 |
|
|
|
Monday Mailbag: Traditional Frames, Manufacturing Variances
|
02/07/2012 - 11:33 AM
|
 |
|
Posted by Mr. Truth |
02/07/2012 at 02:10 AM |
Dude....all my life I have been looking for someone who has more letter in their last name than me(mine has 14). And you, Justin....you have 15....
What a glorious day. Congratulations on your first post my friend. |
|
Posted by Fmplayer |
02/07/2012 at 02:17 AM |
Sorry but in the answer to Jared, you made a huge mistake. Swingweight depends not only on length, balance and weight. It is also a matter of mass distribution. Say your racquet is 27 inches long and its mass of 300 g is located right in the middle (it's not realistic but it helps understand). The balance will be even. Take another racquet in which the mass of 300g is equally distributed at the tip and at the bottom (150 g each). The weight, the length and the balance are the same in both cases, but the second racquet will have a much more bigger swingweight. See mathematic formulas for more information.
So 2 racquets from different manufacturers can have different swingweights, all other specs beeing equal.
Industrial variability lies in: first, the overal mass (average +- 10g around the typical value, about 3%) and second, the distribution. Pros racquets are made from standard frames, which are first measured (weight, balance, swingweight) and then lead is added either by the manufacturer or by a third party technician, such as Priority One or Roman Prokes's shop in NY. The only rule is that you can only match two racquets by adding weight, so you must first buy 2 lighter racquets of the same model, than add weight to make them similar. The procedure is explained on the Tennis Warehouse University website. |
|
Posted by Boris_ |
02/07/2012 at 03:51 AM |
In my opinion, the Wilson Pro Staff Six.One 90 BLX is an aberration, even for Roger Federer.
Roger did not win all his grand slams thanks to this racket but despite this racket !
The point is that Roger is totally convinced that he plays better with this racket because he feels a lot of control.
It is true provided he is perfectly on position to hit the ball. Which is the case against many players on the tour. But not vs Rafa, Djoko or Murray who can hit the ball very hard and/or with topspin on his backhand.
For sure, Roger should have changed racket a long time ago to get more power and spin.
His tactic at the last australian open vs Rafa was good: hitting the ball very early after rebound on his backhand. But it would have been much more easy and effective with a bigger frame.
Moreover, his racket is too heavy which makes it difficult to handle and does not add much power. As a matter of fact, racket's power is provided by the total lenght of the strings. The more surface of string there is, the more power there is. And it also reduces shanking. |
|
Posted by senshu |
02/07/2012 at 05:57 AM |
Luckily for some of those old codgers who just can't let go of the Prostaff (I know a few personally), tennis warehouse now sells the original 6.0.
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-W6085.html
A perfect choice for those unwilling to adjust to the newer racquets. |
|
Posted by D |
02/07/2012 at 06:11 AM |
I was going to say the same thing as Fmplayer: identical balance points do not equate to the same distribution of mass. Distribution of mass is a continuous value, as opposed to discreet (like a balance point is). The mathematics of this are simple (in theory), I'll just remind everyone of the "lever rule" ;) |
|
Posted by nastase |
02/07/2012 at 07:34 AM |
"two racquets with identical lengths, weights, and balance points will have identical swingweights" -- WRONG!!!! |
|
Posted by John |
02/07/2012 at 09:30 AM |
I am college tennis player just pass 19. The current racket that Federer is extremly hard to use for sure. I have been always using Wilson K-Six.One 95 for 3 years. Then I switch to BLX90 version for some reason I have found the racket makes me feel putting ball where I wanted, but is much harder to use for sure, the weight of the racket makes a lot of difference. My forehand have been more misplace, while my backhand(one-hand) is getting more and more accurate, not sure why. |
|
Posted by Game Lover |
02/07/2012 at 10:53 AM |
John (and Justin),
While I am in a similar position with you (having been used both 6.1.95 both Kfactor and now BLX versions for the last 3 years and only tried the 6.1.90 Kfactor and BLX), here is my two cents on the subject:
1. You are saying that the 6.1.90 is heavier then the 6.1.95 and while that is true in terms of overall weight, it may be that 6.1.90 may be easier to swing due to its lower…swing weight. Have you looked into that?
2. 6.1.95 is at the end of the line so to speak with the BLX model, b/c the new one ProStaff 6.1.95 is way lighter (similar to what the 6.1. team used to be), while the other model the Juice is also lighter and a tad longer…
3. The new 6.1.90 Pro Staff while apparently with a lower swing weight then the 6.1.90 BLX, is also less stable according to people that have tried it.
4. What players frames with a 100 sq inches are there with a similar weight to the 6.1.95 BLX? |
|
Posted by Justin |
02/07/2012 at 11:38 AM |
Hello all: See above edits in the answer to Jared's question w/r/t swingweight. My apologies for quite the mental gaff. -Justin |
|
Posted by d |
02/07/2012 at 12:52 PM |
does anyone know the effect of adding weight to the handle of a racquet? as I understand it, even though the weight increases, this modification doesn't add much swingweight. the balance point comes down I guess.
would all of this tend to make the racquet more or less powerful? harder or easier to swing?
the reason I ask is that I once bought a racquet from a tennis buddy and found that it played like a magic wand. I later noticed that he'd evidently gotten a very small grip size and to adjust it to his hand size, had put two grips on the racquet. the extra grip added a fair bit of weight to the handle end of the racquet - hence my question. |
|
Posted by stari |
02/07/2012 at 01:10 PM |
Could someone take a look at this one?
