VERY Confused, Swingweight for Dunlop Aerogel 100 vs 200 ?
- Thread starter Fedace
- Start date
LafayetteHitter
Hall of Fame
The only way to prove that his analysis is wrong would be to correct it....One cannot say something is inaccurate if not able to show the correction. Don't have to be Einstein to understand this.
Fedace
Banned
Definition: Swing weight describes how heavy a racquet feels when it is swung. Swing weight increases as the racquet's weight is distributed more toward the head, so head-heavy and extra-long racquets have a high swing weight in relation to their stationary weight. A high swing weight results in low maneuverability, but generally more groundstroke power.
I rest my case. and if that idiot Tourtenor posts in this thread again, i will Not respond. thank you. Aristotle,,,i know what you felt,,finally.
I rest my case. and if that idiot Tourtenor posts in this thread again, i will Not respond. thank you. Aristotle,,,i know what you felt,,finally.
Last edited:
TourTenor
Professional
Given this statement, could you explain to us what the limit is to adding weight to the handle to "lower the swingweight." You have indicated that adding weight will lower the sw but if you add 5 lbs, it won't decrease the sw?? We are confused.It is not possible for the 5 lbs racket to have lower SW.
So, what is your threshold for adding weight to the handle to decrease the SW? At what point do you see adding weight to the handle will no longer decrease the sw (all other things being equal)????:wink:
Last edited:
Fedace
Banned
No, but i know truly how he felt....that is for sure..
my final post in this thread. idiot doesn't learn, i guess...
TourTenor
Professional
I now announce that you have failed this course. You can't even follow the most basic logic here ... you claim to be a Stanford grad ... ROFL ... no way.
zacinnc78
Professional
quit being so logical lol
ls206
Hall of Fame
hahaha
10chars
mtommer
Hall of Fame
I think I understand what Fedace is trying to say...
If you put 250 lbs on the end of a racquet it is going to have a very high swingweight.
If you put that same 250 lbs on the butt of the racquet, and then add another two pounds at the same point, the swingweight is still going to be a lower number than the number generated from the one where 250 lbs was at the tip of the racquethead. In this case, adding more weight results in a lesser swingweight, but only comparatively.
Now, if this is true I have no idea as I don't really want to do the math nor do I really care.
Last edited:
TourTenor
Professional
Earlier in this thread Feddie claims that by adding weight to the handle you reduce the sw. If he really is talking about where to distribute added weight, handle vs. head and head heavy vs. head light he should have been clearer. Apparently, per Breakpoint, we even had a racquet customizer who has done Federers (and others) racquets "weighing in" on this point.
ls206
Hall of Fame
ohoh! you're on fire Tenor....
Apparently, per Breakpoint, we even had a racquet customizer who has done Federers (and others) racquets "weighing in" on this point.
Last edited:
It is true. That is because the two frames had very different SWs to begin with. But if you take one of these frames and add weight wherever, its SW will increase.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Of course it is! Do you know even how they measure swingweight? They clamp the handle of the racquet and then swing it like a pendulum. If almost all of the weight is in the handle, the head of the racquet will swing back and forth very easily thereby producing a very low swingweight.It is not possible for the 5 lbs racket to have lower SW.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Swingweight describes NOTHING!!! It is a measurement taken by a machine just as static weight is. The machine DOES NOT simulate tennis play when taking its measurement.
Thus, a heavy racquet with a low swingweight can feel heavier than a light racquet with a high swingweight. They are phenomenons known as gravity and inertia.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Ron Yu is a partner of Nate Ferguson at Priority One and does customization and stringing around the world for many of the top pros, including Federer, Murray, and Djokovic under contract.Earlier in this thread Feddie claims that by adding weight to the handle you reduce the sw. If he really is talking about where to distribute added weight, handle vs. head and head heavy vs. head light he should have been clearer. Apparently, per Breakpoint, we even had a racquet customizer who has done Federers (and others) racquets "weighing in" on this point.
TourTenor
Professional
Really, I'm "burned out" on Feddie logic. <Oh yeah, nothing like a bad pun or two!>ohoh! you're on fire Tenor
And, last comment ... Fedster (I know you're still reading these) keep up the post count as you keep many of us entertained.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
Oh, I know. He may not understand that he means weight distribution though or at least he may not be good at communicating that through written word. I suck at writing so I could understand that.
