Racquet with the lowest swingweight ever?

[corners]

Originally Posted by J011yroger

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

J

Thanks Jolly.

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

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.

OK, thanks John. I'll take a look at those.

[Doubles]

Too much math, not enough tennis.

[ricki]

U dont need low swingweight - get extra light stiff frame with HH balance and add that lead. I have this one at home and I will try to lead it a little http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/desc...HAF1.html#spec

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by Doubles

Too much math, not enough tennis.

That's perfect!

-SF

[corners]

Originally Posted by ricki

U dont need low swingweight - get extra light stiff frame with HH balance and add that lead. I have this one at home and I will try to lead it a little http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/desc...HAF1.html#spec

Thanks, but that racquet's stock swingweight is 295. After adding 60 grams at 3&9 the swingweight would be about 400! I'm trying to keep it down to 350.

[Doubles]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

That's perfect!

-SF

Changing strings, adding and subtracting a bit of lead here and there, that's all fine. But when you get to the point where you're doing math to find the proper MgR/I or something along those lines, I think you've gone too far.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by corners

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.

Have you found a good platform, Corners?
Looking forward to your experience with it after customization!

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by corners

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.

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

Why? Why ask why?

To my simple mind, the is like saying the ball will rebound the same off a steel wall so I want to turn my racket head into a steel wall so it shows no variance in response. My view is you don't want to do this.

If you add 60 g at 3/9, that will increase SW about 90 g - that's a lot.

It will also be enormously HH unless you counter with roughly 60G in the handle area. If you counter weight the handle, you will have added about 4 oz to the racket. If you leave it that HH, I expect it would take some time getting used to and god knows what it will do to your swing mechanics.

Dr Frank-en-stein has gone mad.

How about adding a little weight at 3 and 9 to increase twist weight and work hard to hit it near the center with a slightly closed racket face at impact.

[slowfox]

Whoa, this is hardcore. I like it.

[Fuji]

Just the thread I was looking for! Did you see the new Volkl's?! They have a SW in the low 270's, and I think if you hacked off a quarter inch it'd be exactly what you're looking for.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Volk...LKL-VTSPD.html

-Fuji

[Relinquis]

is headsize a factor in this? would you have to add 60g if it was a 90" inch stick instead of a 100" stick?

i know you want to experiment, but i can't stand head heavy sticks. i feel i have less control over the head.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

is headsize a factor in this? would you have to add 60g if it was a 90" inch stick instead of a 100" stick?

i know you want to experiment, but i can't stand head heavy sticks. i feel i have less control over the head.

Well, the experiment I'm working off of used a 105. This effect of equalizing spin across the stringbed by adding lots of mass at 3&9 added that mass to a 105. This effect must, to some rather large degree, rely on increasing twistweigtht to ridiculous levels. Because mass added at 3&9 far from the central axis boosts twistweight more than mass added a lesser distance, I'd like to try this with something at least 100 square inches. If it works as an experiment I'd be looking to try it in smaller headsizes too. The problem is that mids simply don't come with such low stock swingweights.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Fuji

Just the thread I was looking for! Did you see the new Volkl's?! They have a SW in the low 270's, and I think if you hacked off a quarter inch it'd be exactly what you're looking for.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Volk...LKL-VTSPD.html

-Fuji

That's in the region I'm looking for but maybe a little bit high stock. Kinda like the obnoxious green in the old Tour 10 paint scheme, though

[corners]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

Why? Why ask why?

To my simple mind, the is like saying the ball will rebound the same off a steel wall so I want to turn my racket head into a steel wall so it shows no variance in response. My view is you don't want to do this.

If you add 60 g at 3/9, that will increase SW about 90 g - that's a lot.

It will also be enormously HH unless you counter with roughly 60G in the handle area. If you counter weight the handle, you will have added about 4 oz to the racket. If you leave it that HH, I expect it would take some time getting used to and god knows what it will do to your swing mechanics.

Dr Frank-en-stein has gone mad.

How about adding a little weight at 3 and 9 to increase twist weight and work hard to hit it near the center with a slightly closed racket face at impact.

Don't worry dear friend, I have all those bases covered. Just need to find the right platform frame. In general, some people don't seem to have the spirit for experimentation. That's OK too.

[corners]

Originally Posted by JohnB

Have you found a good platform, Corners?
Looking forward to your experience with it after customization!

Hi John, my fine friends at TT have suggested two or frames that might work. Hoping something strangely ideal might be suggested soon, otherwise I'll press ahead with one of these candidates. Jolly was going to check with a pro stock expert....kinda waiting on that too.

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by corners

Don't worry dear friend, I have all those bases covered. Just need to find the right platform frame. In general, some people don't seem to have the spirit for experimentation. That's OK too.

For me, I wouldn't bother but have fun. I'll check in from time to time to see how you get on.

[Power Player]

Originally Posted by TimothyO

Good stuff Corners!

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

No you dont. You just need to practice.

I have a pure storm team with 6 grams of lead at 3 and 9 and 8 grams in the handle. Thats it. The thing serves major heat. Why? I fixed my balance and toss.

My stick is far lighter than yours but i bet i can hit harder. Its all about timing and technique.

The heavier sticks feel nice and plowish, but id strip the lead off that pure storm and just get the timing down. You will be surprised at what will happen a few weeks in.

[spaceman_spiff]

Are you sure you don't just need to readjust your math?

The TW Professor didn't add 100 g to a frame that weighed 0. It was 100 g plus whatever the hitting weight (effective mass at a particular point) of the particular racket used in the test. So, the magic number isn't 100 at 3&9; it's whatever the final total hitting weight of the racket was at 3&9 after the 100 g was added.

Instead of trying to find a frame with a SW of 260 so that you can add the 60 g that you have your mind set on, maybe you need to calculate the ideal hitting weight that you are trying to achieve at 3&9. Then, once you know your ideal hitting weight in that location, you can use the hitting weight numbers that the TW Professor has already compiled to find frames that can let you reach your goal with a different amount of added lead.

For example, you might find a frame with a SW of 300 that does exactly what you want when you add 30 g at 3&9 without pushing you out of your comfort zone in terms of overall specs. Or, you might find a frame with an even higher swingweight that works with only 15 g added.

This might make it easier to find a platform to get started on.

[JohnB]

Originally Posted by spaceman_spiff

Are you sure you don't just need to readjust your math?

The TW Professor didn't add 100 g to a frame that weighed 0. It was 100 g plus whatever the hitting weight (effective mass at a particular point) of the particular racket used in the test. So, the magic number isn't 100 at 3&9; it's whatever the final total hitting weight of the racket was at 3&9 after the 100 g was added.

Instead of trying to find a frame with a SW of 260 so that you can add the 60 g that you have your mind set on, maybe you need to calculate the ideal hitting weight that you are trying to achieve at 3&9. Then, once you know your ideal hitting weight in that location, you can use the hitting weight numbers that the TW Professor has already compiled to find frames that can let you reach your goal with a different amount of added lead.


For example, you might find a frame with a SW of 300 that does exactly what you want when you add 30 g at 3&9 without pushing you out of your comfort zone in terms of overall specs. Or, you might find a frame with an even higher swingweight that works with only 15 g added.

This might make it easier to find a platform to get started on.

Do you mean a racket with a very high twistweight/swingweight ratio? Am I correct?