Venus', Serena's, and Roddick's racquets.

[TennisAsAlways]

JohnCauthen - You said unmodified 200G's were one of the bnesst rackets out there.... how would you modify it to make it even better. Unlock the true potential of the already amazing ( I love it by the way) 200G.

Also , would a M-Fil 200 Plus be the same thing? It's half a inch longer , would that make a substantial difference? (I'm new to this , so TennisAsAlways , dont be too harsh on me mate , lol only joking)

I know you were only joking, but why would I be harsh on you for asking a question?

Good day now. 8)

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Before I ask my question I just want to say thanks to Mr Cauthen for all the info that he has so generously shared and the time he took to sit down and explain everything properly about why and how he modifies his racquets. I for one will point all my friends to Mr Cauthen and this thread in particular when they see me modifying mine. So thanks again Mr Cauthen

Now my question...sorry to interrupt the flow of the thread but as I was reading the posts I saw something that confused me. Earlier it was said that to improve power and feel you should add some lead weight just above the handle. But then Dom asked how one should adjust a Liquidmetal Instinct. Stringing info was given but then it was said that no weight should be added. I couldn't figure out if no weight to the hoop should be added or if the the weight above the handle shouldn't be added or if no weight period was to be added. I assumed it was meant that weight above the handle could be added, but that to leave the hoop alone. Could someone clear this up for me? The reason I ask is that I wanted to know how to modify a Head Flexpoint Radical Tour and the Liquid metal instinct isn't too too far off but I want to be absolutely sure.


Any advice would be greatly appreciated Mr Cauthen or TAA or DOM.

I'm under the impression that you want to emulate Mr Cauthen's concept as accurately as possible. You are asking how the customization for that particular frame is suppose to be done, afterall.

I only take what's beneficial from things, in general. I don't try to emulate Mr Cauthen's approach in all aspects. That's why to me, what confuses you, it's not an issue for me personally because I figure things out on my own. I stretch the hoop and I add handle weights. Now, although I don't do everything Mr Cauthen does step-by-step, overall, I am working on the same idea he's working on; and that is, finding the "ultimate ideal concept". I just don't do everything the same way he does.

It would be best for Mr Cauthen to answer your question, since you seem to want to attain/experiment the racquet performance that he describes that he gets from that particular frame you are refering to.

Good day now. 8)

 

[azarel]

post deleted

 

[ask1ed]

There is a new type of racquet being used by Venus, Serena, and Andy Roddick.

In 1989 with the Constant Taper System, and with Triple Threat weighting Prince has marketed racquets with extra weight at the top of the head, which is countered against weight in the handle.

And in 1989 Wilson marketed an idea where they took weight out of the handle but added a lot of weight above the handle.

Here is a 1987 racquet that has weight added to the shaft above the handle.

I showed that racquet to Wilson, and the idea became part of the Hammer System. They added weight above the handle and took weight out of the handle itself.

The news was a more head heavy racquet, but that idea has the high polar moment of inertia that Prince was marketing. There is weight at the top of the handle, and weight in the head.

Now at Wilson, the Hammer has been discontinued in favor of a new weighting that is different. It has a low moment of inertia. In Venus and Serena’s new racquets, most of the weight is concentrated at the string bridge. They are light at the top of the head and light in the handle, but heavy at the string bridge for a low polar moment of inertia.

I developed my idea since 1980, and got a lot of control with it. Here is one of the racquets I used regularly back then.

But with weight concentrated at the string bridge, there is a low moment of inertia. Serena’s complaint when she lost was that she had no feel for the ball. She said she was timing it well; but she couldn't control where it was going. She couldn't manipulate two weights with a high polar moment of inertia to direct the ball while she was hitting it, which is a skill most avid tennis players possess. They know how to feel the different weights in different parts of the racquet and manipulate those weights to direct the ball.

But the new Roddick racquets also have weight moved from where it was to its new location near the string bridge. There is only one main weight, and no feel. In every rally where Baghdatis returned Roddick’s serve, Baghdatis had the advantage of better, more effective groundstrokes than Roddick! It was due to racquet balance.

Venus, Serena, and Roddick are all using a new philosophy in racquet balance. It feels solid and seems okay, but when you are pressured, when Serena was under the pressure of losing, she said, “I had no feel for the ball.” That's the problem with this new type of weighting, it takes away your feel and control.

Venus and Serena lost while using it and Roddick lost to Baghdatis. The verdict on this new weighting is amazingly definitive.

Rod. fh is too topspinny and not enough penetration, sits up for big flat shots. Return his serve and he is beaten nowadays. Serena needs to to a foodaholic retreat. Venus needs a more consistent stick/mind frame. Sick of those arrogant two anyway. Too bad we don't have better more admirable players coming up.

 

[johncauthen]

It's optional whether you add the handle weight, but it's important to adjust the length of the head. The Liquidmetal Instinct works better with a stretched head, about 1/8 inch longer, or more.

Try a tapered handle weight from 8 9/16 inches to 4 5/16 inches from the butt. The taper is shaped like an arrowhead.

The tapered weight is 4¼ inches long, shaped like an arrowhead. Cover the notched section at the bottom with your finger to see the shape. Round off the square edges at the bottom but not too much. The tip is placed a little higher than 8½ inches from the butt. Make the arrowhead shape out of lead sheet. A safe weight that won't feel clumsy is 39 to 41 grams.

The arrowhead shape is the most graphic way to describe it, and arrowhead shape is exactly the way the lead sheet should be shaped.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

See how the blue V, which is an added weight, is in the same location as the top of the pallet on the nBlade. Above that V on the Babolat is the rest of the pallet, or you could call it something else, like the handle or the shaft, but "pallet" seems to be a very good name for it.

