PDA

View Full Version : Racquet Mod Formulas: Matching Specs

Amone
09-25-2006, 05:48 PM
Roughly two weeks ago, I posted a thread with an emberassingly simple system for attaining a given balance point, with given weights. Well, the original idea behind it's complete, and here it is:

Given a final weight, balance, swingweight, and one (1) added mass, it will spit out the location of the necessary added masses, as well as the added weight of the other concentrated mass. Checked with Steve H.'s original Racquet Mod excel sheet. All figures in metrics.

[EDIT]
The Spreadsheet has been updated to include some traits I thought important.

If you look a few replies down (the third, I believe) then you'll see that Travler suggested a few things I should add, and this is one: Instructions.

Begin by plugging in the values for the top three white squares, with the labelled amounts for the racquet you're using. For my DNX 10, I labeled them.

340
31
320

In that order. Do not add units! If you don't know off hand the specifications of your racquet, then check TW's info on it.
Next, in the next set of whited-out boxes, enter the intended specifications of your racquet, with all said and done. For instance, to go with the specs in the spreadsheet by default, I wanted to go with the 'Sampras setup' listed by TravlerAjm. That required a weight of 384 g, a 32 cm balance, and a swingweight of 367.
The fourth whited-out box in that section, labeled 'Weight 1 Mass,' you can enter just about any number lower than the total added mass in grams. If you're not sure how much mass you're adding the spreadsheet provides you with that piece of information. What this is, is the amount of weight to add at the first spot, or 'location 1.'

Afterwards, it will spit out a few numbers: The important ones are cells C23 and C24, though future variations on this spreadsheet will make use of the final recoilweight, polarization, and so forth, in a more central role.

A Note On The Effect Of Specifications:
Weight or Mass will change the static weight, and the punch on your volleys, but little else.
Balance will have a distinct effect on the feeling of your racquet, wether it feels like it plows through the ball or gets pushed around by it. This is measured in CM from the butt of the racquet.
Swingweight is a measure of the difficulty of swinging the racquet, but it is also a factor in the power level of the racquet: higher swingweight, higher power.
Recoilweight is a measure of how much the racquet yields to the incoming ball. More means less. A flat hit shouldn't need much of this, due to the 'plowing' nature of the shot, where a windshield-wiper forehand will probably need more considering that it pretty much absorbs the ball's incoming speed.
Effective Mass is a measure of how much mass is used when the racquet hits the ball. It's not intelligible, at this point, but it makes for a good reference point of how much your power will be changed.
Polarization Index is a measure of how spread out your weight is. The higher the polarization index, the spinnier your racquet will tend to be. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1155086&postcount=50) (Explained in the link)

If either value for 'weight location' comes out as greater than the total length of your racquet, you need to modify your input 'Weight 1 Mass.'

travlerajm
09-26-2006, 06:46 AM
This is a great addition to the board!

Amone
09-26-2006, 11:10 AM
Thanks, Travlerajm. That's sound praise, coming from you.

travlerajm
09-26-2006, 11:47 AM
There is a large contingent of posters who want to be able to match specs, but they're not sure how to do the math calculations. This will be a great service to those people.

With the addition of clear user instructions, definitions of the terms, and basic explanations for how each spec affects the way a racquet plays, I think this might deserve a sticky.

Amone
09-26-2006, 11:57 AM
Oh, Jeez, that's all simple stuff I shoulda thought of! Finally, something to do with my day!

N-serve
09-26-2006, 12:42 PM
I am a little confused about the "Weight 1 Mass". Will you explain this a little further? This is great work by the way.

Amone
09-26-2006, 01:12 PM
Well, for instance, say you're adding 12 grams total. You might enter as mass 1 anywhere from '1' to '11' and that's how much weight you would add at the location specified for mass 1. It's really just a reference number, like that most classic of variables, x.

The choice of how much weight to add at location 1 or 2 is purely your choice. In the creation of this, I made a simpler calculator, using set masses, then added in variability afterwards.

Greg Raven
09-26-2006, 05:28 PM
It doesn't make a huge difference, but your swingweight position factor of 10.16 should be 10. Swingweight is typically measured on machines that have a pivot point 10 cm up from the buttcap, not four inches up from the buttcap.

Greg Raven
09-26-2006, 05:39 PM
Oops, you also use this same 10.16 factor in your big equation, too, but it still doesn't make a huge difference.

AJK1
09-26-2006, 06:09 PM
There's a lot of holes in these posts my friends, be careful using these recommendations, it's not all correct. The 10cm SW point being left out was a glaring mistake.

Amone
09-26-2006, 06:23 PM
Ohhh? I used The Physics and Technology of Tennis as my reference. It refers to the swingweight being measured from four inches. So if you have a problem, take it up with Messr's Brody, Lindsay, and Cross. I do, but I just worked around it. (specifically, their change-in-swingweight formula was HORRIBLY inaccurate, but for the simplest of reasons.)

Now, AJK1, that sounds like a pretty agressive statement. Back it up. Give me exacts. I want my output to be statistically perfect, so give me numbers. Give me examples.

If my formula's wrong in theory, then I challenge you to provide me a better one. It'll probably take you about a day. If only in technicality, then where is my fault? I worked a lot harder on my product than you did on your trolling, so you cite your facts.

