PDA

View Full Version : ? About Racquet Customizing


srptennis389
01-04-2006, 12:10 PM
I just bought Yonex RDX500 MidPluses (before knowing about the new RDS's!! :mad: ) and I have a question about tweaking them a little.

I played with the Wilson nPro Surge and really liked the way i hit with it.

How could I get my racquets to be more like the surge?

Any help would be appreciated!

johncauthen
01-04-2006, 02:04 PM
You asked a loaded question. Tell the stringer to mount it in the machine prestretched 1/8 inch.

String the main strings at 41 lbs. String the crosses two pounds greater than the tension you want it to feel like. The racquethead will come out about 1/16 inch longer than the 1/8 inch that he prestretched it.

But string the first 8 crosses at the top 3 lbs less than the rest of the crosses. So if you want it to feel like 61, string the first 8 at 60, the rest at 63.

Sorry, I couldn't resist telling you how to make the RDX500 perform a lot better than most people expect it to be capable of. That stringing won't in any way hurt the racquet, but it will perform a lot better.

Again, sorry. Try it.

joe1987
01-04-2006, 02:18 PM
Its quite impossible to make the RDX play like the surge. Totally different flex rating. Different head shape.

johncauthen
01-04-2006, 02:21 PM
All racquets are essentially the same: the RDX500, the Surge, the new RDS001. All tennis racquets when set up right are the same.

srptennis389
01-04-2006, 05:20 PM
You asked a loaded question. Tell the stringer to mount it in the machine prestretched 1/8 inch.

String the main strings at 41 lbs. String the crosses two pounds greater than the tension you want it to feel like. The racquethead will come out about 1/16 inch longer than the 1/8 inch that he prestretched it.

But string the first 8 crosses at the top 3 lbs less than the rest of the crosses. So if you want it to feel like 61, string the first 8 at 60, the rest at 63.

Sorry, I couldn't resist telling you how to make the RDX500 perform a lot better than most people expect it to be capable of. That stringing won't in any way hurt the racquet, but it will perform a lot better.

Again, sorry. Try it.


Thanks for the advice...what differences will I feel compared to stringing it regularly? And what about adding lead tape to make it less head light (like the surge)

joe1987
01-04-2006, 05:47 PM
All racquets are essentially the same: the RDX500, the Surge, the new RDS001. All tennis racquets when set up right are the same.


make a prestige play like a o3 blue then. Quite impossible rite.

Steve Huff
01-04-2006, 06:33 PM
And I take it that John will honor it's warranty???

AJK1
01-04-2006, 06:56 PM
Crikey, what a stupid question, why didn't you just buy a Surge?

johncauthen
01-04-2006, 08:23 PM
Stretching the head a little longer will make the RDX500 less head light. It's balance will feel more ready to hit the shot when you pick it up. You won't need lead tape, and you won't need a vibration dampener.


As for making a Prestige hit like an O3 Blue. Prince has changed the basic feel of a tennis racquet with their new racquets. For about 30 years the tennis industry has made one type of racquet with one type of balance. On those racquets, you can adjust the length of the head to interact with the other parts of the racquet. That interaction between the top of the head and the rest of the racquet is what gives you feel. Making the head longer on an RDX500 MidPlus gives you a dramatic improvement in feel, as the top of the head and the rest of the racquet work correctly with each other.

But with the O3 Red and Blue, after you hit with them for awhile, you start to notice they are like a weight on the end of a stick. You start to notice they are different from other racquets.

I'm watching Samantha Stosur hit with the O3 White in Hopman Cup, and she is having the same problem. The frame construction is fantastic, super strong, very solid, and it feels great, but there is too much weight at the top of the head, and no interaction with anything in the bottom of the racquet. After hitting many good shots, you start to notice you don't have any real accuracy when you want to pinpoint your shots. Stosur lost three match points, and lost the second set because she lost the feel for the racquet.

Stosur is hitting solidly but not hitting accurately. You pinpoint shots by using the interaction between the head and the rest of the racquet. Stosur managed to win the match. Her racquet was solid but never accurate.

After trading my O3 Red for a Pure Drive, now I know what is wrong with the Red. It would be fun to try again to make the Red work. Using what I learned in the last month might work on the Red; and then, tuning the two large chunks of weight, one at the top of the handle and one at 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock in the head to interact with each other might not be so critical in the new Prince design. The new Prince racquets hit like a dream, but you start to notice they don't have much accuracy, and you can't get accuracy, because there is no interaction between the top of the racquet and the rest of the racquet. They are like a weight on a stick, different from racquets over the last 30 years. Stringing them different doesn't work.

But it works on an RDX500 with no other modifcation, not even a vibration dampener.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-04-2006, 08:50 PM
Stretching the head a little longer will make the RDX500 less head light. It's balance will feel more ready to hit the shot when you pick it up. You won't need lead tape, and you won't need a vibration dampener.


As for making a Prestige hit like an O3 Blue. Prince has changed the basic feel of a tennis racquet with their new racquets. For about 30 years the tennis industry has made one type of racquet with one type of balance. On those racquets, you can adjust the length of the head to interact with the other parts of the racquet. That interaction between the top of the head and the rest of the racquet is what gives you feel. Making the head longer on an RDX500 MidPlus gives you a dramatic improvement in feel, as the top of the head and the rest of the racquet work correctly with each other.

But with the O3 Red and Blue, after you hit with them for awhile, you start to notice they are like a weight on the end of a stick. You start to notice they are different from other racquets.

I'm watching Samantha Stosur hit with the O3 White in Hopman Cup, and she is having the same problem. The frame construction is fantastic, super strong, very solid, and it feels great, but there is too much weight at the top of the head, and no interaction with anything in the bottom of the racquet. After hitting many good shots, you start to notice you don't have any real accuracy when you want to pinpoint your shots. Stosur lost three match points, and lost the second set because she lost the feel for the racquet.

Stosur is hitting solidly but not hitting accurately. You pinpoint shots by using the interaction between the head and the rest of the racquet. Stosur managed to win the match. Her racquet was solid but never accurate.

After trading my O3 Red for a Pure Drive, now I know what is wrong with the Red. It would be fun to try again to make the Red work. Using what I learned in the last month might work on the Red; and then, tuning the two large chunks of weight, one at the top of the handle and one at 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock in the head to interact with each other might not be so critical in the new Prince design. The new Prince racquets hit like a dream, but you start to notice they don't have much accuracy, and you can't get accuracy, because there is no interaction between the top of the racquet and the rest of the racquet. They are like a weight on a stick, different from racquets over the last 30 years. Stringing them different doesn't work.

But it works on an RDX500 with no other modifcation, not even a vibration dampener.
Just like swinging a rope with a raquet face at the end (like the weight at the end of a stick example of yours). Like a pendulum. (Not ideal in my book, much like unmodifed Hammers. ) The dynamics are a quick acceleration of the tip catching up with the upper segments of the arms and other prior-rotating parts (shoulders, trunks, hips, etc.), rather than then the tip lagging behind as in a whipping forehand with the elbow and endcap leading.

I know. Our experiments are pretty similar.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-04-2006, 08:51 PM
John, do you still work for Don?

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-04-2006, 09:45 PM
Here's one of my design I've been working with. Any similarities to your current or past ideas? http://tinypic.com/jqrzip.jpg
Notice that the bare unmodified strung frame is very light. It's only 10 ounces strung with grips.

All that 10 oz. mass is distributed evenly throughout the 27" length (Well, obviously it's not "perfectly" distributed, since because the tip of the hoop [12 o'clock] and the bottom of the hoop [6 o'clock] has mass spread out perpendicularly outwards from the tip-endcap plane, those sideways masses are a chunk of mass in those locations therefore it's not absolutely evenly distributed. At least you should have an idea of what I;m getting at.).

So I have a frame I start out with that has no bad concentrations of mass anywhere. It's balanced evenly. Being so light, that gives me a lot of room to configure where I want the mass to be located.

Basically with my designs so far, as the one in the pic (that's not my actual racquet by-the-way, just a model picture), the middle area of the racquet, from just below the bridge up to the center of the hoop [3 o'clock&9 o'clock] has the least concentration of mass. The tip [not 12, but 1 & 11 o'clock] has a small concentration, only to have the balance and swing weight increased up to my desirable preference. The lower part, the handle, obviously has the most concentration. The very tip at the endcap has 2oz and the top of the grip has 2oz.

So what I ended up with is a ball whip dynamic beam. When you swing, the tip lags behind while the hand is in front of the tip. The tip, however, does catch up to speed immediately when you rotate the frame about other axes in other planes. So you can get the catch-up speed like a hammer if you need to, but without the pendulum jerking force. You can slow down easily as well if the tip is rotating around too early (something difficult and painful to do with hammerheads).

Although over 14oz, the racquet is maneuverable due to the low "moment" force (aka the center of mass is closer to the axis of rotation, therefore there is less of a lever arm force acting against holding the racquet up parallel to the ground).

johncauthen
01-04-2006, 09:54 PM
Yes, I still work for Don but we aren't creating cool custom racquets that I modify, and he promotes. I just string racquets the way he wants me to, and that's all.

People come in and ask me to string their racquets. I get to do it my way then. Even though my racquets work, and some people specifically ask for them, who got them this summer when I did all the racquets my way, he said my techniques would get me fired if he saw me do it anymore.

The location of my weight at the top of the handle, and the location where the new Prince O3 shafts end are the same place. I could show Prince a very simple way to get the good interaction between the top and bottom weights without the racquets requiring a lot of fine tuning. The weights in the top of the Prince head and my weights are chunky.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/5d8291ed.jpg

That big chunky weight might go well with the tungsten fibers in the top corners of the Prince head. With weights that chunky, it seems like fine tuning wouldn't be needed.

And the lack of stringers who can fine tune is why most people have clumsy racquets, even if the racquet they have is designed well. They have to be set up right. The key would be to design a racquet that doesn't have to be set up perfectly. I think the O3 racquets have potential. My chunky weight at the top of the handle might be perfect for the O3 racquets.

When you hit the ball with the momentum of the head, it's not just that momentum but the bottom of the racquet comes forward. If it has a lot of weight above your hand, you can use that weight coming forward to give the ball a little direction. The racquet has feel and accuracy because of the interaction between the bottom weight and the weights at the top of the head. By making the two sets of weight extreme, which is Prince racquet design philosophy, the racquets might not have to be fine tuned or strung perfectly; and they would have the good accuracy.

The proportions of the O3 racquets, the length and shape of the handle and shaft are made for embedding those weights in them.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-04-2006, 10:05 PM
The difference I noticed between your ideal findings and mine is that your balance points are very close to supposedly most pros' specs. Your static mass is light like the newer aged tweener players. My balance points are at the 28cm mark, and my total end weight ends up being over 14oz. even when I start off with super light frames.

I also do a whole lot of experiments. I did post some of the things that I do and have also included do-it-yourself customizations. I perform major surgery on racquets, creating larger grommet power holes, stiffening frames, doing paint jobs, destiffening key areas, stringing proportionally along with precisely fine-tuning vibrational string pitch + beam resonsance pitch, string locking, you name it.

So far you are the only other tech on this board that seems to do the unconventional tinkering like I do. I mean if you went through the string threads, there are great techs that hang out there. There aren't too many inventive people I've come across though. Good to have you on this board. People have thought I was nuts with all the things I do and now that you're around, I'm not the only crazy person. ;)

johncauthen
01-04-2006, 10:49 PM
Yes, I hollowed out the holes and got rid of the grommet strip of a Head Radical in about 1995. One thing about it was that it whistled. I'm almost surprised the O3 doesn't whistle.

I keep experimenting, and right now I am thinking about the Prince O3, especially after watching Samantha Stosur use hers. It was probably an off-the-shelf, unmodifed O3; so that made it very interesting. It takes a lot of fine adjustments to make racquets work, but I'm thinking maybe an O3 Red, Blue, and the White can work using my latest tapered weights without needing too many fine adjustments after we get the weights right. I would want to work with Prince to do it. The racquet is too heavy to modify as is.

You have extra weight in the butt. Try it without any extra weight in the butt. Make the weight in the upper handle longer. That weight works best as two weights. Use a very light weight in the shaft or no weight at all, because the shaft is weight. Have a separate, heavier weight under the top of the grip. That's a major secret to good balance: two handle weights. I actually saw that weight feature on a full size plastic skeleton last week. (I hope it was plastic.) It was the first time I had ever been able to look at a skeleton and look at the shape of the counterweights in the elbow. They were exactly the same shape as my weights. I shaped mine by racquet feel. And there were two separate weights there.

The upper limit of weight might be 364 grams. Martina's Bosworth weighs 364 grams. My Babolat's original modified weight of 368g was too heavy for everybody, and finally, it felt too heavy to me.

In about 1992, we strung a Dunlop Max300G with 20 gauge string, using two main strings in the middle six holes. Don strung it, and it was my idea. It's too bad we can't work together as equals, because the racquet innovations I have now really work.

PrinceO3UserInOz
01-05-2006, 12:51 AM
Hi JOhn,

My name is Andrew and I live in the land downunder. I currently use an O3 Red. I bought it 4 months ago and thought it was a good racquet. I am not a big hitter of the ball, so I tend to overhit most of my shots trying to put power in them. A friend of mine started to add lead weight to his Prince TT bandit and Head IS2 racquet at the 12, 3, 9 o'clock positions. He used to swear by it, having them weigh a huge 370something grams. I am not a big person and I could hardly lift the damn things. Then he started to read about your "307mm balance point and 338-368 gram weight limit" so we tried it on both our racquets.

Since then we have both been impressed with the way they both play. My racquet now weighs 352 grams and the balance point is exactly 307mm. Both of us can hit almost as hard as we like and almost never hit long shots, so it feels like I am hitting with more topspin than I think I am doing.My racquet feels so solid, without feeling to heavy. I am now growing in confidence knowing that I can hit harder shots without going over the baseline, something which I have not seen in my game for more than 15-20 years.

Also, if you are not happy with working for Don, why dont you go out on your own. I am sure that you have enough client base at the moment, and it would grow as people become aware of your talents in stringing racquets. I am betting that more than enough people on this forum think the same as me. Ok, you may have a (short) while to wait till you get really up and running, but doesnt all businesses start out that way?

Also, my strings are about to break. They are the factory ones at the moment. What would be your choice of striing and tension and string-type to use in my racquet. My shot of choice is my slice backhand (am wanting install a double handed backhand at sometime to my game) but I love my forehand at the moment with regards to the way my racquet is now, so much punch.

Sorry for the long post.

Thanks

Andrew

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-05-2006, 01:47 AM
Yes, I hollowed out the holes and got rid of the grommet strip of a Head Radical in about 1995. One thing about it was that it whistled. I'm almost surprised the O3 doesn't whistle.

I keep experimenting, and right now I am thinking about the Prince O3, especially after watching Samantha Stosur use hers. It was probably an off-the-shelf, unmodifed O3; so that made it very interesting. It takes a lot of fine adjustments to make racquets work, but I'm thinking maybe an O3 Red, Blue, and the White can work using my latest tapered weights without needing too many fine adjustments after we get the weights right. I would want to work with Prince to do it. The racquet is too heavy to modify as is.

You have extra weight in the butt. Try it without any extra weight in the butt. Make the weight in the upper handle longer. That weight works best as two weights. Use a very light weight in the shaft or no weight at all, because the shaft is weight. Have a separate, heavier weight under the top of the grip. That's a major secret to good balance: two handle weights. I actually saw that weight feature on a full size plastic skeleton last week. (I hope it was plastic.) It was the first time I had ever been able to look at a skeleton and look at the shape of the counterweights in the elbow. They were exactly the same shape as my weights. I shaped mine by racquet feel. And there were two separate weights there.

The upper limit of weight might be 364 grams. Martina's Bosworth weighs 364 grams. My Babolat's original modified weight of 368g was too heavy for everybody, and finally, it felt too heavy to me.

In about 1992, we strung a Dunlop Max300G with 20 gauge string, using two main strings in the middle six holes. Don strung it, and it was my idea. It's too bad we can't work together as equals, because the racquet innovations I have now really work.

John, the reason why it whistled was because when you hollowed out that frame, you ended up with a gap, exposing the groove between the inner and outer frame walls. When air passes through, it vibrates and the frame resonates, resulting in the whistling you describe. O ports don't have that gap between the walls exposed, so it's quiet.

Funny thing is John, I have recently become interested in experimenting tweaking O3s as well. I mentioned it in a thread about a week ago. It's the new 90 in² 03 Mid that I'm interested in particularly.

I am avoiding the Midplus size because wider frames have more torsional inertia even when the frame has less static mass than the smaller mids. I can feel the difference.

Now some may wonder, "What's wrong with more torsional inertia? Wouldn't that mean more stablilty?" To answer that....yes of course. But just know that for a blank frame (a blank canvas if you will), I look for something with the least amount of weight possible, static weight and dynamic weight. I want to add mass to keys areas, rather than have a frame with mass already concentrated from the design that I then wouldn't be able to change. I do end up adding weight for torsional stability anyways, and where I add it, it serves the purpose of increasing swing weight to desired preference and adjusting the perimeter torsional stability. I get to have more of the mass where I want it to be.

Imagine having a frame that weighs only 2 ounces John. Don't you just see a lot of potential in customizing something like that? Well, that's the same reason why I go after these super light specs. It's not that I play with a flyswatter, because afterall, after customizations, my current ideal frames do weigh over 14 ounces!

To get back on track......
The main reason why I became interested in those 03s was because of the O-Ports. Now I know that those ports physically do not increase the size of the sweet spots, but it does manipulate the strings, enabling more movement that offers a more positive connection on off-center hits. It is more forgiving, therefore giving a player an extra edge that could potentially pay dividends in unexpecting crucially needed moments(That's why people say and falsely advertise it as increase the sweet spot. The fact of the matter is, you cannot increase the size of a sweet spot because, to be technically correct, it's a point not an area. The sweet areas can be expanded however, which is just the area in between the C.O.P. and the vibrational harmonic node.) Plus, I think 03s have a sleek look.

Another thing that surprises me about your designs is that you try to emulate the human body like I do. The only difference, from what I think by reading your post, is that you try to make the frame function as the three segments of the body (upper arm, forearm, and hand). I only try to emulate the properties of the forearm. I'm curious as to why you aim for multiple segments rather than one. Can you please explain?

If you think about it, the racquet does not have any pivotal points, and so the dynamic motion is much different than the entire arm in a swing motion (unless you swing with a straight arm about the axis of rotation at the shoulder point).

And what did you mean when you suggested that I should try to use "2" weights above the grip? Did you mean two at the same point, but on opposite sides of the handle?
(I add mass inside the handle, 2 pieces at the top of the grip, and 2 at the endcap point).

What did you mean when you said, " have a heavier weight under the top of the grip,"?

The reason why I have weight at the endcap is to bring the moment force down (make the frame more HD light). It also shifts the center of percussion closer towards the tip, like if you were to add mass at the 12 o'clock location.

Thanks in advance.

gregraven
01-05-2006, 04:27 AM
A weighted-up light racquet will never play as well as a properly-designed heavy racquet, where the weight comes from the lay-up. Adding lots of weight to the butt cap (or nearby) gives the racquet a high polar moment, which tends to make the racquet feel odd on impact. Finally, deforming the hoop in either direction (that is, longer or shorter) more than 3/32-inches cannot be a good thing in a carbon-fiber racquet.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-05-2006, 10:43 AM
A weighted-up light racquet will never play as well as a properly-designed heavy racquet, where the weight comes from the lay-up. Adding lots of weight to the butt cap (or nearby) gives the racquet a high polar moment, which tends to make the racquet feel odd on impact. Finally, deforming the hoop in either direction (that is, longer or shorter) more than 3/32-inches cannot be a good thing in a carbon-fiber racquet.

I don't think you know what I know. John knows what I know (at least from what he posts, I think he gets some of it.) It's also vice versa. The things that John knows, I know some of that as well.

Now some of my designs weren't designed for the currently known and popular swing mechanics (the classic straight arm eastern forehand & Continental FH, and the Western segmented FH). Some are. I do have designs meant soley for a particularly newer revolutionary style that's not yet poplular (There are a lot of schools of tennis that design, tweak, and invent mechanics by-the-way. Different nations have diffrent philosphies for example. The same holds true for different schools within the States. I don't mean "schools" as in Bolletieri Academy" but "schools" as in style and philosophy. (Of course only the styles considered successful are those seen used by champions). With that said, I never mentioned which designs where meant for which styles. I never said that the design I had was for the popular "classic" strokes or the "modern" strokes.

Now about the 2 oz. frame. If I were to customize a 2 ounce frame up to a standard playable weight, just say that I wanted to bring it up to 12 ounces. Now I never said that I would add a chunk of 10oz. concentrated in a single area in the handle to bring it up to 12 oz. I never said that. I just told John to imagine the possiblities of all the freedom there would be. Weight would be added, but no one ever suggest to add chunks in certain spots and then skip other spots altogether.

Now about John's hoop stretching. I understand how it could be beneficial. John has his own reasons and explanations for doing so, but I looked further into it and found other reasons that John himself didn't either realize or elaborated.

I have a deep understanding of racquet physics. Just read my user name and sound it out quickly with no pauses. I'm not a tech who just tries things out hands on. I'm also not the geek that can prove things to work in the lab theoretically, but who cannot actually make things work physically in reality. I do both and aim for that. And, I am not that sports scientist who claims one way to be the best way, but yet he himself can't even swing a racquet in the fashion that he advocates, let alone actually being able to beat a junior girl in a match.

srptennis389
01-05-2006, 11:44 AM
John, are you sure that stringing it like you say will do absolutely nothing to the durability of my racquet?

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-05-2006, 12:06 PM
srptennis389, I would say that doing anything unconventional and not recommended by the manufacturer is risky. Would I or do I stretch hoops on purpose? Yes I do.

If you are afraid of wasting $200 and have a weak heart, don't do.
I've stretched stiff graphite frames as much as 1/4" without cracking it, or sensing and seeing any signs of damage.
An eighth of an inch stretch is not too extreme to me. Most racquets should be fine, especially flexier titanium and Ti infused frames.
Do so if you're curious, want to experiment, and could afford to take a loss.

johncauthen
01-05-2006, 02:44 PM
My Heads, Babolats, Yonex, and Wilson come out about 5/32 longer, and if that makes them hit a lot better, it’s worth it. If distorting the frame 3/32 is safely within recommended specs, distorting it 1/16th more isn’t very much.

The Prince O3 racquets work well whether distorted or not. The new Prince racquets are more like a pure design, with only a lot of weight at the top. The Prince high polar moment of inertia design philosophy started with the Constant Taper System (CTS), and they went to the Triple Threat weighting with heavy Tungsten threads in bulges at the top of the head, created racquets with a simple weight in the top of the head.

Wilson has second “kicker weights” in the PWS in the sides of the head.

But a golf club has only a big weight concentrated in the head, in the clubhead. People have tried adding smaller “kicker weights”, second weights on the shaft just above the clubhead, and they worked. But in golf, they got rid of all the weights except the clubhead. I think the O3 is designed like a golf club, with only one big weight in the top of the head.

The clubhead is sort of a teardrop shaped weight. The engineers know the exact shape of the clubhead makes a big difference.

What if tennis racquets got rid of the secondary kicker weights? Now you have a weight on a stick, which is hard to use. Golf is a hard game to play, even though you and the ball never move. You play it with a weight on a stick.

But I made the golf club feel more confident by precisely shaping a weight at the top of the handle. That golf club has a high polar moment of inertia, but the other big weight is at the top of the grip, not in the butt. The lead sheet is wrapped around the shaft and taped securely. It looks like a second part of the grip. I photographed it like that to show the shape and location of the weight.

With that simple arrangement of two weights, one at the end of the head and one at the top of handle, the golf club works. It has the right interaction between the head and handle. It has the feel you want, and gives you confidence, and it works no matter how long or short the shaft is. So there is no need to fine tune it like there might be if the whole thing were a series of kicker weights along the shaft.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/9dcd9235.jpg

Are the new Prince racquets designed simple like that golf club? Does it only need one big counterweight in the top of the handle? Andrew says adding an extra weight in the handle of the O3 Red gives you a lot of confidence and feel, mountains of confidence and feel.

Problem is, to make the overall weight perfect, you have to modify it working closely with Prince. They have to change the racquet itself. The advantage of two simple weights is the racquets would always perform consistently, even if they are not always strung to the right length. That would give Prince an advantage. They can offer racquets that feel right even if strung to the wrong length. Usually, they are strung too short, the heads are compressed.

I have a Babolat that weighs 8.3 ounces unstrung. It's too light to hit a ball, unmodified; but that one old racquet I can't buy anymore is the best racquet with whatever weighting concept I have developed. Companies should make and offer light racquets just for modifying.

PrinceO3UserInOz
01-06-2006, 01:57 AM
Just to clarify something, it was not me, but my friend John who modified my O3 red.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 04:51 PM
Here's one of my concepts. Similar to what you described John. Obviously, as I've never heard of a person having bones that big, the image was enlarged for the diagram example. Also, the "key concentrated" mass locations are not to exact scale. Basically the aim is to have the racquet's mass distributed in proportion to the forearm and to attain the similar dynamics as the forearm. http://tinypic.com/jsokf4.jpg

So you can see why I have a concentrated amount of mass at the endcap. It acts like the elbow's mass. You also have to consider that the forearm is tapered as well. Muscle mass surrounding the bones should be taken into accounted.

Could you care to point out your elbow bone weighting design John?

Ljubicic for number1
01-06-2006, 05:46 PM
JohnCauthen, Could you elaborate on your stretching the head of the FXP radical Tour?

What tensions do you reccommend in the mains, crosses and what the end result will play like "as in similar to what tension" I currently string my racquets towards the bottom end of the reccommended specs. My Tour is at 53lbs so how could I stretch the hoop and still get this sort of playability?

I seen your comments in another thread about stretching the tour head but am unsure if this will feel to tight for me etc.

Also interested in yours thoughts on the matter MackSamuel.

Thanks John.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 06:14 PM
Well, John's reasons for stretching the hoops is to redistribute the mass of a frame, to "fine tune" it to a more desireable feel. He takes it to a degree like mastering an art.

From what I see, it also increases the SW of your frame, due to each particle of mass being extended further away from the original axes where one would generally grip the handle.

Also, from my speculative theory, by deliberatley stressing the racquet head by stretching it and then stringing the crosses tighter than the mains, basically you're storing potential energy.

Perhaps during ball impact, when the resilient strings stretch, the bent-out-of-shape hoop springs the energy that then gets transmitted into the the strings to the ball. After impact the strings contract, deforming the hoop back into the elongated type of shape.

Also, by elongating the hoop, the head is stiffened a bit more than otherwise, and this would cause the strings to stretch more than usual during ball impact.

According to many racquet researchers, strings transmit 90% (90%-95% approx.) of stored energy from impact back to the ball. Typical frame flexing does not transmit as much. Since frame flexing is not as resilient as string stretching, full recovery from flex is well after impact. So simply put, the elongation method stiffens the upper area of a racquet.

Stiffness in specific areas makes the racquet feel different than it would for an even stiffness throughout the entire length of the racquet. Sort of like fishing rods. Fly rods to be more specific because fly fishing demands a lot of casting action. Some rods bend mostly in the middle (which is not desirable according to most people I've heard from), some flex mostly at the top, some flex mostly at the top but in a tapered type of way by gradually increasing flex on the slimmer upper areas.

I notice a better, postive stringbed response with the elongated hoop. I, however, do not do so in order to "fine tune" the mass of frames like John does. I alter frame dynamics using different methods.

Ljubicic for number1
01-06-2006, 06:42 PM
Thanks for the reply,
Well if thats the case that stretching the hoop is mainly to redistribute the weight up higher, than this is going the opposite direction to John's perfect balance point of 307mm, and would need more lead on the handle to bring this back into these parameters.
But John mentions in another thread that when the FXP tour head is stretched it is the near "perfect racquet and requires NO weighting".

Something is going over my head here?

John.

Bolt
01-06-2006, 06:46 PM
I'd like to know more about your methods to alter frame dynamics ... which ones have worked and which ones haven't. I think your (and John's) approach of modeling the racquet around the structure of the bones in our limbs is brilliant. Thanks in advance for sharing whatever information you can.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 07:37 PM
Companies should make and offer light racquets just for modifying.

Like the 2 oz. frame I mentioned earlier would be nice for customization(With the current substrates, matrixes, and processes, I don't think it's realistically currently available.) A 4-5 oz. one is possible.

I am considering having molds made through a CNC shop in CA (very expensive). This way, I can design frames of super light materials. I would be able to control stiffness, shape, and mass distribution.

The first thing I would have molded is the lightess durable frame possible. Then, I would add additional mass onto areas that enable the frame to perform the way I want. From that, I have a map of the mass distribution locations. I can then mold another prototype, having it weighted up accordingly. It may take numerous tuning to mold the frame to match the first frame with the add-on weights.

Besides trying to mold a frame to match the first one, more adjustments would be needed to attain the desired stiffness. As far as materials, there are quite a few to pick and choose from. Spectra blended with high-modulus carbon fiber is something I would like to experiment with, since Spectra is more flexible, lighter, and has a higher tensile strength than kevlar. That newer material "zylon" seems interesting for it's lightweight/stiffness properties. Babolat used it, as some member here mentioned that to me a while back I haven't seen prepreg zylon for sale. There are endless combinations.

mctennis
01-06-2006, 08:51 PM
Get a N Pro Surge back. Why change if you liked that racquets so much? probably find one in the buy/sell area or ask for one in the wanted section.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 10:36 PM
Thanks for the reply,
Well if thats the case that stretching the hoop is mainly to redistribute the weight up higher, than this is going the opposite direction to John's perfect balance point of 307mm, and would need more lead on the handle to bring this back into these parameters.
But John mentions in another thread that when the FXP tour head is stretched it is the near "perfect racquet and requires NO weighting".

Something is going over my head here?

John.

Ask John. He experimented with the FXP.

John experiments with stock frames of various brands and models. He configures them and attempts to make them perform better for people in general. I tweak and design frames to yield better performance but with custom frames, rather than with stock frames like John. John uses what is available, the racquets you can buy at the stores. He probably has tinkered with just about all the models and so he knows a lot about the frames that people own.

He enlongates frames and adds weight to them in his "key areas". For some frames, he only stretches. For others, he fine tunes by adding weights and further fines tune the weight distibution by elongating the hoop.

My reasons for elongating is not that of John's. I don't stretch the head in order to tune the mass. I elongate to manipulate the stringbed response. I fine tune dynamics using other methods (mass adjustment is one of the methods).

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 10:47 PM
Here is how elongation effects mass distribution.


The picture below shows a regular hoop (it's square in the diagram example for exaggeration purposes to make things easier to understand)

http://tinypic.com/jtnyux.jpg

The picture below shows the hoop after it's been stretched. Notice how it is longer as a result. That adds a bit of swing weight. Now in reality, stretching it 1/16-1/8" isn't going to spread out mass that far apart like as shown in the diagram. This stretching method is what John uses for micro-fine tuning to adjust frames to what he feels is perfect.

http://tinypic.com/jt477c.jpg

Ljubicic for number1
01-06-2006, 11:10 PM
Yeah I understand all that, but the thing I dont understand is that John insists that racquets play best when the balance point is set at 305 - 307mm but stretching the head of the FXP without adding weight to the handle is moving the balance point the opposite direction. Looking forward to his opinion and reasons for this.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-06-2006, 11:16 PM
Those diagrams weren't part of the post reply. It's general information that I posted for others to see.

johncauthen
01-07-2006, 04:02 PM
There is a verse in the Bible that says, “The rider on the Red Horse was given a Great Sword, and he went out conquering.”

The Red horse was the Roman Empire. The great sword was the 27-inch sword they used. That sword originally came from the Celts, who went all across Europe. They were able to easily overcome whoever they encountered, and rob from them. When the Celts came to Rome, the Roman leaders made a deal with them. The Roman leaders said, “You be our army, and we will organize and run all the countries you conquer.” The Roman Empire was born.

In a detailed description of the Celtic sword, it says the hilt had three great jewels for weight, and the sword was very powerful.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/2bfdab21.jpg

Two of the jewels were at the #1 location. The third was at the #2 location. The jewels became metal, cast in the shape of the hilt and the base of the blade. Those are the primary and secondary weights.

The main design feature of that sword was a heavy hilt and a short light blade. The main design feature of a production amateur tennis racquet is a heavy head. But on the pro tour, they are beginning to see a heavy “hilt” and light frame is the most effective racquet.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/374bbd62.jpg

If you go to MackSamuel’s post on page 2 and look at the knee, you can see the same “three jewels”. Two of them are where it spells HUMERUS. (It's upside down. The foot is at the top.) The third jewel corresponds to the smaller bones beyond the knee joint towards the foot.

Here is my latest Babolat. It’s weighted just like drawing of the racquet, the sword, and knee.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/c6b66ce2.jpg

The ultra-light VS Drive is beside it. I haven’t hit with that racquet in a long time. The racquet with no grip, strung, weighs 238 grams or 8¼ ounces, even with lead tape at the butt. That's 2½ ounces lighter than the PD from the same mold.

It was strung over two years ago, not by me, before I learned about stretching the heads. You can see the racquethead is compressed. Most racquets strung on a two-point crank machine come out compressed. When I started working for Don, I experimented with ways not to compress the heads on the two-point crank machines we use. And while experimenting with how not to compress the heads, I discovered most racquets like the Radical Tour actually hit better with the heads slightly elongated. I also discovered by elongating the head slightly and stinging the crosses tighter, the whole string bed was noticeably more lively, which is what MackSamuelHustovisics also discovered.

I’m going back to work on Monday. Don’s other stringer that he likes more than me is back at school from Christmas break, and I’ve had three weeks off. Maybe me and Don can come to an agreement and I may string racquets that come out the right length; but that means stringing the crosses tighter. He balks when he sees me adjusting the machine to string the crosses tighter. So if I have to string racquet after racquet with a dead bed and compressed head, that makes the job depressing.

But if I could buy ultra-light frames as light as that VS Drive, and modify them, then Don nor anyone else would fight me over it, because the racquets would be so overwhelmingly comfortable and good.

It's not about balance point. The balance point on the modified VS Drive would be about 33.5cm, weighing 300 grams.

When I added enough weight to balance that racquet at 30.5cm, adding weight only in that "hilt" location, it weighed 346 grams. That's where I got 30.5 and 346 grams from, which are the same specs most pro racquets have. I was surprised; they have to start out with very light-headed frames like that VS Drive. My heavier Babolat balanced at 30.7 weighs 368g. It has 44 grams of lead in a triangular shape just above my hand. You can complain that it is a little heavy and say you prefer unmodified racquets.

The VS Drive could have 50 grams just above your hand, in a shape that could have been achieved with three jewels. That light frame with a lot of weight just above your hand would weigh 305g with an overgrip, weighted just like the Celtic-Roman sword; just like your leg, and arm.

No one would reject that racquet, when weighted that way, and I've improved my techniques. So far, no one has rejected it. Everyone who tried that racquet when modified two years ago liked it. I couldn't get another one, so I modified racquets I could get, improving my techniques.

Bolt
01-07-2006, 05:48 PM
John, what are you making your triangular weights out of?

Do you put one on each side of the handle?

Any suggestions for a Volkl Catapult 7?

Thanks!

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-07-2006, 06:00 PM
John, it's interesting how you mentioned Roman swords, as I have studied them as well. Their dynamics are very effective, even more effective than Japan's kitana.

A lot of people think the kitana is superior, due to it's length, stiffness, armor piercing point design angled uniquely for durablity, and for ones specially made for high warriors metal cutting capablity being able to slice the barrel of a gun *only a myth BTW* (most are probably biased towards it because it looks cool)

Each of the types of sword were designed for different purposes (actually the same purpose...that is...for defending oneself and killing). The Roman sword was designed for the world's most feared soldiers at the time, the Roman infantry. Among the eilte were the Roman Legiondary Cohorts, Praetorian Guards, and Urban Cohorts. The action of the swords that they used was suitable for tight close quarter combat with short jabs, thrusting and a quick efficient penetrating swing cut. The kitana was suitable for draw cuts/slices and usually were good for reaching attacks due to the C.O.P. being near the tip of the blade that allows the positive response after impact.

About the Roman swords, also notice how most of them have a giant pommel at the end of the hilt, usually welded on or forged on. Some of my racquet designs have mass in that location for the same reason, to shift the COP and to adjust the moment force.

I haven't seen any of your designs with a pommel John. Is there a reason why you leave them out?

Anyways, you definitely do know a lot of things that I know John. It's just scary. These are just minor things too. John, just don't completely blow the whisle and reveal too many things on this public board. Some secrets need to be kept, especially ones of your best designs. It's a good idea to protect your ideas. ;]

johncauthen
01-07-2006, 06:08 PM
I make them out of 3 lb or 4 lb density lead sheet that I buy in 30 x 30 inch rolls from a roofing supply store.

Make a 44 gram weight shaped like I shaped it. Conform it to the racquet and tape it on so the point is about at the Volkl symbol. The tapered weight should be a little over 3 3/4 inch long, but shorter than 4 inches. Put it on top of the grip, not under it, and put an overgrip over it. String the Volkl to the designed length, not shorter.

The Volkl is 11 ounces unstrung, so it might need less weight. Use 3 lbs density sheet, cut with scissors and filed into that shape. It can be as light as 30 grams, and be effective.

johncauthen
01-07-2006, 06:45 PM
They had giant pommels on the end in the movies.

Here is a link to a sword that has both the weight features I found to be needed. http://www.swordsdirect.com/wallace-battle-ready-sword.html

In the link, they say it is based on a historically accurate design. It has the two crucial features: a big weight, which is the hilt, and a lesser weight in front of the hilt. Those are the only two weight features I have found to be needed in racquets. Some people like a lot of weight at the butt, so that feature made its way into our images of swords.

Not Japanese swords, which tells you it might not be needed.

We understand in very similar ways because there might be only one path to go down when designing good racquets, and whoever wants a good racquet goes down that same path. But we can't buy those racquets or even buy frames that can be modified into those racquets. Yet, the entire pro tour seems to be using them as pj's on custom-made frames. These things are not secret; they are just being kept from us. My thought is, if enough people learn what a good racquet is, and they ask for it, the tennis industry might offer it.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-07-2006, 07:13 PM
That is one beautiful sword, the Wallace. I believe the so-called "sweet spot" for that sword is 1/3 of the blade down from the tip.

About the giant pommels on the Roman swords, yes they do exaggerate the size. My point from it though wasn't the size, but the huge amount of mass.

And yes John, I know that most swords, especially the ones at the local mall cutlery shop, are mainly for displaying and collecting. Only the fine companies who study the ancient art of the craft offer replicates that actually perform well.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-07-2006, 07:47 PM
http://tinypic.com/judbuc.jpg

http://tinypic.com/judbpw.jpg

gregraven
01-07-2006, 08:35 PM
I don't think you know what I know. [...]

That remains to be seen. What I do know comes from taking two racquets made in the same racquet mold by the same company. Same length, same flex, same stringbed pattern. Only one was custom made for a touring pro, and weighed a LOT more than the retail version. Adding lead tape to the handle, shaft, and hoop, I modified retail version to have the same measurements (length, weight, balance, and swingweight) as the custom racquet (which had no lead tape whatsoever). I then strung the modified retail racquet using the same string and same tension as the pro's custom racquet.

