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

[joe sch]

Heavy rackets are great except for returning serve, which is unfortunately 1/2 the game. I also use one since Im not a basher and go for winners asap. I really believe it maybe advantageous to have a returning racket and a serving racket. Nice post, maybe I will add another oz or so to get to your setup Also, the smaller head old school rackets with more solid beams were exceptionally better at volleying because of the factors discussed in this thread. Maybe this is another reason for extinction of the SV game ?

 

[katastrof]

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

thanks

Do a search for "Escali" online, or evilbay. They make those little kitchen scales that come in a million different colours... works for me.

 

[TennisProPaul]

Do a search for "Escali" online, or evilbay. They make those little kitchen scales that come in a million different colours... works for me.

thanks an ounce or gram

 

[travlerajm]

Just wanted to give an update:

I've been using the setup described in the OP for over 3 weeks now as my regular racquet. The first few days, as I noted, I had issues with the swingweight being too close to my threshold. But since then, the racquet has felt lighter and lighter every day. My arm seems to have made the adjustment, and I haven't looked back (with the exception that I flirted with a 16.3-oz setup too, but decided to put that aside until after the summer tournament season due to the high swingweight).

Now that my arm is accustomed to the swingweight, I have a lot of versatility on my serve again. Not only can I use my heavy hard kicker (my bread and butter serve) but my twistserve seems to get more effective with this setup each day, as it seems like my racquet head speed is increasing steadily.

The same thing is happening on my groundstrokes as what I described on the serve. As my racquet head speed increases, the setup seems to become better for hitting spinny Federer-like precise dippers. But I can still unload on a flat ball fairly well (but not as well as my 16-oz setup).

My defensive ground game is very strong due to the spinniness. And having the added weight in the hoop makes it a solid and stable return racquet. My ability to change direction on the return by, for example, hitting a topspin 2hb lob return off a 2nd serve, is much improved by having so much weight in the hoop.

The best part of this setup is still the fact that my confidence in my serve-and-volley game is as high as ever. The recoil weight of 177+ makes the volleys incredibly stable, making those all-important precision knee-high first volleys routine. In singles, my favorite strategy is to serve and volley behind Rafter/Edberg type heavy serves that give me time to always take the first volley in the air. If I can hit the first volley before it bounces, I can always seems to direct the ball accurately to the right spot, something that I struggle with when I use any normal stock racquet.

I'm still sticking with the 67-lbs Kevlar hybrid stringing setup, but I may experiment with dropping the tension down a pound or two to see if I can add a little extra pop on the serve without sacrificing too much depth control on groundies.

 

[ravemaster806]

hey n-serve, can u tell me how much lead tape and where did u add to the tfight 325, did u also add same amount of lead under the grip so the balance wont change, let me know asap, thanks

 

[N-serve]

I put 8 grams at 3 and 9 and nothing under the handle.

 

[ravemaster806]

hey travlerajm, will it be better to add lead under the grip too, let me know, thanks

 

[Deleted member 6835]

travlerajm:

i just wanted to say thanks, i tried your idea for a setup. read my sig for what i added and where on my rds 001 MP. i tried it today and i loved it in all areas. groundies, volleys, and best of all, serves. originally i had tried more lead in the hoop with only a tiny bit on the handle but it was way too powerful. then i tired your method with counterbalancing and how its stable but still low powered.

thanks a lot!

 

[Fist]

What is *???

Hi, I posted a reply on your first post concerning depolarization as I am getting a negative number. With these formulae, I am having difficulty because I am unsure what you mean by *. I looked at the problem that was worked out in the posts but was unable to determine what * meant just from the numbers. Any help would be much appreciated. thanks and take care.

 

[Fist]

anyone, please?

Anyone know what the * in the formula in the OP means? thanks in advance.

 

[acetennisman]

the hardest part about racquet customization for me is not find out how much lead tape, but rather how to keep the damn lead tape on(i dont have super glue which means i have to wait to customize).

 

[acetennisman]

the asterisks in the equation serve the purpose of seperating the numerical values better: which in turn make a more professional appearance. Which in turn serves to make the equation look simple, complex, as well as "smart". But these equations are quite simple, and could be figured out easily with just a little thought.

