Category Archives: Technology
Yonex Muse 100
We worked on the Yonex MUSE 100 today. Yonex presents the MUSE family as a way to make rallies more comfortable and enjoyable, and the MUSE 100 is one of the few Yonex racquets made in China. Its familiar Yonex isometric head sits on a frame that, at first glance, reminds me of the old “game improvement” category. The Muse 100 looks bulkier than it is, maybe due to the color.
That Game Improvement label deserves a closer look. Many earlier game improvement racquets were light and stiff, with enough weight toward the head to help the racquet move through the ball. They were often marketed to beginners, though that didn’t always make them a good choice for a beginner. The Muse 100 is different.
The MUSE 100 raises a different question: how easy is it to swing in play? Our measurements will help answer that. The HEAD Squared provides a useful comparison. The Head Squared swingweight is about 290, giving us considerable room to add weight for a player who wants more stability. The MUSE 100 we measured is higher, offering less room for that particular modification. That doesn’t make either racquet better for everyone; it just makes the starting point especially important.
The Muse 100, and we’ll show this in the numbers later on, as we will have some pictures up as well, is a heavier racket. I think you can look at the numbers in a minute, but the swing weight is right around 310 or something. For example, the Head Squared is a 290 beginning swing weight. We think it needs to be a little higher, to be honest, but the point is that the Head Squared lends itself to modification for a higher-level player, I believe, more than the Yonex Muse 100.
The Muse 100 is very flexible, as you will see by the numbers, which is good for increased string bed stiffness while keeping effective stiffness down.
Look at the numbers, then look at the racquet. There is also a Muse 98!
| Manufacturer | Yonex |
|---|---|
| Racquet Model | Muse 100 |
| Reference Tension | 54 |
| String | MonoGut ZX Pro |
| Machine Used | True Tension Pro |
| String Bed Stiffness - RDC/Units | 52 |
| String Bed Stiffness -FlexFour/Pounds | 60.0 |
| String Bed Stiffness - SBS/Pounds | 29.9 |
| String Bed Stiffness - ERT/Kg/cm | 35 |
| Racquet Flex, RDC/Units | 54 |
| Racquet Flex, FlexFour/Lbs | 29.9 |
| Racquet - In Plane Stiffness/Lbs/Inch | 409.6 |
| Weight, Grams | 321 |
| Weight, Ounces | 11.32 |
| Balance, mm | 325 |
| Balance, Inch | 12.80 |
| Length, Cm | 68.6 |
| Length, Inch | 27.008 |
| Head Width | 9.68 |
| Head Length | 12.63 |
| Head Area, cm2 | 619.2 |
| Head Area, Sq. Inch | 96 |
| Beam Height @ Grip, mm | 23 |
| Beam Height @ Mid, mm | 25.0 |
| Beam Height @ Tip | 25.2 |
| Beam Width @ Grip, mm | 16.7 |
| Beam Width @ Throat, mm | 14.7 |
| Beam Width @ Mid, mm | 12.4 |
| Beam Width @ Tip, mm | 14.2 w/Bumper Guard |
| Number of Main Strings | 16 |
| Number of Cross Strings | 18 |
| Ratio | .681 |
| Main String Grid Inch/mm | 7.25/184.5 |
| Cross String Grid Inch/mm | 9.13/231.9 |
| Density (% of head filled w/ string) | .699 |
| Average Cross String Space | .514 |
| Average Main String Space | .453 |
| Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT | 35 |
| Dynamic Tension, Lbs/in | 195.7 |
| First Moment, Nm | .804 |
| Polar Moment | 324 |
| Torsional Stability | 14 |
| Swing Weight, Kg/cm2 | 310 |
| Swing Weight, Ounces | 10.93 |
| Swing Weight Calculated | 339.1 |
| Power, RDC | 40 |
| Control, RDC | 62 |
| Manueverability, RDC | 80 |
| Power, Calculated | 1622.8 |
| Head Points | 5.67 |
| Head Weight, % | 47.0% |
| Center of Percussion | 20.8 |
| Dwell Time, ms | 6.49 |
| Efective Stiffness - lbs | 19.96 (Flex Four Data) |
| K, Lb/In | 166.7 |
| Dynamic Stiffness/Lbs | 294.6 |
| Dynamic Force/Lbs | 126.7 |
| GDR Ratio: static/dynamic | 1.53 |
| Recoil Weight | 149.8 |
| Twist Weight | 225.1 |
| End Weight | 128.5 |
| Tip Weight | 192.2 |
| 9 O'Clock | 99.1 |
| 3 O'Clock | 97.0 |
| Butt End | 1249 |
| COF, Main | .356 |
| COF, Cross | .277 |
Time is Catching Up!
Most products that we are familiar with have a window of opportunity; we will call it that. The same holds true for tennis racquets as for cars, refrigerators, washing machines, et cetera.
What I want to talk about today is a racquet that was way ahead of its time, and now time is catching up. The racquet is the Head MXG series, specifically the 98 sq. in. player-style thin-beam racquet.
If you’re wondering why we are bringing it up now, after all these years, the answer is simple: the concept and execution are good and deserve recognition!
The important component, and the one that probably kept this racquet from being highly successful, is the Magnesium throat. That is the silver thing that connects the shaft to the head of the racquet. Most racquets have a similar component, typically carbon fiber, and normally not shiny.
However, the real performance component of this magnesium throat is the length of the ten (10) center main strings. These ten (10) strings are nearly the same length, adding consistency to every shot and a more uniform string bed stiffness.
We have a few of the MXG 98s if you have never seen one and are in the neighborhood; stop by. You can tell us what you think about it.
Strring Bed Stiffness + Effective Stiffness
Racquet Quest lives by numbers, and these are two (2) of the most important.
This short video will, we hope, help explain why they are important and how they can be used to enhance the player’s performance, and that is “consistency”!
Racquet Quest has several different stringing machine models, and we evaluate different setups on each. It is clear that a “reference” tension across different machines will produce different string-bed stiffnesses.
Take a look at the following video and let us know if you think SBS (string bed stiffness) needs to be the new “reference tension”.

Racquet Quest, LLC


