How to Set Your Racquet Up Like a Pro II: My Perfect Setup

[travlerajm]

I don’t usually share reviews of my racquet setups. Most of my customized setups are very good racquets with minor shortcomings, but this setup is worth sharing since it’s the first one I’ve found with no apparent weaknesses! It’s not only an ideal serve-and-volley setup, but it seems to be a superb groundstroke setup as well.

After spending nearly the past year experimenting with racquet setups, I’ve finally found my perfect racquet.

The answer to my quest for my Holy Grail was found by adhering to some simple racquet selection fundamentals. The solution was so simple, but the results were like magic!

Rule #1: Determine your ideal swingweight. After lots and lots of testing with lead tape, I’ve learned that my optimum swingweight is determined by my serve. My previous favorite serving stock racquet was my trusty Prostaff 4.7 EB Stretch 115”. It was only 10.5 oz. strung, but it had a SW of 346! I could really hammer down kick serves Roddick-style at a 5.5-6.0 level with that frame. With some of my 13+oz. customizations, I was able to serve as hard or harder, but never with as much command.
My Holy Grail setup was found by returning to the SW of my favorite serve racquet of the past.

Rule #2: Maximize twistweight. From my experiments with lead customization, I have found that high twistweight (the moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis) is by far the most important spec for a good volley racquet. Translation – the more weight you put at 3 and 9, the better your racquet for volleys. Twistweight is more important than static weight or balance. So if you want to be a serve-and-volleyer, 3 and 9 is the most efficient location to add weight.

Rule #3: Use a pro-style balance. My statistical analysis of pro racquet specs found that with very few exceptions, there is no such thing as a top-100 pro with a balance point near that of stock racquets. ATP pros plays with a balance that obeys this equation: R = 44.57/sqrt(M), where R is the balance point in inches and M is the static weight in ounces. Roughly 80% of all top-100 pros have balance points within +/-2 pts of this curve, which is about 4 pts more HH than most stock racquets. The equation is a regression line with constant MR^2.

Rule #4: Start with a flexible frame as a customization platform. My experiments taught me long ago that very stiff frames have some nice advantages (especially for volleys), but if you want to uncap the ceiling on your game, you need a flexible frame to unlock your inner spin potential.

Using these 4 rules allowed me arrive at my Holy Grail.

So now for my setup: Prince NXG OS, with 10g of lead total at 3-and-9. 16g Kevlar hybrid (Ashaway Crossfire) at 67 lbs. Static weight 12.25 oz. SW = 346 kg-cm^2. Effective SW (at 4cm axis) = 450 kg-cm^2.

Yes this setup is simple, but it satisfies the 4 critical rules listed above. Here’s my Review:

Serve. This is the best all-around serve setup I have ever used. Velocity was excellent. Spin on kick serves was ample. My kick serves down the middle were nice and heavy, hitting the back fence about 5 feet high, even though I wasn’t swinging my hardest. My 5.0 opponent who has an excellent return game was having a tough time getting my heavy kick serves back in play. The best part was that I had incredible command. I could hit the spots I aimed for, and the spin was enough to pull it down reliably at the right depth. It was a joy to feel like my serve was once again a reliable weapon.
Grade: A+

Volleys: This was a pleasant surprise. My volleys felt just as stable as my 13+ oz setups, but the lower swingweight made it more maneuverable. I volleyed today with more touch and control than ever before. It’s the first time I felt like I could aim my volley 6 inches from the sideline and feel confident that I would hit my target. My touch was incredible. Every point, I found myself wanting to get to the net so I could show off my newly discovered McEnroe hands. Low volleys, high volleys, touch volleys, stab volleys – all excellent. Using an OS stock frame helped give the customized racquet a hefty twistweight, further improving stability and control.
Grade: A+

Forehand: I found my groundstrokes felt good at first, but not great. The balance was more head heavy than I was used to. But after a half-hour adjustment period, everything started to feel natural. My pace and spin was very good, and control was very nice too. The swingweight was probably a little lower than my optimum for my eastern forehand, which I like to hit with moderate spin. The really nice thing about this setup was it’s versatility. I could hit it flat with good precision, and I could also rip a heavy deep moonball. After the initial adjustment period, I had a lot of confidence, and I was pleasantly surprised that I could hit my forehand so well with this setup.
Grade: A

Backhand: Just like the forehand, my 2hb (which is much better than my forehand) took an adjustment period to get used to the longer balance point. But once I made the adjustment – WOW. My measuring stick is the down-the-line backhand, and I know a racquet is nicely balanced for my backhand when I can rip my DTL backhand without missing. And with this setup, I didn’t miss. My backhand seemed to have the perfect combination of penetration and spin. I found myself going for the DTL shot at almost every opportunity to take control of points, and my crosscourt shot felt better than ever too. I had that feeling that I could use my backhand to dictate Agassi-style. My 1hb slices, just like my volleys, had amazing touch and control.
Grade: A+


If you want to try modifying your racquet to play similarly to mine, here’s a quick step-by-step procedure.