If all of them for last 10 years or so John, Pete, Roger and Marat were able to win with small frames and different stile why small frames are not winning today??? (Roger and Andy)
|
|
Posted by QRock |
02/07/2012 at 02:25 PM |
FMPlayer,
While your discussion is true from a mathematical/physics point of view, it doesn't help a tennis player much because mass distribution is not the sort of data that manufacturers publish about their racquets.
So, the author essentially got the question right. |
|
Posted by Pedro Rivas, M.D. |
02/07/2012 at 03:04 PM |
Adam, if you are just starting to learn, then the Federer 90 racquet is a great choice. A wooden Dunlop Maxply is even better. Don't be fooled into using a racquet that will reward you for bad preparation and bad form. Learn the correct way to play tennis because it is harder to "unlearn" what you have learned. Your bad habits will be with you for a long time. The reason the top 20 don't use it so much is because the Slams surfaces have all slowed down and made it possible for the evolution of a very physical and boring game of extreme spins. This is not the reality of the rest of the world. True form is the goal. Once you are a 4.5 or above, then you can make the switch to the larger frame if you wish. |
|
Posted by nastase |
02/07/2012 at 06:05 PM |
I wholeheartedly second Dr. Rivas's position. A smaller head, heavier racquet will force you into the correct technique to achieve power and ball penetration. I am partial to head graphite edge, which can be had used for little money and plays just as well as a wilson k90. |
|
Posted by Krakondack |
02/07/2012 at 07:21 PM |
I wonder if Roger knows he's been using the wrong racket all these years. |
|
Posted by TallkissCom |
02/07/2012 at 09:56 PM |
My best friend ,she
just met a Tall man and they fell in
love..they met via
T'a'l'l'k'i's's'.C'o'M
------- it's where for men and women looking for companionship for
a fabulous lifestyle. It worth atry. Maybe you want to check it out :) |
|
Posted by www.theracquetshack.com |
02/07/2012 at 11:09 PM |
Don't be confused by swingweight. The best example is a baseball bat. Take two identical bats. Hold one the normal way and swing it. Lots of swingweight. So much so that if you are good enough, you can hit a baseball 500 feet! Take the other bat and turn it around, holding it by the fat end. Swing it. Not very much swingweight. In fact, the best hitters in the world would not come close to being able to hit a home run with it! |
|
Posted by Fmplayer |
02/08/2012 at 02:26 AM |
To d
Putting some weight at the handle just increases the overall mass and the balance (more headlight) and does not affect swt, which is measured assuming the rotation center at 10 cm from the butt cap.
To nastase
Sorry man, but that's physics. Swingweight is defined according to the aforementioned point. The more towards the tip weight is added, the more the swt increases
For those interested by this topic, just have a look at the US Racquet Stringer Association website (racquettech) in the non member section |
|
Posted by Fmplayer |
02/08/2012 at 02:48 AM |
To QRock,
Of course, and they just can't do it. A racquet is a complex tube of carbon fibers and the thickness can't be exactly the same everywhere. The amount of carbon fiber used to mold the frame gives the weight plus minus a 3% variability (which is too big in my opinion: nowadays, an industrial process should be able to give a 1% adequacy). The only way to improve the specs would be to build the frame from 2 halves (maybe Prince does this but I'm not sure)
That's why you need to measure your racquet. As I mentioned, a simple procedure is described on the TWU website. And that's useful for the tennis player because it allows customization.
Personnally, I switched from a [K]Blade Tour to a Pure Drive and then to a customized Pure Drive Lite. All of my frames had a 325 kgcm2 swingweight which is my preferred value. Of course, mass reduction was about 45g and that's what I was looking for. My goal was to increase racquet head speed in order to put more spin, and the decrease in power from the [K]Blade was compensated by the increase due to the larger stringbed, and the control added by the extra spin compensates the lost due to stringed reduction.
And last but not least, I'm not a professional... Everyone can do the same |
|
Posted by d |
02/08/2012 at 09:20 AM |
Fmplayer -- thanks, that what I thought might be the case. so adding weight to the handle raises overall weight, does not change swingweight, and lowers the balance point.
do you (or anyone on this board) have an opinion as to what that does to the playing characteristics of the racquet? |
|
Posted by mario |
02/08/2012 at 11:54 AM |
haha. check out the tennis warehouse forums and essential tennis forums, that adam kid has been banned from them both for making tons of threads asking about the tour 90. i think he should get it and stop wasting peoples time.
|
|
Posted by www.theracquetshack.com |
02/08/2012 at 11:15 PM |
Anyone have any experience and/or thoughts on the inordinate rate of frame breaks on the Babolat Pure Storm Tour? I am researching this stick and am amazed at how many people seem to be breaking it in the act of normal play... |
|
Posted by calvin |
02/09/2012 at 04:59 AM |
I think Federer's racket has helped him win a lot of majors. If he is going to come over the backhand on the return or hit it "flat" and not slice (chip) backhand returns he should be using a lighter and or more powerful racket. Just getting back serves against Nadal and Djokovic isn't working anymore. With that said, his serve is as good as ever and I think the weight of the racket helps. Against slower players a more control oriented racket is probably better where you have time to go on offense while against faster players a more powerful racket is better. Federer's racket may actually be a better beginner racket than a lighter less control oriented frame especially for an adult. |
|
|
|
Posted by: