The Official Angell Users Club

[RF_PRO_STAFF]

Many have advised staying away from shaped or at least very sharp polys with Angell racquets. I have stuck with this advice for the most part. In the last string job, I put Volkl Cyclone 1.15mm in the Mains of my TC95 18M, and so far, there's no problem that I have identified (but I haven't examined every grommet). I think it was definitely a problem in the earlier days (start of the thread), but I'm not sure whether Paul did something about it or not.

What most people did was when they were ordering from Paul they bought a few extra grommets for insurance. That way they could try a shaped or sharp string and if it cut the grommets, they would replace them and then stick with round polys. Alternatively, stock up on lots of grommets and play with whatever you like.

Thanks for this. I have decided to go for a round poly for now and order some more grommet sets in the future, so I can try out shaped strings as well. I'll go with YPTP 1.25 anthracite for the first string job since I know that string well.

 

[emhtennis]

Many have advised staying away from shaped or at least very sharp polys with Angell racquets. I have stuck with this advice for the most part. In the last string job, I put Volkl Cyclone 1.15mm in the Mains of my TC95 18M, and so far, there's no problem that I have identified (but I haven't examined every grommet). I think it was definitely a problem in the earlier days (start of the thread), but I'm not sure whether Paul did something about it or not.

What most people did was when they were ordering from Paul they bought a few extra grommets for insurance. That way they could try a shaped or sharp string and if it cut the grommets, they would replace them and then stick with round polys. Alternatively, stock up on lots of grommets and play with whatever you like.

Yep, I also do the same thing. I replace my grommets apx every six months. A fresh set of grommets make your rackets feel brand new, which also helps keep temptation at bay for increasing the inventory

 

[ZanderGoga]

Thanks for sharing. I'm very surprised with the power estimate, I didn't think the TC100 would be that much more powerful

I haven't played the TT100P, but I have played a lot of Prince racquets, so I'm familiar with their power rating scheme. I didn't find the TC100 anywhere near that powerful. 1200+ puts it firmly in granny stick territory, with their game-improvement Legacy line. I'd say it's more similar to the POG.

 

[ed70]

Thanks for sharing. I'm very surprised with the power estimate, I didn't think the TC100 would be that much more powerful

Actually he’s not comparing against the 310 textreme tour. He’s comparing against 100p which is an 18x20 pattern & the 95 tour which I found to be a fairly low powered closed 16x19.
The TC100 has power with good technique, it is not a tweener though like pure drive.
power level & stability are pretty comparable to the 310 Textreme tour depending on similar swing weights.

 

[ed70]

I haven't played the TT100P, but I have played a lot of Prince racquets, so I'm familiar with their power rating scheme. I didn't find the TC100 anywhere near that powerful. 1200+ puts it firmly in granny stick territory, with their game-improvement Legacy line. I'd say it's more similar to the POG.

Yeh it’s not. TC100 has good power for a players frame, the majority of power coming from the good technique of the player, it’s not going to take a guy from being a light hitter to a heavy hitter, it’s not going to turn a pusher into a dynamic ball striker dictating points. But it does have a secret little reserve on serve that can surprise an opponent.

 

[Madden]

Any players from Seattle, WA?
I have just moved a month ago. Looking for partners to play with. Living in Bothell right now and have an almost always empty, ugly tennis court in the complex I'm renting in.

 

[Aniruddha Phukan]

I haven't played the TT100P, but I have played a lot of Prince racquets, so I'm familiar with their power rating scheme. I didn't find the TC100 anywhere near that powerful. 1200+ puts it firmly in granny stick territory, with their game-improvement Legacy line. I'd say it's more similar to the POG.

Actually he’s not comparing against the 310 textreme tour. He’s comparing against 100p which is an 18x20 pattern & the 95 tour which I found to be a fairly low powered closed 16x19.
The TC100 has power with good technique, it is not a tweener though like pure drive.
power level & stability are pretty comparable to the 310 Textreme tour depending on similar swing weights.

It was that 1200+ number that I was surprised by. I know it's not a science, but the TT100 310 is about 800ish on their scale.

TC100 keeps becoming more enticing every time I discuss it with someone......

Slightly off-topic, but if you guys could help -
A coach measured by TT100 310s on an RDC and got these readings -
Racquet 1 - 330gm, 32.3cm balance, 319 SW
Racquet 2 - 330gm, 32.3cm balance, 313 SW
I don't have any extra weight except 2 gms each in the buttcaps for the balance I want.
I can't figure out how to match them now. Any pointers please?

