The Official Angell Users Club

You already have a healthy SW and should be getting lots of plow especially if your RHS is so high. This high RHS should also translate to good control with heavy spin bringing down the ball inside the lines. So all this sound like benefits unless your swing is too early and you’re miss hitting. I have no idea what your gaming is like so try some additional weight at 12 and see if that gives you good timing and translates to heavier ball. Only your experimenting will be able to show you what is optimum for you.
The easiest analogy I can think of is, if you're used to, say a RF 97, and change to a PS 97 or something lighter, it's almost like the racquet is too light - there's more RHS, yes, but it's almost too quick.

I don't know if that analogy made sense, but that's what I'm starting to feel with my TC 100. I've got no trouble controlling the ball with spin etc, it's more about finding a higher gear, if you will.

What I was trying to tease out is whether those who have played with the TC 100 extensively may noticed where the racquet needs lead the most (some racquets have less mass at the top; some may need more twist weight, etc)- and use that as a starting point for my personal experiment.
 

topspn

Legend
The easiest analogy I can think of is, if you're used to, say a RF 97, and change to a PS 97 or something lighter, it's almost like the racquet is too light - there's more RHS, yes, but it's almost too quick.

I don't know if that analogy made sense, but that's what I'm starting to feel with my TC 100. I've got no trouble controlling the ball with spin etc, it's more about finding a higher gear, if you will.

What I was trying to tease out is whether those who have played with the TC 100 extensively may noticed where the racquet needs lead the most (some racquets have less mass at the top; some may need more twist weight, etc)- and use that as a starting point for my personal experiment.
I personally like a bit of weight @2 & 10 on TC100. I use TW tungsten tape and start the strip from the top cross going downwards. Helps with stability and of course some additional SW. Try there and 12, see which you like more. I am personally not a fan of weight @3 & 9 but everyone is a bit different
 

joohan

Hall of Fame
The easiest analogy I can think of is, if you're used to, say a RF 97, and change to a PS 97 or something lighter, it's almost like the racquet is too light - there's more RHS, yes, but it's almost too quick.

I don't know if that analogy made sense, but that's what I'm starting to feel with my TC 100. I've got no trouble controlling the ball with spin etc, it's more about finding a higher gear, if you will.

What I was trying to tease out is whether those who have played with the TC 100 extensively may noticed where the racquet needs lead the most (some racquets have less mass at the top; some may need more twist weight, etc)- and use that as a starting point for my personal experiment.
For what it's worth, I don't think TC100 (63RA) "needs" lead anywhere. I have one that's 12.5+ oz and another one that's just over 11 oz and they both play with plenty of torsional stability (I am a big sucker for it and sometimes use absurd amount of lead to achieve it). The rest is personal preference. I like polarized setups so I have some lead at 12.
 

itsstephenyo

Semi-Pro
I regret not ordering more sticks at the beginning of this Corona mess, cuz the exchange rate was so low and I also had a 10% off coupon. I could've gotten new sticks for like 150 USD a piece.
 
For what it's worth, I don't think TC100 (63RA) "needs" lead anywhere. I have one that's 12.5+ oz and another one that's just over 11 oz and they both play with plenty of torsional stability (I am a big sucker for it and sometimes use absurd amount of lead to achieve it). The rest is personal preference. I like polarized setups so I have some lead at 12.
Thanks. That was my instinct too with the TC 100; I can't really pinpoint any shortcomings with the weight/mass distribution. Guess I'll just have to experiment and see what works for me.
I personally like a bit of weight @2 & 10 on TC100. I use TW tungsten tape and start the strip from the top cross going downwards. Helps with stability and of course some additional SW. Try there and 12, see which you like more. I am personally not a fan of weight @3 & 9 but everyone is a bit different
I'll give that a go, thanks for the suggestion!
 

