PDA

View Full Version : How to build a racquet with superpowers!!!


travlerajm
03-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.

anirut
03-29-2008, 11:16 PM
Hi trav, long time no see ... ;)

I'm also experimenting with some "ideas" on my Redondo and I'm finding that the little experiment I'm doing is bearing some "nice" fruits.

Will let y'all know later after mid April when I get the chance to test "a lot of other stuff".

Cheers!

(BTW, where's JC?)

AlpineCadet
03-29-2008, 11:22 PM
"Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential."

Interesting, I didn't know you could raise the stiffness of a frame just by placing weight in the throat area. I've got about 20 grams in the throat of my frame, but thought that it played softer.

travlerajm
03-29-2008, 11:22 PM
Hi Anirut,

I've been out of the tennis scene for the past year - been busy growing my new biotech startup.

This mod is something I've wanted to try for a while, and I finally got a chance to test it out.

travlerajm
03-29-2008, 11:30 PM
"Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential."

Interesting, I didn't know you could raise the stiffness of a frame just by placing weight in the throat area. I've got about 20 grams in the throat of my frame, but thought that it played softer.

It could feel softer because the mass in the throat reduces the shock transmitted to your hand at impact.

A racquet has two nodes for the primary vibration mode -- one in the mid handle, and one in the mid hoop. The dynamic stiffness is affected by the distance between these two nodes, and also by the amplitude of the vibration. Putting mass in the middle of the frame damps the vibration, making the frame feel stiffer. And if you put weight in the upper handle or lower throat, it will move the handle node upward, shortening the distance between the two nodes -- this will make the racquet play stiffer, with reduced spin potential.

This stiffening effect is most noticeable on flexible frames. It won't make as much difference if your frame is stiff to begin with.

AlpineCadet
03-29-2008, 11:34 PM
It could feel softer because the mass in the throat reduces the shock transmitted to your hand at impact.

A racquet has two nodes for the primary vibration mode -- one in the mid handle, and one in the mid hoop. The dynamic stiffness is affected by the distance between these two nodes, and also by the amplitude of the vibration. Putting mass in the middle of the frame damps the vibration, making the frame feel stiffer. And if you put weight in the upper handle or lower throat, it will move the handle node upward, shortening the distance between the two nodes -- this will make the racquet play stiffer, with reduced spin potential.

This stiffening effect is most noticeable on flexible frames. It won't make as much difference if your frame is stiff to begin with.

Most of the weight I've added is concentrated in the throat area. The newly added weight is about 4 grams in the lower throat section, and about 2 grams just below 10/2 o'clock in the hoop. Not sure how much spin I'll lose, but hopefully I'll be able to still keep my swing speed with the new weight adjustment. I'll guessitmate the overall weight to be ~350grams.

Masterblaster
03-29-2008, 11:34 PM
your customisation sounds really interseting, do you have any photos of it that you can show us?

travlerajm
03-29-2008, 11:46 PM
your customisation sounds really interseting, do you have any photos of it that you can show us?

I just took some pics -- and then I discovered that I've lost the cable that connects my camera to the computer. Darn it. Sorry. Hopefully I'll find it soon.

travlerajm
03-29-2008, 11:53 PM
Most of the weight I've added to my LM Radical is concentrated in the throat area. The newly added weight is about 4 grams in the lower throat section, and about 2 grams just below 10/2 o'clock in the hoop. Not sure how much spin I'll lose, but hopefully I'll be able to still keep my swing speed with the new weight adjustment. I'll guessitmate the overall weight to be ~350grams.

With the small amounts of weight your using, it will be harder to notice the effects I'm talking about - remember, I've just added 56g of lead to mine.

For example, I tested out adding 5-10 additional grams of lead at the top of the handle on this setup; it made my racquet feel more like the Sampras setup: stiffer, so that it hit a flatter, more penetrating ball. A flatter ball is great for volleys and slices, but for all of my other shots I prefer to have maximum bite at my disposal. The highly polarized setup is closer to what pros like Safin and Federer are currently using. It allows me to hit with lots of spin without resorting to a steep uppercut swingpath.

AlpineCadet
03-30-2008, 12:05 AM
With the small amounts of weight your using, it will be harder to notice the effects I'm talking about - remember, I've just added 56g of lead to mine.

For example, I tested out adding 5-10 additional grams of lead at the top of the handle on this setup; it made my racquet feel more like the Sampras setup: stiffer, so that it hit a flatter, more penetrating ball. A flatter ball is great for volleys and slices, but for all of my other shots I prefer to have maximum bite at my disposal. The highly polarized setup is closer to what pros like Safin and Federer are currently using. It allows me to hit with lots of spin without resorting to a steep uppercut swingpath.

Well, I honestly believe I'm near my swingweight limit for that particular frame. In trying to keep down the static weight, I've only added 6 grams total, but am trying to maximize ball depth and frame mobility at the same time. (Roughly speaking, my frame started off around a 325SW, but I've strayed and have added about ~30 grams, so the SW is definitely high.)

bertrevert
03-30-2008, 05:23 AM
Woot! the interesting experiments continue...

So 360 SW of this heavily modified POG (after being cut down to ~285) - it would be to be objective to go get this thing measured on Bab SW machine, possible to get it measured?

SW and balance point I've come to think of as subtle but significant specs that influence our strokes.

To radically alter them could play havoc, or just might open a new door...

I've altered kBlade 98 To go from 2 pts HL to 6 pts HL, and it's made all the difference. Small change compared to what you've done here...

It seems you've had to significantly drop tension (+stiff kevlar) in order to get the spin needed to keep the bazookas going in, but granted it is a tension Pros (Fed) are apparently using...

Thor
03-30-2008, 07:55 AM
The "Guru" is back,happy recruiting!

SpinningForehand
03-30-2008, 08:36 AM
wow, i never knew rackets could make that much of a difference. congrats.
how much would you be willing to sell this racket for?
Can adding weight at certain spots really impart more topspin on the ball?
It seems hard to believe adding weight at certain spots can make the racket perform so well. I still believe you though.

kirbster123
03-30-2008, 09:11 AM
Excellent Post Travlerajm! Your posts about customization and polarization are always very interesting to read.

I have no clue how to polarize a frame, any suggestions where should I add to a POG, or an Aerogel 300?

Thanks.

toughshot
03-30-2008, 09:12 AM
I think adding more weight increases the inertia of the racquet as you swing it, once it meets the ball the ball will flatten more onto/into the strings and will have more spin imparted on them because the more flat the ball gets, the more surface area is touching between it and the strings.

travlerajm
03-30-2008, 12:36 PM
Woot! the interesting experiments continue...

So 360 SW of this heavily modified POG (after being cut down to ~285) - it would be to be objective to go get this thing measured on Bab SW machine, possible to get it measured?

I had the SW measured on a Bab RDC: it came out 357
(I estimated it at 362 before the measurement).


It seems you've had to significantly drop tension (+stiff kevlar) in order to get the spin needed to keep the bazookas going in, but granted it is a tension Pros (Fed) are apparently using...

The spin would still be pretty good even if I increased the tension. As I've said many times in past posts, weight distribution and flex have more effect on spin potential than the string setup does.

That being said, I still chose my string setup for maximum bite. (Kevlar/poly combo at low tension).

travlerajm
03-30-2008, 12:55 PM
wow, i never knew rackets could make that much of a difference. congrats.
how much would you be willing to sell this racket for?
Sorry. I don't want to sell. This will become my regular racquet now.


Can adding weight at certain spots really impart more topspin on the ball?
Absolutely. Nadal (and other pros) would not be able to generate the spins they do if they used a stock-weighted racquet. My "superracquet" is simply a more extreme version of the spin-friendly frames the top pros like Safin, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and others are using.

The amount of spin generated is a function of 3 components:

Velocity, Effective Mass, and Bite.

The first is determined by the player's stroke, while the other two are determined by the racquet setup.

OnyxZ28
03-30-2008, 02:32 PM
Sports medical practitioners around the world, rejoice! travlerajm has returned to TW.

ohhgourami
03-30-2008, 04:01 PM
this is extremely interesting

so more flex=more spin?
more headweight=more spin?

bertrevert
03-30-2008, 04:29 PM
more headweight=more spin?

He hasn't just added head weight, rather he's counterbalanced the increased head weight with more lead added in the handle as well. This is what he means by "polarised", more weight at opposite ends of the racquet. Customised to make the racquet more polarised around the balance point, so it see-saws more easily - more mass, more bite.

SpinningForehand
03-30-2008, 05:17 PM
Sorry. I don't want to sell. This will become my regular racquet now.


Absolutely. Nadal (and other pros) would not be able to generate the spins they do if they used a stock-weighted racquet. My "superracquet" is simply a more extreme version of the spin-friendly frames the top pros like Safin, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and others are using.

The amount of spin generated is a function of 3 components:

Velocity, Effective Mass, and Bite.

The first is determined by the player's stroke, while the other two are determined by the racquet setup.

If the racket can really increase the topspin and power potential of my shots, I might as well experiment or try it at least. I have a prince o3 tour mid, I already think it is pretty solid stock strung with big banger ace at 54 lbs. Travlerajm, if you could tell me how I could increase the topspin potential of the racket, or make it more like your racket or a pro racket, I would really appreciate it. I have a reel of .5 in lead tape from tw anyways. I am only 5' 6", 122 lbs, and I am pretty coordinated. If what you tell me to do actually turns my racket into your descriptions of your racket, I will be absolutely shocked. I don't believe it will work, but I will try if you tell me how I can customize it. Thanks a lot travlerajm.

RoddickistheMan
03-30-2008, 05:30 PM
Paint it all black , base it off of one of the greatest racquets of all time and then let pete sampras test it and release it in late april.

kirbster123
03-30-2008, 10:17 PM
Travlerajm,

How can I polarize an Aerogel 300? Here are the specs:

Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 10.9oz / 309g
Balance: 4pts Head Light
Swingweight: 316
Stiffness: 61 *says 63 on racquet*
Beam Width: 21.5 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Multifilament / Aerogel
Power Level: Low-Medium
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Hydramax Tour
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
One Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 55-65 pounds

Would it even be a good frame for polarization?

Josherer
03-30-2008, 10:35 PM
The first thing you should have done is get rid of the Kelvar strings!!!

Big Boris
03-31-2008, 03:04 AM
Hello Travlerajm! Always very interesting to read about your findings.

Have you also tried to play matches with your extremely polarised setups?

I have moved some lead (less than you of course) around in my frame and found that even though the more polarised setups can feel great when standing in one place and hitting - whether it is volleys or groundies - the more depolarised seems to function better in match play, where one gets in to a lot of rapid situations, like pickups, running strokes, blocks, not properly footed saves, etc., and where you draw benefit from the directional accuracy you get from the depolarised frame, taking command over high bouncing short balls, directing the ball to the opponents weak spots. At least playing my aggressive game at say 5.0-5.5 level.

What is your take on this?

Pleepers
03-31-2008, 05:27 AM
How many grams did removing the inch of length reduce the weight of the frame?

jorel
03-31-2008, 05:36 AM
ive heard moya uses a similar polarized set

Thor
03-31-2008, 07:10 AM
Travlerajm,

How can I polarize an Aerogel 300? Here are the specs:

Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 10.9oz / 309g
Balance: 4pts Head Light
Swingweight: 316
Stiffness: 61 *says 63 on racquet*
Beam Width: 21.5 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Multifilament / Aerogel
Power Level: Low-Medium
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Hydramax Tour
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
One Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 55-65 pounds

Would it even be a good frame for polarization?

Try searching for those "I applied SW2 on my racquet" guys and ask how quickly they threw their racquets away.
Oh,sorry,you wont find them,no one would admit falling for that...

travlerajm
03-31-2008, 08:02 PM
Hello Travlerajm! Always very interesting to read about your findings.

