Something has been on my mind between these two frames

[TennisManiac]

We all know for a fact that the stiffer the frame the more powerful it will be. We also know for a fact that the thicker the beam the more powerful a frame will be. That's common knowledge in racket science. Right? Well then why does TW have the Radical Pro listed as Low-Medium and the Pro Staff 97 as Low? The Pro Staff 97 has a stffer frame and an all around thicker beam. So on paper the Pro Staff 97 should be the one listed as being the more powerful of the two. Right? And before anyone goes there... I don't want to hear anything about the balance and SW between these two because thay are basically identical.



Radical Pro -
Beam Width: 20mm / 21.5mm / 21mm
Stiffness: 64
Balance: 12.75in / 32.39cm / 6 pts HL
Swingweight: 325
Power Level: Low-Medium

Pro Staff 97 -
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm
Stiffness: 66
Balance: 12.6in / 32cm / 7 pts HL
Swingweight: 321
Power Level: Low

 

[3loudboys]

Looks like an inconsistency in the listing. Whilst you believe the SW not to be an issue and tbh I would agree, 4 points may make some difference but not huge. The is also a 1 inch difference in head size which should not make a great deal of difference either.

Agree good spot.

 

[PRS]

A lot of slight differences can add up. SW difference is slight. Same with head size. But what materials used and/or the layup of the racquet can also have an effect, as well as the flexibility of the frame in certain spots on the racquet; the RA only measures the flex at one point. None of those aspects alone would likely make the difference, but if you add all of them up, it can become noticable enough to differentiate between low and low-medium.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I noticed the RPro was considered 'Low' up until the G360. Perhaps Head shifted it slightly in their power ratings compared to their other rackets, which caused TW to re-align it.

 

[Goof]

As others have said, small differences can add up. I think one inch of head size makes more of a difference than you'd think. The shape of the head can make a big difference too IMO.

 

[3loudboys]

And there are promotions and marketing considerations that do not have to have anything to do with playability. As we all know ...

 

[jdx2112]

We all know for a fact that the stiffer the frame the more powerful it will be. We also know for a fact that the thicker the beam the more powerful a frame will be. That's common knowledge in racket science. Right? Well then why does TW have the Radical Pro listed as Low-Medium and the Pro Staff 97 as Low? The Pro Staff 97 has a stffer frame and an all around thicker beam. So on paper the Pro Staff 97 should be the one listed as being the more powerful of the two. Right? And before anyone goes there... I don't want to hear anything about the balance and SW between these two because thay are basically identical.



Radical Pro -
Beam Width: 20mm / 21.5mm / 21mm
Stiffness: 64
Balance: 12.75in / 32.39cm / 6 pts HL
Swingweight: 325
Power Level: Low-Medium

Pro Staff 97 -
Beam Width: 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm
Stiffness: 66
Balance: 12.6in / 32cm / 7 pts HL
Swingweight: 321
Power Level: Low

Because power can also be achieved through weight, not just firmness or beam thickness.

 

[ollinger]

We also know for a fact that the thicker the beam the more powerful a frame will be

Well, no, not a fact at all

 

[eric42]

Ignore the power level rating on TW. I had the orange sicle version of the Radical Pro and felt it was one of the lowest powered 98s on the market even though TW listed it as Low-Medium. But it also felt very stiff. Stiff and low powered, very similar to the V13 Pro Staff which was very different from previous PS generations. I did not like either racquet at all. Don't know about this new Radical Pro version.

 

[Yamin]

Lots of small differences can lead to big changes overall.. throat shape, how the weight is allocated, etc. The more time I spend on this forum the more I learn the basic specs and what is "common" knowledge here doesn't really paint the full picture.

Also we don't really know what the classification is based on... Low medium is most rackets. Clash, pure drive, etc.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Answer: sales and marketing. The Prostaff market is older, more old school, “doesn’t like those new fangled powerful tweeners”. The Radical pro market is younger and more comfortable with tweener frames.

 

[1HBHfanatic]

-i find that the PS has more pop!
-the rads have a tighter stringbed, thus less power
-i play with both racket lines and with multiple models of each
-the head.rads are closer to the blades than to the ps, IMO/IME

 

[TennisManiac]

Because power can also be achieved through weight, not just firmness or beam thickness.

Their weights are identical.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Yep, it looks like the RP has 8 mains inside the throat whereas the PS has only 6 - the plot thickens...

 

[A_Instead]

Don't forget about twist weight...that's a variable that is often not considered..

Sweet spot size can also be considered..

String spacing as well..

 

[jxs653]

Because it's heresy if Pro Staff is not low powered?

 

[TennisHound]

Because it's heresy if Pro Staff is not low powered?

Compared to other 97s and 18x20s it’s not. Certainly more powerful than Prestiges.