FranzS

Rookie
Hey FranzS,
I apologise upfront for going off topic, but what string and tension are you enjoying in the TC90, I haven't found something that makes me go oh yeah baby yet. Cheers
Right now I'm using nat gut (Babolat VS Team 1.25) in the mains at 24 kg (53 pounds) and poly (Luxilon Alu Power 1.25) in the crosses at 22 kg (48.5 pounds). Stringbed feels soft and comfortable, really really nice feel. I'd prefer a bit less power however, so for the next stringjob I will try a full bed of poly (Luxilon BB Original), which I've always found comfortable. But I warn you, I'm just a recreational player, don't take my words as the advice of an expert.
 

tennis347

Professional
For anyone who has used the TC 100, how does it play with the extended version? I see that there are alot of options. I am looking for something a bit more user-friendly than the K7 Red which is also a great frame but on the lower powered side. Also need something with a low flex rating due to arm issues.
 

topspn

Legend
For anyone who has used the TC 100, how does it play with the extended version? I see that there are alot of options. I am looking for something a bit more user-friendly than the K7 Red which is also a great frame but on the lower powered side. Also need something with a low flex rating due to arm issues.
Flex is a complete none issue with the TC100. Both 63RA and 70RA are equally comfortable. it really just comes down to you preference of playability and other specs. Never played it extended.
 

tennis347

Professional
Flex is a complete none issue with the TC100. Both 63RA and 70RA are equally comfortable. it really just comes down to you preference of playability and other specs. Never played it extended.
Thanks! I hear you the flex rating but my shoulder and elbow are a bit sensitive these days. I would probably get the 63 RA either 300 or 310 gram version and maybe with a 1/4 or half inch longer. I know that a 100 sq inch frame will be more forgiving and give me a little more power and spin. I have one K7 Red and one ALS2. I only started playing Friday after a 2 month layoff so it's expected to be a bit rusty. I will probably give my 2 racquets a bit more of a run and play with strings and tension as well customization before I buy something else unless I see something really inexpensive used.
 

topspn

Legend
Thanks! I hear you the flex rating but my shoulder and elbow are a bit sensitive these days. I would probably get the 63 RA either 300 or 310 gram version and maybe with a 1/4 or half inch longer. I know that a 100 sq inch frame will be more forgiving and give me a little more power and spin. I have one K7 Red and one ALS2. I only started playing Friday after a 2 month layoff so it's expected to be a bit rusty. I will probably give my 2 racquets a bit more of a run and play with strings and tension as well customization before I buy something else unless I see something really inexpensive used.
Of course pick what you want! I am just saying there is zero difference in comfort between the 63 and 70 angells. I know it is not conventional wisdom in tennis racquets but somehow Angell pulled it off.
 

tennis347

Professional
Of course pick what you want! I am just saying there is zero difference in comfort between the 63 and 70 angells. I know it is not conventional wisdom in tennis racquets but somehow Angell pulled it off.
The foam filled process cuts back on shock and vibration. I did not know about Angell racquets until a few years ago. Angell makes specialty racquets and the feel is outstanding compared to all other manufacturers ! The only other newer racquets that have hit their mark T40 series and v7 Blade line. All the rest of the players frames are in the dust IMO.

The Angell frames with the 16 x 19 have a nice open pattern for easy spin along with the spectacular arm friendliness. Definitely easy to use IMO with my semi-western grip where as with the new Blade v7 you have to be a bit more precise with your strokes.
 
For anyone who has used the TC 100, how does it play with the extended version? I see that there are alot of options. I am looking for something a bit more user-friendly than the K7 Red which is also a great frame but on the lower powered side. Also need something with a low flex rating due to arm issues.
If you have arm issues, go 63RA. I have both 70 and 63. I feel it a little bit on the 70 RA with stiffer strings, but nothing on the 63.

Extended TC 100 has a lot more innate swing weight, Paul noted that they sit at around 340 (310 unstrung) and don't go any lower. I personally prefer lighter racquets with higher swing weight (as opposed to a RF 97), so this suits me. To give you an example, TC 100 27.5 inches at 342g strung has ~340 swingweight, a tad bit more than a RF97 (~335 swing weight?) which is almost 360g strung.

The D beam flexes quite evenly which makes the hoop feel very stable, unlike a DR 98, for example, which tends to flex more at the hoop (some like this, I don't).

I've never played with any other Angell racquets so can't give you a comparison with the K7. If you put the DR 98+ and Pure Drive + together ( I've played with both prior), the TC 100 has all their upsides and none of their downsides. Power, control, feel, and comfort. The TC 100 @ 16x19 produces more spin than either due to its more widely spaced mains.
 