Step 1. Start with a flexible stock frame (stiffness low 60s or less) that weighs roughly 12 oz.

Step 2. Use the following equation to find your effective SW about the 4cm axis (parallel axis theorem):

I’ = I + M*(12*R – 84)
I’ = effective SW (about 4cm axis) in kg-cm^2
I = specified stock SW in kg-cm^2
M = mass in kg
R = balance point in cm

Step 3. Measure the distance r’ from the butt end to the center of mass of the weight to be added at 3 and 9. Use a ruler to find the imaginary line that goes between 3 and 9 o’clock, and measure to the point on the ruler in the center of the stringbed. It’s important be precise about this measurement.

Step 4. Calculate the total mass m’ to be added at location r’ (at 3 and 9) using the following equation:

m’ = (450 – I’)/[(r’ - 4)^2]
m’ = mass of weight to be added in kg
I’ = effective SW about 4 cm axis (in kg-cm^2) calculated in Step 2.
r’ = distance (in cm) to location at 3 and 9 as measured in Step 3.

Step 5. Add the weight m’ at 3 and 9 in lead strips approximately 4 inches in length. Don’t use longer than this or else your SW will increase too much. For better results, place the lead on the outside of the frame rather than the inside, since the increase in twistweight is proportional to the square of the distance from the centerline to the added weight.

Step 6. Make sure that your tension is roughly at the high limit of the recommended tension. Adding this amount of weight to the head of your racquet will likely increase power level substantially, and you’ll want to adjust your tension accordingly.

Step 7. Time for a playtest. Use the serve as your guide to know if the swingweight is right. A good idea is to remove a gram and see how it responds. And then add a gram and see how it responds. I like to use how high on the fence the ball hits to gauge the effectiveness of my spin serve. The amount of lead that allows your spin serve to hit highest on the fence will tell you your optimum SW. Give yourself a full session of hitting to adjust your groundstrokes to the higher swingweight and longer balance point.

Edit: My latest setup far surpasses this one. For details on my new favorite setup, see:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1151417&postcount=31

 

[louis netman]

Hey travelerajm, 1) just wondering what the reason was for the altered formulas from your initial post on the subject, 2) is it realy true that your Holy Grail is a Prince NXT OS? You may lose credibility because of that fact cause that's not a very popular line around these parts... ;-)

I am not a physicist, however I understand scientific principles and am a logical thinker. What is the basis of your formula and how did you derive these?

Any other physicists willing to chime in here???

If we can construct Holy Grails this easily, why don't we start a new racket company where we simply buy other company's blems, invest in lead and a little paint here & there...

 

[travlerajm]

Hey travelerajm, 1) just wondering what the reason was for the altered formulas from your initial post on the subject, 2) is it realy true that your Holy Grail is a Prince NXT OS? You may lose credibility because of that fact cause that's not a very popular line around these parts... ;-)

I am not a physicist, however I understand scientific principles and am a logical thinker. What is the basis of your formula and how did you derive these?

Any other physicists willing to chime in here???

If we can construct Holy Grails this easily, why don't we start a new racket company where we simply buy other company's blems, invest in lead and a little paint here & there...

In stock form, the NXG OS is a spin machine, but it's a crappy serving stick. It's a nice customization platform because it is more spin-friendly than other frames of comparable stiffness.

I haven't really altered any formulas. My initial post on the "Ideal balance line" gave a linearized regression of pro racquet specs. But the regression curve I provided in this thread and in my previous thread with constant MR^2 gives a slightly better fit, and agrees with the physics involved.

The formula I gave for determining how much lead to add is based on my own personal experiments for serve optimization. You will of course need to make minor tweaks to meet your own swingweight needs. But as long as you are a 4.5+ player of normal healthy strength, the formula should give you a decent starting point.

On the groundstrokes, adding a small amount at 3 and 9 flattens out your shot, but as you continue to add lead, you eventually start to get more spin. So your ball gets heavy. I've added enough lead to go beyond the "light spinny stock frame zone" and the lightly leaded "flat penetrating" zone and into the "heavy ball" zone. This setup is probably very similar to the actual setup used by most ATP pros. For example, we know from the Roddick signature racquet that Roddick has his Pure Drive balanced in this way. (Counterweighting in the handle is required if the starting weight is only in the 11 oz range).

 

[anirut]

Interesting ... need to digest this later ... gotta meet my customers.

Thanks for a very knowledgable post!

 

[mislav]

...For example, we know from the Roddick signature racquet that Roddick has his Pure Drive balanced in this way. (Counterweighting in the handle is required if the starting weight is only in the 11 oz range).

