Playtest ofthe Safin Setup

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by travlerajm, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Playtest of the Safin Setup

    Thanks to Thomas Martinez for posting Safin's specs. I have converted them to strung specs.

    For my next playtest, I will be demoing the Safin Weight Distribution, using the NXG OS as the platform. If I like it, I may also see how it works on my O3 Tour OS.

    Swingweight: 370 kg-cm^2
    Static Weight: 12.55 oz. (356g)
    Balance: 12.73"



    Lead placement on NXG: 15g with center of mass at 24" from butt (at 10 and 2), plus 4g in the butt with center of mass at 0.25".

    Initial string test: 16g Kevlar Hybrid at 67 lbs.

    I wil report back on the playtest results.
     
    #1
  2. Duzza

    Duzza Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    I thought people said that Safin used a slightly lighter version of the PC? 356 is not lighter...
     
    #2
  3. thomas martinez

    thomas martinez Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    New York
    That weight distribution, nOT even close to how it is done on his frames.
     
    #3
  4. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    I have one that I got from a rep that was 32cmbal 12.5oz not sure what the SW is though, really really good on the serve and forehand, alright for a 1hbh.

    It is strange as the weight I would describe it most simular to is a M-speed, but with the extra weight top handle.

    Extremely solid for 12.5oz seemed just as stable as my 13.5oz tnt-90.
     
    #4
  5. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Why don't you share what you know then?
     
    #5
  6. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    I should clarify that this weight distribution is not exact, but the weight, balance, and swingweight about the 10cm axis will be matched.

    Since he apparently uses a form of the PC, and you know that he has some weight at the top of the handle, I might see what I can do to come up with an NXG mod that is more exact for all axes of rotation.

    The only problem is that I doubt the specs of his platform frame are available.
     
    #6
  7. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Remember that my platform stockframe is very different from the platform frame that Safin uses, so the exact lead placement on his frame isn't worth a lot unless we have specs for his platform frame, which is already custom to begin with. But the weight, balance, and Sw you posted gives me a reasonably accurate starting point.
     
    #7
  8. thomas martinez

    thomas martinez Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    New York
    No, you could take your frame possibly and use a different amount of mateiral to get the nubmers on it to match. I couldn't say without having a frame here to play with.
     
    #8
  9. War Safin!

    War Safin! Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,247
    So what's the deal here with Safin's racquet?
    Does he have HEAD make 20-30 custom-frames for him each year, just so he can smash them into pieces at a mere forehand that's sailed wide?
    I very much doubt it. :rolleyes:

    This is as believable as all those threads proclaiming that Wilson produce custom-moulds of a 'For Roger Only' NCode Tour90 when in fact, looking at GregRaven's fairly solid Prostaff-playtest thread, his actual racquet is closer to the retail NCode Tour90.

    I suspect the same is with Safin and his Prestige-range: 345-350g mass with a bit of lead-tape here and there! :mrgreen:
     
    #9
  10. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    I don't know if you saw my last question in my other thread.
    Do you have a swingweight measurement for Bjorkman?
     
    #10
  11. thomas martinez

    thomas martinez Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    New York
    No, Head provides him with more frames then just 20-30 a year. 20 or so a year is common for a lower ranked player to go through without smashing them to bits as you put it. And Head does not do Marat's custom work, he has a third party doing it for him.
     
    #11
  12. War Safin!

    War Safin! Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,247
    So he doesn't smash them into court-surfaces, chairs, umpire-stands, refrigerators, etc, etc?

    It must be another Marat Safin.
    Silly me.
     
    #12
  13. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    Yes that is as I understand it, if you look in the past threads it was said that he rackets were very light from Head so that they could be customized and still be around 12.5oz

    So I would guess that they are not injecting any foam or silicone.
     
    #13
  14. Return_Ace

    Return_Ace Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,267
    How can you call it a safin setup if you aren't even using the same racket Safin uses ?!?!? (or at least the closest one..)

    It's liek saying "I'm playing with fed's setup" and you've just got an n1 customised to his weight/ swingweight/ balance etc....


    :confused:
     
    #14
  15. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    :confused:

    What does his behavior have to do with the possible fact that Head might be making him custom frames to fit his playing style?
     
