The 99 square inch club

[gitarr]

Wanted to start a thread focused specifically on 99 sq in frames, as I think they occupy an interesting and underdiscusssed middle ground.

My current setup is entirely 99s:
- Wilson Ultra 99 Pro (x3, as it's my main)
- Wilson Shift 99
- Nordicdots model 99 G2 (new, love the black gloss)

All are customised to roughly match in static weight, balance and swing weight.

Where they differ significantly is string pattern. The Ultra 99 Pro is 16x18, while both the Shift and the 99 G2 are 16x20. I string the denser patterns a bit looser or with softer strings to get a comparable response, otherwise the 16x20s play too muted compared to the Ultra. It's an interesting variable to manage across the same headsize.

A few things I'm curious to discuss:
- Do you find 99 sq in plays noticeably different from 98 or 100, or is the gap negligible in practice?
- What other 99 sq in frames are there?
- Anybody else who would like to see the new Wilson Python / Redline in a 99 qs in version?

 

[tele]

- What other 99 sq in frames are there?

The head prestige mp and mp-l are 99 sq. in.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I used to hit with the bridgestone X blade Zero 99. It’s an ultra thin box beam (18mm constant) 16x19 and played like fast swinging bludgeon. Good spin with easy RHS and top tier manoeuvrability to
Play attacking all court/SV game. Too unforgiving on defence / playing on the back foot.

 

[maxplough]

On the occasions I've seen head sizes actually measured, they can easily vary by up to a couple of inches either side of what the manufacturer claims the model's area is. I have the Six.One 100 V13 for example---I've measured it, and it's essentially a 98. The '100 sq in' Babolat Pure Drive Roddick GT was actually 101.4 sq in. The K Pro Staff 88 was actually larger than the various Tour 90s. I'm talking about stringbed area in all cases.

I think there's a lot of confirmation bias going on when people try racquets, knowing beforehand than it's an x sq in racquet.

 

[Chairman3]

Solinco M3

Middle ground is pretty negligible but it depends on the shape of the hoop.

 

[heavyD]

I don't think the 1 sq/in really matters all that much. The taking string patterns out of the discussion, the deciding factor will be static weight, balance and SW. If it's a 99 that has 305g+ static weight it's going to feel and play like a typical 98 and if it's 300g tweener spec it's going to feel and play like 100.

 

[lulo]

Hey I'm playing with Nordicdots M99 V1 and it's great

 

[cha cha]

I have the pro staff classic in both the 97 and 100 (team).
The difference in their respective sizes is laughably tiny.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I don't think the 1 sq/in really matters all that much. The taking string patterns out of the discussion, the deciding factor will be static weight, balance and SW. If it's a 99 that has 305g+ static weight it's going to feel and play like a typical 98 and if it's 300g tweener spec it's going to feel and play like 100.

Beam thickness is much more important than hoop size. 100 v 98 is honestly negligible, it’s just that the smaller head size has less drag (aerodynamics) and you can get more RHS.

 

[pgh10-4]

Beam thickness is much more important than hoop size. 100 v 98 is honestly negligible, it’s just that the smaller head size has less drag (aerodynamics) and you can get more RHS.

Agreed. There's too much emphasis on head size. Sure, it's an easy way to distinguish between rackets in the same line but I don't care about head size at all unless it's something extreme like a 90 or an oversize. 95 maybe raises an eyebrow (still depends on where that 2-3 sq in is removed from) but 97-100 are basically the same to me, not counting the rest of the specs.

Yet you often see people complaining that they need a 95 because a 98 is too bulky to swing a OHBH or they need a 100 instead of a 98 to reduce shanking. Ridiculous oversimplification.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Agreed. There's too much emphasis on head size. Sure, it's an easy way to distinguish between rackets in the same line but I don't care about head size at all unless it's something extreme like a 90 or an oversize. 95 maybe raises an eyebrow (still depends on where that 2-3 sq in is removed from) but 97-100 are basically the same to me, not counting the rest of the specs.

Yet you often see people complaining that they need a 95 because a 98 is too bulky to swing a OHBH or they need a 100 instead of a 98 to reduce shanking. Ridiculous oversimplification.

my hot take is if you’re a “Shanker” then a smaller head size with thin beam is the best set up for you. They can edit the shot mid swing to and come through the strike zone quicker. Also shankers should be using box beams instead of sharp elliptical beams so when they do inevitably shank it, it stays in play with insane spin.

 

[Guttersnipe]

https://imgur.com/a/6HCAuQT

We should have 4 different measurements
Purple = strike zone
Blue = vertical TSA
Green = horizontal TSA
Orange = top, bottom & sides max distance from closest cross / main.
(I guess it’s 6 and not 4) & TSA = total surface area

And then we should factor how dense the strings are in that Strike Zone. Much easier to deal with rectangles compared to round objects (the snow shoe shaped frames that don’t fit my key…looking at the Vcore 2023 lol)