Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Racquets (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Racquet with the lowest swingweight ever? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=451549)

corners 01-19-2013 11:22 AM

Racquet with the lowest swingweight ever?
 
I'm looking for an adult racquet with the lowest possible swingweight. Does anyone know of any frames, current or old, with stock swingweight below 250 or 260?

The frame with the lowest swingweight currently stocked by TW is the BLX Tour Lite, at 276.

J011yroger 01-19-2013 11:43 AM

^^ You know that is because it is shorter than 27" right?

J

corners 01-19-2013 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J011yroger (Post 7136075)
^^ You know that is because it is shorter than 27" right?

J

Yeah, it's 26.75". If it was 27" the swingweight would be about 284. I'm looking for something 30 units or more less than that.

Fuji 01-19-2013 12:25 PM

May I ask "why"??? Haha!

-Fuji

J011yroger 01-19-2013 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7136089)
Yeah, it's 26.75". If it was 27" the swingweight would be about 284. I'm looking for something 30 units or more less than that.

What about getting a low swingweight extended frame and cutting it down to 27, scrap the overgrip, string it with 17g Syn, and trim the bumper?

J

db10s 01-19-2013 01:08 PM

Get a kids racket.... Or a squash racket...

Prodigy1234 01-19-2013 02:24 PM

Yonex RQiS 30 has a relatively low swingweight

corners 01-19-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J011yroger (Post 7136160)
What about getting a low swingweight extended frame and cutting it down to 27, scrap the overgrip, string it with 17g Syn, and trim the bumper?

J

Yeah, I thought of that, but I did the math on all the low-swingweight extended frames and found that after cutting down to 27" they would still be higher than 270. Thanks for the suggestion though. Chucking the bumper will probably be necessary, but I'll need stronger strings than 17g syngut to withstand the impact with this thing once I've added 60 grams at 3&9.

corners 01-19-2013 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigy1234 (Post 7136353)
Yonex RQiS 30 has a relatively low swingweight

The entry in the Racquet Finder is wrong. The swingweight is 328 rather than 238 :) Thanks though.

db10s 01-19-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7136354)
Yeah, I thought of that, but I did the math on all the low-swingweight extended frames and found that after cutting down to 27" they would still be higher than 270. Thanks for the suggestion though. Chucking the bumper will probably be necessary, but I'll need stronger strings than 17g syngut to withstand the impact with this thing once I've added 60 grams at 3&9.

You don't have to get rid of the entire bumper.... Shave it down.

corners 01-19-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuji (Post 7136134)
May I ask "why"??? Haha!

-Fuji

Well, in a recent study the TW Professor found that balls that impact below the longitudinal center of the stringbed have much more spin on them than balls that hit the center. Conversely, balls that hit above center have less spin. This has implications for shot to shot consistency, as the variable amount of spin produced will change the trajectory of the shot, and therefore will change where it lands.

On off-center shots we already lose a lot of speed, about 8-9 mph for shots 2 inches to either side of center, so add largely uncontrollable spin variability to that and you can see that hitting off center not only results in weaker shots but introduces a random wildness to these shots, as we can't really control if we hit above or below center when we miss the center. That we're at all accurate under these circumstances seems miraculous. :wink:

But the TW Professor found that adding 100 grams at 3&9 completely reversed this, instead of more spin below center you get roughly the same amount of spin as in the center, and if you hit above center you actually get more spin than the other locations. So everything flips around. If this effect is linearly dependent on how much weight you add, 60 grams added at 3&9 should make center impacts and above and below center impacts all the same in terms of spin. Also, all that mass at 3&9 will increase the twistweight so much that you will also lose much less speed on off-center impacts. It would pretty much be the ultimate control stick. So that's the little project. I just don't want to wreck my shoulder with too much swingweight :)

db10s 01-19-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7136397)
Well, in a recent study the TW Professor found that balls that impact below the longitudinal center of the stringbed have much more spin on them than balls that hit the center. Conversely, balls that hit above center have less spin. This has implications for shot to shot consistency, as the variable amount of spin produced will change the trajectory of the shot, and therefore will change where it lands.

