Amone I like what you're doing with the spreadsheet. Keep up the good work and try not to get discouraged by any negative feedback.
I apologize if the rest of my post is slightly offtopic for the thread. I'm hoping that it could lead to a better understanding of the application of the formulas which are being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travlerajm
The hitting weight is mathematically derived using the momentum balance, assuming that the swing has only translational motion at impact (neglecting the rotational component of the swing).

travlearjm I've been adjusting the lead on my LM Radicals to try different things. I decided to put more lead on the handle (18 grams, to be exact), but I wrapped it too high. The center of mass is above the 4 cm line, which when using your formula leads to a relatively high hitting weight. This explains what I noticed when hitting with it yesterday, chiefly that it was equally (possibly more) powerful after adding weight to the butt than before, which struck me as odd before I read this post. I had thought that adding the weight should reduce power and it didn't. When I introduced the hitting weight formula to my spreadsheet, I noticed that the 18g didn't reduce the hitting weight at all. So that now makes sense.
The question I have is related to something I saw you mention a while back, in your Sampras setup post  that, at a certain point, increasing swingweight will begin to increase spin (due to ball flattening). My desire is to achieve a higher level of spin on the racquet. Is this measure of ball flattening an actual product of swingweight, or is it more related to the ratio of hitting weight to swingweight? Looking at the numbers, it seems to me that if you have two racquets with the same swingweight, the one with lower hitting weight should be more adequate for hitting a ball with more spin. Do you have a direct formula for calculating this ballflattening, and what are your general thoughts on this?