160g is what is needed for stability

[Shroud]

If you look at almost all players frames or ones known for stability they all have roughly 160g head weight

Trick is to get that in the lightest static weight possible which is 320g assuming an even balance

Right at 155g on the current racket with a static weight of 312g

Plays great but I will be adding another 5g to get to the 160g target and 5g in the handle to end up at 322g.

Racketune says it's a 374 swing weight now so I should end up with 390 sw or so but about 60g less than what I was using

 

[Irvin]

I'm not saying you are not correct but how can you determine how much weight is in the head of the racket without sawing it in half? For instance, the handle of the racket I would guess is the heaviest part of the racket because you have the graphite that makes up the racket, pallet, butt cap, and grip. All that weight is pretty much in the bottom half of the lower section of the racket. It takes a lot of evenly distributed weight on top to counterbalance that so the racket balance is even.

 

[SpinToWin]

I'm not saying you are not correct but how can you determine how much weight is in the head of the racket without sawing it in half? For instance, the handle of the racket I would guess is the heaviest part of the racket because you have the graphite that makes up the racket, pallet, butt cap, and grip. All that weight is pretty much in the bottom half of the lower section of the racket. It takes a lot of evenly distributed weight on top to counterbalance that so the racket balance is even.

I think he uses part of the method Topspin proposes for matching racquets. Elevate the handle until it is the same elevation as the scale you are using for measuring mass and then place the tip of the frame on the center of the scale and measure the weight. That supposedly gives you "head weight".

 

[sureshs]

I think he uses part of the method Topspin proposes for matching racquets. Elevate the handle until it is the same elevation as the scale you are using for measuring mass and then place the tip of the frame on the center of the scale and measure the weight. That supposedly gives you "head weight".

If the scale is the only thing supporting the racket, wouldn't it always give you the entire weight? Like if you stand on a bathroom scale on one leg, the reading will be the same.

 

[SpinToWin]

If the scale is the only thing supporting the racket, wouldn't it always give you the entire weight? Like if you stand on a bathroom scale on one leg, the reading will be the same.

no. The handle is supported by another object of the equal height, so the weight is distributed to two different areas.

It's more like standing on another scale with your other foot, and you will get different readings from your full weight, cause you're distributing the weight (force) of your body to two different objects and scales simply measure weight (in newton) and use the value of gravitational acceleration (g=9.81 m/s^2) to transfer that value into mass (kg).

 

[Shroud]

I'm not saying you are not correct but how can you determine how much weight is in the head of the racket without sawing it in half? For instance, the handle of the racket I would guess is the heaviest part of the racket because you have the graphite that makes up the racket, pallet, butt cap, and grip. All that weight is pretty much in the bottom half of the lower section of the racket. It takes a lot of evenly distributed weight on top to counterbalance that so the racket balance is even.

Spin to win is right. Balance is just a ratio of weight distribution.

So if you know the weight and balance you can figure out the amount of weight in the head.

Example:

Rf 97
Weight:357g
Balance:31.4 cm

31.4/total length (68.58cm)=45.99%

Since its headlight more mass is in the handle and that percentage is over 50%. 45.99 then is the mass of the head. 45.99% of 357g is 164g. Most are right at 160 and the Rf is a bit more.

Like the Ps90:
Weight:354
Balance:31.57

Equals 162g for the head weight which is really close to the Yonex vcore tour g 330: 161.9g

Some are in the 150s like novaks racket, POG 100 mid

Anyhow I think it's a good indicator for stability

 

[Shroud]

I think he uses part of the method Topspin proposes for matching racquets. Elevate the handle until it is the same elevation as the scale you are using for measuring mass and then place the tip of the frame on the center of the scale and measure the weight. That supposedly gives you "head weight".

Yep, but I am just calculating from specs. It's easy to do on most of the frames listed at Tw.

 

[Shroud]

If the scale is the only thing supporting the racket, wouldn't it always give you the entire weight? Like if you stand on a bathroom scale on one leg, the reading will be the same.