'Course, he could just be a troll. There are troll forums out there where people have contests and such to see who is the best at hiding they're a troll or duping people into "fake" arguing.
TourTenor
Professional
<All right, all right, one more ...>The fake poster idea has come up before in the "What's WRONG with Stanford Men's Tennis?" thread that he started. I don't buy it. Re: His written word .... you, MTommer, would be likened to Thoreau if compared to Fedace. Yet he claims to be a Stanford grad and uses the byline "Call me Doctor" in the MT forum. LOL His language skills do not warrant getting into Stanford, let alone graduating from the same. My personal theory is .... he is 13 years old, set up with 6 terminals in his parent's garage.
Carry on ...
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
I think this is a great definition of SwingWeight.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/wtbalswt.html
Swingweight
Much of a tennis hit can be seen as a battle between the player and the ball to move the racquet in a circle. Swingweight is the resistance to movement in a circle. Circular motion (as in most stages of a tennis swing) occurs around a center or rotation, let's say the butt end of the handle. When you apply equal forces to the handles of two racquets with different swingweights, the racquet with the higher swingweight will accelerate less and rotate less quickly around the center of the circle. The lower swingweight racquet will accelerate more quickly. In other words, higher swingweight means less maneuverability, and lower swingweight means more.
But the ball applies a force to the racquet also. And the same principle applies. The lower the swingweight, the more easily the the ball will move the racquet, and the higher the swingweight, the less easily the ball will change the motion of the racquet.
So the tradeoff becomes this: lower swingweight results in greater racquet acceleration and final swing speed, but more shock (due both to more racquet deceleration by the ball and higher impact force due to greater speed). Higher swingweight results in slower racquet acceleration and final swing speed but less shock due to less deceleration due to the ball pushing the racquet in an opposite circular rotation.
Power is influenced also. With a lower swingweight, the power must be generated more from swing speed. With a higher swingweight, more of the power comes from the racquet itself.
I think this is the definitive definition of SwingWeight.
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/wtbalswt.html
Swingweight
Much of a tennis hit can be seen as a battle between the player and the ball to move the racquet in a circle. Swingweight is the resistance to movement in a circle. Circular motion (as in most stages of a tennis swing) occurs around a center or rotation, let's say the butt end of the handle. When you apply equal forces to the handles of two racquets with different swingweights, the racquet with the higher swingweight will accelerate less and rotate less quickly around the center of the circle. The lower swingweight racquet will accelerate more quickly. In other words, higher swingweight means less maneuverability, and lower swingweight means more.
But the ball applies a force to the racquet also. And the same principle applies. The lower the swingweight, the more easily the the ball will move the racquet, and the higher the swingweight, the less easily the ball will change the motion of the racquet.
So the tradeoff becomes this: lower swingweight results in greater racquet acceleration and final swing speed, but more shock (due both to more racquet deceleration by the ball and higher impact force due to greater speed). Higher swingweight results in slower racquet acceleration and final swing speed but less shock due to less deceleration due to the ball pushing the racquet in an opposite circular rotation.
Power is influenced also. With a lower swingweight, the power must be generated more from swing speed. With a higher swingweight, more of the power comes from the racquet itself.
I think this is the definitive definition of SwingWeight.
u can never decrease swingweight by adding weight to a frame, it doesnt matter where u add it
but what u can do is adding a lot of lead to the gripp and make the racquet FEEL as if it had a lower swingweight-->because u shifted the balance point farther to the gripp..
furthermore the original swingweight does not go up with the static weight so a racquet to which just lead is added in the gripp feels as if it has a lower swingweight..because once u take the lead out of the grip again..u might think that the swingweight goes up again...so it is important as u add lead to the grip that you counterweigh the racquet by putting some lead to the head
but what u can do is adding a lot of lead to the gripp and make the racquet FEEL as if it had a lower swingweight-->because u shifted the balance point farther to the gripp..
furthermore the original swingweight does not go up with the static weight so a racquet to which just lead is added in the gripp feels as if it has a lower swingweight..because once u take the lead out of the grip again..u might think that the swingweight goes up again...so it is important as u add lead to the grip that you counterweigh the racquet by putting some lead to the head
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things: particularly the circulatory system of the human body, and the center of the solar system.
