# Thread: (asl) Weight of racket determine how good smash is ?

1. ## (asl) Weight of racket determine how good smash is ?

what i know racket with stiff and head heavy is good for offensive example for smashing...

my question:

is weight determine how good the racket for offensive ?
example
1st racket weight 78gr with same spec such as stiff and head heavy
2nd racket weight 86gr with same spec stiff and head heavy too

let say long racket and balance point is the same.. so which one will perform offensive better ? or weight doesn't matter on this case ?

Thank you

2. depends on the person holding the racket.

3. -_-" let say he holding the same way... U know... Is not about person that I ask.. I ask about weight of the racket..

Thankyou btw

4. all else being equal... yes

5. It's an interesting question their must be an optimum weight for a racket to reach maximum smash force given all other factor equal, not just heavier or lighter produces more power. Of course it is technique/player specific but it would be interesting to see the results, if you got say TBH to go into that "Guinness world record smash set up" again and give him different weighted z slashes ranging in weight from 75g to 110g with 5g increments to see the difference in speeds. I am sure Yonex must have research on this.

6. If you have the strenght to swing the heavier racket with the same speed, then yeah, the heavier racket will produce more power.

7. According to Yonex materials, velocity is more important than mass.

Yonex uses kinetic energy:
KE=½mv²

Rather than momentum:
P=mv

8. Ok so using the formula - I read(yonex promo statement) that the flash boost can swing 20mph faster than a "conventional" racket, so here is a formula comparison for a flashboost 73g regular and a made up flashboost 85g racket since around 85g would be "conventional". I will invent that we swing at 100mph just for the calculation because the interesting part is the difference which is 20 mph.
So
KE=½mv²

54MPS (120MPH)
0.073KG
=109joules

Versus
45mps(100mph)
0.085
=86joules

As you can see at these swing speeds lighter is better. With these racket weights I calculated the difference levelled off at 250mph(85g)/270mph(73g) swing speed.
With a 90g racket it levelled off at 180mph keeping the 20mph difference.

I don't think anybody swings a racket as fast as this (when heavier overtakes lighter in kinetic energy terms).

So with my vulgar maths and theory it looks like a racket like the flashboost should give you the biggest smash.

9. Originally Posted by craigandy
Ok so using the formula - I read(yonex promo statement) that the flash boost can swing 20mph faster than a "conventional" racket, so here is a formula comparison for a flashboost 73g regular and a made up flashboost 85g racket since around 85g would be "conventional". I will invent that we swing at 100mph just for the calculation because the interesting part is the difference which is 20 mph.
So
KE=½mv²

54MPS (120MPH)
0.073KG
=109joules

Versus
45mps(100mph)
0.085
=86joules

As you can see at these swing speeds lighter is better. With these racket weights I calculated the difference levelled off at 250mph(85g)/270mph(73g) swing speed.
With a 90g racket it levelled off at 180mph keeping the 20mph difference.

I don't think anybody swings a racket as fast as this (when heavier overtakes lighter in kinetic energy terms).

So with my vulgar maths and theory it looks like a racket like the flashboost should give you the biggest smash.
That's interesting. Has anyone tried the flashboost yet? That was the same thing that yonex said about voltric series. They claim voltric series produce 15% harder smash compare to other models. However, it's totally different after i compare it to n90. I found that the heavier n90 gives harder smashes more consistently than voltric 80. Heck, i misses the 2nd gen at700 model even more now.

10. Originally Posted by craigandy
Ok so using the formula - I read(yonex promo statement) that the flash boost can swing 20mph faster than a "conventional" racket, so here is a formula comparison for a flashboost 73g regular and a made up flashboost 85g racket since around 85g would be "conventional". I will invent that we swing at 100mph just for the calculation because the interesting part is the difference which is 20 mph.
So
KE=½mv²

54MPS (120MPH)
0.073KG
=109joules

Versus
45mps(100mph)
0.085
=86joules

As you can see at these swing speeds lighter is better. With these racket weights I calculated the difference levelled off at 250mph(85g)/270mph(73g) swing speed.
With a 90g racket it levelled off at 180mph keeping the 20mph difference.

I don't think anybody swings a racket as fast as this (when heavier overtakes lighter in kinetic energy terms).

So with my vulgar maths and theory it looks like a racket like the flashboost should give you the biggest smash.
For what it's worth my smash seems appreciably faster with lighter rackts. It's obviously a subjective measurement but I do seem to be able to swing a lot quicker when dropping from a 3u to a 4u.

11. Originally Posted by visor
all else being equal... yes
Research exist in the public domain from non-company experimenters on mass weight, swing weight and "racket power" (speed), just a few years old.

... wait a sec I just check it to give you the details... sec

12. Originally Posted by visor
all else being equal... yes
Research exist in the public domain from (Australian) non-company experimenters on mass weight, swing weight and "racket power" (speed), just a few years old.

... wait a sec I just check it to give you the details... sec
--------------------------------

So here it is. Okay, but I'm only reporting what the science says. Judge yourself. I'm not responsible for world views on physics, or racket design.

For theory guys: Simple power laws look greater on paper but didn't turn out to be true in the experiments - you cannot establish a simple mass to swing speed formula, you have learned in school. That's what the professor says!

For sceptics: Experiments kept mass weight constant and changed the swing weight, then swing the racket and measure the velocity. And kept swing weight constant but varied the mass weight, then swing the racket and measure speed.

The racket lengths and materials therefore were quite different to get reality work.

Change swing weight (keep mass weight at 0.320 kg): the lower the swing weight, the faster you can swing - regardless how you swing.

Caveat: if lower swing weights speed up the swing of the racket, a zero swing weight does not make you smash infinetely fast -- because your arm has a swing weight of its own and in reality all rackets have a "high" swing weight.

Change in Mass weight (keep swing weight at 0.051 kg*m^2 at the handle's end constant): Counterintuitively for non-experts like me, and for experts like physics professors, too, the changes in mass produced no clear relationship to swing speed, hence "lighter rackets" ran as fast through air as "heavier rackets". For instance, the lightest racket in the experiments swung not the fastest. Power point argument: if you average the speeds across different masses, the speed was found INDEPENDENT from mass! Read it again, it blows my mind.

Researcher came up with new formulas for maximum speed calculations etcetera ... science stuff.

Conclusion: for rackets lower than 100-150 grams, greater mass makes greater speed, and smaller weights makes slower speeds; above this threshold, all speeds seem to stay constant even if you have a kilogramm of racket to swing.

Punchline: If you want to have a faster smash, put a little bit of grams and extra weight on the 12 o'clock position of you racket tip, as long as you stay below ... say 120 grams or so, you will change the entire racket design and physics property .... resulting in faster swings! Of course, mind your tennis arm.

13. Originally Posted by visor
According to Yonex materials, velocity is more important than mass.

Yonex uses kinetic energy:
KE=½mv²

Rather than momentum:
P=mv
That's a ridiculous summary but I think I've pulled you up on that elsewhere. It's impossible for one to be more valid or correct than the other.

put it like this, E = p^2/(2m)

14. Originally Posted by HappySachs
For what it's worth my smash seems appreciably faster with lighter rackts. It's obviously a subjective measurement but I do seem to be able to swing a lot quicker when dropping from a 3u to a 4u.
Heck, I need to stop using my 2U racquets then.

15. Originally Posted by Cheung
Heck, I need to stop using my 2U racquets then.
I don't know if you've heard, but you can get rackets made out of carbon graphite now days, steel is no longer the in thing .

Research exist in the public domain from (Australian) non-company experimenters on mass weight, swing weight and "racket power" (speed), just a few years old.

... wait a sec I just check it to give you the details... sec
--------------------------------

So here it is. Okay, but I'm only reporting what the science says. Judge yourself. I'm not responsible for world views on physics, or racket design.

For theory guys: Simple power laws look greater on paper but didn't turn out to be true in the experiments - you cannot establish a simple mass to swing speed formula, you have learned in school. That's what the professor says!

For sceptics: Experiments kept mass weight constant and changed the swing weight, then swing the racket and measure the velocity. And kept swing weight constant but varied the mass weight, then swing the racket and measure speed.

The racket lengths and materials therefore were quite different to get reality work.

Change swing weight (keep mass weight at 0.320 kg): the lower the swing weight, the faster you can swing - regardless how you swing.

Caveat: if lower swing weights speed up the swing of the racket, a zero swing weight does not make you smash infinetely fast -- because your arm has a swing weight of its own and in reality all rackets have a "high" swing weight.

Change in Mass weight (keep swing weight at 0.051 kg*m^2 at the handle's end constant): Counterintuitively for non-experts like me, and for experts like physics professors, too, the changes in mass produced no clear relationship to swing speed, hence "lighter rackets" ran as fast through air as "heavier rackets". For instance, the lightest racket in the experiments swung not the fastest. Power point argument: if you average the speeds across different masses, the speed was found INDEPENDENT from mass! Read it again, it blows my mind.

Researcher came up with new formulas for maximum speed calculations etcetera ... science stuff.

Conclusion: for rackets lower than 100-150 grams, greater mass makes greater speed, and smaller weights makes slower speeds; above this threshold, all speeds seem to stay constant even if you have a kilogramm of racket to swing.

Punchline: If you want to have a faster smash, put a little bit of grams and extra weight on the 12 o'clock position of you racket tip, as long as you stay below ... say 120 grams or so, you will change the entire racket design and physics property .... resulting in faster swings! Of course, mind your tennis arm.
I am not sure if I understand what is trying to be said in this report, one paragraph states lower swing weight(which is a head light racket) you can swing fastest then it says put weight on 12o'clock for faster swing (which would increase swing weight and be slower according to the other paragraph)
Also it said below 100g is threshold but then it says 120g is faster.
I don't understand what the message is.

17. Originally Posted by craigandy
I am not sure if I understand what is trying to be said in this report, one paragraph states lower swing weight(which is a head light racket) you can swing fastest then it says put weight on 12o'clock for faster swing (which would increase swing weight and be slower according to the other paragraph)
Also it said below 100g is threshold but then it says 120g is faster.
I don't understand what the message is.
I agree it's not very clear. I think Tadashi changes his meaning when he's talking about speed - sometimes he's talking about racket speed, sometimes it looks like shuttle speed (it's not obvious).

The punchline is obviously wrong in part as well since he says adding tape gives a faster smash AND faster swing. However, earlier on he says lower swing weight gives faster swing (correct).

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
•