Category Archives: Evaluation
Head Gravity 2023 Team , MP, and Pro Comparison
Moving between several reviews to compare racquets is tiresome, for sure, and inefficient!
We don’t want you to be tired or inefficient, so we include our Three Racquet Comp Data for the new Head Gravity 2023 models!
A word about “dwell time”. To get a more accurate view of the racquet we have elimiiated the player from the “slow” dwell time. This allows us to see excatly what happens when the ball is “dropped” on the string bed without any external force (your swing)!
Numbers, numbers, numbers! What do they mean?
With each of our racquet reviews a long list of numbers is included. It has been a few years since we explained what these numbers mean so here it is;
| Manufacturer | Head |
|---|---|
| Racquet Model | Head Radical MP 2023 |
| Reference Tension | 55 (what you tell the stingers to set the stringing machine). This should be replaced by String Bed Stiffness (SBS) |
| String | MonoGut ZX Pro |
| Machine Used | True Tension Professional |
| String Bed Stiffness - RDC | 53.0 Units (Babolat RDC) |
| String Bed Stiffness -FlexFour | 64.9 pounds (Flex Four) |
| String Bed Stiffness - SBS | 51.8 pounds (Racquet Quest string bed stiffness SBS Master) |
| String Bed Stiffness - ERT | 35 Kg/Cm (previously Beer's ERT1000) |
| Racquet Flex, Babolat RDC | 65 - After stringing (unstrung racquets will be slightly stiffer. Loaded from the tip) |
| Racquet Flex, FlexFour | 44.5 (Loaded from the COP) |
| Racquet - In Plane Stiffness | 379.7 lbs/Inch (stiffness across the 3 ad 9 o'clock positions of the racquet head) |
| Weight, Grams | 326 |
| Weight, Ounces | 11.50 |
| Balance, mm | 333 |
| Balance, Inch | 13.11 |
| Length, Cm | 68.57 |
| Length, Inch | 27.00 |
| Head Width | 9.63 |
| Head Length | 12.79 |
| Head Area, cm2 | 623.0 |
| Head Area, Sq. Inch | 96.7 |
| Beam Height @ Grip, mm | 21.0 (how thick the racquet is looking at the side) |
| Beam Height @ Mid, mm | 22.5 (how thick the racquet is looking at the side) |
| Beam Height @ Tip | 20.5 (how thick the racquet is looking at the side) |
| Beam Width @ Grip, mm | 12.5 (how thick the racquet is looking at the front or face view) |
| Beam Width @ Throat, mm | 11.5 (how thick the racquet is looking at the front or face view) |
| Beam Width @ Mid, mm | 12.8 (how thick the racquet is looking at the front or face view) |
| Beam Width @ Tip, mm | 12.8 (how thick the racquet is looking at the front or face view) |
| Number of Main Strings | 16 |
| Number of Cross Strings | 19 |
| Ratio Cross/Mains | .634 ( typically the natural ratio) |
| Main String Grid | 7.18 (the distance between the two outer most main strings) |
| Cross String Grid | 9.44 (the distance between the two outer most cross strings) |
| Density (% of head filled with string) | 69.6% (how much of the head area is filled with string) |
| Average Cross String Space | .494 (how far apart the strings are). The farther apart the quicker the wear. |
| Average Main String Space | .449 (how far apart the strings are). The farther apart the quicker the wear. |
| Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT | 35 (string bed stiffness in kilos per centimeter) |
| Dynamic Tension, Lbs/in | 195.76 (DT converted to pounds per inch) |
| First Moment, Nm | .841 (sometimes called pickup weight) |
| Polar Moment | 347 (torsional weight) |
| Torsional Stability | 16 ( resistance to twisting on off center hits) |
| Swing Weight, Kg/cm2 | 331 (the dynamic weight and the most significant property) |
| Swing Weight, Ounces | 11.68 |
| Swing Weight Calculated | 361.5 (calculated from the butt end to the tip) |
| Power, RDC | 52 (property calculated by Babolat RDC) |
| Control, RDC | 49 (property calculated by Babolat RDC) |
| Manueverability, RDC | 66 (property calculated by Babolat RDC) |
| Power, Calculated | 2101.4 (calculation based on several racquet properties) |
| Head Points | 3.15 ( a point is generally consider to be .125 inches/3.18mm) |
| Head Weight, % | 48.5% |
| Center of Percussion | 21.1 (highest COR) |
| Dwell Time, ms | 8.74 (length of time the ball is in contact with the string without a swing) |
| Efective Stiffness - lbs | 29.2 ( the calculated combined stiffness of the racquet and sting bed) |
| K, Lb/In | 169.87 (string bed stiffness in pounds/inch) |
| Recoil Weight | 156.44 (resistance to twisting about the grip) |
| Twist Weight | 226.48 (resistance to twisting about the neutral axis) |
| End Weight | 126.0 (two scale system to calculate CG) |
| Tip Weight | 197.7 (two scale system to calculate CG) |
| 9 O'Clock | 105.1 (three scale system to assure symmetry) |
| 3 O'Clock | 104.7(three scale system to assure symmetry) |
| Butt Cap | 115.6 (three scale system to assure symmetry) |
| COF, Main | .416 (the stickiness of the string bed sliding the ball with the main strings) |
| COF, Cross | .388(the stickiness of the string bed sliding the ball with the cross strings) |
The Same but Different!
How can two totally different things be the same in so many ways?
Here is a good example:
Wilson Sensation 16, natural v Wilson Sensation Plus 17, black.
Same but Different!
Looking a the stress/strain portion of the graph, it is nearly impossible to see any difference!
Both strings exhibit good elongation and elasticity.
Finally, when it comes to UTS the Sensation is a little stronger, as you would expect, for a 1.33mm string.
The Sensation Plus measures 1.26mm! So, the UTS is pretty good!
If you have been using Sensation but would like a black, thin string from Wilson simply use Sensation Plus!
Comparing Racquets (for real)
The Racquet Quest podcast recently aired a session on comparing racquets, so, to be fair I wanted to post that same data here. If you listened to the podcast this will sound familiar.
These racquets are not random. These racquets are owned by a client that is seeking an upgrade without going overboard!
Here is what Jess has to say:
“Hey, John –
Jess definitely likes the VS more than the Rafa. She said that she gets more easy power and stability with the Rafa but she’s able to accelerate faster on the forehand side with the VS.
She also felt like the VS was more maneuverable at the net. She said that if she’s in control of the point that she can really whip her forehand for a winner. She definitely noticed the lighter swing weight and liked that.
However, she also said that sometimes it feels a little unstable – like the VS is getting pushed around a bit. For example, she noticed that the head of the racquet can twist sometimes if her opponent nails a hard ball at her.
She has more control for sure with the VS – felt like she blasted more balls out with the Rafa. Overall, she likes the racquet- just would like a little more stability.”
By the way, Jess had not seen the racquet data prior to her hitting. So, there you have it. I believe you can see how much numbers help us find the right performance characteristics for a racquet.
Let’s Compare
We publish many racquet reviews that include comprehensive data to be used to speed up the selection process for players looking to review racquets and possibly demo them.
We thought it might be fun to do a little comparison of racquets in a simple format and we are starting with this one!
When considering racquets there is one “weight” that outweighs them all and that is swing weight! Swing weight is also described as inertia which is, in our discussions, the term used to describe the momentum of a tennis racquet. Once it gets going it does not want to stop which equals power (sort of F=MA)
We will be adding groups of three (3) racquets whenever possible and when new racquets are introduced.
Racquet Quest, LLC
