I've only read the first page of this thread because it was starting to get too dorky, but the testing methodology seems inadequate to me. Firstly, it seems nobody has agreed on where to put the fulcrum point, making real world comparisons impossible. There's no rigor in the set-up for measuring - Sorry fellas, blocks of wood and cardboard boxes don't cut it. And also, I was thinking.....why not use two scales - one at each end - and then you'd only have to make sure the shaft was level and then anyone could measure and compare results? Kinda like how they do with measuring weight balace on cars and bikes. Questions? Criticisms?
Interesting. After deciding to skip three quarters you are surprised you missed out on some details The fulcrum point is set at the very end of the racket. If I do that on a cardboard box or a diamond doesn't influence the results, so I'm gonna go with something I have nearby If you can weigh the whole racket and then measure the head weight as described, you can easily tell how much of the weight rests on the bearing, so there's no need for a 2nd scale. As it is, anyone can measure and compare results. The 2nd weight would not serve any purpose, so there's no need to take it. Going over the first page again, vajrasattva's set-up is not useful - as he has shown, a little added weight on the buttcap will change the results drastically, but won't under any circumstances make the racket quicker. The way visor and I set it up is still in no way perfect to predict the racket's behavior, but at least it's foolproof against that sort of error. I get how that might be confusing - then again, with 5 pages, surely you can read (or at least skim over) the whole thread Of course the real-world comparison between each other would be to take these kind of measurements in identical condition, unstrung and if possible with factory grip. I'd surely prefer unstrung without any grip whatsoever as I have only 1 racket that actually still has the factory grip.
I read the whole thing - I was just waiting see how condescending you'd be You're not measuring the racket 'from the end', you're just sticking a box under it and calling it 'good enough'. And it is, but that's all it is. I still think dual scales would give more detail. The fascinating thing for me in all this, is the comparison between the degree of science used by badminton companies, and that demanded of the enthusiast community. The two are very disparate. We have a universally accepted, yet ridiculous, "U" and "G" scale, but no scale that actually has any real relevance! Heck, Yonex doesn't even publish the BP's of their rackets. The interesting question here is, is there a demand for a 'Swing Weight' universal standard which the newer rackets companies could hopefully adopt, or is this just a hobby for those who like numbers?
Hi [MENTION=62821]Maklike Tier[/MENTION] Yes, having 2 scales is useful, but not really necessary if the racket is resting on the very end tip. Even if you're not at the very end, it's only off by 0.1g at most. Re head wt significance, some people can't tell the difference, but I can tell 0.3g difference.
And for the purpose and conskstency of measuring, resting at the very tip is the best and most consistent
Calling the discussion 'dorky' is a good way of provoking a negative reaction, yeah Well I'm not just sticking a box under it - I put the very end of the racket on a pointy edge. That way, I get very consistent results - at the most varying by .1g, but that might well just be the scale (as it shows only .1g - a 82.79g racket might at times be shown as 82.7, sometimes as 82.8). Dual scales wouldn't give more detail. Why should they? Firstly, you couldn't rest the racket on the end - for the most reliable measurement, it has to be in the middle of the scale, where it would lie flat instead of resting on an edge. Secondly, when using mine and visor's setup, you can easily get the value the 2nd scale would show (full weight minus the measured head weight). The only improvement would be speed of measurement (putting the racket on the scales and typing in 2 numbers would be faster than setting up twice), and I don't really think anyone here has to measure 100 rackets I agree that this kind of measurement would not be acceptable were any bigger racket producer to implement it as it either takes too long when you want usable results or is just inaccurate if you rush the setup. Otoh they could just come up with a kind of mount for the bottom end where you can put it in easily while still resting it on the very edge. Btw, visor, r u using your phone to answer? You have some weirdly formatted posts.
