PDA

View Full Version : Shortened racquet


Dave M
08-10-2011, 01:45 PM
I had a league match tonight, (mens doubles) couldn't decide what to play with so I dug out a "bumblebee" radical "jnr" about a 1/4" shorter than std, stuck a heat shrink on it, leather grip, overgrip and dampner (weight up to about 330ish) left the factory strings in it ( isuppose they must be old by now) and took to the court.Serving was nice, its a little smaller headsize than a pure drive 16 by 19 string pattern and really flexy.
Best thing is i really played well.As well as using the iprestige MP last week and the vantage bast core the week before.Palying as the second pair we took the first match agains thte opposition "2" team 1 and 3 then best the "1st" pair in a champions tie break. Had a few shots fly around (maybe the strings?) but a really interesting experiment. Makes me wonder about what to do in the future and what to play with.
My partner was puzzled at the start when i turned up too!
So what i wanted to ask having digressed there is anybody else use one now (i know there was a thread in the past) and what is there around on the market, made by head sub 100", flexy, 18 by 19 string (ok i'll go 18 by 20) box beam?

Steve Huff
08-11-2011, 02:43 PM
There is something to be said about "shortened" rackets. In days of yore, many Fischer "players" frames were actually 26 3/4" long. I think someone on these boards, maybe TravelerJam, experimented with shortening frames and polarizing added weight, and had surprisingly good results.

As for particular rackets, sub 100sq in, flexy frames--maybe Volkl. Someone posted about one of their new frames coming out, and looks to be a box frame too.

travlerajm
08-11-2011, 06:30 PM
Going short has some significant advantages:
1. Impact point is closer to hand, so coordination and control of the racquethead is improved.
2. You can add more mass to the hoop for a given swingweight, so stability is increased without increase in swingweight. This significantly improves control and touch on most types of shots.
3. Impact point is closer to balance point, so frame is more arm-friendly.

Only downside: you lose a bit of leverage on the serve.

I was playing with a 26.5" cut-down Diablo mid, with 25g of silicone injected at 10 and 2, and another half ounce added to the upper handle, as my main stick for most of last year. It played exceptionally well. The only reason I eventually moved on was because I like to use my serve as an offensive weapon, and I decided I couldn't afford to give up 3-4 mph on the serve.

movdqa
08-11-2011, 08:28 PM
How did you inject silicone at 10 and 2 (I probably don't want to know)?

Bud
08-11-2011, 08:49 PM
There is something to be said about "shortened" rackets. In days of yore, many Fischer "players" frames were actually 26 3/4" long. I think someone on these boards, maybe TravelerJam, experimented with shortening frames and polarizing added weight, and had surprisingly good results.

As for particular rackets, sub 100sq in, flexy frames--maybe Volkl. Someone posted about one of their new frames coming out, and looks to be a box frame too.

I also created a thread about shortening a Head LM Radical OS :)

sansaephanh
08-12-2011, 12:20 AM
how big of a difference can 1/4th of an inch make? Lengthwise i cant feel any difference unless its 1/2in or more... even then its barely noticeable. Of course that's only if the balance of the racket is similar to spec.

Steve Huff
08-12-2011, 03:27 AM
Bud, I think I do remember reading that one too. The other one was a POG (a long model, shortened). Bud, did you polarize the weighting? Do you still use it at all. I played this morning with my ki5, strung at 30# with Solinco Tour Revolution 18. Played fine, but still don't like the feel.

Dave M
08-12-2011, 11:35 AM
Thanks for your thoughts guys, i'm having a 'mare at the moment. I currently have 2 iprestige MP, 2 swirly pure drives, 3 of joachim johannson's frames, a new tw pro staff and a few new donnay pro one supermidsize frame si've not touched yet.Nothing feels quite right, I'm leaning towards the pro ones and pro staff at the moment but quite enjoyed my experiment.I found flat serves easy to come by but my topspin 2nd serve was sometimes great occasionally awful, not where i want it to be.I almost think i need to clear the decks of all but the last 2 and concentrate on them tinkering doesn't seem to help me!

Bud
08-12-2011, 12:43 PM
Bud, I think I do remember reading that one too. The other one was a POG (a long model, shortened). Bud, did you polarize the weighting? Do you still use it at all. I played this morning with my ki5, strung at 30# with Solinco Tour Revolution 18. Played fine, but still don't like the feel.

I did polarize it. I sold it after playing with it a few times. The issue was it wasn't stiff enough for my liking. I'm used to the APD's and PD's. It felt like a wet noodle.

My two APD+ frames I also shortened to 27". Perhaps when they get really old, I'll lop off another 1/4" to 1/2" and try it.

Here are a few of my shortening threads:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=360887
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=357497
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=353298

cellofaan
08-12-2011, 01:07 PM
how big of a difference can 1/4th of an inch make? Lengthwise i cant feel any difference unless its 1/2in or more... even then its barely noticeable. Of course that's only if the balance of the racket is similar to spec.

The biggest difference I think is in the effect on swingweight. Since by shortening the handle all the weight of the frame essentially moves toward your hand (or you could see it as the axis for which SW is measured moving more towards the top of the frame), the swingweight becomes much lower.

To get back to the original specs, you can then add weight to the head, which alters the playing charateristics. Of course that's also a matter of preference.

So you can end up with a frame with more weight in the head, without actually changing the swingweight, balance, and static weight.

Likewise, by just shortening the racket, you end up with a racket that has the same power, but feels much more manouverable, since the swingweight is lower, but the (distribution of) weight is still the same.


In the end, the exact same effect can be achieved by choking up on the handle if you don't mind holding it that way.


Edit:
Those were some really good threads Bud, thanks for linking them.
The only thing you lose is some racket head speed. The swing is just as fast, but the lever is shorter.

SocalTennis
08-12-2011, 02:09 PM
Here's a wild thought. Would choking up on the racquet by 1/2 in have the same effect as cutting it down to 26 1/2?

Bud
08-12-2011, 02:18 PM
Here's a wild thought. Would choking up on the racquet by 1/2 in have the same effect as cutting it down to 26 1/2?

Sure, but then you're making a pretty large adjustment. Many people have gripped their racquet(s) at the same location for years.

travlerajm
08-12-2011, 10:17 PM
Here's a wild thought. Would choking up on the racquet by 1/2 in have the same effect as cutting it down to 26 1/2?

No. If you choke up 1/2", you effectively have the extra tail-weight of the mass that you would be cutting off. So the balance point will be 1/2" closer to the hand (or approx. 1/4" closer to the hand than if you were to cut), making the racquet feel softer and flexier than if you were to cut it down.

When you cut a racquet down by 1/2", the balance point moves approximately 1/4" closer to the tip. This also moves the balance point closer to the ball impact point, making the impact feel crisper and more solid, and in most cases giving you slightly more power than if you had simply choked up 1/2" without cutting.

Since cutting 1/2" moves the balance point approx. 1/4" closer to the the hand, it might help to add weight to the upper hoop to restore the balance and swingweight to your preferred specs. This gives you a much more stable, slightly stiffer feeling racquet than what you started with.

specialjustin
08-12-2011, 10:51 PM
Could someone explain "choking" ?

Orion3
08-12-2011, 11:43 PM
Choking is simply moving your hand up and gripping the handle closer to the racket head.

Bud
08-12-2011, 11:46 PM
Could someone explain "choking" ?

What Federer did versus Tsonga last night ;)

cellofaan
08-13-2011, 12:18 AM
When you cut a racquet down by 1/2", the balance point moves approximately 1/4" closer to the tip. This also moves the balance point closer to the ball impact point, making the impact feel crisper and more solid, and in most cases giving you slightly more power than if you had simply choked up 1/2" without cutting.


I don't follow you there. How would cutting the racquet move the balance point towards the tip? It does get 2 points less headlight, since the midpoint moves 1/4", but the balance in cm should be lower by the amount you cut.

Of course, by cutting you effectively move the buttcap towards the tip, but I'd guess that only affects the balance by a couple of mm at most.

travlerajm
08-13-2011, 12:33 AM
I don't follow you there. How would cutting the racquet move the balance point towards the tip? It does get 2 points less headlight, since the midpoint moves 1/4", but the balance in cm should be lower by the amount you cut.

Of course, by cutting you effectively move the buttcap towards the tip, but I'd guess that only affects the balance by a couple of mm at most.

Let's take an example:

Starting specs: Weight = 12.5 oz.; Balance = 12.6". Weight of 1/2" being cut off = 0.3 oz. (typical for those starting specs); Distance from balance point to tip = 27 - 12.6 = 14.4".

New specs: Weight = 12.1 oz.; Balance = {[(12.5oz)(12.6")+(-0.3oz)(-0.25")]/(12.5oz - 0.3oz)} - 0.5" = 12.42".
Distance from new balance point to tip = 26.5 - 12.42 = 14.08".

So cutting off the 1/2" moved balance point 0.32" closer to tip (and 0.18" closer to the butt). These 2 numbers can vary, depending on the mass of the trimmed-off segment, but they have to add up to the length you cut off (0.5" in this case).

Don't Let It Bounce
08-13-2011, 12:42 AM
Here's a wild thought. Would choking up on the racquet by 1/2 in have the same effect as cutting it down to 26 1/2?Very similar, but as Travlerajm noted, not identical. The interesting part about choking up on groundies and volleys, though, if you can get yourself to do it without it making your strokes feel weird, is that you retain the option of choking down on serves to get better reach and higher swingweight.

