The Official Angell Users Club

I asked for a 290 Sw for my CT 97 18x20, but Paul told me he cannot go that low since the CT racquets have foam inside. We agreed on a 295 Sw which is the lowest achievable Sw for that line.
He told me that players should not focus too much on Sw as other criterias like beam design play an important role in how heavy the frame feels. If the racquet feels too cluncky i will go compesate with a thinner gauge.
You can get a lower Sw with the CR line that has no foam though, but I dont think it will suit my play style.
My Angell racquet will be delivered next week. For those interested i will be able to make a comparison with the Tecnifibre TF40 305 16x19 that i am playing with since i got back to tennis 2 years ago after a 15 years hiatus.
I can also compare it with the i.Prestige MP that i used from age 14 to 17 and that shaped my swings. I still have two of them that i bring on the court from time to time. Brilliant racquet but 20g too heavy for me.
I hope the CT 97 can give me that i.prestige superb feel and directional control minus the heavy weight.
My specs : 300g / 325mm / 295sw / PU grip / Shape A / L2
That is interesting. Over the phone, Paul mentioned to me that all the foam-filled rackets have an average SW of 325 and that normal variances are +/- 3-5 SW points. So you would think you would be able to order one 290 or at least 292. However, he also mentioned that the weather impacts the expansion weight of the foam. So in the winter they get slightly higher numbers, and the swingweight could have a variance as high as +10 SW in that case. Maybe Paul just has a hard time getting rackets lower in SW than 295 in the wintertime.
I'd love to hear your comparison between those two rackets! Really liked that Tecnifibre frame when I demoed it.
 
It would be cool if Angell offered grommet options with lighter head guards. Like my Pacific and old Fischer rackets have window patterns cut into the head guards, they could offer one with the 'A' logo or 'Angell' cut into it multiple times. This would be an easy way to customise the swing weight. After experimenting with loads of different setups, my favourite by far is shifting some of the weight from the top to 3&9, this reduced the swing weight and increased the twist weight making it easier to swing and more stable. As mentioned in previous posts, I used a leather hole punch to punch holes all along the head guard (as neatly and evenly as possible) which removed 2 grams. I then added this to 3&9. Before and after specs measured on a Briffidi (strung with TF Razor Soft 1.24). Before: SW: 328 TW: 12.8 After: SW: 323 TW: 13.3. It also leaves some wiggle room to tweak further, IME any application of lead to the hoop without modding the head guard easily sent the swing weight north of 330. A thinner gauge string is also an option to reduce swing weight but with the open pattern of the TC100 the launch angle increases too much IMO. Specs are a personal thing but there's probably a good reason most of the popular 98/100" rackets have swing weights around 320. Having another option to go lower if preferred would be a good addition to the existing customisation options.
I noticed too that the React frames have a -10mm balance difference to the foam-filled ones, which also helps explain how the React is going to play so much lighter and more maneuverable compared to the foam-filled ones (in addition to a lower swingweight).
 
It would be cool if Angell offered grommet options with lighter head guards. Like my Pacific and old Fischer rackets have window patterns cut into the head guards, they could offer one with the 'A' logo or 'Angell' cut into it multiple times. This would be an easy way to customise the swing weight. After experimenting with loads of different setups, my favourite by far is shifting some of the weight from the top to 3&9, this reduced the swing weight and increased the twist weight making it easier to swing and more stable. As mentioned in previous posts, I used a leather hole punch to punch holes all along the head guard (as neatly and evenly as possible) which removed 2 grams. I then added this to 3&9. Before and after specs measured on a Briffidi (strung with TF Razor Soft 1.24). Before: SW: 328 TW: 12.8 After: SW: 323 TW: 13.3. It also leaves some wiggle room to tweak further, IME any application of lead to the hoop without modding the head guard easily sent the swing weight north of 330. A thinner gauge string is also an option to reduce swing weight but with the open pattern of the TC100 the launch angle increases too much IMO. Specs are a personal thing but there's probably a good reason most of the popular 98/100" rackets have swing weights around 320. Having another option to go lower if preferred would be a good addition to the existing customisation options.
Is your TC stable and forgiving enough at that 13 TW on returns, half volley and off center hits ? I was a little concerned about this aspect when i purchased my CT 97 as I know Angell racquets tend to have low TW. Which i like in a way because a low TW means you can direct the racquet face in the right angle with less effort. But on blocked/reflex shots where there is a lot of mishits, low TW racquets tend to crash on ball impact, which makes them very unforgiving.
 
