Regarding printed stiffness specs.

bugeyed

Semi-Pro
Babolat Pure Storm GT
Published stiffness specs:
TW - 63
TE - 66
******** - 66
******* - 65
Racquet Depot - 64
Babolat hang tag - 69 RA

Babolat web site doesn't show the stiffness spec, that I could find.
Anyway, I know web sites are not always updated, but seeing this I don't trust any specs I see on line. I choose to truse the Babolat hang tag FWIW.
I haven't had mine checked yet, but I will! Just so I know.:-|
Cheers,
kev
 

thompenator

New User
The TW value is for a strung frame while the Babolat flex is almost certainly for an unstrung frame. I would guess that the other values are for strung frames as well. According to what I've read on these forums, stringing a frame typically reduces the flex by about 3 to 4 RA.

I have an old Babolat which has the flex printed on the frame and it says '66 RA +/- 3'. I somehow doubt that the Pure Storm GT is made any more accurately.

so, to me, all those RA numbers look consistent.
 

LPShanet

Banned
Babolat Pure Storm GT
Published stiffness specs:
TW - 63
TE - 66
******** - 66
******* - 65
Racquet Depot - 64
Babolat hang tag - 69 RA

Babolat web site doesn't show the stiffness spec, that I could find.
Anyway, I know web sites are not always updated, but seeing this I don't trust any specs I see on line. I choose to truse the Babolat hang tag FWIW.
I haven't had mine checked yet, but I will! Just so I know.:-|
Cheers,
kev
The above post has lots of good info and truth in it. There are a number of factors that can cause that variation in readings. As stated above, flex ratings can vary from frame to frame, and Babolat's tend to do so more than most. So the particular frame(s) used to test by each of those sources were probably just varying normally. In terms of Babolat's numbers, the poster above was correct that Babolat tends to use unstrung numbers on their hangtags, while most of the other sources use strung numbers.

You also have to add two other factors to your understanding of the numbers. The first is that Babolat has a history of mislabeling their frames in terms of stiffness (and even other specs). They tend to keep the numbers of a frame's prececessor on hangtags for quite a while, even though the new frame is quite different. In the case of the Pure Storm Tour, for example, they are still using the specs from the Pure Control, even though the frame is now quite a bit more flexible than the last Pure Control was. They tend to believe that they've reproduced their previous frame's qualities more closely than they actually have. Or they're as lazy as packaged goods companies in terms of testing new products in the lab. The second factor to take into account is that RA measurements are much less scientific than most people think. Any two machines may turn up notably different readings for the same frame. They also can be inconsistent from use to use. Furthermore, the unit of measure itself is kind of nebulous, and is mostly useful only in a directly comparative way. And lastly, they tend to interpret different flex patterns differently.

Having now trashed the whole RA thing, I'll tell you that my personal impression is that the Pure Storm FEELS much more flexible than you'd normally expect something with a nominal 69 RA to feel. In terms of subjective impression, I think you'll find the lower numbers there to be more in line with how the frame is likely to play.
 

bugeyed

Semi-Pro
Thanks, I have been away from tennis for a while & was wondering if the technical stuff had matured some in the ensuing years. I strung for Babolat at some of the majors years ago & was surprised how unscientific some things were. What impressed me most was how important it was to be consistent & have some experience understanding what makes a racquet feel/play the way it does. A top level player will let you know if a racquet is not "right".
Cheers,
kev
 
Top