Thanks for sharing this stuff with us. It's really interesting. So, would you say that PD Roddick is in your opinion ideally polarized racquet? Of course, not for everyone, but as in being a good concept?

If you remember, John Cauthen in his thread repeatedly declared this specific frame to be completely wrong.

 

[katastrof]

On the groundstrokes, adding a small amount at 3 and 9 flattens out your shot, but as you continue to add lead, you eventually start to get more spin. So your ball gets heavy. I've added enough lead to go beyond the "light spinny stock frame zone" and the lightly leaded "flat penetrating" zone and into the "heavy ball" zone. This setup is probably very similar to the actual setup used by most ATP pros. For example, we know from the Roddick signature racquet that Roddick has his Pure Drive balanced in this way. (Counterweighting in the handle is required if the starting weight is only in the 11 oz range).

Travel, what are these "zones" you are talking about here? I mean, you seem to have specific weight ranges that borderline the "light spinny", "flat penetrating" & "heavy ball" zones, but what are these, at least approximately? You can just give what you have in mind in terms of weight/balance combinations.

Thanks.

 

[travlerajm]

Travel, what are these "zones" you are talking about here? I mean, you seem to have specific weight ranges that borderline the "light spinny", "flat penetrating" & "heavy ball" zones, but what are these, at least approximately? You can just give what you have in mind in terms of weight/balance combinations.

Thanks.

If you try progressively adding weight at 3 and 9 to your stock player's frame, you'll see what I mean. Most stock frames have balance points that are very low. The low balance point makes it easy to hit topspin because the SW is so low ( ~ 280 -330) that you can whip the racquet head through the ball with the help of your wrist - this is the light spinny zone. But that's not how most pros generate topspin (Fed is a notable exception). As you add weight at 3 and 9, your shots will flatten out mainly because the power level goes up (SW ~ 330-340) without slowing down your groundstrokes very much - this is the "flat penetrating" zone. Adding more lead beyond this point makes it harder to wrist the ball, but because the SW starts to get very high, the spin-to-power ratio starts to go back up again. Once your swingweight gets roughly to 345 or higher (assuming your starting frame was a player's frame), you are entering the "heavy" zone that almost all ATP pros play with. I watched Ginepri last night, and it's obvious from the way he swings his forehand that his balance point is much higher than stock (it's about 6.5 pts more HH than average stock balance). If you watch him, you can see that the racquet swings and feels more like a sledge hammer. It serves more like a sledge hammer too. The spin on a grounstroke comes more from the high swingweight rather than high racquet head velocity.

Note: SW is only one variable involved in this effect, so the "borderlines" vary greatly depending on other factors like flex and static weight.

 

[travlerajm]

Thanks for sharing this stuff with us. It's really interesting. So, would you say that PD Roddick is in your opinion ideally polarized racquet? Of course, not for everyone, but as in being a good concept?

If you remember, John Cauthen in his thread repeatedly declared this specific frame to be completely wrong.

Mislav,

This question is interesting to me, and it's worth an entire thread IMO.

I'll soon post my detailed response in a new thread titled something like,
"Memo to Roddick: your racquet setup is not right for your game. If you want to get back to #1 and beat Fed, here's what you need to do to your PD."

 

[looseswing]

Travlerjam would you support customizing the PS Tour 90 as it is already a heavy racquet?

 

[katastrof]

Travler,

Thanks for the reply. The only experience I had about this was an extreme (for me, anyways) experiment of hitting with a 500g. woodie. You could feel the racquet sending a heavy ball without much effort. It almost felt like "cheating" to me.

There's one thing I do not understand about this polarization stuff. You recommend starting with a racquet with a stock weight that lacks about 0.5-1.5 ounces from the desired weight. So, if you want to achieve 13.5oz final static weight, start with a 12.0 oz.

However, wouldn't you get a more polarized racquet if you started with 11.0 oz stock instead (of course, using the method you described in the earlier thread)? Or even lighter, as long as you have the desired flex on the frame? This way you could get even more polarization at the same final static weight.

I currently play with an i.Rad @12.2oz, 9ptsHL, 322.5g swingweight. Just now I leaded one of my racquets further to achieve 345+ grams SW: 12.5oz, 7ptsHL with 345.3g swingweight. So, this frame is more polarized than if I leaded up a 12.0oz stock, isn't it? & of course, is it not a good thing?

 

[mislav]

Mislav,

This question is interesting to me, and it's worth an entire thread IMO.

I'll soon post my detailed response in a new thread titled something like,
"Memo to Roddick: your racquet setup is not right for your game. If you want to get back to #1 and beat Fed, here's what you need to do to your PD."

As long as we get an answer. Thanks.

 

[N-serve]

I have my Tecnifiber TFight 325's leaded and ready to go (i think my math is correct). I will be hitting this evening and will report back with my thoughts.

 

[looseswing]

So what is the result?

