I totally get that and it's a bummer for me not to get one. But I also know it doesn't make sense to spend the time developing the Android version unless you have the customer base to support it.I don't have any current plans to develop an Android app, but if demand justifies it, I will. I did verify that Android supplies a precise timestamp with the gyroscope data, so there's a chance that it will work as well as the iPhone app. Unfortunately, it's not a simple matter of recompiling.
And like that there's only 1.I just finished up four of them. They're available now.
cool - exciting. good to know you can turn around rather quickly.I just finished up four of them. They're available now.
If the frame curvature is different towards 12 than towards 6, everything will be balanced on the frame you are adjusting, but do you think you might have to trial and error a bit to match another frame? That radius squared could throw things off a little or am I being stupid? Didn’t sleep well last night… edit, it probably won’t make much difference, even if a frame has a slightly different mass distribution in the head. Yeah, i was being stupid, lolI just had 2 Dunlop 200g racket to re-string for a client. The last time he asked me to to put lead at 3&9 on Racket #2. Here are the measurements today:
Racket #1 SW 326.36, TW 12.67, Wt 345.72, COM 32.1
Racket #2 SW 332.77, TW 13.24, Wt 352.51, COM 32.0
The TW difference is (13.24-12.67) 0.57. The radius at 3&9 is 12.2 cm. I=mr^2 or m = I/r^2 but this is kgcm^2 instead of gcm^2 so I’d have to multiply by 1000. 1 g of my lead is 11 cm long and 4 strips at 3&9 will be needed. Sot calculation for lead strips to match the TW for both rackets is:
(((13.24-12.67)/(12.2*12.2))*11)*250 = 10.53144 or 4 10.5 cm of lead on both sides of racket #1 to match TW.
EDIT: Putting all this in an Excel worksheet if you’re going to start matching.
You’re not being stupid but talk about frame curvature does not make sense to me. Radius squared could throw things off? I don’t think you understand. The radius of a racket is half the diameter at 3&9 where you get the most TW increase per gram. TW increase is I=mr^2 you must square the radius.If the frame curvature is different towards 12 than towards 6, everything will be balanced on the frame you are adjusting, but do you think you might have to trial and error a bit to match another frame? That radius squared could throw things off a little or am I being stupid? Didn’t sleep well last night… edit, it probably won’t make much difference, even if a frame has a slightly different mass distribution in the head. Yeah, i was being stupid, lol
No , i understand the formula. I’m just thinking the center point may not be the center point of the added mass impact on TW due to the frame curvature( it’s not always symmetric). Doesn’t matter….the more i thought about it i realized its stupid to worry about. Lol. Maybe the COM for the TW axis rotation is really 12.1 vs. 12.2. But so what? We’ll see it in the measurements and adjust. It will matter more at 10/2 though.You’re not being stupid but talk about frame curvature does not make sense to me. Radius squared could throw things off? I don’t think you understand. The radius of a racket is half the diameter at 3&9 where you get the most TW increase per gram. TW increase is I=mr^2 you must square the radius.
if my client wanted to match TW of Racket #1 to Racket #2 (the one he added weight at 3&9) he could do it by adding 4 10.5 cm strips of lead at 3&9.
@bfroxenI just had 2 Dunlop 200g racket to re-string for a client. The last time he asked me to to put lead at 3&9 on Racket #2. Here are the measurements today:
Racket #1 SW 326.36, TW 12.67, Wt 345.72, COM 32.1
Racket #2 SW 332.77, TW 13.24, Wt 352.51, COM 32.0
The TW difference is (13.24-12.67) 0.57. The radius at 3&9 is 12.2 cm. I=mr^2 or m = I/r^2 but this is kgcm^2 instead of gcm^2 so I’d have to multiply by 1000. 1 g of my lead is 11 cm long and 4 strips at 3&9 will be needed. Sot calculation for lead strips to match the TW for both rackets is:
(((13.24-12.67)/(12.2*12.2))*11)*250 = 10.53144 or 4 10.5 cm of lead on both sides of racket #1 to match TW.
EDIT: Putting all this in an Excel worksheet if you’re going to start matching.
Ok but curvature still does matter for center balance. let’s assume the actual balance of the racket was 1 cm off. Instead of the radius being 12.2 cm it was 13.2 on 1 side and 11.2 on the other (1 cm off from center. Adding 3.83 g of lead at 3$9 would make a difference of 0.00389. Not enough to make a 0.01 kgcm^2 difference.No , i understand the formula. I’m just thinking the center point may not be the center point of the added mass impact on TW due to the frame curvature. Doesn’t matter….the more i thought about it i realized its stupid to worry about. Lol.
Easier said than done I would imagine.@bfroxen
This is another area where you could have an advantage over your competitors. With the power of the iPhone app, wouldn't it be great if you could measure the SW and TW of two (or more) racquets and have the calculations done for you with a simple output of where the put the weight to match them? Options to input weight and balance, target specs and so on.
And if that functionality already exists, you probably ought to emphasise it more!
Trying to keep up. Another printer en-route and thinking of ordering another.cool - exciting. good to know you can turn around rather quickly.
so.... any idea on how us non-US people can get our grabby hands on your SW1? thanks.![]()
Definitely thought of that. No, it doesn't exist yet.@bfroxen
This is another area where you could have an advantage over your competitors. With the power of the iPhone app, wouldn't it be great if you could measure the SW and TW of two (or more) racquets and have the calculations done for you with a simple output of where the put the weight to match them? Options to input weight and balance, target specs and so on.
And if that functionality already exists, you probably ought to emphasise it more!
Build a jig to support racket, hand a known weight on the tip and measure deflection.If he only found a way to have it also measure RA. Yes, i know i know, I'm being very greedy![]()
For ease of shipping you could provide instructions on creating a calibration rod. Then you have 1 small box and a lot of 3D printing you don’t have to do. Easier for you and a lower price for the buyer with reduced shipping.Trying to keep up. Another printer en-route and thinking of ordering another.
I definitely have some compliance work to do on the website to sell into the EU or UK. From the research I've done, the product itself doesn't seem to need anything. Also, I need to figure out how to pack it all in one box. I'm not sure how long it will take, but I won't take offense if you keep on me.![]()
Assuming you’re talking about an app that matches TW, SW, weight, and balance nothing exists now that I’m aware of.Definitely thought of that. No, it doesn't exist yet.
That may make the most sense for international shipping. The accuracy of the calibration rod is dependent on the cleanness/squareness of the cuts. I use a router and custom jig I developed. A lathe would be ideal. A saw, file, and square could work if you have the time. Then, it needs to be measured accurately. A 24"/600 mm caliper isn't accessible, but a good meter stick and some magnification can yield a good measurement.For ease of shipping you could provide instructions on creating a calibration rod. Then you have 1 small box and a lot of 3D printing you don’t have to do. Easier for you and a lower price for the buyer with reduced shipping.
The man designed and built a swingweight machine. I have faith.Easier said than done I would imagine.
I’ve never seen anywhere people talking about matching TW. But now you can easily measure TW that may start more.
For sure, I completely agree. To this point I’ve been measuring swingweight with that SwingTool app, hanging the racquet off a table, etc. That’s been helpful already to get me in the ballpark.I think it actually can help the tennis game to identity the ideal SW that you play with. It makes a big difference to be playing with something too heavy or too light. Once you figure out what the specs are on that ideal frame that works for you, it is a lot easier to make little tweaks on racquets that never totally worked for you, but you wish would.
Agreed. I believe find a right SW one can handle for the longest period is important.I think it actually can help the tennis game to identity the ideal SW that you play with. It makes a big difference to be playing with something too heavy or too light. Once you figure out what the specs are on that ideal frame that works for you, it is a lot easier to make little tweaks on racquets that never totally worked for you, but you wish would.
The turnkey solution will probably give you more sales. Such a great device and the ease of setup will enable a broad audience to use this.That may make the most sense for international shipping. The accuracy of the calibration rod is dependent on the cleanness/squareness of the cuts. I use a router and custom jig I developed. A lathe would be ideal. A saw, file, and square could work if you have the time. Then, it needs to be measured accurately. A 24"/600 mm caliper isn't accessible, but a good meter stick and some magnification can yield a good measurement.
If matching rackets is so easy here are a pair of Dunlop 200Gs I checked this morning.The man designed and built a swingweight machine. I have faith.
I'm sure you're right that the full package of every spec matching may be an ask. But as a software developer myself, anything that could be done in an Excel spreadsheet, I could create in an app - it's just a case of understanding the logic behind it. Even if the initial goal were to 'only' match on one spec, a friendly user interface and storing the readings calculated by the machine really opens up the process to those folk who are possibly less mathematically inclined. Not quite 'Racquet Matching for Dummies', but pretty close to it. The idea that I could measure the SW and a few clicks later be told 'stick 4g of lead here' is pretty awesome. Being able to harness the computational power of the iPhone is a USP for this device.
Haha, no….I think people realize it. It’s going to take some trial and error. TWU has their tool for adding weight and that is a decent start. Really what this gives us is a way to check if we are close to what we wanted. It’s going to take iteration.I have a funny feeling that people think matching TW, SW, weight and COM is going to be a no brainer. A racket is a stick on one end and a loop on the other and there is just so many places you can add weight. If a racket were rectangular and I could place mass at any point within that rectangle then matching SW, TW, weight, and balance would be a no brained.
I’m aware of that tool. Here is another example of just SW, weight and COMHaha, no….I think people realize it. It’s going to take some trial and error. TWU has their tool for adding weight and that is a decent start. Really what this gives us is a way to check if we are close to what we wanted. It’s going to take iteration.