    #15
  16. thomas martinez

    thomas martinez Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,135
    Location:
    New York
    I never said Marat doesn't smash the life out of his frames. If you go back and reread what I said, for players that do not have his temper, and are lower ranked, go through easily 20 frames a year.
     
    #16
  17. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    People were jumping to a conclusion that Head makes special frames just for him to smash:rolleyes:
     
    #17
  18. Return_Ace

    Return_Ace Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,267
    It's why they made Liquidmetal... *Transfers 100% of energy back to the ball*.. they were hopin if he switched if he smashed the racket, the energy used to smash it would go back into his arm thereby injuring him as a lesson to stop costing head so f**ing much to give him rackets :)
     
    #18
  19. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415
    What you're describing would be playing with Safin's racquet. What travlerajm is doing is taking a racquet that he plays with (in this case the NXG OS) and customizing it so that it maintains the characteristics of Safin's setup - swingweight, balance, static weight, etc. The reason for this is, essentially, that he's been trying different combinations of static weight and swingweight, and the "Safin setup" is different than the others he's attempted. It has a similar swingweight to the earlier Sampras setup but with a much lower static weight. It's not going to play exactly like Safin's racquet, but it will be very close in many important categories.
     
    #19
  20. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    LOL:p
     
    #20
  21. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Ok, here's the report...

    First the good part: the serve.

    This was an A+ serving stick. I could boom heavy serves with ease, with nice spin and margin for error. It's quite possibly my favorite serving setup yet.

    Now the bad: the feel.

    I never quite got into a groove with this racquet on groundstrokes. It just didn't feel very well balanced to me. I made a few tweaks that helped. First I noticed that volleys had more power in the top half of the stringbed than in the lower half, so I partially fixed this problem by adding a gram at 6 o'clock to stretch the sweet spot a little lower. And my groundies felt a little overpowered so I added an extra couple of grams to the butt.

    It may have been that I just wasn't used to the timing of the racquet, and with the more head-heavy feel, my shots felt best if I started my swing earlier than usual. A few times I got into a groove on the forehand for a few balls, but I never felt super comfortable. It feels sweet when you time it right though.

    Volleys were interesting. I noticed the lower twistweight compared to my other pro-style setups, it reduced my directional accuracy a bit. But the super-high recoil weight (~190) was noticeable in good way, giving nice depth control on low volleys. At times I felt a little clumsy with it - it felt like I was Roddick or Safin when they come to the net and muff easy shots.

    This setup is not a keeper, but it was a worthwhile experiment. I'd like to try to combine the best aspects of all my pro setups, and this setup demonstrated that a racquet with lots of lead in the upper hoop is the way to go for serves. It would be nice to see what this setup feels like with a little higher tension. I may also try further damping the power with more tailweight, as it may just be that the power level was still a bit too high for good control.

    I also learned that I prefer not to have the lead too unevenly distributed in the hoop, because in this case I ended up with an unevenly powered stringbed.
     
    #21
  22. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    Hey travlerajm your research is very valuable - the objective, sure, but also your process as well. For instance, where you tweak the sweetspot with lead and then balance that up in the handle - instructive stuff!

    Safin often goes for the drop volley. He doesn't try to penetrate to a corner but rather just tries an awkward (muffed) dink over the net. Horrible to watch. Perhaps his setup explains something of that.

    Can you write a bit more on how the groundstrokes felt? That's significant in his punishing power-hitting game.
     
    #22
  23. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    The groundstrokes felt nice if I timed it right. But this setup just didn't feel balanced to me. I think part of the problem is that Safin's platform model starts out a lot lighter than mine, allowing him to distribute the weight better in the hoop. Having so much weight in the top half of the hoop, with no added weight in the bottom half made for an unpredictable ball response. The other problem was that it felt like my groundstrokes were a bit overpowered - IMO, it's worse to have an overpowered frame than an underpowered one. Safin's frame is probably more flexible (with a stiffness in the 50s), which would make his racquet less powerful for much better depth control. With this racquet, I just didn't feel like I knew exactly what was going to happen when the ball left my strings. Usually, it's easy to tell when a setup is "well-balanced," as a well-balanced setup usually allows me to pick it up and hit with pinpoint control right from the first hit. This was not one of those setups. For my next setup, I'm planning to use the weight in more of a 3 and 9 configuration, somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 swingweight, and 12.5 oz., because I've found I can get a more consistent stringbed response, and I like the feel at net of a high-twistweight frame. I'll probably use about 15g on the sides of the hoop of my NXG, which is less than my "doubles specialist" setup, but more than the 10g of my regular setup I used this summer.