[MENTION=62821]Maklike Tier[/MENTION] Yep, if you carefully read my first post and looked at the photos, you would see that resting the handle at the very tip is the method that provides the most reproduceable results. Us scientists don't like unreproduceable methods as much as you designer types don't like paint colours being drawn outside the lines. [MENTION=64484]j4ckie[/MENTION] Yeeesh, since kwun upgraded the forum software 2 weeks ago, it has not played nicely with my S3 phone and autocorrection software. To put it mildly, it has been a pain in the behind.
hi, the way i read this you want us for beta-testing. i would like to help out, but missed the post that tells me what to do ...
ok, the weight of my rackets (like shown in your first post of all this) and the overall weight in full gramm (as i am not that sensitive) Racket1 + string + taped handle + grip + overgrip --- 100 and 42 Racket2 + string + taped handle + grip -------------- 96 and 41 Racket3 + string + grip + overgrip ------------------ 96 and 42 Racket4 + taped handle + grip + overgrip ------------ 98 and 40 Racket5 + taped handle + overgrip + overgrip -------- 98 and 40 Racket6 + taped handle + grip + overgrip ------------ 100 and 41 i am not aware what this tells me, but it is fun! can you guess the racket names now or what?
Thanx arowana. But best is to have only bare racket, no strings no overgrip.Barring that, then only string on. With your data above there are too many different variations of tape, grip, overgrip confusing the wts. Anyways, the point of this whole thread is to let others know that once you know your preferred head wt(and stiffness) , then all you need is a scale and a ruler when you go to the store to select the racket that best matches your preference, instead of leaving it up to chance of variations from the factory.
racket 2 is without overgrip atm. can do ths again before restringing or when changing grips. what else do i need to do for getting the "swing weight"? just want to know about my swing weights, you know
Thanks for making it clear, i think this is a good idea you have here! I like stiff rackets and with that swing weight i can start shopping tomorrow! Now i need a balance point, right? Can you please point me to the post with the right formula to get the swing weight? Another question is, do you have any kind of database? for example i like AT700 and would like to see if Satelite Blast or the new Adipower thing is in the same category ... that would be nice
Getting some traction here from other users and members! Great! The more users and data, the better and more consistent the results. Plus, the database can be more complete only if other members join in and contribute Thanks to [MENTION=57143]visor[/MENTION] for this initiative!
arowana: The equation describing the relationship is on page 2 or 3. Database? Here's where I was hoping people would contribute their data. But preferably bare racket, or with strings only so that there is less chance for errors or variability. AT700, I'd say at least 40-41g bare head wt. Adipower, not out yet, hoping @kwun can measure it.
AT700 calculated bp 311mm, actual 300mm. Calculated head weight 39.5gr., actual 41gr. Total weight 89gr. (no strings) But with original plastic wrapper on grip and muscle power grommets which for bp purposes probably cancel each other out but add at least 1gr. overall but no more than 2 I imagine (don't think the wrapper will register on the scale either). Perhaps of some interest : 4U AT700. no strings & no handle: 48gr. total weight
Thanx [MENTION=1495]demolidor[/MENTION] You really should get a new scale accurate to 0.01g to provide at least 3 signficant digits in the calculations. They're on ebay for only about $20 delivered. So only shaft and frame ? How much did the handle weigh? I suppose you're not about to hack off the shaft from the frame, so that we can weigh just only the frame?
Good, i start to get it. What do you mean by bare racket? The racket comes with replacement grip usually, do you want just the wooden handle without any grip? Or with grip and just without overgrip added? racket 1 and 2 are at700, so had 41 and 42 with my setup. next time i post here it will be more usefull, hopefully
Yes, I saw a few a while ago that Mark A mentioned but haven't gotten around to it . As for the handle weight, no idea, removed it (well what was left of it ) ages ago but the string snapped on it's own the other day I noticed so thought I'd weigh it "bare" ... It was a G4 in any case ... Standard grip and no strings
arowana Yes, bare or dry wt means no string, no overgrip, no plastic wrapping, only original factory grip on
hi visor, its going to open that can of worms again! because from your equation : (head wt / total wt) = (bp / 675mm) head wt = (bp/675mm)*totalweight by this relation, the headweight is directly affected by the BP in a proportion and thus by altering the BP of the racquet, one can get a different headweight in theory...
