The Myth of Lowering Swingweight

Bora

Bora

Semi-Pro
This question comes up often so maybe Don or someone from TW can make this sticky.

The myth: "You can lower the swingweight of a racket by adding weight to the handle. This will make the racket more headlight and thus, swing a little "easier.""

The truth:
posted by TW Staff
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,823

Moist is correct. It is physically impossible to lower dynamic swingweight without removing weight from the racquet. The most obvious method for reducing swingweight is to remove the bumper and replace with individual grommets. However, you'll lose protection of the head and likely void the warranty. Don/Tennis Warehouse
 
Copied from my post in another thread:

As Don said in his post above, that's wrong. You can NEVER lower the swingweight by ADDING weight ANYWHERE on the frame. To lower the swingweight, you would have to REMOVE weight from somewhere on the frame. The more weight that you remove closer to the hoop will lower the swingweight more than if you removed the weight from closer to the handle, i.e., adding or removing weight from the hoop will impact the swingweight much, much more than adding or removing weight from the handle. Adding weight to the handle will change the balance of the racquet and make it more headlight, but it will not lower the swingweight. Remember that balance does not equal swingweight.

If you had two identical racquets with the same static weight and length, yes, the one that is balanced more headlight will have a lower swingweight than the one that is balanced less headlight. However, you cannot lower the swingweight of the one that is balanced less headlight by ADDING weight anywhere to the frame because by doing that, you've just INCREASED its static weight, which in turn, could INCREASE its swingweight depending on where you've added that weight. The only way to LOWER the swingweight is to make that racquet more headlight WITHOUT adding any static weight, and the most effective way of doing that is to remove weight from the hoop, e.g., removing the bumper guard.

The OP's idea of replacing the synthetic stock grip with a leather grip and overgrip will actually INCREASE and not decrease the swingweight.

Hope this helps.
 
Bora said:
This question comes up often so maybe Don or someone from TW can make this sticky.

The myth: "You can lower the swingweight of a racket by adding weight to the handle. This will make the racket more headlight and thus, swing a little "easier.""

The truth:
posted by TW Staff
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,823

Moist is correct. It is physically impossible to lower dynamic swingweight without removing weight from the racquet. The most obvious method for reducing swingweight is to remove the bumper and replace with individual grommets. However, you'll lose protection of the head and likely void the warranty. Don/Tennis Warehouse
Click to expand...

Thanks Don,

If would like to see an example of what Don is talking about look at the specs for the PK Core #10 with and without the bumper installed. These specs really indicate the change in SW. Take a look!

Head Size:
102 sq. in. / 658 sq. cm.
Length: 27.25 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight:
With Bumper: 11.3oz / 320g
Without Bumper: 10.8 oz / 307g
Balance:
With Bumper: 3pts Head Light
Without Bumper: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight:
With Bumper: 336
Without Bumper: 290
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 25mm Hoop/23mm Shaft
Composition: 80% Graphite/20% Kevlar w/Hardwood Spine
Power Level: Medium
Swing Speed: Moderate-Fast
Grip Type: Perforated Synthetic
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 7T,9T,7H,9H
One Piece
No shared holes

Regards,
Steve
 
Return_Ace said:
Yeh, if you think about it, the swing weight is merely the centrifugal force that is generated when you take into account the balance and static weight.

Because of this your minimum swing weight can never be under or at the static weight (the former requires the balance point to be behind your hand, and the latter means that the balance point is on the place where your hand is placed...)
Click to expand...

How is the swingweight of the PK lower, at 290 gr., than the static weight, at 307 gr.? Thanks.
 
tonyjh63 said:
How is the swingweight of the PK lower, at 290 gr., than the static weight, at 307 gr.? Thanks.
Click to expand...

swingweight is a misleading name....it has nothing to do with the static weight of the racquet

the proper term for swingweight is angular moment of inertia (MOI). basically, angular moment of inertia is an indicator of how easy it is to change the state of a raquet and its manuverability.

the lower the angular MOI the easier it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether.

the higher the angular MOI the more difficult it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether

Lower angular MOI racquets will be more manuverable than higher angular MOI racquets but will not plow thru a ball like higher angular MOI racquets.

in simplified terms the angular MOI describes the percieved lightness or heaviness of a racquet when you are swinging it and its realtive manuverabilty......it has some how become known as swingweight but actually has nothing to do with weight but everything to do with inertia.

