has "medium high" power, so
I thought it might be tough to control. I'm a pretty steady 4.0 player, but could definitely use more power. I thought "medium power" might
be right for me, but it's hard to say. Maybe I will demo that racquet. Do you think it has too much power?
As I mentioned above, last year I bought a 105 inch racquet which TW described as "medium" power. It was just right for me.
I had to stop using it because it hurt my elbow, but otherwise it was great. So not sure if "medium high" power is too much power.

 

[Jackson Heights]

what about the wide 27mm beam on the q15 would it lead to more mishits when going for extreme spin ?

Excellent point! I received 2 demos today. One is the Q15(310), the other is the Ki-15(260). I haven't played with them yet. But I did swing both in my house. The Ki-15(260) felt very comfortable, maybe a little light, but I could add lead tape. The Q15(310) felt a little heavy. Also, the 27 mm beam on the Q15 (310) felt a little uncomfortable.
I had done research on the Q15(310) racquet, but for some reason didn't realize it had such a wide beam. 27 mm beam is more than my limit. I'll demo both this week and let you know in a week or two how both racquets played. (By the way, I hit with moderate topspin, not extreme topspin.)

 

[ricardo]

Do you think it has too much power?

No.

I actually added lead at 12 to increase power.

I am a baseliner and I need more power to dominate my opponent from the baseline.
I control this power with heavy topspin which is easy to generate with PK KI-15 PSE.

 

[fireandwind]

You can also demo PK KI 15 PSE.

I am using this racket and for me it is the best PK racket that I have used in terms of power, spin, comfort.

That means super good

 

[CBORNANCINI]

I've been using the Q15 280 which is very solid and does not lack in maneuverability. I had TE and do not feel uncomfortable with this racket. I find it a better option than the Q15 310.

 

[Jackson Heights]

I've been using the Q15 280 which is very solid and does not lack in maneuverability. I had TE and do not feel uncomfortable with this racket. I find it a better option than the Q15 310.

Actually, I was thinking about checking out that racquet (Q15 280) before I saw your post. It seems the right weight, but I haven't tried it yet. Tried the Q15(310) and the KI-15 260. Of course no arm problems since they are PK racquets, The Q15 310 is a very solid racquet. Especially good for serving and my one-handed backhand due to the extra power, maybe from the high weight or very wide beam of 27mm. Some small problems volleying, maybe a small lack of maneuverability because of the high weight or wide beam. I also tried to demo the KI-15 260 with the strung weight of 10.2 ounces, which is shown on the TW website. That racquet was discontinued so they sent me the new version of the KI-15 260 with a strung weight of 9.7 ounces. The feel of this racquet is great, but too light. The discontinued 10.2 ounce strung version would probably be very good, but not available to demo.
Not sure why they make these 105 inch racquets very heavy or very light. (e.g. 9.7 ounces strung or 11.6 ounces strung). (11.6 ounces strung is fine for a 100 inch racquet, but heavy for a 105 inch racquet). There should be some more in the middle. Anyway, I plan to demo the KI-15 260 PSE, but that may be too heavy. I also want to demo the one you mentioned - the Q15 280 - since the weight seems right. Seems OK except for the very wide beam of 27mm.

 

[ollinger]

You can also demo PK KI 15 PSE.

I am using this racket and for me it is the best PK racket that I have used in terms of power, spin, comfort.

really a very good racquet, better in my opinion than the PK racquets that came after (tried a bunch of them).

 

[Jackson Heights]

really a very good racquet, better in my opinion than the PK racquets that came after (tried a bunch of them).

I mentioned in my last post that I do plan to demo that racquet the Ki-15 PSE. Hope its weight of 11.5 ounces is not too much.

 

[CBORNANCINI]

Actually, I was thinking about checking out that racquet (Q15 280) before I saw your post. It seems the right weight, but I haven't tried it yet. Tried the Q15(310) and the KI-15 260. Of course no arm problems since they are PK racquets, The Q15 310 is a very solid racquet. Especially good for serving and my one-handed backhand due to the extra power, maybe from the high weight or very wide beam of 27mm. Some small problems volleying, maybe a small lack of maneuverability because of the high weight or wide beam. I also tried to demo the KI-15 260 with the strung weight of 10.2 ounces, which is shown on the TW website. That racquet was discontinued so they sent me the new version of the KI-15 260 with a strung weight of 9.7 ounces. The feel of this racquet is great, but too light. The discontinued 10.2 ounce strung version would probably be very good, but not available to demo.
Not sure why they make these 105 inch racquets very heavy or very light. (e.g. 9.7 ounces strung or 11.6 ounces strung). (11.6 ounces strung is fine for a 100 inch racquet, but heavy for a 105 inch racquet). There should be some more in the middle. Anyway, I plan to demo the KI-15 260 PSE, but that may be too heavy. I also want to demo the one you mentioned - the Q15 280 - since the weight seems right. Seems OK except for the very wide beam of 27mm.

Wide beam of 27mm? Do not worry. I had no issues with it. I think you will not have too.

 

[Jackson Heights]

Am waiting to receive the Pro Kennex Q15 280 to demo it. I did a demo of the Pro Kennex KI 15 PSE (105 inch head) racquet a month or so ago. (I notice that TW is no longer selling it). The KI 15 PSE was an excellent racquet, good power and control. The best thing I liked about it was the feel. My only problem is that I think 11.5 ounces strung is too much for a 105 inch racquet, although that weight would be OK for a 100 inch racquet. Both KI 15 racquets I tried had great feel. The other one was the (105 inch head) KI 15 260. But that was too light at only 9.7 ounces strung. Those two KI 15 racquets both had such great feel! Better feel than the Pro Kennex Q series racquets. Wish they would make a KI 15 with a medium weight, not too heavy or too light. Maybe 10.6 to 11.0 ounces strung. Will let you know about the Q15 280 after I demo it.