Have you also tried to play matches with your extremely polarised setups?

I have moved some lead (less than you of course) around in my frame and found that even though the more polarised setups can feel great when standing in one place and hitting - whether it is volleys or groundies - the more depolarised seems to function better in match play, where one gets in to a lot of rapid situations, like pickups, running strokes, blocks, not properly footed saves, etc., and where you draw benefit from the directional accuracy you get from the depolarised frame, taking command over high bouncing short balls, directing the ball to the opponents weak spots. At least playing my aggressive game at say 5.0-5.5 level.

What is your take on this?

On a stiff frame, there is no disadvantage to a polarized weight distribution, provided the weight and balance are tuned properly for your strokes.

However, on a flexible frame, adding a small amount of weight at the top of the handle may sometimes be desirable to increase the dynamic stiffness (thereby increasing directional accuracy and power level at the expense of some spin potential). On a highly polarized flexible frame, several grams at the top of the handle will make a huge difference in dynamic stiffness, completely altering the playing characteristics. How much weight is added for this purpose (if any) depends on the playing style you want to use.

anirut
03-31-2008, 08:19 PM
Hi trav,

Back in the days there were these terms:

1. serve/ground power ratio
2. quality index
3. pro balance

Could you please explain what actually are they and how to "interpret" the numbers.

Thanks.

TenniseaWilliams
03-31-2008, 08:45 PM
On a stiff frame, there is no disadvantage to a polarized weight distribution, provided the weight and balance are tuned properly for your strokes.

However, on a flexible frame, adding a small amount of weight at the top of the handle may sometimes be desirable to increase the dynamic stiffness (thereby increasing directional accuracy and power level at the expense of some spin potential). On a highly polarized flexible frame, several grams at the top of the handle will make a huge difference in dynamic stiffness, completely altering the playing characteristics. How much weight is added for this purpose (if any) depends on the playing style you want to use.

I would love to be able to follow this, are you saying a high swing-weight does not impede maneuverability? How does a small weight in the middle of the racquet have much of an effect on the racquet stiffness? By dynamic do you mean as opposed to static (initial?) or progressive?

I get how a highly head heavy racquet will mash the poo out of a ball on sight, but removing weight from the handle helps acceleration?

psp2
03-31-2008, 09:53 PM
[B]How to build a racquet with superpowers!!!

Oh brother... here we go again with the snake oil.

RestockingTues
03-31-2008, 10:57 PM
A SW of 358 is manageable for you...? Are you some sort of superhuman made from Fed's pubes or something?

travlerajm
04-01-2008, 12:26 AM
Hi trav,

Back in the days there were these terms:

1. serve/ground power ratio
2. quality index
3. pro balance

Could you please explain what actually are they and how to "interpret" the numbers.

Thanks.
It's easier to just address one of these at a time. Let's talk about "pro balance."

Balance measurement is only useful if you also know the weight.

Rather than using the balance alone, it is more useful to normalize the balance by dividing by the square-root of the weight (swingweight scales with MR^2, so R scales with 1/sqrt(M)).

The average normalized racquet balance for an ATP pro is 44.6/sqrt(M), where balance is in inches from the butt and M is the weight in ounces.
For WTA pros, the average normalized racquet balance is roughly the same.
This means that the average balance for a pro using a 12.5-oz. racquet (either ATP or WTA) is about 12.6". And the average balance for a pro using an 11.5-oz. racquet is 13.15".

Now we have a baseline. 44.6/sqrt(M) = the average pro balance.
Again, balance is in inches from butt, and M is weight in ounces.

It turns out the the "ideal" pro balance is different.
The ideal pro balance -- that is, the balance that statistically correlates with best performance -- is 2-4 pts longer than the average pro balance.
Again, the ideal pro balance is the same for ATP men as it is for WTA women, although WTA players tend to use lower static weight.

So the ideal pro balance is about 0.3 + 44.6/sqrt(M).
Again, balance is in inches and M is in ounces.

This means that the ideal balance for a 12.5-oz. racquet is about 12.9".
And the ideal balance for a 11.5-oz. racquet is about 13.4".

If your balance is shorter than the ideal pro balance, your racquethead will tend to swing faster than your hand, and you will need to compensate with your wrist. This makes depth control on groundstrokes difficult.

Conversely, if your balance is longer than the ideal pro balance, your racquet will tend to feel too sluggish.

Also, the inherent power level in your racquet (apparent coefficient of restitution) will decrease significantly if you stray too far from the ideal pro balance, so your racquet will be less efficient for serving.

haerdalis
04-01-2008, 02:03 AM
A found a similar experience with the gamma g325. It has a low sw and is very headlight to begin with, yet quite stable. Adding around 8 g at 10 and 2 made for a very solid frame indeed. It did also make the flex of the frame more noticeable.

haerdalis
04-01-2008, 02:05 AM
Oh and also. Take a look at the specs of the new fischer m pro 105. This must be a great frame to customize if those specs are accurate. Talk about polarized in stock form.

Pro_Tour_630
04-01-2008, 09:03 AM
I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.


I experimented the opposite (john cauthen method) and IMO feel the concentration of weight should be above the handle. however I do have a frame that is similar to your experiment STOCK it is called Pro Tour 630 "lite" do not let the name "lite" fool you. IT is very head heavy and has amazing forhands serves and volleys but few things it lacked are FEEL, comfort and maneuverability which I assume your experiment will have. Not too sure many will be able to handle such a high SW 357 for a long period of time ie 3 sets, I can't.

You need to remember that many players are playing FULL 16g POLY and that will add more than 5 SW points as well,

sureshs
04-01-2008, 09:07 AM
He is back!

atomicx
04-01-2008, 09:31 AM
Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 23g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 23g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.6 oz.
Balance: 12.6”
Swingweight: 357 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.



Yeah, that all sounds well and good, but.....
I thought everyone knew that the only way to get a true Super Racquet is to hand carve one from the wood of a tree thats been struck by lightning. Now that would be a true Super Racquet! :)

Kidding aside, I'm glad you have found success from your efforts!

obnoxious2
04-01-2008, 10:34 AM
Very interesting. The part about adding the leadtape in loops sort of got me confused. Wish you ahd some pics.

Would a similar setup like this be possible with the ksix-one 95?

obnoxious2
04-01-2008, 08:18 PM
Sorry for a double post but if you sawed off an inch, does that mean that there is no fatter part at the end of the bottom of the handle where it usually edges out?

anirut
04-01-2008, 08:22 PM
Obnoxious2,

When sawing off the length, you first remove the "butt cap" -- that's the flared butt of the racket. It's a plastic piece that "caps" onto the racket's end.

So, that flared butt is kept safe and re-inserted after the sawing process.

travlerajm
04-01-2008, 09:48 PM
Oh and also. Take a look at the specs of the new fischer m pro 105. This must be a great frame to customize if those specs are accurate. Talk about polarized in stock form.

Yes. Those specs do look attractive. Very few players frames have that much room to work with.

RestockingTues
04-01-2008, 10:02 PM
Obnoxious2,

When sawing off the length, you first remove the "butt cap" -- that's the flared butt of the racket. It's a plastic piece that "caps" onto the racket's end.

So, that flared butt is kept safe and re-inserted after the sawing process.

Is the butt cap easy to remove, or do you need to expend a considerable about of energy to pry it off?

Greg Raven
04-01-2008, 10:26 PM
I have to say that I'm skeptical of anything that claims to increase or decrease "dynamic stiffness," a racquet characteristic that is unheard of outside of tt.tennis-warehouse.com, cannot be defined, and cannot be measured.

bertrevert
04-01-2008, 10:27 PM
^ Easy. V. small screwdriver leveraged against the plastic (not the soft foam of the handle) and prise those staples out.

Blank
04-01-2008, 10:57 PM
Trav

That's a very interesting experiment.

Would you mind posting some detailed photo shots of your customised POG Longbody?

travlerajm
04-01-2008, 11:17 PM
I have to say that I'm skeptical of anything that claims to increase or decrease "dynamic stiffness," a racquet characteristic that is unheard of outside of tt.tennis-warehouse.com, cannot be defined, and cannot be measured.

Greg,

Dynamic stiffness can be measured.

Racquet stiffness values in the tennis science literature are measured in units of frequency for the primary vibration mode. The higher the frequency, the stiffer the frame.

This frequency measurement gives the "dynamic stiffness." It is a good measure of how much a racquet will flex at impact.

If mass is added to a frame, it affects the frequency. But a Babolat RDC cannot detect the effect of this mass on stiffness. It will give you the same stiffness reading before and after adding weight.

So the Babolat RDC gives a "static stiffness" measurement, which is less representative of how much the frame will actually flex at impact.

It's not rocket science. It's physics 101.

Greg Raven
04-02-2008, 06:34 AM
There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.

obnoxious2
04-02-2008, 07:20 AM
Trav

That's a very interesting experiment.

Would you mind posting some detailed photo shots of your customised POG Longbody?

+1. I'm pretty tempted to try this. Some shots of how you wound the lead tape at 10,2 and 12 would be great! Wouldn't mind some shots on how you did the handle either.

thejackal
04-02-2008, 07:58 AM
There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.

greg, i might be over-simplifying or missing the boat altogether, but imagine a long pole, then imagine the same pole with a certain amount of mass added to the tip. wouldnt the latter have more "whip" when swung?

OnyxZ28
04-02-2008, 10:36 AM
[Beavis laugh] You said "long pole".[Beavis laugh]

travlerajm
04-02-2008, 10:32 PM
There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.

I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.

And there is a flaw in your argument -- mass distribution cannot be practically measured, so dynamic stiffness IS necessary to fully describe the impact event.

tennis_player09
04-02-2008, 11:34 PM
I see that there are a few physicists on TW, I have a question.
What does polarization mean for a tennis racket mean? I know what it means in chemistry, so does that apply to tennis rackets?

Blank
04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.

And there is a flaw in your argument -- mass distribution cannot be practically measured, so dynamic stiffness IS necessary to fully describe the impact event.

Trav, am I right to say that I can actually adjust the dynamic stiffness of a racquet by varying the amounts of lead added at the lower hoop ( at 6 o'clock)?

travlerajm
04-02-2008, 11:51 PM
Trav, am I right to say that I can actually adjust the dynamic stiffness of a racquet by varying the amounts of lead added at the lower hoop ( at 6 o'clock)?

Yes. However, beware that adding mass at 6 o'clock increases the undesirable power differential between the lower hoop and the upper hoop, so I don't recommend that you add lead tape there.

obnoxious2
04-03-2008, 09:22 AM
Trav would you say this setup is good for everyone or for older folks? Like it seems to produce alot of power but for someone who can generate alot of their own power, will their balls be sailing long?

btw-have you found your camera cord to the comp? I'm dying to see some pics of the lead tape around the 10 and 2 regions as well as the buttcap.

5263
04-03-2008, 09:45 AM
I have noticed that best power on my 102 red Head Prestige is far closer to the throat than you would expect.
Sounds like adding weight at 10 and 2 would not only move the sweet spot up, but improve spin potential as well?

AlpineCadet
04-03-2008, 02:00 PM
Yes. However, beware that adding mass at 6 o'clock increases the undesirable power differential between the lower hoop and the upper hoop, so I don't recommend that you add lead tape there.
travlerajm, I have a quick question. Does adding 5 grams 4 inches above the buttcap increase torque/shock/instability? It makes the frame easier to maneuver on serves, but groundies seem to be/feel less solid. Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

jackcrawford
04-03-2008, 07:52 PM
I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.
But not in this context - it's referring mainly to the relationship between vibration and cracks in machinery. http://www.engissol.com/Article2.htm

Deck
04-03-2008, 09:39 PM
Yes. However, beware that adding mass at 6 o'clock increases the undesirable power differential between the lower hoop and the upper hoop, so I don't recommend that you add lead tape there.

