User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 51
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Misconceptions about static balance point

    Badminton racquets have been getting lighter, from close to 140g to today's 80-94g. This is due to new and better materials. The reduction in weight comes mainly from the shaft and the handle. Older, heavier, racquets were mostly head-light racquets. Newer, lighter, racquets are more head-heavy than the older racquets, mainly because it's increased swingweight is necessary to offset its drastic reduction in weight.
    With the increasing use of overgrips and all shades and weight of replacement grips, the racquet balance point is more often than not shifted from its designed balance point. A racquet that is designed to be head-heavy, like the AT700, can be transformed into a very head-light racquet by adding a heavy replacement grip. This problem is further compounded by the tendency of the owner wanting to use every last inch of a replacement grip, which gives rise to an additional problem of making the final grip almost round, besides drastically changing the designed b/p.
    This often results in the chosen racquet not exhibiting its designed objective. The after market for grips is very lucrative and its sheer variety and ubiquity doesn't help.
    If you add additional weight onto the original grip with either an overgrip or a replacement grip, your racquet b/p will shift downwards, roughly about 1.1cm to 1.2cm for every 5g increase in grip weight. Your racquet's total weight will be more and your racquet will feel more head-light. This will make the racquet a little more comfortable to hold and control but you will lose power, especially if your racquet is designed to be light and more head-heavy.
    If you must add additional grips to your racquet my advice is to look for a racquet which is more head-heavy than what you are accustomed to. You then add the extra grip and this will bring back the type of even balance or head-light feel you want. But this is a rather silly way to get around one's habit of adding an extra grip.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Would you say that adding an overgrip to a 3U racket is enough to make it into a 2U racket, assuming the 2U racket is used without overgrip? AT500 3U with overgrip feels somewhat too heavy, especially after many hours of usage and absorbing sweat, and i use the whole length of the overgrip....whereas the AT500 without overgrip feels just right. Seems to me that AT500 with overgrip has a swing weight is quite a bit more than MP77 2U, whereas without overgrip, the swing weight difference isn't as pronounced. I read the post on measurements, and know that AT500 should have higher swing weight. I'm thinking using the AT500 with the original grip, and then removing the original grip when it's worn out. Actually, i'd rather remove the original grip first, then use some food wrap on the wood, so that the wood stays clean.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGr8Two
    Actually, i'd rather remove the original grip first, then use some food wrap on the wood, so that the wood stays clean.
    This is preferred but why the food clingwrap? Every time you replace a grip, throw away the old grip and use your fingers to remove any remaining sticky adhesives on the wood. The remaining sticky adhesives can weigh as much as 3g. Best with no clingwrap because its better for the wood to breathe a little on both sides. Clingwrap will add 1g or more. Also don't overlap too much with new grip; about 3mm (1/8") or even less overlap, just shy of seeing the wood, will do. This way you can still feel the 8 sides of the grip, and not end up with a round grip. This minimal overlap of putting on a new grip with leave you with a rather long unused length. This is as it should be, and you should throw it away.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,937
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Clingfilm (food wrap) will not add anything near 1g of weight. If you don't use clingfilm, more weight will be added by the remaining sticky residue.

    And do you really want to pick off all those bits of gummy crap? What a waste of time

    As for "misconceptions about static balance point", I suggest a completely opposite view. The misconception is that weight on the handle affects the balance significantly.

    It doesn't, as I explain clearly in this post: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&postcount=500 .

    Many people have argued from experience that static balance does or does not affect the perceived balance of a racket. I say that these assertions are heavily based on personal subjective judgement and therefore cannot be trusted. Besides, whose judgement will you trust? Mine? Eepak's?

    My argument is clear and does not rely on vague personal assessments of a rackets' "feel".

    Although, as it happens, I arrive at the same conclusion from my subjective assessment.
    Last edited by Gollum; 02-28-2006 at 08:43 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    Clingfilm (food wrap) will not add anything near 1g of weight. If you don't use clingfilm, more weight will be added by the remaining sticky residue.

    And do you really want to pick off all those bits of gummy crap? What a waste of time

    As for "misconceptions about static balance point", I suggest a completely opposite view. The misconception is that weight on the handle affects the balance significantly.

    It doesn't, as I explain clearly in this post: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&postcount=500 .