Amone
09-26-2006, 06:33 PM
And if I come off as offended, it's only because AJK1 decides to come in, and instead of questioning my choice of any specific thing, like Greg did, I can't dissent because he hasn't said anything, he's just slandered my work without proof. I apologize if I came off as rude, or prudish, or whatever.

Punisha
09-26-2006, 06:49 PM
great job thats an awsome job! Thnx heaps for posting. and stfu trollers!

Amone
09-26-2006, 06:51 PM
Thanks, Punisha. As much as I don't like being randomly trolled, I rarely expect to agree with AJK, and I enjoy the challenge, so no problems there. However, I was a little sheepish about sharing, so I'm glad that most folks are so supportive.

Punisha
09-26-2006, 06:55 PM
btw its not idiot proof yet... how do i work out balance. Is it distance in cm from butt?

Amone
09-26-2006, 06:57 PM
Yes, sir. I had thought I addressed that point, but on reconcideration (read: looking back at the OP) I did not. The issue has been addressed.

Punisha
09-26-2006, 07:16 PM
Ok and what do the wieght locations mean. I got one @ 12.59151523
and another @ 143.9539859

and finally what the hell do the recoil weight weight and effective mass mean lol :P thnx...

ps im doing this for all those idiots out there that dont know what these things are

Amone
09-26-2006, 07:26 PM
Okay, you DEFINITELY can't do it with your specs, then. I'd change the mass for 'Weight 1 Mass' until I got an answer in which both numbers are below the total length of the racquet. ;)

Effective mass is, basically, how much weight the racquet uses when hitting the ball. At this point, the equation's totally buggered, but consistent, so I'd use it more for comparison purposes than anything else.

Recoilweight is how much the racquet recoils. Theoretically, you want less of this if you're a flat-hitter (the transfer of motion is direct; the way you swing the racquet plows without the need for recoilweight) and more if you're spinny (exact opposite).

AJK1
09-26-2006, 08:27 PM
Amone, i don't have to justify my statements to you or anyone else, i am not trolling, i'm stating what i know based on my close working partnership with my racquet technician. I am entitled to post comments here as much as you are, just because you don't like it, is not my problem. I don't want other members here taking what so-called "experts" you and travlerajm post as gospel, since my tech says a lot of it is nonsense. A lot of it has holes in it as stated by me and other readers, and if i see a problem, i'll make an objection. I'd much rather consult Greg Raven on racquet issues, as he obviously knows what he is talking about. It's his business! Not a bunch of high-school science kids sitting in their bedrooms on the computer.

travlerajm
09-26-2006, 10:38 PM
Instead of "effective mass", I like to use the "hitting weight." Interestingly, the simple definition of hitting weight that I use correlates well with Cross's results for "rebound power," even though Cross never seems to make the connection in his papers.

The hitting weight HW = M*(R - 4), with M = static weight in kg, and R = distance to balance point in cm (the 4cm offset is the location where the racquet handle intersects with the extension of the forearm). The hitting weight gives you a very accurate measure of a racquet's power level due to the weight distribution.

If you take any 2 racquets with the same hitting weight, same stiffness, and same tension/stringlength ratio, they will have approximately the same coefficient of restitution.

nikolaih
09-27-2006, 12:48 AM
Amone, I appreciate the work and look forward to any further fine tuning! What would be neat would be a way to plug in specs, including pre-modded, to figure out the hitting wieght that travlerajm speaks of.

And does increasing the static weight really only affect volleys? I thought this also affected a racquets stability, but I'm guessing that this factor is better represented in the recoilweight and as such static weight loses much of it's meaning?

Thanks again.

Duzza
09-27-2006, 01:12 AM
I have a question... tested with a Pure Storm
Weight 312
Balance 32.65
SwingWeight 326

and say...desired

Final Weight 335
Final Balance 32
Final SwingWeight 340

so then...wat do these 2 figures mean and what locations?
Weight 1 Location 10.63679351
Weight 2 Location 36.86895253

Greg Raven
09-27-2006, 05:44 AM

Once you get the bugs worked out, you could post it on Google Spreadsheets so anyone could use it, whether or not he had Microsoft Excel.

Greg Raven
09-27-2006, 05:51 AM
I'm curious as to how your derived your formula for Effective weight (AKA Hitting weight). I have a completely different formula, which yields completely different results.

Greg Raven
09-27-2006, 05:58 AM
I have a spreadsheet I've been using for a couple of years now to help me match racquets. The results of my spreadsheet correspond with the on-line tool Crawford Lindsey developed for USRSA members at racquettech.com. However, if I plug the same numbers into each of our spreadsheets, there are differences in the results.

Here is an example, starting with my spreadsheet:

Starting mass 331.50
Starting balance 32.20
Starting swing weight 310.00

COP 52.12
Recoil weight 147
Hitting weight @ COP 175

Location 0.00

Location 53.34

Location 58.42

New mass 335.50
New balance 32.50
New swing weight 319
New COP 52.26
New recoil weight 149
New hitting weight 179

Note that I am calculating the Hitting weight at the COP.

