Polarised Rackets

[akamc]

This is interesting; I see now that you are centering the uniform rod around the balance point.

But does that mean that a 8 pt. (1") head-heavy 27" racquet is being compared against a uniform rod which extends from 1" to 28" from the buttcap position, and a 1" head-light racquet is being compared against a rod which is positioned at -1" to 26"? That shift of the tip should matter a lot due to the r^2 dependence, right?

Do you find that head light racquets tend to come out rather polarized and head heavy racquets less polarized by your measure? Could you post numbers for a couple popular racquets that could be compared to their "perceived" polarization?

No, the SW' of the uniform rod is also computed relative to a point 10 cm away from the buttcap. The second term of the sum in the expression for SW' reflects that shift. I am always comparing a given racquet to a uniform rod which has the same mass and length as that racquet.

Usually, it turns out that heavier racquets tend to be more headlight and less polarized so that their swingweight remains manageable for average players, while lighter racquets tend to be more head-heavy and more polarized so that their swingweight can be sufficient.

The counter-intuitive result of this is that unmodified player racquets (heavier, head-light) tend to be depolarized while granny sticks (light and head-heavy) tend to be super-polarized. Tweeners are of course in-between, averaging in the 110% range.

Basically, polarizing a racquet allows you attain a higher swingweight (more stability and plow-through) without increasing mass. Depolarizing a racquet allows you to keep a heavier racquet at a reasonably maneuverable swingweight.

Here are some examples of polarization index values for a few representative racquets (you can make compute your own from the specs made available by TW):

Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85 - 98% !
Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 Classic - 99%

Uniform rod - 100%

Volkl C10 Pro - 101%
Head Youtek Prestige Mid - 102%
Prince Graphite Mid - 104%
Prince Graphite OS - 104%
ProKennex Kinetic 5G - 104%

Volkl V1 Classic MP - 111%
Babolat Pure Drive GT - 112%
Wilson KFactor KBlade 98 - 112%
Babolat APD GT - 112%
Head Youtek Radical MP - 113%

Prince TT Bandit OS - 128%
Head Ti.S6 - 134%
Wilson 2.3 Hyper Hammer SOS - 141%!

 

[Veninga]

"Here are some examples of polarization index values for a few representative racquets (you can make compute your own from the specs made available by TW):"

I tried but didnt succeed. Can you show us in steps how the outcomes should be?

[SW - M(R - 10)^2] / [(M/6)(6RL - L^2) - MR^2]

DUNLOP BIO 300

strung weight 309
swingweight 308
balance 33.40
length 27 inch / 69 cm.

thanks in advance!

 

[olliess]

No, the SW' of the uniform rod is also computed relative to a point 10 cm away from the buttcap. The second term of the sum in the expression for SW' reflects that shift. I am always comparing a given racquet to a uniform rod which has the same mass and length as that racquet.

Yes, but your formula also seems to assume that the uniform rod has the same balance point as the racquet by including using BP - 10. That's what i was asking about, not about the 10 cm swingweight axis. Having a uniform rod with the same balance point would seem to imply that the rod sticks out past one end or the other of the racquet (unless the racquet itself was evenly balanced).

Basically, polarizing a racquet allows you attain a higher swingweight (more stability and plow-through) without increasing mass. Depolarizing a racquet allows you to keep a heavier racquet at a reasonably maneuverable swingweight.

I think I understand the basic idea. As I said in an earlier post, if your definition of polarized is just "big swingweight for a given mass" then it seems you can already get that information by simply comparing the SW to the mass.

From past conversations in this forum, I had taken the idea of polarization to mean moving the weight away from the center and toward the ends, which is "how to get a big SW without the mass and without upsetting the balance." This is a bit different property than what you are describing, but they should both have noticeable effects on how the racquet behaves.

 

[travlerajm]

"Here are some examples of polarization index values for a few representative racquets (you can make compute your own from the specs made available by TW):"

I tried but didnt succeed. Can you show us in steps how the outcomes should be?

P.I.=[SW - M(R - 10)^2] / [(M/6)(6RL - L^2) - MR^2]

DUNLOP BIO 300

strung weight 309
swingweight 308
balance 33.40
length 27 inch / 69 cm.

thanks in advance!