 

[louis netman]

Travlerajm, do you have a formula regarding your earlier post (counterweighting) which achieves desired target swingweight? I think this would be more useful as players typically have a SW comfort zone, moreso than a static weight comfort zone...

 

[travlerajm]

Travlerajm, do you have a formula regarding your earlier post (counterweighting) which achieves desired target swingweight? I think this would be more useful as players typically have a SW comfort zone, moreso than a static weight comfort zone...

I agree with you - it would make sense to redo the formula so that you pick a target swingweight rather than a target static weight. I'll get around to making that edit to the OP soon.

Also, it should be noted that the "effective SW" as I have defined it in this thread is a better measure of swingweight than the published spec for the 10-cm axis. Two racquets can have identical published SW specs, but the effective SW might vary significantly. So it's important to convert I to I' when comparing the relative SW of different frames. An example of this would be a comparison of the Technifibre Tfight 325 and the Wilson Tour 90. The Tfight 325 has a published SW of 335 while the Tour 90 has a SW spec of 324. But if you convert I to I', you find that the Tour 90 actually has a higher I', so that it swings heavier than the Tfight 325, even though the published SW is 11 kg-cm^2 lower. This means that the Tfight has weight concentrated near the butt, while the Tour 90 has more weight in the top of the handle.

 

[N-serve]

I was able to get out and hit yesterday. It took me awhile to get used to the extra weight, even though I could not tell a significant difference just holding the racquet. My serves were bombs, harder and faster. I had trouble with my kick serve, I could bring them down like normal but I will be able to fix that with time. My forehand was deadly, I had some problem with my control but that I think will also come when I get used to the added weight. Backhand slice was much better, didn't float like before. The best thing about it was the feel when you strike the ball. I have some work to do but I really like it so far. I used the Dunlop m-fil 200 for a short time and I served the best I ever have but hated it off the ground and at the net. With the extra weight on my Tfight 325 I have the big big serve and touch at the net.
Thanks Travlerajm

 

[Jonnyf]

Dear Travlerajm. Im so sorry you're formula's haveseriously miffed me if you have the time please please e-mail me on forrest.jonny@gmail.com honestly i really want to try this but im just confused now.

Thanks alot man.

Yours Sincerely
JF..

 

[Court_Jester]

Question on the Parallel Axis Theorem (PAT) Formula

Hello travlerajm!

Can you tell me the what the constants 12 and 84 in the PAT formula represent and their units? I'm trying to reconcile this formula with the one that I'm familiar with. Plus I'm getting an insanely high I' (> 400 kg-cm^2).

 

[travlerajm]

I was able to get out and hit yesterday. It took me awhile to get used to the extra weight, even though I could not tell a significant difference just holding the racquet. My serves were bombs, harder and faster. I had trouble with my kick serve, I could bring them down like normal but I will be able to fix that with time. My forehand was deadly, I had some problem with my control but that I think will also come when I get used to the added weight. Backhand slice was much better, didn't float like before. The best thing about it was the feel when you strike the ball. I have some work to do but I really like it so far. I used the Dunlop m-fil 200 for a short time and I served the best I ever have but hated it off the ground and at the net. With the extra weight on my Tfight 325 I have the big big serve and touch at the net.
Thanks Travlerajm

N-serve,

You might try experimenting with 1 or 2 fewer grams. It will add a little spin to your kick serves, and your groundstrokes might feel a little better.

 

[travlerajm]

Hello travlerajm!

Can you tell me the what the constants 12 and 84 in the PAT formula represent and their units? I'm trying to reconcile this formula with the one that I'm familiar with. Plus I'm getting an insanely high I' (> 400 kg-cm^2).

Court_Jester,

I used the formula for SW given in racquetresearch.com. If you use an axis of rotation of 4 cm, the formula simplifies to the one I gave.

The I' for most stock racquets is about 400 to 425 kg-cm^2. My formula for adding lead assumes that the ideal I' is about 450. Once you do some tweaking to find the ideal amount of lead, you can back-calculate your new I' so that you can use that as the new constant to replace 450 in the formula when you try it with other frames.

 

[travlerajm]

Dear Travlerajm. Im so sorry you're formula's haveseriously miffed me if you have the time please please e-mail me on forrest.jonny@gmail.com honestly i really want to try this but im just confused now.

Thanks alot man.

Yours Sincerely
JF..

JF,

If you post your specs, I'll walk you through it when I have time.

 

[Court_Jester]

I used the formula for SW given in racquetresearch.com. If you use an axis of rotation of 4 cm, the formula simplifies to the one I gave.

Got it (equation below).

I' = I + M*[2*(10 - a)*r - (10 - a)^2]

But the constant 84 in the OP should have been 36 if we are to use the 4-cm axis of rotation.