    But I'll reitierate that this "Safin" setup felt really sweet on serves. All of my favorite serving racquets over the years, including the stock racquet I played with for almost a decade in my 20's, had one thing in common:

    High swingweight, but relatively low static weight.

    The stock racquet I used for a long time was the Wilson Prostaff 4.7 EB Stretch 115".

    It was 28" long, 68 RDC, and only 10.5 oz. But it's swingweight was 346 (very high for a stock racquet). I really loved that racquet for serves. Not that many people knew about that racquet, but it had almost cult status with those of us who used it. It's only downside was it's lightness, which made it less than ideal for volleys and returning heavy serves.

    The key is that weight added to the hoop of the racquet adds proportionately more power on the serve than it does on the groundstrokes. This is a good thing, because depth control is necessary on groundstrokes, but not on the serve because you are hitting downward into the court. If too much weight is in the handle, it slows down the acceleration of your elbow too much, reducing the explosiveness of your serve. This is probably the reason that the pros who use very heavy racquets (like Dent and Sampras) use frames that are less HL than you would expect.
     
    #23
  24. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Out of all the rackets this type of setup gives me the best serves and good of both sides, however I had to smackt he hell out of the ball to get the spin that I am accustomed to.

    The guy is supposed to sell me 2 more
     
    #24
  25. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Not giving up on the Safin setup yet...

    Well, since I couldn't play well with the setup described in the OP (with the exception of serves) I decided to do some more serious tinkering to see if I could make my racquet play like Safin's.

    My regular setup, which I really like a lot, had 10g at 3 and 9. It has a swingweight of 346 and weighs 12.25 oz. It gives me excellent control on groundies and volleys, and I can serve fairly decently with it. But I decided that I wanted to take that as a starting point and beef it up a bit. In the past, I liked the groundstrokes even better when I went beyond 10g at 3 and 9, but the serve was what limited me at 10g. But now, I had been experimenting with higher swingweights for a while.

    The setup in the OP had 15 grams at 10:30 and 1:30, in 3 layers (6", 5", and 4", layered Sampras style). I moved these 7.5-gram 3-layer-thick slabs of lead to the 3 and 9 positions (and removed the butt counterweight, but left on the extra gram at 6 o'clock just because I forgot about it). I was expecting that the racquet might be a tad a overpowered. But to my pleasant surprise, the power level on groundstrokes seemed just right. I immediately had great accuracy with this setup on both forehands and backhands. The ball seemed to dive into the court nicely with loads of natural topspin, even though I was crushing the ball with pretty good pace. The racquet felt just how you would expect a pro racquet to feel like for a pro who hits a Safin-type heavy ball. Volleys were excellent too. Very stable, good control at net.

    But the serve was not as explosive as I hoped. Every few serves I would time it right adn hit a big one, but in general, I seemed to lack pop. Even though the swingweight was now much lower (~356 instead of ~369), the racquet felt a little sluggish on serves. The power level was much lower with the lower swingweight. So I removed 1g total from 3 and 9 (giving me 14g at 3 and 9). Bingo. Amazingly, dropping only 1g made my serve much more explosive. And it didn't seemd to affect the groundstrokes or volleys. I didn't have time to fine tune it further today, but this setup was now good enough for me to consider it my new favorite.

    Then it occurred to me why my "Safin" setup felt so crappy to me. I had used Thomas' unstrung swingweight spec of 335. But then I used an inflated number for the weight of the stringbed. I used 20g, but for a midsize, 15g is more reasonable. Oops. This 5-g difference is huge, especially since it means his swingweight would be more like 362.