 

[StanAO14]

I would just add 1 gram at 12 o’clock of racquet 2. That would bring the SW closer or almost the same and wouldn’t alter static and balance much (if any)

 

[Return_Ace]

It was that 1200+ number that I was surprised by. I know it's not a science, but the TT100 310 is about 800ish on their scale.

TC100 keeps becoming more enticing every time I discuss it with someone......

Slightly off-topic, but if you guys could help -
A coach measured by TT100 310s on an RDC and got these readings -
Racquet 1 - 330gm, 32.3cm balance, 319 SW
Racquet 2 - 330gm, 32.3cm balance, 313 SW
I don't have any extra weight except 2 gms each in the buttcaps for the balance I want.
I can't figure out how to match them now. Any pointers please?

I think the real question is do you actually notice a difference in SW when you're playing with them? If not, then leave them be and they'll feel as matched as you need (even better if you get someone to do a blind trial on you).

Otherwise, you'd also have to tell us what spec. you're willing to tolerate (i get that you want a 323 balance, but max SW? max Static?). You can very easily match them by putting more weight onto both (the lower SW one would need to be more polarised), but the question is how much extra weight are you willing to put?

According to TWU, if you put 2g at 12'oclock and at the butt cap of Racket 2, you'd be at 334g, 323mm and ~320SW.
You can then match Racket 1 by putting 4g at the throat/bridge (34cm) and you'd reach the same spec.

In theory.

It then depends how accurate you are with your lead measurement/placing etc. and whether or not they'd feel the same on contact (even if they feel like they swing similar) would be personal preference as well.

 

[TennisViking]

Has anyone played with the new Angell Cyan K7 300 grams, standard lenght? I am keen on it but noticed the Swingweight to be rather low (278 unstrung). I know that one can add lead tape etc but personally I never seem to get it right and end up pulling it off....... Therefore I prefer to get the racquet as close as possible to my preferred specs (strung, swingweight 318-325, 4-6 pts HL) and just add the smallest amount possible of lead tape.

 

[Aniruddha Phukan]

I would just add 1 gram at 12 o’clock of racquet 2. That would bring the SW closer or almost the same and wouldn’t alter static and balance much (if any)

1 gm would significantly alter the balance.

I think the real question is do you actually notice a difference in SW when you're playing with them? If not, then leave them be and they'll feel as matched as you need (even better if you get someone to do a blind trial on you).

Otherwise, you'd also have to tell us what spec. you're willing to tolerate (i get that you want a 323 balance, but max SW? max Static?). You can very easily match them by putting more weight onto both (the lower SW one would need to be more polarised), but the question is how much extra weight are you willing to put?

According to TWU, if you put 2g at 12'oclock and at the butt cap of Racket 2, you'd be at 334g, 323mm and ~320SW.
You can then match Racket 1 by putting 4g at the throat/bridge (34cm) and you'd reach the same spec.

In theory.

It then depends how accurate you are with your lead measurement/placing etc. and whether or not they'd feel the same on contact (even if they feel like they swing similar) would be personal preference as well.

I do feel a difference. 1 racquet would feel more clubby, the other's relatively a bit more whippy and easier to flick. It's why I got them measured.
I should do a blind test, though. See how much it bothers me.

As for the extra weight, I think I can go up to about 335 static, 322ish sw max, I'd make it a bit more HL too.

The steps you shared, it would get the specs similar on paper. But I think they'll feel significantly different to swing. Racquet 2 would be more polarized, probably feel whippy. Racquet 1, the opposite.

 

[Return_Ace]

I do feel a difference. 1 racquet would feel more clubby, the other's relatively a bit more whippy and easier to flick. It's why I got them measured.
I should do a blind test, though. See how much it bothers me.

As for the extra weight, I think I can go up to about 335 static, 322ish sw max, I'd make it a bit more HL too.

The steps you shared, it would get the specs similar on paper. But I think they'll feel significantly different to swing. Racquet 2 would be more polarized, probably feel whippy. Racquet 1, the opposite.

That's the thing, sometimes on paper and how it actually works out could be different.

But I would say that the fact that your two rackets have the same balance and static weight, but differing swingweights means that one is more polarised than the other, what you're effectively asking to do is to now match mass distribution throughout the racket, which is effectively the same as polarisation.