[308 - 0.309(33.4 - 10)^2]/[(0.309/6)(6*33.4*68.6 - 68.6^2) - 0.309*33.4^2]
= [308 - 0.309*23.4^2]/[0.0515*(13747 - 4706) - 0.309*1116]
=[308 - 0.309*548]/[0.0515*9041 - 345]
=[308 - 169]/[466 - 345]
=[139]/[121]
=1.15

Most racquets start out slightly polarized, because bumper guard, pallet, and grip are added to the ends of a piece of graphite that is initially fairly uniform.

 

[travlerajm]

No, the SW' of the uniform rod is also computed relative to a point 10 cm away from the buttcap. The second term of the sum in the expression for SW' reflects that shift. I am always comparing a given racquet to a uniform rod which has the same mass and length as that racquet.

Usually, it turns out that heavier racquets tend to be more headlight and less polarized so that their swingweight remains manageable for average players, while lighter racquets tend to be more head-heavy and more polarized so that their swingweight can be sufficient.

The counter-intuitive result of this is that unmodified player racquets (heavier, head-light) tend to be depolarized while granny sticks (light and head-heavy) tend to be super-polarized. Tweeners are of course in-between, averaging in the 110% range.

Basically, polarizing a racquet allows you attain a higher swingweight (more stability and plow-through) without increasing mass. Depolarizing a racquet allows you to keep a heavier racquet at a reasonably maneuverable swingweight.

Here are some examples of polarization index values for a few representative racquets (you can make compute your own from the specs made available by TW):

Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85 - 98% !
Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 Classic - 99%

Uniform rod - 100%

Volkl C10 Pro - 101%
Head Youtek Prestige Mid - 102%
Prince Graphite Mid - 104%
Prince Graphite OS - 104%
ProKennex Kinetic 5G - 104%

Volkl V1 Classic MP - 111%
Babolat Pure Drive GT - 112%
Wilson KFactor KBlade 98 - 112%
Babolat APD GT - 112%
Head Youtek Radical MP - 113%

Prince TT Bandit OS - 128%
Head Ti.S6 - 134%
Wilson 2.3 Hyper Hammer SOS - 141%!

These values don't show polarization as much as they show balance. The formula is biased toward HH balanced frames. The 2.3 Hyper Hammer SOS is not especially polarized.

With the formula I provided in post #47 (and walked through in post #54), the P.I. of the 2.3 comes out to 1.23 (with RacquetResearch specs).

And, a Pure Drive GT (with TW specs) is more polarized than you suggest - it has PI of 1.28.

The bandit OS comes in at 1.71!

 

[Veninga]

@travlerajm

thanks for walking through the formula. I got some mistakes in my calc but could fix it.

earlier i divided the poli number by a (relative) string pattern number. see the results.

radical 95%
wilson ktour 84%
exo red 95%
aerpro team gt 113%
pure storm gt team 102%
pure storm gt 103%
pure drive gt 111%
bio 500 108%
bio 500t 122%
bio 300 110%
speed 300 120%
extreme mp 111%
speed elite 98%
rebel team 95 77%
295 vo2max 114%
290vo2max 114%
six one team 93%
blx pro open 113%

but what are numbers saying if you dont know if the gives some real spinnyness. so i correlated these numbers with the spin window, which is measured by twu. correlation seemed to be around 0,4.

pretty stuff. so we are on the right track to find a number for spinnyness. nice.

 

[Veninga]

wilson blx six one tour scores 140!

 

[Veninga]

YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 133%!

someway more heavy rackets have a higher number on this poli number.

does that make sense?

 

[travlerajm]

YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 133%!

someway more heavy rackets have a higher number on this poli number.

does that make sense?

Are you sure you are punching in the numbers right? Doesn't look right to me.

If you want logical formula multiplier to take into account string pattern in your spreadsheet, try multiplying the P.I. by:

DI = Density Factor = A/(m*c)*30.
A = Heads size in square inches
m = number of mains
c = number of crosses
30= arbitrary constant to make DI equal to approximately 1.

 

[Veninga]

wilson blx 6.1 tour

weight 354
swing 333
balance 31.5.

=190/136=140.

can you check this calc?

 

[travlerajm]

wilson blx 6.1 tour

weight 354
swing 333
balance 31.5.

=190/136=140.

can you check this calc?

