How to build a racquet with superpowers!!!

psp2 said:

I injected 754 grams of viscous fluid inside my SV PS85. SW has been bumped to around 830. My fh stroke has decreased from a full swing to a mere 6" tap.

My racquet's "dynamic stiffness" has now caught up with the "static stiffness". My electromotive acceleration is now .55 and my off-center of percussion is somewhere near my buttcap!!

However..... my NTRP remains the same

Click to expand...

gerli said:

Could someone tell me how to calculate the "recoil weight".

Thank you

Click to expand...

travlerajm said:

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Click to expand...

FaultsNAces said:

Yeah, these threads contain useful information like this:

Originally Posted by travlerajm
The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

ROTFLOL!

-frank

Click to expand...

sureshs said:

Neither the time period of the swing of the pendulum nor the speed at any point on the swing depends on the mass of the pendulum. The time period depends only on the length, and the speed at any point depends only on the height from which the pendulum was released.

Click to expand...

This is for simple pendulums. For compound pendulums it is different. It depends on the moment of inertia and the total mass.

Click to expand...

haerdalis said:

I think all these nonsense comments are sad. These threads do contain some useful information.

Click to expand...

jackcrawford said:

Pseudo-intellectual threads that attempt to baffle with BS since they cannot dazzle with brilliance do not deserve to treated with the reverence that would be granted to a newly discovered paper by Einstein.

Click to expand...

Fastpace Ace said:

Travler, I have learned lots from you over the last year or so. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

travlerajm said:

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Click to expand...

obnoxious2 said:

Even some of Einstein's theories weren't completely accepted until YEARS AND YEARS after he died.

Click to expand...

madmanfool said:

Because it wouldn't be polarized like he wants it to be. Try searching on SW2 (swing weight 2) and read about it. You might want to take a day off though, lot to read
I also play with something similar in specs. My leaded prince O3 tour MP is also 12.9 ounces, and swingweight and balance almost spot on as well. But the weight distribution is completely different. But i'm going to stick with my racquet, don't wont to risk lead posioning

Click to expand...

travlerajm said:

Want to create a racquet with the following characteristics?

1. Midplus headsize with more stability than any OS frame on the market.
2. Explosive power and spin on serves that hit the back fence still rising.
3. Electric power and topspin on heavy groundies that dive into the court.
4. Wall-like crispness and precision on volleys.
5. Penetrating and accurate slices.
6. A uniform sweetspot with consistent power from the whole stringbed.
7. Plows through heavy balls with almost no shock to the arm.
8. A manageable swingweight for quick hands at net.

If you do, then read on.

But realize that a racquet like this can only be found through extreme customization.

I have been an avid racquet customizer for a few years. But the problem I had found is that stock racquets have weight distributed so poorly that there is not enough room to add mass to get an optimum weight distribution. Almost every frame out there has too much weight in the hoop to make much adjustment.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

However, I found a solution to this problem:

I purchased a POG Longbody. As soon as it arrived, I went to work on my extreme customization – I didn’t bother to test it out in stock form because I already knew this racquet’s destiny.

Starting specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 28"
Weight: 11.2 oz.
Balance: 12.8”
Swingweight: ~320 (est.)
Stiffness: 63 RDC
Grip: Leather
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples.

This shortening step reduced the swingweight to ~285! With this low of a swingweight, there is plenty of room to add LOTS of mass to the upper hoop.

I next added 33g of lead tape to the upper hoop. Yes 33g! About 27.5g is in the 10 and 2 o’clock regions, and the remaining 6.5g is near 12 o’clock. With this much lead tape, it cannot be added in the normal way (on the inside of the frame), because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 34g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 34g in butt).

After replacing the leather with a lighter synthetic grip, the final specs come to:

Final specs:
Headsize: 100 si
Beam: 19mm
Length: 27"
Weight: 12.9 oz.
Balance: 12.4”
Swingweight: 358 (measured on RDC)
Stiffness: 64 (est.)
Grip: Prince synthetic
String: Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains / SPPP 16g crosses
Tension: 50 lbs.

The playtest report (following a swingweight tuning session):

The final result is a racquet with supernatural stability, explosive power, evil spin potential, and no weaknesses.

For stability, the shortened POG Longbody with gobs of lead tape at 10 and 2 blows away any frame I have played with. I’m a long-time OS user, but this frame is so amazing that I will be joining the midplus club for the first time in almost 20 years.

I’ve never had a frame that was so fun to hit forehands with. With the swingweight right in the max-power zone, the ball seems to explode off the racquet. But because the ball is flattened so much by the massive upper hoop combined with the stiff stringbed. the spin potential is almost unfair. Even when I just rally with smooth, high clearance shots, my ball is so electric that it explodes off the court, causing my opponent to make errors.
Part of the secret to the incredible bite is that this setup is more polarized than is possible with a normal racquet. The extra weight at the ends of the frame results in massive spin potential. Also, targeting and depth control were excellent on both my forehand and my 2-handed backhand. I even like hitting 1-handed topspin backhands, which I normally can't do nearly as well with my normal racquet.

Serving is just as fun. This setup has a better combination of explosive power, wicked spin potential, and control than any that I have played with. Even though I have played very little tennis during the past year, my rusty out-of-shape arm could hammer down spin serves that hit the back fence 6 feet high and still rising. I haven’t been able to do that since I played at the 5.0 level and served every day. This racquet feels like lightning in a bottle. Having this much mass in the upper hoop while keeping the swingweight low is the key to the explosive serve power.

Volleys are also a treat. I have to admit that the smaller head makes this flexible player’s racquet feel crisper and stiffer at the net than my similarly weighted OS frames. The most fun is the high backhand volley – the mass in the head makes this normally difficult shot a lot easier. And putaways feel like I have a hammer in my hands. And since the balance is 9 pts headlight and the swingweight is below 360, maneuverability when reacting at net is not an issue.

The racquet shines even brighter when I let lower level players try it. A 3.5 player at the local pickup courts was wielding a stock “Federer racquet”, with which was struggling to keep his groundies in play. But when I let him try my customized superracquet, he immediately started hitting explosive heavy forehands and 1-handed backhands with consistency that thoroughly surprised him. And the next day, I let another 3.5 player try it, and afterward he offered to pay me to make him another one.

I’m convinced that highly polarized frames weighted like this one are the future of tennis racquet technology. But for now, the POG Longbody is the only frame I know of that has a light enough hoop to be a suitable platform for this degree of extreme customization.

However, it is interesting to note that many top pros have specs that are very similar to my superracquet, almost this extreme in their level of polarization.

And for the skeptics, I should also note that my target specs were not blindly chosen -- these were arrived at after many hundreds of hours of experimenting on court. I was already well aware of what target specs I would need to reach in order to achieve these favorable results.

Click to expand...

Strings And Things said:

Travlerajm, I'm just curious:

So you where able to calculate the SW of your POG LB after the shortening of the handle. Now I was wondering, how do you calculate SW after making a frame longer?

I'm basically interested in doing the opposite of what you're doing. I'm thinking about using a 26" Junior frame with a low SW. Another member has already done
this before (I forgot who).

Let's say that the starting SW at length 26" = 240. What would the new SW be after adding an extra inch? BTW, the added length's mass can be disreguarded as far as for SW calculation, since it's static weight is very minute, plus the location of the added length is close to the axis of rotation anyways.

I would greatly appreciate your help or anyone's. Thanks.

Click to expand...

obnoxious2 said:

I believe in another some guy asked how to calc the SW. And you need to find a bunch of stuff and put it in an equation. THere's also a spreadsheet where you just put int he input of your new racquet balance from balance to handle and balance to hoop and a bunch of weights in grams and it will calc your SW.

Click to expand...

pr0n8r said:

If someone builds a racket with Superpowers, and noone sees it, does it actually exist?

Click to expand...

Strings And Things said:

Travlerajm, I'm just curious:

So you where able to calculate the SW of your POG LB after the shortening of the handle. Now I was wondering, how do you calculate SW after making a frame longer?

I'm basically interested in doing the opposite of what you're doing. I'm thinking about using a 26" Junior frame with a low SW. Another member has already done
this before (I forgot who).

Let's say that the starting SW at length 26" = 240. What would the new SW be after adding an extra inch? BTW, the added length's mass can be disreguarded as far as for SW calculation, since it's static weight is very minute, plus the location of the added length is close to the axis of rotation anyways.

I would greatly appreciate your help or anyone's. Thanks.

Click to expand...

travlerajm said:

The simplest way is to first convert to recoil weight (swingweight about the center of mass). Recoil = Ic = I - M*(R - 10)^2.
I = swingweight about 10cm axis.
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm

Then, if you want to lengthen by one inch, you convert back I.

I = Ic + M*(R - (10 - 2.54))^2

So for example, if starting I = 240, M = 280g, and R = 33.

Then Ic = 240 - 0.280*(33 -10)^2 = 92.

Then for 27", new I = 92 + 0.28*(33 - (10 - 2.54))^2 = 274.

Click to expand...

ART ART;2283926The rest of you guys that keep telling stupid things about travlerajm said:

ART, please tell me, is this the kind of stuff we need to open our eyes and minds to:

travlerajm said:

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Click to expand...

Much greater eyes and minds have long ago dismissed such nonsense -- but of course, it's a free country so believe what you want.....

Click to expand...

jackson ville said:

There simply is no comparision, and the only people that don't believe that are the people that have not tried it.

Click to expand...

jackson vile said:

Listen I am one of the people that has done this since Trav first brought this up, now I have tried this on 25 different rackets and different setup.

There is a HUGE advantage when a racket is properly setup and let me tell you, that what you buy from the manufature 90% of the time is crap!.


There simply is no comparision, and the only people that don't believe that are the people that have not tried it.

Trav and I disagree on the application, and I broke up the differences in racket specs for the different styles of play.

So there is not one fits all customization, as that is not possibile LOL


If you look through so me of my old post you will find that, how ever the basis of what Trav is saying is 100% true.

Or you can agrue with the pros rackets which Greg is more than happy to do LOL


Perhaps Greg would also have you believe that a co-poly is just like any other old string that has been around LOL

Click to expand...

jackson vile said:

There is a HUGE advantage when a racket is properly setup

Click to expand...

and let me tell you, that what you buy from the manufature 90% of the time is crap!.

Click to expand...

If you look through so me of my old post you will find that, how ever the basis of what Trav is saying is 100% true.

Click to expand...

travlerajm said:

Increasing the swingweight beyond the max-power point causes a decrease in groundstroke power. When you get the point beyond the max-power point where the power level is once again at the optimum level, this is SW2. SW2 is typically in the range of 365-375. The exact value of SW2 will vary, depending on the handle mass, string tension, and stiffness.

The reason the the velocity of the racquet slows down is not jsut because you cannot accelerate it as fast... It's mainly because gravity cannot accelerate it as fast when you drop it from an elevated backswing (just like a heavier pendulum swings slower than a light one).

Click to expand...

FaultsNAces said:

Further, the fact that stock rackets vary quite a bit in terms of mass isn't much of a problem, either: it's only really a problem if you want/need matched sticks, which is a small minority of the racket-buying public.

<SNIP>

As far as the pros, if you spend time with a professional MRT, particularly one who works with top 20 pros, you will find out how and why the pros customize their rackets. And as I have done this, I have found -- surprise, surprise -- that SW2 is not a factor, not even close. The real process is simple and works well as is quite obvious from the results they get. No, I won't post what they really do, but I'll tell you that there is no secret formula, no secret handshake, no magical mystery behind the customizations -- and yet, it's not surprising that pro rackets end up closely comparable in swingweights, etc....

Click to expand...

DLE said:

I have no idea if these swingweight calculations are correct, or if you even can, as many other posters have questioned or refuted, calculate swingweight by using weights and balances. Nor do I have any opinion as to how SW2, if real, applies to different swing types such as high take backs and low take backs (the Cauthon method?). This is just a post to tell of my experience using the significant weight increases as discussed on this thread. I also wanted to share my experience as it relates to the numerous questions as to if a non-pro player could wield a racquet with a high static weight and with what results.

Racquet = new from TW, Prince Graphite Classic Mid, 600 cm. sq. head, length 69 cm., strung weight with Gamma double worm dampener and overgrip 346 grams, approx. swingweight 328 (the addition of the dampener and overgrip may have changed that a little, but it can’t be much), listed on TW as 8 pts. headlight and balance on Prince website is 31.0 (a little confused on this calculation input as the Excel conversion program had 8 pts headlight = 32 cm; I guess I could use a Viper board), stiffness 66, strings Lux. BB ALU Power Rough mains @ 57lbs, Prince Premier Softflex crosses @ 57 lbs. I used the Excel calculation program provided in another post and tried the following setup: 4.5g @12, 4.5g @ 10, 4.5g @ 2, 13.5g @ bottom of handle to counterbalance. I used the new Gamma lead weights that are shaped like an “H” and have a black exterior instead of the traditional ¼” lead tape strips. The “H” lead pieces are 4.5g each according to my scale even though TW lists them at 3 or 4 and they put the weight on the frame in just under a 2” space rather than the longer strips of ¼” tape. I have no idea how the space concentration of the tape weight affects the calculations or hitting experience. The Excel program gave me these new figures: mass 373 g, Balance 30.8, Swingweight 360, Iref 198, Power Level Index 2209 and SGPR 1.15. I don’t have a completely clear concept of Iref, PLI and SGPR, but let me tell you how it hit.

Fantastic. I am not saying you can make an “Excalibur” racquet, but it is the best racquet I have ever hit with. The other racquets I have played with for long periods of time in the past are Wilson PS85, Head Prestige Classic and LiquidMetal, Volkl C10 Pro, Slazenger X1, Yonex RDS001 Mid and Yonex RDS002Tour. The racquet was extremely solid on groundstrokes and volleys and it was soft feeling, maybe “buttery” is the better descriptive word I have seen in different descriptions in the forums. The soft isn’t a negative term, but a compliment. Comfortable, no twingy feel or vibrations. Great combination of power and topspin, much better than what I had been hitting. I needed to make a slight adjustment to hit through the ball and hit out in front, but that was really it. Forehands (flat, inside-out and crosscourt) were great, i.e. much better (harder, heavier and easier to accomplish) than with my current setup (Yonex RDS002 Tour, same strings, 12.2 strung, listed swingweight 330). Backhands took a little more time to adjust to, but I started to get the hang of how to change my swing to get flat and top when I wanted either. The 373 g (13.2 oz.) weight did not cause any problems during or after 2 hours of hitting. Volleys were better than with my normal setup as well; good power and able to use touch as well; not sure about reactive maneuverability as I was at net expecting volleys as practice. I will have to be in more doubles type reactive situations to give a more accurate assessment on maneuverability.

Overall, a great change for me. All aspects of my stroke results improved and I cannot say there were any negative points resulting from what was pretty much an extreme addition of weight. I’ll be setting another racquet up just like it as soon as I can verify that my serve hasn’t gone to the dogs with this setup.

Regardless of whether you believe SW2 or that sw can be calculated by using weights and balances, the effect for me of adding weights at the locations discussed in this thread, which is obviously verifiable using my scale and not just some physics theory, was great for my game and may be worth a try for you and don’t be afraid of the extra weight if counterbalanced.

Click to expand...

The FishEXpress said:

Excuse my ignorance but in reference to travlerajm's first post on this thread what is the 'tapered part of the buttcap'

if this a butt cap:

what part is the tapered part?

Isn't a buttcap a simple piece of hexagonic plastic that seals the end of a racquet? Does the author 'travlerajm' mean and is suggesting the tapered part of the handle?


Also,

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples

The above doesn't make sense to me. Why saw off one inch the grip then put it back again?

Also,

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

How do u 'mechanically' attach lead strips on to a tennis frame? It is impossible to attach leads loops on a frame securely as the surface is not flat, as the grove which harbours the 'grommit' holes does not allow this.

Could anyone explain my queries cos I am clearly stupid.

Click to expand...

Strings And Things said:

Not only that .... it's also the people that aren't doing something right or just aren't technically inclined (some people just aren't good at fixing things and getting things right -- hands-on).

Click to expand...

The FishEXpress said:

Excuse my ignorance but in reference to travlerajm's first post on this thread what is the 'tapered part of the buttcap'

if this a butt cap:

what part is the tapered part?

Isn't a buttcap a simple piece of hexagonic plastic that seals the end of a racquet? Does the author 'travlerajm' mean and is suggesting the tapered part of the handle?


Also,

I first removed the leather grip.
Then I pried out the staples and pulled off the buttcap.
Next I sawed off an inch, replaced the buttcap.
Then I resecured the buttcap with staples

The above doesn't make sense to me. Why saw off one inch the grip then put it back again?

Also,

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

How do u 'mechanically' attach lead strips on to a tennis frame? It is impossible to attach leads loops on a frame securely as the surface is not flat, as the grove which harbours the 'grommit' holes does not allow this.

Could anyone explain my queries cos I am clearly stupid.

Click to expand...

obnoxious2 said:

I just thought of a problem. How do you wrap the lead tape evenly? Because the stringing of the crosses makes it staggered so lead tape at 9 and 3 won't be exactly face to face. It will be off by one cross face.

Example:



don't know if you guys can see it clearly but the black squares are each grommet and the red is the string. Hopefully you can see what I mean by how the crosses are staggered.

So how do you wrap the lead tape so that it balances out correctly? Or is being off by 1 cross space negligible?

Click to expand...