By making the solid part shorter, or adding a weight there to make it feel shorter, you completely change the racquet.

I haven't talked about this in any of my posts because it has been incorporated into most all racquets. That longer pallet is the idea I showed Wilson. I haven't talked at all about that idea, because it is part of every racquet. They claimed it always was.

Now, they are changing that part of the racquet, and they are changing the basic feel of tennis racquets back to whippy and uncontrollable, making for a gamble any time you go for a good return of serve. You might like it at first, even Roddick likes it, but he doesn't play well with it.

By making the solid part shorter, or adding a weight there to make it feel shorter, you completely change the racquet.

Mr Cauthen, I was wondering how you would feel about doing the complete opposite of what you described was what they did to the new Pure Drive Plus frame design. I think you were saying that making the pallet shorter and/or placing mass to an area on the lower part of the handle (below the 8½"-9" point) would result in a dynamic feel that goes against the "ideal concept". Now what if we did the opposite to what they did to the new PD plus frame? .... That is, rather then add mass to the lower area (the non-ideal area), we remove mass from the lower non-ideal areas instead. This would eliminate the need to add the tapered mass, keeping static and swing weight to a minimum.

The reason why I am mentioning this is because I have experimented with that idea in the past, before I have even started to read about your ideas (before you joined this board as a matter of fact). I am mentioning this because what you said in your previous post -- what you believe was what they did to the new PD plus design -- made me remember the concept that I experimented with that just so happens to be opposite to what you believe is what the PD designers have designed.

What I did was I removed the entire pallet, shaved it all off to the bare composite handle, leaving only about 2" at the butt end. I then added lead to the very end of the handle in order to readjust the head-light balance.

That frame was very powerful. During ball impact, it would spring out, shooting the ball. It's hard to describe the dynamics. It felt like the frame was on autopilot. All I had to do was make a backswing, swing forward, think about where I want the ball to go, what type of spin I wanted, and how much pace I wanted .... then presto! I would excute amazing shots. That was an experimental frame. I might try to incorporate some of those ideas, that I put into customizing that frame, into my customization for my PS 6.0 85. It's seems to be a challenge to make the PS 6.0 85 perfect. So far everyday, things have been improving.

Good day now. 8)

 

[azarel]

It's optional whether you add the handle weight, but it's important to adjust the length of the head. The Liquidmetal Instinct works better with a stretched head, about 1/8 inch longer, or more.

Try a tapered handle weight from 8 9/16 inches to 4 5/16 inches from the butt. The taper is shaped like an arrowhead.

The tapered weight is 4¼ inches long, shaped like an arrowhead. Cover the notched section at the bottom with your finger to see the shape. Round off the square edges at the bottom but not too much. The tip is placed a little higher than 8½ inches from the butt. Make the arrowhead shape out of lead sheet. A safe weight that won't feel clumsy is 39 to 41 grams.

The arrowhead shape is the most graphic way to describe it, and arrowhead shape is exactly the way the lead sheet should be shaped.

Thanks again Mr Cauthen. I will have a small window of opportunity when I go to the States to properly apply the suggested mods to a Radical Tour, (don't have easy access to stringing machine etc etc back home) so I'll your implement your suggestions while I'm up there and see how it goes.....

 

[jackson vile]

Mr Cauthen, I was wondering how you would feel about doing the complete opposite of what you described was what they did to the new Pure Drive Plus frame design. I think you were saying that making the pallet shorter and/or placing mass to an area on the lower part of the handle (below the 8½"-9" point) would result in a dynamic feel that goes against the "ideal concept". Now what if we did the opposite to what they did to the new PD plus frame? .... That is, rather then add mass to the lower area, remove mass in low areas instead. This would eliminate the need to add the tapered mass, keeping static and swing weight to a minimum.

The reason why I am mentioning this is because I have experimented with that idea in the past, before I have even started to read about your ideas (before you joined this board as a matter of fact). I am mentioning this because what you said in your previous post -- what you believe was what they did to the new PD plus design -- made me remember the concept that I experimented with that just so happens to be opposite to what you believe is what the PD designers have designed.

What I did was I removed the entire pallet, shaved it all off to the bare composite handle, leaving only about 2" at the butt end. I then added lead to the very end of the handle in order to readjust the head-light balance.

That frame was very powerful. During ball impact, it would spring out, shooting the ball. It's hard to desribe the dynamics. It felt like the frame was on autopilot. All I had to do was make a backswing, swing forward, think about where I want the ball to go, what type of spin I wanted, and how much pace I wanted .... then presto! I would excute amazing shots. That was an experimental frame. I might try to incorporate some of those ideas, that I put into customizing that frame, into my customization for my PS 6.0 85. It's seems to be a challenge to make the PS 6.0 85 perfect. So far everyday, things have been improving.

Good day now. 8)

That is exactly what we are going against here, we do not want a wipy unstable racket, we want something that sucks in heavy topspin and shoots it right out twice as bad.

John said that this may not feel as good but it plays better, I find this true with the Maxply, feels a bit weird maybe even bad, but it just sucks up big sping serve and shoot it right back to where you want it like you were hitting a fed ball.


What you need to do to keep the weight down is to chop off 1/2in or less and add the weight to the top of the handle.

That is why I have been sugesting XL rackets as it has expendable mass that can be transfered.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

That is exactly what we are going against here, we do not want a wipy unstable racket, we want something that sucks in heavy topspin and shoots it right out twice as bad.

John said that this may not feel as good but it plays better, I find this true with the Maxply, feels a bit weird maybe even bad, but it just sucks up big sping serve and shoot it right back to where you want it like you were hitting a fed ball.


What you need to do to keep the weight down is to chop off 1/2in or less and add the weight to the top of the handle.

That is why I have been sugesting XL rackets as it has expendable mass that can be transfered.

I think you are misunderstanding me. What I ended up with was not a whippy feel.

Basically, according to John's explaination, adding mass to a point "below" the ideal point (the ideal point is 8½"-9" from the butt end cap) -- not "on" the ideal point -- would result in a whippy feel, like the feel of the new PD Plus and wilson nBlades.

Now what I did was opposite to the PD Plus and Wilson nBlade design. I did something "opposite" to the non-ideal dynamics (The opposite of "non-ideal" = "ideal."). Instead of adding mass to the "poor" location (the area below the ideal points at 8½"-9") that would result in "poor" dynamics", I removed mass from the "poor" location, rather. So it is opposite to the supposedly "terrible" concept of the new PD Plus & nBlades.

Again, according to John, adding mass at a point below the ideal point(s) would result in a dynamic similar to having a short pallet, which is not what we want! Now what I have done is removed mass (rather than adding mass) away from the poor location, and so that may have resulted in a dynamic similar to having a long pallet/"ideal conceptual design".

It's all about dynamics. You don't actually have to have a long or short pallet. It's the key distribution of weights that determines the dynamical properties.

Good day now. 8)

 

[TennisAsAlways]

That is why I have been sugesting XL rackets as it has expendable mass that can be transfered.

Yes, I have always been aware of that fact with XL frames. All other things being equal to a standard length frame, those XL frames have less mass per particle area, therefore, compared to the standard frames, they have a very light head . I have experimented with plenty of XL frames. My current job is working on a PS 6.0 85 however, as that is my current main frame of choice.

Good day now. 8)

 

[jackson vile]

Yes, I have always been aware of that fact with XL frames. All other things being equal to a standard length frame, those XL frames have less mass per particle area, therefore, compared to the standard frames, they have a very light head . I have experimented with plenty of XL frames. My current job is working on a PS 6.0 85 however, as that is my current main frame of choice.

Good day now. 8)

I understand what you are saying, so you have made the racekt less head light now, but it is lighter and you think it plays better. Have you tried it against heaby spin? You should pick yourself up a Maxply, also if you could find an XL Pro Staff that would be better.

Other wise just keep adding lead to the handle as John said until you feel it hits best, also have you tryed stretching the head yet.

I am afraid stretching the head will reduce the sweetspot and reduce the strings cuping of the ball.

I would imagine that it is best to have a non-tension losing string inthe corsses then, so you would want to use gut or some type of poly.

If I were you I would just cut off 0.5inch of the PD+, then add 1-2oz of lead as John suggests to the handle and then use Poly mains and gut crosses with gut no higher than 63lbs and ploy no lower then 45lbs. So say 60lbsc 50lbsm.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

I understand what you are saying, so you have made the racekt less head light now, but it is lighter and you think it plays better. Have you tried it against heaby spin? You should pick yourself up a Maxply, also if you could find an XL Pro Staff that would be better.

Other wise just keep adding lead to the handle as John said until you feel it hits best, also have you tryed stretching the head yet.

I am afraid stretching the head will reduce the sweetspot and reduce the strings cuping of the ball.

I would imagine that it is best to have a non-tension losing string inthe corsses then, so you would want to use gut or some type of poly.

If I were you I would just cut off 0.5inch of the PD+, then add 1-2oz of lead as John suggests to the handle and then use Poly mains and gut crosses with gut no higher than 63lbs and ploy no lower then 45lbs. So say 60lbsc 50lbsm.

I am afraid stretching the head will reduce the sweetspot and reduce the strings cuping of the ball.

As far as the area on the stringbed that enables the best ball rebound, I wouldn't say that that area is reduced. It actually gets streched out along the longitudinal plane of the frame, and the only change is that it is narrowed. So it essentially remains the same size in square measure, as if it would be if the hoop weren't stretched at all.

One thing I can safely claim is that the frame's torsional twist stability along the longitudinal axis decreases as a result of the streched hoop. That is because the inertia is decreased from the narrowed hoop. To me, it hasn't noticeably decreased to the point whereas my shots are affected by it.

Good day now. 8)

 

[johncauthen]

John said that this may not feel as good but it plays better, I find this true with the Maxply, feels a bit weird maybe even bad, but it just sucks up big spin serve and shoot it right back to where you want it like you were hitting a fed ball.

That's where I was 14 years ago. My racquet did not feel as good, but it played better.

Back then I was trying to sell people racquets that played better but didn't feel as good. They said, "It feels heavy. I can't use it for more than a set, but it hits the ball better." Even Wilson claimed regular players couldn't use the same racquets pros used, because pro racquets hit better but didn't feel as light.

The paintjob mystery was born.

I kept at it. For 14 years I wanted a racquet that played better and felt as light.

I found a tapered shape for a weight that didn't have much clumsiness to it. It had potential. I wanted experience with a lot of racquets, and got a job stringing for a year. When I was ready to market my weight through Don, and spring was coming on, we had a falling out, but not over my marketing the weight. I guess he wasn't the one to help market it.

But I got the experience with different racquets that I needed. Now, I'm going to market my universal weight in different weights from 27 grams to 54 grams. Is anyone interested in helping me market it? I can make it myself; it's no problem to make it. I need a way to sell it.

But what he said was the bottom line for a long time. Even Wilson and Head, Babolat and Dunlop could only make pro racquets that hit better, but didn't feel better. And that's what you get when you add most any weight to the top of the handle.

The weight has to be shaped right and the right length. I have a shape and length that hits better and feels good. It's just a $4.50 product you can add to a racquet if you want to.

 

[jamumafa]

John , please can you e-mail me with details of this product?

hijidiji@hotmail.co.uk

 

[ShooterMcMarco]

Shooter, I have a 6.0 95 as well. Can you give some more details of what you did -- string(s), tensions, technique, etc? Thanks in advance.

I used a poly hybrid, half hurricane 17g and half alpha vengeance 16g (i had a half set leftover of hurricane so decided to try this out). I strung the mains at 50 and the crosses @ 63.

 

[dom]

Liguidmetal Instinct ?

“It's easy to make a Liguidmetal Instinct hit a lot better. Using elastic sting, not a string like Pro Blend or Infinity, string the mains at 40 lbs then 64lbs for the first six crosses; 67 for the rest of the crosses.”



John,

I have finally tried your stringing method on my Liquid metal Instinct using Prince Synthetic Gut w/Duraflex. However the stringer strung the racquet using one piece of stringing instead of two. The head looked significantly elongated however I was worried that it would not hold its shape because of the one piece stringing.

Over all I would say that the racquet felt fantastic. I had a match with a guy who usually beats easily but last night I lost 7-6 6-4 a huge breakthrough for me. I was very impressed with my serve, which I was plugging in to the corners with consistency. Also, I felt like I was getting more power with out extra effort.

I did find that the strings were moving around quite a bit. Something that wasn’t happening when I was stringing normally using Yonex Tour Super 850

Next time I want to try a poly in the mains. I was wondering what you thought of Signum Pro_Poly Plasma. My stringer has this as an ongoing special for
AUS $ 35. For $10 more I could use the Luxilon Big Banger_ALU Power.

Thanks for your input.

 

[armand]

Is that a Mayan spearhead? If so, stealing a historical artifact from an archealogical dig is a misdeamenor in 36 states. I suggest you do the correct thing and return it before you end up on America's Least Wanted.
Sorry, someone had to say it! :mrgreen:

 

[johncauthen]

dom, Thank you for your input.

Most all racquets today have too much weight in the fork or throat area. Stringing the heads longer fixes that, which is a significant discovery.

Over all I would say that the racquet felt fantastic. I had a match with a guy who usually beats easily but last night I lost 7-6 6-4 a huge breakthrough for me. I was very impressed with my serve, which I was plugging in to the corners with consistency. Also, I felt like I was getting more power with out extra effort.

That's exactly the kind of responses I was getting in my stringing job. I had an underdog girl win the High School 4As with my stretched head stringing. It's not supposed to happen. People don't find out all the racquets made by all the racquet companies are wrong, and here's how to fix them.

That got me in trouble in my job. People don't get fired because they do something better, but this was so much better, and I couldn't deny that it really works and string them the conventional way.

Unfortunately, I am now America’s least wanted stringer and racquet tech.

They are giving Federer good racquets and giving us racquets that all have a problem. And Federer is obviously not using an n90 under the paintjob.

Wilson is still making the Hammer 6.3, selling it for $39 wholesale. They've even improved it with a solid headguard and a rebalanced head. And it has new graphics. They are not getting rid of the Hammer 6.3s they had left over. They're still making it and improving it. Why continue to manufacture and improve a racquet they have discontinued?

Maybe because the Hammer 6.3 was the final and best version of the replacement for the 6.0 85. The first attempt was the PS Classic 6.1. Edberg used the 6.1, then went back to the 6.0.

The 6.0 was hard to beat. They did beat it with the 6.3, then officially discontinued the 6.3, but they are still making new versions of it, which is, strange.

I am thankful for that. I have a modified 6.3 that is better than everything. I was comparing it to a Volkl V-1 today. The Volkl was modified with my latest and best weight, so I thought it would be amazing. The V-1 was my favorite racquet. The 6.3, with a slightly stretched head, and modified with an ideal arrowhead shaped weight was in a different league from what was formerly my favorite racquet.

The 6.3 can be sold through Tennis Warehouse, if they are interested. First they have to try it.

They could also string a lot of racquets from Tennis Warehouse, like the Radicals, and Instinct, with slightly stretched heads. They can be strung correctly with the right supervision. It is the most consistent way to get good results. Almost everyone is reporting better hitting racquets using this method.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Mr Cauthen, I had my PS 6.0 85 strung with the elongated method. I tested it today and it played great!

What I did in addition to the hoop stretching was that I added 8-9 grams of lead tape all the way around the top of the hoop, from the 11 o'clock position all the way around to the 1 o'clock location, coming across the 12 o'clock position. That geatly improved the dynamic feel, the way the racquet swings.

Before I added lead to that location, I tested out the frame leaded at the 3 & 9 o'clock positions. It didn't feel right. I added more lead to the sides than I did to the 11 o'clock-all-the-way-around-to-the-1 o'clock-position and so the swing weights from both instances were identical.

The reason why the racquet felt good with lead at the tip of the hoop may have been because of what you explained earlier. You explained how Prince utilizes the high polar moment of inertia, with a concentration of mass towards the tip of the frame and another concentration towards the but end. (Yes I am also aware that you explained that Prince didn't get it perfectly right, because the mass they concentrated was too close to the butt end.)

Anyways, my PS 6.0 so far is my best racquet and doesn't feel too demanding as like how it did in stock form. I get monster serves from it. I am still working to fine tune the weight for the top of the handle. I am thinking about removing the dampening foam inside the handle, at the area below the 9" point. That should decrease weight. I would then redistribute some of that weight amount (the equivilent "swing weight", because if I were to replace the same exact static weight then the SW would be higher since I would be shifting mass further away from the axis of rotation) up to the 9" point and the rest to the end cap in order to realign the balance point to where I want it to be. I'll let you know how that goes. I'm working on that part tomorrow.

Good day now. 8)

 

[jackson vile]

Mr Cauthen, I had my PS 6.0 85 strung with the elongated method. I tested it today and it played great!