    So I'm going to go back and try this setup again with the new numbers. The first thing I'll try is going to a 10 and 2 position with about 15g there (at 22" from butt), then adding weight to the handle to adjust power level if necessary. This would give me a swingweight of about 362. If I want to match the Safin balance exactly, I may need to try the weight closer to the tip, maybe about 11g at 25", which would also give me a swingweight of about 362. So I'll try both of these approaches. The goal is to find a setup that serves as sweet as my first Safin-setup attempt, but plays as well on everything else as my 3-and-9 leaded configurations.
     
    #25
  26. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    double post
     
    #26
  27. ShcMad

    ShcMad Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    travlerajm, I don't know if you mentioned it somewhere, but I was wondering...do you have a 2-handed or a 1-handed backhand?

    I'm asking this because I think that the 1-hbh would be hard to pull off with the Safin setup. I'm assuming this because, personally, I find it hard to do the 1-hbh with such great swingweight and racquets that are <10pts. headlight. My problem is that my forehand prefers racquets that are <10pts. HL, but my backhand likes frames that are 10pts HL or above.
     
    #27
  28. BounceHitBounceHit

    BounceHitBounceHit Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,946
    Location:
    In the moment.
    Travlerjam: How about a detailed description of how to customize either the PC 600 or LM Prestige mids to 'Safin-specs'????

    I think what you are doing is VERY interesting, BUT I truly doubt your Prince OS plays much like the 'real thing'! ;)

    Why not customize the closest Head frame available, and then report on that??

    Best,

    CC
     
    #28
  29. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Because it's not possible to match Safin's specs with those frames - they start out too heavy, so they have no room to customize.

    However, use can do this to the Liquid Metal Radical mp:

    Add 13g to top half of hoop with center of mass at 24" from butt, plus 20g in the butt with center of mass at 0.25" from butt end. My guess is that this might play nicely.
     
    #29
  30. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    I have a 2hb - it's my strongest part of my game.

    I generally can't hit 1-handers very well, but my Samprasized POG OS is an exception. It is 13.6 oz, and 6 pts HL, and 1-handers seem easy with that racquet, even if you never practice them. It has 13g added the hilt at 7.5" as well as 22g added at 3 and 9.
     
    #30
  31. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Eureka! I have found it!

    Here's the update:

    To recap, I started with Thomas' posted unstrung specs of Safin's setup =
    336g, 335sw, and 31.2cm balance. But the stringbed weight was still unknown, which meant some trial and error would be necessary.

    For my first attempt to recreate Safin's weight distribution, I used a stringbed weight estimate of 20g, which gave me a swingweight of ~370, balance pt of 12.73", and static wt of 356g (12.55 oz). The grades:

    Serves: A+
    Groundstrokes: C-
    Volleys: B-

    Then I realized that I must have overestimated the weight of his stringbed, so I set up the racquet again assuming stringbed wt of 15g, giving me swingweight of ~360, balance pt of 12.63" and a static wt of 351g (12.4 oz.) The new grades:

    Serves: B (not as explosive as I would want).
    Groundstrokes: A (Very nice, good control, power, and spin - perhaps my best groundstroke setup to date?)
    Volleys: A (very stable)

    So this was interesting. My serve felt very Safin-like with the 370 sw, but groundstrokes felt a bit cumbersome and inconsistent. With the 360 sw, my groundstrokes felt very Safin-like, but the serve just wasn't powerful enough for my tastes. I guessed that Safin's actual setup must somehow give him the best of both worlds though. So I decided to see what happens when I split the difference.

    So I next assumed a stringbed weight of 17g, giving a swigweight of ~365, a balance of 12.68", and a static weight of 353g (12.45 oz). The grades:

    Serves: A (very explosive, an excellent serving weapon)
    Groundstrokes: A+ (passing shots are too easy with this racquet)
    Volleys: A

    So this tells me that I had pretty much nailed the Safin setup. This racquet is so incredible on groundstrokes that it blows away any previous frame or mod I have tried. It's amazing what a difference a little fine tuning can do!

