VERY Confused, Swingweight for Dunlop Aerogel 100 vs 200 ?

Fedace

Banned
I am really confused on TW specs for Dunlop Aerogel 100 vs the Aerogel 200. Specs looks fine except when you look at the Swingweights.

Aerogel 200:
Head Size:
95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.9oz / 337g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 331
Stiffness: 61
Beam Width: 20 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Multifilament / Aerogel
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Hydramax Tour
String Pattern:
18 Mains / 20 Crosses
Mains skip: 9T,8H,10H
One Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 55-65 pounds

Then you have Aerogel 100:
Head Size:
90 sq. in. / 581 sq. cm.
Length: 27 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 11.7oz / 332g
Balance: 7pts Head Light
Swingweight: 312
Stiffness: 62
Beam Width: 19 mm Straight Beam
Composition: Graphite Multifilament / Aerogel
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Hydramax Tour
String Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 7T,9T,7H,9H
One Piece
No shared holes
String Tension: 55-65 pounds

There is 20 point difference in Swingweight. but the static weight is only 0.2 oz heavier on the aerogel 200. and also the aerogel 200 is even more head light. so i don't get it. how can there be such big difference in swingweight ? :confused:
 

psp2

Banned
The title should have read "VERY Confused, Swingweight" since you believe adding weight to the butt will decrease a racquet's SW!!!
 

Fedace

Banned
^^Lets not argue about that. Just trust me, on that weight on the buttcap thing. Go add about 0.2-0.4 oz of lead to your buttcap and go out and hit tennis balls with your new customized racket, you will immediately see the difference in swingweight and manuverability.
 

Fedace

Banned
Now, Back to business, Did TW make a mistake on the spec for the Aerogel, if so, which one is right ??
 

Fedace

Banned
LOL I still can't believe you thought that adding weight to the butt would decrease SW.

Just do what i tell you. and add lead in the handle and hit some balls. you will IMMEDIATELY feel the racket is easier to swing. FEELING IS BELIEVING...
 
Last edited:

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
the 200 definitely swings with more weight behind it, i felt the 100 had too low of a swingweight, but that the 200 was just right

it likely has to do with the way weight is distributed between the two. on the 100, it feels like alot is from the throat downwards, while on the 200 it feels more evenly distributed, despite the balance points.

swingweight isnt a function of just the weight and balance, it's many factors.
 

Fedace

Banned
^^Thank you but i thought SW had to do with racket's Static weight and Balance point and length of the racket ?
 

anirut

Legend
Fedace,

Feeling easier to swing is one thing.

Swing weight value is another thing.

You can add weight to the butt just to FEEL easier to swing, may be, yes.

But the ACTUAL swing weight VALUE or NUMBER or whatever you wanna call it increases.

In fact, adding weight to the rear end can sometimes make it feel AWKWARD to swing ...
 

Fedace

Banned
Don't think so. adding weight to the handle makes the racket more head light and easier to manuver. PROS do this all the time. Ask Bosworth and Priority 1. they will tell you the same thing. Hingis is a PRIME example, she hated adding lead weights but like her frame little more head light so she would use heavy Leather grip to get the same effect. in result, she got a more manuverable frame. It is PHYSICS. please Trust me. it is BETTER for you to believe me on this one. cause i am RIGHT. World is NOT flat people...
 

HeadPrestige

Professional
Don't think so. adding weight to the handle makes the racket more head light and easier to manuver. PROS do this all the time. Ask Bosworth and Priority 1. they will tell you the same thing. Hingis is a PRIME example, she hated adding lead weights but like her frame little more head light so she would use heavy Leather grip to get the same effect. in result, she got a more manuverable frame. It is PHYSICS. please Trust me. it is BETTER for you to believe me on this one. cause i am RIGHT. World is NOT flat people...

Did you not read Anirut's post?

He conceded the fact that the racket may feel like it swings lighter, but it will increase the SW (the numerical value). Adding any weight to a racket will increase the SW.
 

