Question on swingweight

[robbo1970]

One thing I really struggle to get my head around sometimes, is how a racket that, let's say, has a static weight of 340g, is 12pts HL has a swingweight of 331, whereas another racket that is 340g, which is 7pts HL has a SW of 315?

If a racket is more balanced towards the handle, making it more HL how does it swing heavier than a racket of the same static weight that is balanced more towards the head?

I have been going through some of the stats on the racquet finder tool and there are various rackets with the same static weight, differing HL balances and varying swingweights. i.e. more HL pts but higher SW's than those with lower HL pts.

Excuse my pea-like brain, but I don't get it.

 

[JohnB]

http://http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=438238&highlight=Mgr.%2Fi

http://http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387805&highlight=Mgr.%2Fi

 

[fuzz nation]

Sometimes the issue of polarization comes up when the topic of swingweight gets tossed around. That could factor into that example you've offered, but I agree with your suspicions. Those numbers don't look right.

I respect all that stuff, but I've given up on worrying about it when scrutinizing racquets for myself. If I know the static weight, balance, and flex of a frame, I can get a pretty good idea of whether it's something I want to try out. The swingweights listed on some demos I've tried have too often been either misleading or just plain wrong (as far as I could tell).

I like a racquet with maybe 10 pts. HL balance and that's the case for me if the frame is anywhere from around 11.8 oz. right up to 13.0 oz. or more. It could be the case that my sensitivity is more about balance than anything else... I'll mull that one over. Best of luck in your quest for the truth!

 

[TimothyO]

At one point we had our Pure Storms (now being used by my son) and our 315 Ltds at the same SW of 320 and same static weight of 336. But the balance was different with the PSGTs at 8 HL and the 315s around 6 HL. This means that the PSGT mass was distributed more at the extreme ends of the frames while the 315 mass was probably more evenly distributed.

Furthermore, even with the same SW, head size, and number of mains the 315s felt more powerful which makes sense since, even with the same SW the 315s had more mass towards the middle than the PSGTs. I tried weighing the head and tails of the frames (there are videos of approach on YouTube) and sure enough the 315 heads weighed more than the PSGTs even with matched SWs. We're talking about 2x PSGTs and 2x 315s being compared so it wasn't like an abberant PSGT was being compared to an abberant 315.

This experince and other testing simply reinforced for me the fact that frame specs can only be used as broad reference points and that calculated vaues such as SW are especially misleading.

Here's a very enlightening quote from the book, "Technical Tennis":

“If you added the 10 gm at D = 100 mm, [i.e. the grip] there would be no increase in swingweight at all. That is, no increase about a swing axis 100 mm from the end of the handle where swingweight is normally measured. But players swing their racquet about an axis near their wrist or near their elbow (depending on the particular stroke) so there would be a noticeable increase in swingweight as far as the player is concerned.”

Rod Cross & Crawford Lindsey. “Technical Tennis.” USRSA, 2005.

In other words, we calculate SW from a point on the grip but actual SW as experienced by the player and ball is based on a completely different point in space.

 

[TimothyO]

Sometimes the issue of polarization comes up when the topic of swingweight gets tossed around. That could factor into that example you've offered, but I agree with your suspicions. Those numbers don't look right.

I respect all that stuff, but I've given up on worrying about it when scrutinizing racquets for myself. If I know the static weight, balance, and flex of a frame, I can get a pretty good idea of whether it's something I want to try out. The swingweights listed on some demos I've tried have too often been either misleading or just plain wrong (as far as I could tell).

I like a racquet with maybe 10 pts. HL balance and that's the case for me if the frame is anywhere from around 11.8 oz. right up to 13.0 oz. or more. It could be the case that my sensitivity is more about balance than anything else... I'll mull that one over. Best of luck in your quest for the truth!

Recently, on a whim, I slapped on 32" of lead tape under my grip right where my hand rests (8x 4" strips of 1/2" tape). The result was a significant increase in power (yup, power), control, and maneuverability. As a result I was also able to add a few more grams at 10/2 where my existing tape is located. I don't know the total weight but it's around 12.4 oz. and balance is probably around 9 or 10 HL. It feels amazing and I'm getting MORE spin. I've decided to not bother measuring the specs and just go with the feel.

 

[robbo1970]

Thats the right attitude. Forget the numbers, just go with what feels right.