Is your TC stable and forgiving enough at that 13 TW on returns, half volley and off center hits ? I was a little concerned about this aspect when i purchased my CT 97 as I know Angell racquets tend to have low TW. Which i like in a way because a low TW means you can direct the racquet face in the right angle with less effort. But on blocked/reflex shots where there is a lot of mishits, low TW racquets tend to crash on ball impact, which makes them very unforgiving.
What you've described was a large part of my motivation for doing this, my TC97 felt like a samurai sword on my OHBH and I was loving it until i came up against a heavy hitter. As you mentioned, all the Angells (the ones I own anyway) tend to have a low TW compared to other popular rackets and after playing with frames with TW in the high 13s, low 14s I can feel that reduced stability. Some of the most balanced frames I've found for my game are the Dunlop CX400 Tour (SW 320, TW 13.5) or the VCore Pro 100 (SW 320, TW 14). The mod I previously descibed allows me to brings my Angells closer to this spec. I find too much weight at 3&9 takes away some of that whippy feeling but by reducing the weight of the head guard it gives you some wiggle room for tuning to your preference without pushing the SW too high. Angell grommets are plentiful and affordable so IMO you can experiment with cutting some up without spending too much money.
 
Do you have informations about Swingweight and Stiffness for React 18x19 ? I have some tennis elbow problems with Tehncifibre.
My React 18x19 (strung with Solinco mach 10 1.20mm) measures SW: 325, TW 13.3. I don't have the equipment to measure stiffness but the label says 61RA
 
I tested the new version Tecnifibre TFight 305S, but didn't like it. For the last 3 years I use TC97 16/19 320 gr. I liked Tecnifibre TF40 16/19 from 2022, but I'll buy the one from 2024.
 
Hey all,
I've been looking into a lot of different rackets, hoping to figure out some new ones to purchase for my game. In doing all this research, I have gotten really interested in Angell frames. I have seen some numerical information that has been helpful, but I feel that there could be much more to help individuals understand their potential best fit within the Angell lineup. In browsing through most all of this thread (which is really amazing and has been so helpful), and doing my diligence in other posters/reviewers/etc trying to familiarize myself with Angell and what they offer, I thought I would put together this table to hopefully help provide some more numerical information to help myself, as well as many others decide what rackets they may want to pursue from Angell.

My hope is that I can get whoever is willing to help provide their own personal experience/perspective to get a general conclusion on the characteristics of these frames (as imperfect and subjective as that may be). So I'd love to hear from you and your own experiences/perspectives on these rackets and where they may rank accordingly to the table below! Thanks! I hope that this can be a guide or reference point for people to consider when deciding their racket of choice. Obviously, it's all subject to change based on your feedback and thoughts, so please share!

Angell Custom Frames Comparison Guide - I will keep it updated in this link!

Angell CustomStabilityPowerForgivenessDepth ControlDirectional ControlTopspinSlicesManeuverability
CL90 16x18 (TC90)17178398
CL97 16x19 (TC95)48656776
CL100 16x19 (TC100)69834945
CL105 16x19 (TC105)91010111011
CT97 18x20 (TC97)10636101104
CT97 16x19 (TC97)76588485
CT100 16x19 (TC101)87776654
CR97 16x19 (React 96)144878610
CR100 18x19 (React 99)554106748
CR100 16x19 (React 99)356651039

These are my general presumptions based on the research I have done on these rackets. I have not tried or played with any of these rackets, so it's not based on personal experience. These ratings are also all based on comparing with each other and NOT other rackets or brands. I wanted this to simply be a scope of what Angell offers and the differences between Angell custom rackets.

Regarding power, my understanding is that more dense patterns don't provide less power, just a lower and more direct launch angle. For those who have hit with a variety of these patterns, though, I would be curious to hear from you on this!

Regarding Depth Control, I figure that a more balanced frame bed (16x20 or 18x19) would provide the reliability to get correct depth on any given shot (low, high, medium, wide, short, deep, topspin, slice, flat). Obviously, this could be somewhat controversial and individualistic, as many people could say that an 18x20 will simply be the best because it is the "most controlled" stringbed. So I'm interested to hear from you guys about what makes a racket have the best depth control. Rackets that seemed not to have a too high or too low launch angle were ones that scored higher in this category, as they seemed the most consistent and versatile in dealing with whatever ball is thrown at them. I am also curious to hear if you guys think that the head size of these frames impacts the depth control much. I figure that a smaller head will give more control all around (depth and especially directionally), or at least a lower launch angle, which could be good or bad depending.
More perspective / constructive feedback on these numbers and thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
 
I took some photos of my (unstrung) CT97; let me know if any others would be helpful: https://imgur.com/a/g7GOdmi. I really like the paint job, but can see how soft the grommets are.

I also included a couple of head comparisons with my old Ncode 6.1 95s; the overall size of the head is similar but the Ncode has a much thicker beam, so there is probably some extra real estate for the stringbed as a result. I also compared (no photos) with a 2023 Prestige Tour, and the stringbed size difference is much more noticeable.

I haven't gotten around to stringing since I hurt my knee right before the racket arrived, but rehab's going well and I hope to be back on the court and able to test it out sometime next month. Any suggestions on string types and tensions, assuming it's similar to the TC97? I've got reels of Tru Pro Tour Status 1.20, Ghostwire 1.17, and Gosen OGSM 1.15 sitting around (I very infrequently break strings in an 18x20 but appreciate the additional openness in a tight stringbed) and some other packages of miscellaneous soft polys and multifilaments with similar gauges. By comparison, I've enjoyed 48/44 for a Tour Status/Ghostwire hybrid in a 2023 Gravity Pro, and 55-58 lb for multis/syngut and 50-52lb for soft polys in the Ncode 6.1 95s.
 
Last edited:
I had Paul on the phone last week, to chat about the way he reorganized the lines.

Basically, he wanted to streamline the offering while organizing them along the same lines as other brands (e.g. Babolat):
- Custom Legacy: power frames (D beam construction), which explains why he dropped the old TC95 18x20 as a tight string pattern is not what most people look for in a power racquet
- Custom Touch: control frames (box beam construction)
- Custom React: spin frames (aero D beam), they're designed to be more whippy, which is why they are not foam filled like the TC99 / TC96 were

He also confirmed the following:
- the former 99 / 100 / 101 sq. in were all very close in size, so he rounded them all to 100 for easier readability. Same for the 95 / 96 / 97 all rounded to 97
- the grommets / string patterns haven't changed, so you still have either a tight 18x20 or open 16x19 pattern, with the odd ones out being the CL90 16x18 and CR100 18x19
- at a similar weight / balance, the CR line will come at a lower swing weight than the CL and CT due to the absence of foam. He can obviously customize it to a higher SW on request, but that will entail adding lead under the bumper, resulting in a more polarized set-up

My 2 cents regarding the absence of foam filling in the CR line: this is probably ok as I don't think there's many players looking for a spin racquet with a hefty swing weight and a depolarized setup. Not sure where this leaves me, though, as I quite enjoyed my TC99 315g / 310mm. If I want someting similar, I will probably have to order a lighter (310g) CR100 18x19 and play with a few grams of lead here and there for it to feel similar.
 
Last edited:
I've been hitting with a new CT100 (305gm, 7 pts HL, 27.25) - so far only drills and 'dingles'. Haven't tried serves yet.

VERY control-oriented for a 100" sq in head. I can tell by the flex it's not the usual 27.5" TC101 feel, but that's not yet something I'm worried about. Great feeling frame so far. I think if I string it up 3 lbs lighter (down to 50lbs) it would feel just right. Very interested to explore it further for serves, volleys, and match-play.

Gorgeous frame - the paint and overall vibe is stunning.
 
I've been hitting with a new CT100 (305gm, 7 pts HL, 27.25) - so far only drills and 'dingles'. Haven't tried serves yet.

VERY control-oriented for a 100" sq in head. I can tell by the flex it's not the usual 27.5" TC101 feel, but that's not yet something I'm worried about. Great feeling frame so far. I think if I string it up 3 lbs lighter (down to 50lbs) it would feel just right. Very interested to explore it further for serves, volleys, and match-play.

Gorgeous frame - the paint and overall vibe is stunning.
What strings are you using?

I might consider getting a CT100 in the future so really curious about your thoughts as you play more; I've always played with and felt more of an affinity for smaller rackets, but I'm not getting younger and more mobile...
 
I've been hitting with a new CT100 (305gm, 7 pts HL, 27.25) - so far only drills and 'dingles'. Haven't tried serves yet.

VERY control-oriented for a 100" sq in head. I can tell by the flex it's not the usual 27.5" TC101 feel, but that's not yet something I'm worried about. Great feeling frame so far. I think if I string it up 3 lbs lighter (down to 50lbs) it would feel just right. Very interested to explore it further for serves, volleys, and match-play.

Gorgeous frame - the paint and overall vibe is stunning.
That's great to hear! I am very interested in this frame, and it's definitely under consideration for me to purchase. Also, I would love to hear more feedback after you hit with it more. When I spoke with Paul over the phone, he said he expected this frame to gain popularity with the "remodel" and lineup reconfiguration.
 
Do you know the swingweight?
I've been hitting with a new CT100 (305gm, 7 pts HL, 27.25) - so far only drills and 'dingles'. Haven't tried serves yet.

VERY control-oriented for a 100" sq in head. I can tell by the flex it's not the usual 27.5" TC101 feel, but that's not yet something I'm worried about. Great feeling frame so far. I think if I string it up 3 lbs lighter (down to 50lbs) it would feel just right. Very interested to explore it further for serves, volleys, and match-play.

Gorgeous frame - the paint and overall vibe is stunning.
 
What strings are you using?

I might consider getting a CT100 in the future so really curious about your thoughts as you play more; I've always played with and felt more of an affinity for smaller rackets, but I'm not getting younger and more mobile...
Currently trying out Solinco Confidential 18 in mains and Tourbite 17 in crosses.

I should probably just switch to Volkl Cyclone 17 in a full bed, with slightly different tensions between main and crosses
 
That's great to hear! I am very interested in this frame, and it's definitely under consideration for me to purchase. Also, I would love to hear more feedback after you hit with it more. When I spoke with Paul over the phone, he said he expected this frame to gain popularity with the "remodel" and lineup reconfiguration.
For sure. I liked it right away. I have a practice match tonight... so more to follow.
 
Currently trying out Solinco Confidential 18 in mains and Tourbite 17 in crosses.

I should probably just switch to Volkl Cyclone 17 in a full bed, with slightly different tensions between main and crosses

Oh wow, even 50 lb feels like relatively high tension for those strings. Do you think the comfort is due to the flex?

I have an 18x20 CT97 but it's also higher SW (330), so was considering a poly hybrid in the 48/44 range as a first stab.
 
Oh wow, even 50 lb feels like relatively high tension for those strings. Do you think the comfort is due to the flex?

I have an 18x20 CT97 but it's also higher SW (330), so was considering a poly hybrid in the 48/44 range as a first stab.
Yeah, I think the shorter length - even just .25" - makes the string bed feel tighter due to the reduced flex of the shorter frame length. I will drop it even lower, I think, to 48/46lbs.
I imagine the 18x20 needs lower tension compared to my string pattern (16x19).
 
That's great to hear! I am very interested in this frame, and it's definitely under consideration for me to purchase. Also, I would love to hear more feedback after you hit with it more. When I spoke with Paul over the phone, he said he expected this frame to gain popularity with the "remodel" and lineup reconfiguration.
I played a practice match last night, and got to try out all the shots. First, the feel and DNA of Angell's box beam (like the TC101) is definitely there, so it's a familiar, comfortable experience. At a reduced length of 27.25, my serves had a bit better control/placement, and a bit less pace. I've had to work a bit harder on my backhand for depth, but forehands are great. BH slice is actually very good. Most surprisingly for me was the volleys. I guess the 100" head helps with twistweight, because at 305grams and the highest HL option (7 pts), I wasnt sure I'd get the stability. But I really enjoy volleying with this frame.
At the end of the night, I realized I should stick to 27.5" and will therefore follow my gut and sell this one and order another CT100 at 27.5".
This is a superb stick, though, that I could learn to maximize. It's just that I've spent so much time with 27.5" that Im ultra dialed in with that spec.
 
Can anyone comment on the KSeven?…
Compared to the K7 Red and/or Cyan?…
It’s mentioned a few times previously in the thread but not much detail…
Thanks.
 
Apologies if this has already been addressed here and I just missed it but...

Any word on if the 16x19 pattern in the new lineup is the same drill pattern as the old TC95, TC97, and TC100? I've played quite a few Angells over the years – TC100, K7 Red, K7 Lime – and generally found the 16x19 pattern a little too open and the 18x20 a little too tight. I was just curious if the new 16x19 has changed at all and/or if it remains 6 mains in the throat i.e. a slightly more open 16x19 pattern versus a tighter 8 mains in the throat 16x19.
 
Apologies if this has already been addressed here and I just missed it but...

Any word on if the 16x19 pattern in the new lineup is the same drill pattern as the old TC95, TC97, and TC100? I've played quite a few Angells over the years – TC100, K7 Red, K7 Lime – and generally found the 16x19 pattern a little too open and the 18x20 a little too tight. I was just curious if the new 16x19 has changed at all and/or if it remains 6 mains in the throat i.e. a slightly more open 16x19 pattern versus a tighter 8 mains in the throat 16x19.
It's the same as before. More than anything, this is just a restructure of the racket models Angell previously offered.
 
I rediscovered my TC-101 V4 this past week, and can't believe I ever switched from it. It's above average on everything. The feel is incredible. Mine is 305g unstrung, and 330 SW with a full bed of 18ga poly.
I also have a couple of TC-100s. They're great too, but I have more control with the TC101 (a bit lower launch angle and that keeps me swinging loose and fast).
I wanted to order one or two more but then saw this latest model line - totally confused, tho, this thread has helped. Looks like the Touch line (box beam) and the 100 is closest I can get - but not at all stoked about the 63 RA versus the original 66. This whole thing reminds me of what Dunlop went through 5 or 6 years ago...
Still, I may have no choice.
I played for a couple of hours with one TC-100 V3 recently and was *very* impressed. What are the specs on your TC-100s, if you don’t mind my asking?
 
Just went back to TC95 18x20 330g and I suddenly connected with that frame after trying O3 Prince Tour Japan.

The plow and control combination was out of this world. But I could use some more forgiving feel for my touch volleys and drop shots. I strung the racket with Otoro/Sync 45 lbs now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gee
Just went back to TC95 18x20 330g and I suddenly connected with that frame after trying O3 Prince Tour Japan.

The plow and control combination was out of this world. But I could use some more forgiving feel for my touch volleys and drop shots. I strung the racket with Otoro/Sync 45 lbs now.
I'm in a similar situation.

Lately, I've been playing with my Head Prestige Pro again, which is currently making me doubt whether to stick with it or my regular Prince Phantom 100x 18x20. The connection and feel with the Prestige are absolutely amazing.

In fact, for the last few years, I've been playing with similar rackets, such as the Wilson Ultra Tour, Pro Kennex Black Ace 98, the Angell TC95 18x20 and TC97 18x20. So, it feels like coming home for me.

BTW I customized my Prestiges to the following specs (strung with TF MultiFeel at 22/21kg, Head logo dampener, ringband and Yonex SG overgrip): 330 SW 31,5cm balance 352 grams.
 
I'm in a similar situation.

Lately, I've been playing with my Head Prestige Pro again, which is currently making me doubt whether to stick with it or my regular Prince Phantom 100x 18x20. The connection and feel with the Prestige are absolutely amazing.

In fact, for the last few years, I've been playing with similar rackets, such as the Wilson Ultra Tour, Pro Kennex Black Ace 98, the Angell TC95 18x20 and TC97 18x20. So, it feels like coming home for me.

BTW I customized my Prestiges to the following specs (strung with TF MultiFeel at 22/21kg, Head logo dampener, ringband and Yonex SG overgrip): 330 SW 31,5cm balance 352 grams.
Have you used a gut poly hybrid? I am afraid I cannot tame it
 
Have you used a gut poly hybrid? I am afraid I cannot tame it
I guess you mean with the TC95? No I haven't as gut is too expensive and not rainproof.
I used to string the TC95 with Head RIP Control 1.20 or TF MultiFeel 1.25 as mains and MSV CoFocus 1.18 crosses at a tension of 23/22 (or 24/23) kg. However I also tried a full poly stringbed with MSV Focus. 1.10 that worked great. It's only a pity the shaped strings tend to cut through the softer grommets of Angell so it is safer to stick with round strings.
 
I played for a couple of hours with one TC-100 V3 recently and was *very* impressed. What are the specs on your TC-100s, if you don’t mind my asking?
Sure, I have two different specs, and both are 27.5, which dramatically affects swing weight, ofc:
First frame: TC 100 V4, 16x19, 305G, 6 pts HL, 70 RA - don't remember the swing weight, but I think it was 332

Second frame: TC 100 V5, 16x19, 310G, 315mm balance (9 pts HL) - Tennis shop measured the swing weight on this one at an unbelievable 350 (not a typo). And it had a super light, 18 ga poly in it (Cyclone, I believe). I don't remember the RA on the V5 TC100, but I think it was still 71 or 70.
 