But then you ain't no Aristotle.
Geez, if I keep adding lead to the butt of my racquet it will soon be so light that it will float in the air all by itself.
Fedace
Banned
Reasonable amounts of lead to the handle will make your racket more manuverable....you silly, that is all that matters and there is direct link to the swingweight. Swing weight isn't Weight at all. that is where the IDIOTS like TourTanner is all wrong. i am right, so that is that.....
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Reasonable amounts of lead to the handle will make your racket more manuverable....you silly, that is all that matters and there is direct link to the swingweight. Swing weight isn't Weight at all. that is where the IDIOTS like TourTanner is all wrong. i am right, so that is that.....
you're still wrong.
swingweight isnt directly related to maneuverability. my Radical vs NXG MP statement still rings true, the NXG is more maneuverable, but has a higher swingweight.
care to try again, or will you accept that you're wrong?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
the static weight of the 200 is higher than the 100, and even though the 200 is more headlight (correct?) the weight distribution throughout the frame causes the swingweight to be higher.
i really dont know how i can be any more clear.
oh, and i never said that swingweight was a weight. i said it was affected by weight distribution
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
it's very possible. but personal experience with both frames has given me the opinion that the 200 indeed has a higher swingweight.
Fedace, i did what you asked, but you have not explained yourself. do you plan to?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. . . you, Aristotle, and Einstein.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
you're such an ass. but i was prepared, because apparently you missed my previous post:
Fedace. . . I don't know why we all keep dignifying you with responses, but
As the formula for swingweight I posted reveals, if you move more of the mass of a racquet away from the axis of rotation (10 cm up from the end of the buttcap) the swingweight will be higher for the same static weight.
The ag100 has more mass in the throat of the racquet than the ag200, while the ag200 has more mass in the hoop. So, the ag200's mass is farther from the axis of rotation, which yields a different swingweight.
Why stop at the ag100 and 200, why not include the pure storm tour limited? It is almost the same weight as the ag200, is also 8pts headlight, but has a swingweight of only 305?
Go outside and practice!
As the formula for swingweight I posted reveals, if you move more of the mass of a racquet away from the axis of rotation (10 cm up from the end of the buttcap) the swingweight will be higher for the same static weight.
The ag100 has more mass in the throat of the racquet than the ag200, while the ag200 has more mass in the hoop. So, the ag200's mass is farther from the axis of rotation, which yields a different swingweight.
Why stop at the ag100 and 200, why not include the pure storm tour limited? It is almost the same weight as the ag200, is also 8pts headlight, but has a swingweight of only 305?
Go outside and practice!
Fedace
Banned
Yes i should have realized the "DarthVader" avatar was you ..... As you say THE WAY THE WEIGHT IS DISTRIBUTED IN TWO FRAMES, tells me exactly NOTHING. and FEELS like weight is more throat downwards while 200 is more even.......NOT........
FACT: Balance Points do not lie, unless TW has it wrong ?? 200 is 8 pts head light whereas 100 is only 7 pts headlight.
"DESPITE THE BALACE POINTS" ??????????????????????????/ now you are talking feelings NOT facts......
so i say my theories on Swingweigh is correct and you say yours is right, we have different Opinions on what SW is,,,,,,Lets leave it at that...
ls206
Hall of Fame
indeed, give it up, this act has gone on long enough. Come clean or admit defeat
ls206
Hall of Fame
Yes i should have realized the "DarthVader" avatar was you ..... As you say THE WAY THE WEIGHT IS DISTRIBUTED IN TWO FRAMES, tells me exactly NOTHING. and FEELS like weight is more throat downwards while 200 is more even.......NOT........
FACT: Balance Points do not lie, unless TW has it wrong ?? 200 is 8 pts head light whereas 100 is only 7 pts headlight.
"DESPITE THE BALACE POINTS" ??????????????????????????/ now you are talking feelings NOT facts......
so i say my theories on Swingweigh is correct and you say yours is right, we have different Opinions on what SW is,,,,,,Lets leave it at that...
Fedace, people have tried giving you FACTS, but you don't like them either....
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Yes i should have realized the "DarthVader" avatar was you ..... As you say THE WAY THE WEIGHT IS DISTRIBUTED IN TWO FRAMES, tells me exactly NOTHING. and FEELS like weight is more throat downwards while 200 is more even.......NOT........
FACT: Balance Points do not lie, unless TW has it wrong ?? 200 is 8 pts head light whereas 100 is only 7 pts headlight.
"DESPITE THE BALACE POINTS" ??????????????????????????/ now you are talking feelings NOT facts......
so i say my theories on Swingweigh is correct and you say yours is right, we have different Opinions on what SW is,,,,,,Lets leave it at that...
that's really difficult to read.
but what i was saying, and what has been said before, is that the way the static weight is distributed can lead to a higher swingweight. and you can actually FEEL the difference, had you picked both of these up and swung them.
balance points mean that it's balanced that way. you can't judge swingweight just on that alone, and you shouldnt. they make many racquets with varying balance points and swingweights, based on preference.
what i'm saying is not based on feelings, but can be personally validated by them.
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
reading through the thread, i wonder why people are even trying to have a rational talk with the op?
Fedace, how can you have an opinion on what swingweight is? It is defined as torque around a specific axis of rotation. There isn't any debate on what swingweight is.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that weight can be distributed differently throughout a frame resulting in the same balance, but different swingweights.
For example. . .
you have two identical 10 cm rods. On the first you place 5 grams at 10 cm and 5 grams at 0 cm
X--------X The balance point will be 5 cm.
Now take your second rod and place all 10 grams at 5 cm.
----XX---- The balance point will again be 5 cm.
Now, if you really want to, you can calculate out the swingweight around an axis of rotation of say 1 cm up from the right side of each rod using the formula i provided for you.
On second thought, I won't strain your brain.
swingweight for the rod with 5 grams at 10 cm and 5 grams at 0 cm around a 1 cm axis of rotation is .82kg*cm^2
swingweight for the rod with 10 grams at 5 cm around a 1 cm axis of rotation is .16kg*cm^2
last I checked .82 > .16; so, you have two rods with identical balances and weights with vastly different swingweights.
There you go Aristotle.
What you refuse to acknowledge is that weight can be distributed differently throughout a frame resulting in the same balance, but different swingweights.
For example. . .
you have two identical 10 cm rods. On the first you place 5 grams at 10 cm and 5 grams at 0 cm
X--------X The balance point will be 5 cm.
Now take your second rod and place all 10 grams at 5 cm.
----XX---- The balance point will again be 5 cm.
Now, if you really want to, you can calculate out the swingweight around an axis of rotation of say 1 cm up from the right side of each rod using the formula i provided for you.
On second thought, I won't strain your brain.
swingweight for the rod with 5 grams at 10 cm and 5 grams at 0 cm around a 1 cm axis of rotation is .82kg*cm^2
swingweight for the rod with 10 grams at 5 cm around a 1 cm axis of rotation is .16kg*cm^2
last I checked .82 > .16; so, you have two rods with identical balances and weights with vastly different swingweights.
There you go Aristotle.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
You are aware that you can have racquets with the same length, weight, and balance but have different swingweights. That is why you have machines like the Babolat RDC Machine to measure swingweight. There is even a home made technique to measure a racquets swingweight with out a RDC machine...
Last edited:
ls206
Hall of Fame
"reading through the thread, i wonder why people are even trying to have a rational talk with the op?"
totally agree
I guess I haven't been on the boards long enough to know whether fedace is joking or actually being serious.
The title clearly states he's confused, yet he continues to tell people what's right or wrong.
Maybe some pictures would help, Fedace, would pictures help?
edit...I was too slow ><"
totally agree
I guess I haven't been on the boards long enough to know whether fedace is joking or actually being serious.
The title clearly states he's confused, yet he continues to tell people what's right or wrong.
Maybe some pictures would help, Fedace, would pictures help?
edit...I was too slow ><"
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
excellent post with empirical data based on NEWTONIAN PHYSICS that still proves what was said correct
i never said that the weight was distributed more evenly. i said it was distributed DIFFERENTLY. have you heard of polarization? nadal polarizes his frames to get a higher swingweight in relation to how much lead gets put on it
i'm sorry bud, but you just dont have any real argument other than that you're being too stubborn to realize we're right!
i really dont care if you admit your wrong, i just am trying to get you to see that what i'm saying is true.
