Weight: what you feel if you hold the racket vertically in the hand Balance: what you feel if you hold the racket horizontally. Swingweight: what you feel if you swing the racket. How many shots do you hit, without moving/swinging the racket? Normally none. So if you swing a racket, you normally cannot feel the balance anymore. A overgrip weights about 7 gram. A basicgrip weights about 17 gram. One weight is 5 gram: The other is 2 gram: Swingweight of this racket without a weight: Swingweight is 95 Swingweight with 5 gram attached at the grip: Swingweight is 95 Swingweight with 2 gram attached at the top: Swingweight is 100 Swingweight with 7 gram attached at the grip: Swingweight is 95 Also attached 10 additional gram (17 gram in sum) to the grip, to simulate a basic grip: Swingweight is still 95 As you see, a basic grip will not change the swingweight noticeable. BUT if you add more than one basic grip, the swingweight might change a little bit. Also keep in mind, that every gram must be moved by your arm. A heavier racket is harder to play and your muscles needs more power, regardless where the weight is located.
do you own the swing weight machine yourself? Mind to do alittle bit of experiment. See how the swing weight affect when adding on different position? Like what you had already try on the top area. What if we put the same weight on the side frame & bottom frame.
Then the swingweight will be a little bit lower. There is not so much between 95 and 100 And yes, its mine. The results are (2 gram): At 6 o'clock: 96 At 3 o'click: 98 At 2o'clock: 99 At 12 o'clock: 100
so usually you put grip on whole handle not only on the buttcap some even put on the shaft! then swing weight is not whole story, I bet that power transfer will be considerably higher with +7g during full swing even if the swing weight is the same, then rotational movement will be very different as well, and actually all strokes are way more rotational than linear, so actually shifting BP makes racket feel different during rotational movement since inertia from the bottom compensates racket head heaviness, even if the head weight remains the same, so in this debate both parties were right if you would take into account only swing weight why not a lot of manufacturers are producing 60-65g rackets with BP of ~350mm?
what the whole experiment proves is that there is a correlation between the position of the weight and the resulting change in swing weight. If you move the weight towards the middle of the handle, then you will see a small increase in swing weight, or maybe you don't, since the machine is only giving out full numbers. But the result stays the same: Adding weight at the handle area will have a small to negligible change in how "heavy" the rackets swings and will not make it feel more head light. define "power transfer" please The center of rotation does not change when you add weight anywhere, that's why the balance point is only a theoretical value. The racket does not rotate around the balance point (= center of mass). The center of rotation will be right inside your palm when you pronate the racket. That's why the whole "counter weight" thing is nothing but a marketing stunt. Because this is impossible to do with carbon fibre. To achieve 65 g overall weight, you would have very, very little material in the whole racket. To achieve 350 balance, you would then have to move most of that little material towards the top of the head which means that there will be even less material available to make the shaft and handle which both is necessary to achieve the needed stability. We can twist and turn this matter as much as we want, but one thing remains the same: Adding weight to the handle has slim to no effect on how the racket plays.
Another thing which maybe interesting to test is how adding weight on grip affect SW when we hold the racket differently. As heavy hammer racket lovers, i had a habbit to hold my racket up high near/touch the cone when the pace getting faster. So maybe heavier handle would reduce SW significantly if we hold the racket high on the cone.
The swing weight will be significantly reduced once you hold the racket near the cone. But not because of any counter weight effect, but simply because you are shortening the lever (the distance between the center of rotation and the head). Again and again and again: Adding weight anywhere on the racket will NOT make it more head light or reduce the swing weight compared to not having the extra weight on the racket and all other parameters remaining constant. And I just don't get why apparently it is so important to so many people to "prove" the opposite. Sometimes facts are just facts that we have to accept.