It just confused me how a racket with a more headlight balance, the same static weight, could have a higher swingweight than one with lower HL balance.

 

[LeeD]

More addressing TimO's post than Roz's....
Some players like head light rackets.
Some players like head HEAVY rackets, like BLX Blade98's.
Some players like head light rackets that are very heavy.
Some players like light rackets that are head light.
Believe it or not, player preference is all over the map.
What do I like? Weight 10.9 oz, SW 320, flex 60.

 

[robbo1970]

My question was really aimed at the spec figures that similar static weight rackets have. If you go on to the racquet finder tool, there are a couple of rackets that have the same static weight of 340g, both are 7pts HL, but one has a SW of 330 and the other a SW of 315. Then there is one that is 340g, 9pts HL but has a SW of 321, and another that is 12pts HL with a SW of 331.

 

[fuzz nation]

Recently, on a whim, I slapped on 32" of lead tape under my grip right where my hand rests (8x 4" strips of 1/2" tape). The result was a significant increase in power (yup, power), control, and maneuverability. As a result I was also able to add a few more grams at 10/2 where my existing tape is located. I don't know the total weight but it's around 12.4 oz. and balance is probably around 9 or 10 HL. It feels amazing and I'm getting MORE spin. I've decided to not bother measuring the specs and just go with the feel.

Excellent... and scary familiar, too!!!

I've used the Volkl C10's for a few years, but a pal handed off one of their newer Organix 10 325's to me at the end of the spring. I strung it up, tried it out, and pretty much hated it. Hard to believe that a 10 series Volkl would be such a no-go for me, but I couldn't do much of anything with it.

So I was down at the practice court where I can use a backboard and I did the same thing with the lead. I added a good gob of the 1/2" stuff to the handle for more HL balance and still thought that the hoop was a little unstable, so a couple of grams went on at 3/9 o'clock.

Like Frankenstein's famous experiment, the racquet absolutely came alive for me. The tuned balance gave it the handling and swing behavior that are familiar to me, I suddenly got that soft-racquet "bow-whup" feel at contact which wasn't there before tuning, and I'm getting all the spin with this frame that I could only get from my C10's with a heroic effort... and I string these with good ol' 16 gauge syn. gut.

When I checked it at home, I re-balanced it to around 10 pts. HL and... wait for it... that's right, it weighed in at 12.4 oz. Considering that my first name is Tim and my last initial is O, I'm beginning to enjoy the celebrity status of having either my own cyber-stalker or an evil twin! :shock:

I agree with Lee 100% in terms of the feel we all get to like. It's potentially frustrating to find that best fit in any racquet, but I think that when players know what they like in terms of the combo of static weight, balance, and flex, it can be night-and-day easier to track down a racquet that's easier to relate to out there.

 

[robbo1970]

Excellent... and scary familiar, too!!!

I agree with Lee 100% in terms of the feel we all get to like. It's potentially frustrating to find that best fit in any racquet, but I think that when players know what they like in terms of the combo of static weight, balance, and flex, it can be night-and-day easier to track down a racquet that's easier to relate to out there.

Me too. Trying to narrow down the exact spec for weight, balance and SW is a long arduous task. I know the sort of 300 to 315g weight I like and I know I like an almost even balance with perhaps a couple of pts HL, so the Bio300 was an easy choice. It was these differing SW spec figures on same weight/balance rackets that got me confused as to how they acheived those figures more than anything.

I sometimes use my Exo3 93 for a bit of fun. With the skin feel grip it weighs about 335g and is quite HL, but a few more arm exercises are needed for me to use it in serious play (not that my serious play is ever serious, I enjoy having fun too much).

 

[Ross K]

fuzz and Timothy

So nice to hear your stories ^... as one who can unduly fret and get in a muddle about modding/specs etc maybe I should just go by the 'feel method' myself.

 

[BURN-E]

Is there also a simple short explanation on SW and balance point?

For example I'm looking for a racket that plays like "Wilson BLX Six.One Team" But I want it a little bit heavier.. Now it is 289gram -->I'm looking for something around 305-315 gram.

I was comparing with blade:

..............................six.one team...........................blade 98 (18x20)

Weight...................10.70oz / 303g..........................11.42oz / 324g
Balance Point...............1pts HL....................................2pts HL
Swing Weight.................318.........................................330
Frame Stiffness...............63...........................................65
Beam Width................21.0mm.....................................21.5mm


I just don't have knowledge about this.. maybe anyone can help me ?
Or maybe something else matches better?
I prefer wilson.

 

[robbo1970]

Is there also a simple short explanation on SW and balance point?

For example I'm looking for a racket that plays like "Wilson BLX Six.One Team" But I want it a little bit heavier.. Now it is 289gram -->I'm looking for something around 305-315 gram.

I was comparing with blade:

..............................six.one team...........................blade 98 (18x20)

Weight...................10.70oz / 303g..........................11.42oz / 324g
Balance Point...............1pts HL....................................2pts HL
Swing Weight.................318.........................................330
Frame Stiffness...............63...........................................65
Beam Width................21.0mm.....................................21.5mm


I just don't have knowledge about this.. maybe anyone can help me ?
Or maybe something else matches better?
I prefer wilson.

If you can get one, the Bio300 is 305g. 2pts HL, SW 308 and I think a 63 on stiffness.

 

[BURN-E]

Dunlop... I have bad experience with them. With 4 different rackets the bottom part of handle came loose... I really dont think the quality is the same as brands like wilson or head. Maybe i'll try pro staff 6.1 95.

 

[andrewski]

One thing I really struggle to get my head around sometimes, is how a racket that, let's say, has a static weight of 340g, is 12pts HL has a swingweight of 331, whereas another racket that is 340g, which is 7pts HL has a SW of 315?

If a racket is more balanced towards the handle, making it more HL how does it swing heavier than a racket of the same static weight that is balanced more towards the head?

I have been going through some of the stats on the racquet finder tool and there are various rackets with the same static weight, differing HL balances and varying swingweights. i.e. more HL pts but higher SW's than those with lower HL pts.

Excuse my pea-like brain, but I don't get it.

Hi,

Yes the example you quote sound counterintuitive, but remember that swingweight is measured as kg*cm^2 (power of 2) whereas balance is effected in a ratio of kg*cm.
Therefore, the same weight at certain distance from the reference point (I forgot, but it is 3 inches from racket handle end, I think) has less impact on the balance than on swingweight.
So if you add 5 grams of lead at racket tip (12 o clock) it will have more impact on swingweight than on balance.
It follows that rackets with the similar overall weight and balance might have quite different swingweight, because weight distribution around the racket hoop is quite different, i.e. racket with lower swingweight will have more mass closer to a racket throat, whereas racket with higher swingweight will have more mass closer to the tip.

Lets take some real life examples of rackets from my collection.

My "good days" racket is Head Prestige Pro YT, which has weight about 333g strung (it was light originally and I replaced leather grip with rubber one) but has a swingweight of about 325.

My "bad days" racket is Dunlop Biomimetic 200 Lite, which has weight of 330g strung but swingweight of only 308.

Believe me (or test yourself, if you can) that Dunlop swings easier than Head, especially on backhand when stretched wide (I have OHB).

It test at least dozen rackets a year and my view is that I am more sensitive to swingweight changes than to weight changes, possibly because of OHB.

Unfortunately, as per TW reply to my old question on this forum, tolerances of rackets specs are such that you might end up with racket which has much lower or much higher values for the aspect you are concern about, than manufacturers specs.

Unless, you can select what you want from the rackets in the shop or have it modified (which is difficult if you want to reduce swingweight, unless you cut protective bits of the top grommet or replace/cut CAP grommets (on Head rackets)).

Beware of having quick test with any racket (I made this mistake) i.e. just hitting and not playing at least few sets.
My favourite hitting rackets would be Volkl PB 10 325, Prince Rebel 93 and Wilson ProStaff 6.0 85 but I would not have much success (and I tried) when playing tennis matches (although WPS 85 has low swingweight).

regards,

Andrew

 

[fuzz nation]

fuzz and Timothy

So nice to hear your stories ^... as one who can unduly fret and get in a muddle about modding/specs etc maybe I should just go by the 'feel method' myself.

If you have a spare overgrip and a pack each of 1/4" and 1/2" lead tape... and either a backboard or reeeeally patient hitting partner, try some noodling with the heavy tape during a hit to see if you can dial in on what feels right. It cracked me up when I went home to check the weight and balance I'd settled in with on my new O10. Just going on feel, I reproduced the same layout as with my C10's, minus only about 0.1 oz.

Specs are maybe more of a rough guide than an exact prescription for a good fit?...