## User Tag List

1. Regular Member
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
shingaporu
Posts
467
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
10 Post(s)
Tagged
sure! try it tmr and provide your feed back

btw ever considered dividing the method into to types of grip, the short grip and the long grip?

i use the short grip more often as i play doubles almost all the time now, this is when the effect of a weight on the buttcap is the most significant, in affecting the agility of the swing/head

2. Originally Posted by visor
Hi @vajrasattva

Yes, if you add tape to the head, it will alter the bp and of course increase the head wt proportionally. Try this on one of your rackets and you'll see that the equation is true for both before and after adding tape!

Additionally, if you add a coin to the bottom of the handle (as in your method to reduce bp), then something important occurs in the ways we both measure "head wt" differently.

In your case of placing the fulcrum in the middle of the handle
, the coin will lift the head frame off the scale a little bit, thus making head wt lower.

In my case, my fulcrum is at the very tip of the handle
, and the coin happens to be there at the very tip too, so the coin has no effect at all on the head wt!

Please try this yourself if you can't visualize it. Then only can you see the significance of the difference in our methods of measuring head wt.

In my method, the elegant equation holds true whether you add weight to the top or bottom or any where in between. Whereas your method, I doubt it.

Here are some measurements I just took...

The calculated bp according to that equation is very very close (within 1-2mm) to the measured bp, thus confirming the validity of the equation for the method that I use to measure head wt
.

 Bare wt Bare head wt Playing wt Play head wt Play bp measured Play bp calculated RKEP XP70 84.2g 37.7g 93.1g 41.0g 297mm 296mm + 0.7g tape head (84.9g) (38.4g) 93.8g 41.7g 298mm 300mm + 0.7g tape head + 7.0 g coin bottom 100.8g 41.7g 280mm 279mm
Alright, for those who don't see this intuitively, I finally drew a diagram to show how and why head wt, total wt, and bp are related to each other in the equation:

(Head wt / Total wt) = (bp / Total length ie. 675mm)

Last edited by visor; 03-13-2013 at 01:54 AM.

3. Regular Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Location
Korea
Posts
221
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
4 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by visor
Hi @vajrasattva

Yes, if you add tape to the head, it will alter the bp and of course increase the head wt proportionally. Try this on one of your rackets and you'll see that the equation is true for both before and after adding tape!

Additionally, if you add a coin to the bottom of the handle (as in your method to reduce bp), then something important occurs in the ways we both measure "head wt" differently.

In your case of placing the fulcrum in the middle of the handle
, the coin will lift the head frame off the scale a little bit, thus making head wt lower.

In my case, my fulcrum is at the very tip of the handle
, and the coin happens to be there at the very tip too, so the coin has no effect at all on the head wt!

Please try this yourself if you can't visualize it. Then only can you see the significance of the difference in our methods of measuring head wt.

In my method, the elegant equation holds true whether you add weight to the top or bottom or any where in between. Whereas your method, I doubt it.

Here are some measurements I just took...

The calculated bp according to that equation is very very close (within 1-2mm) to the measured bp, thus confirming the validity of the equation for the method that I use to measure head wt
.

 Bare wt Bare head wt Playing wt Play head wt Play bp measured Play bp calculated RKEP XP70 84.2g 37.7g 93.1g 41.0g 297mm 296mm + 0.7g tape head (84.9g) (38.4g) 93.8g 41.7g 298mm 300mm + 0.7g tape head + 7.0 g coin bottom 100.8g 41.7g 280mm 279mm
True. What you are doing is actually "Summing Moments" and it does have solid background from Statics..

The moment of a (point load) is naturally affected by the distance from the point you where want to sum moments.

The only complication is that the racket weight is not evenly distributed along its length. Nonetheless, any distributed load can be replaced by an equal point load...

see if what your doing relates to the principles in the link: http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/e...ts/moments.htm

4. Originally Posted by bakulaw
True. What you are doing is actually "Summing Moments" and it does have solid background from Statics..

The moment of a (point load) is naturally affected by the distance from the point you where want to sum moments.