    Many people have argued from experience that static balance does or does not affect the perceived balance of a racket. I say that these assertions are heavily based on personal subjective judgement and therefore cannot be trusted. Besides, whose judgement will you trust? Mine? Eepak's?

    My argument is clear and does not rely on vague personal assessments of a rackets' "feel".

    Although, as it happens, I arrive at the same conclusion from my subjective assessment.
    If girp size increase by overgrip changes the balance point and feel of the racket,then why not get one size of grip smaller than your usual grip size to compensate?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, CA, USA
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Badminton racquets have been getting lighter, from close to 140g to today's 80-94g. This is due to new and better materials. The reduction in weight comes mainly from the shaft and the handle. Older, heavier, racquets were mostly head-light racquets. Newer, lighter, racquets are more head-heavy than the older racquets, mainly because it's increased swingweight is necessary to offset its drastic reduction in weight.
    With the increasing use of overgrips and all shades and weight of replacement grips, the racquet balance point is more often than not shifted from its designed balance point. A racquet that is designed to be head-heavy, like the AT700, can be transformed into a very head-light racquet by adding a heavy replacement grip. This problem is further compounded by the tendency of the owner wanting to use every last inch of a replacement grip, which gives rise to an additional problem of making the final grip almost round, besides drastically changing the designed b/p.
    This often results in the chosen racquet not exhibiting its designed objective. The after market for grips is very lucrative and its sheer variety and ubiquity doesn't help.
    If you add additional weight onto the original grip with either an overgrip or a replacement grip, your racquet b/p will shift downwards, roughly about 1.1cm to 1.2cm for every 5g increase in grip weight. Your racquet's total weight will be more and your racquet will feel more head-light. This will make the racquet a little more comfortable to hold and control but you will lose power, especially if your racquet is designed to be light and more head-heavy.
    If you must add additional grips to your racquet my advice is to look for a racquet which is more head-heavy than what you are accustomed to. You then add the extra grip and this will bring back the type of even balance or head-light feel you want. But this is a rather silly way to get around one's habit of adding an extra grip.
    Thanks for the info. As a golfer and golf equipment ho, I fully understand and agree with what you are saying about the swing weight. How heavy is a typical overgrip like YY SuperGrap or Wilson Pro Overgrip? Thx.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,966
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gollum
    Clingfilm (food wrap) will not add anything near 1g of weight. If you don't use clingfilm, more weight will be added by the remaining sticky residue.

    And do you really want to pick off all those bits of gummy crap? What a waste of time

    As for "misconceptions about static balance point", I suggest a completely opposite view. The misconception is that weight on the handle affects the balance significantly.

    It doesn't, as I explain clearly in this post: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&postcount=500 .

    Many people have argued from experience that static balance does or does not affect the perceived balance of a racket. I say that these assertions are heavily based on personal subjective judgement and therefore cannot be trusted. Besides, whose judgement will you trust? Mine? Eepak's?

    My argument is clear and does not rely on vague personal assessments of a rackets' "feel".

    Although, as it happens, I arrive at the same conclusion from my subjective assessment.
    while I agree that the overal change in swing-feel isn't thát earth-shattering great as eepak might state...but your explanation os a little flawed...the "100kgs" added are added éxactly on the center of gravity, or fulcrum, or whatever...
    overgrip, however light, isn't added onto the fulcrum...so it actually does change the fulcrum. ánd teh swing weight....
    it's not a one-variable story...

    also what definatly does change the b.p. are those bulks people put on the end of their grips for gods knows what reason..

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    just outta nowhere, pops in my head
    if we r to consider balance point when a racket hit a bird
    if we conisder the racket as an extension of the arm
    and the swing is actually the entire movment of your arm + the racket.
    wouldn't we put the arm + the racket as a whole in the equation?
    the movable joins creating the wipping action would be start from yr shoulder
    to your elbow to the waist to the racket head.
    in that case.. i would think the grip has little impact on the action as a whole
    cos the grip is at your wasit and thats one of the lever point.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,966
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    absolutly right.