On off-center shots we already lose a lot of speed, about 8-9 mph for shots 2 inches to either side of center, so add largely uncontrollable spin variability to that and you can see that hitting off center not only results in weaker shots but introduces a random wildness to these shots, as we can't really control if we hit above or below center when we miss the center. That we're at all accurate under these circumstances seems miraculous. :wink:

But the TW Professor found that adding 100 grams at 3&9 completely reversed this, instead of more spin below center you get roughly the same amount of spin as in the center, and if you hit above center you actually get more spin than the other locations. So everything flips around. If this effect is linearly dependent on how much weight you add, 60 grams added at 3&9 should make center impacts and above and below center impacts all the same in terms of spin. Also, all that mass at 3&9 will increase the twistweight so much that you will also lose much less speed on off-center impacts. It would pretty much be the ultimate control stick. So that's the little project. I just don't want to wreck my shoulder with too much swingweight :)

Ermagod......

TimothyO 01-19-2013 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7136397)
Well, in a recent study the TW Professor found that balls that impact below the longitudinal center of the stringbed have much more spin on them than balls that hit the center. Conversely, balls that hit above center have less spin. This has implications for shot to shot consistency, as the variable amount of spin produced will change the trajectory of the shot, and therefore will change where it lands.

On off-center shots we already lose a lot of speed, about 8-9 mph for shots 2 inches to either side of center, so add largely uncontrollable spin variability to that and you can see that hitting off center not only results in weaker shots but introduces a random wildness to these shots, as we can't really control if we hit above or below center when we miss the center. That we're at all accurate under these circumstances seems miraculous. :wink:

But the TW Professor found that adding 100 grams at 3&9 completely reversed this, instead of more spin below center you get roughly the same amount of spin as in the center, and if you hit above center you actually get more spin than the other locations. So everything flips around. If this effect is linearly dependent on how much weight you add, 60 grams added at 3&9 should make center impacts and above and below center impacts all the same in terms of spin. Also, all that mass at 3&9 will increase the twistweight so much that you will also lose much less speed on off-center impacts. It would pretty much be the ultimate control stick. So that's the little project. I just don't want to wreck my shoulder with too much swingweight :)

Good stuff Corners!

In recent experiments with my PSGTs I found that adding weight to 3/9 and not adding much weight (or any) to 12 INCREASED spin.

And if I deleted too much weight from 3/9 spin actually DECREASED. It's as if the head lacked enough mass to keep the ball deep on the strings.

So I discovered a sweet spot for myself for weight at 3/9 and 12: enough to enhance spin (maybe through dwell time? I dunno) but not too much weight to reduce racquet head speed thereby also reducing spin.

I know this is probably contrary to conventional wisdom about polarized vs non-polarized frames but I can't ague with the results I saw on court, especially on serve. When I stripped all the extra head lead on a PSGT spin suffered terribly. Then I added weight until I felt like speed might suffer and, voila! Incredible, brain-dead accessible spin.

The problem with zero weight at 12 was lack of punch on serve. Needed at least some at 12 for pace.

corners 01-19-2013 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimothyO (Post 7136638)
Good stuff Corners!

In recent experiments with my PSGTs I found that adding weight to 3/9 and not adding much weight (or any) to 12 INCREASED spin.

And if I deleted too much weight from 3/9 spin actually DECREASED. It's as if the head lacked enough mass to keep the ball deep on the strings.

So I discovered a sweet spot for myself for weight at 3/9 and 12: enough to enhance spin (maybe through dwell time? I dunno) but not too much weight to reduce racquet head speed thereby also reducing spin.

I know this is probably contrary to conventional wisdom about polarized vs non-polarized frames but I can't ague with the results I saw on court, especially on serve. When I stripped all the extra head lead on a PSGT spin suffered terribly. Then I added weight until I felt like speed might suffer and, voila! Incredible, brain-dead accessible spin.

The problem with zero weight at 12 was lack of punch on serve. Needed at least some at 12 for pace.

Hey Tim, yeah you were probably getting the general benefits of added mass to spin - longer dwell time, more tangential string movement, more ball flattening. Mass at 12 livens the upper hoop which seems to help me with serve too. I hit higher on the stringbed on groundies too, so I've never been much of a 3&9 man, I like 10 to 2. But I'm curious how 60 grams at 3&9 would play. I just need to keep the swingweight under 350 or I know it will just collect dust. But it would be kind of funny if, with all that lead on, my groundies are super-accurate and spinny but my serve sucks due to lack of lead at 12 :lol:

ChicagoJack 01-19-2013 07:32 PM

Hi corners -

From the racquet finder I'm seeing the 27" Head Airflow 7 ( sw 265 ) a few digits lower than the BLX Tour Lite, at 276. From the looks of it, if you are ever trapped in a snow storm it just might save your life.