My formula for adding lead assumes that the ideal I' is about 450. Once you do some tweaking to find the ideal amount of lead, you can back-calculate your new I' so that you can use that as the new constant to replace 450 in the formula when you try it with other frames.

Much clearer now, thank you.

 

[travlerajm]

Got it (equation below).

I' = I + M*[2*(10 - a)*r - (10 - a)^2]

But the constant 84 in the OP should have been 36 if we are to use the 4-cm axis of rotation.

I' = I + M(2rx + x^2) =
I' = I + M[2*(R - 10)*(10 - 4) + (10 - 4)^2)] =
I' = I + M[(2R - 20)*6 + 6^2] =
I' = I + M(12R - 120 + 36) =
I' = I + M(12R - 84)

 

[Court_Jester]

Okay, I know where I made a mistake. I mixed up r', R and r. Oops! :mrgreen:

Cool job!

 

[travlerajm]

I was able to get out and hit yesterday. It took me awhile to get used to the extra weight, even though I could not tell a significant difference just holding the racquet. My serves were bombs, harder and faster. I had trouble with my kick serve, I could bring them down like normal but I will be able to fix that with time. My forehand was deadly, I had some problem with my control but that I think will also come when I get used to the added weight. Backhand slice was much better, didn't float like before. The best thing about it was the feel when you strike the ball. I have some work to do but I really like it so far. I used the Dunlop m-fil 200 for a short time and I served the best I ever have but hated it off the ground and at the net. With the extra weight on my Tfight 325 I have the big big serve and touch at the net.
Thanks Travlerajm

For your dunlop, you might try counterweighting with a few grams in the butt - the Tfight already has a lot of weight there.

 

[Jonnyf]

Hey travlerajm im using a Flexpoint Prestige Mid.


Head Size:
93 sq. in. / 600 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 12.2oz / 346g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 323
Stiffness: 65
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam
Composition: LiquidMetal Titanium / Graphite
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: HydroSorb
String Pattern:
18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,10T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 52-62 pounds



Also added is a babolat leather (remove all original lead) and im looking for about 354grams. I'd be ever-so-greatful i you could calculate this for me. Thanks so much.


Yours Sincerely
Jf

 

[Jonnyf]

Also better say im an aggressive baseliner with a big serve. Again thanks alot

 

[looseswing]

So Traveler we do not add lead tape to the butcap anymore?

 

[travlerajm]

Hey travlerajm im using a Flexpoint Prestige Mid.


Head Size:
93 sq. in. / 600 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 12.2oz / 346g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 323
Stiffness: 65
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam
Composition: LiquidMetal Titanium / Graphite
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: HydroSorb
String Pattern:
18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,10T,8H,10H
Two Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 52-62 pounds



Also added is a babolat leather (remove all original lead) and im looking for about 354grams. I'd be ever-so-greatful i you could calculate this for me. Thanks so much.


Yours Sincerely
Jf

I' = 323 + .346(12*12.625*2.54 - 84) = 427
r' = ~ 20.4" = 51.8 cm
m' = (450 - 427)/(51.8 - 4)^2 = 10 g
M = 346 + 10 = 356 g
R = (346*12.625 + 10*20.4)/356 = 12.81"
Rpro = 44.57/sqrt(356*28.35) = 12.58"

This means that you would be 2 pts more HH than the average pro balance line. Try this out first with 10g at 3 and 9. If you don't like it, try 8g at 3 and 9, plus about 6g in the buttcap to bring the balance lower.

 

[Jonnyf]

I' = 323 + .346(12*12.625*2.54 - 84) = 427
r' = ~ 20.4" = 51.8 cm
m' = (450 - 427)/(51.8 - 4)^2 = 10 g
M = 346 + 10 = 356 g
R = (346*12.625 + 10*20.4)/356 = 12.81"
Rpro = 44.57/sqrt(356*28.35) = 12.58"

This means that you would be 2 pts more HH than the average pro balance line. Try this out first with 10g at 3 and 9. If you don't like it, try 8g at 3 and 9, plus about 6g in the buttcap to bring the balance lower.

So you mean.

Combo 1= 5grams at 3, 5grams at 9.

Combo 2= 4g at 3 and 4g at 9 + 6g in the buttcap.

Sorry im just confused today but thanks so much.!!

 

[louis netman]

I agree with you - it would make sense to redo the formula so that you pick a target swingweight rather than a target static weight. I'll get around to making that edit to the OP soon.

Also, it should be noted that the "effective SW" as I have defined it in this thread is a better measure of swingweight than the published spec for the 10-cm axis. Two racquets can have identical published SW specs, but the effective SW might vary significantly. So it's important to convert I to I' when comparing the relative SW of different frames. An example of this would be a comparison of the Technifibre Tfight 325 and the Wilson Tour 90. The Tfight 325 has a published SW of 335 while the Tour 90 has a SW spec of 324. But if you convert I to I', you find that the Tour 90 actually has a higher I', so that it swings heavier than the Tfight 325, even though the published SW is 11 kg-cm^2 lower. This means that the Tfight has weight concentrated near the butt, while the Tour 90 has more weight in the top of the handle.