When I plug these same numbers into your spreadsheet, I get these results:

Starting mass 331.50
Starting balance 32.20
Starting swing weight 310.00

Starting recoil weight 146.624
Starting hitting weight 0.789
Starting polarization index 0.442

Final mass 335.50
Final Balance 32.50
Final swing weight 319.00

Swing weight increase 9.00
Mass Location 57.362

Location of added mass 1 17.305
Location of added mass 2 67.534

Final recoil weight 149.153
Final hitting weight 0.837
Final Polarization Index 0.445

I haven't yet had the time to track down the reason(s) for the differences.

travlerajm
09-27-2006, 11:22 AM
I'm curious as to how your derived your formula for Effective weight (AKA Hitting weight). I have a completely different formula, which yields completely different results.

The hitting weight is mathematically derived using the momentum balance, assuming that the swing has only translational motion at impact (neglecting the rotational component of the swing).

It is highly accurate for predicting power level on groundstrokes, because groundstrokes hit with sound technique have minimal rotational motion at impact. The correction factor to account for the Serve/Groundstroke Power Ratio (SGPR) must be applied to accurately predict relative power on the serve, because the serve has a large rotational component. If two racquets have the same hitting weight, but one has a longer balance, the power level will be about the same on groundstrokes, but the frame with the longer balance will generally be more powerful for serves.

The derivation of the formula for hitting weight is as follows.

We assume the impact of the ball on the racquet causes the racquet to pivot about the wrist joint, and that the racquet is otherwise constrained by the wrist joint (i.e., we neglect momentum losses transferred into the forearm). Let’s also neglect the momentum contribution of the hand to keep this simple.

The ball’s rebound momentum is determined by balancing the moments of the momentum vectors about the wrist joint.

Let’s define variables:

m = mass of ball
v = change in velocity of ball during impact
V = change in velocity of racquet center of mass during impact
r = distance from butt to point of impact
M = mass of hand
R = distance friom butt to balance point
d = distance from butt to wrist axis of rotation (about 4cm for a forehand, or 8cm for a 2hb).

The momentum balance is given by:

M*(R – d)*V = m*(r – d)*v

Rearranging gives:

M*(R – d) = m*(r – d)*(v/V)

m*(r – d) is a constant (neglecting any changes in sweet spot location due to weight distribution), and v/V is the ratio of the ball’s change in velocity to the racquet’s change in velocity. Clearly, v/V is a measure of the power level of the racquet.

So the power level of the racquet (v/V) is proportional to M*(R – d).

Amone
09-27-2006, 12:11 PM
@ AJK1: The assertion that I have ever tried to put myself forth as an expert is fallacious. I'm a high school student, at a public high school near Detroit. I've made no claim at any of my own knowledge, except this one piece of work, which is a work in progress. All my other assertions are made on other people's word which I believed above yours.

However, you haven't the right to assert anything without proving it. So if you won't prove it, then keep your mouth shut.

@ Nikolah: Static Weight may have an effect on stability, but I think that there is no direct correlation. Consider, for instance, the effects of adding 4 oz to the butt end of your racquet. I've done it before, it doesn't add any considerable stability or power. In fact, I lost some stability. So take that idea with a grain of salt.

@ Duzza: The locations are measured in CM from the butt end, and they're the center of mass. So if you were to add the weight in 4 inch strips, you'd start 2 inches below the reccomended position. I'd also suggest rounding up to one decimal place, so that it's easier to find.

@ Greg Raven: As I've said a few times, I'm not done yet, because my formulae are the tiniest bit off. I don't see where it is, but I know it's there because in my tests, my swingweight usually ended off by about .23 points, hence not perfect. And the Effective Mass formula is calculated badly somewhere, I don't know where. I got it right on paper, but on Excel I had trouble with it. So regarding that issue: Agreed. Effective Mass is wrong.

As to my formulae in the rest of the spreadsheet, I think they need some tweaking, and I don't know why yours say so differently (as the difference is pretty huge) but they are pretty close.

FitzRoy
09-27-2006, 01:09 PM
Amone- I like what you're doing with the spreadsheet. Keep up the good work and try not to get discouraged by any negative feedback.

I apologize if the rest of my post is slightly off-topic for the thread. I'm hoping that it could lead to a better understanding of the application of the formulas which are being discussed.

The hitting weight is mathematically derived using the momentum balance, assuming that the swing has only translational motion at impact (neglecting the rotational component of the swing).

The question I have is related to something I saw you mention a while back, in your Sampras setup post - that, at a certain point, increasing swingweight will begin to increase spin (due to ball flattening). My desire is to achieve a higher level of spin on the racquet. Is this measure of ball flattening an actual product of swingweight, or is it more related to the ratio of hitting weight to swingweight? Looking at the numbers, it seems to me that if you have two racquets with the same swingweight, the one with lower hitting weight should be more adequate for hitting a ball with more spin. Do you have a direct formula for calculating this ball-flattening, and what are your general thoughts on this?

AJK1
09-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Amone, i don't have to prove anything to you, my racquet tech's knowledge is all the proof i need. To other kids on these boards you might sound important and smart, but to me you and your statements are just full of holes. Even Greg Raven is telling you it's all wrong, your figures suck.

Amone
09-27-2006, 02:56 PM
Ha ha ha, AJK. You're funny. If you wanted to play tagalong with Greg, you should've said so. I would've argued less, because he has a point which I have agreed with repeatedly. I don't need to sound smart, I just need to be useful. If I can give someone an answer, then my job's done. And you know what? This gives them that answer, in a public way that you don't give.

Your role is only that of the destroyer, dissenting and questioning with nothing other than a desire to dissent and question, no facts or realities. At least Greg has a contribution to make. I'm done with this discussion, I hope. Though you know, I am a young one, my fiery tempermentality might get me back in.