TWU did provide a 2-point solution to getting the same SW/Balance instead of just 4g at the throat, but since that involves putting weight in the hoop, that would then affect Twistweight, so I didn't bother including that one.

 

[Aniruddha Phukan]

That's the thing, sometimes on paper and how it actually works out could be different.

But I would say that the fact that your two rackets have the same balance and static weight, but differing swingweights means that one is more polarised than the other, what you're effectively asking to do is to now match mass distribution throughout the racket, which is effectively the same as polarisation.

TWU did provide a 2-point solution to getting the same SW/Balance instead of just 4g at the throat, but since that involves putting weight in the hoop, that would then affect Twistweight, so I didn't bother including that one.

Matching the mass distribution would be fairly tough, especially with how little weight I'm willing to add.

I can see a couple of 2-point options for both racquets to get to 334gm, 32.3cm, 320SW (and a slightly more polarized setup to 334gm, 32cm, 322SW for the less polarized racquet). But at that point, it feels like a rabbit hole. I'd probably be better of focusing on my game and enjoying time on court.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think I will follow your advice and stick with 16x19. That's what Paul suggested when he got back to me the other day too.

My only conundrum now is that he also pitched me the TC100 because I mentioned wanting a little more pop on my serve, and now I can't get the idea of a 100in thin frame racquet out of my head =)

I dont find that the TC100 has more pop on first serves than the tc95. The only difference I find is on second serves, which for majority of advanced players will have more spin. So basically tc 100 produces a bit more spin. The 95 is just a little more pinpoint.

 

[Andykay]

I dont find that the TC100 has more pop on first serves than the tc95. The only difference I find is on second serves, which for majority of advanced players will have more spin. So basically tc 100 produces a bit more spin. The 95 is just a little more pinpoint.

That's interesting. Paul is certainly pitching it as his serving monster. But a lot of people here do say the TC95 has more pop than an average 95.

I'm waiting to hear back from him again, but I am thinking a TC100 will be my first purchase. I've already committed to buying some mainstream frames from the local shop, and after my testing I've landed on the Head Prestige Pro, so I'll already have a couple of 95s in my bag. Adding a slightly more forgiving frame appeals to me, but I'll wait to see what Paul says before pulling the trigger.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

That's interesting. Paul is certainly pitching it as his serving monster. But a lot of people here do say the TC95 has more pop than an average 95.

I'm waiting to hear back from him again, but I am thinking a TC100 will be my first purchase. I've already committed to buying some mainstream frames from the local shop, and after my testing I've landed on the Head Prestige Pro, so I'll already have a couple of 95s in my bag. Adding a slightly more forgiving frame appeals to me, but I'll wait to see what Paul says before pulling the trigger.

It really depends on the specific qualities of your serve. If spin rather than precision is of primary importance go TC100 but if you prefer 95's in general go that route. Say hi to Paul!

 

[30T2]

Hello all! My first Angell is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday, a TC100 63RA. Has anyone tried Kirschbaum pro line evolution with their TC100? I just got it in my Blade 98 v7 (current racquet of choice) and I'm really liking it.

 

[c0ppo]

Hello all! My first Angell is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday, a TC100 63RA. Has anyone tried Kirschbaum pro line evolution with their TC100? I just got it in my Blade 98 v7 (current racquet of choice) and I'm really liking it.

I have it on my TC95 (63RA), and it's great! I love that string, and I was lucky when I found out it works great with my TC95 as well

 

[ed70]

I dont find that the TC100 has more pop on first serves than the tc95. The only difference I find is on second serves, which for majority of advanced players will have more spin. So basically tc 100 produces a bit more spin. The 95 is just a little more pinpoint.

I’d agree, infact the Smaller head, thinner beam can only mean faster rhs on the 95 so I served quicker with 95 than all the Angells. The TC100 is all round a bit more forgiving than the smaller headed 95.

 

[cha cha]

The second bad boy has come in the mail today.
Still not a fan of that copper nonsense, but it does look a bit better than the octane.

 

[JoaoN]

Has anyone played with the ASL2 and a TC 97, 310g, 9pts HL, 16x19? If so, any thoughts on power and spin? Thanks in advance.

 

[ZanderGoga]

The second bad boy has come in the mail today.
Still not a fan of that copper nonsense, but it does look a bit better than the octane.

