Poll: Handleweight and Swingspeed

[corners]

EDIT: Please vote in the poll after reading OP but before reading further down in the thread. It's best if the poll reflects your personal experience, not the experiences of others. Thanks.

The limited research on racquet specs and swingspeed shows that racquet swingweight is directly related to swingspeed - the higher the swingweight the lower the maximum swingspeed. But that research also shows that static weight has very little effect. Is this your experience?

Consider two racquets with the same swingweight but different static weights:

A)
Swingweight: 320
Static weight: 12 ounces
Balance: 32 cm (7 HL)

B)
Swingweight: 320
Static weight: 11 ounces
Balance 34 cm (1 HL)

Racquet A is essentially Racquet B with one ounce removed from the center of the handle. This means that B will also be much less headlight.

Note: This is very different from racquets with the same swingweight and static weight, but very different balance points.

Does Racquet B swing faster than Racquet A, in your experience?

The limited lab data suggests it does not, but what do you think?

Please only vote in the poll if you've actually played with frames similar to those above: frames with the same swingweight but very different static weights. Whether the swingweights are 320 or some other number isn't important for this comparison, only that they had about the same swingweight but significantly different static weights.

Feel free to post the racquet models and/or specs of the racquets you've compared!

[travlerajm]

I can definitely perceive a difference in swing characteristics, but I don't perceive it as a difference in swing speed.

On the heavier frame, the hand will naturally swing slower from the shoulder, but the head will naturally swing faster from the wrist to cancel it out.

If I had to vote, I'd vote "the same speed."

[corners]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

I can definitely perceive a difference in swing characteristics, but I don't perceive it as a difference in swing speed.

On the heavier frame, the hand will naturally swing slower from the shoulder, but the head will naturally swing faster from the wrist to cancel it out.

If I had to vote, I'd vote "the same speed."

Thanks for your detailed response Trav! And please do vote if you haven't.

[anirut]

Interesting ....

[Sreeram]

the best example here is pure storm and PST GT. More HL racquet is better as the added weight adds stability without changing the maneuverability much. If you are heavily wristy (like me) in both serves and FT then go ahead with the tour version. For flat hitter who does not use wrist for generating Topspin go ahead with PS.

[topspin18]

I agree with streeram wrist is a big part and for flat players no need for extra weight

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

i voted for same speed but I'm not completely confident!

It makes sense in terms of the physics (I think) but it is a very interesting (albeit kind of pointless) question.

[UWBTennis]

I have found that when swinging a racquet that is slightly heavier but has the same swingweight, I get more plowthrough so it feels like I'm swing faster with the heavier racquet, but I'm not sure if I'm. Momentum= mass X speed so if they both swing the same, then the heavier one will have more momentum and get slightly faster no? That is how I explain my experience but it is a barely noticeable difference.

[corners]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Bump.

[0d1n]

In my experience the racquet with less mass would swing quicker.
I've experimented with adding even 12-14 grams to the handle which is about 1/2 ounce and I feel I can swing said racquet quicker without the additional lead. The change in swing weight from adding 12-14 grams in the butt should not be significant...so I can only presume it's the added mass.

[baba123]

a youtek speed mp and a kblade team
personally the youtek swings maybe a little faster if any difference.

[corners]

Thanks for your input Od1n and Baba123!

[TaihtDuhShaat]

I have compared the same 18x20 medium flex 95" setup as 1) 358 g, 32.45 cm, 370sw, and 2) 375 g, 31.7 cm, 370 sw

1) served with more velocity, had less depth control on volleys, generated less spin, and was less arm friendly.

2) was the opposite. It had slightly slower, spinnier serves, better depth control on volleys, generated more spin in every department, and was more arm friendly.

The slightly slower serves were worth the tradeoff to me as all other areas of the racquet's performance improved.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by TaihtDuhShaat

I have compared the same 18x20 medium flex 95" setup as 1) 358 g, 32.45 cm, 370sw, and 2) 375 g, 31.7 cm, 370 sw

1) served with more velocity, had less depth control on volleys, generated less spin, and was less arm friendly.

2) was the opposite. It had slightly slower, spinnier serves, better depth control on volleys, generated more spin in every department, and was more arm friendly.

The slightly slower serves were worth the tradeoff to me as all other areas of the racquet's performance improved.

This is all as expected. But all of your observations are due to impact dynamics (as distinct from swing dynamics).

(2) is more polarized than (1), with lower ACOR (which correlates with serve speed) and higher recoil weight (which correlates with depth control on volleys). The fact that the impact point is farther from the balance point makes for longer dwell time, which makes it spinnier and more arm friendly.

[TaihtDuhShaat]

Originally Posted by travlerajm

This is all as expected. But all of your observations are due to impact dynamics (as distinct from swing dynamics).

(2) is more polarized than (1), with lower ACOR (which correlates with serve speed) and higher recoil weight (which correlates with depth control on volleys). The fact that the impact point is farther from the balance point makes for longer dwell time, which makes it spinnier and more arm friendly.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Just one question and sorry to derail:

How important is it to have a MR^2 > 380? I can't seem to find a spec on this frame that will get me over ~376 and without adding more lead to the 3/9 positions than i want to.

[Torres]

I hate these egghead discussions and 'lab data' threads because what goes on in the 'lab' isn't what goes on on the tennis court, and the biggest variable (the player) isn't part of the equation, and neither is the amount of confidence and feel which your equipment gives you. But I'm going to chip in anyway because I've spent the last few months tweaking and experimenting with the balance and weighting of four BLX 6.1 Teams, in the range of the specs in the original post. The aim was to try and achieve the feel of my BLX 6.1 95s but improve the manouverability and whippiness. Obviously, I could have tried to find a Japenese spec BLX 6.1 95 (which has specs almost bang in the middle of those two racquets) but hey.....

In short, Racquet B will definitely swing faster at the point of contact and allow you to hit a bigger, heavier, ball. Don't ask me to explain the science of it, but its definitely what happens on a tennis court. I'd guess probably because its head heavier, and results in a higher head speed and greater mass at the point of contact. The downside is that - all other factors being equal - the racquet will result in greater inconsistency than Racquet A. 1HL is grim.

Racquet A will offer you more control because you'll have more control over the speed of the racquet head and will be lower powered. It will be more your swing/racquet speed and length of your stroke that contributes to the control on the ball, rather than the moving mass of the head on contact with the ball. That said, the higher the level of technique, the less significant this probably becomes because with high level technique, the player's swing will be close to perfect more of the time.

I hit heavier forehands and serve bigger with with specs similar to Racquet B, but it doesn't suit my topspin 1HB as well. You really need high level technique to control the greater weight of that head with a 1HB, which people are obviously more likely to have on their FH than their 1BH. A racquet with 1HL is also going to feel like a pendulum, is less manouverable and is likely to result in more inconsistency.

Also, I don't think its possible to have the two alternate specs as suggested in the original thread, not with the same racquet anyway. If you a have a 320g SW, 7HL racquet, its highly doubtful that stripping mass from the handle to bring it to 1HL will result in the SW remaining at 320. In any event, both racquets will feel wildly different which is the most significant point to bear in mind.

Another point that this 'lab data' thread doesn't take into account is that its not just about specs. Where in the racquet the mass is distributed has a big effect on how the racquet feels, how it plays, and how much confidence it gives you. You could have two racquet with identical SW/static/BP specs but different mass distributions and they will feel very different.

Tennis based on lab stats. I don't think there's anything I loathe more.

[travlerajm]

Originally Posted by TaihtDuhShaat

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Just one question and sorry to derail:

How important is it to have a MR^2 > 380? I can't seem to find a spec on this frame that will get me over ~376 and without adding more lead to the 3/9 positions than i want to.

I don't think MR^2 > 380 is a requirement per se, but I believe that MR^2 > 380 naturally results when the critical specs of SW > 350 and MgR/I = ~21.0 are met (assuming you are about 6 feet tall and don't have a full western grip).