On court, you could have told which was which wearing thick gloves on a cold day with your eyes closed, with ear protection on -- assuming you could hit the ball with your eyes closed. The modified retail racquet not only didn't play anywhere near as well as the custom pro racquet, it played poorly (in my opinion) all around, and felt terrible.

I'm not saying that you should never add lead tape to a racquet. What I am saying is that lead tape is not a replacement for quality design and fabrication. If you want to play with a four-ounce racquet that has 9.5 ounces of added lead, go right ahead. I'd rather play with a 13.5-ounce racquet with a couple of grams of lead tape.

MackSamuelHustovisics
01-07-2006, 09:09 PM
That remains to be seen. What I do know comes from taking two racquets made in the same racquet mold by the same company. Same length, same flex, same stringbed pattern. Only one was custom made for a touring pro, and weighed a LOT more than the retail version. Adding lead tape to the handle, shaft, and hoop, I got the modified retail version to have the same measurements (length, weight, balance, and swingweight) as the custom racquet (which had no lead tape whatsoever). I then strung the modified retail racquet using the same string and same tension as the pro's custom racquet.

On court, you could have told which was which wearing thick gloves on a cold day with your eyes closed, with ear protection on -- assuming you could hit the ball with your eyes closed. The modified retail racquet played not only didn't play anywhere near as well as the custom pro racquet, it played poorly (in my opinion) all around, and felt terrible.

I'm not saying that you should never add lead tape to a racquet. What I am saying is that lead tape is not a replacement for quality design and fabrication. If you want to play with a four-ounce racquet that has 9.5 ounces of added lead, go right ahead. I'd rather play with a 13.5-ounce racquet with a couple of grams of lead tape.

I know what you mean. Another example I can describe much like your anology would be a comparison of two racquets. This should be easy to understand. Say you had a racquet with an ideal performance. It weighs 11.5oz, SW of 320gms, and balanced at 13.5". Mass is distributed almost evenly throughout the entire length on the design.

Now say you had another racquet that weighs 1 oz. and you wanted it to have the same exact specs. as the other racquet. You could add mass to different spots until you attain the specs. The dynamics however could be different, depending on the placement of each particle mass, even if the specs. corresponds to the other racquet.

This is why it takes tremendous tuning. Also, some of my good performing designs do not have chunks of mass covering small areas.

Also. about me wanting a 2-4 oz. frame to customize, it wouldn't actually be a final design racquet to use in real play. It would be used more for testing and trying out different dynamic concepts.

Having anything attached to another body (lead taped to frame or lead wedged/glued inside handle) would not be as efficient in momentun transfer as a fixed body of mass. Some of the momentum dissipates through the slight movement(s) of the attached objects.

Bolt
01-07-2006, 09:13 PM
What I do know comes from taking two racquets made in the same racquet mold by the same company. Same length, same flex, same stringbed pattern. Only one was custom made for a touring pro, and weighed a LOT more than the retail version. Adding lead tape to the handle, shaft, and hoop, I got the modified retail version to have the same measurements (length, weight, balance, and swingweight) as the custom racquet (which had no lead tape whatsoever). I then strung the modified retail racquet using the same string and same tension as the pro's custom racquet.

On court, you could have told which was which wearing thick gloves on a cold day with your eyes closed, with ear protection on -- assuming you could hit the ball with your eyes closed. The modified retail racquet played not only didn't play anywhere near as well as the custom pro racquet, it played poorly (in my opinion) all around, and felt terrible.

I think that both John and Mack would agree with you on this point.

ShooterMcMarco
01-08-2006, 12:08 AM
john, what do you suggest to do to modify an ncode 95 or a prostaff 6.0 95?

Ljubicic for number1
01-08-2006, 01:18 AM
John, So would you reccommend stretching the Head of the FXP and leaving the weight as stock or still trying to get the balance point to 305 - 307mm?

John.

Bolt
01-08-2006, 06:56 AM
John, you state that the VS Drive lends itself well to your weighting approaches. Is there anything about the VS Drive other than the ultra-light static weight, low static swingweight and mass at the tip that makes it work so well? Wouldn't any frame that has those characteristics work too? For example, the Yonex Ultimum RQ Ti-210, Wilson Blaze Hammer, Wilson PS Trance, and Wilson PS Blitz all seem to fit this mold ... light static weight, low swingweight and head-heavy balance. Also, they are all cheap which is nice for modding purposes.

jamumafa
02-14-2006, 01:41 PM
John i would like to e-mail you with some questions i would like to ask , as i'm fairly new at this and don't want to bother the more experienced posters

My e-mail is on the site, and i have allowed the "recieve e-mail" option. Thanks

TennisAsAlways
02-14-2006, 01:45 PM
^ I don't think John frequents this thread anymore.

Good day now. 8)

Radical97
02-14-2006, 02:53 PM
I pre-stretch my old radicals 1/4" - 3/8", must be record! Not snapped one yet!!

TennisAsAlways
02-14-2006, 02:56 PM
I pre-stretch my old radicals 1/4" - 3/8", must be record! Not snapped one yet!!I heard someone else saying they went up to 1/4" too. How's the performance and feel?

Radical97
02-17-2006, 02:16 PM
I heard someone else saying they went up th 1/4" too. How's the performance and feel?

Hey there. Works for me, just what i'm used to. Everything just seems to go in.. Cant go back to it unstretched now....

TennisAsAlways
02-17-2006, 02:29 PM
Hey there. Works for me, just what i'm used to. Everything just seems to go in.. Cant go back to it unstretched now....How would you describe the performance-feel of a frame with a stretched hoop. Did you find it to be more stable and or did the stringbed seem to offer more "controlled-power"? Just want to get some feedback from different people.

Good day now. 8)

MT120
03-17-2006, 08:03 AM
I would like to know what could be done to my Wilson ncode six one to get it to the "ideal" weight or balnce?

Mace
03-17-2006, 08:23 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/5d8291ed.jpg

John, that is such a pretty bow on your racquet. Lol.

Midlife crisis
03-17-2006, 09:45 AM
I would like to know what could be done to my Wilson ncode six one to get it to the "ideal" weight or balnce?

There is no ideal weight or balance, only what is right for you. My "ideal" is a 28" racquet, 115 sq. in. headsize, 78 RDC, with poly strung tightly and weighing 12 1/2 to 13 ounces and 8 points HL. How applicable do you think this would be to your situation? Probably none.