What I did in addition to the hoop stretching was that I added 8-9 grams of lead tape all the way around the top of the hoop, from the 11 o'clock position all the way around to the 1 o'clock location, coming across the 12 o'clock position. That geatly improved the dynamic feel, the way the racquet swings.

Before I added lead to that location, I tested out the frame leaded at the 3 & 9 o'clock positions. It didn't feel right. I added more lead to the sides than I did to the 11 o'clock-all-the-way-around-to-the-1 o'clock-position and so the swing weights from both instances were identical.

The reason why the racquet felt good with lead at the tip of the hoop may have been because of what you explained earlier. You explained how Prince utilizes the high polar moment of inertia, with a concentration of mass towards the tip of the frame and another concentration towards the but end. (Yes I am also aware that you explained that Prince didn't get it perfectly right, because the mass they concentrated too close to the butt end.)

Anyways, my PS 6.0 so far is my best racquet and doesn't feel too demanding as like how it did in stock form. I get monster serves from it. I am still working to fine tune the weight for the top of the handle. I am thinking about removing the dampening foam inside the handle, at the area below the 9" point. That should decrease weight. I would then redistribute some of that weight amount (the equivilent "swing weight", because if I were to replace the same exact static weight then the SW would be higher since I would be shift mass further away from the axis of rotation) up to the 9" point and the rest to the end cap in order to realign the balance point to where I want it to be. I'll let you know how that goes. I'm working on that part tomorrow.

Good day now. 8)

What there was foam to be taken out and you haven't done it yet, why would you add lead to the top of the hoop, the SW is high enough as is.

Just do john's method and put the weight on the handle and keep adding until you get a bad feel and then back track to perfection.

 

[jackson vile]

Ok I am getting a LMIXL in, I am going to stretch the hoop but a concern I have it will the ball pocket at all? I can't play with out pocketing and if it is like a board I will be sad.

after the stretch I want to chop off 0.5in and look for any foam ect that I can dig out and put the lead on the handle.


John don't you find the 6.3 swing weight too high it is 340, that is why I have not bought it yet, I am more interested in the n6 as it is flex of 60, 16X18 string pattern, and is 95sqing head, look really good.

 

[jackson vile]

“It's easy to make a Liguidmetal Instinct hit a lot better. Using elastic sting, not a string like Pro Blend or Infinity, string the mains at 40 lbs then 64lbs for the first six crosses; 67 for the rest of the crosses.”



John,

I have finally tried your stringing method on my Liquid metal Instinct using Prince Synthetic Gut w/Duraflex. However the stringer strung the racquet using one piece of stringing instead of two. The head looked significantly elongated however I was worried that it would not hold its shape because of the one piece stringing.

Over all I would say that the racquet felt fantastic. I had a match with a guy who usually beats easily but last night I lost 7-6 6-4 a huge breakthrough for me. I was very impressed with my serve, which I was plugging in to the corners with consistency. Also, I felt like I was getting more power with out extra effort.

I did find that the strings were moving around quite a bit. Something that wasn’t happening when I was stringing normally using Yonex Tour Super 850

Next time I want to try a poly in the mains. I was wondering what you thought of Signum Pro_Poly Plasma. My stringer has this as an ongoing special for
AUS $ 35. For $10 more I could use the Luxilon Big Banger_ALU Power.

Thanks for your input.

did the ball pocket for you? Also I belive there is a softer poly to be found then alu, the plasma is really good in 18g, is timo, ace and hurican any good?

I hate poly personally but I could play with plasma if I had to but nothing else.

Did you measure your head to see how far it stretched?

Also did you feel the ball pocketing, did the string bed feel soft? What was it like how did it serve and spin?

Give use all the good man:mrgreen:

 

[mislav]

John, I'm not at all knowledgeable in advanced racquet customization, but I follow this thread with great interest.

I tried to customize my Wilson Hammer H4 with the closest equivalent of your arrow shaped weight that I was able to pull through. I simply added 12 gr of lead tape to the throat area of this racquet.

I must say that it plays a lot better now. And I thought to myself - "Hey, John Cauthen really knows his stuff!" But then I come across this statement of yours:

Most all racquets today have too much weight in the fork or throat area.

...and now I'm puzzled since it contradicts my findings. I feel as if my Hammer still needs additional weight (30 gr) in the handle in the form of lead tape applied from the inside of the handle to play great. That would counterweight the H4, so my question is - is this something that is along your line of thinking or do you suggest something other than this to be done to improve my racquet?

 

[TennisAsAlways]

What there was foam to be taken out and you haven't done it yet, why would you add lead to the top of the hoop, the SW is high enough as is.

Just do john's method and put the weight on the handle and keep adding until you get a bad feel and then back track to perfection.

I am going with MackSamuelHustovic's concept as well as John's. One of his concepts is very similar to John's but the only difference for that one concept is that he suggested to add mass to the tip of the hoop and butt end, in addition to adding mass to the top of the handle. The things of that one design of Mack's that is exactly like John's concept are the hoop elongation and the added mass at the top of the handle. He did not, however, mention a tapered weight like John did.

Mack's concept of adding mass to the tip makes sense, as far as corresponding to the "ideal concept" that John describes. John did mention that the ideal concept has a high "polar" moment of inertia -- basically the dynamic feel of two concentrated masses spread far apart. (According to him, Prince almost had the perfect idea. In their designs, they had concentrations of mass at the tip of the hoop and at the very end of the handle. According to John, it was the concentration of weight at the very end of the handle that was what made their designs "just off".)

If you were to follow John's and Mack's post from day one, from the other threads as well as from this thread, you would know what I am talking about. Ask John, he would confirm my reasoning for adding mass to the tip being in relation to the "ideal concept", the high polar concept. Hoop stretching is one means of attaing the higher polar inertia. Basically by elongating the hoop, you are shifting mas away from the throat. Adding mass to the tip is another way that could be included into the concept, if one were to insist on increasing the SW of a frame at the same time -- which is my case BTW.

Now you asked me why I would want to add mass to the tip of the frame? Many reasons; pull the C.O.P. upwards (I like it high in order to increase the margin of attaining a "positive" impulve reactive force rather than the "negative".), fine tune the dynamics of the frame (the polar inertia), increase the SW, and to increase the torsional twist weight.

I followed all of Mack's and John posts. Both of their ideas coicide, even though they don't do everything the same way.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Ok I am getting a LMIXL in, I am going to stretch the hoop but a concern I have it will the ball pocket at all? I can't play with out pocketing and if it is like a board I will be sad.

after the stretch I want to chop off 0.5in and look for any foam ect that I can dig out and put the lead on the handle.


John don't you find the 6.3 swing weight too high it is 340, that is why I have not bought it yet, I am more interested in the n6 as it is flex of 60, 16X18 string pattern, and is 95sqing head, look really good.

Women, children and senior citizens can wield those Hammer 6.3s. Adding a tapered mass (about 45 grams) to John's recommend location would raise the swing weight by approximately 7.5 kg · cm².

Given the total low static mass of the frame, I think that in general, people shouldn't have much of a difficult time maneuvering the extra 7.5 kg · cm² SW.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

John, I'm not at all knowledgeable in advanced racquet customization, but I follow this thread with great interest.

I tried to customize my Wilson Hammer H4 with the closest equivalent of your arrow shaped weight that I was able to pull through. I simply added 12 gr of lead tape to the throat area of this racquet.

I must say that it plays a lot better now. And I thought to myself - "Hey, John Cauthen really knows his stuff!" But then I come across this statement of yours:

...and now I'm puzzled since it contradicts my findings. I feel as if my Hammer still needs additional weight (30 gr) in the handle in the form of lead tape applied from the inside of the handle to play great. That would counterweight the H4, so my question is - is this something that is along your line of thinking or do you suggest something other than this to be done to improve my racquet?

When Mr Cauthen mentioned the throat and fork area, he was referring to the area above a point that is approximately 9 inches from the butt end.

So basically, concentrations of weight between 9" above the handle and under the lower half of the hoop would result in poor dynamics, going against the "ideal concept" in discussion. So going by this "ideal concept," you don't want mass at the 6 o'clock area (the string bridge), 4-5-7-8 o'clock areas, the forks, and the shaft area above the 9" handle mark.

Do you understand now?

Good day now. 8)

 

[jackson vile]

The PS 85 has a SW of 329, to me that is high enough but if you want more why not use the PC600 which is simular to the stretched hoop and has a SW of 336 or the LW SW340.

That way more weight is polarized than in the PS85


Next I am a bit confused on how children and ect are going to be fine with a 342SW, could you explain that one?

And next is that I have been fallow Johns post from the begining and if you had you would know that, go back and check them there are 3 or 4 thanks.


I don't understand what your fear is of adding more and more lead to the handle if you are capable of handling such high SW, it is very strange.

There is nothing special about Pete's PS85 it just had a whole heck of a lot of lead on it, he kept adding until it felt right, as he went up to bigger and bigger hitters/as other players got heavier sticks and hit heavier, he simply added weight.

For me I can't stand anything above 12.5oz plus I do not need it as the people I play against don't spin as much as me anyways. And thus I don't care for such high SW.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

The PS 85 has a SW of 329, to me that is high enough but if you want more why not use the PC600 which is simular to the stretched hoop and has a SW of 336 or the LW SW340.

That way more weight is polarized than in the PS85


Next I am a bit confused on how children and ect are going to be fine with a 342SW, could you explain that one?

And next is that I have been fallow Johns post from the begining and if you had you would know that, go back and check them there are 3 or 4 thanks.


I don't understand what your fear is of adding more and more lead to the handle if you are capable of handling such high SW, it is very strange.

There is nothing special about Pete's PS85 it just had a whole heck of a lot of lead on it, he kept adding until it felt right, as he went up to bigger and bigger hitters/as other players got heavier sticks and hit heavier, he simply added weight.

For me I can't stand anything above 12.5oz plus I do not need it as the people I play against don't spin as much as me anyways. And thus I don't care for such high SW.

The PS 85 has a SW of 329, to me that is high enough but if you want more why not use the PC600 which is simular to the stretched hoop and has a SW of 336 or the LW SW340.

That way more weight is polarized than in the PS85

How do you know that the PC600 has a higher polar inertia? Just because it has a higher SW than the PS 6.0, that doesn't necessarily mean that the polar inertia is higher. Polar inertia is the dynamic feel; it's different from just "plain" swing weight. A frame with a swing weigth of only 200 can have higher polarization than a frame with a swing weight of 360. This misconception maybe what made you misunderstand my customizations and my reasons for leading at the tip of the hoop.

Next I am a bit confused on how children and ect are going to be fine with a 342SW, could you explain that one?

What I am saying is that people already use the stock Hammer "as is" and that the extra 7.5 kg · cm² shouldn't too be much for people to get used to. It's not like the 45 gramish weight that John adds is way up in the hoop area or anything like that.

I don't understand what your fear is of adding more and more lead to the handle if you are capable of handling such high SW, it is very strange.

What makes you say that I have a fear? Who ever said that I don't add mass to the top of the handle? I never said I that didn't. And how would it be "strange" if I didn't add mass to the top of the handle?

There is nothing special about Pete's PS85 it just had a whole heck of a lot of lead on it, he kept adding until it felt right, as he went up to bigger and bigger hitters/as other players got heavier sticks and hit heavier, he simply added weight.