If the present and target specs are known you should easily be able to determine if a racket can be matching to those specs and how to do it.Yeah part of this process is just letting go with some frames and realizing that they will not be exact. I am personally ok with that. But knowing my target numbers is a massive help.
and in what sense it would measure RA?Build a jig to support racket, hand a known weight on the tip and measure deflection.
there is a sticker on your rod. ha.So my SW1 came in and I was having some fun with it, but I'm trying my best to get the calibration right. I might have missed it, but is there a set SW that the rod with and without the "up" piece should be reading? I've gotten anywhere between 292 - 305 in my multiple calibration setups for the rod + up piece measuring.
My most recent calibration resulted in 301.85 / 156.23 / 303 for a Spring Constant of: 205.728 and Apparatus Mol of 6.15764
I have a few frames that were professionally measured:
- 3 Blade 98s from Roman Prokes that should be 302, reading 305 on SW1.
- 1 Blade 98 from TW (plastic still in wrapper since I haven't decided to use it yet) that should be 297. I don't have the placard or the string that holds it anymore, but it measured 297 on the SW1 (so this was an exact match, unless TW measures SW with placards and string still on it)..
Trying to figure out if this is a calibration issue, or maybe ****'s method/machine for determining SW is different, etc.
There is a label 10 cm from the end of your calibration rod. Mine says "C01-33 324.3 167.6". Not sure what the C01-33 if probably just a rod number but with the weight on the end of the rod the inertia is 324.3 kgcm^2 and the rod without the weight is 167.6 kgcm^2. Make sure you SW1 is sitting on a solid surface. I sit mine on my pool table with the 2 front feet resting on the bumpers. Then level and calibrate.So my SW1 came in and I was having some fun with it, but I'm trying my best to get the calibration right. I might have missed it, but is there a set SW that the rod with and without the "up" piece should be reading? I've gotten anywhere between 292 - 305 in my multiple calibration setups for the rod + up piece measuring.
1 Blade 98 from TW (plastic still in wrapper since I haven't decided to use it yet) that should be 297. I don't have the placard or the string that holds it anymore, but it measured 297 on the SW1 (so this was an exact match, unless TW measures SW with placards and string still on it)..
You can put the phone in the cradle on either side but I only use the right side and push the butt to the left. Using the right side will cause the SW1 to bump the stops. I never use that side because the motion is not smooth.
After calibrating the rod measure the rod the readings should be very close. Good luck.
One thing I’m very curious about— we are used to measuring the swingweights of our racquets and aren’t at all surprised when they don’t match with the average specs listed on TW. We have come to expect qc variance, even with Yonex, when it comes to swingweight. But I don’t think many of us have been measuring twistweights. I’ve always just gone by the listed specs on TWU. I am wondering what sort of qc variance we will all see with twistweights, when we start measuring the actual number.I calibrated my sw1 and it was super close to the listed numbers on the rod. All checkmarks. Good to go there.
So i measure my vcore 95. SW is 317. That was somewhat stunning, but ok. The twistweight is under 13 though which is surprising.
Same with the vcore pro 97 - 322 sw and a twistweight under 13. Now im wondering if i am doing something wrong. Lol. The vcore pro feels super stable so this is wild.
Ill keep measuring frames to see how this goes. Im going with my v7 blades next since i know they swing around 340ish
Edit- v7 blades at 334 and 335. Twistweights are still seeming a bit low at 13.88.
Wonder if i should start from scratch and recalibrate or if these are the actual specs. Lol. I feel like the SWs may be 3-4 pts off and that affects the twistweight as well. This is wild.
One thing I’m very curious about— we are used to measuring the swingweights of our racquets and aren’t at all surprised when they don’t match with the average specs listed on TW. We have come to expect qc variance, even with Yonex, when it comes to swingweight. But I don’t think many of us have been measuring twistweights. I’ve always just gone by the listed specs on TWU. I am wondering what sort of qc variance we will all see with twistweights, when we start measuring the actual number.
If the swingweights were 3-4 pts off, that would be ~1%. Since both the swingweight and spinweight would have the same error, the TW would off by the same 1% (0.14 kg·cm²).I feel like the SWs may be 3-4 pts off and that affects the twistweight as well
If the swingweights were 3-4 pts off, that would be ~1%. Since both the swingweight and spinweight would have the same error, the TW would off by the same 1% (0.14 kg·cm²).
Left and right can sometimes be confusing, since the front of the cradle moves one way and the rear moves the other way. The SW1 comes setup for left-side release, where the head of the racquet is moved to the left (if facing the decal) prior to release. That's how I do it in the videos.
Here's the small triangle on the spring stop that indicates the release position. I have the left dowel at the front of the cradle against the stop, ready for release.
![]()