How to build a racquet with superpowers!!!

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by travlerajm, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

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

    If you do, then read on.

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

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

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

    However, I found a solution to this problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2008
    #1
  2. anirut

    anirut Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    Krungthep (Bangkok), Siam (Thailand)
    Hi trav, long time no see ... ;)

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

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

    Cheers!

    (BTW, where's JC?)
     
    #2
  3. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    "Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential."

    Interesting, I didn't know you could raise the stiffness of a frame just by placing weight in the throat area. I've got about 20 grams in the throat of my frame, but thought that it played softer.
     
    #3
  4. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Hi Anirut,

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

    This mod is something I've wanted to try for a while, and I finally got a chance to test it out.
     
    #4
  5. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    It could feel softer because the mass in the throat reduces the shock transmitted to your hand at impact.

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

    This stiffening effect is most noticeable on flexible frames. It won't make as much difference if your frame is stiff to begin with.
     
    #5
  6. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    Most of the weight I've added is concentrated in the throat area. The newly added weight is about 4 grams in the lower throat section, and about 2 grams just below 10/2 o'clock in the hoop. Not sure how much spin I'll lose, but hopefully I'll be able to still keep my swing speed with the new weight adjustment. I'll guessitmate the overall weight to be ~350grams.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2008
    #6
  7. Masterblaster

    Masterblaster New User

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Perth Australia
    your customisation sounds really interseting, do you have any photos of it that you can show us?
     
    #7
  8. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I just took some pics -- and then I discovered that I've lost the cable that connects my camera to the computer. Darn it. Sorry. Hopefully I'll find it soon.
     
    #8
  9. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    With the small amounts of weight your using, it will be harder to notice the effects I'm talking about - remember, I've just added 56g of lead to mine.

    For example, I tested out adding 5-10 additional grams of lead at the top of the handle on this setup; it made my racquet feel more like the Sampras setup: stiffer, so that it hit a flatter, more penetrating ball. A flatter ball is great for volleys and slices, but for all of my other shots I prefer to have maximum bite at my disposal. The highly polarized setup is closer to what pros like Safin and Federer are currently using. It allows me to hit with lots of spin without resorting to a steep uppercut swingpath.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
    #9
  10. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    Well, I honestly believe I'm near my swingweight limit for that particular frame. In trying to keep down the static weight, I've only added 6 grams total, but am trying to maximize ball depth and frame mobility at the same time. (Roughly speaking, my frame started off around a 325SW, but I've strayed and have added about ~30 grams, so the SW is definitely high.)
     
    #10
  11. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,309
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    Woot! the interesting experiments continue...

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

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

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

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

    It seems you've had to significantly drop tension (+stiff kevlar) in order to get the spin needed to keep the bazookas going in, but granted it is a tension Pros (Fed) are apparently using...
     
    #11
  12. Thor

    Thor Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    Valhala
    The "Guru" is back,happy recruiting!
     
    #12
  13. SpinningForehand

    SpinningForehand New User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    wow, i never knew rackets could make that much of a difference. congrats.
    how much would you be willing to sell this racket for?
    Can adding weight at certain spots really impart more topspin on the ball?
    It seems hard to believe adding weight at certain spots can make the racket perform so well. I still believe you though.
     
    #13
  14. kirbster123

    kirbster123 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Excellent Post Travlerajm! Your posts about customization and polarization are always very interesting to read.

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

    Thanks.
     
    #14
  15. toughshot

    toughshot Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    281
    I think adding more weight increases the inertia of the racquet as you swing it, once it meets the ball the ball will flatten more onto/into the strings and will have more spin imparted on them because the more flat the ball gets, the more surface area is touching between it and the strings.
     
    #15
  16. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    I had the SW measured on a Bab RDC: it came out 357
    (I estimated it at 362 before the measurement).

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

    That being said, I still chose my string setup for maximum bite. (Kevlar/poly combo at low tension).
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2008
    #16
  17. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Sorry. I don't want to sell. This will become my regular racquet now.

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

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

    Velocity, Effective Mass, and Bite.

    The first is determined by the player's stroke, while the other two are determined by the racquet setup.
     
    #17
  18. OnyxZ28

    OnyxZ28 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,143
    Sports medical practitioners around the world, rejoice! travlerajm has returned to TW.
     
    #18
  19. ohhgourami

    ohhgourami Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    this is extremely interesting

    so more flex=more spin?
    more headweight=more spin?
     
    #19
  20. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,309
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    He hasn't just added head weight, rather he's counterbalanced the increased head weight with more lead added in the handle as well. This is what he means by "polarised", more weight at opposite ends of the racquet. Customised to make the racquet more polarised around the balance point, so it see-saws more easily - more mass, more bite.
     
    #20
  21. SpinningForehand

    SpinningForehand New User

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    If the racket can really increase the topspin and power potential of my shots, I might as well experiment or try it at least. I have a prince o3 tour mid, I already think it is pretty solid stock strung with big banger ace at 54 lbs. Travlerajm, if you could tell me how I could increase the topspin potential of the racket, or make it more like your racket or a pro racket, I would really appreciate it. I have a reel of .5 in lead tape from tw anyways. I am only 5' 6", 122 lbs, and I am pretty coordinated. If what you tell me to do actually turns my racket into your descriptions of your racket, I will be absolutely shocked. I don't believe it will work, but I will try if you tell me how I can customize it. Thanks a lot travlerajm.
     
    #21
  22. RoddickistheMan

    RoddickistheMan Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,068
    Paint it all black , base it off of one of the greatest racquets of all time and then let pete sampras test it and release it in late april.
     
    #22
  23. kirbster123

    kirbster123 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    382
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Travlerajm,

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

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

    Would it even be a good frame for polarization?
     
    #23
  24. Josherer

    Josherer Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,337
    Location:
    Australia
    The first thing you should have done is get rid of the Kelvar strings!!!
     
    #24
  25. Big Boris

    Big Boris Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Hello Travlerajm! Always very interesting to read about your findings.

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

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

    What is your take on this?
     
    #25
  26. Pleepers

    Pleepers Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    890
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    How many grams did removing the inch of length reduce the weight of the frame?
     
    #26
  27. jorel

    jorel Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,488
    ive heard moya uses a similar polarized set
     
    #27
  28. Thor

    Thor Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Location:
    Valhala
    Try searching for those "I applied SW2 on my racquet" guys and ask how quickly they threw their racquets away.
    Oh,sorry,you wont find them,no one would admit falling for that...
     
    #28
  29. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    On a stiff frame, there is no disadvantage to a polarized weight distribution, provided the weight and balance are tuned properly for your strokes.

    However, on a flexible frame, adding a small amount of weight at the top of the handle may sometimes be desirable to increase the dynamic stiffness (thereby increasing directional accuracy and power level at the expense of some spin potential). On a highly polarized flexible frame, several grams at the top of the handle will make a huge difference in dynamic stiffness, completely altering the playing characteristics. How much weight is added for this purpose (if any) depends on the playing style you want to use.
     
    #29
  30. anirut

    anirut Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    Krungthep (Bangkok), Siam (Thailand)
    Hi trav,

    Back in the days there were these terms:

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

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

    Thanks.
     
    #30
  31. TenniseaWilliams

    TenniseaWilliams Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    Pangaea
    I would love to be able to follow this, are you saying a high swing-weight does not impede maneuverability? How does a small weight in the middle of the racquet have much of an effect on the racquet stiffness? By dynamic do you mean as opposed to static (initial?) or progressive?

    I get how a highly head heavy racquet will mash the poo out of a ball on sight, but removing weight from the handle helps acceleration?
     
    #31
  32. psp2

    psp2 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,102


    Oh brother... here we go again with the snake oil.
     
    #32
  33. RestockingTues

    RestockingTues Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    771
    Location:
    Fremont, Ca
    A SW of 358 is manageable for you...? Are you some sort of superhuman made from Fed's pubes or something?
     