 

[Fist]

thankyou Ace, Ive figured it out now. this one says a stock LM radical needs 10 g total at 3 and 9. However, the other formula this guy posted shows a negative number (nowhere on the handle to place the "counterweight"). Not sure how reliable all this is. I basically want my racket a bit heavier, so I weighed it with headtape, vibe dampener, and overgrip (332.5 g). Then got the new balance point (2 pts headlight). Then put 6 g total at 2 and 10. Recalculated the balance point (almost exactly neutral). Then put weight on the buttcap until the racket balanced at 4 pts headlight (which is back to stock balance). About 11 g in the handle. So, with the tape, etc., along with the lead tape, the racket is weighing in at 12.33 oz. Not too bad, will have to see how it plays.

 

[tenis]

travlerajm,
I spend all Saturday experimenting with my racquet, I think I need your help.
I have Fisher M-speed 98; 4 5/8 grip; Main-gut, Cross-
lux.BB; I have leather grip w. Yonex overgrip.
The racquet weight = 12.5 Oz (353 g), ballance 9 pts HL.
So I added : 7 grams to 3+9 (total)
7 grams on butt,
now, weight is 12.9 OZ, but balance is 10 HL.
What is wrong? Please, help! My math is bad.
e-mail:jarosbik@sbcglobal.net

 

[Down the line]

Travlerajm,

I play much serve and volley and wand to try our set up on an American,White butt cap,16 times 18 stings Wilson prostaff classic 6.1.

a) Would this be suitable?
b) Do you happen to know where I could find the stock swing weight, and other specs, of this frame? I am not sure it is the one being sold here on TW.
c) If you have time can you do the calc for me? Otherwise I try myself.
d) I have changed the grip, etc, on this frame - how much does that effect the results? To be included in the calc, or to be adjusted for when play testing?
e) Any comments on your set up versus arm pain / injury?

/Thanks in advance

 

[tennisguy11]

travlerajm

would you consider the 65 stiffness of the rds 001 mid plus too high?

 

[tennisguy11]

Also

I am going to follow your setup and add 10 grams at 3 and 9 and 3 grams under the handle(with an overgrip). Currently I used lux ALU Power Rough in the mains at 60 and a cheap synthetic gut in the crosses at 58. What string and tension would you reccomend to keep the power in check after adding the lead?

 

[tennisguy11]

and should I restring right away to a diff string and tension if the power level is too high for me due to the increased weight in the head? Thanks so much for all your help

 

[travlerajm]

I am going to follow your setup and add 10 grams at 3 and 9 and 3 grams under the handle(with an overgrip). Currently I used lux ALU Power Rough in the mains at 60 and a cheap synthetic gut in the crosses at 58. What string and tension would you reccomend to keep the power in check after adding the lead?

I would add the lead first and test the power level - then adjust the the tension accordingly (it's easier to adjust the lead than it is the restring).

I'm not a big fan of Lux unless you have a setup that works in the low 50s, because the Lux responds with different spin amounts depending on where on the stringbed you hit. My favorite is 16g Kevlar hybrid, which give a very reliable ball response throughout the stringbed. I would guess somewhere in the low 60s will feel best. With synthetic gut you might need 65 or so.

 

[LordRaceR]

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

I use my Tour90's with removed leather grip and two overgrips, and 10grams of lead in 3&9 positions

 

[stules]

Travlerjm, domo arigato gozaimasu
I have been experimenting with your numbers and theories. On an experiential level I am a convert.
My normal stick is a Wilson N6.1.95 indiscriminately weighted up with lead.
I used your base figure of swing weight of 346 as a starting point and then balanced accordingly. It is a little surprising how being careful and accurate with the maths and makes such a noticable differance.
An impressive a tranformation as it was, time waits for no man......
So I wanted to test another theory of yours about 'flexible racquets unlocking your ceiling'. What better place to start then the big sports department store locally.
Armed with an array of likely candidate demos and lead tape it was back to the calculator. I had to use TW's base numbers for swing wieght etc, so its not perfect. Bringing them all to 346 swing index gave me a better comparison of the 'character' of each racquet when I tested each.
What I liked most was the ...................drumroll.........
NXT OS setup as per your preference. Damn, now I have to buy new sticks.
THe only one I really wanted to try was the PK Redondo 98. THe specs are perfect as a base to setup as per your ideas, and its also more flexible, which I am coming to believe is good thing.
Impatience got the better of me, and I bought one off TW yesterday. I am now unsure whether to 'mod' it and try it, or play it standard first. Also unsure if the TW specs correct enough to base other calculations upon.
Do you have any experiance with the Redondo?
THanks again.
Regards
Stuart

 

[travlerajm]