Yeah, v2 graphics ran circles around this nonsense.

 

[topspn]

Yeah, v2 graphics ran circles around this nonsense.

Black copper is V3

 

[Christinyl]

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

thank you all in advance.

 

[ZanderGoga]

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

thank you all in advance.

I don't see the dilemma. Call Paul and tell him exactly what you want. He's like magic, and doesn't hold you to ordering from the menu.

 

[Return_Ace]

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

thank you all in advance.

NGL this sounds really strange.

Your TC100 was too heavy and cumbersome, so you bought a TC101 which was a little lighter, but less headlight, and leaded it to be closer to even balance?

I would not have expected you to then describe your TC101 as being more nimble at the net.

It could be a swingweight issue, although i don't believe that the TC series are that different in swingweight (compared to say the K7 or ASL series) and assuming your TC100 is in Copper, the Octane PJ of the TC101 would have potentially either evened it out more or made it heavier.

I don't really think getting the 310g 9pts HL would solve that issue, since the extra 10g added would all be in the handle; so in order to get the same stability, you would still need to put your lead at 3 & 9, which would then just mean it's a heavier, more headlight version of what you currently have.

I would take the above suggestion and discuss with Paul; he will have access to the swingweight data for both rackets (if you provide the lot number on the sticker in the throat) which may be able to explain what's going on.

He can also look for a TC101 that's in between specs, maybe with a slightly higher swingweight, but lower static weight which may better emulate your current TC101 setup without having to add the lead. However i personally would buy one that's matched to your current racket and just re-add the lead, so if you customise again in future, you can mirror it across both and not have to figure out any differences.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you're wanting in the new TC101 except for not having to add the lead? The swingweight for the all of of the TC should always stay the same across all of the customisation options (aside from length) due to the how the weight component is determined by weighting the handle.

 

[TimePlease]

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

thank you all in advance.

I would repeat exactly what you did before (adding lead to the TC101) if you want to end up with the same result, but definitely call Paul and request that he finds a frame from his stocks that matches your existing 101's static weight as closely as possible.

What strings and tension are you using on the TC101? I have one myself and find it a bit too powerful so will try a less lively string next time.

 

[emhtennis]

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

thank you all in advance.

If you just want a second racket so you have a backup, I would order the exact same specs and customize in the exact same way.

If you want to get a new racket in order to try a different setup because your game has changed and you want more or less of xyz then order different specs.

 

[Luismp8a]

Hey everyone.
Can anyone describe the differences in playability between the TC95 18x20 and TC97 18x20?
I've never used an Angell but I'm planning on buying one, my specs would probably be 320 grs and 310 mm balance.
Right now I use a Graphene 360 Speed Pro (2018), but I'd like a racquet that's a little heavier. I also have a OHBH, and I've heard 95-98 headsizes are better for that.
I play with a lot of spin but I'm used to 18x20 patterns and I'm a tall guy so I like to flatten out my groundstrokes from time to time.

 

[Christinyl]

NGL this sounds really strange.

Your TC100 was too heavy and cumbersome, so you bought a TC101 which was a little lighter, but less headlight, and leaded it to be closer to even balance?

I would not have expected you to then describe your TC101 as being more nimble at the net.

It could be a swingweight issue, although i don't believe that the TC series are that different in swingweight (compared to say the K7 or ASL series) and assuming your TC100 is in Copper, the Octane PJ of the TC101 would have potentially either evened it out more or made it heavier.

I don't really think getting the 310g 9pts HL would solve that issue, since the extra 10g added would all be in the handle; so in order to get the same stability, you would still need to put your lead at 3 & 9, which would then just mean it's a heavier, more headlight version of what you currently have.

I would take the above suggestion and discuss with Paul; he will have access to the swingweight data for both rackets (if you provide the lot number on the sticker in the throat) which may be able to explain what's going on.

He can also look for a TC101 that's in between specs, maybe with a slightly higher swingweight, but lower static weight which may better emulate your current TC101 setup without having to add the lead. However i personally would buy one that's matched to your current racket and just re-add the lead, so if you customise again in future, you can mirror it across both and not have to figure out any differences.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you're wanting in the new TC101 except for not having to add the lead? The swingweight for the all of of the TC should always stay the same across all of the customisation options (aside from length) due to the how the weight component is determined by weighting the handle.

Thank you for your reply. You are right that my TC 100 is in Cooper and TC 101 in Octane. I think i like the thinner frame at the racket head of TC 101. it feels better at the net for me. i think the point is to get the customized racket so i dont have to lead it up myself. : ) But maybe that is not a good enough reason.

 

[Christinyl]

I would repeat exactly what you did before (adding lead to the TC101) if you want to end up with the same result, but definitely call Paul and request that he finds a frame from his stocks that matches your existing 101's static weight as closely as possible.

What strings and tension are you using on the TC101? I have one myself and find it a bit too powerful so will try a less lively string next time.

i am using VS team gut 17 in both TC 100 and TC101 at 59lbs. it is for my tennis elbow/shoulder.

 

[Christinyl]

If you just want a second racket so you have a backup, I would order the exact same specs and customize in the exact same way.

If you want to get a new racket in order to try a different setup because your game has changed and you want more or less of xyz then order different specs.

thank you. so it seems most of you think i should just get the same specs of my current TC 101 and lead it up again.

 

[Christinyl]

I don't see the dilemma. Call Paul and tell him exactly what you want. He's like magic, and doesn't hold you to ordering from the menu.

Paul finally responded to my email. He suggests that he can try to make a TC 101 at 305g/330mm as an alternative for me.

He said "The swing weight of your TC100’s are approximately 6 points higher than your current V3 TC101 frame so this might explain some of the maneuverability difference, combined with the difference in static weight.

With the mods that you have made to your current frame I would expect the specs are now approximately 305g/330mm and approximately 295 unstrung swing weight. Your selection of 310g/315mm is obviously not going to be a really close match as it will be lacking some of the inertia that you are currently getting from your added lead.

If you would like us to target 305g/330mm we can certainly do so and of course try to maintain a similar swing weight. I can’t confirm this is definitely achievable until we have the raw frames in hand from our current production run but I would be happy to report back before we fulfill your order. "

Does this sound reasonable to you guys?

thank you in advance.

 

[djNEiGht]

Hey everyone.
Can anyone describe the differences in playability between the TC95 18x20 and TC97 18x20?
I've never used an Angell but I'm planning on buying one, my specs would probably be 320 grs and 310 mm balance.
Right now I use a Graphene 360 Speed Pro (2018), but I'd like a racquet that's a little heavier. I also have a OHBH, and I've heard 95-98 headsizes are better for that.
I play with a lot of spin but I'm used to 18x20 patterns and I'm a tall guy so I like to flatten out my groundstrokes from time to time.

I have the TC95 16 and the 97 18. If you are coming from the Speed, which I believe is a tad on the powerful side, you might like the tc95. good luck

 

[Luismp8a]

I have the TC95 16 and the 97 18. If you are coming from the Speed, which I believe is a tad on the powerful side, you might like the tc95. good luck

So, is the TC97 18x20 more low-powered? I´ve heard that it also has the lowest launch angle.

 

[djNEiGht]

So, is the TC97 18x20 more low-powered? I´ve heard that it also has the lowest launch angle.

In my experience it is but it does have good plow so it's not too much of a drop off in power.

 

[Sardines]

First of all, I would strongly suggest you get the racket professionally measured for swing weight and balance, with either a RDC or a Yonex Precision Scan machine, for Angell to match what you have. Mind you, each racquet is different so besides swing weight, there is also twist weight to consider. I can't remember if Angell matches twist weight too. I'm pretty sure if you send your racquet back to Angell to match, you'll find a better match than guessing what works and what doesn't. Inevitably, there will be usually be some customization to be done to fine tune each stick. Good luck.

Hello all,

I need some advices on the TC 101 v3.

In 2019, I purchased a TC 100 v3 in 310g/315mm 905 HL model. This turned out a bit heavy and cumbersome for me.

In 2020, I ordered a TC101 v3 Octane in 300g/325mm 6pt HL and placed 2g lead tape each on the frame at 3 and 9 o’clock.

I like this setup for me for its power, stability and still nimble at net.

Dilemma: should i go for a TC 101 v3 in 310g/315mm or 9pt HL so i don't need to add lead tape. Would this play similar to my current TC 101 at 300g/325mm w 2g lead tape each at 3 and 9 o’clock?

Would the swing weight be suitable? I am 5’4 female 130lbs.

 

[esm]

The TC100 and TC101 has different beam, and I think they flex differently - could it be the reason why the TC101 works for some, but not the TC100, if all things equal?