Spin to win is right

I use 2 identical scales though. You put the tip on one end and the handle on the other and viola, 2 different measurements

But it can be calculated from specs. Odds are we all have a ballpark number that we prefer and associate to stability. Personally I want that number in the lightest frame I can get

 

[SpinToWin]

Spin to win is right

I use 2 identical scales though. You put the tip on one end and the handle on the other and viola, 2 different measurements

But it can be calculated from specs. Odds are we all have a ballpark number that we prefer and associate to stability. Personally I want that number in the lightest frame I can get

I'm sort of going in the same direction… Want a racquet with good swingweight but below 12 oz strung. My target spec is 335g strung, looking forward to demoing

 

[Shroud]

I'm sort of going in the same direction… Want a racquet with good swingweight but below 12 oz strung. My target spec is 335g strung, looking forward to demoing

It's a good direction to head in.

Though you are probably luckier than I am because you don't automatically have to add 45g to a frame to get the handle size you like! Restricts the options to tweeners and granny sticks for me

So when demoing check out the frames you like now and get the head weight. Then demo the lightest rackets that get you there or will if you add some lead

My contention is that the head weight is an indicator of stability so if you have two rackets they should feel as solid if the number is close. Most of the light weight ones I looked at have head weights of 140g or so

 

[SpinToWin]

It's a good direction to head in.

Though you are probably luckier than I am because you don't automatically have to add 45g to a frame to get the handle size you like! Restricts the options to tweeners and granny sticks for me

So when demoing check out the frames you like now and get the head weight. Then demo the lightest rackets that get you there or will if you add some lead

My contention is that the head weight is an indicator of stability so if you have two rackets they should feel as solid if the number is close. Most of the light weight ones I looked at have head weights of 140g or so

Oh no worries, the demo list already is complete

 

[Shroud]

Oh no worries, the demo list already is complete

Figured!!

But don't let your "players frame" bias get in the way. You may get where you need to by starting with a super light tweener and adding volumes of lead

Enjoy the demos!

 

[Soundbyte]

You're really just coming up with a surrogate number for swing weight, which is really the more important number as "stability" is more important when swinging a racket, as opposed to it be static.

Swing weight is more important.

 

[SpinToWin]

Figured!!

But don't let your "players frame" bias get in the way. You may get where you need to by starting with a super light tweener and adding volumes of lead

Enjoy the demos!

I don't feel like going down that route to be honest, sounds like too much of a hassle haha (also I hate playing with tweeners cause they lack the feel and control that lets me enjoy the game as much as I currently do… I almost stopped playing completely before I switched away from the APD years ago, tennis just wasn't fun to me and that is always the priority for me).

 

[5point5]

Just be careful when you're adding more than ten grams to any racket because then you're drastically changing what it was intended to do.

 

[Shroud]

Just be careful when you're adding more than ten grams to any racket because then you're drastically changing what it was intended to do.

Yeah it's a good point but not much fun

Fwiw I have added over 100g to frames before and survived

 

[Shroud]

I don't feel like going down that route to be honest, sounds like too much of a hassle haha (also I hate playing with tweeners cause they lack the feel and control that lets me enjoy the game as much as I currently do… I almost stopped playing completely before I switched away from the APD years ago, tennis just wasn't fun to me and that is always the priority for me).

Friends don't let friends play babalots!!

 

[5point5]

Yeah it's a good point but not much fun

Fwiw I have added over 100g to frames before and survived

You ain't a G Holmes.

 

[robbo1970]

I'll be honest, this thread confuses me. But I have used the calculation formula and come out with 151 and 153 on my two main sticks. Both quite different in static weight but I guess the differing balances creates a similar head weight.

 

[Shroud]

You ain't a G Holmes.

No clue what you are saying

 

[Shroud]

I'll be honest, this thread confuses me. But I have used the calculation formula and come out with 151 and 153 on my two main sticks. Both quite different in static weight but I guess the differing balances creates a similar head weight.

Cool. I was just thinking to myself "how can I confuse robbo1970" and came up with this!

But I think you get it. You are comfy with frames in the 150g range. And yeah the balance affects the static weight. In a way this thread is all about min-ing and maxing. So now you know you like 150 you can try rackets that get you there at a lower weight

and then you can play with a more hlight balance. but maybe you might not need to

And my hunch is you can use the calculation to narrow demo selections.