I think you'll find that if you carefully adjust your frame to have M = 380g, R = 31.75cm, and SW = 360, it will play quite nicely.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Torres

I hate these egghead discussions and 'lab data' threads because what goes on in the 'lab' isn't what goes on on the tennis court, and the biggest variable (the player) isn't part of the equation, and neither is the amount of confidence and feel which your equipment gives you.

Well, that's the point of this thread/poll: to get some data about the player side of the equation. It won't be much data - unless thousands participate in the poll - but it's something.

Originally Posted by Torres

But I'm going to chip in anyway because I've spent the last few months tweaking and experimenting with the balance and weighting of four BLX 6.1 Teams, in the range of the specs in the original post. The aim was to try and achieve the feel of my BLX 6.1 95s but improve the manouverability and whippiness. Obviously, I could have tried to find a Japenese spec BLX 6.1 95 (which has specs almost bang in the middle of those two racquets) but hey.....

In short, Racquet B will definitely swing faster at the point of contact and allow you to hit a bigger, heavier, ball. Don't ask me to explain the science of it, but its definitely what happens on a tennis court. I'd guess probably because its head heavier, and results in a higher head speed and greater mass at the point of contact. The downside is that - all other factors being equal - the racquet will result in greater inconsistency than Racquet A. 1HL is grim.

B will not have greater mass at the point of contact because adding or removing mass from the handle does not add or remove mass from the head. But it may swing faster, and in your opinion it will.

Originally Posted by Torres

Racquet A will offer you more control because you'll have more control over the speed of the racquet head and will be lower powered. It will be more your swing/racquet speed and length of your stroke that contributes to the control on the ball, rather than the moving mass of the head on contact with the ball. That said, the higher the level of technique, the less significant this probably becomes because with high level technique, the player's swing will be close to perfect more of the time.

I hit heavier forehands and serve bigger with with specs similar to Racquet B, but it doesn't suit my topspin 1HB as well. You really need high level technique to control the greater weight of that head with a 1HB, which people are obviously more likely to have on their FH than their 1BH. A racquet with 1HL is also going to feel like a pendulum, is less manouverable and is likely to result in more inconsistency.

Thanks for your detailed observations.

Originally Posted by Torres

Also, I don't think its possible to have the two alternate specs as suggested in the original thread, not with the same racquet anyway. If you a have a 320g SW, 7HL racquet, its highly doubtful that stripping mass from the handle to bring it to 1HL will result in the SW remaining at 320. In any event, both racquets will feel wildly different which is the most significant point to bear in mind.

It's certainly possible. Adding mass mid-handle has almost no effect on swingweight. So if I had racquet B and added 30 grams 4" from the butt I would essentially have racquet A.

Originally Posted by Torres

Another point that this 'lab data' thread doesn't take into account is that its not just about specs. Where in the racquet the mass is distributed has a big effect on how the racquet feels, how it plays, and how much confidence it gives you. You could have two racquet with identical SW/static/BP specs but different mass distributions and they will feel very different.

Yes. But here we are primarily talking about handleweight: plus or minus an ounce in the handle. Lots of manufacturers make models that are representative of Racquets A & B. Head Prestige vs. Radical, for example. Maybe this thread will help people choose which model might suit them.

Originally Posted by Torres

Tennis based on lab stats. I don't think there's anything I loathe more.

I'm glad you got an opportunity to get that off your chest. Although I don't see anyone "basing" anything on lab stats. The point of the thread is to compare the subjective experiences of players with the very limited lab data available.

[corners]

Bumpety bump

[yonexRx32]

Originally Posted by corners

Bumpety bump

I haven't yet seen a clear definition of swing weight. Based on the way it is measured, I am tempted to assume that what one generally calls swing weight is the rotational inertia. A fairly abstract measure in tennis since one seldom only rotate the racket around its handle. If that's the case, same swing weight means the rackets rotate equally easily around the fulcrum point/handle. The only difference is their resistance to linear acceleration, which is determined by their relative masses. In conclusion the lighter racket will swing easier (where swing means the overall motion of the racket, not only wrist action).

Oh ..wait ... this discussion was about subjective experiences.. forget I wrote all of this.