Amone
09-27-2006, 02:59 PM
Excuse me, I was wrong. Silly me and my quick replies. I don't even need to be useful to you folks. I started the project for my own purposes, just like the reason I've been a keen follower of Travler's 'lectures,' same as I've read JohnCauthen's old posts, same as I took physics class this year to try to understand the things they don't talk about, and make my own decisions. I just like the feeling I get inside when people say 'Thanks Amone,' so I shared my own tool.

FitzRoy
09-27-2006, 03:24 PM
Amone, i don't have to prove anything to you, my racquet tech's knowledge is all the proof i need. To other kids on these boards you might sound important and smart, but to me you and your statements are just full of holes. Even Greg Raven is telling you it's all wrong, your figures suck.

AJK1 - I hate to respond to such a blatant flame, but weren't you the one who several weeks ago posted that adding weight to the butt of a racquet reduced the swingweight (a blatantly and obviously false statement)? To me that brings your credibility into question when you accuse someone else of making statements that are "full of holes". Did you get that info from your racquet tech as well? And honestly, I don't know why you're coming after Amone here. I don't really see him making any bold statements - he's simply taken formulas provided by others and tried to make a spreadsheet for people to more easily utilize said formulas. Where's the harm in that? If, as you say, this is all horribly false information, then at worst people who try to use it will waste a few dollars on lead tape and then abandon the experiment. Your point seems to be that this is all worthless; if that's the case, then you probably don't need to post anything other than "This info is worthless". You've used a lot more space but you really haven't said anything other than that. So, essentially, you think this is worthless. Ok, I think we get it.

Amone
09-27-2006, 04:21 PM

The question I have is related to something I saw you mention a while back, in your Sampras setup post - that, at a certain point, increasing swingweight will begin to increase spin (due to ball flattening). My desire is to achieve a higher level of spin on the racquet. Is this measure of ball flattening an actual product of swingweight, or is it more related to the ratio of hitting weight to swingweight? Looking at the numbers, it seems to me that if you have two racquets with the same swingweight, the one with lower hitting weight should be more adequate for hitting a ball with more spin. Do you have a direct formula for calculating this ball-flattening, and what are your general thoughts on this?

I have a similar question/curiosity. I recall your mention of that, but I'd like to know how much the measure of that flattening there should be, because I'd like to know how to make the racquet powerful-- and flat, not spinny.

So I guess what I mean is "Hear, hear!"

AJK1
09-27-2006, 04:51 PM
I corrected myself with the SW thing, to say hitting weight, so what's your point? And i do give facts, eg. you're formulas are wrong for a start! Oh, and can you guys learn to spell properly, trying to get credibility is much harder when you show people you can't spell.

AJK1
09-27-2006, 04:57 PM
One other thing my friends, you think i flame, troll etc, well the reason i get annoyed with this high school garbage is because if you are going to post info on these boards, make damn sure it is correct. If it is correct, i will praise you, otherwise, make a mistake, correct it, get it right, or don't post.

Amone
09-27-2006, 05:05 PM
That's acceptable, AJK, but it's trolling when I say that I tested it, and it's close enough that you won't know the difference, and you won't back up your assessment that it's junk. That's where the difference is. The only reason I bothered to reply is because you sounded like you genuinely didn't understand.

AJK1
09-27-2006, 05:15 PM
I didn't have to back it up as wrong, as Greg Raven beat me to it. ;)

FitzRoy
09-27-2006, 05:21 PM
I corrected myself with the SW thing, to say hitting weight, so what's your point?

I think my point was simple and quite clear. You're saying that you don't like people posting incorrect stuff; I pointed out a mistake which you made. People told you what was wrong and you fixed it. What you've done is say that Amone is wrong without offering anything to help him improve it. You haven't even said what exactly you thought was flawed about it. Amone's biggest obvious mistake was that he used 10.16cm instead of 10cm; Greg Raven pointed it out, not to sharpshoot Amone's post, but to help him make a more accurate spreadsheet. That's the difference between what your posts are and what his posts are.

And i do give facts, eg. you're formulas are wrong for a start! Oh, and can you guys learn to spell properly, trying to get credibility is much harder when you show people you can't spell.

I assume you're including me in this spelling comment, though I can't fathom why. I'm sure I've made a few spelling errors from time to time, but I don't think I'm exactly firing off a litany of them such that my credibility is going to be tarnished. FWIW, I can clearly see 4 errors in usage/grammar on your part in that one small quote, which is somewhat ironic considering the message.

AJK1
09-27-2006, 05:52 PM
There there don't cry Fitzroy, your off the hook. We all make mistakes, myself and Amone included. He just makes bigger ones. ;)

FitzRoy
09-27-2006, 06:12 PM
There there don't cry Fitzroy, your off the hook. We all make mistakes, myself and Amone included. He just makes bigger ones. ;)

I do agree that we all make mistakes. That's basically what I was trying to say.

Amone
09-27-2006, 06:36 PM
There there don't cry Fitzroy, your off the hook. We all make mistakes, myself and Amone included. He just makes bigger ones. ;)
PshPshPsh! What fun in life is there for little bambinos such as myself if not mistaking? ;)

Duzza
09-27-2006, 08:33 PM
@ Duzza: The locations are measured in CM from the butt end, and they're the center of mass. So if you were to add the weight in 4 inch strips, you'd start 2 inches below the reccomended position. I'd also suggest rounding up to one decimal place, so that it's easier to find.

so you're saying to add Half the weight(23 grams) to both positions, 10 and 36 cm above buttcap?

