You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter User Name
- Start date

First, weigh the racket at the Tip (T) and at the Grip (G).

The sum of these two weights will be the total weight of the racket.

Second, divide the difference in the two weights by the sum (total weight).

Third, multiply this by the half of the Length (L).

Final formula:

(L*(G-T)) / (2*(G+T))

If the result is positive, the racket is head light.

If the result is negative, the racket is head heavy.

Maybe this will be helpful.

superloop

First, weigh the racket at the Tip (T) and at the Grip (G).

The sum of these two weights will be the total weight of the racket.

Second, divide the difference in the two weights by the sum (total weight).

Third, multiply this by the half of the Length (L).

Final formula:

(L*(G-T)) / (2*(G+T))

If the result is positive, the racket is head light.

If the result is negative, the racket is head heavy.

Maybe this will be helpful.

superloop

I know this thread is almost five years old, but I just stumbled on it and actually think there's something to superloop's method for measuring balance point (BP) using only a scale (and some math). Just tried it on four racquets and the results seem to match up with what I get using a balance board.

superloop's formula is a little bit off, so here's a restatement of the whole method:

- With the racquet horizontal and the face parallel to the ground, place the base of the grip on a scale. Place the tip of the racquet on a solid object (like a hardcover book) so that the whole frame is parallel to the ground. Mark down what the scale reads as the grip weight (G).
- Flip the racquet 180 degrees so that the tip is on the scale and the base of the grip is on the solid object. Mark down what the scale now reads as the tip weight (T). G + T should equal the total weight of your racquet measured normally.
- Plug G and T into the following formula:
**BP = (L/2) - [(G - T) / (G + T) * (L/2)]**, where G = grip weight, T = tip weight, and L = length of the racquet. Units for G and T don't matter as long as they're the same (you can use grams, ounces, whatever). Units for L also don't matter; using inches will give you BP in inches, using cm will give you BP in cm.

Thread bump, as Circa1762's formula for measuring the BP is actually very useful, particularly when trying to match racquets.

I dare say that it *might* even be more accurate than a balance board as you're using a calculation and an absolute weight measure (digital scales) rather than physically adjusting a racquet on a wooden dowell or pivot. That said, if you want to be really picky there's a fractional margin of error as you're not taking into account the friction variable when measuring G and T. Not that it matters if you're using the same system for measuring balance point (as opposed to say using a mathematical calculation v physical balance board). Any mathematicians / physicists / mechanical engineers care to chip in?

I dare say that it *might* even be more accurate than a balance board as you're using a calculation and an absolute weight measure (digital scales) rather than physically adjusting a racquet on a wooden dowell or pivot. That said, if you want to be really picky there's a fractional margin of error as you're not taking into account the friction variable when measuring G and T. Not that it matters if you're using the same system for measuring balance point (as opposed to say using a mathematical calculation v physical balance board). Any mathematicians / physicists / mechanical engineers care to chip in?

Last edited:

This actually works!

I know this thread is almost five years old, but I just stumbled on it and actually think there's something to superloop's method for measuring balance point (BP) using only a scale (and some math). Just tried it on four racquets and the results seem to match up with what I get using a balance board.

superloop's formula is a little bit off, so here's a restatement of the whole method:

Does anybody else use this method? I was skeptical at first, but it actually seems to work. The only downside is that because small changes in G and T will have a large affect on the final output, you need an accurate scale. Still, I'm surprised I haven't read about it elsewhere.

- With the racquet horizontal and the face parallel to the ground, place the base of the grip on a scale. Place the tip of the racquet on a solid object (like a hardcover book) so that the whole frame is parallel to the ground. Mark down what the scale reads as the grip weight (G).
- Flip the racquet 180 degrees so that the tip is on the scale and the base of the grip is on the solid object. Mark down what the scale now reads as the tip weight (T). G + T should equal the total weight of your racquet measured normally.
- Plug G and T into the following formula:
BP = (L/2) - [(G - T) / (G + T) * (L/2)], where G = grip weight, T = tip weight, and L = length of the racquet. Units for G and T don't matter as long as they're the same (you can use grams, ounces, whatever). Units for L also don't matter; using inches will give you BP in inches, using cm will give you BP in cm.

Bump because I'm feeling too cheap to buy a balance board after buying a Briffidi.

The question I have here is how folks are measuring T & G. Like - physically - what method people are using (or aren't using as this thread has been dead for 11 years).

I moved away from this method for exactly the reason you are asking about - it’s very sensitive to how you measure T & G and I could never figure out a method that consistently gave me a T + G that actually equaled total racket weight.Bump because I'm feeling too cheap to buy a balance board after buying a Briffidi.

The question I have here is how folks are measuring T & G. Like - physically - what method people are using (or aren't using as this thread has been dead for 11 years).

Now I use a meter stick and place a cylinder at the 0 end with the top of the circle at the 0 mark, balance the racket on it, and either use a knife to measure balance on the meter stick or just eyeball it. Definitely not exact, but not horribly inexact. The cylinder I use is a kitchen tool that I don’t know the name of, but anything that you can keep in place should work.

Yeah. It kinda shocks me that the balance boards are so expensive. I guess the cost of specialty sports tools in general is pretty shocking - from starting clamps to swingweight tools to $20k launch monitors for golf.I moved away from this method for exactly the reason you are asking about - it’s very sensitive to how you measure T & G and I could never figure out a method that consistently gave me a T + G that actually equaled total racket weight.

Now I use a meter stick and place a cylinder at the 0 end with the top of the circle at the 0 mark, balance the racket on it, and either use a knife to measure balance on the meter stick or just eyeball it. Definitely not exact, but not horribly inexact. The cylinder I use is a kitchen tool that I don’t know the name of, but anything that you can keep in place should work.

Balance boards just seem like they should be like - $30 though.

Until I got my Briffidi BP1 I used a balance board I made with paint sticks and a few BBs. The BBs on the bottom are the base of the balance board that rests on the scale.

After placing the board on the scale I let the scale Tare to zero the scale with the single BB resting on the scale and the 2 at the top resting on a platform that keeps the board level.

The single BB is 20 cm from the inside of the vertical dowel I used for a stop. The 2 BBs at the top are 40 cm from the stop. To measure balance place the racket against the stop and make you’re measurement I’ll cal MW. I try to make sure the BB is always in the center of the scale. You also need TW Or total weight of the racket.

The rest is simple, balance = (20*MW)+(40*(TW-MV)))/TW. I put the formula in Excel so all I need to do is enter TW and MW to get the balance.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. The wide horizontal section sits about 1/4” higher than the short one to keep the racket level.

After placing the board on the scale I let the scale Tare to zero the scale with the single BB resting on the scale and the 2 at the top resting on a platform that keeps the board level.

The single BB is 20 cm from the inside of the vertical dowel I used for a stop. The 2 BBs at the top are 40 cm from the stop. To measure balance place the racket against the stop and make you’re measurement I’ll cal MW. I try to make sure the BB is always in the center of the scale. You also need TW Or total weight of the racket.

The rest is simple, balance = (20*MW)+(40*(TW-MV)))/TW. I put the formula in Excel so all I need to do is enter TW and MW to get the balance.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. The wide horizontal section sits about 1/4” higher than the short one to keep the racket level.

Last edited:

You can get an amazing launch monitor for $7k (foresight GC Quad) and it doesn't need 16 feet to measure your shots.Yeah. It kinda shocks me that the balance boards are so expensive. I guess the cost of specialty sports tools in general is pretty shocking - from starting clamps to swingweight tools to $20k launch monitors for golf.

Balance boards just seem like they should be like - $30 though.

The GC Quad is not $7k fwiw. It's $14.5k, and there's no reason to buy it unless you add the club data for another $4k (otherwise you might as well go with a cheaper GC3). So $18.5 + tax (and gaming PC, and quite a bit more for some decent courses as you need Pebble at least). Ask me how I know.You can get an amazing launch monitor for $7k (foresight GC Quad) and it doesn't need 16 feet to measure your shots.

I meant GC3. Which is what I have. Not the quad which my club has. I’ve played pebble multiple times so I just use the basic courses.The GC Quad is not $7k fwiw. It's $14.5k, and there's no reason to buy it unless you add the club data for another $4k (otherwise you might as well go with a cheaper GC3). So $18.5 + tax (and gaming PC, and quite a bit more for some decent courses as you need Pebble at least). Ask me how I know.

Makes sense. Tbh, the SkyTrak was plenty good enough for simulation. I just bought the Quad because I wanted to work on AoA / Path / Closure rate. I almost never do anything but the standard range.I meant GC3. Which is what I have. Not the quad which my club has. I’ve played pebble multiple times so I just use the basic courses.

almost. that formula is missing/has misplaced few things: The correct one is:[...]

The rest is simple, balance = (20*MW)+(40*TW-MV))/TW. I put the formula in Excel so all I need to do is enter TW and MW to get the balance.

[ (20*MW)+(40*(TW-MW)) ] / TW