Originally Posted by Circa 1762
Interesting. The reason I ask is that based on the specs you provided, the MgR/I values of your two rackets are almost exactly the same (21.20 and 21.26). The MgR'/I' values (for two-handed backhand) are much farther apart (23.01 and 23.31), but since you have a one-handed backhand, you wouldn't have noticed. I'm very curious what Sten's curves end up looking like. (Sten, I apologize for bringing MgR/I into this thread - just thought it was an interesting observation. I'm excited to see how useful your equation/curves can be.)
Don't apologize, it deals with the same stuff (swingweight, mass etc) as the curves, so it is relevant to discuss it here. I think that there might be some interesting stuff buried in there somewhere and that is why I spent time discussing it. The problem is that travlerajm treats it as some kind of holy grail and applies it everywhere. Like the unfounded statement that you should use MgR/I for one handed swings and MgR'/I' for two handed (sorry, no critique of you), not to speak of the hilarious theory that you need to include g since gravity varies in different places in the world.
As an example of the connection I took the two Wilson racquets I used in the first post and modified them to MgR/I = 21.0. I think that they are interesting since they are very different to begin with. The Pro Staff has a MgR/I = 21.5 which is fairly close to the magical number so it was enough to add 8 g to the top leading to m=365 g, sw=354, balance=22.6 cm. The Cierzo Two has MgR/I = 19.1 and to bring it up to 21.0 the least I could get away with was adding 85 g at 25 cm. It resulted in a racquet with m=363 g, sw=369, balance=34.3 cm (1 pt HL). And the resulting curves:
Giving them equal MgR/I certainly brought the curves closer together. On the other hand the original racquets are close together for short swings despite having radically different MgR/I.