also the units of measure of angular MOI are kg-cm^2 not grams.

the gentlemen who is trying to explain swingweight in terms of centrifugal force is incorrect.
 
tony said:
How is the swingweight of the PK lower, at 290 gr., than the static weight, at 307 gr.? Thanks.
Click to expand...

simple answer, i was wrong.... sorry for the confusion...

rich said:
swingweight is a misleading name....it has nothing to do with the static weight of the racquet

the proper term for swingweight is angular moment of inertia (MOI). basically, angular moment of inertia is an indicator of how easy it is to change the state of a raquet and its manuverability.

the lower the angular MOI the easier it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether.

the higher the angular MOI the more difficult it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether

Lower angular MOI racquets will be more manuverable than higher angular MOI racquets but will not plow thru a ball like higher angular MOI racquets.

in simplified terms the angular MOI describes the percieved lightness or heaviness of a racquet when you are swinging it and its realtive manuverabilty......it has some how become known as swingweight but actually has nothing to do with weight but everything to do with inertia.

also the units of measure of angular MOI are kg-cm^2 not grams.

the gentlemen who is trying to explain swingweight in terms of centrifugal force is incorrect.
Click to expand...

wowo rich, thats very good and thank for pointing out my mistake, i'm gonna try and find a way to calculate sw..........
 
Return_Ace said:
i'm gonna try and find a way to calculate sw..........
Click to expand...

I believe that is virtually impossible. The swing weight is calculated as the sum of [mass * 'distance mass is from axis squared']. So you would need to know the mass distribution of your racquet.

Even if you just wanted to know how much swingweight you would add by adding on some lead tape, I don't think this is calculatable. You could work out a lower bound which is fairly useless [what would be more useful is the upper bound].

But I don't know everything :) ... it might be calulatable and I just don't know how.
 
TBH said:
'distance mass is from axis squared'
Click to expand...

could you tell me what you mean by the axis? as in the balance point? and its the distance from the but cap?......... and i *think* i can work out the mass on one side of the balance point and on the other side.......
 
it is possible to calculate the increase (or decrease) in swingweight due to adding (or removing) mass if you know what the initial swingweight is.

I = Io + m(d^2)
Where

Io is the swingweight measured by an RDC or other similar machine
m = the mass you are adding (in kg)
d = the distance from the location of the added (or removed) mass to the axis of rotation (in cm)

the axis of rotation is usually 10cm above the bottom of the buttcap.
so what you would do is measure from the added (or removed) mass to the bottom of the buttcap and subtract 10cm. Then square that number and multiply it by the mass you added or removed. Add that number to your initial swingweight and that is the new swingweight of your racquet. If you are removing mass you subtract that number from your initial swingweight.
 
As rich said above the axis is the "axis of ratation" ie where you hold the racquet. [I beleive the RDC machines measure the swingweight at 10cm above the butt cap ... as rich said].

I stand corrected, it does appear I don't know eveything :( , you CAN work out the increased swingweight [to a fairly accurate value], I just did some caluclations and for some reason I was squaring the weight not distance before [i thought I would have that pesky 2ab term] ....
 
theazneyes said:
So adding weight to the handle won't lower swingweight?
Click to expand...

that is correct. the only ways to reduce swingweight are:

1. Remove weight.

or

2. Shorten the racquet


theazneyes said:
But will it make it more head light?
Click to expand...

correct, it will be more headlight
 
I have posted several posts on this in the past, including formula's etc and giving some examples. Readers who find this thread interesting may want to do a search on my screen name and a keyword like swingweight or something.

Regards,
Maurice
 
BreakPoint said:
Copied from my post in another thread:

As Don said in his post above, that's wrong. You can NEVER lower the swingweight by ADDING weight ANYWHERE on the frame. To lower the swingweight, you would have to REMOVE weight from somewhere on the frame. The more weight that you remove closer to the hoop will lower the swingweight more than if you removed the weight from closer to the handle, i.e., adding or removing weight from the hoop will impact the swingweight much, much more than adding or removing weight from the handle. Adding weight to the handle will change the balance of the racquet and make it more headlight, but it will not lower the swingweight. Remember that balance does not equal swingweight.