PI = 169/136 = 1.24

 

[Veninga]

PI = 169/136 = 1.24

agree, i see. but is still high for such a frame, isnt it?

other corrected results: first number is pli, second nummer is stringbed included.


radical 1,30 1,04
wilson ktour 1,25 1,00
exo red 1,20 1,08
aerpro team gt 1,33 1,19
pure storm gt team 1,22 1,10
pure storm gt 1,27 1,14
pure drive gt 1,34 1,21
bio 500 1,25 1,25
bio 500t 1,17 1,17
bio 300 1,18 1,12
speed 300 1,23 1,16
extreme mp 1,18 1,12
speed elite 1,13 1,07
rebel team 95 1,18 0,94
295 vo2max 1,24 1,17
290vo2max 1,26 1,19
six one team 1,24 1,00
blx pro open 1,22 1,15
blx six one tour 1,24 1,18
YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 1,18 0,95

 

[akamc]

These values don't show polarization as much as they show balance. The formula is biased toward HH balanced frames. The 2.3 Hyper Hammer SOS is not especially polarized.

With the formula I provided in post #47 (and walked through in post #54), the P.I. of the 2.3 comes out to 1.23 (with RacquetResearch specs).

And, a Pure Drive GT (with TW specs) is more polarized than you suggest - it has PI of 1.28.

The bandit OS comes in at 1.71!

Trav, you make an excellent point here. However, when you think about it, a head-heavy racquet is polarized, it just happens to be unbalanced. Maybe we could agree to call it "uni-polarized"? ;-) This is was the basic shortcoming of the Wilson Hammer concept. What you seem to be looking for now is a "bi-polarization" index, which is more like a second-order effect. Wouldn't it be fun be to cut up a real racquet in tiny equal slices, weigh them, and graph the mass distribution profile ? Could you develop an experimental or computational way to do this non-destructively ?

Ultimately though, it still boils down to how we subjectively experience the quality of the feel of a racquet, and the search for that elusive optimum compromise is highly personal. As you have previously pointed out, I really don't know how realistic the industry swingweight assumption of 10 cm from the buttcap is, but this is the only broadly available data we have to work with.

By the way, let me say how much I enjoy the amount of rigorous thought and analytical power you have put in to gain a deeper understanding of the process of hitting a ball with a racquet, although I am not sure how many of us here can fully understand the level of math and physics involved. Cheers!

 

[travlerajm]

agree, i see. but is still high for such a frame, isnt it?

other corrected results: first number is pli, second nummer is stringbed included.


radical 1,30 1,04
wilson ktour 1,25 1,00
exo red 1,20 1,08
aerpro team gt 1,33 1,19
pure storm gt team 1,22 1,10
pure storm gt 1,27 1,14
pure drive gt 1,34 1,21
bio 500 1,25 1,25
bio 500t 1,17 1,17
bio 300 1,18 1,12
speed 300 1,23 1,16
extreme mp 1,18 1,12
speed elite 1,13 1,07
rebel team 95 1,18 0,94
295 vo2max 1,24 1,17
290vo2max 1,26 1,19
six one team 1,24 1,00
blx pro open 1,22 1,15
blx six one tour 1,24 1,18
YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 1,18 0,95

What are you using for your stringbed factor?

Edit: ok. I see. You might try my suggestion in post #59 to get a number that better represents stringbed density by taking headsize into account.

 

[travlerajm]

Trav, you make an excellent point here. However, when you think about it, a head-heavy racquet is polarized, it just happens to be unbalanced. Maybe we could agree to call it "uni-polarized"? ;-) This is was the basic shortcoming of the Wilson Hammer concept. What you seem to be looking for now is a "bi-polarization" index, which is more like a second-order effect. Wouldn't it be fun be to cut up a real racquet in tiny equal slices, weigh them, and graph the mass distribution profile ? Could you develop an experimental or computational way to do this non-destructively ?

Ultimately though, it still boils down to how we subjectively experience the quality of the feel of a racquet, and the search for that elusive optimum compromise is highly personal. As you have previously pointed out, I really don't know how realistic the industry swingweight assumption of 10 cm from the buttcap is, but this is the only broadly available data we have to work with.

By the way, let me say how much I enjoy the amount of rigorous thought and analytical power you have put in to gain a deeper understanding of the process of hitting a ball with a racquet, although I am not sure how many of us here can fully understand the level of math and physics involved. Cheers!

Note that the formula in post #47 (based on the 2-equal-length-beam approximation for the recoil weight) is really doing the same thing as your method with the 1-beam approximation. But the advantage of the 2-beam model is that it takes the balance (which is known) into account, effectively normalizing for the balance.

 

[Veninga]

Made the stringbed formula more advanced. So new figures:


pol1 spin
head radical 1,30 123
wilson wilson ktour 1,25 115
prince exo red 1,20 136
babolat aerpro team gt 1,33 151
babolat pure storm gt team 1,22 132
babolat pure storm gt 1,27 135
babolat pure drive gt 1,34 153
dunlop bio 500 1,25 150
dunlop bio 500t 1,17 141
dunlop bio 300 1,18 132
head speed 300 1,23 140
head extreme mp 1,18 135
head speed elite 1,13 129
prince rebel team 95 1,18 108
techni 295 vo2max 1,24 134
techni 290vo2max 1,26 143
wilson six one team 1,24 114
wilson blx pro open 1,22 139
wilson blx six one tour 1,24 135
YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 1,18 114
YOUTEK IG Speed 16x19 1,25 142
rebel 95 1,37 125

 

[Veninga]

"What are you using for your stringbed factor?

Edit: ok. I see. You might try my suggestion in post #59 to get a number that better represents stringbed density by taking headsize into account."

headsize / (stringpattern / 288 (mininum stringbed 16*18)) *100000 (to make it more readible)

for example head radical mp

100 / (18 * 20 / 288 )* 100000 = 95

 

[Veninga]

six one tour

95 / (18*20) / 288 ) * 1000000 = 92

 

[Veninga]

ps dividing by the maximum stringbed, makes even more readible figures. like this:


head radical 1,30 99
wilson wilson ktour 1,25 92
prince exo red 1,20 109
babolat aerpro team gt 1,33 121
babolat pure storm gt team 1,22 106
babolat pure storm gt 1,27 108
babolat pure drive gt 1,34 122
dunlop bio 500 1,25 120
dunlop bio 500t 1,17 112
dunlop bio 300 1,18 106
head speed 300 1,23 112
head extreme mp 1,18 108
head speed elite 1,13 104
prince rebel team 95 1,18 86
techni 295 vo2max 1,24 108
techni 290vo2max 1,26 115
wilson six one team 1,24 91
wilson blx pro open 1,22 111
wilson blx six one tour 1,24 108
YOUTEK IG Speed 18x20 1,18 91
YOUTEK IG Speed 16x19 1,25 114
rebel 95 1,37 100
kfour.fx 1,23 120

 

[Veninga]

ps correlation number with the TWU spinwindow: 0.54. Which is pretty high!!!

 

[corners]

ps correlation number with the TWU spinwindow: 0.54. Which is pretty high!!!

What relationship between polarization, string pattern and spin window are you proposing? I don't see the connection between spin window and polarization. Spin window is just width of the head and beam thickness, it's not related to weight distribution or string pattern.

 

[Veninga]

What relationship between polarization, string pattern and spin window are you proposing? I don't see the connection between spin window and polarization. Spin window is just width of the head and beam thickness, it's not related to weight distribution or string pattern.

i am looking for a number which indicates if it is more spinny or flatty. therefore to match racket and player.

spin window, polarization and string pattern all tribute to a more spinny racket. the racket with the highest scores on all factors, shoud/could be the most spinny and the other way around.

correlation between the different factors shows us these specs correlate and have a relation. therefore the assumed is more likely to be true.

what do you think?

 

[olliess]

i am looking for a number which indicates if it is more spinny or flatty. therefore to match racket and player.

I don't think such a number exists. The closest thing might be to take the swing weight itself and adjust it for the string pattern.

spin window, polarization and string pattern all tribute to a more spinny racket. the racket with the highest scores on all factors, shoud/could be the most spinny and the other way around.

Spin window just allows a wider latitude (more closed face on impact), but you still need to generate the spin yourself. Polarization only allows you to get big swing weights without turning the racquet into a log. There was a recent article on TWU about the relative spin from open and closed string patterns that might help give a "proper" estimate for the last factor.

But when it comes down to it, you can look for attributes that might theoretically allow you to generate more spin, but you're still going to have to do the work of hitting the ball yourself.

 

[olliess]

Polarization Index = Ic/Ic' = [Recoil Weight]/[Baseline Recoil Weight] = [SW - M(R - 10)^2]/[(M/6)(6RL - L^2) - MR^2]
SW = swingweight about 10cm axis in kg-cm^2
M = mass in kg
R = balance in cm
L = length in cm
Ic' = Baseline Recoil Weight weight estimated from M,R, & L using 2-equal-length beam approximation.

Also, now that I've taken a closer look at your formula -- why is the 2-equal-length-beam model better than anything else as the 'baseline'? The model is known to break down in a specific way at extremes (it systematically overestimates the true moment of inertia for most "normal" racquets (about 34 to 37.5 cm balance) and underestimates the moment for extremes).