This was how the Tailweighted Hammer 6.2 got such great (as defined on this site (http://www.racquetresearch.com/); scroll down to "Tailweighted Hammer Tops All Other Racquets") specs: it was intended to be held by the tailweight when serving. (The site fails to make that clear, but the swingweight number it gives for the unleaded, tailweighted Hammer is possible only through additional length.) Disclaimer to prevent thread derailment: not everyone agrees that the formulae given on this site are the best descriptions available of desirable racquet specs.

Don't Let It Bounce
08-13-2011, 12:53 AM
How did you inject silicone at 10 and 2 (I probably don't want to know)?I did this recently as part of playerizing a Prince Vortex Lite MP. (And now I have a 355g, 350 SW, head-light, shock-absorbing Purple People Eater.)

Remove grommets. Tape the inside holes to minimize leakage. Instead of the big tubes of silicone that go into a caulking gun, get a small tube with its own nozzle so it will fit in the racquet holes. Insert and squeeze. Weigh frequently to make sure you don't go over the desired weight in each area. Wear rubber gloves in a ventilated area and try not to get close enough to breathe that stuff. Put the grommets back in before letting the silicone cure.

I found it a hassle to work with. I had to stop, push the silicone out of the way of the hole and into area around the hole to make room for more silicone, etc. It would seem like I'd squeezed a good amount of silicone in there, and then I'd see that the weight had changed only 1g, or not at all. And, I can still smell the stuff when the racquet gets close to my face. But, it got done, and the Purple People Eater does hit nice and solid.

Travlerajm, if you've found any tricks that will make siliconing the hoop easier the next time I try it, I'd love to hear about them.

Orion3
08-13-2011, 12:57 AM
Just a thought....why not try a 26" junior racket. Significantly cheaper than th fault versions and depending on the racket, can be broadly similar to the adult spec.

travlerajm
08-13-2011, 01:11 AM
I did this recently as part of playerizing a Prince Vortex Lite MP. (And now I have a 355g, 350 SW, head-light, shock-absorbing Purple People Eater.)

Remove grommets. Tape the inside holes to minimize leakage. Instead of the big tubes of silicone that go into a caulking gun, get a small tube with its own nozzle so it will fit in the racquet holes. Insert and squeeze. Weigh frequently to make sure you don't go over the desired weight in each area. Wear rubber gloves in a ventilated area and try not to get close enough to breathe that stuff. Put the grommets back in before letting the silicone cure.

I found it a hassle to work with. I had to stop, push the silicone out of the way of the hole and into area around the hole to make room for more silicone, etc. It would seem like I'd squeezed a good amount of silicone in there, and then I'd see that the weight had changed only 1g, or not at all. And, I can still smell the stuff when the racquet gets close to my face. But, it got done, and the Purple People Eater does hit nice and solid.

Travlerajm, if you've found any tricks that will make siliconing the hoop easier the next time I try it, I'd love to hear about them.

I used a similar method to yours.

I used household bathroom silicone caulk that comes in the toothpaste type squeezable tube, and trimmed the nozzle small enough to be able to squirt into the grommet hole. I taped the back side like you did.

I used the white caulk (instead of clear) so that I could see what I was doing better. Each time I squeezed into a hole, I kept squeezing until I could see the silicone oozing underneath the next hole. So I basically filled the entire volume between 1 & 3 and between 9 & 11.

I pushed the grommets back in place before curing. Then allowed it to cure. Cleanup of the siilcone after curing was easy, because the excess cured rubber peels off cleanly. And the silicone clogging the grommets can be pushed out easily once it starts to gum up.

I've only done it a couple of times. I agree that frequent weighing is important, in order to keep track of how much you are adding. In addition to the Diablo mid, I did the same to a cut-down POG LB. The POG LB had less volume in the cross section to work with than the Diablo, so the weight added was much less.

cellofaan
08-13-2011, 01:42 AM
Let's take an example:

Starting specs: Weight = 12.5 oz.; Balance = 12.6". Weight of 1/2" being cut off = 0.3 oz. (typical for those starting specs); Distance from balance point to tip = 27 - 12.6 = 14.4".

New specs: Weight = 12.1 oz.; Balance = {[(12.5oz)(12.6")+(-0.3oz)(-0.25")]/(12.5oz - 0.3oz)} - 0.5" = 12.42".
Distance from new balance point to tip = 26.5 - 12.42 = 14.08".

So cutting off the 1/2" moved balance point 0.32" closer to tip (and 0.18" closer to the butt). These 2 numbers can vary, depending on the mass of the trimmed-off segment, but they have to add up to the length you cut off (0.5" in this case).
I see, I underestimated the weight of the 1/2"being cut off. Thank you for explaining.