Results 1 to 17 of 22
06-25-2008, 02:19 PM #1
i have head heavy racket but it's counter balanced by my medium to thick grip???
I have head heavy racket but it's counter balanced by my medium to thick grip please help me as without the grip on my smash is improved by the head heavyness. i do prefure the bigger grip tho but as these are heavier the head heavyness is counter balanced so makes no difference. is there any way i can stop this??
06-25-2008, 02:23 PM #2
If you don't mind to increase the overall weight more, you can add lead tape at the head frame. The extra weight on the head, will make it head heavier again.
06-25-2008, 02:26 PM #3
Thankyou very much that is very helpful im now buying some online
06-25-2008, 07:11 PM #4
06-25-2008, 08:53 PM #5
06-25-2008, 09:54 PM #6
In tennis they actually use heatshrinks which build the grip size up but Im pretty sure that also messes up the balance...probably not as much as overgrips. Main reason is so that the bevels can still be felt, (as when you add overgrips the grip becomes more circular).
06-25-2008, 10:03 PM #7
I think if the grip size is different the material density of the racket will change at certain places.
06-25-2008, 10:55 PM #8
The balance point of a racquet should be within a tight range of say 28.5cm +/- 0.3cm, irrespective of its weight category. Handles of different sizes weigh roughly the same weight, adjusted by the hollow deep inside the handle starting from the butt end and/or counterweights. An AT700 3UG5 should have the same b/p as an AT700 4UG4. If not then the qc is poor.
06-25-2008, 11:37 PM #9
I doubt your question. Only the weight of shaft and frame will affect the swing speed while you are holding the handle in your hand and swing the whole racquet. That is true that BP will change if you measure it with or whithout grip, but when you swing your racquet, the handle's weight won't affect the swing speed IMO.
06-26-2008, 03:59 AM #10
I agree with dxtiaomonv... Add all the weight to the handle you want, it's hardly noticeable...
no, let me rephrase: it's not noticeable.
and the other question, all models have a fixed b.p., whether g5, g4 or g3, a racket should have the same b.p. (+-some mm's).
06-26-2008, 07:57 PM #11
One change that may make a bit of a difference is if you play gripping close to the cone and you counter the headweight with a dense wad of lead or other metal at the far end of the buttcap. This mod won't make much of a difference if you clear or smash gripping to the butt-end though.
06-27-2008, 08:12 AM #12
well, just made my exam in entry-level dynamics at 'school', university.
bare in mind, my classes are in dutch, and I'm still a first-years....
Now, first up: statics. (when things do not move)
Now, when you balance your racket on your finger, on the balance point, (or center of mass, bp from now on).
Now, if bp was a good indication of how headheavy a racket is, the weight in the grip actually does matter. because the further the distance is between the bp and the handle, the headheavier it should be.
This is basically the standard explanation of bp. A grand oversimplification; in this 'model' the racket does not move
Now, when moving a racket, we use our entire body (and about 3/4 pivot points), but to simplify things, let's asume we rotate it (not a terribly far of the mark)
Now, the forces acting when swinging (rotating) a racket are not moments (a simple M = force x distance) but we're rotating it, which is not statics
Now, what we can use, in our simplified model, is the moment of inertia.
To put it simple the m.o.i. is the total sum of all tiny parts of mass, multiplied by their distance to the rotationpoint, squared. which [/i]does not[/i] equal the simple mass x bp.
A simplification to give an example of MoI. think of your racket sliced into 10 pieces. and weigh them all, and multiply the weight of piece 1 to the distance of the end of your racket(handle), d1, squared, so it's p1xd1^2... do the same for p2xd2^2, p3xd3^2, etc.. and add them all together.. (You see the unit of I, it's kgm^2)
The difference being: the mass added to the very end of your racket has a dramatic effect on the balance, and the mass on your grip practically zero.
Which is also my conlusion: static-fysics don't apply in badminton, and adding weight to your handle doesn't do anything.
Now, just once more, I'm just a freshmen (is that the term?), so any points/corrections are most welcome
btw, my conlusion does hinge on the assumption that we merely rotate (like, i dunno, with your wrist) any weight impeding other movements are offcourse not mentioned, but then, we're talking 5-10g, so common
And, cudos if you actually read all of this
06-27-2008, 09:49 AM #13
There is actually a very simple way to find out if adding weight to the handle will make any difference. Just play with and then without an added extra thick grip over the handle. This is better than all the formulas and theories about rotating on an axis. Strictly speaking, the racquet does not exactly rotate at the wrist at time of impact. The rotation starts at the shoulder, then elbow, and finally at the wrist for the cocking and uncocking action for an acceleration in hand speed, but at point of impact there is almost no rotation-so that the whole hitting action is more akin to hitting into the bird rather than merely hitting at it. The racquet is also a flexible weapon, not a rigid frame connected to a pole.
06-27-2008, 10:10 AM #14
yes, but the problem is, when you add a grip, your handle is bigger. So you can sqeeze more/less/whatever, it makes you racket feel lighter...
You change a lot more things than just weight...
Not only that, it's neurological "i added a grip, I should feel a change"
When I got my three rackets, I was busy putting on grip etc, i pushed in 3g of candlewax in one of my three w7's... without my scale, I had no idea which it was.
So yes, I did my testing, and done some reading...
06-27-2008, 05:18 PM #15
06-28-2008, 02:32 PM #16
but, as I'm always tended to point out, there's some issues with this model.
Under the assumptions that our swing is a rotation (of just the wrist) the model is pretty much watertight, I daresay . And yes, it's a better model than the "balance point = headheaviness" idea...
But ofcourse, the 'rotation center' is not at a fixed position and it itself subject to being rotated. What we end up with is a much more complex model, in which the eventual 10grams added to the handle still have little effect.
So I would like to leave some wiggle room for the whole theory that added weight to the handle does matter... But I honestly have serious doubts...
I'd love to do some double-blinded test.. But honestly, I'm much to busy actually practicing the sport
06-28-2008, 02:41 PM #17
By Xshadow00 in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 16: 04-01-2012, 05:39 AM
By LD rules! in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 9: 07-07-2010, 06:38 AM
By jotaro in forum GripReplies: 14: 11-14-2006, 04:32 AM
By hahahalol in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 14: 05-04-2005, 05:00 AM
By ari in forum General ForumReplies: 1: 03-28-2001, 01:00 AM