The only complication is that the racket weight is not evenly distributed along its length. Nonetheless, any distributed load can be replaced by an equal point load...

see if what your doing relates to the principles in the link: http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/e...ts/moments.htm

Actually, this equation/relationship was only accidentally noted when I first started this thread. But despited being aware that my approach is overly simplistic in assuming the racket as a uniform beam, the equation still works very well to 3 significant digits.

Except for certain rackets like Voltrics with those head heavy "Tri-Voltage" bulges at the top skewing weight distribution to the top.

5. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Location
Here
Posts
75
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
2x Carbonex 880 Tour Pro with additional string and grip.

Length: Both 665 mm (I thought all rackets are 675 mm)

1. Weight: 100 g. Bp 280 mm. Head weight: 280/665*100= 42.1 grams

2. Weight: 102 g. Bp 286 mm. Head weight: 286/665*102= 43.9 grams

6. Originally Posted by SSSSNT
2x Carbonex 880 Tour Pro with additional string and grip.

Length: Both 665 mm (I thought all rackets are 675 mm)

1. Weight: 100 g. Bp 280 mm. Head weight: 280/665*100= 42.1 grams

2. Weight: 102 g. Bp 286 mm. Head weight: 286/665*102= 43.9 grams
Old rackets and some inferior companies' are shorter sometimes. Reason: there's only a maximum length&width stated in the rules (675mm x xxx), so theoretically you can make your racket as short as you want. Why anyone would make it shorter though is a complete mystery to be as it shortens your lever (and thus decreases your power) as well as moving the sweet spot compared to a normal length racket which will cause quite a few mishits if you change between the two.

Regarding the adding weight to the bottom thing: it might feel quicker/lighter because you're handling a higher overall weight and thus the head wt doesn't feel as heavy in comparison. That feel is just that though - a subjective feeling. Your muscles won't be any stronger or quicker than without that added weight, so they'll move the racket just as quickly as before, if not a little slower (as the weight added at the bottom will increase the moment of inertia if you grip the racket high).

If you're interested in testing that, take an adjustable dumbbell (those metal ones where you put on weight plates) and swing it around without any weights on the grip. Then add a weight below your hand (important that you grip at the same spot both times) and swing it again - are you really faster now?

7. Regular Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Location
Korea
Posts
221
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
4 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by j4ckie
Old rackets and some inferior companies' are shorter sometimes. Reason: there's only a maximum length&width stated in the rules (675mm x xxx), so theoretically you can make your racket as short as you want. Why anyone would make it shorter though is a complete mystery to be as it shortens your lever (and thus decreases your power) as well as moving the sweet spot compared to a normal length racket which will cause quite a few mishits if you change between the two.

Regarding the adding weight to the bottom thing: it might feel quicker/lighter because you're handling a higher overall weight and thus the head wt doesn't feel as heavy in comparison. That feel is just that though - a subjective feeling. Your muscles won't be any stronger or quicker than without that added weight, so they'll move the racket just as quickly as before, if not a little slower (as the weight added at the bottom will increase the moment of inertia if you grip the racket high).

If you're interested in testing that, take an adjustable dumbbell (those metal ones where you put on weight plates) and swing it around without any weights on the grip. Then add a weight below your hand (important that you grip at the same spot both times) and swing it again - are you really faster now?
shorter racket = lower stresses.
I believe this is mainly influenced by the available materials.

Technically speaking, better materials with higher yield strengths do enable the racket to withstand higher stress; thereby allowing the design for longer rackets....

8. 4.1 The racket shall be a frame not exceeding 680 mm in overall length and 230 mm in overall width consisting of the main parts described in Laws 4.1.1 to 4.1.5 as illustrated in Diagram C.

Looks like it's 680mm max length.

9. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Location
Here
Posts
75
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Nanospeed 200 with string and grip:

Weight 98 grams. BP 294 mm. Length 675mm

Head weight: 294/675*98 = 42.7 grams

Bravesword 12 with string and factory grip:

Weight 91 grams. BP 295 mm. Length 675 mm.