Grieeegoorr

Rookie
Right now I'm using nat gut (Babolat VS Team 1.25) in the mains at 24 kg (53 pounds) and poly (Luxilon Alu Power 1.25) in the crosses at 22 kg (48.5 pounds). Stringbed feels soft and comfortable, really really nice feel. I'd prefer a bit less power however, so for the next stringjob I will try a full bed of poly (Luxilon BB Original), which I've always found comfortable. But I warn you, I'm just a recreational player, don't take my words as the advice of an expert.
Thanks FranzS, do you string for yourself and was that string job done on a electric pull machine?
 

tennis347

Professional
If you have arm issues, go 63RA. I have both 70 and 63. I feel it a little bit on the 70 RA with stiffer strings, but nothing on the 63.

Extended TC 100 has a lot more innate swing weight, Paul noted that they sit at around 340 (310 unstrung) and don't go any lower. I personally prefer lighter racquets with higher swing weight (as opposed to a RF 97), so this suits me. To give you an example, TC 100 27.5 inches at 342g strung has ~340 swingweight, a tad bit more than a RF97 (~335 swing weight?) which is almost 360g strung.

The D beam flexes quite evenly which makes the hoop feel very stable, unlike a DR 98, for example, which tends to flex more at the hoop (some like this, I don't).

I've never played with any other Angell racquets so can't give you a comparison with the K7. If you put the DR 98+ and Pure Drive + together ( I've played with both prior), the TC 100 has all their upsides and none of their downsides. Power, control, feel, and comfort. The TC 100 @ 16x19 produces more spin than either due to its more widely spaced mains.
Thanks for your input ! I agree that the 63 RA is the way to go due to having arm issues. As far as the extended length, the SW could be too high if the static weight is not in my wheel house. If I did go the extended version route, I would get the 300 gram version, otherwise the 310 gram version. I am not big fan of adding alot of lead tape to a frame as it alters the playability too much IMO. As I am getting older, I realize that I need to go down in weight in order to generate easier racquet head speed and my foot work is not like it was many years ago. I still need something in the 11.5 ounce range with a SW in the mid 320's for arm health. I am a 4.0-4.5 player and just turned 53 recently.
 
Thanks for your input ! I agree that the 63 RA is the way to go due to having arm issues. As far as the extended length, the SW could be too high if the static weight is not in my wheel house. If I did go the extended version route, I would get the 300 gram version, otherwise the 310 gram version. I am not big fan of adding alot of lead tape to a frame as it alters the playability too much IMO. As I am getting older, I realize that I need to go down in weight in order to generate easier racquet head speed and my foot work is not like it was many years ago. I still need something in the 11.5 ounce range with a SW in the mid 320's for arm health. I am a 4.0-4.5 player and just turned 53 recently.
You're welcome. :)

Static weight and balance does not change the swing weight. So even if you go down to 300g, you'll still have a swing weight of 340 on the 27.5 inch.

If 320-ish SW is your target, maybe stick with the regular length? Or maybe go 27.25? You definitely won't be able to get that with the 27.5.

EDIT: I dug up an old conversation with Paul - the TC100 has an unstrung swing weight of 300 @ 27.25 inches; which puts it around 330 strung. Slap on an overgrip/ whatever else you have, and it goes up again. Hope that information helps.
 
Last edited:

Paul Y

Rookie
on the TC100 what if you go down to 290 @ 27.25 whats the swing weight then? I was going to ask Paul about customizing a TC100 290 @ 27.25 and 6HL, he said it was doable in the past but I forgot to ask him for the swing weight as its for my son.
 

edelp

Rookie
Just for you to have a reference but on standard length, my tc100 RA63 with 290gr unstrung have a SW of 296/297 ... so for extended more...
 

Paul Y

Rookie
Following Paul's rule 0.25 extension adds 10 grams to SW so TC100 RA63 would be 306/307. Adding 4 HL would drop it down wouldn't it, don't know by how much though, normally its 5.5 grams per point balance. Would it drop the SW to 284?
 