Thanx for your reply...awaiting the new, SW formula....

 

[travlerajm]

So you mean.

Combo 1= 5grams at 3, 5grams at 9.

Combo 2= 4g at 3 and 4g at 9 + 6g in the buttcap.

Sorry im just confused today but thanks so much.!!

Yes. That's what I mean.

 

[Jonnyf]

Yes. That's what I mean.

Ahhh, Thank you soo much. I'll get that set up ASAP. and ill post my results.

THANKS

Yours Sincerely
Jonathan W. Forrest
(see ya even got me using my name)

 

[Jonnyf]

OMG, im so sorry to keep annoying you, im so slow tonight but do you mean 5g at one side of 3 o'clock so 10g in total at 3 or just 5 between both sides of the racquet ( i hope you know what i mean)

 

[travlerajm]

One caveat about this setup. I served a lot with it for the third day in a row. The first day was excellent, the second day, I still served well, but the swingweight felt higher to me, so that I had to labor a little. And the third day, my serve disintegrated because my shoulder was too tired. My serve improved when I removed a gram.

The take-home lesson was my shoulder is not conditioned well enough to handle an I' of 450 for several days in row. Most pros actually use effective swingweights higher than that, but they are hitting serves every day, so their shoulders can handle it. I'm going to build my shoulder strength gradually by serving every other day, like a relief pitcher. Once you're able to handle a high swingweight like this, it pays dividends in your game, but you might need to build up to it.

 

[Woodstock_Tennis]

Sounds like all you're suggesting to do is add 10g at 3 and 9? What I liked about your other post was I thought you found the mom of inertia as a constant, and used the center of percussion as a point to which you add the lead tape.

You give up on this, and just started to add tape at 3 and 9, instead of also adding it on the handle?

 

[travlerajm]

Sounds like all you're suggesting to do is add 10g at 3 and 9? What I liked about your other post was I thought you found the mom of inertia as a constant, and used the center of percussion as a point to which you add the lead tape.

You give up on this, and just started to add tape at 3 and 9, instead of also adding it on the handle?

Actually, the depolarization method works really well on some stock racquets, especially ones have flexes below 60. I think the depolarization method is best for someone who wants to dictate with flat groundies like Agassi or Blake. My favorite precision groundstroke setups with the NXG were found using the depolarization method.

But this new method allows me to have more weight at 3 and 9 for a given swingweight, which gives me the best result on volleys. The other drawback to more depolarized method was that it tends to be better for someone that likes to serve with a flatter trajectory. The weight in the top of the handle really flattens out the serve. For some people (like Roddick or Sampras) this is not a drawback on the serve, because it allows them to maximize power for a given swingweight. But since I don't have as much time as A-Rod or Pete to practice my serve, I find that I do better with more arc (margin for error) on my spin serve.

 

[Punisha]

Hey,
Travlerajm the two posts you have put up about racquet modification are great. I understand all the physics etc but cant do the math . Is it possible for you to work out how to de-polarise my RDX500 mid? I want to be able to play more like Blake (big flat groundstokes) but still be able to put away volleys when i attack the net. Also i wish for a total weight of about 350-360 grams. Any way here the stats

90 sq in head
11.8 strungweight
8 pts headlight
swingweight 318
stiffness 60

I understand if you cant do it but could you please just give me some guidelines as to how much lead tape and where to de polarise this racquet

Thanks in advance

 

[louis netman]

I don’t usually share reviews of my racquet setups. Most of my customized setups are very good racquets with minor shortcomings, but this setup is worth sharing since it’s the first one I’ve found with no apparent weaknesses! It’s not only an ideal serve-and-volley setup, but it seems to be a superb groundstroke setup as well.

After spending nearly the past year experimenting with racquet setups, I’ve finally found my perfect racquet.

The answer to my quest for my Holy Grail was found by adhering to some simple racquet selection fundamentals. The solution was so simple, but the results were like magic!

Rule #1: Determine your ideal swingweight. After lots and lots of testing with lead tape, I’ve learned that my optimum swingweight is determined by my serve. My previous favorite serving stock racquet was my trusty Prostaff 4.7 EB Stretch 115”. It was only 10.5 oz. strung, but it had a SW of 346! I could really hammer down kick serves Roddick-style at a 5.5-6.0 level with that frame. With some of my 13+oz. customizations, I was able to serve as hard or harder, but never with as much command.
My Holy Grail setup was found by returning to the SW of my favorite serve racquet of the past.

