MSV Co-Focus 17L (1.18) vs Volkl Cyclone 19 (1.10)

Measured, side by side

Bars are percentile against all 788 strings, and the marked side is the one that measures better — which is not always the one you want. A firmer bed is worse for your elbow and better for your control, and no measurement knows which of those you came for.

Which one wins, by problem

Each string's standing on the site's rankings, out of every measured string in the database. This is where a comparison stops being arithmetic and starts being a decision.

• More spin and shape

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)60th

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)18th

• Easier on my arm

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)337th

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)327th

• More control, less launch

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)415th

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)430th

• More power and depth

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)323rd

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)320th

• Plays the same for longer

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)390th

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)420th

• Lasts longer before it breaks

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)1st

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)272nd

• Best feel and touch

  Co-Focus 17L (1.18)321st

  Cyclone 19 (1.10)319th

Swapping between them: what tension?

Bed stiffness is published at one reference tension, so the only honest conversion is to scale it. These are starting points from 52 lb, not prescriptions — the calculator takes your own tension.

Hybrid: what if you used both?

Estimated, not measured. No hybrid combination has been tested as a bed — these figures are the two strings' own lab measurements weighted by how much of the bed each one actually is. Treat them as a guide to which way a pairing moves, never as lab data.

Open this in the hybrid builder

Which goes dead first?

Estimated from tension loss, which is the only thing the database measures about ageing. This is when the bed stops playing the way you strung it — not when the string breaks.

Both strings in full

Add a third string Co-Focus 17L (1.18) in full Cyclone 19 (1.10) in full