Last edited:
on the TC100 what if you go down to 290 @ 27.25 whats the swing weight then? I was going to ask Paul about customizing a TC100 290 @ 27.25 and 6HL, he said it was doable in the past but I forgot to ask him for the swing weight as its for my son.
Lowering static weight does not change the swing weight, nor does changing the balance. In other words, the swing weight more or less stays the same regardless of static weight/balance.

The only way to change static weight is, like you said, to request for it specifically. However, given Paul's condition Im not sure if theyre customising to that extent anymore.
 

topspn

Legend
The SW will not be altered through static weight or balance. Keep in mind the Angell weight system is all in the handle. Adding weight to the handle or adjusting weights in the different slots in the handle will have next to no effect on SW.
 

Paul Y

Rookie
TC95 16x19 or TC97 18x20,... Which one is the most forgiving one?
TC95 16x19 would be more forgiving over the TC97 18x20. TC97 is more underpowered compared to the TC95, don't think I have hit with a racket that has the same feel as the TC95. You will find TC97 18x20 hits close to the Wilson Ultra Tour.

Lowering static weight does not change the swing weight, nor does changing the balance. In other words, the swing weight more or less stays the same regardless of static weight/balance.

The only way to change static weight is, like you said, to request for it specifically. However, given Paul's condition Im not sure if theyre customising to that extent anymore.
I was worried about that, given with Paul's condition right now.
 

Gee

Hall of Fame
TC95 16x19 would be more forgiving over the TC97 18x20. TC97 is more underpowered compared to the TC95, don't think I have hit with a racket that has the same feel as the TC95. You will find TC97 18x20 hits close to the Wilson Ultra Tour.
Thanks Paul.
A few years ago I played with the TC95 18x20 (that I still own) and after that I committed to the TC97 18x20 for a year.
However I always preferred the feel of the TC95 and the UT resembles that in my opinion.
As I used to play on artificial grass courts the TC95 16x19 may be more forgiving with low short balls when you need whip the balls over the net. These shots can be a bit challenging with a very dense pattern frame like the TC95 18x20 and UT.
 

Pneumated1

Hall of Fame
Thanks Paul.
A few years ago I played with the TC95 18x20 (that I still own) and after that I committed to the TC97 18x20 for a year.
However I always preferred the feel of the TC95 and the UT resembles that in my opinion.
As I used to play on artificial grass courts the TC95 16x19 may be more forgiving with low short balls when you need whip the balls over the net. These shots can be a bit challenging with a very dense pattern frame like the TC95 18x20 and UT.
I always assumed the UT would resemble the characteristics of the TC97 more, like the H19. Is that incorrect? Like you, I strongly prefer the TC95 (either pattern) to the TC97 18x20, but I've never hit the TC97 16x19. I've looked in vain for a 305-310g frame that has TC95 attributes with modern punch and a touch more forgiveness. What I don't like about the UT is that it needs to be modded to at least 320-325g to come alive, but I want to go lighter. I think the TF40 305 is a real possibility if it's not too crisp or maybe the EZONE 98 305 if it's not too modern and awkwardly tapered. Maybe Volkl will rescue me with a 60-63RA 10-series from their new line8-B

I recently had a private conversation with a knowledgeable poster who's an MRT and racquet guru. He brought up the H22 and said that Angell frames are the closest you can get to it. I assume he meant closest to the TC95. I've never had the urge to go pro stock and can't see paying $300-400 for a frame. Something tells me I'll keep making these types of posts but keep hitting my TC95 18x20 all the while.
 
Last edited:

Gee

Hall of Fame
I always assumed the UT would resemble the characteristics of the TC97 more, like the H19. Is that incorrect?
I read that some TW posters also compare the TC97 18x20 with UT (and even PT630) but I don't think the TC97 and UT feel the same and I played with both at least one year extensively.

The TC97 18x20 is a very good racket and I played great matches with it but it feels clearly a bit crisper/stiffer than the TC95 and UT. Sometimes it felt more like a shock that I disliked. A little bit like I was hitting with iron wires (while I had them strung at my usual tension).