295/675*91 = 39.8 grams

I'm still not sure what this all means

10. Originally Posted by SSSSNT
2x Carbonex 880 Tour Pro with additional string and grip.

Length: Both 665 mm (I thought all rackets are 675 mm)

1. Weight: 100 g. Bp 280 mm. Head weight: 280/665*100= 42.1 grams

2. Weight: 102 g. Bp 286 mm. Head weight: 286/665*102= 43.9 grams
Originally Posted by SSSSNT
Nanospeed 200 with string and grip:

Weight 98 grams. BP 294 mm. Length 675mm

Head weight: 294/675*98 = 42.7 grams

Bravesword 12 with string and factory grip:

Weight 91 grams. BP 295 mm. Length 675 mm.

295/675*91 = 39.8 grams

I'm still not sure what this all means
You should also weigh the actual "head weight" like in post #1 to compare against your calculations . Otherwise there is no point to it

11. Regular Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Location
Here
Posts
75
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by demolidor
You should also weigh the actual "head weight" like in post #1 to compare against your calculations . Otherwise there is no point to it
I did and it seems pretty accurate. NS200 is showing 43 grams while BS12 is showing 40 grams.

12. Regular Member
Join Date
Jul 2008
Location
San Jose, Ca
Posts
142
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
1 Post(s)
Tagged
Can anyone here tell me the significance of head weight and swing weight? I currently interpret headweight as an estimate for ease of use, however I have a feeling that this is incorrect.

For example. I measured the specs on three different rackets with a karakal PU super grip + strings.

Vapor Trail Tour: 88.9g playing weight, 40.6g head weight, 310mm BP
4U Victor artery tec Ti-99: 89.7g playing weight, 40.1g head weight, 301mm BP (modded to this with 1g lead tape at 1' and 11' positions)
Lethal 70: 98.8g playing weight, 43.6g head weight, 297mm BP.

The VTT and AT Ti-99 have very similar head weight and are only off by 1g in overall weight, however the victor artery tec feels significantly more head heavy.
The Lethal 70 is only about 3g heavier in headweight, but it feels tremendously more difficult to use than either the VTT or At ti-99.

How should i interpret the above data?

13. First off, 3g more head wt is a lot!
It can mean the difference
between a bs12 and a vztf!

I can already feel a difference in about 0.3g, so no wonder 10x that is much more noticeable.

Last edited by visor; 03-15-2013 at 04:22 PM.

14. Regular Member
Join Date
Jul 2008
Location
San Jose, Ca
Posts
142
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
1 Post(s)
Tagged
Hi Visor, thanks for the input!
Yes, the Ti-99 weight is with lead tape on. Just an experiment to increase the headweight to equal that of the VTT. I was surprised when it felt a lot more head heavy even when it had 0.5g less headweight.

Could headweight be used as a generalization of racket ease of use (Independent of frame shape/shaft stiffness/etc)?

15. Regular Member
Join Date
Feb 2008
Location
UK
Posts
1,492
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
15 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by bobbinbette
Can anyone here tell me the significance of head weight and swing weight? I currently interpret headweight as an estimate for ease of use, however I have a feeling that this is incorrect.

Originally Posted by amleto
It [head weight] doesn't [help with knowing swing weight], really. It's just another static measurement like BP that isn't related to rotational movement so it doesn't accurately describe the feel of a swing where you should instead consider the moment of inertia.

16. Regular Member
Join Date
Feb 2008
Location
UK
Posts
1,492
Post Thanks / Like
Mentioned
15 Post(s)
Tagged
Originally Posted by visor
Alright, for those who don't see this intuitively, I finally drew a diagram to show how and why head wt, total wt, and bp are related to each other in the equation:

(Head wt / Total wt) = (bp / Total length ie. 675mm)

it's just a re-hash of my sketch and tbh, I don't really think the relationship is intuitive since 'head weight' isn't a real thing.

17. Originally Posted by bobbinbette
Thanks for the input!
Yes, the Ti-99 weight is with lead tape on. Just an experiment to increase the headweight to equal that of the VTT. I was surprised when it felt a lot more head heavy even when it had 0.5g less headweight.

Could headweight be used as a generalization of racket ease of use (Independent of frame shape/shaft stiffness/etc)?
Strange, perhaps the ti99 is less aerodynamic?

That's
what I was hoping. An appproximation
of swing wt.

Page 7 of 14 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•