 

[Joonas]

Shroud, I have also found out that the rackets I like most have head weight 161-163g. It doesn't tell too much about the swingweight. I have head weighted rackets at 160-163g and swingweight range there have been from 322-346. Past days I have play tested few projects on the court with regular hitting partners. I got very linear and consistent feedback that the ball was much heavier with the rackets 160g head weight compared to around 150g head weight. This for both serves and ground strokes. Lighter head enabled more spin in the serve though.

I'm sort of going in the same direction… Want a racquet with good swingweight but below 12 oz strung. My target spec is 335g strung, looking forward to demoing

STW, as you know I was playing around with Graphene Radical Rev. Latest I did with it was that I added 35g in to the handle. It brought it to following Strung and overgripped: 317g, 334sw, 32,6cm balance. It is much better than before but still I miss depth compared to my G Radical Pro currently 340g, 346sw, 32.3cm balance. Guess what, the head weight for Rev is 157g and pro 163g. So by adding 5g at hoop and 5g to counter balance I would have 327g racket, with below 33cm balance and +160g head weight.

Another fine option for decent head weight but manageable static weight would be Blade 98 18x20. I have one black and silver which in stock strung and OG'd is 324g, 33cm balance and about 330sw. The head weight is 157g so by adding just few grams it would have nice essence at impact. It is already quite nice to play with.

Another interesting way to measure is to use Swingtool app and instead of reference point 10cm use like -55cm which for me correlates slighthly bent arm on forehand impact to ref point of about shoulder.

 

[Lukhas]

I'm sort of going in the same direction… Want a racquet with good swingweight but below 12 oz strung. My target spec is 335g strung, looking forward to demoing

335g with OG or not? I'd be interested in knowing what you put in your demo list.

 

[SpinToWin]

335g with OG or not? I'd be interested in knowing what you put in your demo list.

I will play them without an overgrip, I seem to prefer plain synthetic grips lately.

My list consists of the PS97S, the Volkl SG10 295g, the Blade 98S and the Blade 98 16x19.

 

[dgoran]

I know this is talk tennis and since most here have larger academic than athletic ability this is all "fun armchair geeking out" but wrench in all this is that one can play with any racquet given more time to adjust their timing and not first worlding the demo by finding another excuse to buy another frame

 

[Lukhas]

I will play them without an overgrip, I seem to prefer plain synthetic grips lately.

My list consists of the PS97S, the Volkl SG10 295g, the Blade 98S and the Blade 98 16x19.

Plain synthetic? I used to... but replacing them was more expensive than overgrips. I guess you did try the Pure Strike?

 

[Shroud]

I know this is talk tennis and since most here have larger academic than athletic ability this is all "fun armchair geeking out" but wrench in all this is that one can play with any racquet given more time to adjust their timing and not first worlding the demo by finding another excuse to buy another frame

Fwiw it's really about stability and how to predict that based on mere specs

If we look at our fave rackets they usually shakeout in a certain range. You have seen this already in this thread, and it can save you from buying frames needlessly and from playing with just any frame

 

[Joonas]

Dgoran I see your point. But believe me or not but I just seem to perform better with certain setup. But that setup is also demanding. So to find something easier but still staying in the zone is what I want.

Winning for me is for small margins. Unfortunately I can't afford to give out these margins.

And yes it is also interesting to understand more about the stuff around you.

I don't know about others - including your - physical abilities but mine are pretty ok. Even if I am inevitably aging.

Have fun at courts!

 

[SpinToWin]

Plain synthetic? I used to... but replacing them was more expensive than overgrips. I guess you did try the Pure Strike?

Yup, tested the 16x19 from a local shop. Not a fan in the least. Fluttered strangely, had a vague feel to it and overall did not impress me from any area of the court. Strange beast.

Regarding the synthetic grips, I stopped using leather grips beneath as I find they tend to aggravate elbow issues for me and synthetic grip + overgrip just feels way too mushy and rounded for me, so plain synthetic grips are my only option.

 

[Lukhas]

Yup, tested the 16x19 from a local shop. Not a fan in the least. Fluttered strangely, had a vague feel to it and overall did not impress me from any area of the court. Strange beast.

The Babolat that doesn't feel like a Babolat... that's maybe why it kinda flopped. Doesn't appeal to other Bab users, and other brands all have similar offerings: Blade, Radical (especially the Graphene ones), Tour 98, etc. I always find it interesting that the two most well known pros who use it, H. Watson and D. Thiem both weren't Bab users, coming respectively from Dunlop and Head.