Fedace

Banned
^^I read it and it is simple NOT true. World is ROUND people,, not Flat.... also ask HINGIS why she used to use heavy leather grips, she will tell you the same thing.
 

pow

Hall of Fame
Wow, you can't be serious.
Your title is "VERY Confused" yet you are trying to tell everyone what is right or wrong.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Don't think so. adding weight to the handle makes the racket more head light and easier to manuver. PROS do this all the time. Ask Bosworth and Priority 1. they will tell you the same thing. Hingis is a PRIME example, she hated adding lead weights but like her frame little more head light so she would use heavy Leather grip to get the same effect. in result, she got a more manuverable frame. It is PHYSICS. please Trust me. it is BETTER for you to believe me on this one. cause i am RIGHT. World is NOT flat people...
But that's just it, easier to maneuver does not necessarily mean a lower swingweight. There are plenty of things that you do to maneuver a racquet in your hand that don't involve a full swing nor even swinging it at all, for example, holding it up in front of you to hit a volley, getting it in position to block back a return, etc.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
world Is ROUND, not flat. and the critics said,,, wtf is wrong with you...??? :

This isn't a matter of round versus flat-earth. This is about objective (i. e. swing weight measurements) versus subjective (i. e. "it feels more maneuverable").

If you are going to stick with your subjective position, then--yes--the measurement differences will confuse you.
 
Last edited:

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
Wow, the post is about being confused about sw which apparently leads one to assume the poster is no guru of customizing racquets, yet he then turns around and gets arrogant about what is right and wrong. Simply amusing at best...
 

Fedace

Banned
Fedace, SW and maneuverability are two different things.

I already know that. but they go hand in hand. like Universal String theory went hand in hand with 11 dimentional space theory. but Cosmologist argued about it for a long time, not really understanding where they came together. but finally now they realize these two theories went hand in hand. and so does SW and manuverability. This is simply the TRUTH so lets not argue about it anymore.
This thread is really about why those 2 dunlop racket have such huge difference in SW.
 

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
Don't overlook that fact that the AG200 has a thicker beam than the 100, it also has 18x20 string pattern which is additional string adding to the sw.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
I already know that. but they go hand in hand. like Universal String theory went hand in hand with 11 dimentional space theory. but Cosmologist argued about it for a long time, not really understanding where they came together. but finally now they realize these two theories went hand in hand. and so does SW and manuverability. This is simply the TRUTH so lets not argue about it anymore.
This thread is really about why those 2 dunlop racket have such huge difference in SW.

so, are you trying to tell me that a head radical with say, a 315 swingweight will be more maneuverable than an NXG Graphite with a 329, because of the number?

pick the two up, your theory will be proven wrong.

seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:

Fedace

Banned
Don't overlook that fact that the AG200 has a thicker beam than the 100, it also has 18x20 string pattern which is additional string adding to the sw.

Congrats......for once someone made sense. Yes, the additional string could contribute to the higher SW. since the balance point was taken before the racket was strung. Don't know about thicker beam though,,,,Static weight accounts for the fact of the thicker beam, so not sure how that matters. unless the aerodynamics contributes to the SW ?
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Congrats......for once someone made sense. Yes, the additional string could contribute to the higher SW. since the balance point was taken before the racket was strung. Don't know about thicker beam though,,,,Static weight accounts for the fact of the thicker beam, so not sure how that matters. unless the aerodynamics contributes to the SW ?

genius, the TW spec are STRUNG!

you really should become more informed. you're spewing things you take as facts, but you're not even constant about it, you're contradicting yourself.
 

Fedace

Banned
so, are you trying to tell me that a head radical with say, a 315 swingweight will be more maneuverable than an NXG Graphite with a 329, because of the number?

pick the two up, your theory will be proven wrong.

seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

315 YES, it will be more manuverable than the 329
 

RJYU

Rookie
Just my two cents.

With all other variables remaining the same, just adding weight to the handle or buttcap of a racquet will NOT lower swingweight.

It will obviously lower the balance point of a racquet, but this is very different than lowering the swingweight.
 

ClayisFun

Rookie
Proof adding weight to buttcap doesn't reduce sw

Okay, lets put a stop to this adding weight reduces swingweight hooey. . .

The swingweight of an object (e.g. a tennis racquet) is defined as the sum of the product of all its mass elements--mass at each individual point along an axis of the object--and the distance of each mass element from the axis of rotation squared.

Σ(mi×(xi)^2) for i >0; where mi = mass at xi, and xi = the distance from the axis of rotation (the axis of rotation is assumed to be 10cm from the butt end of the racquet for tennis).

So, if we add 10 grams of weight at the very bottom of the racquet, at position m1 (i.e. on the bottom of the buttcap) we end up with the following formula for the swingweight of the racquet.

Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + ((m1+.010)×(x1)^2). This equals
Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + (m1)×(x1)^2 + .010(x1)^2. Which in turn equals
(m1)×(x1)^2 + Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + .010(x1)^2. Which equals
Σ(mi×(xi)^2) + .010(x1)^2.
.010(x1)^2 can never be less than zero because the square of any number (other than zero) is positive, and the square of zero is zero.
Therefore, Σ(mi×(xi)^2) + .010(x1)^2 is greater than or equal to Σ(mi×(xi)^2).
Further, since we assumed x1 to be the position at the bottom of the buttcap, it is -10 cm from the axis of rotation.
Thus, .010(x1)^2 = .010(-10)^2 = 1kg*cm^2. So, adding 10 grams on the buttcap of a racquet adds 1 swingweight point. (Note: before editing, I dropped a decimal place 10 grams = .010 kilograms, not .1 kilograms. I fixed the error.)

This can be repeated for any value of i, but I used i=1 because Fedace claims that adding weight at the butt of the racquet yields a reduction in swingweight.
 
Last edited:

SteveI

Legend
Don't overlook that fact that the AG200 has a thicker beam than the 100, it also has 18x20 string pattern which is additional string adding to the sw.

Hey Hitter,

Good points... the AG200 is also a larger frame and is 11.9 oz vs 11.7 for the 100. Having said all that is beng said. Even if the physical specs are equal...that does not always mean the same SW.

BTW.. I love these SW threads.. if you want to get a really juicy and heated thread going just start one about SW... gonna love it. I have been on this board for years.. and I have seen many... but this really is a good one. Not to mention the one the OP had going ealier. Who needs TV.. :)
 

SteveI

Legend
Okay, lets put a stop to this adding weight reduces swingweight hooey. . .

The swingweight of an object (e.g. a tennis racquet) is defined as the sum of the product of all its mass elements--mass at each individual point along an axis of the object--and the distance of each mass element from the axis of rotation squared.

Σ(mi×(xi)^2) for i >0; where mi = mass at xi, and xi = the distance from the axis of rotation (the axis of rotation is assumed to be 10cm from the butt end of the racquet for tennis).

So, if we add 10 grams of weight at the very bottom of the racquet, at position m1 (i.e. on the bottom of the buttcap) we end up with the following formula for the swingweight of the racquet.

Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + ((m1+.10)×(x1)^2). This equals
Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + (m1)×(x1)^2 + .10(x1)^2. Which in turn equals
(m1)×(x1)^2 + Σ(mi+1×(xi+1)^2) + .10(x1)^2. Which equals
Σ(mi×(xi)^2) + .10(x1)^2.
.10(x1)^2 can never be less than zero because the square of any number (other than zero) is positive, and the square of zero is zero.
Therefore, Σ(mi×(xi)^2) + .10(x1)^2 is greater than or equal to Σ(mi×(xi)^2).
Further, since we assumed x1 to be the position at the bottom of the buttcap, it is -10 cm from the axis of rotation.
Thus, .10(x1)^2 = .10(-10)^2 = 10kg*cm^2. So, adding 10 grams on the buttcap of a racquet adds 10 swingweight points.

This can be repeated for any value of i, but I used i=1 because Fedace claims that adding weight at the butt of the racquet yields a reduction in swingweight.

That should do it.. Thanks!! The science speaks!!
 

ClayisFun

Rookie
either refute the proof or shut up about it. If you can explain what variables are wrong go right ahead; however, if you're just hurt because you don't like being wrong I can't help you there.
 