If you had two identical racquets with the same static weight and length, yes, the one that is balanced more headlight will have a lower swingweight than the one that is balanced less headlight. However, you cannot lower the swingweight of the one that is balanced less headlight by ADDING weight anywhere to the frame because by doing that, you've just INCREASED its static weight, which in turn, could INCREASE its swingweight depending on where you've added that weight. The only way to LOWER the swingweight is to make that racquet more headlight WITHOUT adding any static weight, and the most effective way of doing that is to remove weight from the hoop, e.g., removing the bumper guard.

The OP's idea of replacing the synthetic stock grip with a leather grip and overgrip will actually INCREASE and not decrease the swingweight.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by BreakPoint If you had two identical racquets with the same static weight and length, yes, the one that is balanced more headlight will have a lower swingweight than the one that is balanced less headlight.
Click to expand...

[My two cents, not to be hypercritical but rather for info] Actualy that's not true. Although Breakpoint never stated this but many people assume to be the case, a headlight balance doesn't mean that there's more mass below the midpoint towards the handle than the side towards the head. A lot of people assume that headlight means more mass in handle area. I have clarified this misunderstanding in several posts. What establishes the racquets balance point is the average of the sum of all the mass multiplied by the distance of each individual particle mass from the handle end of the racquet. (Calculus simplifies things a bit). So you could have 8 oz. in the head above the midpoint and only 4 oz. on the handle side of the midpt. yet the racquet could still be headlight. It depends on how the mass is distributed. You could also have two identical racquets with the same static weight and length and the one that's more headheavy could also have a lower rotational inertia (swing weight). So just knowing that one racquet has the same static weight and length as another racquet and that it is headlighter, you can't conclude correctly which racquet has a higher swing weight with just that information. Of course you can make measurements and calculations to make a determination, but I'm pointing out that there are common misconceptions among many people when it comes to beam dynamics.
 
MackSamuelHustovisics said:
So you could have 8 oz. in the head above the midpoint and only 4 oz. on the handle side of the midpt. yet the racquet could still be headlight.
Click to expand...
:confused: ?????? How can that be? The definition of the midpoint (or balance point) is the point at which half the weight is above the midpoint and half the weight is below the midpoint. So if a racquet is 12 oz. in total static weight, by definition, 6 oz. is above that midpoint and 6 oz. is below that midpoint. Of course, that midpoint could be anywhere along the length of the racquet depending on the balance.
 
BreakPoint said:
:confused: ?????? How can that be? The definition of the midpoint (or balance point) is the point at which half the weight is above the midpoint and half the weight is below the midpoint. So if a racquet is 12 oz. in total static weight, by definition, 6 oz. is above that midpoint and 6 oz. is below that midpoint. Of course, that midpoint could be anywhere along the length of the racquet depending on the balance.
Click to expand...

"Midpoint" in geometry and physics is the point dividing the length of a line segment into two congruent shorter segments. So it deals with length not mass. Now to jump on over as to how a racquet can have more mass in the top half of the midpoint yet still have a headlight balance, I suppose an example will make things a little easier to understand.


MASS DISTRIBUTION LOCATION ALONG LENGTH OF BEAM DETERMINES BALANCE POINT, NOT WHICH SIDE OF MIDPOINT HAS MORE MASS

IE: A 27" racquet with 8 oz. distributed evenly in top half (13.5") in the head area and 4 oz. distibuted along the other half in the handle area but concentrated close to the endcap. That's one example of how a racquet can have more mass in the head half (the 13.5" head side) yet still have a headlight balance. People always think that a balance point is the point where the total mass on both sides of the point is exactly equal when in fact that's not always the case. Just recall old physics lessons of leverage as it relates to balance. Distances of points of mass come into play when dealing with balance.
 
I don't disagree with you about the distribution of mass having an effect on the swingweight, but when we talk about the "midpoint" in terms of tennis racquets, we are talking about the middle of the point at which half the mass is above that point and half the mass is below that point, same as the median point and same as the balance point, all of which are used interchangably. As far as the middle of the length, in tennis racquets, people usually refer to it as the center or middle of the racquet or half of the length of the racquet.

Yes, I do realize that in geometry, the "midpoint" is typically referring to the middle of a length or of a side. I do have a degree in mechanical engineering so I've taken more math and physics than I care to admit. :)

BTW, by definition, if the balance point is above the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head heavy, and if the balance point is below the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head light, regardless of how the mass is distributed or what the swingweight may be. Whether a racquet is designated head heavy or head light, it just refers to where the balance point is, and not necessarily to how a racquet swings or how the mass is distributed above and below the balance point.

A prime example is the Wilson nSix-One Tour. It is spec'ed at 9 points headlight, but if you read the TW review, most of the playtesters swore it played as if it were head heavy, and none could believe that it's actually 9 points headlight.
 
BreakPoint said:
I don't disagree with you about the distribution of mass having an effect on the swingweight, but when we talk about the "midpoint" in terms of tennis racquets, we are talking about the middle of the point at which half the mass is above that point and half the mass is below that point, same as the median point and same as the balance point, all of which are used interchangably. As far as the middle of the length, in tennis racquets, people usually refer to it as the center or middle of the racquet or half of the length of the racquet.

Yes, I do realize that in geometry, the "midpoint" is typically referring to the middle of a length or of a side. I do have a degree in mechanical engineering so I've taken more math and physics than I care to admit. :)

BTW, by definition, if the balance point is above the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head heavy, and if the balance point is below the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head light, regardless of how the mass is distributed or what the swingweight may be. Whether a racquet is designated head heavy or head light, it just refers to where the balance point is, and not necessarily to how a racquet swings or how the mass is distributed above and below the balance point.

A prime example is the Wilson nSix-One Tour. It is spec'ed at 9 points headlight, but if you read the TW review, most of the playtesters swore it played as if it were head heavy, and none could believe that it's actually 9 points headlight.
Click to expand...

BTW, by definition, if the balance point is above the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head heavy, and if the balance point is below the center of the length of the racquet, it is considered head light, regardless of how the mass is distributed or what the swingweight may be
Click to expand...

When you wrote "BTW" I'm not sure if you are referring to me or that it's a "Just-so-you-know" for other readers. Anyhow, yes that's what I was describing in the example in my previous post. For a 27" racquet, you can have 8 ounces in the upper half in the hoop of the racquet and only 4 ounces in the handle half of the racquet and depending on how the mass is distributed it is possible to have a balance point less than 13.5" from the endcap (headlight balance). So afterall, we are on the same page. Hopefully our misunderstanding or clarifications may at least help others realize things now to avoid confusion if and when they come across this misconception.
 
Pick a swingweight THEN the racquet that matches that swingweight you like. You cannot lower the swingweight without a lot of modification.
 
My post, cut and pasted from an earlier thread:

MackSamuelHustovisics said:
There is no way to decrease swing weight about a particular axis of rotation with the same applied torque (even slightly) without actually removing mass. By altering a racq. to be more hdlight, you can enable the racquet to swing more freely(actually just accelerate faster about a pivot(s) but that is entirely separate from the swing path plane solely of rotational inertia (swing weight) alone. The increased ease of swinging is actually just the decreased moment force, totally different from moment of inertia ...aka..angular inertia, rotational inertia and swing weight. Just some facts to set things straight for those who are new to this stuff. It's easy to get things mixed up so hope this helps to clarify things a bit.
Click to expand...
 
the myth of lowering swing weight

First of all,good by and forgiveness for my very imperfect english.I hope you can me understand.
This is a very interesting discussion,with very qualified opinions.But I have some boubts.
1) in the formula ,if I added weight 10 cm from butt cap,d is zero,d^2xm is zero and I is = I°,i.e. I have added weigh and SW is not changed.
2)there is a lot of light raquets with a highter SW als other heavier.For exemple:
nCode n tour
L=69 cm
W= 303 gr
b=34.5 cm
SW =330 Kgcm2

and
FXP Radical Tour
L= 69 cm
W=340 gr
b =32 cm
SW = 324 Kgcm2

Now,if I take the ncode and added weight ,in order to reduce the balance at 32 cm and to increase weight to 340 gr.the SW,measured with RDC and not calculated with the formula,MUST be 324,i.e. lower,because the parameter are the same of the model FXP.
Can somebody explain that?
Thanks.
 
irgi said:
1) in the formula ,if I added weight 10 cm from butt cap,d is zero,d^2xm is zero and I is = I°,i.e. I have added weigh and SW is not changed.
Click to expand...

irgi - you are totally correct that you have not increased swingweight but you cannot decrease swingweight unless m is a negative value which means you have to remove mass to reduce swingweight.


irgi said:
2)there is a lot of light raquets with a highter SW als other heavier.For exemple:
nCode n tour
L=69 cm
W= 303 gr
b=34.5 cm
SW =330 Kgcm2

and
FXP Radical Tour
L= 69 cm
W=340 gr
b =32 cm
SW = 324 Kgcm2

Now,if I take the ncode and added weight ,in order to reduce the balance at 32 cm and to increase weight to 340 gr.the SW,measured with RDC and not calculated with the formula,MUST be 324,i.e. lower,because the parameter are the same of the model FXP.
Can somebody explain that?
Thanks
Click to expand...

irgi- in order to move the balance point down 2.5cm on the ncode you must add the 37 g of mass ~9 cm from the butcapp (or equivalently (-1) cm from the axis of rotation).

