# 1 PT HL = ? Inches

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by BHud, Sep 26, 2012.

1. ### BHudProfessional

Joined:
Feb 19, 2004
Messages:
1,298
One point headlight = how many inches?

2. ### TennisCJCLegend

Joined:
Apr 20, 2010
Messages:
5,517
1/8 inch.

8 HL = 1 inch HL
6 HL = .75 inch HL
4 HL = .5 inch HL
and so on

Joined:
Feb 19, 2004
Messages:
1,298
Thank you!

4. ### MechanismNew User

Joined:
Sep 19, 2012
Messages:
55
Headlight is measured by length? not weight?

5. ### smirkerHall of Fame

Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
Messages:
1,760
Location:
Cambridge UK
To express it another way 1 point is 1/8 of an inch. To measure how many points light your racket is measure balance in cm (more accurate) convert to " (divide by 2.54) take this number away from the mid balance point of th eracket (e.g 13.5" for a 27" frame) then divide bu 0.125 and you have your balance expressed in points light.

Sounds complicated but it's logical when you do it.

i.e. balance point =32 cm= 12.6". 13.5-12.6=0.9. 0.9/0.125=7.2 points hl.

6. ### bugeyedSemi-Pro

Joined:
Sep 14, 2010
Messages:
543
Location:
Tx
Headlight is the thing on the front of your car, usually 2 of them. Head light is a measure of how far toward the handle from center a racquet balances.

Cheers,
kev

Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
7. ### ThomasTerribleRookie

Joined:
Jul 14, 2011
Messages:
295
Location:
Sweden
To make it simple and without the need of any though at all: fill in the two fields in the balance points calculator: racquet specs

8. ### JazoNew User

Joined:
Aug 15, 2012
Messages:
46
Location:
Stavanger, Norway
Balance
points - inches - cm
0 - 13.5 - 34.290
1 - 13.375 - 33.973
2 - 13.25 - 33.655
3 - 13.125 - 33.338
4 - 13 - 33.020
5 - 12.875 - 32.703
6 - 12.75 - 32.385
7 - 12.625 - 32.068
7.5 - 12.5625 - 31.909
8 - 12.5 - 31.750
8.5 - 12.4375 - 31.591
9 - 12.375 - 31.433
10 - 12.25 - 31.115
11 - 12.125 - 30.798
12 - 12 - 30.480
13 - 11.875 - 30.163

9. ### SystemicAnomalyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 25, 2006
Messages:
11,186
Location:
Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
Would you agree that an absolute measurement (from the butt of the racquet) of the balance point is more meaningful when comparing racquets than saying a racquet is HL, evenly balanced, or HH?

Let's say, for instance, we have 2 strung frames that weigh 11 oz and are evenly balanced. However, the balance point for one is 13.5" (34.3 cm) while the other is 14.0" (35.6 cm). The first frame is 27" while the other is 28". Even tho' they both weigh 11 oz and are considered evenly balanced, the longer frame will feel somewhat heavier when held out to the side (parallel to the ground). The absolute balance measurement would reflect this, yes?

10. ### smirkerHall of Fame

Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
Messages:
1,760
Location:
Cambridge UK
Yes, I agree with you in principle but the point is moot as this is not the accepted method for balance measurements. I guess it would be necessary to state whether your racquet is standard length when comparing balance? It's easier for people to comprehend points Hl/HH than to give an absolute measurement.

11. ### SystemicAnomalyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 25, 2006
Messages:
11,186
Location:
Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
^ It's not really moot since many modern racquets have that balance point figure listed on the frame itself -- often as unstrung balance in cm and/or inches. Many sources such as H'bird Sports and MW Sports list the strung balance point measurement. It's about time that TW followed suit with its listed specs.

12. ### smirkerHall of Fame

Joined:
Sep 15, 2007
Messages:
1,760
Location:
Cambridge UK
Very true. Why has the designation Hl, HH become dominant when describing racquet specs? My guess is that your average rec player cannot determine what a 320mm balance equates to but tell them it's 7 points HL and it makes more sense?

13. ### DarkhorsRookie

Joined:
Jun 4, 2010
Messages:
228
Location:
The D
You don't need an "absolute balance" because you have swing weight. It doesn't matter if the racquet is 27 or 28 inches long, between the balance and the swing weight you'll already be able to derive what you're speaking about. By definition, the longer racket is going to feel heavier (all others constant) because there's mass further away from the hand. That is why we calculate the swing weight. Just the same, is that if it's HH vs. HL, your swing weight is going to differ.

Also, speaking as to why HH/HL is used, I can only assume that it's an easier way for people to pick it up rather than trying to remember how many cm's is the middle of the racket and then subtracting the balance number and such. Why make things harder than they have to be. 7 points HL is 7 points HL no matter how you say it.

DH

14. ### SystemicAnomalyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 25, 2006
Messages:
11,186
Location:
Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
Not exactly. 7 pts HL indicates that a racket is very head light but it is still different for a 27" frame than it is for a 28" frame. All other things being equal, they will also feel different. If you use the absolute balance figure (in cm), you don't need to subtract anything.

I believe that the HL/HH designation became popular when nearly all adult racquets were 27" long. When extended racquets became popular (in the 90s or late 80s), the designation was not rendered less accurate.

I had previously thought about SW but decided not to bring it up in this discussion. Now that you've brought it up, I will get into that subject. The SW is more than just a function of the length, static weight and balance of the racquet. It also is a function of the distribution of mass of the racket. 2 rackets can have the very same length, weight and balance point and still have a significantly different SW. I believe that the racket with a more polarized distribution of mass will have a higher SW than the racket that is less polarized.

The SW (roational inertia) tells us something about how "heavy" the racket feels when we move it in an arc. The balance and weight (linear inertia) tells us how "heavy" the racquet feels with it is static (e.g. in the ready position) or when it is moving in a straight line (e.g. when executing a volley).

If one is savvy enough to use a SW spec, then they should have no problems with an absolute balance spec (in cm). For those that want an easier, ballpark-ish designation then HL/HH is fine. I don't see any reason what both the balance spec can't be expressed both ways. Some sources already do this.

15. ### DarkhorsRookie

Joined:
Jun 4, 2010
Messages:
228
Location:
The D
Ok, so after re-reading this post and your last post, I understand what you're getting at. If all manufacturers were to list the balance point in cm and HH/HL it would be the best of both worlds. You would have the actual balance point of the racket and what that equates to in HH/HL terms.

I think this is becoming more of a normal occurrence with the newer frames because there is more customization going on. However, that being said, I also think that it's common knowledge (except maybe for beginners, which still don't have a clue what the balance point really is) that if it's an extended racket, it's going to feel different than the one that's only 27in (same model).

Overall, I believe we're going to see more and more of this, but in the grand scheme of things it's not as important as actually hitting with the racquet.

DH

16. ### SystemicAnomalyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 25, 2006
Messages:
11,186
Location:
Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
^ Even non-beginners will get fooled, especially if they don't look closely at the specs. Rackets that are only 0.25" or 0.5" longer than standard sometimes go unnoticed as extended frames. Frames that are >0.5" longer are usually designated at extended racquets (or something similar, like "reach").