What don't you like about your current racquet?

david_in_portland
03-17-2006, 10:52 AM
Read your conversation and thought you might help. Like to play with a
heavy racquet (old school). Was wondering what a good fill material would
be that would add about 2 oz to the head—trying this on an old Hammer 4.3 110.
If I could put 2 oz inside the frame, that would leave me at least an ounce or 2 to balance the frame with external weights (am using ˝ oz weights).
Others on this board didn’t seem to know what I was talking about. Like your design—you’re the best.
david_in_portland

TennisAsAlways
03-17-2006, 11:02 AM
Like your design—you’re the best.Uh oh!!!!!!! Don't talk like that Mr Portland. The idiotic member by the name of "DOLFAN" will accuse you of being John Cauthen himself. Since you are "praising" John, he will assume that you are John posting under a different alias, in a pathetic attempt to credit himself.

Check out this post here people. This guy's a lunatic. Refer to post # 70:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=802520#post802520

Anyways, Mr Portland, good to see another "non-close minded" person, such as yourself.

Good day now. 8)

david_in_portland
03-17-2006, 02:19 PM
Ya, I guess I don't always go with the status quo. If I did, I think I would give up tennis. Modern racquets are much to light for me. I don't see anything radical in what John said--seems like he knows his basics.
I left this inquiry on several different areas of this site. In the questions area there is the most conversation about it. [foam in racquet]
Thank you,
David_in_portland ;)

tennis4losers
03-21-2006, 08:24 PM
Uh oh!!!!!!! Don't talk like that Mr Portland. The idiotic member by the name of "DOLFAN" will accuse you of being John Cauthen himself. Since you are "praising" John, he will assume that you are John posting under a different alias, in a pathetic attempt to credit himself.

Check out this post here people. This guy's a lunatic. Refer to post # 70:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=802520#post802520

Anyways, Mr Portland, good to see another "non-close minded" person, such as yourself.

Good day now. 8)

Why are you always going around accusing people of perposturous things?

travlerajm
03-21-2006, 09:46 PM
I think that compressing a frame actually tends to improve performance, because the sides of the hoop are further from the axis along the handle, thereby making the frame more stable on off center hits.

The best performing frames I have as platforms for customization and are my Wilson 4.7 EB stretch Oversizes, which have 115 sq. in. faces. Since the head is so wide, I don't need to add as much weight to the hoop to counteract twisting, so all of the weight can be used at key points in the handle to optimize the trajectory and accuracy of the shots.

Steve Huff
03-21-2006, 10:08 PM
John, I routinely stretched aluminum rackets, but don't you agree that stretching a rectangular-headed Yonex is risky, especially when you string the crosses 15-20 pounds tighter than the mains. When I stretched rackets, it was more for relocating the sweet "zone", rather than redistribute mass. Plus, many Yonex rackets are extremely brittle. I can see stretching some Head rackets, as they seem the most flexible of modern rackets. Redistributing mass to a point further away is a great way to increase power, but can also lead to increased stress on the arm. I do find that the way you and Mack have added weight ABOVE the handle very interesting. I'll have to try it next time (as opposed to adding it in the handle, or under the grip). I've avoided doing that for a long time because I never liked the way old ProStaff's played, and they always felt that they had too much weight in the shaft and above the handle. Currently, I'm working on 2 modifications: 1 to decrease vibration, 1 to increase racket head speed without mass redistribution. Both are more practical variants of older ideas that flopped because of (in my opinion) a lack of end user testing. I'll let you know as I progress. I don't have any fancy equipment to run emperical data, just the feel in my hands.
John, there once was a guy that modified BMW's. His company, Dinan, could make 525's with 1000 HPs. Very few were sold. BMW wouldn't honor the warranty with that much engine stress. Dinan worked with BMW until he came up with mods that still turned BMW's into barnburners. But, they had reliability. The stayed well with in the limits set by BMW. Now, they're selling 100 times as many. Rackets like the Ergonom may have hit great. They were never given a chance. If you start stretching rackets until they are on the edge of breaking, warranties will be voided and people will refuse to buy your ideas. New Ideas = what you think they need + what they think they need. Just my 2 cents.

TennisAsAlways
03-21-2006, 10:22 PM
John, I routinely stretched aluminum rackets, but don't you agree that stretching a rectangular-headed Yonex is risky.........(I'm not asking you for advice or an opinion, just wanted some clarification.) So you are saying that you don't think that it is risky??? You said that you "don't agree" that stretching an Yonex hoop "is risky", therefore you are implying that it is NOT risky??? I'm sure you meant to say that you think it "IS risky".

Sometimes leaving out a single word can change the whole implication(s) within a context.

Good day now. 8)

TennisAsAlways
03-22-2006, 06:23 AM
Why are you always going around accusing people of perposturous things?What do you mean "always"? I do not "always" go around accusing people of anything! Secondly, what I have stated in the previous post is "true"! Did you even read the guys post? :rolleyes:

Now if I were to falsely accuse you of doing something, would you in turn "ACCUSE" me of being a story-fabricator???????? :rolleyes: I bet you created the user name "DOLFAN" just to bash John Cauthen, right. :rolleyes: So there; are you just supposed to take that "accusation"? If what I have just accused you of being is not true, then wouldn't that make you want to accuse me of stating something that is not true in order to defend yourself??? "Okay, let's just lie about other members around here and then expect them to just be happy and laugh about those lies about them." You'd be an idiot to think that that would happen!

Yeah, that's right, I accused "DOLFAN" of jumping to conclusions for no reason, right? Oh, I forgot, you "tennis4loser", just happen to know everything. I see.

"KNOW" what YOU are talking about before YOU go around making "ACCUSATIONS" !!! (In this case, accusing me of "going around accusing people of perposturous things". (BTW, the word is spelled "p-r-e-posterous", not "p-e-r-posterous".)! Geez. Stay out of my business, "tennis4loser".

armand
03-22-2006, 06:41 AM
What do you mean "always"? I do not "always" go around accusng people of anything! Sencondly, what I have stated in the previous post is "true"! Did you even read the guys post? :rolleyes:I read the post from the other thread. It was just a little blurb, a little stab, I didn't see why you you took it so offensively. Certainly not enough to carry it over to another(this) thread.
Or was there more context to it?
Similarly, I think you're overreacting to tennis4loser's post too.

Everything ok?

TennisAsAlways
03-22-2006, 07:06 AM
Posts like that could make cause other members to be blinded from the truth, that's why I didn't tolerate such "accusations". Also, I didn't tolerate what tennisloser had to say since he was butting into my business. Everything is fine. Just happened to have come across that post just now. Missed it the last time around. That is all.

javier sergio
04-09-2006, 02:15 PM
Hi MackSamuelHustovisics
Have you tried any customization on Pro Kennex 5G's?
I believe you said you start with tweeners customizing your racquets, this pro kennex is heavier than a tweener.
I'd really appreciate if you can respond.
javiersergio@bellsouth.net