Monthly Archives: June 2023
So, here IS the difference!
This table will clarify the differences between the Pro Staff Six-One and Pro Staff X models. While numbers are important, it is equally important to actually hit with the racquet(s) setup as you will be using them.
Pro Staff Six-One versus Pro Staff X
Click here to see the Wilson Pro Staff X
Click here to see the Wilson Pro Staff Six-One data
Pro Stock Limited Reserve
This is a high-performance string that has gone unnoticed for a while and I don’t know why!
Pro Stock Limited Reserve is a string we purchased because it has interesting characteristics that appealed to us however the client base is small. Recently, however, with the number of players that are moving away from a polyester string, this has become a popular alternative!
Pro Stock Limited Reserve
In a word, this plot looks very much like that of natural gut, and whatever you think natural gut is still considered the best performance material for racquet string!
What are we seeing here:
- Linearity, the more linear the string the more consistent (predictable)
- Elongation, at 33.1 mm at 50 pounds
- Elasticity, 71.9 %
- This is the area where the advantages of pre-stretching will be seen.
- The curve will become essentially one line meaning the string returns to a nominal length after stretching.
- Ultimate Tensile Strength, 163.6 pounds to fail (high), @107.2 mm deflection
- Knot strength, @102.4 pounds, and surpasses natural gut in this property.
What we can’t see in the plot is the construction of this multifilament string. Each strand is a thin, flat ribbon of polyolefin material. The ribbons are much like the natural gut.
The plot below is a comparison of natural gut string and is included as a visual to compare to Pro Stock Limited Reserve and show how much natural gut fibers are the same for any string manufacturer. Of course, manufacturing techniques, bonding agents, and coatings make the difference between a good gut and a not-so-good gut!
If you compare the Pro Stock Limited Reserve to natural gut you can quickly see why it may be a good string to try!
So, what IS the difference?
Wilson has presented us with a couple of choices when it comes to choosing a 100-square-inch racquet!
Later we will have a comparison table showing the pertinent property data, but now we can see the graphics difference between the two racquets:
Pro Staff Six-One 100
ProStaff X v14 100
The Pro Staff Six-One 100 has a very shiny rust color. The Pro Staff X is the matt finish used on most of the v14 Pro Staff models.
In addition to the “shining,” the Six-One has the “normal” elliptical cross-section, while the “X” has a “box beam” geometry which is a little more narrow.
The string spacing on the “X” is slightly more open, which may contribute to the power calculation being a bit higher.
The flex of the “X” is a little greater in the shaft area.
That is enough talk!”
Let’s look at the numbers:
| Manufacturer | Wilson |
|---|---|
| Racquet Model | Wilson Pro Staff X 100, v14 |
| Reference Tension | 55 |
| String | PEEK 7710 |
| Machine Used | True Tension Professional |
| String Bed Stiffness - RDC | 50.0 Units |
| String Bed Stiffness -FlexFour | 61.0 Pounds |
| String Bed Stiffness - SBS | 47.0 pounds |
| String Bed Stiffness - ERT | 38 Kg/Cm |
| Racquet Flex, RDC | 64 - After Stringing |
| Racquet Flex, FlexFour | 47.0 |
| Racquet - In Plane Stiffness | 467.9 Lbs/Inch |
| Weight, Grams | 340 |
| Weight, Ounces | 11.99 |
| Balance, mm | 322 |
| Balance, Inch | 12.68 |
| Length, Cm | 68.6 |
| Length, Inch | 27.03 |
| Head Width | 9.73 |
| Head Length | 13.06 |
| Head Area, cm2 | 643.4 |
| Head Area, Sq. Inch | 99.7 |
| Beam Height @ Grip, mm | 22.3 |
| Beam Height @ Mid, mm | 22.0 |
| Beam Height @ Tip | 22.0 |
| Beam Width @ Grip, mm | 11.00 |
| Beam Width @ Throat, mm | 11.00 |
| Beam Width @ Mid, mm | 12.00(PWS) |
| Beam Width @ Tip, mm | 12.00(including bumper) |
| Number of Main Strings | 16 |
| Number of Cross Strings | 19 |
| Ratio Cross/Mains | .627 |
| Main String Grid | 7.50 |
| Cross String Grid | 10.81 |
| Density (% of head filled with string) | 81.2% |
| Average Cross String Space | .569 |
| Average Main String Space | .469 |
| Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT MasterTensometer | 38 |
| Dynamic Tension, Lbs/in | 212.54 |
| First Moment, Nm | .841 |
| Polar Moment | 341.0 |
| Torsional Stability | 17 |
| Swing Weight, Kg/cm2 | 324 |
| Swing Weight, Ounces | 11.43 |
| Swing Weight Calculated | 352.2 (full-length) |
| Power, RDC | 53.0 |
| Control, RDC | 47.0 |
| Manueverability, RDC | 71.0 |
| Power, Calculated | 2088.8 |
| Head Points | 6.61 |
| Head Weight, % | 46.9% |
| Center of Percussion | 20.8 |
| Dwell Time, ms | 9.00 |
| Efective Stiffness - lbs | 28.1 |
| K, Lb/In | 160.26 |
| Recoil Weight | 158.85 |
| Twist Weight | 240.78 |
| End Weight | 141.3 |
| Tip Weight | 198.9 |
| 9 O'Clock | 102.5 |
| 3 O'Clock | 101.9 |
| Butt Cap | 135.6 |
| COF, Main | .529 |
| COF, Cross | .499 |
Click here to see the Comparison Table
Racquet Quest, LLC