Just FYI, I have tried the new restring slap on one of my TC100s. Worked very nicely @50lbs. Heavy forehand spin through the court was top notch. Connected feel with pocketing added to nice touch. You can alternate between nasty heavy ground strokes or touch when opportunity arrives and it's equally competent. A bit more info on slap thread.
 
On the topic of strings, since we all know that Angell frames tend to be a bit strings sensitive.

I've been playing again with the TC97 of late, as I haven't landed on a set up I like 100% with the TC99. Tried Solinco Mach 10 1.25mm at 48 lbs M / 46 lbs C, and found it a good match for the TC97. It's reasonably soft on the arm, more predictable than other Solinco offerings (e.g. Hyper G), has better feel and a pretty good pop to somewhat offset the super controlled nature of that frame. So far, I have 3.5 hours of singles and 2 hours of doubles, and the tension maintenance is pretty good, too. I think the 1.20mm gauge would be viable as well, as would dropping the tension by a couple of more lbs. I will try the latter (46 M / 44 C) when I next get it restrung.
 
How would people say the react plays? I’ve been on the fence for a while as I’ve been trying to replace a custom speed I had when head offered it. The closest I’ve gotten is my current ezone 98 tour but it’s pretty heavy with customisation at 350g string and it’s still not quite right so was thinking do going down the custom route as there’s a better chance to get 95% of the variables right
 
I have been trying TC100 on and off for years. Always been a bit too launchy and power so consistency suffered. I have always had it in higher weights and SWs. As I am getting older, I have been naturally gravitating towards less weight. I purchased a couple of TC100s again before the whole revamp. They were a lighter spec 305g/7HL. I was surprised their SW was also low. One was 289 and other was 291. I added a bit of head weight to get them to 325 and 326 strung. I was surprised how well the TC100 played at this lighter spec. Still getting plenty of spin and heavy ball but so under control. Maybe part of it is I am able to manipulate head a little better to impart heavy spin and consistency. I also got some restring slap in it and it’s playing so well. Who knew TC100 would play so great at a more modest weight. Maybe I was the only dumb ass
 
I have been trying TC100 on and off for years. Always been a bit too launchy and power so consistency suffered. I have always had it in higher weights and SWs. As I am getting older, I have been naturally gravitating towards less weight. I purchased a couple of TC100s again before the whole revamp. They were a lighter spec 305g/7HL. I was surprised their SW was also low. One was 289 and other was 291. I added a bit of head weight to get them to 325 and 326 strung. I was surprised how well the TC100 played at this lighter spec. Still getting plenty of spin and heavy ball but so under control. Maybe part of it is I am able to manipulate head a little better to impart heavy spin and consistency. I also got some restring slap in it and it’s playing so well. Who knew TC100 would play so great at a more modest weight. Maybe I was the only dumb ass
Not dumb at all. I remember a few years back when I purchased my v2 tc100 300gr 63ra and the strung sw was 320! And that was with 16g hybrids. People here questioned the sw which was measured also on a briffidi. I added 2gr at 12, 2gr at the throat, and about 5gr in the handle about 328sw now. Plays fantastic. Currently have pure rush 1.23/ gw 1.22 hybrid. Normal setup has been firewire boost. Imo the lower specs wih lead plays more solid in the tc100 range. My 67ra tc100 is 322sw strung stock.
 
I have been trying TC100 on and off for years. Always been a bit too launchy and power so consistency suffered. I have always had it in higher weights and SWs. As I am getting older, I have been naturally gravitating towards less weight. I purchased a couple of TC100s again before the whole revamp. They were a lighter spec 305g/7HL. I was surprised their SW was also low. One was 289 and other was 291. I added a bit of head weight to get them to 325 and 326 strung. I was surprised how well the TC100 played at this lighter spec. Still getting plenty of spin and heavy ball but so under control. Maybe part of it is I am able to manipulate head a little better to impart heavy spin and consistency. I also got some restring slap in it and it’s playing so well. Who knew TC100 would play so great at a more modest weight. Maybe I was the only dumb ass
What strings and tension are you liking with this lighter setup? 63 or 70 RA? TIA.
 
What strings and tension are you liking with this lighter setup? 63 or 70 RA? TIA.
The two TC100s I have are the 70RA. With the little weight @12 to bring up SW to 325 strung and smidge under butt cap. With OG they are both fully strung at 330g. I played Tour Hex for a while then recently tried restring slap and it’s on both my frames. I am using a 50lb tension.
 
I may have missed that, but what's the beam width of the CT97? It looks like a Six.One 97, amazing! It's on my list for 2026...
 
Back
Top