My tc97’s are 330g strung, no lead tape. I’ve experimented with extra weight, but it’s detrimental to the playability for me. Frame is so stable & with the narrow beam it’s best to keep quick & agile through the air. Crushes the ball with good timing & RHS.
The Official Angell Users Club
- Thread starter The_Racketeer
- Start date
My tc97’s are 330g strung, no lead tape. I’ve experimented with extra weight, but it’s detrimental to the playability for me. Frame is so stable & with the narrow beam it’s best to keep quick & agile through the air. Crushes the ball with good timing & RHS.
rider4ever
Rookie
Absolutely! Yeah I played with 310g for as long as I played TC97 as my shoulder starts feeling it in longer grinding matches if I usually go any higher in static weight. I can play with even my 350+ grams heavier older racquets (Prestiges, older Dunlops etc) too, but I'm not going to be winning any matches or points anytime soon with them.
I had the exact issue as you right till the end, to be honest. With the TC97 my footwork had to be on point to generate power from everywhere. I'm predominantly a baseliner hustling all over and out of position a lot (lol). If I play aggressive and end points faster it was great but if I started engaging in rallies and playing a bit defensive - which just comes naturally to me - I would start losing the edge in a rally. I'm pretty sure a better route would have been to keep playing with it and try to make it work but I moved on to greener pastures, just like a typical racquet-o-holic.
I play with 3/8 usually. Even smaller with APD since I feel their grips run a bit bigger. With TC 97, I felt their 3/8 ran a tad small for me so I went with 1/2. I do have multiple 3/8 Angell pallets though in case I thought I might wanted to switch back but never needed them. Yes, still have a couple of them from a matched batch I bought from Angell. I will let you know if I decide to let them go
That's perfect. My grip size is 4 1/2 as well. My natural game style is very similar to yours although I am forcing myself to learn to play more aggressive and approach the net when the opportunity arises. Surprisingly, I have not had issues with TC97 when on the defense, may be that is because defense is the best part of my game. Again, I have only played tennis for 2 years so far, so my thought process is that a demanding frame will force me to become a better player(I am at NTRP 4.5 currently and lot of my progress from 3.5 to 4.5 has been through my defense and forehand). I am at a position where I don't care if I am losing a bunch of matches (although everything changes when in match mode). Also I have been lucky enough to fall back on my defense when things aren't working and still salvage some games/sets or even matches. My forehand is my best shot and I can get some heavy topspin going, so in the back of my mind I am always thinking if a 16x19 pattern is better for me. But when my footwork is good, topspin has never been a problem with the 18x20. I should just suck it up and continue playing with my TC97(may be at a reduced weight) because I know that its clearly helping my game improve.
I am definitely gonna try a lighter setup especially after both of your feedback. I got some double sided carpet tape from Lowes and it looks and works very similar to the tape that comes with the racquet. I have customized one of my TC97 16x19 330gms 27.5 racquet to change the grip size from 3 to 4 and also removed some weight (1 block) before putting it all back together. I didn't use any staples for the pallets but had to use some silicone to keep the buttcap in place. Hopefully the buttcap will come off when I want to experiment more with the racquet.
I am skeptic about customizing my current TC97 18x20 frames cos both the frames are perfectly matched. Well almost (329.9g/304/296SW and 330.3g/305/296SW). So I am worried I might screw up the matching if I start tinkering. I know I can always take pictures and put everything back in place to get my original specs but the Angellholic in me wants to purchase a lighter setup
Pneumated1
Hall of Fame
Thanks for this information. I've replaced many Volkl pallets in the past, but their double sided tape made it nearly impossible to salvage the pallet, which is my main concern, considering I don't have replacements. I have plenty of double sided tape, and I'm especially encouraged to hear that the pallets come off easily.
I figured the weight was all towards the butt cap; thanks for confirming. And yes, I'm aware of the upper chamber. It's where I was thinking of moving a little of the weight that was in the bottom, but I just may remove all of it and replace with a heavier leather, like Volkl, Babolat, or TW. The TC95 16x19s that I owned previously were 310g/9pts. hl with leather, and I think it was @saleem who found no weights on the handle of a TC95 with those specs + leather. I wouldn't mind getting mine to around 305-310g and a little less hl as a platform, so this could get interesting.
itsstephenyo
Semi-Pro
On one of my old Vantages, I secured the buttcap with some silicone before too, and it actually broke the pallet while trying to remove the buttcap. Hopefully yours comes off easier than mine did!
rider4ever
Rookie
Haha, Just tried to remove the buttcap as an experiment before I tinker with my other racquets. No luck!! I am going to try to dissolve the silicone with some WD40 and if that doesn't work, I will get some Goo gone in there. What staples are you using for your racquet? I have been happy with carpet tape to hold the pallets. Need to figure out the right way to keep the butt cap in place. Silicone works really well to hold the buttcap but lets see how easily I can remove it after trying to dissolve it
itsstephenyo
Semi-Pro
DEWALT 18-Gauge Heavy-Duty Staple/Nail Gun DWHTTR350 - The Home Depot
The DEWALT Heavy-Duty Staple/Nail Gun can use a wide variety of staples and 18-Gauge steel brad nails. This gun features bottom loading and a steel magazine for quick and easy reloading. The gun's steel
www.homedepot.com
I used this staple gun and I believe the staples that they show in the combo pack are the ones I purchased as well. They're not as long as the ones the racquet came with, but I find that they hold fine. The combination of leftover carpet tape and one staple on the pallet holds it fine.