If the change in SW = m x (d^2) then 37 x (-1)^2 = 37

so the new SW of the n code is 330+37 = 367 kg-cm^2.

Even though the two different racquets have the same weight and balance the weight is distributed differently so the SW of the N code is higher.

Also, since the n code has a higher initial swingweight to start with and we said that you can only reduce swingweight by removing mass or shortening the frame, the n code's SW will go up because we added another 37g of mass to the frame to get its weight and balance to be the same as the FXP Rad Tour.

Your english is exceptional.

rich
 
the myth of...

Thanks for all,Rich.
I know that the formula don 't allow to decrease the SW, but if measure with RDC,wath happens?Being the parameters equal(the CX can not be equal,but this is another question),I don't understand because the machine don't give the same results.
Exusmi my insistence and thank you.
 
the myth of...

Thanks for all,Rich.
I know that the formula don 't allow to decrease the SW, but if measure with RDC,wath happens?Being the parameters equal(the CX can not be equal,but this is another question),I don't understand because the machine don't give the same results.
Excusmi my insistence and thank you.
 
the my6th of...

To conclude,my question is this:
if we measure with the RDC the modified ncode and the original FXP,that have(I repeat)the same lenght,weight and balance point,we have for the wilson about 367 and for the head 324 ?
Can you ,ric h,try,pratically?
It is an effort for me to believe that,because in the specs,raquets with above the same characteristics have above the same SW.
 
irgi said:
To conclude,my question is this:
if we measure with the RDC the modified ncode and the original FXP,that have(I repeat)the same lenght,weight and balance point,we have for the wilson about 367 and for the head 324 ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe (thru calculations) that the Wilson will be approximately 367 and the head would be approximately 324.


irgi said:
It is an effort for me to believe that,because in the specs,raquets with above the same characteristics have above the same SW.
Click to expand...

They have the same length, weight and balance but they have different mass distribution so the SW is different. It can be confusing.
 
the myth of...

But also the raquet that I see on TW,that have,with about same w and b,about the same SW ,have also alwais the same mass distribution,although they use different material,heads,profile,etc.?
Thank,and Happy New Year!
 
...And,if I try to apply the formula,I obtain incredible results; to give some exemple:

If I put weight on the butt cap (d=-10) or 10cm over the point zero (d=+10) the two SW are equal,althought the difference between the two points is 20 cm,and,of consequence,the new balances are very different.
If I put weight on the zero point(10 cm from butt cap) the SW don't change,even I added 10,100,1000 kg!
How can we believe this formula?
Okay,I have a practical proposal for Don:
-measure with RDC a raquet modified as I have written and tell us,please,the result.
Thank.
 
what playing style would benefit from low swing weight and what style from high swing weight?
i have been trying to figure this out for weeks
thanks
david
 
irgi said:
...And,if I try to apply the formula,I obtain incredible results; to give some exemple:

If I put weight on the butt cap (d=-10) or 10cm over the point zero (d=+10) the two SW are equal,althought the difference between the two points is 20 cm,and,of consequence,the new balances are very different.
If I put weight on the zero point(10 cm from butt cap) the SW don't change,even I added 10,100,1000 kg!
How can we believe this formula?
Okay,I have a practical proposal for Don:
-measure with RDC a raquet modified as I have written and tell us,please,the result.
Thank.
Click to expand...

Irgi,

D=0 at the 10cm point up from the butt. D is never negative. If you added 1 oz(28g) at the butt or to the 20cm point, both are 10cm from the zero point(which is also called the axis of rotation or AOR). The formula would be

I = MxD^2/1000 or I = 28x10^2/1000 or I = 2800/1000 or 2.8 kg/cm^2.
 
irgi said:
Thanks for all,Rich.
I know that the formula don 't allow to decrease the SW, but if measure with RDC,wath happens?Being the parameters equal(the CX can not be equal,but this is another question),I don't understand because the machine don't give the same results.
Excusmi my insistence and thank you.
Click to expand...