Greg Raven
09-28-2006, 05:15 AM
The hitting weight is mathematically derived using the momentum balance, assuming that the swing has only translational motion at impact (neglecting the rotational component of the swing).[...]

If you look at the results from my spreadsheet, you'll see that I know what hitting weight is. On the OP's spreadsheet, however, I don't understand where that hitting weight is calculated, what the units of measurement are, and why his results are so different from mine.

Greg Raven
09-28-2006, 05:24 AM
[...]@ Greg Raven: As I've said a few times, I'm not done yet, because my formulae are the tiniest bit off. I don't see where it is, but I know it's there because in my tests, my swingweight usually ended off by about .23 points, hence not perfect. And the Effective Mass formula is calculated badly somewhere, I don't know where. I got it right on paper, but on Excel I had trouble with it. So regarding that issue: Agreed. Effective Mass is wrong.[...]

I often have a devil of a time translating known working formulae into functional Excel expressions, too. I usually wind up separating portions of a a long formula into small segments, each in its own cell, which allows me to see if any one portion is wildly out of range.

This is an ambitious project, so it's not surprising that it's giving you fits.

Amone
09-28-2006, 11:21 AM
To explain, I 'derived' the formula from my copy of the Physics and Technology of Tennis, like most of my formulae. Originally, I had to make up a few 'control' variables, such as the location of impact on the racquet face, but then I noted that they had a more... direct way of doing it, so I instead used that as much as possible.

Before, I had kept my mouth shut because Ajm usually knows more than I do about this stuff, but that's how I got my results.

MaxT
09-28-2006, 11:31 AM
This is great.

One suggestion/question.

It is easy to adjust total weight, but it is not easy to change weight locations. Most people wrap it on the handle and on 9/3 locations. So can you make the weight locations as inputs and make swingweight and final weight outputs?

Amone
09-28-2006, 12:15 PM

Duzza
09-28-2006, 05:53 PM
I personally like yours more. Steve's takes a bit of trial and error.

Amone
09-28-2006, 06:54 PM
I created it to remove the trial-and-error. But Max asked me if there was a way to take a given weight at a given place and tell how it ended up.

Duzza
09-28-2006, 09:20 PM
Yeah, it's good that there are 2 different ones, but I think the maths should tell you where to put it, not your choice :P. I'm gonna try the Safin Setup now :D

Duzza
09-29-2006, 01:57 AM
Help me out please, they show a different swingweight, unless the swingweight at 10cm is different?..
http://i9.tinypic.com/4bzs1v5.jpg
http://i9.tinypic.com/334mb6u.jpg

FitzRoy
09-29-2006, 02:10 AM
Help me out please, they show a different swingweight, unless the swingweight at 10cm is different?..

I don't know if the cause of your disparity is a problem in the formula or not; it might be. I do know that you aren't going to be able to get the Safin setup with the racquet you're using, because you can't increase swingweight by 37 adding 5 grams to a 348 gram racquet. If you want to match the swingweight and balance of the Safin setup, you'll have to do so with a higher static weight. That's one of the problems of matching his specs - it's hard to do with a lot of the stock player's racquets because they start out with a similar weight but have lower swingweights.

Amone
09-29-2006, 03:01 AM
I do know one thing, and that is that your setup there is theoretically impossible; the racquet stops at 68.5, one of the weaknesses of my spreadsheets is that it allows that to come up.

Yes, I realised that there were disparities, though not that high. Perhaps there's something bigger wrong with mine, I'll need to get in touch with Steve H. or TravlerAjm about the swingweight formula for the original.

Duzza
09-29-2006, 03:09 AM
I do know one thing, and that is that your setup there is theoretically impossible; the racquet stops at 68.5, one of the weaknesses of my spreadsheets is that it allows that to come up.

Yes, I realised that there were disparities, though not that high. Perhaps there's something bigger wrong with mine, I'll need to get in touch with Steve H. or TravlerAjm about the swingweight formula for the original.
So I'll follow Steve's spreadsheet for this test and say it is 344 swingweight. Thanks, I noticed some of the figures go outside impossible too but that makes perfect sense. 5 grams pfft.

andrew_b
09-29-2006, 09:36 AM
OK, help please? First, though, thanks for taking the time to provide this to the community! You've obviously put a bitof work into it, and you're not afraid to admit parts have discrepancies and to work to address them.

So, I played with it with my racket settings and a setup I'd like to try out:

weight: 340.48g
Balance: 32
Swingweight: 335

Final weight: 352.48
Final balance: 32
Final swingweight: 365
weight mass 1: 7
weight mass 2: 5

The above give me locations of (roughly) 14 and 57, which is OK.

I, too, get a pretty big difference in swingweight when I plug the starting values, weights, and locations into Steve's spreadsheet. It ends up saying the swingweight is 346.

Sorry I can't post the images like someone else did, don't know how to do that. Any idea why the swingweights are so different, or which one is closer?