Regarding the synthetic grips, I stopped using leather grips beneath as I find they tend to aggravate elbow issues for me and synthetic grip + overgrip just feels way too mushy and rounded for me, so plain synthetic grips are my only option.

I'd wish for fore firm synthetic grip offerings. I just end up wrapping both base grip and OG very tightly.

 

[dgoran]

Issue that I have seen on talk tennis is that we are passionate about tennis but life circumstances do not allow us to play as much as we like/need in order to improve so we all are compensating for that and trying to solve the problem (problem assumed as trying to perform better on the court) from our computers running excel calculations while truly only way to play better is to spend more time on the court with ANY RACQUET... Just my 2 cents I learned in last 10-11 years I spent on talk tennis forums

 

[Irvin]

I think he uses part of the method Topspin proposes for matching racquets. Elevate the handle until it is the same elevation as the scale you are using for measuring mass and then place the tip of the frame on the center of the scale and measure the weight. That supposedly gives you "head weight".

not sure how you came up with that conclusion. But you still can't determine how weight is distributed in a frame using scales and balance. If you could you would never need a swing weight device.

Spin to win is right. Balance is just a ratio of weight distribution.

So if you know the weight and balance you can figure out the amount of weight in the head.

Example:

Rf 97
Weight:357g
Balance:31.4 cm

31.4/total length (68.58cm)=45.99%

Since its headlight more mass is in the handle and that percentage is over 50%. 45.99 then is the mass of the head. 45.99% of 357g is 164g. Most are right at 160 and the Rf is a bit more.

Like the Ps90:
Weight:354
Balance:31.57

Equals 162g for the head weight which is really close to the Yonex vcore tour g 330: 161.9g

Some are in the 150s like novaks racket, POG 100 mid

Anyhow I think it's a good indicator for stability

Swing weight gives you weight distribution not balance. You're saying two rackets with the same balance can't have different swing weight.

 

[Irvin]

Spin to win is right

I use 2 identical scales though. You put the tip on one end and the handle on the other and viola, 2 different measurements

But it can be calculated from specs. Odds are we all have a ballpark number that we prefer and associate to stability. Personally I want that number in the lightest frame I can get

At one time I used to think this method would work. Now I know better.

 

[SpinToWin]

not sure how you came up with that conclusion. But you still can't determine how weight is distributed in a frame using scales and balance. If you could you would never need a swing weight device.

Swing weight gives you weight distribution not balance. You're saying two rackets with the same balance can't have different swing weight.

I am not saying that you can find the value you want this way, I just explained what Shroud meant by "head weight" and how he measures it

I personally use swingweight as a reference, but everybody can do as he pleases.

 

[Irvin]

I am not saying that you can find the value you want this way, I just explained what Shroud meant by "head weight" and how he measures it

I personally use swingweight as a reference, but everybody can do as he pleases.

Why measure SW if you can determine how weight is distributed using static measurements? SW and Inertia are both dynamic measurements and the object you're measuring must be put into motion before they can be measured.

Here's a little quiz for you, if I add 2 g (4" lead tape) to 12 o'clock how far up will the balance point move on a 27" evenly balanced racket? Without know the original weight of the racket you can't determine how far the balance will move. But whether you know the beginning weight of not you can determine exactly how much the SW will change.

 

[SpinToWin]

Why measure SW if you can determine how weight is distributed using static measurements? SW and Inertia are both dynamic measurements and the object you're measuring must be put into motion before they can be measured.

Here's a little quiz for you, if I add 2 g (4" lead tape) to 12 o'clock how far up will the balance point move on a 27" evenly balanced racket? Without know the original weight of the racket you can't determine how far the balance will move. But whether you know the beginning weight of not you can determine exactly how much the SW will change.

I don't exactly see what you're going for with this... As I said, I only explained the method used to measure this supposed value, whether I agree with it is a different matter entirely.

What is your take on this matter?

 

[Irvin]

Very simple where I'm going. You can't determine how much weight is above and below the balance point with a balance board or scales.

Assume you have a see saw with two children on it that's evenly balanced. One child weighs 60 pounds the other weighs 50 and the board is evenly balanced. Which side is the 60 pound child on?

 

[SpinToWin]

Very simple where I'm going. You can't determine how much weight is above and below the balance point with a balance board or scales.

Assume you have a see saw with two children on it that's evenly balanced. One child weighs 60 pounds the other weighs 50 and the board is evenly balanced. Which side is the 60 pound child on?

Again, I said that I agree with what you are saying (that this method does not result in what some people here are suggesting)... You're repeating yourself to somebody who never agreed with the method proposed to begin with, you can continue this discussion with Shroud if you want.

 

[Joonas]

Why measure SW if you can determine how weight is distributed using static measurements? SW and Inertia are both dynamic measurements and the object you're measuring must be put into motion before they can be measured.

Here's a little quiz for you, if I add 2 g (4" lead tape) to 12 o'clock how far up will the balance point move on a 27" evenly balanced racket? Without know the original weight of the racket you can't determine how far the balance will move. But whether you know the beginning weight of not you can determine exactly how much the SW will change.

SW is ok measurement and tells something in some scenarios.

But I can tell you that a racket with static weight 280g and SW 335 feels different, moves different, delivers different to a racket with static weight 340 and SW 335. Head weight tells you the difference and so does SW measured from negative reference point.

Normally this is not very important as players choose rackets more or less within same static weight they are used to and if this is being the case the SW is relevant measure. But like Shroud, STW and also myself are looking into moving to different static weight but maintaining or at least minimizing the effect on the weight behind shot it makes sense to look into different ways to measure and understand the racket.

i am intenting to have my focus on the court to my tennis but obviously I prefer to keep doing that with a tool that I feel confident and easy with. I could as well have stayed with my ProKennex Bronze Ace but would that be optimum use of my limited resources?

 

[Joonas]

Deleted a duplicate

 

[Irvin]

I believe you can tell a difference depending on your skill and feel. That's why the better players should match everything if they want the feel the same for all frames.

 

[Joonas]

I believe you can tell a difference depending on your skill and feel. That's why the better players should match everything if they want the feel the same for all frames.

But I am not trying to match rackets! I have done it many times. I am looking into playing characteristics of different frames. Are you trolloing, Irvin?

 

[TimothyO]

we all are compensating for that and trying to solve the problem (problem assumed as trying to perform better on the court) from our computers running excel calculations while truly only way to play better is to spend more time on the court with ANY RACQUET... Just my 2 cents I learned in last 10-11 years I spent on talk tennis forums

100% BS that you don't even believe for a moment. If you did believe it then you would buy the cheapest frame at Walmart, even a kid's frame, and the off to the courts you would go. No reason to buy a $200 frame or even one discounted to $75 when, according to you, a $20 frame made from plastic will work just as well.

And if what you wrote were true then pros wouldn't insist on keeping their frames year after year and changing paint jobs. They and their sponsors would avoid the threat of lawsuits and just use the latest retail model completely unmodified. After all, they're a lot better than you and therefore could play more effectively with "anything" than you could.

The fact of the matter is that different players play more easily (not neccessarily better as that takes court time) with certain frames and strings. All tennis balls weigh about 57g but players and their opponents vary greatly.

According to you a 75 year old woman needing two knee replacements could be effective with a 400g 370SW 90" frame and Nadal would be competitive on the ATP tour with a 9oz. 110" kid's frame. That's idiotic and really bad advice for those seeking to play tennis more easily at their given level.

Before spouting such ill-conceived advice on a forum one should have more on court tennis experience and knowledge.

 

[Dragy]

Swing weight gives you weight distribution not balance. You're saying two rackets with the same balance can't have different swing weight.

Altough you're right regarding weight distribution, swingweight is not exactly the thing OP is talking about. Imagine you increased the handle of your stick for 1 inch. SW will increase significantly, while "stability" will remain the same - it's the weight behind the contact point, the weight of the hoop that matters. The other piece of mass (throat and handle) would, however, also contribute to stability around like central cross string axis.

We don't take into account our efforts to stabilize the racquet with our hand, do we? Just pure frame stability.

 

[Irvin]

Altough you're right regarding weight distribution, swingweight is not exactly the thing OP is talking about. Imagine you increased the handle of your stick for 1 inch...