Is it possible to make similar tuning to the Bab APD Racquet? My son uses this and we could experiment with one, obviously we can not cut off any of the length.

Big Boris
04-04-2008, 03:18 AM
Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

You mean that certain lead placement in the hoop (towards the top of it) will enhance string bed performance? Is this then in the sense that you will get a more uniform response over the whole stringbed, making the trajectory of your shots more predictible (given that you will not always hit the same spot), or is it because you consider it better to have a higher sweet spot (giving more power)?

Traditionally many players leaded at 3 and 9, I guess to optimise power level and torsional stability - like Sampras, etc. Were they "wrong"?

DJG
04-04-2008, 04:59 AM
I know others have asked this before, but I would also love to see a picture of this monster. I'm planning a similar setup on a Pro Supex frame - weight at the butt will be added with heat-shrink sleeves & leather grip (4 1/4 starting grip, I'm a 4 1/2), with the hoop weights using Babolat lead.

Frames are here, I'm just waiting for the sleeves to arrive.

Douggo
04-04-2008, 07:34 AM
Forgive me - I didn't read all 6,842 pages of the SW2 thread(s?) to see what kind of legitimacy travlerajm has earned. The skeptic in me reads this thread as "I'm going to tell everyone I did some crazy stuff with my racquet that made it magical, and I'm going to wow them by knowing more physics than 98% of them, and everyone will think I'm some sort of tennis/physics savant."
I'll apologize in advance if I've misjudged you, travlerajm. But I'm smelling B.S. unless pictures are provided, and probably a couple other folks from this board copy your idea and report similar magical results.

okdude1992
04-04-2008, 06:18 PM
A SW of 358 is manageable for you...? Are you some sort of superhuman made from Fed's pubes or something?
lol hilarious.
to the OP nice work. id love to try this setup and see if it worked for me but im not nearly smart enough to do it myself:oops:

obnoxious2
04-04-2008, 09:14 PM
lol hilarious.
to the OP nice work. id love to try this setup and see if it worked for me but im not nearly smart enough to do it myself:oops:

+1 Wish he would come to the boards more often to answer some of my MANY questions. B/C I am def. going to try it this summer.

I'm just going to list some questions for the OP mainly on the customization part...hopefully he'll be on soon...




I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.


Do I need a special machine to restaple the buttcap? Or does any random tennis restringing shop have a staple machine?


Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

Did you use a reel of lead tape that you cut yourself such as:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-LEADSMALL.html

Or did you use something that is precut like:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-LEADQUAR.html

And can you clarify how to wrap the ¼” strips transversely? And when you say mechanically attached, what machine do I need?


I then added 23g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 23g in butt).

Where can I find the 23g of lead with specs: (2-7/8” x 1” segments)? I don't see it on TW site.

And does adding the lead at the tapered part of the buttcap make that part extra wide or it doesn't make much of a difference?


Sorry for some questions that may come off as nooby but I'm trying to customize it the exact same way you did it. Wouldn't mind if you told me which exact lead tapes you bought and some pictures would be great! Thanks!

Hatari!
04-05-2008, 07:59 AM
Wow, it sounds like one amazing racquet! Have any of the major racquet companies called you yet?;)

How much would you charge someone for one of those racquets?

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 03:21 PM
I did some more fine-tuning, this time by tweaking the mass in the butt to adjust the balance.

I ended up adding an additional 11g to the butt, plus I removed the rubber strap from the top of the handle. I love this racquet even more now.

My specs are now:
SW: 358 kg-cm^2
Weight: 12.9 oz. / 366g
Balance: 12.37" (9 pts HL) / 31.4 cm)
Recoil Wt: 190 kg-cm^2


The extra mass in the handle adds some topspin to my 2-hander and makes the racquet feel quicker at net. The really high recoil weight is very helpful on returns. The forehands and serve feel about the same is before, but with slightly more action on the ball.

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 03:38 PM
Do I need a special machine to restaple the buttcap? Or does any random tennis restringing shop have a staple machine?
The staple guns at the proshop are a good way to do it.

Did you use a reel of lead tape that you cut yourself such as:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-LEADSMALL.html

Or did you use something that is precut like:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage-LEADQUAR.html

I bought a 1"-wide reel cheap off auction site. Then I split it lengthwise twice to get 1/4" strips. Starting out with 1/4"-wide reel would be best. But for the weight at the butt, its best to use the 1"-wide reel.

And can you clarify how to wrap the ¼” strips transversely? And when you say mechanically attached, what machine do I need?

I mean that I wrap the strips around the frame, perpendicularly to the frame. The frame cross section has roughly 2" circumference, so my rings are more than 5 layers thick. By mechanically attached, I simply mean that the rings cannot fall off because they are looped around the frame instead of just on the inside surface.

Where can I find the 23g of lead with specs: (2-7/8” x 1” segments)? I don't see it on TW site.

I started with a 23" piece, than split it half = 2 x 11.5. Then again = 4 x 5.75. Then again = 8 x 2.875.

And does adding the lead at the tapered part of the buttcap make that part extra wide or it doesn't make much of a difference?

By putting it around the tapered part, it is much less noticeable.

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 03:41 PM
Wow, it sounds like one amazing racquet! Have any of the major racquet companies called you yet?;)

How much would you charge someone for one of those racquets?

I would charge a lot, because I don't have much spare time to be the racquet customization business. My medical device startup takes up most of my time, and my wife gets most of the rest. I resurfaced in the tennis world this week because my wife went out of town.

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 03:48 PM
You mean that certain lead placement in the hoop (towards the top of it) will enhance string bed performance? Is this then in the sense that you will get a more uniform response over the whole stringbed, making the trajectory of your shots more predictible (given that you will not always hit the same spot), or is it because you consider it better to have a higher sweet spot (giving more power)?
Yes, it will give you a more uniform and predictable stringbed response, giving you more control. A stock racquet has higher power level near the throat of the racquet than near the tip, which makes it hard to control your shots because your depth depends on the location of impact on your stringbed.

Traditionally many players leaded at 3 and 9, I guess to optimise power level and torsional stability - like Sampras, etc. Were they "wrong"?

Weight on the sides of the hoop is important too, because that is the only way to increase torsional stability. But most top pros who use weight at 3 and 9 also have substantial weight added under the bumper guard where you can't see it.

rosenstar
04-05-2008, 03:52 PM
The amount of spin generated is a function of 3 components:

Velocity, Effective Mass, and Bite.

The first is determined by the player's stroke, while the other two are determined by the racquet setup.

What exactly is meant by "Bite"? Can you give me a more scientific definition?

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 03:54 PM
Is it possible to make similar tuning to the Bab APD Racquet? My son uses this and we could experiment with one, obviously we can not cut off any of the length.

An APD is a good racquet to customize in this way. I would start by adding roughly 10g across the bumper guard region (enough to get the swingweight up to ~360). Tune the swingweight by adjusting the mass at the tip until your serve is most powerful. Then add enough mass to the butt to get the total weight up to 12.5 oz., or until it plays with the right amount of spin. Adjust the mass in the butt until your groundies feel most controlled.

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 04:02 PM
What exactly is meant by "Bite"? Can you give me a more scientific definition?

By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

rosenstar
04-05-2008, 04:46 PM
By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

That's pretty cool. So, when you say that this will add more spin to your shot, are you refering to a loopy spin where the ball travels high over the net, or are you simply saying that the ball will rotate more? I assume this greatly depends on the player's stroke and technique, but if all else is equal what affect does bite have on the ball?

travlerajm
04-05-2008, 04:49 PM
That's pretty cool. So, when you say that this will add more spin to your shot, are you refering to a loopy spin where the ball travels high over the net, or are you simply saying that the ball will rotate more? I assume this greatly depends on the player's stroke and technique, but if all else is equal what affect does bite have on the ball?

More rotation given the same swingpath.

obnoxious2
04-05-2008, 06:19 PM
thanks for the response trav! Hopefully I can get it done right this summer and I'll post up some pics of the build.

kirbster123
04-05-2008, 06:33 PM
Trav,

Where should I add lead to a Dunlop Aerogel 300?

Im really interested in your predictions.

Thanks again.

Tennisguy777
04-05-2008, 06:45 PM
Put a picture up. "Talk is very cheap, a picture is worth 777thousand words."

Deck
04-05-2008, 09:59 PM
An APD is a good racquet to customize in this way. I would start by adding roughly 10g across the bumper guard region (enough to get the swingweight up to ~360). Tune the swingweight by adjusting the mass at the tip until your serve is most powerful. Then add enough mass to the butt to get the total weight up to 12.5 oz., or until it plays with the right amount of spin. Adjust the mass in the butt until your groundies feel most controlled.

travlerajm, thanks for the info, I will experiment with the racquet tomorrow.

obnoxious2
04-06-2008, 05:42 PM
Hey trav, before I try this on the prince POG i want to see if I understand what you mean by wrapping it around the frame and would like to try it on my old racket.

First off, using my old racket I took a picture of the 2 oclock region to see if I understand what you meant by doing somethign like this?

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8303/img1038editwe9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sorry for the terrible paint drawing but basically the red line is where the lead tape would wrap. I assume I would wrape at each loop part about 5 layers?



And finally here's my old racket specs and was wondering if you could give me some recommendations on about how much to add and where.

wilson ncode something i forget as I got it a couple of years ago
length: 27 inch
weight: 10.6 oz. (figured it was this light to start off so I have alot of room to work with)
headsize: 98 sq. in.
balance: 32.2 CM (7 pts HL)

Greg Raven
04-06-2008, 06:25 PM
greg, i might be over-simplifying or missing the boat altogether, but imagine a long pole, then imagine the same pole with a certain amount of mass added to the tip. wouldnt the latter have more "whip" when swung?

I don't know what you mean by "whip," but it will move differently because it has a different mass and a different distribution of mass. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Greg Raven
04-06-2008, 06:29 PM
I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.

And there is a flaw in your argument -- mass distribution cannot be practically measured, so dynamic stiffness IS necessary to fully describe the impact event.

Well, in engineering terms, "dynamic stiffness" typically refers to rotating machinery, such as shafts and rotors. An impact event involving a tennis racquet has nothing to do with "dynamic stiffness."

As for measuring the mass distribution, that's what you are measuring when you measure the swingweight. However, when you say "dynamic stiffness," not only are you not measuring it in any fashion, you still have failed even to define what you are talking about. That is, you have yet to tell us how the effects of "dynamic stiffness" differ from those of mass distribution.

For example, let's say you have three racquets that have the same form factor, lay-up, etc. Each of the first two have a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 300 grams, a balance of 30 cm, and a swingweight of 300 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that these two racquets are identical for all intents and purposes, and that they have the same "dynamic stiffness."

The third racquet, however, has a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 290 grams, a balance of 28.69 centimeters, and a swingweight of 266 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that this racquet has less "dynamic stiffness." If you were to add 10 grams at 68 cm, it would match the measurements of the first two racquets. Presumably, you'd say that now, all three racquets share the same "dynamic stiffness." Yet, what's part of the difference of the third racquet's new characteristics is due to the additional mass, and what part to "dynamic stiffness," whatever that is?

In other words, you claim to be changing the "dynamic stiffness" of the racquet by adding mass, but you seem to be discarding the changes in racquet characteristics due to delta mass, in favor of referring to "dynamic stiffness." Furthermore, altering the mass (and, hence, the mass distribution) also alters the center of percussion, recoil weight, hitting weight, and (depending on the location relative to the axis) the twistweight. Why discard these known characteristics in favor of an unknown, unquantifiable one?

I don't get it.

Greg Raven
04-06-2008, 06:45 PM
[...]

My specs are now:
SW: 358 kg-cm^2
Weight: 12.9 oz. / 366g
Balance: 12.37" (9 pts HL) / 31.4 cm)
Recoil Wt: 190 kg-cm^2

[...]