The TC95 and UT have a more comfortable sensational feel when you hit the sweetspot and you still can feel the ball on the strings.
Like you, I strongly prefer the TC95 (either pattern) to the TC97 18x20, but I've never hit the TC97 16x19. I've looked in vain for a 305-310g frame that has TC95 attributes with modern punch and a touch more forgiveness. What I don't like about the UT is that it needs to be modded to at least 320-325g to come alive, but I want to go lighter.
I agree. I had to customize heavily to my desired specs and I don't like customizing either. That's why I love Angell who can customize our rackets for us.
I think the TF40 305 is a real possibility if it's not too crisp or maybe the EZONE 98 305 if it's not too modern and awkwardly tapered. Maybe Volkl will rescue me with a 60-63RA 10-series from their new line8-B
Did you consider the C10 Pro? Very nice solid frame with great control and feel plus a good amount of power. I played 3 years with these one with good success. However when I once picked up my older Vantage 95 again I had been remembered to its addictive feel. :)
I recently had a private conversation with a knowledgeable poster who's an MRT and racquet guru. He brought up the H22 and said that Angell frames are the closest you can get to it. I assume he meant closest to the TC95. I've never had the urge to go pro stock and can't see paying $300-400 for a frame. Something tells me I'll keep making these types of posts but keep hitting my TC95 18x20 all the while.
This confirms that the TC95 is indeed a very special frame that we should cherish :)
 

Caol-ila

New User
I placed 0.2 oz of tungsten tape at 3 and 9 on my TC95's and ohhh boyyy. The sweet spot went from feeling small to gigantic. And the hitting is even more plush. Highly recommend.
Last year I added some lead to my TC95 16x19, but I guess I exaggerated. Too powerful and not enough maneuvrable. I eliminated all of it. Inspired by your post, last week I added just 2 grams at 3 and 9. I am enthusiast, I never played so well with that racquet. I think that the impressione of a gigantic sweet spot comes from the increased stability.
 

Pneumated1

Hall of Fame
@Gee, I agree; it's one to cherish, maybe in an octane paint job:p

Last year I added some lead to my TC95 16x19, but I guess I exaggerated. Too powerful and not enough maneuvrable. I eliminated all of it. Inspired by your post, last week I added just 2 grams at 3 and 9. I am enthusiast, I never played so well with that racquet. I think that the impressione of a gigantic sweet spot comes from the increased stability.
I just added 1.5 grams to mine at 3/9, and I love it. I think 2 grams would be the most I'd add. Just small doses is all this frame needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gee

HeadClassic

New User
Last year I added some lead to my TC95 16x19, but I guess I exaggerated. Too powerful and not enough maneuvrable. I eliminated all of it. Inspired by your post, last week I added just 2 grams at 3 and 9. I am enthusiast, I never played so well with that racquet. I think that the impressione of a gigantic sweet spot comes from the increased stability.
That's great! Since the sweet spot opens up, I feel like you get an even better "pop" sound and better pocketing as well. Amazing the difference a little weight in the right spots can make.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

Pneumated1

Hall of Fame
I had same amount @ 2&10. That’s where i liked it the most after experimenting
I took the lead weights out at the top of the handle (10g I think?) and added the 1.5g to 3/9 and 1.5g around the pallet at 6.5". The frames are probably 312-315g and feel faster and more potent. I need a digital scale, though, because I adjusted based on feel and matched the balance at 6pts. hl strung. Other than balance, I don't know what I have, but I'm hitting bigger. There are a lot of options available once you open the Angell hairpin. One frame had 5g more in the bottom chamber than the other, but leaving those untouched kept the balance. If I buy future Angells, they will be 310g/9pts hl or lower balanced. That's a better platform, imo, and I've learned through experience that the faster you swing a TC95, the quality of your ball improves significantly.

No Angells in your signature? That octane paint job is surely calling to you:-D
 

topspn

Legend
I took the lead weights out at the top of the handle (10g I think?) and added the 1.5g to 3/9 and 1.5g around the pallet at 6.5". The frames are probably 312-315g and feel faster and more potent. I need a digital scale, though, because I adjusted based on feel and matched the balance at 6pts. hl strung. Other than balance, I don't know what I have, but I'm hitting bigger. There are a lot of options available once you open the Angell hairpin. One frame had 5g more in the bottom chamber than the other, but leaving those untouched kept the balance. If I buy future Angells, they will be 310g/9pts hl or lower balanced. That's a better platform, imo, and I've learned through experience that the faster you swing a TC95, the quality of your ball improves significantly.

