View Single Post
Old 11-02-2009, 12:58 AM   #15
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,960

Originally Posted by Ross K View Post
To the OP,

Thanks for all that ^... very interesting indeed... you know what? I think this forum needs a 'lead tape doctor' - and you're just the man for the job!... so...

Dear Lead Tape Doctor!

I'm very interested in depolorized LT set ups for my AG 100 mid (need more stability and SW I think) and DNX 10 mid (needs more power on serve)... what would be the way to go re locations/amounts of LT, etc?


Haha. I'm quite honored. I can't recommend amounts since that differs greatly from player to player. Depending on your age I'd recommend adding plenty of lead to get the thing into swingweight2 (SW2) status if you're at your peak, going into your peak, or are slightly after your peak (my dad manages such a setup and he's knocking on 50 soon). If you feel it's beyond your abilities and would tire out too soon, add near minimal lead to keep it well in the swingweight1 (SW1) category.

Though meaghan's suggestions are pretty solid. (more on that a little lower)

Swingweight1 - Basically, as you all know by now (hopefully), adding mass adds power and swingweight. So swingweight1 is basically where you've added mass and increased swingweight to the point where all your balls are at the depth you want them to be (around 3 feet inside the baseline).

Swingweight2 - As you keep adding weight to your ideal SW1 range, you'll find that the ball starts to go long. As you keep adding weight however, your swing will start to get slower and slower and as a result, the ball starts landing shorter and shorter until it finally comes back to the depth you once had in the SW1 status (around 3 feet inside the baseline). With this, you can swing out on every stroke, and still have the ball drop in no matter what (as long as you didn't make a giant swing error). Most pros generally use rackets in the SW2 category (though I wouldn't be surprised if the racket feels like it's in the SW1 category because they're so strong and used to the racket already).

Originally Posted by Meaghan View Post
The AG you would add lead at 9&3 and at top of handle, both stabilize the racket and the weight in the hoop will add SW.
The Volkl prob needs just a 2 or 3g at 12"

SW moniter @....
Yep. That's pretty much it right there. Though I would also recommend trying lead at 3&9 instead of at 12. Try both, but one setup at a time. I find that with lead at 3&9, you get more power, but at 12 the racket really goes through the air better. Placing lead at 12 isn't exactly depolarizing your racket, but it's not a bad thing to experiment with.

This has a good step by step method of how to depolarize your racket, including trial and error procedures as well as counterbalancing. Check it out. I really can't put it up much better than that.

Originally Posted by Meaghan View Post
I completely agree with what you're saying and find the above very interesting. Im a fan of the weight distribution in the pst90 and didnt like the distribution in the k90 finding the hoop a little too stiff. With the kps 88 it seems IMO like a return to the weight distribution of the pst90 yet with a higher SW. So it feels real soft in the hoop like the pst90 yet has the plow of the k90.
The kps feels like wilson have married the 2 rackets and added a little pop.
I think you're right, since, like I already mentioned, the ProStaff Tour was meant for Pete Sampras, and so was the [K]ProStaff. Granted, they are both incomplete versions meant to make it easier on Nate to add lead to Sampras' rackets (needs less lead tape), but the [K]ProStaff is more of a finished product, like the [K]Six.One Tour. The ProStaff Tour was basically a ProStaff 85 with Sampras' counterbalance already added on the racket. But the weight was counterbalancing nothing, and Sampras used a lot of weight in the head, meaning the counterbalance weight was heavy as well. I'd be willing to bet that if the ProStaff Tour had enough weight added at 3&9, it'd be a fantastic racket! The [K]ProStaff is essentially just that! It's probably maintained most of the weight in the center of the racket like the ProStaff Tour, but moved the rest to the head and added a few more grams at the head (or JUST a few extra grams added to the head). This way, it felt more balanced and the racket became more complete. That'd explain why the feel of the [K]ProStaff still differs greatly from the [K]Six.One Tour - because the weight distribution is still far more similar to the ProStaff Tour, but with weight added to the head.

I think the added pop and plow through comes from the added weight in the head though, which is exactly what the ProStaff Tour needed.

Gee... Now I'm tempted to buy a [K]ProStaff and a ProStaff Tour to verify my theory. Though I'm sure most head light rackets can be fixed with lead if you know where to put it. Sadly, head heavy racket take a lot of lead to fix because of the fact they are pretty empty aside from the head, and even there they are pretty hollow. You can still salvage them, but I find it far better just to get a new racket, since trampoline effect can never be fixed except by stringing VERY tightly.

It's always better to have a lighter version of a pro's racket than a pro's platform racket that requires lead tape to finish, since most people won't spend the time to lead it up properly (or don't even know how) and will just whine about how poorly it plays.
[K]Six.One Tour (3) 367.5 grams 31.7 cm balance.
Mains: Babolat/Wilson Natural Gut @ 23 kg // Crosses: Luxilon Alu Power Rough @ 21.5 kg

Last edited by xFullCourtTenniSx; 11-02-2009 at 01:00 AM.
xFullCourtTenniSx is offline   Reply With Quote