OK, but what are the before-and-after measurements for "dynamic stiffness"?

Greg Raven
04-06-2008, 06:54 PM
By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

obnoxious2
04-06-2008, 07:31 PM
This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

I believe you just answered your confusion with Newton's 3rd law which states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

terror-alpha
04-06-2008, 07:38 PM
because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

I'm a BioChem major, and I took enough physics classes to say that "centrifugal" force isn't a real force. What you are talking about it called inertia, the resistance to change of an object's velocity (speed AND direction). The pulling effect that you feel inside a car when it is making a fast, sharp turn. Sorry about being a wise butt, but, I'm going to try this with one of my older racquets, this looks interesting. Thanks!

terror-alpha
04-06-2008, 07:39 PM
Lol, obnoxious2 and I are agitating the OP.

obnoxious2
04-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Lol, obnoxious2 and I are agitating the OP.

Haha, i don't mean to agitate or annoy the OP. I'm just trying to figure out EXACTLY what he did so i can do it too. I plan on doing it on the prince POG this summer but for now I'm going to see how it works on my old wilson ncode and to get some practice with customizing.

TenniseaWilliams
04-06-2008, 08:40 PM
Haha, i don't mean to agitate or annoy the OP. I'm just trying to figure out EXACTLY what he did so i can do it too. I plan on doing it on the prince POG this summer but for now I'm going to see how it works on my old wilson ncode and to get some practice with customizing.

The OP is obviously way too busy getting ready for the pro tour with that racquet to answer any reasonable questions. :twisted:

If any of you are interested in actual stuff that works in our current universe, try http://racquetresearch.com/

Although some of it is dated, the racquet rankings are kinda funky, and the research seems mostly aimed at body safety (obviously you will do better at tennis if you can still play) it will keep you from getting laughed at if you bring it up in front of anyone with even a small clue.

The USRSA also has tons of info
http://racquettech.com
but then again neither of these sites claim to have discovered the secret that will blow the lid off of tennis, just good clean info you have to work at to use.

"The jawbone of an a** is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." --- Richard Nixon

RestockingTues
04-06-2008, 10:23 PM
So would you say that any team racket, given enough lead tape and fishing weights can be customized into a polarized super racket?

Soundog
04-06-2008, 11:00 PM
This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

Greg, with respect, I disagree.

When we talk of spin, we need to clarify whether we are talking solely about the ball’s rotational speed alone or whether we are taking about getting a ball to dip downwards into the court from it’s trajectory – let’s call this “effective spin”.

The trouble with “effective spin” is that it’s a combination of forward motion or the ball ( motion from baseline to baseline ) and rotational speed. The ratio is just as important as actual rotational speed.

Forgetting terminal velocity and assuming a reasonable trajectory, a ball rotating at 3000 rpm will not dip into a court if it is travelling forwards at 1000 kmh because the effective spin ratio is insufficient. The ball will likely have exploded through the back fence before rotational motion has any time to effect on the trajectory. If the ball has a forward motion of say 40kmh, the rotational motion has enough time to push the ball downwards before it reaches the baseline and it most likely will visibly dip and drop in, so effective spin firstly depends on the ratio of rotational speed to forward speed.

What Trav calls “bite” is in itself a combination of several factors, but the effect is rotational speed of the ball. Those factors are

1) A friction coefficient between the strings and the ball
2) Dwell time between the string and the ball
3) Amount of surface area in contact between the string bed and the ball.

Given the same amount of oblique motion of the racket head and racket head speed, Increasing any of these factors will increase rotational motion of the ball. Forget angle of incidence and whether the ball goes in or out. A player will compensate for these anyway, but it is the absolute amounts of rotational motion and forward motion that we are interested in.

1) The friction coefficient depends on the material properties of the string and ball. Tests have shown that putting a weight on top of a tennis ball and dragging over a polyester string bed requires more force than dragging it over a nylon string bed given the same weight on top. Poly’s have greater friction when the weight is high as do rough strings. The friction coefficient is not a constant and changes according to the amount of pressure between the ball and the string bed. Different strings have different curves, but if one were to plot pressure on the x axis and friction on the y, poly strings would produce an initial flat curve with sharply upward end like a J whereas nylons produce a flatter upward curve more like a straight line but likely to be upwards nonetheless.

2) Dwell time is increased by flex – either in the string with looser tensions or in the frame or with flexible frames. Anything that increases dwell time increases the potential to apply rotational motion. This is why spaghetti stringing works – because dwell time is massively increased when a series of de-coupled strings are allowed to individually act on the ball surface. It is also why flexible rackets increase spin – partly because forwards speed is decreased and hence the ratio of rotational speed to forward speed is increased, and partly because dwell time is increased allowing increased rotational motion.

3) This is the interesting one because it is in opposition to 2. A stiffer string bed will crush the ball and increase the amount of surface area contact between the ball and strings. Provided that friction coefficient is sufficiently high, rotational motion potential will be increased.

Weight added to a frame will increase it’s plough-through local to where the weight is added so where you put it influences whether that plough-through is applied to forward motion or rotational motion. By plough-through, I mean the effect of the increase in inertia of the racket acting on the ball such that the motion of the ball is increased.

I’m with Trav that a polarised frame potentially produces more spin because weight in the hoop increases the “plough through” of the head in it’s rotational motion without increasing the forward motion plough-through too much. So factors 1 and 3 are increased with respect to rotational motion and factor 2 is not affected too much. Secondly, assuming there is some rotation of the racket around the wrist as in a window washer forehand, the speed of the string bed at the hoop is greater than the speed in the middle which is greater than the speed at the throat. By increasing weight in the hoop, plough through is increased in a part of the racket where speed is greater. Polarising a frame doesn’t help if you hit the ball near the throat all the time. Greatest benefit is derived from striking the ball nearer the hoop.

Weight at 3 and 9 increases forward motion plough-through more than rotational motion hence “effective spin” is reduced because the ratio is reduced.

travlerajm
04-07-2008, 12:29 AM
So would you say that any team racket, given enough lead tape and fishing weights can be customized into a polarized super racket?

No. The POG LB starts out with much less weight in the lower hoop and mid section than any team racquet. That is why the shortened POG has a starting swingweight of about 280. No other frame that I know of can be customized to perform as well. Perhaps some of the early thin-beam Hammer frames are exceptions?

Without starting with such a light lower hoop, it is impossible to get as much torsional stability while at the same time getting as uniform a stringbed response over the entire racquet face.

A normal racquet loses power near the tip due to noticeable flexing (as the tip bends backward relative to the center of mass of the racquet) and due to rotation about the center of mass. In contrast, my superracquet does not noticeably flex backward at the tip because the tip has much more mass than the middle portion of the racquet -- rather, it feels like it flexes in the opposite direction (like a Head flexpoint is claimed to work). The main advantage of this flex pattern is extremely uniform power level over the whole stringbed. And the high recoil weight (190) minimizes loss of power near the tip due to rotation about the center of mass.

travlerajm
04-07-2008, 12:53 AM
As for measuring the mass distribution, that's what you are measuring when you measure the swingweight. However, when you say "dynamic stiffness," not only are you not measuring it in any fashion, you still have failed even to define what you are talking about. That is, you have yet to tell us how the effects of "dynamic stiffness" differ from those of mass distribution.

For example, let's say you have three racquets that have the same form factor, lay-up, etc. Each of the first two have a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 300 grams, a balance of 30 cm, and a swingweight of 300 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that these two racquets are identical for all intents and purposes, and that they have the same "dynamic stiffness."


Two racquets that have the same static flex, mass, balance, and swingweight can have different dynamic stiffnesses. That is mainly because the mass distributions are not fully specified by mass, balance, and swingweight alone.


In other words, you claim to be changing the "dynamic stiffness" of the racquet by adding mass, but you seem to be discarding the changes in racquet characteristics due to delta mass, in favor of referring to "dynamic stiffness." Furthermore, altering the mass (and, hence, the mass distribution) also alters the center of percussion, recoil weight, hitting weight, and (depending on the location relative to the axis) the twistweight. Why discard these known characteristics in favor of an unknown, unquantifiable one?

I don't get it.

Who said it is unquantifiable? The frequency of the primary vibrational mode, coupled the node locations, provides a measure of the dynamic stiffness.

travlerajm
04-07-2008, 01:08 AM
Hey trav, before I try this on the prince POG i want to see if I understand what you mean by wrapping it around the frame and would like to try it on my old racket.

First off, using my old racket I took a picture of the 2 oclock region to see if I understand what you meant by doing somethign like this?

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8303/img1038editwe9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sorry for the terrible paint drawing but basically the red line is where the lead tape would wrap. I assume I would wrape at each loop part about 5 layers?



And finally here's my old racket specs and was wondering if you could give me some recommendations on about how much to add and where.

wilson ncode something i forget as I got it a couple of years ago
length: 27 inch
weight: 10.6 oz. (figured it was this light to start off so I have alot of room to work with)
headsize: 98 sq. in.
balance: 32.2 CM (7 pts HL)
You have the basic idea.
If that is an nPro Open, it's a decent frame to start with. On that frame, you will be able to add about 25g to the 2 and 10 regions before the swingweight starts to go beyond the max-power point (which is at about 360). You will then need to add about 30g or so the butt to recover a balance that gives you good control on all shots. The exact amounts need to be tuned carefully using trial and error on court.

For the final tuning of the hoop mass, I use the power level of my serve as a guide. I find that my serve is most explosive at around 360 swingweight - use on-court trial and error to find the actual value.

For the final tuning of the handle weight, I usually start with less weight than I think I'll need, and then place a rubber grip strap around the butt (the kind that go at the top of the grip), and then tuck coins under the strap until I achieve the balance that gives me optimal control and trajectory on all shots. Once I find the balance, I replace the weight of the coins with additional lead tape under the grip.

mareli63
04-07-2008, 11:30 AM
Why use a POG? Try Speedport White Pro.
It has already a high a sw and adding 8g in the upper hoop and 26g in the handle the end result will be:
Static weight: 366g
Swing wight: 358
Balance: 9.2pts HL (31.34)
Recoil weight: 192

Same as yours with less lead tape and the hasle of cutting the handle.

madmanfool
04-07-2008, 12:50 PM
Why use a POG? Try Speedport White Pro.
It has already a high a sw and adding 8g in the upper hoop and 26g in the handle the end result will be:
Static weight: 366g
Swing wight: 358
Balance: 9.2pts HL (31.34)
Recoil weight: 192

Same as yours with less lead tape and the hasle of cutting the handle.

Because it wouldn't be polarized like he wants it to be. Try searching on SW2 (swing weight 2) and read about it. You might want to take a day off though, lot to read:)
I also play with something similar in specs. My leaded prince O3 tour MP is also 12.9 ounces, and swingweight and balance almost spot on as well. But the weight distribution is completely different. But i'm going to stick with my racquet, don't wont to risk lead posioning ;)

grizzly4life
04-07-2008, 04:15 PM
hey, i was wondering what happened to the old SW2 gang. welcome back!!!

FWIW, here's my experience with leading up my iradical O/S (and reasonably similar experience with other racquets):

i tended a bit more towards making it more HH. i haven't been a fan of leading it up and then having it quite HL. just feels weird.

so i leaded it up progressively and starting getting absolutely amazing results but then i took it too far eventually my shots had no velocity or bite. then i had no more lead tape left (and i don't find the stuff reusable), so i just tore it all off and went back to original set-up but it definitely worked wonders. i would love to get back into it but i guess i need a really big lead tape order from TW.com. maybe i'll do it. i notice alot fewer places sell it these days. i wonder if it'll be evnetually banned. is there anything else that can replace it?? i think you could work with something that isn't nearly as heavy per size. but obviously it needs to be fairly dense.

anyhow, this stuff really works. i usually lose 6-2 to one guy. i was beating him 6-2 or worse regularly.......

jackcrawford
04-07-2008, 07:52 PM
No. The POG LB starts out with much less weight in the lower hoop and mid section than any team racquet. That is why the shortened POG has a starting swingweight of about 280. No other frame that I know of can be customized to perform as well.
http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html
By adding a total of 12 grams of lead on a stock APD, you get a frame like Nadal's. It has a SW of 355. He seems to spin the ball ok with it. Of course, this takes away the hours of fun tinkering around with tape and a hacksaw;)

Hatari!
04-08-2008, 07:22 PM
Where the strings already predetermined? Have you tested any other strings out with this racquet?

pr0n8r
04-08-2008, 08:19 PM
If someone builds a racket with Superpowers, and noone sees it, does it actually exist?

psp2
04-08-2008, 10:35 PM
I injected 754 grams of viscous fluid inside my SV PS85. SW has been bumped to around 830. My fh stroke has decreased from a full swing to a mere 6" tap.

My racquet's "dynamic stiffness" has now caught up with the "static stiffness". My electromotive acceleration is now .55 and my off-center of percussion is somewhere near my buttcap!!

However..... my NTRP remains the same :(

jackcrawford
04-09-2008, 09:55 PM
I injected 754 grams of viscous fluid inside my SV PS85. SW has been bumped to around 830. My fh stroke has decreased from a full swing to a mere 6" tap.

My racquet's "dynamic stiffness" has now caught up with the "static stiffness". My electromotive acceleration is now .55 and my off-center of percussion is somewhere near my buttcap!!

However..... my NTRP remains the same :(
Add 30 weight oil at 12 o'clock until SW reaches 1,000 and repeat slowly the following chant: o wa ta ful iam and you will soon find yourself on the pro tour!

gerli
04-09-2008, 11:16 PM
Could someone tell me how to calculate the "recoil weight".

Thank you

psp2
04-10-2008, 12:02 AM
Could someone tell me how to calculate the "recoil weight".

Thank you

According to Prince, Recoil is 16g. I don't know if that's gauge or grams or gerbils.

Douggo
04-10-2008, 08:02 AM
Is it fair to say this thread has unraveled, or has it gone to its rightful place? Perhaps both?

haerdalis
04-10-2008, 08:34 AM
I think all these nonsense comments are sad. These threads do contain some useful information. Sure it is not everyones cup of tea but to modify a racquet can actually have big benefits and it is fun aswell.

anirut
04-10-2008, 08:43 AM
haerdalis,

I have once said on a Thai religion board:

"Light cannot help those with closed eyes see."

Fastpace Ace
04-10-2008, 11:03 AM
Thanks travlerajm. I have always enjoyed your posts and I am benefiting greatly from them. I have printed out your stuff from waaayyy back. Thanks again. And, if you have time and find your camera cord, I would love to see a pic.

sureshs
04-10-2008, 11:22 AM
Make sure you can handle the increased weight and swingweight.

The last time around, a lot of people modded their racquets, only to post later about their injuries and how they had gone back to their old setups.

FaultsNAces
04-10-2008, 11:38 AM
Yeah, these threads contain useful information like this:

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).


(From http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1211438&postcount=20)

ROTFLOL!

-frank

sureshs
04-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Yeah, these threads contain useful information like this:

Originally Posted by travlerajm
The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

ROTFLOL!

-frank

Neither the time period of the swing of the pendulum nor the speed at any point on the swing depends on the mass of the pendulum. The time period depends only on the length, and the speed at any point depends only on the height from which the pendulum was released.

This is for simple pendulums. For compound pendulums it is different. It depends on the moment of inertia and the total mass.

FaultsNAces
04-10-2008, 05:29 PM
Neither the time period of the swing of the pendulum nor the speed at any point on the swing depends on the mass of the pendulum. The time period depends only on the length, and the speed at any point depends only on the height from which the pendulum was released.

Thanks, sureshs -- finally some defensibly correct statements in this realm!


This is for simple pendulums. For compound pendulums it is different. It depends on the moment of inertia and the total mass.
Ahhh, but therein lies the rub! Given a human arm holding a racket and acting like a fancy compound pendulum, how much slower will this system swing when we add a few grams to it? How many grams does it take to make this system actually slow down a meaningful amount?

It's all fine and good to wave your hands around, but to show that the hand waving of a tennis stroke somehow becomes gravity-governed by adding a few grams of mass, you will need to show that the moment of inertia of the arm-racket system is significantly increased: good luck with that....

(Ever notice how slow your arm falls when holding a shotput? Me neither.)

jackcrawford
04-11-2008, 05:51 AM
I think all these nonsense comments are sad. These threads do contain some useful information. Pseudo-intellectual threads that attempt to baffle with BS since they cannot dazzle with brilliance do not deserve to treated with the reverence that would be granted to a newly discovered paper by Einstein.

obnoxious2
04-11-2008, 08:02 AM
Pseudo-intellectual threads that attempt to baffle with BS since they cannot dazzle with brilliance do not deserve to treated with the reverence that would be granted to a newly discovered paper by Einstein.

Even some of Einstein's theories weren't completely accepted until YEARS AND YEARS after he died.

Fastpace Ace
04-11-2008, 11:20 AM
Travler, I have learned lots from you over the last year or so. Thanks again.

FaultsNAces
04-11-2008, 12:02 PM
Travler, I have learned lots from you over the last year or so. Thanks again.

If you learned stuff like this:

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Well, you might want to check that with someone who took (and passed) a high school level Physics course....

jackcrawford
04-11-2008, 08:05 PM
Even some of Einstein's theories weren't completely accepted until YEARS AND YEARS after he died.
?? General relativity, Einstein's most famous and important work, was experimentally confirmed in 1919, making Einstein a world-wide celebrity from that point on. He received the Nobel Prize for physics in 1921, living until 1955. I have no idea of who you are confusing him with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein

Max Winther
04-13-2008, 05:33 PM
I've recently been enthralled in SW2 and polarization stuff within the past 2 - 3 weeks, and after reading countless posts, I decided I'm ready for lead in my AG200's.

I've got 12 g of fishing weights in the handle right now, but ill probably take those out when my lead tape comes in (monday). Im planning on doing the standard practice of putting a long strip along the hoop between 8 and 4, Then putting another 5g or so at 12 until I get enough SW. I'll then replace my fishing weights, though not all 12g worth.

My question is, is there a blatant step I've missed, or does somebody have a better approach for polarizing a 12.3 oz, 11phl frame? Thanks everyone for providing all this info.

mareli63
04-16-2008, 03:26 PM
Because it wouldn't be polarized like he wants it to be. Try searching on SW2 (swing weight 2) and read about it. You might want to take a day off though, lot to read:)
I also play with something similar in specs. My leaded prince O3 tour MP is also 12.9 ounces, and swingweight and balance almost spot on as well. But the weight distribution is completely different. But i'm going to stick with my racquet, don't wont to risk lead posioning ;)

You can not have two raquets with same static weight, same balance,same swingweight and different weight distribution.
I tried all setups of Trav. (SW2) including his NXG OS and I don't think they work for a club player. You don't have to much directional control.
His desire to play with that high swingweight it comes from the fact that he uses kevlar strings which are very low powered.
I can have better results and directional control with a raquet with 322 sw and Natgut/poly hybrid.

skuludo
04-17-2008, 11:25 AM
travlerajm do you have recommendations for customizing the LM Radical MP and dunlop 300g? (Polarization setup)

obnoxious2
04-19-2008, 07:09 PM
dang it, just when i was going to order a POG LB, they ran out of my grip size and TW have discontinued selling it.

Anyone know another racquet that is perfect for polarization?

emerckx53
04-19-2008, 08:02 PM
Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.

I prefer to just use a standard racquet...something about that extra inch that helps me hit better shots....I guess you also could tape a tennis ball launcher to a junior racquet and blow people off the court...wait, you could even just build the superracquet and create a computer program to test it and play against and not even go to the court...

Strings And Things
04-20-2008, 11:01 PM
Travlerajm, I'm just curious:

So you where able to calculate the SW of your POG LB after the shortening of the handle. Now I was wondering, how do you calculate SW after making a frame longer?

I'm basically interested in doing the opposite of what you're doing. I'm thinking about using a 26" Junior frame with a low SW. Another member has already done
this before (I forgot who).

Let's say that the starting SW at length 26" = 240. What would the new SW be after adding an extra inch? BTW, the added length's mass can be disreguarded as far as for SW calculation, since it's static weight is very minute, plus the location of the added length is close to the axis of rotation anyways.

I would greatly appreciate your help or anyone's. Thanks.

obnoxious2
04-21-2008, 10:57 AM
Travlerajm, I'm just curious:

So you where able to calculate the SW of your POG LB after the shortening of the handle. Now I was wondering, how do you calculate SW after making a frame longer?

I'm basically interested in doing the opposite of what you're doing. I'm thinking about using a 26" Junior frame with a low SW. Another member has already done
this before (I forgot who).

Let's say that the starting SW at length 26" = 240. What would the new SW be after adding an extra inch? BTW, the added length's mass can be disreguarded as far as for SW calculation, since it's static weight is very minute, plus the location of the added length is close to the axis of rotation anyways.

I would greatly appreciate your help or anyone's. Thanks.

I believe in another some guy asked how to calc the SW. And you need to find a bunch of stuff and put it in an equation. THere's also a spreadsheet where you just put int he input of your new racquet balance from balance to handle and balance to hoop and a bunch of weights in grams and it will calc your SW.

TennisDawg
04-21-2008, 11:35 AM
I believe in another some guy asked how to calc the SW. And you need to find a bunch of stuff and put it in an equation. THere's also a spreadsheet where you just put int he input of your new racquet balance from balance to handle and balance to hoop and a bunch of weights in grams and it will calc your SW.


http://www.usrsa.com/store/learningcenter/lc_swingweight.html


This should help. I also have done this on a spreadsheet. You will still need to measure the balance of the racquet and may need to counter-balance to maintain the same balance.

Tennisguy777
04-21-2008, 09:15 PM
If someone builds a racket with Superpowers, and noone sees it, does it actually exist? Good question, I was wondering the same thing!

travlerajm
04-21-2008, 11:10 PM
Travlerajm, I'm just curious:

So you where able to calculate the SW of your POG LB after the shortening of the handle. Now I was wondering, how do you calculate SW after making a frame longer?

I'm basically interested in doing the opposite of what you're doing. I'm thinking about using a 26" Junior frame with a low SW. Another member has already done
this before (I forgot who).

Let's say that the starting SW at length 26" = 240. What would the new SW be after adding an extra inch? BTW, the added length's mass can be disreguarded as far as for SW calculation, since it's static weight is very minute, plus the location of the added length is close to the axis of rotation anyways.

I would greatly appreciate your help or anyone's. Thanks.

The simplest way is to first convert to recoil weight (swingweight about the center of mass). Recoil = Ic = I - M*(R - 10)^2.
I = swingweight about 10cm axis.
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm

Then, if you want to lengthen by one inch, you convert back I.

I = Ic + M*(R - (10 - 2.54))^2

So for example, if starting I = 240, M = 280g, and R = 33.

Then Ic = 240 - 0.280*(33 -10)^2 = 92.

Then for 27", new I = 92 + 0.28*(33 - (10 - 2.54))^2 = 274.

Ultra2HolyGrail
04-21-2008, 11:21 PM
Reopen the St.Vincent Factory :)

Strings And Things
04-22-2008, 12:30 PM
The simplest way is to first convert to recoil weight (swingweight about the center of mass). Recoil = Ic = I - M*(R - 10)^2.
I = swingweight about 10cm axis.
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm

Then, if you want to lengthen by one inch, you convert back I.

I = Ic + M*(R - (10 - 2.54))^2

So for example, if starting I = 240, M = 280g, and R = 33.

Then Ic = 240 - 0.280*(33 -10)^2 = 92.

Then for 27", new I = 92 + 0.28*(33 - (10 - 2.54))^2 = 274.What I did before was I used the calculations of your POG's before-after specs as a guideline for an estimate of the SW estimation.

Your "before" spec was: POG at 28" = 320
"after" spec was: POG at 27" = 285 (approx)

I then subtracted 285 from 320 = 35

Then I added that difference to the SW of my frame: 35 + 240 = "275"

I ended up with an estimate close to the result of your example the frame with SW 240, balance at 35".

You had "274" and I had "275" -- really close est.

I know that there is the other variablew to take into account, which isthe balance point, but in my previous estimate, I figured I would come up with a ballpark figure that would at least give me an idea as to what I am looking into.

Thanks to you, now I know how to make more precise calculations by using the formula you provided.

LuckyR
04-25-2008, 04:30 PM
trav- Compare your opinion of the "Superpower" stick to the SW2 NXG.

ART ART
04-25-2008, 06:36 PM
@travlerajm: just wanna thank you for all this info you provide.
Good ideas you have about tunning rackets.
Most of this ideas are already used since the 90's by ATP players, but are secrets for simple players like many around here.

The rest of you guys that keep telling stupid things about travlerajm, just open your eyes and your mind a little...

Best Regards

FaultsNAces
04-25-2008, 08:18 PM
ART, please tell me, is this the kind of stuff we need to open our eyes and minds to:
[QUOTE=travlerajm;1211438]The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Much greater eyes and minds have long ago dismissed such nonsense -- but of course, it's a free country so believe what you want.....

jackson vile
04-27-2008, 08:45 AM
Listen I am one of the people that has done this since Trav first brought this up, now I have tried this on 25 different rackets and different setup.

There is a HUGE advantage when a racket is properly setup and let me tell you, that what you buy from the manufature 90% of the time is crap!.


There simply is no comparision, and the only people that don't believe that are the people that have not tried it.

Trav and I disagree on the application, and I broke up the differences in racket specs for the different styles of play.

So there is not one fits all customization, as that is not possibile LOL


If you look through so me of my old post you will find that, how ever the basis of what Trav is saying is 100% true.

Or you can agrue with the pros rackets which Greg is more than happy to do LOL


Perhaps Greg would also have you believe that a co-poly is just like any other old string that has been around LOL

Strings And Things
04-27-2008, 12:30 PM
There simply is no comparision, and the only people that don't believe that are the people that have not tried it.

Not only that .... it's also the people that aren't doing something right or just aren't technically inclined (some people just aren't good at fixing things and getting things right -- hands-on).

obnoxious2
04-27-2008, 03:29 PM
Listen I am one of the people that has done this since Trav first brought this up, now I have tried this on 25 different rackets and different setup.

There is a HUGE advantage when a racket is properly setup and let me tell you, that what you buy from the manufature 90% of the time is crap!.


There simply is no comparision, and the only people that don't believe that are the people that have not tried it.

Trav and I disagree on the application, and I broke up the differences in racket specs for the different styles of play.

So there is not one fits all customization, as that is not possibile LOL


If you look through so me of my old post you will find that, how ever the basis of what Trav is saying is 100% true.

Or you can agrue with the pros rackets which Greg is more than happy to do LOL


Perhaps Greg would also have you believe that a co-poly is just like any other old string that has been around LOL

Would say there is a correlation for height and weight to determine your optimal swingweight? So say 5'6 & 140lbs.

FaultsNAces
04-27-2008, 07:53 PM
There is a HUGE advantage when a racket is properly setup

Absolutely true, no argument possible, though perhaps the notion of HUGE is a tad bit exaggerated.


and let me tell you, that what you buy from the manufature 90% of the time is crap!.

Totally false: the manufacturers build quality products; the fact that they aren't optimized for your particular stroke doesn't make them crap. Fact is, the vast majority of people can play quite well with a stock stick right out of the box. Further, the fact that stock rackets vary quite a bit in terms of mass isn't much of a problem, either: it's only really a problem if you want/need matched sticks, which is a small minority of the racket-buying public.


If you look through so me of my old post you will find that, how ever the basis of what Trav is saying is 100% true.

Sorry, wrong: the basis of what Trav is saying is total BS. Here's his explanation of the logic behind SW2 (I'm conveniently including the link to the post so you can go look up the thread/post and see for yourself):
Increasing the swingweight beyond the max-power point causes a decrease in groundstroke power. When you get the point beyond the max-power point where the power level is once again at the optimum level, this is SW2. SW2 is typically in the range of 365-375. The exact value of SW2 will vary, depending on the handle mass, string tension, and stiffness.

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).


Anybody who has ever taken HS Physics knows that the above is totally incorrect! Unfortunately for you and travlerajm, the above is the whole foundation of the SW2 nonsense. Oops.

As far as the pros, if you spend time with a professional MRT, particularly one who works with top 20 pros, you will find out how and why the pros customize their rackets. And as I have done this, I have found -- surprise, surprise -- that SW2 is not a factor, not even close. The real process is simple and works well as is quite obvious from the results they get. No, I won't post what they really do, but I'll tell you that there is no secret formula, no secret handshake, no magical mystery behind the customizations -- and yet, it's not surprising that pro rackets end up closely comparable in swingweights, etc....

bertrevert
04-27-2008, 11:08 PM
Further, the fact that stock rackets vary quite a bit in terms of mass isn't much of a problem, either: it's only really a problem if you want/need matched sticks, which is a small minority of the racket-buying public.

<SNIP>

As far as the pros, if you spend time with a professional MRT, particularly one who works with top 20 pros, you will find out how and why the pros customize their rackets. And as I have done this, I have found -- surprise, surprise -- that SW2 is not a factor, not even close. The real process is simple and works well as is quite obvious from the results they get. No, I won't post what they really do, but I'll tell you that there is no secret formula, no secret handshake, no magical mystery behind the customizations -- and yet, it's not surprising that pro rackets end up closely comparable in swingweights, etc....

And yet you are making this like those very magicians who guard their stage secrets - precisely the point I guess.

Ok let me try to deduce...

It's not about SW2 mass, although matching the mass of multiple racq is a required.

Hmm, so it's a process whereby pro racquets end up all somewhat close in SW which isn't a process do with adding or subtracting mass. Perhaps it's about where the mass is situated?

I imagine the process is about getting the pro to hit balls spat by machine at certain "pro" speeds and see if they are returning long or short; and then move weight up or down. It doesn't matter whatever chosen racquet the pro starts with, whether they start with a light static weight or heavy, the pro at least knows what weight they can carry. Tuning their strokes this way would still be tuning swingweight though... um?

Well if that's my guess at the "how", then the "why" would be about inbuilding certainty and ironing out error.

Say what you like about SW2, I think the focus on swingweight is beneficial.

And perhaps the addition of the new TWU(niversity) with it's lessons about stringbed power etc are exactly trying to address such "magical mysteries".

Close?

Arctic
04-28-2008, 11:57 AM
i'm extremely interested in trying this. will probably pick up a racket this week and start the sawing and weighting.

DLE
04-29-2008, 07:01 AM
I have no idea if these swingweight calculations are correct, or if you even can, as many other posters have questioned or refuted, calculate swingweight by using weights and balances. Nor do I have any opinion as to how SW2, if real, applies to different swing types such as high take backs and low take backs (the Cauthon method?). This is just a post to tell of my experience using the significant weight increases as discussed on this thread. I also wanted to share my experience as it relates to the numerous questions as to if a non-pro player could wield a racquet with a high static weight and with what results.

Racquet = new from TW, Prince Graphite Classic Mid, 600 cm. sq. head, length 69 cm., strung weight with Gamma double worm dampener and overgrip 346 grams, approx. swingweight 328 (the addition of the dampener and overgrip may have changed that a little, but it can’t be much), listed on TW as 8 pts. headlight and balance on Prince website is 31.0 (a little confused on this calculation input as the Excel conversion program had 8 pts headlight = 32 cm; I guess I could use a Viper board), stiffness 66, strings Lux. BB ALU Power Rough mains @ 57lbs, Prince Premier Softflex crosses @ 57 lbs. I used the Excel calculation program provided in another post and tried the following setup: 4.5g @12, 4.5g @ 10, 4.5g @ 2, 13.5g @ bottom of handle to counterbalance. I used the new Gamma lead weights that are shaped like an “H” and have a black exterior instead of the traditional ¼” lead tape strips. The “H” lead pieces are 4.5g each according to my scale even though TW lists them at 3 or 4 and they put the weight on the frame in just under a 2” space rather than the longer strips of ¼” tape. I have no idea how the space concentration of the tape weight affects the calculations or hitting experience. The Excel program gave me these new figures: mass 373 g, Balance 30.8, Swingweight 360, Iref 198, Power Level Index 2209 and SGPR 1.15. I don’t have a completely clear concept of Iref, PLI and SGPR, but let me tell you how it hit.

Fantastic. I am not saying you can make an “Excalibur” racquet, but it is the best racquet I have ever hit with. The other racquets I have played with for long periods of time in the past are Wilson PS85, Head Prestige Classic and LiquidMetal, Volkl C10 Pro, Slazenger X1, Yonex RDS001 Mid and Yonex RDS002Tour. The racquet was extremely solid on groundstrokes and volleys and it was soft feeling, maybe “buttery” is the better descriptive word I have seen in different descriptions in the forums. The soft isn’t a negative term, but a compliment. Comfortable, no twingy feel or vibrations. Great combination of power and topspin, much better than what I had been hitting. I needed to make a slight adjustment to hit through the ball and hit out in front, but that was really it. Forehands (flat, inside-out and crosscourt) were great, i.e. much better (harder, heavier and easier to accomplish) than with my current setup (Yonex RDS002 Tour, same strings, 12.2 strung, listed swingweight 330). Backhands took a little more time to adjust to, but I started to get the hang of how to change my swing to get flat and top when I wanted either. The 373 g (13.2 oz.) weight did not cause any problems during or after 2 hours of hitting. Volleys were better than with my normal setup as well; good power and able to use touch as well; not sure about reactive maneuverability as I was at net expecting volleys as practice. I will have to be in more doubles type reactive situations to give a more accurate assessment on maneuverability.

Overall, a great change for me. All aspects of my stroke results improved and I cannot say there were any negative points resulting from what was pretty much an extreme addition of weight. I’ll be setting another racquet up just like it as soon as I can verify that my serve hasn’t gone to the dogs with this setup.

Regardless of whether you believe SW2 or that sw can be calculated by using weights and balances, the effect for me of adding weights at the locations discussed in this thread, which is obviously verifiable using my scale and not just some physics theory, was great for my game and may be worth a try for you and don’t be afraid of the extra weight if counterbalanced.

Strings And Things
04-29-2008, 12:21 PM
I have no idea if these swingweight calculations are correct, or if you even can, as many other posters have questioned or refuted, calculate swingweight by using weights and balances. Nor do I have any opinion as to how SW2, if real, applies to different swing types such as high take backs and low take backs (the Cauthon method?). This is just a post to tell of my experience using the significant weight increases as discussed on this thread. I also wanted to share my experience as it relates to the numerous questions as to if a non-pro player could wield a racquet with a high static weight and with what results.