Thanks,
Andrew

BlackJesus
09-29-2006, 10:53 AM
First of all thanks for this usefull tool. The spreadsheet tells the location where adds the weights but I'd like to know how long the pieces of lead tape must be. Thanks

BlackJesus
09-29-2006, 10:56 AM
I've got another question I've found on a previouse post (don't remember what) a link http://specgeek.50megs.com/LeadTapeOptimizationApplet.html to this spreadsheet for calculating mod formulas. I'de like to konw if it's effective or not cause I'm not a math expert. Thanks a lot

Amone
09-29-2006, 11:37 AM
If I could get that to work, BlackJesus, I probably wouldn't have done much more than adapt it to my own uses. But to be honest, I am completely uncapable of meeting that spec.

The weights assume 'concentrated mass.' In other words, if you must use strips, they can be as long (Or short) as you like, but make sure the center of them is at the point my tool specified.

BlackJesus
09-29-2006, 12:07 PM
Thanks a lot Amone :-)

Amone
09-29-2006, 02:19 PM
If only I felt that helping you would truly give back to the learning I've recieved from the greats of Talk Tennis, or half of it, then I would welcome your thanks with the deepest gratitude. But I haven't, not with the sum of everyone whose seen this spreadsheet and been helped out.

Duzza
09-29-2006, 06:05 PM
OK, help please? First, though, thanks for taking the time to provide this to the community! You've obviously put a bitof work into it, and you're not afraid to admit parts have discrepancies and to work to address them.

So, I played with it with my racket settings and a setup I'd like to try out:

weight: 340.48g
Balance: 32
Swingweight: 335

Final weight: 352.48
Final balance: 32
Final swingweight: 365
weight mass 1: 7
weight mass 2: 5

The above give me locations of (roughly) 14 and 57, which is OK.

I, too, get a pretty big difference in swingweight when I plug the starting values, weights, and locations into Steve's spreadsheet. It ends up saying the swingweight is 346.

Sorry I can't post the images like someone else did, don't know how to do that. Any idea why the swingweights are so different, or which one is closer?

Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew, if the 2 spreadsheets don't agree then it's impossible I've found. If you try to get too big a swingweight it may not work and Steves spread is pretty accurate(to about 0.03 off) so 2 things you can do: Lower the desired swingweight unfortunately, or mess around with the mass in location 1(the one in white) until both spreadsheets agree

Duzza
09-29-2006, 06:09 PM
Wow that http://specgeek.50megs.com/LeadTapeOptimizationApplet.html is quite confusing, the results field is too small!

stules
09-29-2006, 08:24 PM
Hi
I have taken a few of the formulas that have been on various threads lately,
and combined them into a more more useable format.
Thanks to all that contributed. Instructions are included particularly Travlerjm, Amone, and TonyB. Should be self explanetory.
I hope this helps............
You have to go to the bottom of the page, and read the instruction.

I figure you have Excell on your pc.

There is no need to copy the formula. Across the bottom of the page are 'tabs. I have inserted about 10 popular racquets there, with the specs off TW. click on the tab, and mod away to your hearts content.

When you wish to use a new racquet,
'right click' on any tab at the bottom of the page,
click 'copy sheet'
tick the sheet you wish to copy
'ok'
'right click' on the new tab and rename to the desired name.

The blue fields need to be filled out, ie if your racqet length is 69.5cm, you need to insert that number in the blue square.

Fill out the blue 'weight added' squares with grams of lead at a distance from the butt (both figures can be varied) but leave the space blank or with a '0' in it if you don't place lead there. Negative numbers work as well, eg if you trim down the grommets, weigh them before and after, and place the difference as a minus figure at the average distance from the butt where you trimmed.

TW's figures are close, but they are averages of that racquet, and not for your specific one. ie if you have a 4 5/8 grip it may be heavier, and slightly more head light. With this in mind I weigh the actual racquet I am modding, measure its actual balance point (with overgrip and dampener on) and check the SW using the pendulum method (as per the bottom of the spreadsheet) and then insert these figures into the start of the spreadsheet instead of TW's. Either way is reasonably close.

Please follow these instructions, and hopefully it will be reasonably self explanatory. If you have any difficulties, please say so, as you won't be the only one. I have tried to label everything on the spreadsheet to make it useable without complicated instructions.

PS, I don't think there are any mistakes, but caveat emptor...
Regards Stuart

Duzza
09-29-2006, 11:22 PM
Hey stules nice work, what is the quality index? Also i didnt like the way it rounds up on grams added and fyi a standard racquet is actually 68.58 cm ;) and why would you remove the grip and not add a new one on? And why does, with the balance if you have 12.5 inch balance equal 8.5 points? If its a standard 27 inch racquet surely the balance is (13.5-12.5)*8? Also this one also involves trial and error unlike Amones. Maybe if you asked him if you could include his work in yours? What i mean is with Amones you can choose the desired swingweight, balance and then mix around with the 1st location of weight until you find places that work.
eg. http://i9.tinypic.com/404w2gn.jpg

stules
10-03-2006, 12:32 PM
Hi Duzza
Hope you find it useful.
what is the quality index?
http://www.racquetresearch.com/complete_idiot.htm

Also i didnt like the way it rounds up on grams added and fyi a standard racquet is actually 68.58 cm
Actually not... I measure the racauet and use the actual length in cm's and mms.

why would you remove the grip and not add a new one on?
Two reason, to remove abut 13gm from the total weight, and hence give me more room to customise before coming up against my total weight barrier.ie, if the total weight is 343gm and my target total is 346, I can only add 3 gram to the racquet, not much of an adjustment. If I remove the grip, I now get about 16 gram to add anywhere to achieve my atarget weight. Second reason is that I like the feel of the 'sharper edges of the handle with just an overgrip only. It feels to me easier to change grip positons. Personal preference. I buy a 4 5/8, then take off the grip, add an overgrip and have a 4 1/2 handle.

And why does, with the balance if you have 12.5 inch balance equal 8.5 points? If its a standard 27 inch racquet surely the balance is (13.5-12.5)*8?
Easy answer, just adjust the Racquet lenght field to 69cm , if it is a 27" racquet. THat example is 68.58cm ie not 27". hence the discrepancy

Also this one also involves trial and error unlike Amones. Maybe if you asked him if you could include his work in yours? What i mean is with Amones you can choose the desired swingweight, balance and then mix around with the 1st location of weight until you find places that work.
I find trial and error not too hard. I know how much weight I have to play with ie 330 starting weight, aiming for 346, I know I have to add 16 gm.
Preference is at least 6gm at 3/9 for stabilty, then I play with thel last 10 to get the total swingweight and balance, which is the juggle. Try it, not too time consuming.
Regards Stuart

Amone
10-04-2006, 02:24 PM
Well, after more consideration, I noticed what caused the problems, and why there were problems:

Having a low resultant-SW caused it to just plain overshoot the numbers, for whatever reason. The Balance and Weight results, however, were approximately perfect.

The cause of this was my original equation: The part of the formula I used for weight placement was horrendously over-simplified, and I'm working now on a new one, using a more proper balance marker.

A new sheet should be out within a matter of hours.

EDIT: No, not tonight. I will spend some time on it tomorrow in my blow-off classes for the day.

Duzza
10-04-2006, 03:26 PM
Hi Duzza
Hope you find it useful.
what is the quality index?
http://www.racquetresearch.com/complete_idiot.htm

Actually not... I measure the racauet and use the actual length in cm's and mms.

Two reason, to remove abut 13gm from the total weight, and hence give me more room to customise before coming up against my total weight barrier.ie, if the total weight is 343gm and my target total is 346, I can only add 3 gram to the racquet, not much of an adjustment. If I remove the grip, I now getabout 16 gram to add anywhere to achieve my atarget weight. Second reason is that I like the feel of the 'sharper edges of the handle with just an overgrip only. It feels to me easier to change grip positons. Personal preference. I buy a 4 5/8, then take off the grip, add an overgrip and have a 4 1/2 handle.

Fair enough, I just thought it would be a waste of time filling in the numbers of removing a grip and then putting it back on, with an overgrip only of course it makes sense.

And why does, with the balance if you have 12.5 inch balance equal 8.5 points? If its a standard 27 inch racquet surely the balance is (13.5-12.5)*8?
Easy answer, just adjust the Racquet lenght field to 69cm , if it is a 27" racquet. THat example is 68.58cm ie not 27". hence the discrepancy

What i mean is with Amones you can choose the desired swingweight, balance and then mix around with the 1st location of weight until you find places that work.
I find trial and error not too hard. I know how much weight I have to play with ie 330 starting weight, aiming for 346, I know I have to add 16 gm.
Preference is at least 6gm at 3/9 for stabilty, then I play with thel last 10 to get the total swingweight and balance, which is the juggle. Try it, not too time consuming.
Regards Stuart

Actually not... I measure the racauet and use the actual length in cm's and mms.

Two reason, to remove abut 13gm from the total weight, and hence give me more room to customise before coming up against my total weight barrier.ie, if the total weight is 343gm and my target total is 346, I can only add 3 gram to the racquet, not much of an adjustment. If I remove the grip, I now get about 16 gram to add anywhere to achieve my atarget weight. Second reason is that I like the feel of the 'sharper edges of the handle with just an overgrip only. It feels to me easier to change grip positons. Personal preference. I buy a 4 5/8, then take off the grip, add an overgrip and have a 4 1/2 handle.

Fair enough, I just thought it would be a waste of time filling in the numbers of removing a grip and then putting it back on, with an overgrip only of course it makes sense.

And why does, with the balance if you have 12.5 inch balance equal 8.5 points? If its a standard 27 inch racquet surely the balance is (13.5-12.5)*8?
Easy answer, just adjust the Racquet lenght field to 69cm , if it is a 27" racquet. THat example is 68.58cm ie not 27". hence the discrepancy

But adjusting the CM length does nothing different because you're equation for calculating the points involved inches, ie. 27*2.54
EDIT: Hmm I'm a little confused by my own work now, don't worry about it. ALSO: Where do you get the (/0.3) from? Like your equation is Half the length minus the balance point from the buttcap divided by 0.3. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with why the 0.3 is there. Something to do with the Inch/CM conversion?

stules
10-04-2006, 06:38 PM
0.3 is 3mm ie 1/8" ie 1 point
I'll look into the 27" equation. Get back to you on that.

stules
10-04-2006, 07:35 PM
But adjusting the CM length does nothing different because you're equation for calculating the points involved inches, ie. 27*2.54

Not sure about that 27. I don't have that number in any equations at all. Just the length that you nominate in the blue box. Its then halved as the basis for the mid balance point.

If you have modified the sheets equations after unprotecting it, you can always download it again.

Duzza
10-04-2006, 07:39 PM
0.3 is 3mm ie 1/8" ie 1 point
I'll look into the 27" equation. Get back to you on that.
Wouldn't it be 0.3175 then?

stules
10-04-2006, 07:56 PM
Yep it would indeed. My mistake.

mareli63
10-20-2006, 05:49 AM
I notice in Steve's spreadsheet one field called "balance" and one "pro balance". What is the difference between these 2? When I do the Safin setup which is 6.6 HL what balance should I consider? the pro balance or the normal balance
Thanks,

palikero
11-07-2006, 05:43 PM
The fourth whited-out box in that section, labeled 'Weight 1 Mass,' you can enter just about any number lower than the total added mass in grams. If you're not sure how much mass you're adding the spreadsheet provides you with that piece of information. What this is, is the amount of weight to add at the first spot, or 'location 1.'

If either value for 'weight location' comes out as greater than the total length of your racquet, you need to modify your input 'Weight 1 Mass.'

Amone, so make this simple for me, in plain English.
Where on the racquet is Weight 1 Location? (Like, how many inches up from the end of buttcap is it? Is Weight 1 Location on the handle?, on the throat?) ... Same question for Weight 2 Location...

Once I locate on the racquet where Weight 1 and 2 Locations are, I am suppose to add Weight 1 Mass amount of lead tape (in grams, I assume) to this point?

So confused.

Amone
11-07-2006, 06:03 PM
The first answer I'll give you isn't an answer at all. The formula's a waste. Doesn't work. It's wrong. I've been working on a new one, but having gotten this close and failed, it's a little difficult.

The second is that whatever answer you get in the box marked 'weight 1 location' and 'weight 2 location,' divide them by 2.54 to get the number of inches from the butt cap they are. In they're current form, they're the same number, but in cm.

jace112
12-29-2006, 04:56 AM
spreadsheet is no more available :-(

Amone
12-29-2006, 10:49 AM
It didn't work anyways, Jace. I'm sorry. As much as we disagree, if you'd like I can get back to work on it for you. If you want the non-working version, then I could send it to you if you'd like. soulcutterx13@yahoo.com

EDIT: Never mind, I'm trying to fix it anyways. For a second there I sounded kinda pathetic! ^_^;

jace112
12-29-2006, 11:24 PM
It didn't work anyways, Jace. I'm sorry. As much as we disagree, if you'd like I can get back to work on it for you. If you want the non-working version, then I could send it to you if you'd like. soulcutterx13@yahoo.com

EDIT: Never mind, I'm trying to fix it anyways. For a second there I sounded kinda pathetic! ^_^;
Yes, we sometimes disagree, but it was just to improve our knowledge ;)

I'm also doing some kind of SW and other tennis tools spreadsheet, I was looking for some Trav's formulas (SGPR...). I'll post this tool next week. And maybe we'll merge our files?

Wish you the best for 2007

jace from Paris

Amone
12-30-2006, 08:03 AM
Yes, we sometimes disagree, but it was just to improve our knowledge ;)

I'm also doing some kind of SW and other tennis tools spreadsheet, I was looking for some Trav's formulas (SGPR...). I'll post this tool next week. And maybe we'll merge our files?

Wish you the best for 2007

jace from Paris

Same to you, Jace. I do have most of those formulas available, if you'd like I can post them here.

jace112
12-30-2006, 12:31 PM
THX! here's my email address : jace_dehodossy (a) hotmail.com

gd!
10-06-2012, 05:08 AM
Hi
I have taken a few of the formulas that have been on various threads lately,
and combined them into a more more useable format.
Thanks to all that contributed. Instructions are included particularly Travlerjm, Amone, and TonyB. Should be self explanetory.
I hope this helps............
You have to go to the bottom of the page, and read the instruction.

I figure you have Excell on your pc.

There is no need to copy the formula. Across the bottom of the page are 'tabs. I have inserted about 10 popular racquets there, with the specs off TW. click on the tab, and mod away to your hearts content.

When you wish to use a new racquet,
'right click' on any tab at the bottom of the page,
click 'copy sheet'
tick the sheet you wish to copy
'ok'
'right click' on the new tab and rename to the desired name.

The blue fields need to be filled out, ie if your racqet length is 69.5cm, you need to insert that number in the blue square.

Fill out the blue 'weight added' squares with grams of lead at a distance from the butt (both figures can be varied) but leave the space blank or with a '0' in it if you don't place lead there. Negative numbers work as well, eg if you trim down the grommets, weigh them before and after, and place the difference as a minus figure at the average distance from the butt where you trimmed.

TW's figures are close, but they are averages of that racquet, and not for your specific one. ie if you have a 4 5/8 grip it may be heavier, and slightly more head light. With this in mind I weigh the actual racquet I am modding, measure its actual balance point (with overgrip and dampener on) and check the SW using the pendulum method (as per the bottom of the spreadsheet) and then insert these figures into the start of the spreadsheet instead of TW's. Either way is reasonably close.

Please follow these instructions, and hopefully it will be reasonably self explanatory. If you have any difficulties, please say so, as you won't be the only one. I have tried to label everything on the spreadsheet to make it useable without complicated instructions.

PS, I don't think there are any mistakes, but caveat emptor...
Regards Stuart

Hi, unfortunately your link and file is no longer available. Appreciate if you could mail it to me --> go_deep@web.de

Thanks!