    This is the first time I hit with a racquet that made me feel like the racquet was guiding my stroke (instead of my stroke guiding the racquet). On groundstrokes, I had pinpoint targeting, explosive power, and heavy topspin. Until today, I didn't think it was possible to have all three of those things in one setup. If you are someone who thinks Safin is amazingly talented, hitting a few grounstrokes with this stick will make you think otherwise, because this racquet can makes passing shots ridiculously easy to execute. It feels like a finely tuned instrument compared to anything else I've tried. It's now clear to me that finely-tuned setups like this are indeed a big reason for the apparent death of serve-and-volley tennis in the pro game. Blame ****.
     
    #31
  32. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    I forgot to add the exact details of the mod:

    String: Ashaway Crossfire II (16g Kevlar Hybrid), 67 lbs (well broken in)

    Platform frame: NXG OS (337g, 12.375", 328sw, 63 RDC)

    Lead: ~13g surrounding 3/4 of the hoop, on outside of hoop starting from 4th cross-string from bottom, going to edges of bumper guard, and continuing on inside of frame under bumper guard. Plus another 1.5 grams at 12 o'clock, plus 1.5g at 0.5" from the butt.

    Final specs: 353g, 12.68", ~365sw.
     
    #32
  33. DURICA533

    DURICA533 Guest

    travlerajm,

    interested in your setup but I am unfamiliar with how you are setting up your weight/measurements.

    I want to do this to my PS 6.0 85 china. What tools do I need to target 'center of mass' and other precision balance points you are referring to?

    for instance: your final specs you have put 353g, 12.68" (from where? what does this number mean?), ~365sw. (how did you find this number)?


    thanks
     
    #33
  34. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415
    travlerajm - I noticed that you mentioned the LM Radical MP a couple of posts ago, and I found that amusing because I just bought a couple of them over the weekend (and have a third on the way from tennis warehouse). I formerly used the 6.0 Original, both 85 and 95 headsizes; I've always served better with the 85 but my groundstrokes were much better with the 95 (so I usually went with that). So after getting the LM Radical, I tinkered with the lead tape some, trying to work around a static weight between 350 and 355. I stumbled onto a setup that allowed me to hit better serves and groundstrokes than anything I've ever used before...only to come on here and see that the balance and SW that you've posted in this update match it almost exactly (though my frame is at 355g static weight). I would have to say though that I've found it somewhat difficult to hit the short dipping topspin passing shots to which I'm accustomed. Eventually I got used to just hitting them harder with less angle, and enjoyed just as much success.
     
    #34
  35. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Actually, my setup is amazingly good at hitting short dipping passing shots, even with the 365 sw. That's what makes this setup so remarkable. It may be that small differences in weight distribution account for the difference, but it could also be due to the fact that the NXG is a much more spin-friendly platform than the LM Radical.
     
    #35
  36. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415
    I think you're probably right about the racquet, as I didn't find the LM Radical to be great for spin in stock form (but that didn't bother me since I've never relied on heavy spin). I'm guessing it's probably also related to string tension. I should probably string it tighter; it generates more pop than my 6.0s did at the same SW and I can afford to tone it down a bit. I'm getting a lot more spin with the lead tape added than beforehand, but it wasn't enough to pull it short into the court before the pace carried it wide. To be honest though I probably also just need to get used to the frame. What I'd really like to try would be the Flexpoint Radical Tour (with the 16X19 pattern and 58 flex), but with a stock balance point about 3 pts more headlight. I'd love to customize a frame like that.
     
    #36
  37. Duzza

    Duzza Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    why didn't you use a Prestige?
     
    #37
  38. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    Balance point is measured from the butt end. When I refer to the center of mass I mean the location of the center of mass of each added portion of lead, measured from the butt end.

    Ideally, it's best to measure swingweight on a machine. But it can be estimated by starting with the specified stock swingweight, and then adding the contributions of each added piece of mass. I usually divide the added lead into 1-inch lengths for this calculation. So for example, if a piece of lead is 1-inch long and 0.5" wide, and it's center of mass is 22.5" from the butt end measured along the longitudinal axis, then its swingweight contribution would be (0.5g)*(0.001kg/g)*(22.5in*2.54cm/in - 10cm)^2 = 1.11 kg-cm^2.
     