No Angells in your signature? That octane paint job is surely calling to you:-D
I still have TC100s :p
 

emhtennis

Rookie
I recently tried something different with my TC97 by putting 2g of lead at 10 and 2 (4in total) and then 4g of lead underneath the grip at the 7in mark on the handle.

Took overall frame weight from 333 to 339g and I can feel the racket much better now when I swing.

Stock the frame was so well balanced that it almost felt like nothing was in my hand, which for some is probably great, but for me it gave timing issues.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
 

Pneumated1

Hall of Fame
I recently tried something different with my TC97 by putting 2g of lead at 10 and 2 (4in total) and then 4g of lead underneath the grip at the 7in mark on the handle.

Took overall frame weight from 333 to 339g and I can feel the racket much better now when I swing.

Stock the frame was so well balanced that it almost felt like nothing was in my hand, which for some is probably great, but for me it gave timing issues.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
What were your original specs? I recently removed a huge chunk of lead weight from the hairpin of my TC95s at the 6-7" chamber. I actually like weight there and at 3/9, but I felt the handle weight too much (especially with 2-3 times as much in the lower chambers), and it kept my swing very linear. My specs were 320g/10pts. hl. So I kept the weight in the lower chamber but added 1.5g at 3/9 and countered with the same at 6.5" (outside the pallet), and it's nearly perfect for me. I think I removed a 10g weight from each, but I can't say for sure. I'm probably just under 315g (unstrung) but at 6pts hl. (strung), and I'm getting noticeably more bite on the ball.
 
Last edited:

itsstephenyo

Semi-Pro
What were your original specs? I recently removed a huge chunk of lead weight from the hairpin of my TC95s at the 6-7" chamber. I actually like weight there and at 3/9, but I felt the handle weight too much (especially with 2-3 times as much in the lower chambers), and it kept my swing very linear. My specs were 320g/10pts. hl. So I kept the weight in the lower chamber but added 1.5g at 3/9 and countered with the same at 6.5" (outside the pallet), and it's nearly perfect for me. I think I removed a 10g weight from each, but I can't say for sure. I'm probably just under 315g (unstrung) but at 6pts hl. (strung), and I'm getting noticeably more bite on the ball.
It's funny how a bunch of us actually feel the racquets hit better after removing weight. I was crushing forehands with reckless abandon yesterday when 3 weeks ago with the heavier stick I was second guessing every single ball that crossed into my court.
 

Pneumated1

Hall of Fame
My stock spec is 310g 9pt HL. Playing at 339g probably 5pt HL

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
I think 310g is the best platform option. That's what my TC95 16x19s were (310g/9pts hl).

It's funny how a bunch of us actually feel the racquets hit better after removing weight. I was crushing forehands with reckless abandon yesterday when 3 weeks ago with the heavier stick I was second guessing every single ball that crossed into my court.
I agree! I think it's all the concentrated weight in one area. Honestly, I was surprised when I opened the pallets and found that much weight in those two chambers. It makes the frame more sluggish, imo, than specs would indicate, but some probably like that. And to be fair, most frames probably have something similar inside the hairpins, but there's no access on those.

Now that I've found the ideal weight, I'd actually prefer to distribute the hairpin weight evenly over the entire length of the handle. Fill the chambers (bottom/top) with silicone and then lead in between on the outside of the pallet until the weight total is achieved. But then again, this stuff could probably drive you nuts after awhile.
 

itsstephenyo

Semi-Pro
Now that I've found the ideal weight, I'd actually prefer to distribute the hairpin weight evenly over the entire length of the handle. Fill the chambers (bottom/top) with silicone and then lead in between on the outside of the pallet until the weight total is achieved. But then again, this stuff could probably drive you nuts after awhile.
Yes! All the fiddling around could get way too complicated and make it worse. I found a setup i love and I'm sticking to it.
 
Top