 

[travlerajm]

Also, now that I've taken a closer look at your formula -- why is the 2-equal-length-beam model better than anything else as the 'baseline'? The model is known to break down in a specific way at extremes (it systematically overestimates the true moment of inertia for most "normal" racquets (about 34 to 37.5 cm balance) and underestimates the moment for extremes).

Actually, it underestimates the true recoil weight for most normal racquets, as you would expect it to (that's why the P.I. value for most racquets is >1). Most normal racquets are constructed from a a stick of graphite with nearly uniform mass distribution, with pallet and grip added at one end, and bumper guard added at the other end, creating a somewhat polarized mass distribution.

And for racquets with extreme balances, the 2-beam Ic/Ic' formula gives significantly higher relative values than the Ic/M formula (as it should) when SW and mass are held constant. However, I note that when mass and balance are held constant (and SW varied) or balance and SW held constant (and mass varied), the Ic/Ic' formula tracks exactly with Ic/m.

The reason why I prefer to use Ic/Ic' is that for me, it gives a meaningful value (the ratio of the racquet's polarization to a baseline). I agree that the Ic/M formula is useful for comparing relative values, but the value for a given racquet is not useful without comparing it to other frames.

 

[Veninga]

I don't think such a number exists. The closest thing might be to take the swing weight itself and adjust it for the string pattern.

ill guess we could make something like this. But maybe polarization shouldnt be a too heavy component in it.

About swingweight. Only swingweight doenst really say anything about spinnyness. maybe its feels more whippy, but i had both the radical mp and wilson ktour mp (both relatively high swingweights) and both are more difficult to spin than for example a babolat aeropro and dunlop 500t.

on the other hand the as-spinny-advertised rackets normally have a little higher swingweight than static weight. also they have a more open stringpattern.

we are just finding assumptions and combine to a new number.

the assumptions are: more spinny as
- more open stringbed
- more polarized
- bigger spin window
- less spinweight

other assumptions may be:
- bigger/lower (relatively) swingweight??
- (relatively) bigger/lower static weight
- flex stiffness?
- etc.

if we have the assumptions, we could come to a formula.

any thoughts?

 

[olliess]

The model is known to break down in a specific way at extremes (it systematically overestimates the true moment of inertia for most "normal" racquets (about 34 to 37.5 cm balance) and underestimates the moment for extremes).

Actually, it underestimates the true recoil weight for most normal racquets, as you would expect it to (that's why the P.I. value for most racquets is >1).

You are right, I had the under/over estimation backward. The question was based on Fig. 4 and its related discussion in the R. Cross paper you referenced earlier, where the balance point of a uniform racquet is shifted around by placing a weight at various places along the length. Then, for a roughly normal range of balances, the two-beam approximation over estimates the actual swing weight. However, a normal racquet doesn't have a big point weight being moved around, so the two-beam approximation should work better for the normal racquet than for Cross' weighted racquet.

 

[olliess]

About swingweight. Only swingweight doenst really say anything about spinnyness. maybe its feels more whippy, but i had both the radical mp and wilson ktour mp (both relatively high swingweights) and both are more difficult to spin than for example a babolat aeropro and dunlop 500t.

The AeroPro GT has both a higher swing weight and a more open string pattern (16x19) on a bigger headsize (100 sq. in.) than the LM Radical MP (18x20, < 98 sq. in.), so I would expect it the APDGT to be more "spin-friendly" than the Radical. The 500 Tour has a little less swing weight but even more open (16x18 ) on a 100 sq. in. head size, so I'd also guess spinny. Meanwhile, the KTour has the big swing weight but a medium-tight pattern (16x20) on an even smaller head size (95), so I'd guess not as spinny.

So it seems from this limited information that if you want the spinniest racquet, you should pick something with the most biggest string spacing you can find and a swing weight you can work with (but you can change this by adding weights).

 

[Veninga]

The AeroPro GT has both a higher swing weight and a more open string pattern (16x19) on a bigger headsize (100 sq. in.) than the LM Radical MP (18x20, < 98 sq. in.), so I would expect it the APDGT to be more "spin-friendly" than the Radical. The 500 Tour has a little less swing weight but even more open (16x18 ) on a 100 sq. in. head size, so I'd also guess spinny. Meanwhile, the KTour has the big swing weight but a medium-tight pattern (16x20) on an even smaller head size (95), so I'd guess not as spinny.

So it seems from this limited information that if you want the spinniest racquet, you should pick something with the most biggest string spacing you can find and a swing weight you can work with (but you can change this by adding weights).