TourTenor

Professional
And, here is a layman's way of thinking this out <I know, since when have I tried to help Fedace with his logic??>

Applying the Law of Fedace <vs. Physics> ...
Fedace, adds an ounce to the handle and he claims that he reduces the swingweight. <Is that right, Fedster??> So, using the same logic, if you add two ounces, that reduces the sw even more?? What if you add a full pound of weight? OK, then an extreme ... what about 25 lbs. added to the handle? <Fedace quote "Man, this thing is just getting easier and easier to swing."> All right, now you added 250 lbs. to your handle. < Fedace conclusion, "Oh yeah, this thing just became featherlight to swing.">

Come on Fedace.:oops:
 

SFrazeur

Legend
^^^Several of the Variables are wrong. Don't feel bad,, Einstein made same mistakes at times.

Fedace,

The man brought out mathematical proof. Unless you have proof of your own to refute him you can either concede the debate or remove yourself from the issue altogether.

To put it in playground terms for you: put up or shut up.

-SF
 

ClayisFun

Rookie
And, here is a layman's way of thinking this out <I know, since when have I tried to help Fedace with his logic??>

Applying the Law of Fedace <vs. Physics> ...
Fedace, adds an ounce to the handle and he claims that he reduces the swingweight. <Is that right, Fedster??> So, using the same logic, if you add two ounces, that reduces the sw even more?? What if you add a full pound of weight? OK, then an extreme ... what about 25 lbs. added to the handle? <Fedace quote "Man, this thing is just getting easier and easier to swing."> All right, now you added 250 lbs. to your handle. < Fedace conclusion, "Oh yeah, this thing just became featherlight to swing.">

Come on Fedace.:oops:

I love this post!!!

You've opened my eyes. Clearly my problem on the court is not having a 45lb weight plate attached to the buttcap of my racquet. I bet I could take down nadal with that setup. :)
 

SFrazeur

Legend
And, here is a layman's way of thinking this out <I know, since when have I tried to help Fedace with his logic??>

Applying the Law of Fedace <vs. Physics> ...
Fedace, adds an ounce to the handle and he claims that he reduces the swingweight. <Is that right, Fedster??> So, using the same logic, if you add two ounces, that reduces the sw even more?? What if you add a full pound of weight? OK, then an extreme ... what about 25 lbs. added to the handle? <Fedace quote "Man, this thing is just getting easier and easier to swing."> All right, now you added 250 lbs. to your handle. < Fedace conclusion, "Oh yeah, this thing just became featherlight to swing.">

Come on Fedace.:oops:

Be careful you might give "travlerajm" ideas, "SW-lbs," anyone?.

-SF
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
.2 ounces is about 5.7 grams by the way. It's not such a "little" difference. It's not a major one but it is noticable.
 

TourTenor

Professional
You've opened my eyes. Clearly my problem on the court is not having a 45lb weight plate attached to the buttcap of my racquet. I bet I could take down nadal with that setup. :-?
Ya man, I have the +250lbs. in the butt cap to lower the sw ... you can't even imagine the racquet head speed I'm able to generate!! :razz: <Well, on second thought, maybe you can. On my first serve, <my dubs partner came over and helped me manuever it into position> I lifted the thing <err, the featherlite sw stick> and then couldn't control it .... accidently dropped it on the court behind my back! <Dang it, Fedace, it left a huge hole in the court out by the service line!!>
 

ls206

Hall of Fame
I love this post!!!

You've opened my eyes. Clearly my problem on the court is not having a 45lb weight plate attached to the buttcap of my racquet. I bet I could take down nadal with that setup. :)
If you hit him with it :D
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
^^No, It feels more manurable cause it's swingweight is lower...
If you had a racquet that weighed 5 lbs. but had a swingweight that was lower than a 12 oz. racquet, which would feel more maneuverable to you?

(Hint: Not the 5 lb. racquet.)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Just my two cents.

With all other variables remaining the same, just adding weight to the handle or buttcap of a racquet will NOT lower swingweight.

It will obviously lower the balance point of a racquet, but this is very different than lowering the swingweight.
Thanks, Ron!

Ron Yu customizes racquets for Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, Fish, etc. So I would think he knows what he's talking about.
 

TourTenor

Professional
^^No, It feels more manurable cause it's swingweight is lower...
It could be that we just don't know where to place the "manure" in our Fedace customized stick. Or, maybe it has to do with those variables that you were talking about? Fed, could you give us some more specifics about the variables? <Meanwhile, I'll get the court repaired>:wink:
 
Top