    #38
  39. haerdalis

    haerdalis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,597
    Location:
    Lund, Sweden
    Would it be possible to do this setup with a POG OS too considering it starts off a little more head heavy and weighs more?
     
    #39
  40. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    No.
     
    #40
  41. War Safin!

    War Safin! Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,247
    [​IMG]

    I like Travlerjam's posts and scientific posts, but I agree with you C.A.C....something like a 'Sampras Setup' should be (as close as possible without having to shell out for a proper St Vincent), using a Prostaff Original 6.0 85 with Babolat VS Gut 17gauge strung at 70lb, 30g of lead tape at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions (and possibly under the grip), 'O' dampener and Tournagrip overgrip!
    Only then will a mere mortal ever come close to using 'The G.O.A.T's racquet!!!
     
    #41
  42. FitzRoy

    FitzRoy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,415

    I doubt travlerajm wants to buy new racquets every time he tries a balance/weight/SW that imitates a pro's frame. I see several replies pointing out that he's not using Safin's actual frame (or in this case, referring to the older Sampras setup test). While travlerajm's NXG OS probably doesn't play exactly like Safin's racquet, I'll wager that it comes closer than a 325 SW stock Prestige Classic. If the objection is in regard to nomenclature, then would it be better if he titled the thread "Playtest of the Safin setup in a less demanding, more spin-friendly, oversized frame"? That's basically what he's doing.
     
    #42
  43. stules

    stules Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    Bugga............
    Try as I may, this setup eludes me.
    1.A redondo mp
    12gm at 12'
    3gm at 3 and 9'
    counterweight in the butt
    SW 365
    Total 366gm
    balance 6 pt HL

    N6.1.95
    9gm at 12'
    counterweight in the butt
    SW365
    total 358
    7pt HL

    The Problem with both setups is that in order to get one parameter correct, another goes out the window.
    IE to get more HL, the total wieght gets too high. or toe get more lead around the hoop at 3 and 9 the total weight goes up, and/or SW goes down.
    Cna't seem to get the planets to line up........
     
    #43
  44. stules

    stules Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    249
    Just had 2 hours with each of the above setups.
    Of the various Travlerjm setups that I have tried to replicate (albeit in increments , so as to get used to the higher weights ans SW's), even though I have not been able to get it spot on in all parameters, it does feel the best yet.
    Mine is a little too head heavy, and also a little too heavy overall.
    Swing weight is spot on.
    Which is 2nd most important, because I can't get both weight and balance perfect. Its one or the other.
    1 remove butt counter weight and get the weight corect, the balnce will go even more head heavy.
    2 add more counterweight and get the balance correct, and then the total weight will get too high.....
    Help...............
    The ohter solution is to find another base model raquet with a high SW, good flex, Very HL, and the right weight to modify..............
     
    #44
  45. m_b

    m_b New User

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Very interesting stuff travlerajm.
     
    #45
  46. War Safin!

    War Safin! Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,247
    Yes.
     
    #46
  47. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827

    Overal weight will not be as important as the blance.
     
    #47
  48. blackdiamond

    blackdiamond New User

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    49
    I'm wondering if anyone can post the scientific reason of why a "polarized" setup produces more spin than depolarized.

    Thanks.
     
    #48
  49. Zets147

    Zets147 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,744
    I think the LM Technology is bogus. I've never cracked my LM Prestige that I had for a year and a half, and I already cracked (broke 1) two of my ncodes in the past 5 months.

    The pure energy does not equal pure power after all.
     
    #49
  50. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,413
    It is due to a combination of several reasons.

    I'll explain the primary reason.

    If two racquets have the same swingweight and same balance, but one is more polarized than the other, then the more polarized one will have a lower static weight. That means that the hitting weight of the more polarized frame will be lower (HW = M*(R - 4cm)), since hitting weight is proportional to the static weight as the equation shows. Hitting weight, also sometimes referred to as "rebound power", is a measure of the inherent power level in the frame. It is independent of the swingspeed, and independent of the way that the frame is strung.

    Since the more polarized racquet has a lower hitting weight, it's power level is lower, so it must be strung looser to compensate for the lower power level. A looser stringbed will generate more spin if the power level is the same.
     
    #50

Share This Page