coz its fun for (at least) they who do it Its even more fun when they manage to prove their theori is right. Life is full of crazy people & that whats makes our live colorfull & never be a boring world
not true, quite a lot of are making such rackets and even with carbon and you can string them up to 38lbs
Have a look on the 17 gram picture. I put the weights on different points on the grip. What do you mean with "rotational movement"? I don't think that the power transfer will be higher of thicker grip instead of the higher weight. Higher weight in the handle creates stability (one reason, why a lot of brands put some weight into the handle), but not more power. Because a racket is a well balanced component. If you change to much in one direction you get a more or less unplayable racket. Also light rackets are completely nonsense, they are just good for marketing? And a lot of people "like" light rackets, because they think that they play better with it. I hear very often, that they bought it because of arm/elbow problems. But that is the wrong assumption. A normal even balanced 3U racket is better for the arm/elbow than a very light racket.
show me one racket from a reputable manufacturer (some shady Aliexpress-only companies don't count since they don't give sh*t when you actually want to claim warranty...) that is in the 65 g and 350 mm balance point region. I don't know any. To achieve a swing weight of 95 as seen in the OP, you would have to raise the balance point even further than 350 on such a lightweight piece of nothing. But besides, let's imagine there is a racket with a total weight of 65 g and a swingweight of 95. Then yes, it will feel similar to equal during a swing compared to a normal 3U racket with the same head weight. That's the definition of swing weight. What would you want to prove with that?
yep power transfer of kinetic energy will be higher with additional weight. the boiler plate that 60-65g rackets with BP of ~350mm, would have around the same swing weight as 3u even, but yes it would play very very differently, so even swing weight does not say it all, the same as BP - without racket weight it is only theoretical number.
balance point is a completely theoretical number since it includes no weight at all. Swing weight however includes the total weight of the racket as well as the weight distribution on it. So that is as close as it gets to describe the "heaviness" during an actual dynamic swing with a single number. The only thing that is missing is the areodynamic qualities of the rackets since the swing weight measurement is done with relatively slow movements. And let's remind ourselves once again what was the purpose of this whole thread and the experiment in the OP: We have seen numerous statements that adding weight to the grip makes a racket less head heavy (meaning: reducing head weight). And that is not the case, plain and simple. That the overall feel of a racket consists of a lot more factors than only weight and weight distribution is crystal clear. But there is no way of cheating physics in a way that adding more weight at any point on a badminton racket will result in a loss of weight anywhere else.
and just checked the head weight of maxbolt nezer it is exactly 40g - the same as 3u even balanced racket
I can send you maxbolt nezer for free, if you promise to use only it and not any other racket, since it has probably the same swing weight what you are using - a bit hh 4u bat.
see above: And here's a good descpription about what swing weight actually is and what the value does show and what it doesn't. The arcticle is about tennis, but the physics behind it are the same: https://www.tennis.com/gear/2009/02/the-swing-of-it/45459/ summary from the article: "Obviously swingweight won’t tell how a racquet feels at contact or whether it has a big enough sweet spot. But once you become familiar with the swingweight you prefer, it can certainly give you a indication of whether a frame is right for you. Perhaps more so than knowing the weight or balance. If you’re not already using the number as a barometer for trying out racquets, give it a shot. It may change the way you look at frames."
While a heavier headlight racket and a lighter headheavy racket, that have the same swingweight, may FEEL different, it doesn't mean that actual swingspeeds are actually different. Human brain is quite easily decieved and while headlight racket may feel faster than the headheavier counterpart (that they share the swingweight with), I'm quite certain that should the premise be tested with a high-speed camera, they will end up having the same speed head movement. The only thing I'm not sure about, is how much of the actual momentum of a strike is linear, in other words, does the additional mass in a headlight rackets handle provide with additional inertia (=hitting power) when compared with a headheavy racket of the same swingweight. In actual human use. Or is the entire movement rotational, so swingweight describes it accurately.
I don't know why people even think about making a racket headlighter? I normally buy the type of rackets which suits me out of the box. The tuning is for me only interesting to even out production variations because I have use 3 identical rackets.