Just in case you missed it, Trav went down a similar path, around 2006 or so. He was able to get a POG Long Body down to sw 276 - 280 range by cutting the pallet down. While those digits don't line up for what you've got in mind, it might make for interesting reading.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=279680
tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=188858

Also, can you provide a link to the study?

-Jack

JohnB 01-20-2013 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7136397)
Well, in a recent study the TW Professor found that balls that impact below the longitudinal center of the stringbed have much more spin on them than balls that hit the center. Conversely, balls that hit above center have less spin. This has implications for shot to shot consistency, as the variable amount of spin produced will change the trajectory of the shot, and therefore will change where it lands.

On off-center shots we already lose a lot of speed, about 8-9 mph for shots 2 inches to either side of center, so add largely uncontrollable spin variability to that and you can see that hitting off center not only results in weaker shots but introduces a random wildness to these shots, as we can't really control if we hit above or below center when we miss the center. That we're at all accurate under these circumstances seems miraculous. :wink:

But the TW Professor found that adding 100 grams at 3&9 completely reversed this, instead of more spin below center you get roughly the same amount of spin as in the center, and if you hit above center you actually get more spin than the other locations. So everything flips around. If this effect is linearly dependent on how much weight you add, 60 grams added at 3&9 should make center impacts and above and below center impacts all the same in terms of spin. Also, all that mass at 3&9 will increase the twistweight so much that you will also lose much less speed on off-center impacts. It would pretty much be the ultimate control stick. So that's the little project. I just don't want to wreck my shoulder with too much swingweight :)

Hi Corners,

The lowest swingweight racket I experimented with was a Voelkl Quantum Energy (listed SW 285 (I believe strung)). I added about 25 grams total at the sides and it was defenitely very stable and launchangle predictable. It would be interesting to know what your findings will be regarding the spin production with type of set-up.

corners 01-20-2013 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack (Post 7137010)
Hi corners -

From the racquet finder I'm seeing the 27" Head Airflow 7 ( sw 265 ) a few digits lower than the BLX Tour Lite, at 276. From the looks of it, if you are ever trapped in a snow storm it just might save your life.

I'd better get a pair. :)

Quote:

Just in case you missed it, Trav went down a similar path, around 2006 or so. He was able to get a POG Long Body down to sw 276 - 280 range by cutting the pallet down. While those digits don't line up for what you've got in mind, it might make for interesting reading.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=279680
tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=188858

Also, can you provide a link to the study?

-Jack
Thanks Jack, yeah, gotta give props to Trav - he's the inspiration for all extreme customizations at my place. I really wish the Longbody would come down to 250 after cutting, then I'd be in business, as the POG is solid. But unlike Trav, I can't handle 370 SW sticks. Gotta find me something even less substantial as a starting point!

Here's the study: http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/lear...r/location.php

corners 01-20-2013 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnB (Post 7139981)
Hi Corners,

The lowest swingweight racket I experimented with was a Voelkl Quantum Energy (listed SW 285 (I believe strung)). I added about 25 grams total at the sides and it was defenitely very stable and launchangle predictable. It would be interesting to know what your findings will be regarding the spin production with type of set-up.

Hi John, Thanks for suggesting the Energy. But a Google search turns up lots of German pages, and TW doesn't have that model in their archives. Do you think it was a Euro-only release? Do you remember the flex?

I'll definitely post a review of the Perimeter Weighted Super, if I find a stock frame with low enough SW. Right now it's looking like BLX Tour Lite or Quantum Energy, both sans bumper, are the leading candidates.

It seems that there's gotta be a pro stock with a base swingweight lower than those two, but I don't know.

J011yroger 01-20-2013 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7140149)
It seems that there's gotta be a pro stock with a base swingweight lower than those two, but I don't know.

I'll ask Tom, and get back to you. He may have something in the laboratory.

J

JohnB 01-20-2013 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners (Post 7140149)
Hi John, Thanks for suggesting the Energy. But a Google search turns up lots of German pages, and TW doesn't have that model in their archives. Do you think it was a Euro-only release? Do you remember the flex?

I'll definitely post a review of the Perimeter Weighted Super, if I find a stock frame with low enough SW. Right now it's looking like BLX Tour Lite or Quantum Energy, both sans bumper, are the leading candidates.

It seems that there's gotta be a pro stock with a base swingweight lower than those two, but I don't know.

I am not sure about the origin. Probably European. The flex feels about mid sixty. I believe that the scorcher was similar spec-wise. I think of the current rackets, the Team Speed Orange or Green seem to have the same mold as the Energy and are not far of spec-wise.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse