PS97S makes no sense

[TennisManiac]

The PS97S is supposed to be a spin effects racquet right? It doesn't make any sense to me. Mains are responsible for power and spin while crosses are responsible for control right? Let's compare the 16 x 19 string pattern of the RF97 and PS97 to the string pattern of the 97S. Less mains means more spin. And more crosses means more control. So 16 mains are going to produce more spin then 18. And as for control, 19 crosses are going to produce more control then 17. So the RF97 and PS97 are going to produce more spin and more control right?

 

[courtking]

Huh?

 

[mxblink]

Mains are responsible for power and spin while crosses are responsible for control right?

Where did you hear that?

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

You know this is a sport of physics, right? (Like most other sports too)

The primary function of the main strings is make contact with the ball, as the force on the ball is transferred to the main strings, that force will deform and be pushed to one direction. The elasticity that is a characteristics of any particular string will then snap back and move the main string back to its original position prior to contact. All the while imparting kinetic energy and propel the ball out of the stringbed. Have you noticed that the mains are interwovened with the crosses?

Therefore, if there are less crosses weaved into the mains, the mains will have to move through less crosses. Thus, the snap back will be greater and more of the kinetic energy will be imparted onto the ball instead of just getting through the crosses.

It's simple physics (and common sense).

 

[TennisManiac]

You know this is a sport of physics, right? (Like most other sports too)

The primary function of the main strings is make contact with the ball, as the force on the ball is transferred to the main strings, that force will deform and be pushed to one direction. The elasticity that is a characteristics of any particular string will then snap back and move the main string back to its original position prior to contact. All the while imparting kinetic energy and propel the ball out of the stringbed. Have you noticed that the mains are interwovened with the crosses?

Therefore, if there are less crosses weaved into the mains, the mains will have to move through less crosses. Thus, the snap back will be greater and more of the kinetic energy will be imparted onto the ball instead of just getting through the crosses.

It's simple physics (and common sense).

Never thought of it like that. I guess that makes sense.

 

[Thamel90]

The 97S is definitely the least extreme of all those "spin pattern" racquets you can find across all different brands (16x15, 16x16 are the frequent patterns). Another thing I noticed looking on the Specs of the 97S and the regular 97, was their extremely similar static weight, but drastically different SW and Balance (16 more SW points, 6 points less HeadLight for the 97S). This means the 97S has a much more tip heavy distribution of mass in the hoop, or is a polarized frame as some might call it. The big thing to understand is that basic string pattern is only one part of spin generation. How mains are spaced, how crosses are spaced, stiffness/flex, mass, balance, weight distribution. An endless number of things play a role in determining just how a frame will play as a whole, including spin generation.

 

[asifallasleep]

Well the RF97 hits gobs more spin than the 97S and the 97S has more control. RF97 also has a much bigger sweetspot.

 

[danbrenner]

The PS97S is supposed to be a spin effects racquet right? It doesn't make any sense to me. Mains are responsible for power and spin while crosses are responsible for control right? Let's compare the 16 x 19 string pattern of the RF97 and PS97 to the string pattern of the 97S. Less mains means more spin. And more crosses means more control. So 16 mains are going to produce more spin then 18. And as for control, 19 crosses are going to produce more control then 17. So the RF97 and PS97 are going to produce more spin and more control right?

Listen. U have a point. Albeit you worded yiur argument badly. But I have owned both the RF and the s. And other 18 m sticks. And all the 18m sticks have not had te bite that the 16m have. Some will aay otherwise but that ha been my experience.
And if u want to talk common sense you can also Simply argue that te lesser the amount of strings total the more bite and spin you will get. The squares will be bigger. So in the case of the 97s u have 18m and 17 cross that's 35 strings.
With the RF u have 16x 19. That's 35 strings. So it's a wash. Te squares are in fact te same size. The argument then simply becomes does 16 m w more crosses spin more than 18m with less crosses. And I guess that's somewhat subjective. J don't think it's black and white either way.

 

[SpinToWin]

The PS 97S produces gobs of spin for me, the string pattern certainly is no limitation in that regard. If the racquet doesn't suit your strokes/game though, then it is no wonder that you struggle to produce spin.

 

[NickJ]

'Gobs more spin' . . . . . love it!

 

[ThirdEye]

This thread makes no sense.

 

[MasturB]

Have been using the RF97 for almost 2 years on and off and recently since October full time.

I demo'd the PS97s and love it. It honestly feels like a blx or K90 asian frame. I prefer the thinner beam compared to the rf97.

I also used the Ps97 before I went to rf97 and it was just too light. Didn't feel stable and the ball was flying off my racket even changing string tensions aND string types. The first hour of the ps97s was bliss.

I'm trying now to find a used 97s on a 1/4 grip.

 

[Wall Ball Wizard]

This thread makes no sense.

Most never do..

 

[Chuonfood]

I just came back from demoing the 97s and RF97 back to back. The 97s does have more spin, but launch angle is higher. With that said the RF97 is supreme for me.

 

[nn]

if you can't generate spin 97s that doesn't mean racquet isn't spin friendly. I hit flat with spin friendly babolat because spin is not my style.