Wilson Clash TourJohn Gugel
If you read the Wilson Clash 100 review there is not much to say about the Wilson Clash Tour in terms of graphics because it is exactly the same!
So we can go directly to the differences between the two models. The Tour does have the “word” tour on the racquet but little else in terms of racquet specifications and that is by design.
Typically a racquet will have some little tiny descriptions such as weight, head size, string pattern, etc. but these racquets have none of that. Wilson, with this racquet, wants the player to make all the decisions based on “feel, control, and power” and not be influenced by descriptors. As you might expect this model is a little heavier overall and in swing weight thus the “Tour” designation.
Our Wilson Clash and Clash Tour demo racquets are strung with Luxilon Natural Gut as the main string and Wilson Sensation Plus as the cross string. This combination should maximize the performance of the racquet.
Before we get to the specifications of the Tour model there is another slightly unusual design feature. The grip pallet is not molded onto the frame but is formed by the carbon fiber. This manufacturing technique does not allow for easy (seriously not easy) grip size and shape customization so be certain you get the grip size you need.
Take a look at the following data to see if you think this new concept is worth a try. Based on the feedback we are getting I would say yes, definitely!
|Racquet Model||Wilson Clash Tour|
|Reference Tension||58 (26.3 kg)
|String||Luxilon Natural Gut 125
Wilson Sensation Plus 130
|Machine Strung on||True Tension Professional|
|Racquet Flex, RDC||47 - After Stringing|
|Racquet Flex, FlexFour||25|
|Racquet - In Plane Stiffness||317 lb/In|
|Head Area, Sq. In||100.3|
|Number of Main Strings||16|
|Number of Cross Strings||19|
|Main String Grid||7.68|
|Cross String Grid||10.44|
|Average Cross String Spacing||0.549|
|Average Main String Spacing||0.480|
|Dynamic Tension, Kp, ERT||35|
|Dynamic Tension, Lbs/In||195.76|
|First Moment, Nm||0.822|
|Torsional Stability||15 (the difference between polar moment and swing weight) the higher the better.|
|Swing Weight, Kg/cm^||329|
|Swing Weight, Ounce||11.6|
|Swing Weight Calculated||341.8|
|Head Weight %||46.4%|
|Center of Percussion||21.7|
|Dwell Time, Ms||8.91|
|K, lb/in||163.46 (weight required to deflect string bed 1 inch.|
|End Weight - Ereca System||141.6|
|Tip Weight - Ereca System||195.0|
I have seen that 3 swingweight because 3 different swingweight? What is the difference between them? Is the calculated swingweight the one the USRSA teaches?
Leandro, I am not sure where you saw these swing weights but the difference is not surprising. We check every new racquet as it comes in and I have found that the swing weight is within normal manufacturing tolerance however the string used can make a difference in finished swing weights.
I doubt the USRSA is teaching the MDD method, which is a valid calculation from the butt cap, and is using a swing weight device.
Swing Weight, Kg/cm^ 329
Swing Weight, Ounce 11.6
Swing Weight Calculated 341.8
These are the three swingweight you posted in the article.
The USRSA teaches a technique where you hang the racquet by the string and through a calculation you determine the swingweight. Although I strictly follow the instructions of the USRSA I get quite a number above (or below) the swingweight that USRSA presents in its database on racquet information.
So I asked you about the calculated swingweight presented in the article.
Leandro, the calculated swing weight is typcally: mass*distance*distance,
Distance is the distance from the butt cap to the CG. So if the weight is 320 grams and the distance is 32.0 the calculated swing weight would be 327.7