Rule #2: Maximize twistweight. From my experiments with lead customization, I have found that high twistweight (the moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis) is by far the most important spec for a good volley racquet. Translation – the more weight you put at 3 and 9, the better your racquet for volleys. Twistweight is more important than static weight or balance. So if you want to be a serve-and-volleyer, 3 and 9 is the most efficient location to add weight.

Rule #3: Use a pro-style balance. My statistical analysis of pro racquet specs found that with very few exceptions, there is no such thing as a top-100 pro with a balance point near that of stock racquets. ATP pros plays with a balance that obeys this equation: R = 44.57/sqrt(M), where R is the balance point in inches and M is the static weight in ounces. Roughly 80% of all top-100 pros have balance points within +/-2 pts of this curve, which is about 4 pts more HH than most stock racquets. The equation is a regression line with constant MR^2.

Rule #4: Start with a flexible frame as a customization platform. My experiments taught me long ago that very stiff frames have some nice advantages (especially for volleys), but if you want to uncap the ceiling on your game, you need a flexible frame to unlock your inner spin potential.

Using these 4 rules allowed me arrive at my Holy Grail.

So now for my setup: Prince NXG OS, with 10g of lead total at 3-and-9. 16g Kevlar hybrid (Ashaway Crossfire) at 67 lbs. Static weight 12.25 oz. SW = 346 kg-cm^2. Effective SW (at 4cm axis) = 450 kg-cm^2.

Yes this setup is simple, but it satisfies the 4 critical rules listed above. Here’s my Review:

Serve. This is the best all-around serve setup I have ever used. Velocity was excellent. Spin on kick serves was ample. My kick serves down the middle were nice and heavy, hitting the back fence about 5 feet high, even though I wasn’t swinging my hardest. My 5.0 opponent who has an excellent return game was having a tough time getting my heavy kick serves back in play. The best part was that I had incredible command. I could hit the spots I aimed for, and the spin was enough to pull it down reliably at the right depth. It was a joy to feel like my serve was once again a reliable weapon.
Grade: A+

Volleys: This was a pleasant surprise. My volleys felt just as stable as my 13+ oz setups, but the lower swingweight made it more maneuverable. I volleyed today with more touch and control than ever before. It’s the first time I felt like I could aim my volley 6 inches from the sideline and feel confident that I would hit my target. My touch was incredible. Every point, I found myself wanting to get to the net so I could show off my newly discovered McEnroe hands. Low volleys, high volleys, touch volleys, stab volleys – all excellent. Using an OS stock frame helped give the customized racquet a hefty twistweight, further improving stability and control.
Grade: A+

Forehand: I found my groundstrokes felt good at first, but not great. The balance was more head heavy than I was used to. But after a half-hour adjustment period, everything started to feel natural. My pace and spin was very good, and control was very nice too. The swingweight was probably a little lower than my optimum for my eastern forehand, which I like to hit with moderate spin. The really nice thing about this setup was it’s versatility. I could hit it flat with good precision, and I could also rip a heavy deep moonball. After the initial adjustment period, I had a lot of confidence, and I was pleasantly surprised that I could hit my forehand so well with this setup.
Grade: A

Backhand: Just like the forehand, my 2hb (which is much better than my forehand) took an adjustment period to get used to the longer balance point. But once I made the adjustment – WOW. My measuring stick is the down-the-line backhand, and I know a racquet is nicely balanced for my backhand when I can rip my DTL backhand without missing. And with this setup, I didn’t miss. My backhand seemed to have the perfect combination of penetration and spin. I found myself going for the DTL shot at almost every opportunity to take control of points, and my crosscourt shot felt better than ever too. I had that feeling that I could use my backhand to dictate Agassi-style. My 1hb slices, just like my volleys, had amazing touch and control.
Grade: A+


If you want to try modifying your racquet to play similarly to mine, here’s a quick step-by-step procedure.

Step 1. Start with a flexible stock frame (stiffness low 60s or less) that weighs roughly 12 oz.

Step 2. Use the following equation to find your effective SW about the 4cm axis (parallel axis theorem):

I’ = I + M*(12*R – 84)
I’ = effective SW (about 4cm axis) in kg-cm^2
I = specified stock SW in kg-cm^2
M = mass in kg
R = balance point in cm

Step 3. Measure the distance r’ from the butt end to the center of mass of the weight to be added at 3 and 9. Use a ruler to find the imaginary line that goes between 3 and 9 o’clock, and measure to the point on the ruler in the center of the stringbed. It’s important be precise about this measurement.

Step 4. Calculate the total mass m’ to be added at location r’ (at 3 and 9) using the following equation:

m’ = (450 – I’)/[(r’ - 4)^2]
m’ = mass of weight to be added in kg
I’ = effective SW about 4 cm axis (in kg-cm^2) calculated in Step 2.
r’ = distance (in cm) to location at 3 and 9 as measured in Step 3.