Racquet = new from TW, Prince Graphite Classic Mid, 600 cm. sq. head, length 69 cm., strung weight with Gamma double worm dampener and overgrip 346 grams, approx. swingweight 328 (the addition of the dampener and overgrip may have changed that a little, but it can’t be much), listed on TW as 8 pts. headlight and balance on Prince website is 31.0 (a little confused on this calculation input as the Excel conversion program had 8 pts headlight = 32 cm; I guess I could use a Viper board), stiffness 66, strings Lux. BB ALU Power Rough mains @ 57lbs, Prince Premier Softflex crosses @ 57 lbs. I used the Excel calculation program provided in another post and tried the following setup: 4.5g @12, 4.5g @ 10, 4.5g @ 2, 13.5g @ bottom of handle to counterbalance. I used the new Gamma lead weights that are shaped like an “H” and have a black exterior instead of the traditional ¼” lead tape strips. The “H” lead pieces are 4.5g each according to my scale even though TW lists them at 3 or 4 and they put the weight on the frame in just under a 2” space rather than the longer strips of ¼” tape. I have no idea how the space concentration of the tape weight affects the calculations or hitting experience. The Excel program gave me these new figures: mass 373 g, Balance 30.8, Swingweight 360, Iref 198, Power Level Index 2209 and SGPR 1.15. I don’t have a completely clear concept of Iref, PLI and SGPR, but let me tell you how it hit.

Fantastic. I am not saying you can make an “Excalibur” racquet, but it is the best racquet I have ever hit with. The other racquets I have played with for long periods of time in the past are Wilson PS85, Head Prestige Classic and LiquidMetal, Volkl C10 Pro, Slazenger X1, Yonex RDS001 Mid and Yonex RDS002Tour. The racquet was extremely solid on groundstrokes and volleys and it was soft feeling, maybe “buttery” is the better descriptive word I have seen in different descriptions in the forums. The soft isn’t a negative term, but a compliment. Comfortable, no twingy feel or vibrations. Great combination of power and topspin, much better than what I had been hitting. I needed to make a slight adjustment to hit through the ball and hit out in front, but that was really it. Forehands (flat, inside-out and crosscourt) were great, i.e. much better (harder, heavier and easier to accomplish) than with my current setup (Yonex RDS002 Tour, same strings, 12.2 strung, listed swingweight 330). Backhands took a little more time to adjust to, but I started to get the hang of how to change my swing to get flat and top when I wanted either. The 373 g (13.2 oz.) weight did not cause any problems during or after 2 hours of hitting. Volleys were better than with my normal setup as well; good power and able to use touch as well; not sure about reactive maneuverability as I was at net expecting volleys as practice. I will have to be in more doubles type reactive situations to give a more accurate assessment on maneuverability.

Overall, a great change for me. All aspects of my stroke results improved and I cannot say there were any negative points resulting from what was pretty much an extreme addition of weight. I’ll be setting another racquet up just like it as soon as I can verify that my serve hasn’t gone to the dogs with this setup.

Regardless of whether you believe SW2 or that sw can be calculated by using weights and balances, the effect for me of adding weights at the locations discussed in this thread, which is obviously verifiable using my scale and not just some physics theory, was great for my game and may be worth a try for you and don’t be afraid of the extra weight if counterbalanced.Great that you ended up experiencing positive results.

Some people experience negative results, perhaps because they mod was just terrible (in relation to their style, strength etc), or that perhaps they aren't able to adapt to the new dynamics of the setup.

Sometimes (depending on the mod) you have to alter your mechanics -- this may be good or bad, depending on what the player is willing to do. Whether or not you're forced to alter your mechanics, I think that any mods done to a frame will force you to at lease adjust/adapt to the new feel.

So, give mods a chance for a while. After that, if you still don't like it, remod it or just go back to stock (stock form may be the optimum setup for some).

obnoxious2
04-30-2008, 10:47 AM
traverajm, what is your height and weight? I understand your ideal swingweight for you is 360 so I'm trying to figure out a relative relationship.

The FishEXpress
05-01-2008, 06:44 AM
Excuse my ignorance but in reference to travlerajm's first post on this thread what is the 'tapered part of the buttcap'

if this a butt cap:

http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/ProductImages/DBCAP.JPG

what part is the tapered part?

Isn't a buttcap a simple piece of hexagonic plastic that seals the end of a racquet? Does the author 'travlerajm' mean and is suggesting the tapered part of the handle?


Also,

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples

The above doesn't make sense to me. Why saw off one inch the grip then put it back again?

Also,

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

How do u 'mechanically' attach lead strips on to a tennis frame? It is impossible to attach leads loops on a frame securely as the surface is not flat, as the grove which harbours the 'grommit' holes does not allow this.

Could anyone explain my queries cos I am clearly stupid.

Strings And Things
05-01-2008, 01:17 PM
Excuse my ignorance but in reference to travlerajm's first post on this thread what is the 'tapered part of the buttcap'

if this a butt cap:

http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/ProductImages/DBCAP.JPG

what part is the tapered part?

Isn't a buttcap a simple piece of hexagonic plastic that seals the end of a racquet? Does the author 'travlerajm' mean and is suggesting the tapered part of the handle?


Also,

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples

The above doesn't make sense to me. Why saw off one inch the grip then put it back again?

Also,

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

How do u 'mechanically' attach lead strips on to a tennis frame? It is impossible to attach leads loops on a frame securely as the surface is not flat, as the grove which harbours the 'grommit' holes does not allow this.

Could anyone explain my queries cos I am clearly stupid.Basically it's the narrowing section of the cap.

Strings And Things
05-01-2008, 01:19 PM
In that pic you posted, the "entire" object is the butt end cap. The cap "isn't" just the piece that pry's off conveniently -- that piece is called the "TRAP DOOR" and only some frames have that readily available.

Strings And Things
05-01-2008, 01:21 PM
OK, after reading the remaining part of your post, I'll let someone else shed light. You did not seem to fully ready Trav's thread. He explained why he choose the frame that he used as well as why it was to be sawed-off.

jackson vile
05-01-2008, 02:21 PM
Not only that .... it's also the people that aren't doing something right or just aren't technically inclined (some people just aren't good at fixing things and getting things right -- hands-on).

No you see this is where I and Trav differ. Trav feels that a racket should only be one way with a little variance.

Weather you know it or not head heavy/ hammer rackets were one of the most amazing rackets ever made. There are many different setups, it just depends on the player.

So your racket does not need to be Trav's specs to get those kinds of effects.

I will share one of my latest rackets some time this week, it is absolutely amazing.

It is not easy, every racket is different and you can't get every racket setup for each style of play, some simply can't do all of them and some non at all.

obnoxious2
05-01-2008, 04:02 PM
Excuse my ignorance but in reference to travlerajm's first post on this thread what is the 'tapered part of the buttcap'

if this a butt cap:

http://img.tennis-warehouse.com/ProductImages/DBCAP.JPG

what part is the tapered part?

Isn't a buttcap a simple piece of hexagonic plastic that seals the end of a racquet? Does the author 'travlerajm' mean and is suggesting the tapered part of the handle?


Also,

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples

The above doesn't make sense to me. Why saw off one inch the grip then put it back again?

Also,

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

How do u 'mechanically' attach lead strips on to a tennis frame? It is impossible to attach leads loops on a frame securely as the surface is not flat, as the grove which harbours the 'grommit' holes does not allow this.

Could anyone explain my queries cos I am clearly stupid.

If you had bothered to read all his posts in this thread, you would have understood why. He sawed off an inch of the HANDLE not the grip. The racquet was 28 inches stock so he took it down to 27. He never said anything about grip. (You remind me of the stupid Americans which is why there's idiotic warning labels everywhere for everything).

And by mechanically attaching, he means wrapping it around the frame instead of just taping lead tape along the inside of the frame or inside the grommets.

obnoxious2
05-08-2008, 02:09 PM
I just thought of a problem. How do you wrap the lead tape evenly? Because the stringing of the crosses makes it staggered so lead tape at 9 and 3 won't be exactly face to face. It will be off by one cross face.

Example:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3493/racquetsz6.th.png (http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=racquetsz6.png)

don't know if you guys can see it clearly but the black squares are each grommet and the red is the string. Hopefully you can see what I mean by how the crosses are staggered.

So how do you wrap the lead tape so that it balances out correctly? Or is being off by 1 cross space negligible?

Strings And Things
05-08-2008, 04:05 PM
I just thought of a problem. How do you wrap the lead tape evenly? Because the stringing of the crosses makes it staggered so lead tape at 9 and 3 won't be exactly face to face. It will be off by one cross face.

Example:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3493/racquetsz6.th.png (http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=racquetsz6.png)

don't know if you guys can see it clearly but the black squares are each grommet and the red is the string. Hopefully you can see what I mean by how the crosses are staggered.

So how do you wrap the lead tape so that it balances out correctly? Or is being off by 1 cross space negligible?My recommendation would be to NOT wrap the lead around in the x-string area (I wouldn't even wrap it around the mains, doesn't look professional). Just apply the tape "normally" around the x string area (it won't fly off, unless you add like a chuck of 1 ounce in a tiny concentrated spot).

EricW
05-14-2008, 06:54 PM
Hey Trav, I was thinking of giving this idea another try, with the T Fight 320 as my base. Any recommendations for lead placement or anything?

EricW
05-15-2008, 01:59 PM
Anyone?

10 char

Strings And Things
05-16-2008, 12:22 AM
Anyone?

10 charAdd as much mass as you can handle. Tinker around different locations until you find something you like. Tinker some more to find something better. Keep doing this if you find it fun experimenting and improving the feel of the frame.

kalic
05-16-2008, 05:45 AM
This is great idea if matches last less than a hour. Otherwise you wont be able to handle this weight... But great idea, realy great...
I do something similar with (very light)prince precision comp, and it was fun to play. But static weight stays under 330grams, and balance about 4 PHL...

EricW
05-16-2008, 02:43 PM
This is great idea if matches last less than a hour. Otherwise you wont be able to handle this weight... But great idea, realy great...
I do something similar with (very light)prince precision comp, and it was fun to play. But static weight stays under 330grams, and balance about 4 PHL...


You should improve your endurance.

mishin900
06-05-2008, 11:23 AM
This is great idea if matches last less than a hour. Otherwise you wont be able to handle this weight... But great idea, realy great...
I do something similar with (very light)prince precision comp, and it was fun to play. But static weight stays under 330grams, and balance about 4 PHL...

I sometimes happen to be playing a 3-hour match with my TF335 which is leaded up to 13.7 oz. and I have no problem using it. And I'm not a big guy only 5'9".

Jack & Coke
08-26-2008, 11:16 AM
..This will become my regular racquet now..



Hi trav,

Is this still your regular racquet now?

Any updates or stories?

Any new mods or superpowers?

Jack & Coke
11-13-2008, 11:58 PM
from: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=231296

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk150/travlerajm/081.jpg

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk150/travlerajm/082.jpg

I use a Prince Graphite Longbody too.. but mine's pretty much stock.

Interesting mod you made there.

BounceHitBounceHit
01-03-2009, 06:41 PM
Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.


I seem to recall we'd plan to exchange frames for a few weeks this past summer. Still interested? Best, CC

paulorenzo
03-24-2009, 07:19 PM
He hasn't just added head weight, rather he's counterbalanced the increased head weight with more lead added in the handle as well. This is what he means by "polarised", more weight at opposite ends of the racquet. Customised to make the racquet more polarised around the balance point, so it see-saws more easily - more mass, more bite.

holy ****, this thread is a god send. i was wondering why my newly acquired vintage pro kennex graphite comp, with a flex of 50-something, was hitting like crap. i was at a loss, because i thought i've done everything correctly by matching the specs of my stiffer yamahas, but all this time, what do you know. i guess i could never grasp the concept until now.

B.B.
09-14-2010, 01:06 AM
Hi Travelerajm

Just recieved 2 longbodies myself. I like my racket to be at least 360 gram.

I own 2 pog mids since before, allthough those I play with a bit of lead on the head weighing 350 gram. Like those but I want something a bit more forgiving and powerful. I would also like to keep the 28 inch length since I´m not the tallest man alive.

I have 4 packs of lead and 2 brand new longies. If I want power, stability what do you suggest I do?

tiochaota
09-14-2010, 01:22 AM
Amazing, I could never do that.....