Agree!

For me:

Swingweight of max 315 for me.
Static weight between 305 and 315
Open pattern. 98 or 100 sq.
Room to increase weight, both static as swing.
Stiff enough to hold momentum during swinging.

Just a few options:
- dunlop 300
- head ig instinct
- volkl organix 10 (although i havent found in holland)
- technifibre 290 v02max (also havent found so far)

found the dunlop for only 90e on internet. so i start trying this one.

any other unusual suspects?

 

[Veninga]

i would love to have the spinnyness of a babolat. but those are just a bit too heavy in swingweight for me. and their team models are just a bit to light.

 

[olliess]

oops. double post.

 

[olliess]

i would love to have the spinnyness of a babolat. but those are just a bit too heavy in swingweight for me. and their team models are just a bit to light.

Why not start with an AeroPro Team GT and then add lead (starting near the handle) if the static weight seems too light?

 

[Veninga]

Why not start with an AeroPro Team GT and then add lead (starting near the handle) if the static weight seems too light?

i thought about this option as well. of the head ig speed elite.

one disadvantage. the mininum swingweight is determined on 315. with the dunlop in could choose to adapt to 310.

also adding weight on the butt of the aptgt makes it even more polarised. and even more spinny. interesting thougth, especially on the clay courts. should give it a try.

but most of the time i play on artificial clay (omni?) where a combination of spin and flat shots is required.

i should demo both esentially.

 

[Anni.Angel]

I just bought two Wilson Balde Team 101L which I think are the closest cheap thing to Steam 100.
Also they are quite light (274 gr.) and can take a lot of customisation.

I set one to polarised setup as described on this forum and one was set to a depolarised setup.

The polarised setup is a lot nicer, the racquet feels plushier, faster, lighter, better in every single way.
The depolarised setup feels a lot like a cutting board.

My racquets are now polarised and also I am using power pads, amazing feel.

 

[Grafil Injection]

I just bought two Wilson Balde Team 101L which I think are the closest cheap thing to Steam 100.
Also they are quite light (274 gr.) and can take a lot of customisation.

I set one to polarised setup as described on this forum and one was set to a depolarised setup.

The polarised setup is a lot nicer, the racquet feels plushier, faster, lighter, better in every single way.
The depolarised setup feels a lot like a cutting board.

My racquets are now polarised and also I am using power pads, amazing feel.

A depolarised racket will need to have more weight to have the same swing weight and hence power as a polarised racket. If you went extreme by putting all additional weight at 6 on the depolarised racket, you might need twice the additional weight. Reality is neither extreme is usually best. Some sort of strategic weighting is what most rackets have.

 

[Anni.Angel]

A depolarised racket will need to have more weight to have the same swing weight and hence power as a polarised racket. If you went extreme by putting all additional weight at 6 on the depolarised racket, you might need twice the additional weight. Reality is neither extreme is usually best. Some sort of strategic weighting is what most rackets have.

In one racquet I added weight at 3 and 9 o'clock which I thought of as a depolarised racquet. Then I added some weight in the but cap to counter the balance change because I wanted both racquets headlight.
And in the second one I added weight only at 12 o'clock and in the but cap and this one felt a whole lot better.

Also I tried to keep the static weight the same. I went from 274 gr to 295 gr.

I had no clue about adding weight at 6 o'clock. I thought that is completely useless.

Did I do it wrong?

 

[Grafil Injection]

In one racquet I added weight only at 3 and 9 o'clock which I thought of as a depolarised racquet.
And in the second one I added weight at 12 o'clock and in the but cap and felt a whole lot better.

I had no clue about adding weight at 6 o'clock. I thought that is completely useless.

Did I do it wrong?

3&9 is less polarised than 12, but it's more polarised than no weight added. So it's a reasonable comparison, but it doesn't mean 12 is perfect. 11 & 1 might be even better for you.

 

[Anni.Angel]

3&9 is less polarised than 12, but it's more polarised than no weight added. So it's a reasonable comparison, but it doesn't mean 12 is perfect. 11 & 1 might be even better for you.

I edited my above post a bit to put all the details in there. To be more specific to what I did.

And I will try 11 & 1

 

[Anni.Angel]

3&9 is less polarised than 12, but it's more polarised than no weight added. So it's a reasonable comparison, but it doesn't mean 12 is perfect. 11 & 1 might be even better for you.

I tried the 11 & 1 and I love it.

Thanks a lot.