TheLambsheadrep
Professional
So I had this week to do all my customization/optimization experiments and calculations; it was a good week.
I am basing most of my customization on travlerajm’s posts, which started in about 2006 (from what I can see). With that said, I have found what I perceive to be indescrepencies with optimizing balance with mass, but I am assuming this is because the posts have spanned 6 years. Travlerajm: I am not arguing or criticizing, I just want to know what is right so I can do all of this the correct way. If I am misquoting/writing anything incorrectly, please let me know. I am also trying to put things in the past tense, since I don’t know what information you’ve posted is most recent/most accurate.
First, travlerajm stated that pros with the best average ranking had an MR^2 of 380-390. He also stated that the average pro balance point could be determined from R=44.6/sqrt(x). He also provided the equation -.581x+19.9 which, again, found optimal balance with different mass values. These three ways to optimize mass and balance give different results, though. For example, (.36kg)(32.7024cm)^2=385, but 44.6/sqrt(x) at 12.7oz=12.515in (12.765in for the “ideal” set up), and for -.581x+19.9, balance is 12.521in for 12.7oz.
So for 12.7oz, MR^2 says 5pts head light, 44.6/sqrt(x) says 7.88pts headlight or 5.88pts headlight “ideally,” and -.581x+19.9 says 7.83pts head light. the determined pro-averaged optimized balance for 44.6/sqrt(x) and -.581x+19.9 are close, but the ideal balance from 44.6/sqrt(x) is not. Also, MR^2 is pretty far from the pro averages. How should I look at all this data, because I cannot optimize MgR/I until I optimize mass and balance.
I was also able to find the SW of 6 of my racquets with the TW method. My 3 Head Radical Twin Tube Tour OS’s had swing weights of 357, 352, and 352. My 3 Head Ti. Carbon’s had swing weights of 333, 339, and 347. All of my racquets are currently set to 12.7oz and right around 8.5pts head light, so I was wondering why the big SW difference between the two models. I’m thinking it may be since I had to add much more lead tape to get the Ti. Carbons to those specs, or an Austria/China construction, or the difference in head size.
And I am interested in bringing a racquet or two up to 370 SW after reading through the SW2 information; it would be cool to feel what a pro wields, even though I am pretty good with my current set up. I would prob try my Radical Tour with the 357 SW since it’s closest, just a quick question though. The racquet was originally at 12.6oz and between 8-9pts head light, so I only had to add 3 grams at 2 inches up the handle. If I moved that and 3 more grams to 25 inches (under the bumper guard), it would make it 12.8oz, 6.2pts head light, and a SW of 375.7 (from TW manual customization calculator). So it would be the original factory racquet with 6 grams under the bumper – I wouldn’t need to counterbalance in the handle at all, right? After adding so much lead to the handles of my other racquets, it’s weird to me to only add tape at the top of the racquet.
I am basing most of my customization on travlerajm’s posts, which started in about 2006 (from what I can see). With that said, I have found what I perceive to be indescrepencies with optimizing balance with mass, but I am assuming this is because the posts have spanned 6 years. Travlerajm: I am not arguing or criticizing, I just want to know what is right so I can do all of this the correct way. If I am misquoting/writing anything incorrectly, please let me know. I am also trying to put things in the past tense, since I don’t know what information you’ve posted is most recent/most accurate.
First, travlerajm stated that pros with the best average ranking had an MR^2 of 380-390. He also stated that the average pro balance point could be determined from R=44.6/sqrt(x). He also provided the equation -.581x+19.9 which, again, found optimal balance with different mass values. These three ways to optimize mass and balance give different results, though. For example, (.36kg)(32.7024cm)^2=385, but 44.6/sqrt(x) at 12.7oz=12.515in (12.765in for the “ideal” set up), and for -.581x+19.9, balance is 12.521in for 12.7oz.
So for 12.7oz, MR^2 says 5pts head light, 44.6/sqrt(x) says 7.88pts headlight or 5.88pts headlight “ideally,” and -.581x+19.9 says 7.83pts head light. the determined pro-averaged optimized balance for 44.6/sqrt(x) and -.581x+19.9 are close, but the ideal balance from 44.6/sqrt(x) is not. Also, MR^2 is pretty far from the pro averages. How should I look at all this data, because I cannot optimize MgR/I until I optimize mass and balance.
I was also able to find the SW of 6 of my racquets with the TW method. My 3 Head Radical Twin Tube Tour OS’s had swing weights of 357, 352, and 352. My 3 Head Ti. Carbon’s had swing weights of 333, 339, and 347. All of my racquets are currently set to 12.7oz and right around 8.5pts head light, so I was wondering why the big SW difference between the two models. I’m thinking it may be since I had to add much more lead tape to get the Ti. Carbons to those specs, or an Austria/China construction, or the difference in head size.
And I am interested in bringing a racquet or two up to 370 SW after reading through the SW2 information; it would be cool to feel what a pro wields, even though I am pretty good with my current set up. I would prob try my Radical Tour with the 357 SW since it’s closest, just a quick question though. The racquet was originally at 12.6oz and between 8-9pts head light, so I only had to add 3 grams at 2 inches up the handle. If I moved that and 3 more grams to 25 inches (under the bumper guard), it would make it 12.8oz, 6.2pts head light, and a SW of 375.7 (from TW manual customization calculator). So it would be the original factory racquet with 6 grams under the bumper – I wouldn’t need to counterbalance in the handle at all, right? After adding so much lead to the handles of my other racquets, it’s weird to me to only add tape at the top of the racquet.
