PS 6.0 85 demanding?
- Thread starter timmyboy
- Start date
Radical Shot
Semi-Pro
Yes, I have tried all sorts of string and tension combinations and have found that with Big Banger Ace @56 pounds, I get comfort, power, control and lots of spin. The only down side is that the string loses tension too quick.
Yesterday I played with a very hard-hitting guy using a Babolat Aero. He smoked a few against me, I smoked a few against him. I did find it hard to get some of the balls back, but when I concentrated, moved my feet and prepared early there was no problems at all. These things are basics to tennis and I reckon that whatever racquet I used against him I would find it hard unless I did these things aswell.
Nothing smokes better than a Pro Staff 6.0 85 one-hander down the line hit in dead centre.
Yesterday I played with a very hard-hitting guy using a Babolat Aero. He smoked a few against me, I smoked a few against him. I did find it hard to get some of the balls back, but when I concentrated, moved my feet and prepared early there was no problems at all. These things are basics to tennis and I reckon that whatever racquet I used against him I would find it hard unless I did these things aswell.
Nothing smokes better than a Pro Staff 6.0 85 one-hander down the line hit in dead centre.
additionally people like Bolt have been on my ignore list for some time and are aware of it..so if they are saying negative things about me..they know i cant see them and perhaps that empowers them and gives them the courage to pick the smallest of perceived mistakes i possibly maybe might have made apart and to pass judgment. I am happy to leave ths thread..it isnt my fault people dont understand swingweight and things like that even though they proclaim to..i have tried to explain things like this patiently and to the best of my ability and in a polite way...attack on as you like....if people dont like what i say or think i parse incorrect info, they are certainly most welcome to put me on their ignore list as well.. the reality is there are many posters around here who are best ignored, and a whole bunch who really dont know much about tennis but proclaim to...atack away ya all. my back is now completely turned...enjoy
fishuuuuu
Hall of Fame
NoBadMojo said:
Aw ... I'm sorry NBM
I wasn't attacking you because of swing-weight and things like that ... I was attacking you because you're just a nut!
P.S. I used a synthetic gut on it and it felt somewhat powerful, I imagine using a polyester string might make it a little cumbersome to swing and get paid little on dividends in the way of pace.
Bolt
Semi-Pro
fishuuuuu said:
Yep.
I do think that measuring the true, real-world maneuverability of a frame does require more than just a swingweight comparison.
And, NBM, I'm empowered by your missing sanity. I know you're reading my posts even after claiming not to which is even more empowering.
No question that the PS 85 (TW: 329 sw) is heavier to swing, less maneuverable than the GenII (315 sw). Their static weights (357g vs. 340g) and balance points (8 pts HL vs. 9 pts HL) indicate that would be the case also. And so it is on the court. Small head, heavier racquet = harder to swing = harder to move into position = more work to move through the air than larger head but lighter and lower-sw racquet. No argument there. OK?NoBadMojo said:
Now for the next part, I'd like you to bear with me a bit. Give me a chance to make my case. Give me some benefit of the doubt, at least for a little while. Thanks in advance! (I hope!)
(I say this because this is where previous discussions have gone off the rails, fallen apart, whatever, and it would be really good if we could all get further this time.)
Let's now consider 2 racquets that have the same sw, static weight, balance, etc. -- everything the same, except head size. Now you would say they're going to swing exactly the same - by definition - because they measure the same; because, most significantly, their sws are the same.
And you would be right. Same sw = same maneuverability, by definition. No argument.
My contention is that the 85" frame will be noticeably easier to move through the air (tta) than the 95" because of a factor that is not measured when sw is measured: aerodynamics. The difference aerodynamics makes is not measured by the RDA because sw is measured a relatively slow swing speeds (and probably because the RDA is not sensitive enough to measure these admittedly small differences).
To support my contention, I ask you to swish an OS racquet about in your room. You can feel a fan-like wind resistance in the head area, right? Take a 95" racquet as similar as possible to the OS (except for head size) and swish it about in your room. Less wind resistance, right?
That's the difference I'm talking about. Admittedly very small compared with the diff sw, weight, balance, etc. make, but, nevertheless, noticeable to me and some others here.
Similarly, I find the difference in tta between 17mm beam width and 20mm noticeable -- because of wind resistance.
The PS 85 is one of the very few racquets that's been described as "scalpel-like" -- it's the only one that I've seen so described. I certainly found it to be so -- I wasn't even expecting it and I felt this sense that I could really be scalpel-maneuverable and scalpel-accurate in the way I moved the racquet into position and hit the ball and followed through. I think it's because of this wind resistance factor.