    but it definatly is worth bothering if you know what you wnat in b.p.'s

    I personally have found the holy-grail in manouvreable rackets..power by swing speed, not swing weight...my ns8k...not that I'm that fast...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,937
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby
    while I agree that the overal change in swing-feel isn't thát earth-shattering great as eepak might state...but your explanation os a little flawed...the "100kgs" added are added éxactly on the center of gravity, or fulcrum, or whatever...
    overgrip, however light, isn't added onto the fulcrum...so it actually does change the fulcrum. ánd teh swing weight....
    it's not a one-variable story...
    If you read my post carefully, you will see that I acknowledge this point. Grip changes the balance of the racket, but only very slightly, because it is applied NEAR the fulcrum.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    once moved the bp from 300 to 285

    the racket is much different and it feel bad

    now with a thick grip i wrap onlt 3/4 or 3/5 of the handle, it perform much better

    smash, clear, etc are done in a better fashion in the next game, i don' think i improve in just 2hrs...


    just feel, nothing scientific


    racket is ti10, first was kawasaki repl. grip + overgrip wrapped all the way pass the cone
    then its babolat woover wrapped to 3/4 oe 3/5 of the handle

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but u do have to caculate in the effect that
    the reason we want to add grip to a racket is so that
    we have the right grip size
    and @ the right grip size, it Does improve your game
    and that is not related to the balance point be shifted down or not

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thickness is about the same on both combinations

    with rpl+over grip i can't even swing pass 3/4 of the court from baseline

    i don't think my str increase all the sudden either

    ps. i wouldn't say this is better or worse, but this works for me, played with many other variation of grips as well already, the current configuration is best so far

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i guess the change can be bad/good

    trail and error to see which combination works best then stick with it.

    see pro double players warp the grip all the way to the cone
    supposingly that would throw the balance point off by a lot
    making the racket's characteristic changes.
    However.. doing so they can grab the racket much higher then normal and now THAT is what i consider an EFFECTIVE way of changing the balance point.
    plus u see LD and tuf griping only the very last 2 inches of the racket, they'r also changing the balance point to a way that contributs their games most as well. I suppose its allrite to change the way a racket is DESIGNed to be played
    as long as u'r happy with the changes.
    Last edited by chessymonkey; 02-28-2006 at 04:42 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i didnt comment before so i dont view as jumping on taneepak all the time.
    i think taneepak over exaggerated the importance of grip weight on bp. A thin overgrip adds isignificant mass near the axis of rotation so changes in racket swing moment is unnoticeable. 3g of glue is overblown unless u r pulling the wood chips with the glue. For those users who put on thick or multiple overgrips (eg. >5g), they are generally brute players and bp means little to them. I also dont think people buy rackets with consideraton of bp changes due to overgrip. THE CHOICE OF STRING HAS MORE INFLUENCE ON SWING MOMENT THAN A FOAM TYPE OVERGRIP. SWING MOMENT RULES, NOT B.P.

    i agree one point, yes, some people do have misconception about static b.p. and u know who

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    London area, UK
    Posts
    3,937
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a two layers of replacement grip on my racket handle (I removed the original grip). This increases the handle width considerably.

    I do not notice any difference in the feel of the racket swing (except, of course, that it is now the right size for my hand!).

    These grips probably total about 10g of added weight.

    I must find some good overgrips so I can save money.....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I experimented adding 12.5g, 6g, and 3g to the bottom end of a Ti-10 handle. In all instances, the static balance point was lowered and the racket swing speed increased. I know the swing speed increased because often when I swing, I miss the shuttle. This kind of miss doesn't happen with my other unmodified Ti-10's. I finally settled on a permanent weight increase of 3g by filling the hole at the end of the wooden handle with 3g of bathroom silicone sealant. the sealant also acted as a glue for the cap. The end result is the balance point moving from 295mm to 290mm and the racket became my most powerful Ti-10 yet. Now, all my clears going out by a couple of feet, and the smashing power was unprecedented from my own hand.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. ? Head Heavy Balance and Balance Point
    By MarcRafles in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 12
    : 03-02-2014, 11:38 PM
  2. Balance Point
    By 12etsam in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 3
    : 03-16-2009, 02:56 PM
  3. 99 balance point
    By calfunz in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 6
    : 06-02-2006, 06:48 PM
  4. B-pt < > Balance Point
    By Jan_BE in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 2
    : 05-25-2006, 10:30 AM
  5. Balance point
    By Mag in forum General Forum
    Replies: 7
    : 02-18-2001, 06:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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