I'm well aware of that. All I'm saying it it's impossible to identify how weight is distributed by using balance and weight which is what the OP is assuming. And if you read post #1 @Shroud is talking about SW in addition to balance and static weight. It seems to me he can't makes heads or tails out of the numbers he sees.

 

[dgoran]

100% BS that you don't even believe for a moment. If you did believe it then you would buy the cheapest frame at Walmart, even a kid's frame, and the off to the courts you would go. No reason to buy a $200 frame or even one discounted to $75 when, according to you, a $20 frame made from plastic will work just as well.

And if what you wrote were true then pros wouldn't insist on keeping their frames year after year and changing paint jobs. They and their sponsors would avoid the threat of lawsuits and just use the latest retail model completely unmodified. After all, they're a lot better than you and therefore could play more effectively with "anything" than you could.

The fact of the matter is that different players play more easily (not neccessarily better as that takes court time) with certain frames and strings. All tennis balls weigh about 57g but players and their opponents vary greatly.

According to you a 75 year old woman needing two knee replacements could be effective with a 400g 370SW 90" frame and Nadal would be competitive on the ATP tour with a 9oz. 110" kid's frame. That's idiotic and really bad advice for those seeking to play tennis more easily at their given level.

Before spouting such ill-conceived advice on a forum one should have more on court tennis experience and knowledge.

Haha struck a nerve did I?

 

[TennisCJC]

Shroud, you current setup is 374 SW and yes that should be very stable. I disagree with you assessment that you need 160 g in head. My experience is 330sw is plenty stable at my level and I play mix of 4.5, 4.0 and 3.5 players. SW of 340 plays super stable but begins to get s bit heavy for me. I think good spec guidelines are 320sw or higher, 4hl or more hl, TW 13.5 or higher, and static weight 10.5 oz to 13 oz for amatuer players. SW 320 can be handled by anyone and is my minimum guideline as it is stable, light but heavy enough to absorb shock

 

[Shroud]

I'm well aware of that. All I'm saying it it's impossible to identify how weight is distributed by using balance and weight which is what the OP is assuming. And if you read post #1 @Shroud is talking about SW in addition to balance and static weight. It seems to me he can't makes heads or tails out of the numbers he sees.

Hi Irvin

That last sentence was a non sequitur. Not saying they are related and really not talking about sw.

Fwiw if you take the weight and balance and do the math as I did then weigh things it's pretty dead on

And looking at the rackets in the bag, the solid ones are all over 160g and pretty much all the players rackets are there too

 

[SpinToWin]

Shroud, you current setup is 374 SW and yes that should be very stable. I disagree with you assessment that you need 160 g in head. My experience is 330sw is plenty stable at my level and I play mix of 4.5, 4.0 and 3.5 players. SW of 340 plays super stable but begins to get s bit heavy for me. I think good spec guidelines are 320sw or higher, 4hl or more hl, TW 13.5 or higher, and static weight 10.5 oz to 13 oz for amatuer players. SW 320 can be handled by anyone and is my minimum guideline as it is stable, light but heavy enough to absorb shock

If you believe that a 9oz racquet with a 320 swingweight = a 13oz racquet with a 320 swingweight (what your above comment implies) then it's pretty obvious that you don't understand where Shroud is coming from. His true swingweight value likely is a lot lower than you'd think (though still high) and his strokes benefit from a higher swingweight. Different strokes for different folks is all I'll say, cause some people like to swing a behemoth whereas others prefer a feather, regardless of level of play (to a certain extent).

 

[Shroud]

Shroud, you current setup is 374 SW and yes that should be very stable. I disagree with you assessment that you need 160 g in head. My experience is 330sw is plenty stable at my level and I play mix of 4.5, 4.0 and 3.5 players. SW of 340 plays super stable but begins to get s bit heavy for me. I think good spec guidelines are 320sw or higher, 4hl or more hl, TW 13.5 or higher, and static weight 10.5 oz to 13 oz for amatuer players. SW 320 can be handled by anyone and is my minimum guideline as it is stable, light but heavy enough to absorb shock

I am not talking about sw exactly. Just that there needs to be a certain amount of mass in the head and that varies for everyone.

Have you tried the calculation on your rackets? What numbers do you come up with??

You can get that number by many paths. I am trying to get it with the lightest static weight.