 

[tennisboy2121]

Can anyone compare the tc 95 16 mains 63ra to a vcore 95? Or a similar 95. Also can anyone compare the tc97 16 mains to a phantom 97p or yonex 97hd? What would be a good estimate on tw for these 2?

 

[djNEiGht]

Can anyone compare the tc 95 16 mains 63ra to a vcore 95? Or a similar 95. Also can anyone compare the tc97 16 mains to a phantom 97p or yonex 97hd? What would be a good estimate on tw for these 2?

TC95 16 v vCore 95
power - TC95
Spin - TC95
control - vCore

(just a few days with the vCore and the specs are very different from the way my TC95s are)

 

[tennisboy2121]

TC95 16 v vCore 95
power - TC95
Spin - TC95
control - vCore

(just a few days with the vCore and the specs are very different from the way my TC95s are)

What are your specs on the tc95?

 

[FranzS]

I’d agree, infact the Smaller head, thinner beam can only mean faster rhs on the 95 so I served quicker with 95 than all the Angells.

Poor TC90 is always forgotten

 

[djNEiGht]

What are your specs on the tc95?

I'll check a bit later

 

[Return_Ace]

Thank you for your reply. You are right that my TC 100 is in Cooper and TC 101 in Octane. I think i like the thinner frame at the racket head of TC 101. it feels better at the net for me. i think the point is to get the customized racket so i dont have to lead it up myself. : ) But maybe that is not a good enough reason.

Paul finally responded to my email. He suggests that he can try to make a TC 101 at 305g/330mm as an alternative for me.

He said "The swing weight of your TC100’s are approximately 6 points higher than your current V3 TC101 frame so this might explain some of the maneuverability difference, combined with the difference in static weight.

With the mods that you have made to your current frame I would expect the specs are now approximately 305g/330mm and approximately 295 unstrung swing weight. Your selection of 310g/315mm is obviously not going to be a really close match as it will be lacking some of the inertia that you are currently getting from your added lead.

If you would like us to target 305g/330mm we can certainly do so and of course try to maintain a similar swing weight. I can’t confirm this is definitely achievable until we have the raw frames in hand from our current production run but I would be happy to report back before we fulfill your order. "

Does this sound reasonable to you guys?

thank you in advance.

The TC101 will definitely feel different than the TC100 did to the box beam and flex profile etc.

It's a completely personal choice, i am pretty much the same, with preferring the TC97 over TC95, which are basically smaller headsize versions of the TC101 and TC100 respectively.

I personally wouldn't care to much about getting a racket that i didn't need to customise unless i was planning to get a matched pair. Otherwise i would still recommend just getting something with the same specs as your original and then repeating your customisation, just so it's more accurate rather than going off Paul's estimation.

 

[djNEiGht]

What are your specs on the tc95?

def heavier. I think 340ish g strung

 

[ed70]

Poor TC90 is always forgotten

I’m too old to play with a 90, but I’d love to serve & volley with one.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

The second bad boy has come in the mail today.
Still not a fan of that copper nonsense, but it does look a bit better than the octane.

I really like the octane in person... its hard to capture its light effects but yeah really love the copper ones myself. Ive got a grey one and a black and silver tc95

 

[joohan]

Poor TC90 is always forgotten

Those, who know...they know .)

 

[FranzS]

Those, who know...they know .)

You've owned one and then looked elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken. May I ask you why you got rid of it?
Greatest stick ever to me (also own PS95, PS85, Radical, PT57A). But I can understand the downsides of using it for playing competitively, which I'm not doing

 

[joohan]

You've owned one and then looked elsewhere, if I'm not mistaken. May I ask you why you got rid of it?
Greatest stick ever to me (also own PS95, PS85, Radical, PT57A). But I can understand the downsides of using it for playing competitively, which I'm not doing

I’m simply not good enough to play with a midsize frame on a regular basis (...I could/should end this sentence right here but I’ll add... against the players I’m playing regularly), current situation isn’t helping either. That being said, I didn’t find TC90 better for my occasional guilty pleasure “mid-hit” vs. the likes of Fischer Vacuum Pro Mid, iPrestige Mid or BLX PS90. I do still have a Vantage 90 but it’s 63 RA and I love how that one feels...

Plus I was still exploring the racquet spectrum at the time. Traded the TC90 for my first Yonex Tour G330 which has become my main frame over time. Angell was a very pleasant part of the journey.