I hope I understand your question. Here goes: According to the formula, you cannot lower swingweight without removing mass from the racquet. However, depending on your measuring equipment, you can add weight and have the measured swingweight go down. I do not yet have an explanation for this.

Last week, I received two new unstrung racquets. One weighed 323.5 grams, and the other 325.5 grams. The first had a swingweight of 290, and the second a swingweight of 291. I didn't have time to match them fully, so I added 2 grams of lead tape at around 18.5 cm up from the butt cap of the lighter racquet. The measured swingweight changed from 290 to 289.

I'd previously seen this type of result on other handle-weighted racquets.

My next step will be to check the swingweight using both the machine and the "stopwatch method." Although the stopwatch method requires some patience and attention to detail, I'm guessing that the swingweight will not go down on racquets when mass is added, no matter what location is chosen for the additional mass.
 
gregraven said:
............My next step will be to check the swingweight using both the machine and the "stopwatch method." Although the stopwatch method requires some patience and attention to detail...........
Click to expand...

Greg-
Can you explain or share a link that explains the stopwatch method?

thanks-
rich
 
Basically, you hang the racquet by the second cross from two pivot points (so the racquet swings back and forth in a smooth arc), and with the stopwatch time how long it takes the racquet to swing through ten full cycles. You will also need the mass of the racquet, the balance point in centimeters, and the distance from the end of the butt cap to the pivot point in centimeters. From this you can calculate the swingweight, and then apply the parallel axis theorem to "translate" that swingweight to a point 10 cm up from the end of the butt cap, which is what we're all used to when discussing swingweight. USRSA members can make use of the on-line tool that makes this all MUCH easier:

http://www.usrsa.com/members/tools/swing_weight.html
 
question about a raquet

Does anybody knows if the yonex rdti70 is a good raquet? I play, but not to much so i dont know if i have to use that one or an easier one.

thanks
 
Maybe the axis of rotation should be at the butt cap? If it is 10cm from it it acts as a pivot point and SW can be reduced by adding weight behind it. It counter balances the weight at the top so the weights cancel each other out.
 
What about this comparison (according to TW)

WILSON PROSTAFF 6.0 85
Strung Weight: 12.6oz / 357g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 329

WILSON NCODE 6.1 95
Strung Weight: 12.2oz / 346g
Balance: 10pts Head Light
Swingweight: 330

The first PS 85 is heavier, head heavy and has less swingweight. How is this possible? Can anyone explain this?
 
It's how the weight is distributed that makes the difference. If you add weight at the farthest point from the axisis of rotation, meaning at the 12 o'clock position it will result in the biggest increase in swingweight. Think about leverage, you can lift something very heavy when it is close to to the pivot point when you are far on the other side of said point. Same principle applies here.

In this case it is the DISTRIBUTION of weight that mekes the difference.
 
Someone know how much weight for a bumper guard?
I want to know how much i will win if i cut my bumper guard of my hps 6.1
 
rich s said:
swingweight is a misleading name....it has nothing to do with the static weight of the racquet

the proper term for swingweight is angular moment of inertia (MOI). basically, angular moment of inertia is an indicator of how easy it is to change the state of a raquet and its manuverability.

the lower the angular MOI the easier it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether.

the higher the angular MOI the more difficult it is to start moving a still racquet or slow down a moving racquet or change its direction altogether

Lower angular MOI racquets will be more manuverable than higher angular MOI racquets but will not plow thru a ball like higher angular MOI racquets.

in simplified terms the angular MOI describes the percieved lightness or heaviness of a racquet when you are swinging it and its realtive manuverabilty......it has some how become known as swingweight but actually has nothing to do with weight but everything to do with inertia.

also the units of measure of angular MOI are kg-cm^2 not grams.

the gentlemen who is trying to explain swingweight in terms of centrifugal force is incorrect.
Click to expand...


GREAT !!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Prince TT100P swingweight? Calculation tool musings.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Juggernauts
J
soulfree914
Reducing swingweight of Blade v8 16x19
Replies
7
Views
1K
BladeBrother1990
B
Paleo.F
Head Gravity Pro cut down to 26.75?
Replies
8
Views
866
Dragy
Dragy
Triskadekaphilia
Swingweights of Head Radical vs Prestige
Replies
0
Views
761
Triskadekaphilia
Triskadekaphilia
R
Dumb swingweight question and a racket recommendation
Replies
10
Views
1K
Muppet
Muppet
Back
Top