Over to you.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
fishuuuuu said:Will all the members on TW fit on your ignore list?
Yeah, at this rate, the next time NBMJ opens up the TW Talk Tennis message board, he'll probably be staring at a blank screen.
LOL.NBM: I respectfully ask you to read my previous post again. If you were to go by swingweight you would have to consider the Tour 90 more maneuvarable than the N6 which we know is not true.
I do know what swingweight is. It is nothing but moment of inertia of a moving tennis racquet. To put it simply, think of a pendulum on a string. If you had a heavier pendulum it will oscillate with more kinetic energy than a lighter one. This is exactly what the Babalot RDC measures.
The underlying assumption here is same racquet velocity. Another real world variable not captured here. Heavier racquets can be moved fast in the air without loss of ball control because they have small heads (translates to decreased string bed elasticity).
Swingweight has nothing to do with maneuvarability and cannot be used alone for racquet selection. Weight and balance should also be considered. I do realise that everybody including TW loosely use swingweight and manuevarability like its the same thing but it is not.
Also, I do think swingweight is a useful parameter if you are trying match racquets etc.
I do know what swingweight is. It is nothing but moment of inertia of a moving tennis racquet. To put it simply, think of a pendulum on a string. If you had a heavier pendulum it will oscillate with more kinetic energy than a lighter one. This is exactly what the Babalot RDC measures.
The underlying assumption here is same racquet velocity. Another real world variable not captured here. Heavier racquets can be moved fast in the air without loss of ball control because they have small heads (translates to decreased string bed elasticity).
Swingweight has nothing to do with maneuvarability and cannot be used alone for racquet selection. Weight and balance should also be considered. I do realise that everybody including TW loosely use swingweight and manuevarability like its the same thing but it is not.
Also, I do think swingweight is a useful parameter if you are trying match racquets etc.
Bolt: Thanks for the compliment.
I believe there is a real world number for the power potential of a racquet based on headsize, flex and swingweight.
Yeah, it will be nice to have a maneuverability number too. But I don't think the racquet companies will like that. They want you to keep trying out their racquets. Just joking
I believe there is a real world number for the power potential of a racquet based on headsize, flex and swingweight.
Yeah, it will be nice to have a maneuverability number too. But I don't think the racquet companies will like that. They want you to keep trying out their racquets. Just joking
Rath: I meant to applaud your previous post (#86) before now, but had something to attend to. I suspect you're right in that, in addition to aerodynamics, the concentration of mass in a smaller head increases the maneuverability of the racquet -- I'll have to think more about the physics of that *.
In any case, I agree that the racquet parameters that are currently measured and used and are not adequate to describe all the sensations experienced and reported by some players here.
In any case, I agree that the racquet parameters that are currently measured and used and are not adequate to describe all the sensations experienced and reported by some players here.
Rath said:
I agree that swingweight cannot be used alone for racquet selection but disagree that it has nothing to do with maneuverability. I believe they are correlated.
It's a shame that people use swingweight and maneuverability interchangeably. They are not the same thing. One is objective (swingweight) and the other is subjective. Put it this way. Maneuverability doesn't have units.
Pinky42: You are right. Wrong choice of words on my part. I was trying to say that when somebody says low swingweight it does not translate to better manueverability. Swingweight will play a role in defining maneuvarability but not without considering weight, balance, headsize. In fact I think weight will be more of a contributing factor, I think.
Keifers: Thanks. Appreciate it.
In order to look at weight distribution and tta, consider this. By the way, I am gonna use your term: tta. Nice one. Let us say tta means effort required through the air. More meaning tough to swing.
Case 1: Take any racquet and add about say 15 g of lead total at 3 & 9positions. You don't even have to hit a ball but if you just swing it around forehand, serve etc you will see that tta has increased.
Case 2: Let us take all the weight out of there and put in the middle of the string bed (intesection of 3-9 line and 12-6 line). For the sake of experimentation. Wouldn't you agree that with this setup that the increase in tta won't be as much as Case 1.
However, in both cases the increase in swingweight should be the same.
What happens during a stroke?
Let us think about a forehand. If you think about the forces experienced by your hand, it is not the same thing the Babolat RDC measures. This is why. During the stroke, the angle of the racquet (with respect to a vertical plane parallel to net) is always changing from takeback to impact to followthrough. Yes, swingweight does contribute here. But we do not consider the inertia due to the torsion (twisting moment experienced by you hand) of the racquet. When I say twisting, I am talking about the twisting force your hand produces or experiences when you are changing the angle of the racquet. Surely it is there. Won't you agree a bigger racquet head will produce more torsion on you hand? Simply because the weight is moved further away from the centerline (12-6) contributing to more torsional moment. Hence tta will be a function of: (swingweight, torsion, aerodynamics).
I believe this contributes to your tta being less on smaller head sizes. Let me know what you think.
In order to look at weight distribution and tta, consider this. By the way, I am gonna use your term: tta. Nice one. Let us say tta means effort required through the air. More meaning tough to swing.
Case 1: Take any racquet and add about say 15 g of lead total at 3 & 9positions. You don't even have to hit a ball but if you just swing it around forehand, serve etc you will see that tta has increased.
Case 2: Let us take all the weight out of there and put in the middle of the string bed (intesection of 3-9 line and 12-6 line). For the sake of experimentation. Wouldn't you agree that with this setup that the increase in tta won't be as much as Case 1.
However, in both cases the increase in swingweight should be the same.
What happens during a stroke?
Let us think about a forehand. If you think about the forces experienced by your hand, it is not the same thing the Babolat RDC measures. This is why. During the stroke, the angle of the racquet (with respect to a vertical plane parallel to net) is always changing from takeback to impact to followthrough. Yes, swingweight does contribute here. But we do not consider the inertia due to the torsion (twisting moment experienced by you hand) of the racquet. When I say twisting, I am talking about the twisting force your hand produces or experiences when you are changing the angle of the racquet. Surely it is there. Won't you agree a bigger racquet head will produce more torsion on you hand? Simply because the weight is moved further away from the centerline (12-6) contributing to more torsional moment. Hence tta will be a function of: (swingweight, torsion, aerodynamics).
I believe this contributes to your tta being less on smaller head sizes. Let me know what you think.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Rath said:
I agree. Maneuverabity is NOT just swingweight alone. It is a combination of swingweight, aerodynamics, torsion, head size, total volume of air space the entire racquet takes up, static weight, and balance.
An example, even if a Lincoln Navigator SUV was the same exact weight as a Mazda Miata 2-seater sports car, the Navigator would still be harder to maneuver than the Miata just due to its sheer size and volume.
peter
Professional
BreakPoint said:
Definitely - I'd even go as far as saying that maneuverability has very little to do with swingweight. A little list I just compiled of rackets I've played with/tested with data I've collected from the TW site:
Code:
| Racket | Size | Weight | Swingweight | Balance |
|-----------------------|------|----------|--------------|----------|
| Wilson ProStaff 6.0 | 85 | 12.6 oz | 329 | 8 pts HL |
| Dunlop HM200G | 95 | 11.9 oz | 316 | 5 pts HL |
| Dunlop Maxply McEnroe | 98 | 11.3 oz | 327 | 3 pts HL |
| Babolat AeroPro Drive | 100 | 11.3 oz | 324 | 5 pts HL |Out of these rackets I'd rate them, as far as maneuverability (for example being able to make quick movements at the net) goes, like this (most maneuverable first):
1. Wilson ProStaff 6.0-85 (very good)
2. Dunlop Maxply McEnroe (good)
3. Dunlop Hotmelt 200G (bad)
4. Babolat AeroPro Drive (very bad)
I have no idea why the McEnroe feels so easy to move around when then AeroPro feels horribly sluggish. The 6.0-85 is easily the best of these four though. Very easy to move around.
chess9
Hall of Fame
Kiefers:
I was onboard until this:
"My contention is that the 85" frame will be noticeably easier to move through the air (tta) than the 95" because of a factor that is not measured when sw is measured: aerodynamics. The difference aerodynamics makes is not measured by the RDA because sw is measured a relatively slow swing speeds (and probably because the RDA is not sensitive enough to measure these admittedly small differences)."
The aerodynamic differences (delta Cda) between a 135 sq. in. racquet and a 66 sq. in. woodie are slight at best. The Babolat aero frames, for instance, are, IMHO, a marketing gimmick as bad as the magnets in the new Fischer racquet. (Both are fine racquets nonetheless.) Even during the brief delivery phase of a serve where arm speeds reach on the order of, what, 80-90 mph (?), the aerodynamic considerations are minimal.
I'd be interested in seeing some actual drag numbers on various racquets if someone has that data (However, it is doubtful that any manufacturer has taken any tennis racquet to the wind tunnel).
Best Regards
-Robert
________
Volcano vaporizer
I was onboard until this:
"My contention is that the 85" frame will be noticeably easier to move through the air (tta) than the 95" because of a factor that is not measured when sw is measured: aerodynamics. The difference aerodynamics makes is not measured by the RDA because sw is measured a relatively slow swing speeds (and probably because the RDA is not sensitive enough to measure these admittedly small differences)."
The aerodynamic differences (delta Cda) between a 135 sq. in. racquet and a 66 sq. in. woodie are slight at best. The Babolat aero frames, for instance, are, IMHO, a marketing gimmick as bad as the magnets in the new Fischer racquet. (Both are fine racquets nonetheless.) Even during the brief delivery phase of a serve where arm speeds reach on the order of, what, 80-90 mph (?), the aerodynamic considerations are minimal.
I'd be interested in seeing some actual drag numbers on various racquets if someone has that data (However, it is doubtful that any manufacturer has taken any tennis racquet to the wind tunnel).
Best Regards
-Robert
________
Volcano vaporizer
Last edited:
NoBadMojo said:
NVianti; I started to think that NoBadMojo was losing it when he called me a "hack" for having a good playing experience with a mid size frame last February (I also thought it was very maneuverable, which I think set him off). I honestly think Mr. Mojo has completely lost credibility on this board with the China size "ignore" list that he has developed. Its one thing to disagree with people and debate the issues; its quite another thing to continually call people wrong all of the time and when challenged, put them on an ignore list. I communicate off the board with a number of former posters that have become really fed up with this type of stuff on the TW board. Quite juvenile. Oh well, if I wasn't on the ignore list...I certainly am now.
Oh, back to the issue at hand. I do not have any solid data other than my playing experiences during the past 25 years or so. (I am about a 4.5 player currently). I have found that of similarly swingweighted frames, in most cases, the smaller headsize racquet is more "maneuverable". I do not know the reason why, other than it must swing through the air with slightly less resistance. Either that, or psychologically the smaller frame just feels more maneuverable. I agree that there is a difference between "swingweight" and maneuverability. Just my humble opinion
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I think there is another factor here with manueverability. Head size plays a part in it as well; although I don't think aerodynamics is it. There is something about the relationship between the head and the shaft and the swing of a racket that gives the feel of maneverability. I routinely play with wood rackets and they just feel like they're easier to move through the stroke even though they're heavier than what we play with today.
I think it has more to do with leverage than anything else. The head of a wood racket is further away from the hand which gives the impression that it is more maneuverable. With an oversized racket, the head of the frame is closer to the hand and you don't get the same feel.
This may be goofier than hell, but I know that when I hit with a wood frame, I can feel the head better than when I play with something larger.
I am very much interested in hearing more. If this is not the venue, then I'll be happy to start a thread on the odds and ends. When I played golf, club selection was limited to what I could get from my dad. I don't know diddly about golf clubs now except that they are way more expensive than tennis rackets.
I think it has more to do with leverage than anything else. The head of a wood racket is further away from the hand which gives the impression that it is more maneuverable. With an oversized racket, the head of the frame is closer to the hand and you don't get the same feel.
This may be goofier than hell, but I know that when I hit with a wood frame, I can feel the head better than when I play with something larger.
oldguysrule said:
I am very much interested in hearing more. If this is not the venue, then I'll be happy to start a thread on the odds and ends. When I played golf, club selection was limited to what I could get from my dad. I don't know diddly about golf clubs now except that they are way more expensive than tennis rackets.
Ash Doyle
Professional
Here's my opinion on it: Swingweight does not take into account headsize. That's a fact, you can look up the equation online and see that. At least to me, smaller headsizes do feel more manueverable. BUT I think that is a perceived and not a real difference. When it comes to generating racquet head speed I think that swingweight does give an accurate idea of how much resistance you're going to have when trying to generate speed in your swings. And that is the important issue. You may be able to place the racquet in time for volleys, and get the racquet around and in place for shots, but your ability to generate the speed needed for creating spin on groundstrokes, and spin and power on serves may suffer if the swingweight is outside of your comfort range.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BreakPoint said:
At the risk of quoting myself, I accidently omitted one other important contributor to maneuverability, and that is: weight distribution. Weight distribution is not always reflected in a racquet's swingweight number and definitely has a significant impact on a racquet's maneuverability. Examples include the PS 6.0 85, Tour 90, and nCode 90. All three of these racquets have similar swingweights but they differ dramatically in maneuverability due to their different weight distributions.
BTW, weight distribution also applies to my SUV vs. sports car example. That is, even if the SUV was the same weight as the sports car, if the SUV had all of it's weight distributed to the edges or to one end, it would be much harder to maneuver than the sports car which has most of its weight distributed towards the center of the vehicle. Thus, the SUV's poor weight distribution can decrease it's maneuverability as much as its sheer size and volume can.