    #33
  34. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    It's easier to just address one of these at a time. Let's talk about "pro balance."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Also, the inherent power level in your racquet (apparent coefficient of restitution) will decrease significantly if you stray too far from the ideal pro balance, so your racquet will be less efficient for serving.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
    #34
  35. haerdalis

    haerdalis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,597
    Location:
    Lund, Sweden
    A found a similar experience with the gamma g325. It has a low sw and is very headlight to begin with, yet quite stable. Adding around 8 g at 10 and 2 made for a very solid frame indeed. It did also make the flex of the frame more noticeable.
     
    #35
  36. haerdalis

    haerdalis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,597
    Location:
    Lund, Sweden
    Oh and also. Take a look at the specs of the new fischer m pro 105. This must be a great frame to customize if those specs are accurate. Talk about polarized in stock form.
     
    #36
  37. Pro_Tour_630

    Pro_Tour_630 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,154
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I experimented the opposite (john cauthen method) and IMO feel the concentration of weight should be above the handle. however I do have a frame that is similar to your experiment STOCK it is called Pro Tour 630 "lite" do not let the name "lite" fool you. IT is very head heavy and has amazing forhands serves and volleys but few things it lacked are FEEL, comfort and maneuverability which I assume your experiment will have. Not too sure many will be able to handle such a high SW 357 for a long period of time ie 3 sets, I can't.

    You need to remember that many players are playing FULL 16g POLY and that will add more than 5 SW points as well,
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
    #37
  38. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    34,762
    He is back!
     
    #38
  39. atomicx

    atomicx Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    132
    Yeah, that all sounds well and good, but.....
    I thought everyone knew that the only way to get a true Super Racquet is to hand carve one from the wood of a tree thats been struck by lightning. Now that would be a true Super Racquet! :)

    Kidding aside, I'm glad you have found success from your efforts!
     
    #39
  40. obnoxious2

    obnoxious2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    629
    Very interesting. The part about adding the leadtape in loops sort of got me confused. Wish you ahd some pics.

    Would a similar setup like this be possible with the ksix-one 95?
     
    #40
  41. obnoxious2

    obnoxious2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    629
    Sorry for a double post but if you sawed off an inch, does that mean that there is no fatter part at the end of the bottom of the handle where it usually edges out?
     
    #41
  42. anirut

    anirut Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    Krungthep (Bangkok), Siam (Thailand)
    Obnoxious2,

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

    So, that flared butt is kept safe and re-inserted after the sawing process.
     
    #42
  43. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Yes. Those specs do look attractive. Very few players frames have that much room to work with.
     
    #43
  44. RestockingTues

    RestockingTues Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    771
    Location:
    Fremont, Ca
    Is the butt cap easy to remove, or do you need to expend a considerable about of energy to pry it off?
     
    #44
  45. Greg Raven

    Greg Raven Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Apple Valley, CA
    I have to say that I'm skeptical of anything that claims to increase or decrease "dynamic stiffness," a racquet characteristic that is unheard of outside of tt.tennis-warehouse.com, cannot be defined, and cannot be measured.
     
    #45
  46. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,309
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    ^ Easy. V. small screwdriver leveraged against the plastic (not the soft foam of the handle) and prise those staples out.
     
    #46
  47. Blank

    Blank Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    TT
    Trav

    That's a very interesting experiment.

    Would you mind posting some detailed photo shots of your customised POG Longbody?
     
    #47
  48. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Greg,

    Dynamic stiffness can be measured.

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

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

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

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

    It's not rocket science. It's physics 101.
     
    #48
  49. Greg Raven

    Greg Raven Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    618
    Location:
    Apple Valley, CA
    There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

    I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.
     
    #49
  50. obnoxious2

    obnoxious2 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    629
    +1. I'm pretty tempted to try this. Some shots of how you wound the lead tape at 10,2 and 12 would be great! Wouldn't mind some shots on how you did the handle either.
     
    #50

Share This Page