About Pete's frame.... what has that have to do anything? It's not like I am trying to emulate his frame.

 

[mislav]

When Mr Cauthen mentioned the throat and fork area, he was referring to the area above a point that is approximately 9 inches from the butt end.

So basically, concentrations of weight between 9" above the handle and under the lower half of the hoop would result in poor dynamics, going against the "ideal concept" in discussion. So going by this "ideal concept," you don't want mass at the 6 o'clock area (the string bridge), 4-5-7-8 o'clock areas, the forks, and the shaft area above the 9" handle mark.

I do understand that, but I find added weight in this area to help performances of this racquet. That's what puzzles me.

And I was guided by his reference to adding a "big chunk of weight above the handle", the Pete Sampras type. I wanted to avoid having that chunk and taped some lead tape in the throat area. It helped.

 

[Bill Tilden]

T

I don't understand what your fear is of adding more and more lead to the handle if you are capable of handling such high SW, it is very strange.

.

I have tried a prostaff 6.0 85 of weigth in total of 520 grams yesterday, it was very heavy, i can use it but i found some strange feel at my foreharm , like if something was streching my foreham (muscles), so have take off 60 grams, and i think i will leave it at 460 or probably i wil try at 480.
I think there is a limit of incraesing performance like in the economic curve of marginal increment.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

I think there is a limit of incraesing performance like in the economic curve of marginal increment.

Yes, of course.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

I do understand that, but I find added weight in this area to help performances of this racquet. That's what puzzles me.

And I was guided by his reference to adding a "big chunk of weight above the handle", the Pete Sampras type. I wanted to avoid having that chunk and taped some lead tape in the throat area. It helped.

Different people may prefer different things.

 

[jackson vile]

I have tried a prostaff 6.0 85 of weigth in total of 520 grams yesterday, it was very heavy, i can use it but i found some strange feel at my foreharm , like if something was streching my foreham (muscles), so have take off 60 grams, and i think i will leave it at 460 or probably i wil try at 480.
I think there is a limit of incraesing performance like in the economic curve of marginal increment.

Good job you did what you are supposed to and that is keep adding weight until it does not feel right, later on if you start playing biger and biger hiters you will want to add more lead and as you become acustomed to the the new weight.

Pete did not add all that weight one day, it happend over years.

Many players are the same on this board, they just kept adding lead until now they are in the 14oz range.

 

[jackson vile]

How do you know that the PC600 has a higher polar inertia? Just because it has a higher SW than the PS 6.0, that doesn't necessarily mean that the polar inertia is higher. Polar inertia is the dynamic feel; it's different from just "plain" swing weight. A frame with a swing weigth of only 200 can have higher polarization than a frame with a swing weight of 360. This misconception maybe what made you misunderstand my customizations and my reasons for leading at the tip of the hoop.

Actual the PC600 and the PS 85 are 2 of the rackets with the highest effect hitting weight, the PC600 has a SW of 336 and blance of 8 I belive and is hallow int he throat/forks, thus it has great polarization.

[/QUOTE]What I am saying is that people already use the stock Hammer "as is" and that the extra 7.5 kg · cm² shouldn't too be much for people to get used to. It's not like the 45 gramish weight that John adds is way up in the hoop area or anything like that.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand my point it is a SW of 342 that is really high and when you add the mass to the handle you will change the dynamics and those same people will not be able to play with it just the same as no too many people can play with PC600 or PS 85 (as it is too much to swing for them) This is only a concern and I am simply looking for an asnwer as a way to drop that SW (maybe taking/cutting off the nose guard) or a different stick such as the N6 that is the same but lower SW

[/QUOTE]What makes you say that I have a fear? Who ever said that I don't add mass to the top of the handle? I never said I that didn't. And how would it be "strange" if I didn't add mass to the top of the handle?[/QUOTE]

I keep reading your posts and you act like you don't even want to do that, you just seem as if you really slow at apply this theory? As soon as I get my sticks here it will be moding every day even if I don't have time.

I'm not scared and will fallow John's instructions to a T to get best results, personally I dont' want to waste my time, I want to get to the perfect racket

[/QUOTE]About Pete's frame.... what has that have to do anything? It's not like I am trying to emulate his frame.[/QUOTE]

Look at your past post and re-read them, further more this is what this whole post is based on so I can't take this seriously. Pete just kept adding lead to the handle and top hoop until if felt right, as he got better and his opponets got better he kept adding. Finally at 16oz+ his racket could handle the heaviest of top spin even when hitting off center shots allowing him to place shots any time (almost) and where (almost)

 

[TennisAsAlways]

This is only a concern and I am simply looking for an asnwer as a way to drop that SW (maybe taking/cutting off the nose guard) or a different stick such as the N6 that is the same but lower SW

It is strange that a lot of people (ones without proper form/stroke mechanics, the pushers and or beginners) do use frames with high SW but they tend to use the feather light ones, and rarely do I hear them use frames with high SW + static weight, for example "player's frames" such as the PS and PC.

Yeah. Trimming the bumper guard sounds like a vey good idea. I see what you mean about the high SW. If you could remove about 7 grams of bumper material, leaving the grommets behind, then you would have lowered the SW by about 20 kg · cm², which is a lot.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

..................

 

[TennisAsAlways]

I keep reading your posts and you act like you don't even want to do that, you just seem as if you really slow at apply this theory?

I don't know why you are insulting me.

I myself am an innovator. That is why I am conversing with John, to gain some insight. You on the other hand said that you want to try to emulate him step-for-step. That's the difference between your intentions and mine. I don't need instructions from others and to copy others. I gain insight from others and take what is best. That is all.