Travlerjm, domo arigato gozaimasu
I have been experimenting with your numbers and theories. On an experiential level I am a convert.
My normal stick is a Wilson N6.1.95 indiscriminately weighted up with lead.
I used your base figure of swing weight of 346 as a starting point and then balanced accordingly. It is a little surprising how being careful and accurate with the maths and makes such a noticable differance.
An impressive a tranformation as it was, time waits for no man......
So I wanted to test another theory of yours about 'flexible racquets unlocking your ceiling'. What better place to start then the big sports department store locally.
Armed with an array of likely candidate demos and lead tape it was back to the calculator. I had to use TW's base numbers for swing wieght etc, so its not perfect. Bringing them all to 346 swing index gave me a better comparison of the 'character' of each racquet when I tested each.
What I liked most was the ...................drumroll.........
NXT OS setup as per your preference. Damn, now I have to buy new sticks.
THe only one I really wanted to try was the PK Redondo 98. THe specs are perfect as a base to setup as per your ideas, and its also more flexible, which I am coming to believe is good thing.
Impatience got the better of me, and I bought one off TW yesterday. I am now unsure whether to 'mod' it and try it, or play it standard first. Also unsure if the TW specs correct enough to base other calculations upon.
Do you have any experiance with the Redondo?
THanks again.
Regards
Stuart

I'm happy to hear that you are enjoying your customized racquets.

Sorry, I haven't tried the Redondo. In general, more flex will benefit your baseline game by giving you more spin (and more margin for error). But a stiffer frame will give you more directional accuracy on volleys, so you need to find a compromise that best suits your style. One unique feature that I like about the NXG is that its grommetless design makes it more spin-friendly than you would normally expect for a racquet with 63 stiffness.

Also, it's important to be aware of the power level you need for optimum performance - the more lead you use, and the stiffer your frame, the tighter you will need to string in order to maintain the right power level for optimum depth control.

 

[FD3S]

Any reccomendations for an O3 Tour MP? I've already got 4 inches of 1/4 lead tape at 3/9, but I know that's definitely not enough. The O3 seems to be a different beast among racquets due to the O-Ports, so I'm curious what an ideal setup would be. (It's also missing the bumperguard, meaning that the stock balance might be affected.)

 

[travlerajm]

Any reccomendations for an O3 Tour MP? I've already got 4 inches of 1/4 lead tape at 3/9, but I know that's definitely not enough. The O3 seems to be a different beast among racquets due to the O-Ports, so I'm curious what an ideal setup would be. (It's also missing the bumperguard, meaning that the stock balance might be affected.)

The O3 Tour mp is very light in the handle compared to most player's racquets. A half ounce to an ounce distributed along the length of the handle will help it feel more solid without changing it's playing characteristics drastically. If it's missing a bumper guard, it's definitely worth trying to replace that mass deficit with some lead. It's hard to say what an ideal setup would be for you without knowing exactly what you are looking for.

The O-ports don't really do too much. Rather, It's the lack of grommets along with the flexy throat that give it a more spin-friendly response.

 

[wally]

Travlerajm,

According to what I'm reading the Head FXP Rad Tour would an ideal customization platform. I love the racquet could use a bit more pop/stability.

Weight 11.5 oz (12 oz strung)
Balance 8pts head light (315 mm)
Flex 58

I'd appreciate your thoughts suggestions

 

[FD3S]

Thanks for the recommendations. Truth be told, I'm looking for more pop; I can deal with the lack of solidity (for now), but the lack of power is bugging me a little. Really, I just want to get my racquet into your recommended range (I believe you described this zone of weight as being able to generate a heavy ball, as opposed to light weights which allowed for a faster swing at the cost of spin.)

 

[Steve H.]

This thread is inspiring -- I made up a little spreadsheet to calculate the effects of adding lead as travlerajm is suggesting -- it's now on the Web, and can be found at

http://www.hoboy.net/Hoboy/formulas.xls

just change the numbers in the top area to the mods you want to try.

 

[N-serve]

travlerajm and Steve H.,

Using you calculations travlerajm and Steve's spreadsheet I find my New swingweight (4cm) after added weight. To get to I (swingweight @ 10cm) or TW's posted swingweight I always come up with a negative number. However the number sounds right.

ie. Tecnifiber TFight 325 with 8oz added
M (Mass of racquet, grams) 346
I (swingweight @ 10cm) 335
R (orig balance, inches) 11.75

Adding weight: I
m (mass to be added, grams) 8
r' (butt to added wt, cm ) 55

I' (swingweight @ 4cm) 429.85244
New swingweight (4cm) 450.66044
New balance (inches) 11.97380889
New mass 354


I’ = I + M*(12*R – 84)
"I" with weight added= -353.8611484

Is my math correct?

 

[zeneil]

how do i check for swingweight?? So I will add lead tapes at the 3 and 9 oclock up tp 345+ SW to add more spin to my shots??

 

[travlerajm]

travlerajm and Steve H.,

Using you calculations travlerajm and Steve's spreadsheet I find my New swingweight (4cm) after added weight. To get to I (swingweight @ 10cm) or TW's posted swingweight I always come up with a negative number. However the number sounds right.

ie. Tecnifiber TFight 325 with 8oz added
M (Mass of racquet, grams) 346
I (swingweight @ 10cm) 335
R (orig balance, inches) 11.75

Adding weight: I
m (mass to be added, grams) 8
r' (butt to added wt, cm ) 55

I' (swingweight @ 4cm) 429.85244
New swingweight (4cm) 450.66044
New balance (inches) 11.97380889
New mass 354


I’ = I + M*(12*R – 84)
"I" with weight added= -353.8611484

Is my math correct?

Why is your original balance so low? To calculate the new swingweight, we would need to know the details of the first mod you made (I assume you must have added weight to the butt?). However, if that is in fact the original balance at 11.75cm and you hadn't increased the SW from the original 335 spec, then the new swingweight would be 335 + 0.008*(55 - 10)^2 = 351.

 

[Steve H.]

N-serve, there is a new version of formulas.xls that calculates the new swingweight at 10cm without going back and forth using the parallel axis theorem, and so should be more accurate. Download at the same place, http://hoboy.net/Hoboy/formulas.xls

For your new swingweight I get about 351

 

[zeneil]

what does SW @ 10cm mean?? and what is balance in inches, the length of the racket??

 

[Steve H.]

what does SW @ 10cm mean?? and what is balance in inches, the length of the racket??

SW @ 10cm means the swingweight (rotational inertia) of the racquet around a point 10cm from the butt. When you see swingweight listed on a TW specs page, that's what it refers to. If you took calculus you may remember the concept of an integral, or integrated sum; in this case you are adding up all the mass in the racquet times the square of its distance from the axis of rotation, the normal unit of measurement is grams * cm squared.

Balance in inches means the distance (in inches) from the butt to the balance point.

 

[zeneil]

Thanks Steve H. Now I get it.. But what does r' (butt to added wt, cm) mean? That I do not get.. Is that the amt. of weight I'm suppose to add in the butt cap?

 

[zeneil]

uhmm.. what part of the racket is the balance point?

 

[Steve H.]

no, r' is the distance from the butt end of the racquet to the spot where you are adding the weight. If you are adding lead at 3 and 9 on the hoop, that would be about 55cm.

and the balance point is the spot on the throat where you can balance the racquet horizontally on a dowel, chair back, or other rounded object and it won't fall one way or the other.

versteh' ?

 

[zeneil]

oh I get it.. so the no r is given.. I just have to measure from the butt cup up to the part where I put wt.. thanks! o btw how do I check for balance? I measure the entire racket??

 

[Lsmkenpo]

I understand the concept of dwell time on the strings increasing spin and heaviness, but is this a result of being hh balance and high swingweight, or could even balance and high swingweight create the same results, what has more effect on spin, hh balance or swing weight above 350gms?

 

[travlerajm]

I understand the concept of dwell time on the strings increasing spin and heaviness, but is this a result of being hh balance and high swingweight, or could even balance and high swingweight create the same results, what has more effect on spin, hh balance or swing weight above 350gms?

The effect of weight distribution on spin is complex. In general, the highest spin/power ratio will be achieved with very low swingweight, because the dwell time will be higher and racquet head speed is higher. For example, Federer generates his sharply angled shots using a low swingweight setup with long dwell time.

But the "heavy ball" hit by players like Nadal and Roddick is generated by using a racquet with very high swingeight. With high swingweight, ball flattening factors more significantly into spin generation, while frame deflection is a smaller factor. As long as you are strong enough to generate lots of racquet head speed, the heavy topspin generated from a high swigweight racquet will be harder to return, because it will have both pace and high rpm.

Adding a small amount of lead to the head of the racquet will usually flatten out your shots and add power, but if you continue to add lead, eventually, you get a max-power point, where adding more lead beyond this point increases spin and decreases power.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

The effect of weight distribution on spin is complex. In general, the highest spin/power ratio will be achieved with very low swingweight, because the dwell time will be higher and racquet head speed is higher. For example, Federer generates his sharply angled shots using a low swingweight setup with long dwell time.

But the "heavy ball" hit by players like Nadal and Roddick is generated by using a racquet with very high swingeight. With high swingweight, ball flattening factors more significantly into spin generation, while frame deflection is a smaller factor. As long as you are strong enough to generate lots of racquet head speed, the heavy topspin generated from a high swigweight racquet will be harder to return, because it will have both pace and high rpm.

Adding a small amount of lead to the head of the racquet will usually flatten out your shots and add power, but if you continue to add lead, eventually, you get a max-power point, where adding more lead beyond this point increases spin and decreases power.

I have tried this setup with my c10 pro adding 14.5 gm total at 3 and 9, my kick serves are really heavy with this setup, i was just wondering if i would get the same effect if i added less at 3 and 9 and put some in the butt or is it necessary to be hh balance to maintain a heavy ball. Would i have the same results if i maintained a swingweight around 350 with a more even balance?

 

[travlerajm]

I have tried this setup with my c10 pro adding 14.5 gm total at 3 and 9, my kick serves are really heavy with this setup, i was just wondering if i would get the same effect if i added less at 3 and 9 and put some in the butt or is it necessary to be hh balance to maintain a heavy ball. Would i have the same results if i maintained a swingweight around 350 with a more even balance?

The heaviness of your serve is mainly due to the added weight at 3 and 9. If you used less weight at 3 and 9, and more weight in the butt, you might be able to get more spin, but your serve would also probably have less "weight" of shot. In other words, your spin would likely increase at the expense of power. By heaviness I am referring to a combination of both spin and pace.

One reason the pros prefer more hh balances is that added weight in the handle (especially the butt) is inefficient for adding power on the serve. But to add spin and margin for error, a compromise is usually required, dictating the location of counterweight in the handle. Pros who hit flatter balls (Sampras, Blake, Agassi, Baghdatis, etc.) counterweight their racquets in the upper handle, while pros who rely more on spin (Nadal, Davydenko, etc. ) generally use some counterweight in the butt for increased spin.

The common ground among all these pros is plenty of added mass in the hoop. (Fed is an exception).

 

[davedave121]

how do i know where r' is located in a 3-9 clock position in a pure drive standard?

 

[PurePrestige]

Quick question. Don't know if it was brought up before.
But if there is no such thing as a pro with a balance near stock balance point.
And if Federer truly uses a racquet that matches up so close to a stock 6.1 90.
Is a racquet like the n6.1 90 already at the ideal balance line in its stock form? If so, does this hold true for most players racquets which are similar??

 

[jackson vile]

Quick question. Don't know if it was brought up before.
But if there is no such thing as a pro with a balance near stock balance point.
And if Federer truly uses a racquet that matches up so close to a stock 6.1 90.
Is a racquet like the n6.1 90 already at the ideal balance line in its stock form? If so, does this hold true for most players racquets which are similar??

Depends on the player, the majority of 1hbh will have a more HL ~8 racket while the 2hbh ~6.

As for the post above R is blance, and this is an old post there is a part III, and the SGRP thread, and then the SW2 thead.

So yeas it could be at ideal balance already, but the rest mostlikely wont' be optimal

But dont' think for a second that there aren't good stock frames for lower level players, IMO this is all advanced play, unless of course you can keep the static weight way down ie around 11oz then a lower level player could play with that fine like a hammer but with much great stability ala John's idea.

Wonder what the next thread will be 3rd weight?

 

[WhiteSox05CA]

What would be the best stock racquet to get in order to achieve this setup? I was liking the Wilson n6.1 95, Fischer M Speed Pro No. 1 98, Aeropro Drive, Pure Drive Roddick, or the ProKennex Redondo 98?
________
SweetAngie cam

 

[jackson vile]

What would be the best stock racquet to get in order to achieve this setup? I was liking the Wilson n6.1 95, Fischer M Speed Pro No. 1 98, Aeropro Drive, Pure Drive Roddick, or the ProKennex Redondo 98?

Do you hit a 1hbh or a 2, I would start with the lowest weight around 11oz and then add weight, you want to keep the racket light, especially denpending on your level.

IMO a really good racket is the m-speed so perhaps use the light version

 

[WhiteSox05CA]

I use a two-handed backhand. I was going lookin` toward the heavier, 12 oz. version of the Fischer M Speed, and then I would lead that in the hoop.

I just wanted to know which one would be best, or have the greatest potential and playability at this sort of setup.
________
WEB SHOWS