Pioneer
09-14-2010, 09:59 AM
The final specs are really close to mine lol. My SW is about 355 I just put 350 in my sig because it looks better.

Trav, one of the things that I've noticed is that successful guys like Nadal, Federer and Roddick have very powerful racquets and what they do is they swing up at the ball to give it as much spin as possible while the high powered frame would naturally make the ball land deep. That's the opposite of the general idea that pros have low powered racquets with a lot of stability. Is your new racquet very powerful so that you have to focus on applying spin or is it already low powered so you have to focus on hitting hard?

Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.

travlerajm
09-14-2010, 06:23 PM
The final specs are really close to mine lol. My SW is about 355 I just put 350 in my sig because it looks better.

Trav, one of the things that I've noticed is that successful guys like Nadal, Federer and Roddick have very powerful racquets and what they do is they swing up at the ball to give it as much spin as possible while the high powered frame would naturally make the ball land deep. That's the opposite of the general idea that pros have low powered racquets with a lot of stability. Is your new racquet very powerful so that you have to focus on applying spin or is it already low powered so you have to focus on hitting hard?

The shortened POG LB described in this thread was quite powerful, but it had a lot of bite, so I didn't have to swing with much of an uppercut.

My current frame is actually a highly customized O3 Red - I posted a thread starter on earlier this week. It's also quite powerful, but not as spinny as a POG described here, partly because the Red is stiffer, and partly because I customized it with a less polarized weight distribution so it's not quite as headlight in balance.

I think if you use the MgR/I concept to tune your groundstrokes, you can more easily control high-powered frames. The POG LB in this thread was created before I had discovered the MgR/I concept that I now use for all of my racquet setups.

One more point: Stability is created by adding mass. Adding mass adds power (up to a point). So stability and power are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Most pros use frames that are both highly stable and very powerful. I believe the power is most important on the serves, while stability is most important for everything else.

travlerajm
09-14-2010, 06:36 PM
Hi Travelerajm

Just recieved 2 longbodies myself. I like my racket to be at least 360 gram.

I own 2 pog mids since before, allthough those I play with a bit of lead on the head weighing 350 gram. Like those but I want something a bit more forgiving and powerful. I would also like to keep the 28 inch length since I´m not the tallest man alive.

I have 4 packs of lead and 2 brand new longies. If I want power, stability what do you suggest I do?

If you want stability, a 28" racquet is the worst possible option because you can't have very much mass in the head without the SW getting quite high.

That aside, if you want to turn your POG LB into a powerful serving racquet without shortening it, I'd recommend adding mass at 10 and 2 until the SW is in the 380-390 range. About 25g at 10 and 2 should do it. It might take you a few days of serving with the added mass to adjust to the higher SW before you start noticing the extra juice on your serve - ramp up your swing speed slowly so you don't injure yourself.

B.B.
09-15-2010, 01:54 PM
If you want stability, a 28" racquet is the worst possible option because you can't have very much mass in the head without the SW getting quite high.

That aside, if you want to turn your POG LB into a powerful serving racquet without shortening it, I'd recommend adding mass at 10 and 2 until the SW is in the 380-390 range. About 25g at 10 and 2 should do it. It might take you a few days of serving with the added mass to adjust to the higher SW before you start noticing the extra juice on your serve - ramp up your swing speed slowly so you don't injure yourself.

I made a mild version of your frame: removed the leather grip and put 20 gram under the grip and put an overgrip and some scotch over the lead. Then 20 gram in the head at 3 and 9 and from 2 til 10. Total weight 356 gram.

It felt good svinging in the air at home but it was, like you decribe, terrible to play with. Far to sluggish, I had no idea where the head was when playing. And I got pretty tired in the arm when rallying long during practice. It was unplayable!

Like you said I better understand that putting lead at 3 and 9 on my wonderful POG mid is a worlds apart from putting a lot of lead on the head of a 28 inch racket.

Well, well: now I´ve removed all lead except at 3 and 9 and I´ve put a leather grip on without any lead under it.

It now weighs 330 gram total, which is a bit light to me BUT: when swinging it in the air and than compering swinging my POG mid, the frames almost feel identical.

Maybe it´s so, when using a longbody racket, that the old rules don´t really apply and that 330 gram can be a real nice set up...?:confused:

I´m gonna play again tomorrow so I´ll leave a new report after that. I really want to give this longer racket a chance, I´ve never tried a longer frame before been playing for 25 years. But I must admit that I´m tempted to just rip out the old trusty mid and just play...:oops:

B.B.
09-16-2010, 04:08 PM
i can only paly with it in stock form without lead.

Played it for 2 hours now and I love the serve nad the groundies is getting there i think. I´m still late sometimes but it´s ok.

How much time you think it will take to get used to the extra 2 inches?





Still want to pull out mu pog mid...

okdude1992
09-16-2010, 05:06 PM
i remember this thread from back when it was first posted haha. good to see it back. so travlerajm, could i do a similar polarized setup with target specs between 98 and 100 square inches, and under right around 12 oz?

JediMindTrick
09-24-2010, 06:08 PM
I feel like cutting down a POG LB. Why can't Prince sell a standard length POG 100"?

GiannI
03-07-2011, 12:24 PM
well i have an issue i like to discuss...

im going to polarize a Head Extreme team.

Head Size:
107 sq. in. / 690 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 10.3oz / 292g
Balance: 3pts Head Light
Swingweight: 301
Stiffness: 57
Beam Width: 24 - 26 - 23 Tapered Beam
Composition: Microgel / Graphite
Power Level: Low-Medium
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: HydroSorb
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 52-62 pounds


as you all see is a 57 RCA racquet with 300 SW and a weight of 292 gr

the "problem" is how much weight to add without skyrocketing the SW. im thinking about a total of 60 grams... (30+30) is it too much? im now using a RDiS 100 mp with 15gr added in the upper loop ( 6-3-6 ) and 9 in the handle

this are the specs of the RDiS 100 mp

Midplus Specs
Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.7oz / 332g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 323
Stiffness: 64
Beam Width: 21 mm Straight Beam
Composition: High Modulus Graphite / Elastic Titanium / CS Carbon Nanotube
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Yonex Cushion Grip
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T, 8H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 50-65 pounds


thanks in advance!

eliza
03-07-2011, 01:15 PM
Guys, I have another idea, and I know NASA and CIA have all the technology we need.
Any racquet, with build-in laser tech device to target the ball and indicate the exact contact point. Kind of jet fighters tech, applied to tennis. Is out there......I know.....

LeeD
03-07-2011, 01:17 PM
Easier yet, remove yourself in the equation, but leave your nice racket laying there, add Roger, Rafael, DJ, Milos, and your racket is now good enough for real tennis.

AlpineCadet
03-07-2011, 03:07 PM
Just use a Babolat PD and you're set.

TennisMaverick
03-07-2011, 03:16 PM
Guys, I have another idea, and I know NASA and CIA have all the technology we need.
Any racquet, with build-in laser tech device to target the ball and indicate the exact contact point. Kind of jet fighters tech, applied to tennis. Is out there......I know.....

Then using their info, you can beat only Iraqi's and cave dwelling Afghani's who are without WMDs.

Lsmkenpo
03-07-2011, 03:39 PM
well i have an issue i like to discuss...

im going to polarize a Head Extreme team.

Head Size:
107 sq. in. / 690 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 10.3oz / 292g
Balance: 3pts Head Light
Swingweight: 301
Stiffness: 57
Beam Width: 24 - 26 - 23 Tapered Beam
Composition: Microgel / Graphite
Power Level: Low-Medium
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: HydroSorb
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 52-62 pounds


as you all see is a 57 RCA racquet with 300 SW and a weight of 292 gr

the "problem" is how much weight to add without skyrocketing the SW. im thinking about a total of 60 grams... (30+30) is it too much? im now using a RDiS 100 mp with 15gr added in the upper loop ( 6-3-6 ) and 9 in the handle

this are the specs of the RDiS 100 mp

Midplus Specs
Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.7oz / 332g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 323
Stiffness: 64
Beam Width: 21 mm Straight Beam
Composition: High Modulus Graphite / Elastic Titanium / CS Carbon Nanotube
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Yonex Cushion Grip
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T, 8H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 50-65 pounds


thanks in advance!

According to my calculations your SW would be around 414 adding 30gm-30gm on the Extreme , I suggest trying half that amount first 15gm-15gm gives you a SW around 365.

eliza
03-07-2011, 03:43 PM
Then using their info, you can beat only Iraqi's and cave dwelling Afghani's who are without WMDs.

Why did they win?

TennisMaverick
03-07-2011, 04:35 PM
Why did they win?

Now that's funny!!!

GiannI
03-07-2011, 06:21 PM
According to my calculations your SW would be around 414 adding 30gm-30gm on the Extreme , I suggest trying half that amount first 15gm-15gm gives you a SW around 365.

if i did add 15gr to a 332 sw racquet maybe im around 370 with the RDiS, right?

GiannI
03-07-2011, 06:25 PM
cant edit the previous post :S

Lsmkenpo
03-07-2011, 06:28 PM
if i did add 15gr to a 332 sw racquet maybe im around 370 with the RDiS, right?

Around 367SW from the specs you provided and the lead added, for your RDiS.

WitheringDemise
03-07-2011, 09:47 PM
I just gotta say.... Wow. That is quite a bit of lead tape. I always thought about the layers of lead tape long the frame as you did on your racket.

Djokolate
03-12-2011, 12:55 PM
How can I make a racquet stiffer??

GiannI
03-12-2011, 05:30 PM
i'd finish adding weight! a total of 48 grams 24 in the upper loop (9gr @10 - 6gr @12 - 9gr @2) and 24gr in the handle

ill string it on monday with Kirschbaum Compe 1.25 and report back here


How can I make a racquet stiffer??

you can't modify the inner structure of a material but if you are looking for a specific feeling you can add weight...

Djokolate
03-13-2011, 01:37 PM
i'd finish adding weight! a total of 48 grams 24 in the upper loop (9gr @10 - 6gr @12 - 9gr @2) and 24gr in the handle

ill string it on monday with Kirschbaum Compe 1.25 and report back here




you can't modify the inner structure of a material but if you are looking for a specific feeling you can add weight...

Hmm... how would tensions change it? Because I've wanting to try some higher tensions. Would you say, like 2lb higher would be 1 stiffness rating higher?

Fuji
03-13-2011, 02:05 PM
Well you can't really change the composition of the racket. If you want a racket to feel stiffer/more boardy you could always string with a poly, then if that's not satisfactory, string at a high tension with a poly. Of course your arm might not like it, but if you sting with certain qualities, you can indeed have a stiffer feel.

-Fuji

TennisMaverick
03-13-2011, 02:10 PM
How can I make a racquet stiffer??

By adding weight to the areas which you would like to stiffen, you effectively do, since the extra mass resists any force exerted upon it.

AlpineAce
03-13-2011, 04:15 PM
Why did they win?
because they were using a metal detector to find a piece of plastic.

normrose
03-14-2011, 08:52 PM
Hi Travelejam - fascinating post.

I noted you paid no reference to the MgR/I concept of placing weight seven inches from the butt cap. I would have thought with all of that weight you have attached to the frame it would have been nice to have the tip come around that much quicker.

I did note however you have substantial weight placed on the tapered part of the butt cap and wondered if that was enough to assist maneuvrability without the need to place weight at the seven inch mark

I Would appreciate your comments on this as I have been influenced by your earlier post on the MgR/I concept and find it works well for me.

Lsmkenpo
03-14-2011, 11:09 PM
How can I make a racquet stiffer??

If you add lead in the hoop from 3-5 like Djokovic has on his racquet it will hit like it is a stiffer frame, but your sweet spot will shift slightly lower on the string bed.

RiggensAuroraHO
04-21-2013, 04:16 AM
Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

???????????????????????????????????????????????

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.

W????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?