On the buttcap, I use one on each of the flat sides, perpendicular to the frame. Then I also use one on each of the shorter sides, 45 degrees from the buttcap onto the pallet. So the ones on the pallet are kinda halfway on the buttcap, halfway off. The staples on the flat side are 100% on the buttcap, nothing on the pallet.
rider4ever
Rookie
WD40 worked like a charm to dissolve the silicone and the buttcap came off easily with a flat head screw driver in a few minutes of letting the WD40 soak. I decided to experiment first with the TC97 16x19 27.25. After removing some weight and putting all the remaining weight at the bottom most slots, I got the racquet to exactly 310gms and 315mm balance unstrung. An overgrip strings and dampener would add 20 - 25 gms may be. I took some pictures along the way to keep a record for myself and to share with you guys.
Original specs: 330.2g/310/307SW
Current specs : 310 g/315/???SW
Thanks to @topspn for the carpet tape idea. works flawlessly and everyone else here with all the info.
Original specs: 330.2g/310/307SW
Current specs : 310 g/315/???SW
Thanks to @topspn for the carpet tape idea. works flawlessly and everyone else here with all the info.
Last edited:
rider4ever
Rookie
While I am open to trying out the 27.25 length, I was wondering if anyone has cut the bottom of their custom racquets to reduce the length? I compared regular length and extended length and they both match exactly except for the extra 0.25 inches at the bottom. So may be I can cut it off if I want a 27 inch length?
Pneumated1
Hall of Fame
Do you happen to know how much each of those squares weigh? I opened the hairpin up on one of my frames, and I have three lead weights: two squares (like yours) in the upper two slots near the butt cap, and a flat weight near the top of the grip with the cylinder and a corner of the weight cut off. I don't own a digital scale. Are they each 10g and the flatter one 5g?
rider4ever
Rookie
The ones with the cylindrical slot under the square is 15 gms and the flat ones are 10 gms
Pneumated1
Hall of Fame
Thanks! Did you have any of the flat ones in your frame? Actually, I just looked at your pics again and noticed that the one square is on a different side, so I assume you did.
Last edited:
Pneumated1
Hall of Fame
Most likely, depending upon his specs.
rider4ever
Rookie
Yup, you will see the same exact squares. The handle on the 27 inch frames ends right at the bottom slot. The extended frames just have longer handles beyond the last weight slots
rider4ever
Rookie
Yup. All my frames are 330gms, so it had flat weights on both the topmost slots and 3 additional weights in the bottom slots
HeadClassic
Rookie
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 edited:
landcookie
Semi-Pro
Hey guys, TC 100 user here. 27.5 inches; 335 swingweight.
Have recently been thinking of adding lead to beef up the racquet a little, it's starting to swing a little light.
Any recommendations as to whether a 3/9 or 12 o'clock would suit the racquet better? It feels so nicely balanced at the moment and I don't want to ruin that.
Traditionally a fan of 12 o'clock but wouldn't mind more stability on volleys/ returns either.
Have recently been thinking of adding lead to beef up the racquet a little, it's starting to swing a little light.
Any recommendations as to whether a 3/9 or 12 o'clock would suit the racquet better? It feels so nicely balanced at the moment and I don't want to ruin that.
Traditionally a fan of 12 o'clock but wouldn't mind more stability on volleys/ returns either.
topspn
Legend
I’d advice you resist the urge to mess with what has been working for you
3&9 will effect maneuverability more on both volleys and returns especially you’re already playing with an extended length. A smidge to 12 if you must but if truly no glaring defect then resist the urge to changelandcookie
Semi-Pro
The swing weight and balance has been working well, yes. Recently though my RHS has gone up and I feel like I'm almost swinging too fast and losing a bit of control - hence the desire to add a little weight to stabilise and add more 'plow' (whatever that is), especially when taking the ball on the rise.I’d advice you resist the urge to mess with what has been working for you
topspn
Legend
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.
Last edited:
landcookie
Semi-Pro
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
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
J
joohan
Guest
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.
landcookie
Semi-Pro
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'll give that a go, thanks for the suggestion!
FranzS
Semi-Pro
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
Hall of Fame
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
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
Hall of Fame
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
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
Hall of Fame
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.
landcookie
Semi-Pro
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
Semi-Pro
Thanks FranzS, do you string for yourself and was that string job done on a electric pull machine?
FranzS
Semi-Pro
No, I get it strung by the tennis coach of the tennis club, don't know what machine he's got
tennis347
Hall of Fame
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.
landcookie
Semi-Pro
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:
Is your TC100 extended at all or is it standard length?
edelp
Semi-Pro
standard
landcookie
Semi-Pro
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.
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.
I was worried about that, given with Paul's condition right now.
Gee
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.
Pneumated1
Hall of Fame
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 line
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: