Your ideal Twistweight? POLL

[Frans Bleker]

Twistweight is one of the most import factors in weight distributions with rackets. I am pretty curious what people see as the ideal twistweight for themselves.

A brief explanation:

Twistweight basically determines how much weight is added at the 3 and 9 position. So higher twistweights make a racket more stable and make the sweetspot bigger, high twistweights also make rackets less maneuverable. Low twistweights make rackets faster to swing and also let you generate more spin, but gives you less stability and a smaller sweetspot at the same time.

If you don't know what twistweight your racket has, you can look it up at this link from Tennis Warehouse University; http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/twistweight.cgi

 

[Frans Bleker]

Feel free to eleborate

 

[Irvin]

Twistweight is one of the most import factors in weight distributions with rackets. I am pretty curious what people see as the ideal twistweight for themselves.

A brief explanation:

Twistweight basically determines how much weight is added at the 3 and 9 position. So higher twistweights make a racket more stable and make the sweetspot bigger, high twistweights also make rackets less maneuverable. Low twistweights make rackets faster to swing and also let you generate more spin, but gives you less stability and a smaller sweetspot at the same time.

If you don't know what twistweight your racket has, you can look it up at this link from Tennis Warehouse University; http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/twistweight.cgi

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the TWs listed in the table you linked to. Just a few days ago I checked the TW on my 315 DC racket and it was 13.0 and the table shows 14.52. I find it hard to believe eithe Tecnifibre's QC or my results could be that far off. My racket was strung and I imagine the rackets in the table were also. If the frame is not strung the reading would be lower than it would be strung just like.

As far as determining how TW changes the feel on your stroke that would be difficult for most people to describe. Adding more inertia to the frame will in most cases increase your SW especially if you add the mass at 3 & 9. When most people add mass to a racket that also include mass to 12 o'clock at the same time. I doubt most people can measure their TW and don't have a real feel for what is best for them.

EDIT: Just because people have no real clue on how to measure TW they just like or dislike a Racket and don't know why.

 

[Irvin]

Case in point, how can your ideal twist weight be under 12 and 13.5-14 at the same time? That's like saying your ideal swing weight is 325 and 375.

 

[movdqa]

I've played with the IG Prestige MP since 2012 and am happy with them. They have a TW of about 13.5. Before that I use the YT Prestige MP with TW in the 11s I think and those were harsh. I've played with the RF97 with a TW around 14 and that frame was comfortable. So I think that I need 13.5 and somewhat comfortable to be happy. I've thought about increasing TW to 14.5 to see what that feels like but it would affect other factors like overall static weight - tennis racquets and comforts are about getting things to something comfortable and not really going higher as going higher adds weight and affects other factors which might be negative overall.

 

[Frans Bleker]

I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the TWs listed in the table you linked to. Just a few days ago I checked the TW on my 315 DC racket and it was 13.0 and the table shows 14.52. I find it hard to believe eithe Tecnifibre's QC or my results could be that far off. My racket was strung and I imagine the rackets in the table were also. If the frame is not strung the reading would be lower than it would be strung just like.

As far as determining how TW changes the feel on your stroke that would be difficult for most people to describe. Adding more inertia to the frame will in most cases increase your SW especially if you add the mass at 3 & 9. When most people add mass to a racket that also include mass to 12 o'clock at the same time. I doubt most people can measure their TW and don't have a real feel for what is best for them.

EDIT: Just because people have no real clue on how to measure TW they just like or dislike a Racket and don't know why.

The list of TW gives an average I think. But when I for example play 3 different Graphene Radical Pro's (13.86) and compare them to 3 Blade 98 18x20 (2015) (14.19), I do feel the difference. It becomes more clear when you grab a really high and a low twistweight racket though, like when you grab a Graphene extreme pro with 15.6 TW or so and then grab a Youtek Extreme Pro which has around 12 I believe, at that point you really feel what twistweight is all about.

And ofcourse different static and swingweights also effect that feel, you have to keep that in mind I think.

 

[SinjinCooper]

When polled, 100 pros out of 100 replied, "I have no idea what you're talking about."

 

[movdqa]

The list of TW gives an average I think. But when I for example play 3 different Graphene Radical Pro's (13.86) and compare them to 3 Blade 98 18x20 (2015) (14.19), I do feel the difference. It becomes more clear when you grab a really high and a low twistweight racket though, like when you grab a Graphene extreme pro with 15.6 TW or so and then grab a Youtek Extreme Pro which has around 12 I believe, at that point you really feel what twistweight is all about.

And ofcourse different static and swingweights also effect that feel, you have to keep that in mind I think.

Yeah, you can tell the difference when it's extreme but finding what actually works best for you is complicated because there are quite a few variables involved. I like trying to find numbers that are good enough for at least all of our known metrics.

 

[Frans Bleker]

Case in point, how can your ideal twist weight be under 12 and 13.5-14 at the same time? That's like saying your ideal swing weight is 325 and 375.

Around 13.6~7 is my ideal all around. But when you go really low, you have that ultra fast feel and you can control your swing really well, so that's what I like about it. If you dive in between and go to the high 12's or low 13's I personally feel it's too unforgiving and it's too heavy to adjust your swingpath to kind of control that unforgivingness. Not sure if this makes sense to you

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

Any racquets that's over 12oz, 330 swingweight and a twistweight in the 13s is a great racquet IMO.

 

[robbo1970]

One of my racquets is just over 13, the other is 8.93, hahaha.

 

[Frans Bleker]

One of my racquets is just over 13, the other is 8.93, hahaha.

That Dunlop of 8.93 must feel pretty light/fast!

 

[Irvin]

The list of TW gives an average I think. But when I for example play 3 different Graphene Radical Pro's (13.86) and compare them to 3 Blade 98 18x20 (2015) (14.19), I do feel the difference. It becomes more clear when you grab a really high and a low twistweight racket though, like when you grab a Graphene extreme pro with 15.6 TW or so and then grab a Youtek Extreme Pro which has around 12 I believe, at that point you really feel what twistweight is all about.

And ofcourse different static and swingweights also effect that feel, you have to keep that in mind I think.

Say you have two rackets that are identical in every respect except SW and TW (same weight, balance, and stiffness.) The SW/TW on one racket is 332/15 and the other is 334/13. Do you think you could tell the difference and if so how?

EDIT: Notice the TW + SW both add up to 347 (total inertia of 347 kgcm^2 when the racket is swung low to high with the string bed vertical.) That's very important when comparing the two frames.

 

[robbo1970]

That Dunlop of 8.93 must feel pretty light/fast!

Its the F100 Classic (see my avatar), which is basically the same specs as the AG4D100.

It's an astonishing racquet. Pinpoint accuracy, super fast, super manoeuvrable, very low powered though, but nothing a low strung tension doesn't fix.

In the right hands it is deadly weapon......in my hands though it's just a really fun racquet to use. Best serve & volley racquet I've ever used.

 

[Frans Bleker]

Say you have two rackets that are identical in every respect except SW and TW (same weight, balance, and stiffness.) The SW/TW on one racket is 332/15 and the other is 334/13. Do you think you could tell the difference and if so how?

Absolutely, the 13 TW will go much faster trew the air, especially when you try to create really curvy launch angles.

 

[Irvin]

Absolutely, the 13 TW will go much faster trew the air, especially when you try to create really curvy launch angles.

I don't think it will. Because the TW and SW both add up to about the same valve they will both go at just about the same speed because the torgue required to rotate the frames is the same. Only on the serve and overheads do I think you will see a big difference (depending on your stroke mechanics.) On the serve you are trying to both rotate the racket around your shoulder (SW) and pronate the racket around your forearm (TW) at the same time. On ground strokes you will have a wider sweet spot with higher TW but I'm not sure everyone will be able to detect that.

Interesting thread though.

 

[Frans Bleker]

I don't think it will. Because the TW and SW both add up to about the same valve they will both go at just about the same speed because the torgue required to rotate the frames is the same. Only on the serve and overheads do I think you will see a big difference (depending on your stroke mechanics.) On the serve you are trying to both rotate the racket around your shoulder (SW) and pronate the racket around your forearm (TW) at the same time. On ground strokes you will have a wider sweet spot with higher TW but I'm not sure everyone will be able to detect that.

Interesting thread though.

I get what you mean. But if you have a racket with 330 SW with all the mass at 12 it will go faster then when all the mass is at 3,9 and 12 because it doesn't encounter as much as resistance when swinging it. Just imagine the difference between swinging an iron pipe and a tennis racket with the same weight trew the air. The pipe will go faster.

You can always test it by picking two identical frames and at the first frame add 10 grams at 3 and 9 and at the other frame add just lead to 12 to adjust for the SW difference and then test them side by side.

 

[Irvin]

@Frans Bleker I'm not sure what you mean by resistance. If the inertia is the same for both rackets where you place the lead will not matter.

 

[Irvin]

Just FYI I just got two RF97Asto string one black (2016) one red (old model.) Just for the heck of it I measured the TW and SW unstrung for them

RF97A Black model Unstrung
Weight 329.40 g
Balance 32.1 cm
Twist weight 11.0
Swing weight 315.9

RF97A Red model unstrung
Weight 333.70 g
Balance 30.4 cm
Twist weight 11.1
Swing weight 288.3

I was very surprised to see some of those results. I'm going to string them up and measure them strung later today.

EDIT: I made a mistake figuring the average time for the Period of the Red model and have corrected it as it raised the TW about 0.9 Kgcm^2

 

[Frans Bleker]

If the TW wouldnt affect the speed of the racket every racket would have a sky high TW. Everyone would just get their SW up by adding massive weight at 3 and 9 instead of 12. But it's hard to explain, it would be better if you would test it yourself.

 

[joohan]

Probably 15+ : Yonex Tour G 330 with 2g of lead at 3/9, Yonex Vcore 89 Tour with 9g of lead at 3/9.

P.S.: have a Dunlop Bio300 Tour with stock TW of 11, 10g of lead at 3/9 plus a continuous strip from 11-2

 

[Christian Olsson]

So is that's why my old radical feels faster despite similar weight and balance than my volkl sg10? In that case I prefer in between. Around 14 then.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

[movdqa]

If the TW wouldnt affect the speed of the racket every racket would have a sky high TW. Everyone would just get their SW up by adding massive weight at 3 and 9 instead of 12. But it's hard to explain, it would be better if you would test it yourself.

I did an experiment with some racquets where I had ten grams at 3/9 and removed it and added weight from 10 to 2 to get a similar swingweight. The resulting racquet moved through the air faster and felt better on serves but my arm was sore the next day and I had twinges for the next couple of weeks. So high TW is nice but it doesn't come for free.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

I have 2 pairs of Head LM radical mp. Bought them 2 at a time. Their weight distribution is very different, with 2 having noticeably higher twistweight, and 2 much lower. Just poor quality control.

It suits me well though, cos I ended up customizing the low TW ones for doubles, and the more stable ones for singles.

For groundstrokes a higher twistweight, probably around 15 is beneficial with this racket. Makes much more solid contact when hitting topspin, especially taking the ball early.

For doubles, a lower twistweight is beneficial thanks to added manoeuvrability around the net. My guess is probably around 14? I still need some stability of course for more solid returns and even in doubles I do hit plenty of groundstrokes. But I make a compromise in favour of manoeuvrability.

My swingweights are pretty much identical for singles and doubles, but they still play very differently. Of course balance is different too, not just twistweight.

 

[Irvin]

If the TW wouldnt affect the speed of the racket every racket would have a sky high TW. Everyone would just get their SW up by adding massive weight at 3 and 9 instead of 12. But it's hard to explain, it would be better if you would test it yourself.

Wait a minute now you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say increasing the TW would not affect the speed of the racket. The way you measure TW on an RDC is to first measure the SW, rotate the racket 90 degrees and measure again. The difference between the 2nd and 1st readying is your TW. When the racket rotates with the string bed flat the resulting inertia reading will be a combination of SW and TW. Is the string bed is vertical then all you see if SW. If you hit a looping ball with lots of spin you're swinging the racket in more of a vertical swing plane so you will have a combination of SW and TW. The higher the inertia the more force you must apply to swing as fast.

Therefore a racket with a TW of 25 and a SW of 250 will go through the air with less resistance than a racket with a SW of 330 no matter what the TW. Hope I'm being clear.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

One of my racquets is just over 13, the other is 8.93, hahaha.

Everytime I look at that clip, it reminds me of the parody my friend sent me:

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

With regards to twistweight, manoeuvrability is not about how fast you can swing the racket. It's about how quickly and effortlessly you can adjust the racket face angle.

 

[robbo1970]

With regards to twistweight, manoeuvrability is not about how fast you can swing the racket. It's about how quickly and effortlessly you can adjust the racket face angle.

Exactly. I tend to refer to how fast a racquet will swing as the swing speed.

 

[Irvin]

I have strung the two RF97As with X-One 16 g mains and MultiFeel 16 g crosses and below are the strung - unstrung specs.

RF97A Black model
Weight 345.46 - 329.40 = 16.06 g
Balance 32.8 - 32.1 = 0.7 cm
Twist weight 13..0 - 11.0 = 2.0 kgcm^2
Swing weight 340.7 - 315.9 = 24.8 kgcm^2

RF97A Red model
Weight 349.74 - 333.70 = 16.04 g
Balance 31.3 - 30.4 = 0.9 cm
Twist weight 13.0 - 11.1 = 1.9 kgcm^2
Swing weight 313.0 - 288.3 = 24.7 kgcm^2

The TWU Twist list linked above show the black TW at 13.94 and the older model at 14.9.

EDIT: Not sure if the discrepancies in twist weight I measured or the TWU list is due to Wilson's QC or errors in the way I or TWU computed the twist weights. I would be a little scared to just blindly trust the listed TWs.

Also these two rackets have no grips just bare 3/8" handles with two overwraps.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

They probably have a slightly different method of measuring it. Doesn't matter, as long as you can compare various frames, and understand the effect of a difference in twist weight.

 

[Irvin]

They probably have a slightly different method of measuring it. Doesn't matter, as long as you can compare various frames, and understand the effect of a difference in twist weight.

I wish I knew how they measured the TW down to 1/100 kgcm^2 but OTOH I'm thinking maybe I just don't want to know. LOL

 

[Rajesh]

I voted 15+

 

[zalive]

With regards to twistweight, manoeuvrability is not about how fast you can swing the racket. It's about how quickly and effortlessly you can adjust the racket face angle.

What about how effortlessly you can get a racquet to a ready to volley position (BH or FH), from the centre position?
You missed the important part of maneuverability in your definition.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

What about how effortlessly you can get a racquet to a ready to volley position (BH or FH), from the centre position?
You missed the important part of maneuverability in your definition.

Same thing. You need to adjust the racket face angle.
I'm not talking about maneouvrability in general, but only as it relates to twistweight.

 

[zalive]

Same thing. You need to adjust the racket face angle.

Angles. In 3D there's more than one angle, as you know it.
And twistweight affects one of them, not all of them.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Angles. In 3D there's more than one angle, as you know it.
And twistweight affects one of them, not all of them.

This thread is about twistweight. As a result, I'm talking about how twistweight affects maneouvrability. Not talking about swingweight, not talking about balance, and not talking about your weak, overused wrist tendons. Just twistweight.

 

[Irvin]

I think most people don't understand TW. TW is the torque required to rotat a racket around a centerline from the butt to the tip of the racket. In most cases when you maneuver a racket the tip of the frame is moving faster than the butt so you doing more than twisting the racket. In any event you're not just twisting a racket to maneuver it. If you ever hit a groundstroke rolling your wrist (twisting the racket over the ball) you're doing something wrong.

 

[zalive]

Torque is a force, TW is inertia (to torque).

 

[Irvin]

Torque is a force, TW is inertia (to torque).

I agree. Torque is a measure of how much a force acting on an object causes that object to rotate. The object rotation is about an axis, and the axis for TW is the centerline from the butt to the tip. When a player maneuvers a racket that player does a lot more that twist the racket around that centerline.

If I were to volley a ball at the net from the ready position to the contact point I will adjust the face of the racket yes but twisting it but there is a lot more movement that just that twisting action to get the racket behind the ball.

EDIT: TW also comes into play when the racket is moving so that the string bed is not traveling perpendicular to the line of movement. If you hit high to low (slice) or low to high (topspin) the inertia will be higher than the normal SW.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

If I were to volley a ball at the net from the ready position to the contact point I will adjust the face of the racket yes but twisting it but there is a lot more movement that just that twisting action to get the racket behind the ball.

I have a feeling you're reacting to one of my previous posts by stating the blatantly obvious?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Irvin]

I have a feeling you're reacting to one of my previous posts by stating the blatantly obvious?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

if i am I'm not doing it intentionally. Sorry in any event.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

if i am I'm not doing it intentionally. Sorry in any event.

No apology needed, just don't understand what the statement had anything to do with the topic.
It's perfectly obvious that twistweight is not the only spec that affects a racket's maneouvrability. Goes without saying. But this thread is about twistweight, so it makes sense to discuss how twistweight alone affects maneouvrability.

 

[Irvin]

No apology needed, just don't understand what the statement had anything to do with the topic.
It's perfectly obvious that twistweight is not the only spec that affects a racket's maneouvrability. Goes without saying. But this thread is about twistweight, so it makes sense to discuss how twistweight alone affects maneouvrability.

Believe it or not I was trying to explain how twist weight affects maneuverabilit. I guess I did a poor job of doing that. Shame on me, let me try again.

Inertia is the property of matter which makes that matter continue in its existing state. If the matter is at rest it will try to continue to stay at rest, and if the matter is in motion it will continue to travel in a straight line unless acted upon by some outside force. Let's look at how 5 g of mass reacts when it is attached to a point at 3 o'clock on a tennis racket. And let's assume that mass is 8.5 cm from the perpendicular distance to the center of the racket, and 42 cm to the perpendicular distance to a line that is drawn perpendicular to the 10 cm axis for swing weight. Inertia is additive so my adding that 5 g of mass I will increase the TW by (0.005*8.5*8.5 = ) 0.36125 kgcm^2 and the SW by (0.005*42*42 =) 8.82 kgcm^2. So if I twist the racket around the centerline the inertia I must over come is the initial TW of the racket plus 0.36125 kgcm^2 inertia of the 5 g mass. And if I can find a way to rotate the racket around the 10 cm line drawn perpendicular to the centerline I must over come the initial SW of the racket plus 8.82 Kgcm^2 of the 5 g mass.

But still that dos not explain it all that 5 g of mass is (sqrt((8.5*8.5)+(42*42)) or 42.85149 cm from the 10 cm point on the centerline of the racket. So the inertia of that mass is (0.005*42.85149*42.85149 =) 9.18128 and it just happens that the TW + SW of that 5 g mass is (.36125 + 8.82 =) 9.18125 kgcm^2.

To wave that 5 g of mass around you 10 cm point takes 9.18126 kgcm^2 of torgue. The higher the SW + TW is the higher the inertia the less maneuverable the racket is the lower that total inertia the more maneuverable that racket is. Unless of corse if you can find a way to play tennis by twisting the racket just around the center line or the 10 cm axis.

Inertia is inertia and it is all additive. Increase the TW or SW of a racket and it is less maneuverable.

EDIT: Granted we don't rotate the racket around a 10 cm point either but that's another thread.

EDIT: The importance of TW is stability on off center shots and how fast you can pronate (twist) the racket on the serve when you snap through the ball.

 

[Frans Bleker]

I think most people don't understand TW. TW is the torque required to rotat a racket around a centerline from the butt to the tip of the racket. In most cases when you maneuver a racket the tip of the frame is moving faster than the butt so you doing more than twisting the racket. In any event you're not just twisting a racket to maneuver it. If you ever hit a groundstroke rolling your wrist (twisting the racket over the ball) you're doing something wrong.

Rolling your wrist like Gasquet?

 

[Irvin]

Let me say this too. Adding 2.5 g of mass at 3&9 (5 g total) add 0.36 kgcm^2 does add more stability to you racket. But if you always hit on the top of your racket wouldn't you be better off to add more of that 5 g on the top rather than both sides? OTOH is you grip your racket so either side can be on top who's to say there is a top or bottom. Halve the mass and put it at 3&9. I heard there was a player that put all the mass on top - Jimmy Conners.

 

[Irvin]

Rolling your wrist like Gasquet?

Gasquet does not roll his wrist through the ball but that too is another thread.

o

 

[Frans Bleker]

Let me say this too. Adding 2.5 g of mass at 3&9 (5 g total) add 0.36 kgcm^2 does add more stability to you racket. But if you always hit on the top of your racket wouldn't you be better off to add more of that 5 g on the top rather than both sides? OTOH is you grip your racket so either side can be on top who's to say there is a top or bottom. Halve the mass and put it at 3&9. I heard there was a player that put all the mass on top - Jimmy Conners.

If you hit the ball high on your frame you can also put it on 10 and 2

 

[Irvin]

If you hit the ball high on your frame you can also put it on 10 and 2

If you high high on the frame you want to raise your COP. If you hit off center you want to raise your TW. But every thing changes something else. Where mass is added is dictated by what you're trying to do. Adding mass at 10&2 will raise TW yes but a little less than it does at 3&9. But 10&2 raises SW a lot more than adding mass at 3&9.

EDIT: There been a lot of talk about TW and maneuverability. It all boils down to how far away the mass is from the axis point.

 

[movdqa]

I don't think about twistweight precisely though having a number makes it easier to have a conversation.

I do know that it's uncomfortable below a certain point for me and that too high a number is a negative for me on my serve because it brings up static weight which affects RHS potential. So I think that twistweight should be a metric where it's good enough for the particular player but that there's not necessarily any benefit, and maybe a detriment, to just cranking it up because we can.

 

[Irvin]

I don't think about twistweight precisely though having a number makes it easier to have a conversation.

I do know that it's uncomfortable below a certain point for me and that too high a number is a negative for me on my serve because it brings up static weight which affects RHS potential. So I think that twistweight should be a metric where it's good enough for the particular player but that there's not necessarily any benefit, and maybe a detriment, to just cranking it up because we can.

To crank up the TW just 1kgcm^2 you have to increase the static weight by about 15 g and at the same time you're raising the SW by about 26 points (27 points total inertia,) Better give it a good think before you start.