Good day now. 8)

 

[jackson vile]

Oh no big deal or anything, just you have been posting so much hear and just last page or so you said you just stretched the hoop a bit. And you have had your racket from the very begining and we are almost 30 pages in and who knows how many weeks.

I am just curious why you have been so slow to apply, you have not reported much if at all on testing so this confuses me?

I have 3 different rackets coming two hammers one LMIXL, and one 200g XL.

You can acomplish all this in one day so I am confused why you havent, stretche the hoop, if you string your self to cut the string to thatyou can untie knot and stretch more or less if needed, that same day or if you must stretch it into two days cut out some different amounts of weights from the roofing lead and keep adding until you don't like it and back track.

There all done! if you don't want more weight (which confuses me as you are increasing the SW and are fine with that and static weight is less fatiging than SW) then get the foam and anything else out of the racket you can to reduce static weight and move to top of handle.

 

[armand]

Mr Cauthen: Have you attempted to show your work to TennisM enace? They seem to like out of the box ideas and might be interested in your methods.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

jackson vile,

The way I fixed the problem of strings moving around is by not pre-stretching the frame when I mounted it.

If I pre-stretch it a little, then I string the crosses tighter, 64 instead of 61. The mains come out tight. I have no problem of loose mains anymore. I did before.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

John,

I have a Babolat Pure Storm. The head size is 98 square inches and I would like your recommendations on your stringing technique for this frame. I usually string this frame with multifilament at 57lbs all the way around.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

John,

What do you mean when you say "prestretch the racket first?" What does that mean, and how is it accomplished?

 

[TennisAsAlways]

I am just curious why you have been so slow to apply, you have not reported much if at all on testing so this confuses me?

The thing is, from the very beginning, I have always had my PS setup with the stretched hoop with the tapered weight at the top of the handle. The dynamics of that frame still weren't to my satisfaction. I suppose that a stretched hoop and weight added on the top of a handle, alone, do not change the feel that much for a PS 6.0; possibly because the PS has so much mass at areas far away from the ideal target areas, therefore there isn't much of the polar inertia.

After I added weight to the tip of the hoop, that was when I felt the great feel. It was due to the greater polarization effect. After that was when I decided to report my findings to John.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

Mr Cauthen, what is your opinion about using the Ashaway Dynamite 17 strings?

It supposedly holds tension vey well and supposedly has a great dynamic stiffness yet soft, very much like natural gut (only a lot cheaper -- about $8 a pack)

I was thinking that maybe it would be a good cross string. You recommended using Lux BB for the mains and Tecnifibre 515 for the crosses. I was thinking that the Ashaway Dynamites would be a great replacement for the Tecnifibres.

The Dynamites are durable too, and so it goes hand in hand with the BB poly setup.

What do you think?

 

[Iconn]

I've got a Prince Pro and am interested in these modifications. It looks like you have just wrapped lead tape just above the grip. How many ounces of lead tape? Did you stretch the hoop?

Iconn

 

[johncauthen]

The Storm is a wonderful racquet. I see Ginepri struggling with his Storm and know what's wrong with it. When strung right, it's one of the best racquets there is.

All you have to do is prestretch the head when you mount it in the machine, less 1/16 inch. If you have a six-point machine, crank the knob and watch as the racquet gets longer. That happens naturally when you mount most racquets in a six-point machine. Just look at it and notice how much it prestretches as you crank on the knob.

Prestretch it less than 1/16.

In a two-point machine, set the the mounts so the racquet stretches a little. Mount the top of the head first, then push the handle down into the bottom mount and notice how much it stretches when it seats. It should be less than 1/16 inch.

String the mains at 40. String top six crosses at 57 and the rest of the crosses at 60. It should feel like 57.

If it's stretched too long it will feel boardy and not pocket the ball, but the Storm probably won't be stretched too long.

It's a great racquet when stretched. Ginepri's racquet is compressed, and he can't beat anybody, lately. All he needs is an off-the-shelf Storm, strung right.

I think any string combined with Big Banger mains would hit well!

 

[johncauthen]

The Prince Pro was from an era where they already had the bottom handle weight that I am adding as an arrowhead shaped weight to today's racquets. But they didn't have the top weight, which I added to the Pro using Babolat Headguard Tape, wrapped around the shaft.

They added the top weight to today's racquets but not the bottom weight.

The head length of the Pro is just right. The racquet is 27 1/8 inches long, exactly the same length as my stretched Hammer 6.3 and a stretched Pure Storm.

Try to make the overall length come out to 27 1/8 inches, and wrap headguard tape with the top edge about 9 1/8 inches from the butt. Mine weighs 374 grams with an overgrip.

 

[jamumafa]

again John please e-mail me at hijidiji@hotmail.co.uk about your product for 4.99

 

[johncauthen]

I'm not selling it yet. I am more inclined to take chance and send you one, but that wouldn't be smart because the perfect shape I have developed is not patented yet. I described it, though. You can make it with some sheet lead. It will come in many weights, but in one perfect shape that I will have to patent first.

 

[jackson vile]

The thing is, from the very beginning, I have always had my PS setup with the stretched hoop with the tapered weight at the top of the handle. The dynamics of that frame still weren't to my satisfaction. I suppose That the streched hoop and added weight on the top of the handle alone do not change the feel that much for a PS 6.0, possibly because the PS has so much mass in the handle area below the ideal target areas, therefore there isn't much of the polar inertia.

After I added weigth to the tip to the hoop, that was when I felt the great feel. It was due to the greater polarization effect. It was after that when I decided to reported my findings to John.

Ok I got ya, so do you think taking the foam out of the handle and replacing the mass with the tapered weight will do it then, also you may need to stretch the hoop more or continue adding mass to upper hoop.