Who say Ti10 is head heavy? It is only 295 mm balance point? Who say Ti10 is head heavy? It is only 295 mm balance point. This is with BG85 string and original thin plastic G5 grip. Other rackets like Armortecs, MP90, ISO 900, Ti SP, MP88, MP77 are mostly 300-310 mm with original thin grip and string. Actually, my friend Ti10 with a thicker grip, looks head light. Unless the measurements is done at the handle not balance point of racket. One thing is sure, it is stiff, but quite light. Anyone can comment on this?
How do you guys measure balance point? do you guys measure it from the bottom of the grip? BTW, my Ti-10 2U/G4 with 1 layer of Yonex super graps got exactly same balance point as yours!!! (I measured it from the bottom of my grip)
Yes, normally, we measure from the bottom of the racquet. 295mm is at the head heavy side, but not too head heavy. Normally, I consider: Less than 280mm: Head-Light 280mm~290mm: Even-Balance 290mm and more: Head Heavy
Well, when my club 1st rented the gym, and the owners (might also got someone to help) need to measure and mark. As they described, the experience was a "night mare". I was not around at that moment, due to I was away for college. Just from their story, I have to say, putting on the tape is not a hard task at all then.
we badminton players should know in our head where all the lines are. (case in point: 2 years ago at mount royal college where the badminton lines are painted beige color to match the hardwood floor and only 1.5 cm wide, a provincial tournament was held there and no players made complaints about the lines. It seem the players 'know' where the line suppose to be)
The balance point in badminton racquets is, by itself, a meaningless measurement. A 2U Ti-10 with the same balance point as a similar 4U racquet will have very different "effective" balance points from each other. Also it is possible for a badminton racquet with a static balance point of 310mm to have an "effective" balance point that is less head-heavy than one with a balance point of 295mm, like the 2U Ti-10. If you have a 2U racquet make sure the static balance point, with strings and original grip, is no more than 285mm. You can get away with head-heavy light racquets but not with head-heavy heavy racquets. This is exactly how Yonex is positioning its Amortec series. If I were to buy an Amortec racquet I would go for the 4U and not the 3U, because of the 4U's more "effective" balance point. Likewise, even heavy racquets that are evenly balanced are "effectively" head-heavy. The racquet with the best "effective" balance point is the Gosen. How they do it, I still am trying to figure out.
I have read your post 3 times and I am confused with what you said about "effective balance point", Can you explain that in a different way? Also, can you explain why the 3U rackets has less "effective balance point" than the 4U rackets?
I was confused about people calling the ti-10 head heavy as well. I`ve never measured the balance point of any of my rackets, but in comparison, the ti-10 FEELS head light. I grip with the original grip at the bottom followed by a couple layers of undertape and then a gosen towel grip.
Well, towel grip is heavy (would be a lot heavier if the towel grip absorbs water and sweat....) plus you have layers of undertapes, and that would certainly shift the balance point back, and thus, makes the racquet become head-light. I think, before AT series racquets came out, 295mm is considered as head-heavy. But now, a lot of racquets are over 300mm, so I would just say 295mm is head-heavy, but not so much of it.
Yes, you do shift the static balance point when you add or subtract anything on the handle, be it undertapes, overgrips or replacement grips. But you do not shift the "effective" balance point one jot with these grips. If the "effective" balance point is so easily changed by adding grips- which they don't-then all the top players in the world who use such additional or replacement grips would have a demom of a time with their racquets' balance. Think of a badminton racquet as a long hammer and you will get the point.
Re first, you can do a simple experiment. First weigh your racquet, with strings and original grip, and measure the static balance point. Now add overgrip totalling 10% of your racquet's total weight. Your racquet will now weigh 10% heavier, solely from the added weight from the overgrip. You now measure the static balance point of the racquet, which should show a 10% lower static balance point. The overall 10% weight increase in the racquet matches the 10% decrease in the static balance point. This means you have not changed the "effective" balance point, but have succeeded in merely changing the static balance point. In the dynamics of play, the static balance point is quite meaningless. Re the second, lets say a 4U racquet weighs 84 gram with strings and original grip and has a static balance point of 300mm, and another racquet 3U weighs 89gm with strings and original grip and an identical static point of 300mm. The crude "effective" balance weight of the 4U racquet is actually 252 (84x3m) and for the 3U is a higher 267 (89x3m). This is why the 3U is more head-heavy than the 4U even if both have identical static balance point. For the 3U racquet to play the same as the 4U racquet, the 3U racquet should have a static balance point of 283mm. Still confused?
Oh, you were talking about the "real weight" than the "relative weight". example: a 4U racket has 80grams in weight, Called it "X", original balance point 300mm a 3U racket has 85grams in weight, Called it "Y", original balance point 300mm a set of badminton strings has 2 grams in weight, Called it "S" an overgrip has 4 grams in weight, called it "G" New Balance point: S+G+X < S+G+Y Because the original weight is X < Y, so X will shift back more. So, I was just confused with your wordings... ..... we are all good.
A good quality string like BG85 or BG68Ti weighs about 4gm when strung, not 2gm. Your method of explaining shift in static balance point cannot be faulted, but a more definitive measurement is to use s = d x (m/(M+m)), in which s = shift in static balance point in cm from original static balance point, d = distance in cm from added weight to original static balance point, m = amount of added weight in gm (for example overgrip), and M = original racquet weight, in gm. As I said earlier, changing the static balance point by adding an overgrip will not in anyway affect the real effective playing balance point of the racquet.
Yes, I understand that, that's just an easy example with random numbers for easy understanding for people, and I was too lazy to type everything into details, thanks for completing the data and the formula.
that is why i had split out racket balances into two tables in my measurement thread (see eq. sticky). I had used the term Head Tippyness to mean static balance, while the relative moment is only an approximation of dynamic balance. Finding the true dynamic balance is not an easy task.