Step 5. Add the weight m’ at 3 and 9 in lead strips approximately 4 inches in length. Don’t use longer than this or else your SW will increase too much. For better results, place the lead on the outside of the frame rather than the inside, since the increase in twistweight is proportional to the square of the distance from the centerline to the added weight.

Step 6. Make sure that your tension is roughly at the high limit of the recommended tension. Adding this amount of weight to the head of your racquet will likely increase power level substantially, and you’ll want to adjust your tension accordingly.

Step 7. Time for a playtest. Use the serve as your guide to know if the swingweight is right. A good idea is to remove a gram and see how it responds. And then add a gram and see how it responds. I like to use how high on the fence the ball hits to gauge the effectiveness of my spin serve. The amount of lead that allows your spin serve to hit highest on the fence will tell you your optimum SW. Give yourself a full session of hitting to adjust your groundstrokes to the higher swingweight and longer balance point.

Sounds like all you're suggesting to do is add 10g at 3 and 9? What I liked about your other post was I thought you found the mom of inertia as a constant, and used the center of percussion as a point to which you add the lead tape.

You give up on this, and just started to add tape at 3 and 9, instead of also adding it on the handle?

".....abba dabba dabba....Play with the frame that allows you to swing your swing for as long as your sessions last while playing someone as good or better than you..."

Just had to do that one for nbmj...;-)

 

[travlerajm]

Hey,
Travlerajm the two posts you have put up about racquet modification are great. I understand all the physics etc but cant do the math . Is it possible for you to work out how to de-polarise my RDX500 mid? I want to be able to play more like Blake (big flat groundstokes) but still be able to put away volleys when i attack the net. Also i wish for a total weight of about 350-360 grams. Any way here the stats

90 sq in head
11.8 strungweight
8 pts headlight
swingweight 318
stiffness 60

I understand if you cant do it but could you please just give me some guidelines as to how much lead tape and where to de polarise this racquet

Thanks in advance

For a nice depolarized setup on the RDX500 Mid, try 7g at 3 and 9, plus 21g centered at 6.8" from the butt end. If it's too powerful you may need to increase your tension into the 60s.

 

[Punisha]

For a nice depolarized setup on the RDX500 Mid, try 7g at 3 and 9, plus 21g centered at 6.8" from the butt end. If it's too powerful you may need to increase your tension into the 60s.

Thanks for the answer. Do u mean 7g total or 14g total? And using the smaller sized lead tape what lengths do u recomend?

 

[wilsonfaithful]

where on gods green earth do you find the time to figure this stuff out honestly and who are you that you can figure all of this out are you a rocket scientist or what

 

[jace112]

I'll try to play around with lead with my new Völkl DNX 10 light version, which should be a perfect basis

 

[louis netman]

I'll try to play around with lead with my new Völkl DNX 10 light version, which should be a perfect basis

That should be perfect as I successfully did the mod on a Volkl C8... I had
not-so-fruitful attempts on heavier frames...IMO, the manufacture of a DNX 10 type frame at 295g has got to be for reasons of modding and nothing else. I don't see how that frame can be played in stock form...

 

[tonyjh63]

Ok Travelerajm, how would you suggest someone set up a stock PS 85?

 

[Greg Raven]

FWIW, I disagree with the blanket statement about maximizing twistweight. While it can be helpful in increasing stability, it also makes the racquet less maneuverable. This really shows up for me on my first serve, when I pronate fully before impact. The higher the twistweight, the more I have to force the racquet around. If I then switch to a racquet with a lower twistweight, my serves go way wide to the right (I'm right handed) because the racquet comes around so much more easily.

 

[travlerajm]

FWIW, I disagree with the blanket statement about maximizing twistweight. While it can be helpful in increasing stability, it also makes the racquet less maneuverable. This really shows up for me on my first serve, when I pronate fully before impact. The higher the twistweight, the more I have to force the racquet around. If I then switch to a racquet with a lower twistweight, my serves go way wide to the right (I'm right handed) because the racquet comes around so much more easily.

That's an interesting take on twistweight. You may be right. But truth be told, I have a hard time distinguishing between the contributions to volley stability of twistweight, swingweight, and recoil weight. It may be that my racquet feels very stable because the weight at 3 and 9 increased all 3 of these, and all three factor significantly into volley stability.

I think that twistweight is less a factor on maneuverability than SW is. My formula takes my maximum swingweight into account.

But I guess we can't forget that Sampras had an extremely high twistweight, and it didn't seem to hurt his serve too much.

 

[brian.sat]

I like this topic.

 

[TennisProPaul]

travlerajm where can i buy a good scale to weight my frames, or anyone?

thanks

 

[N-serve]

travlerajm
This is interesting and also goes along with your balance/swingweight theory.
Boris Beckers specs
Head Size:
92 sq. in. / 593 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 12.6oz / 357g
Balance: 3pts Head Light
Swingweight: 366
Stiffness: 61