Choosing the right blade / determining blade speed info

[ajtatosmano2]

I don't have too much money to spend on TT, but I've played with a ton of blades and rubbers by borrowing them from club mates. I also spend a lot of time reading about equipments (because I don't want to spend too much money). And I reached the conclusion that the scientific approach won't work. It can give you clues about an equipment how it might work, but it can't replace trying the equipment.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I don't have too much money to spend on TT, but I've played with a ton of blades and rubbers by borrowing them from club mates. I also spend a lot of time reading about equipments (because I don't want to spend too much money). And I reached the conclusion that the scientific approach won't work. It can give you clues about an equipment how it might work, but it can't replace trying the equipment.

This is a good post. I agree.

And yet it is still valuable to have someone trying to figure things out.

I actually would be more interested in seeing if there is any correlation between pitch and "dwell time". I don't think that one will work either but it would interesting to look at.

One of the bigger difficulties with it is the actual problem of what dwell time is. Are there slight differences in how long we hold the ball on the blade face? Does that have more to do with the touch and skill of the player? Or can certain blades make it easier to hold the ball on the rubber for a fraction of a second longer? A tiny fraction, like .25 microseconds. [emoji2]


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[NextLevel]

I don't have too much money to spend on TT, but I've played with a ton of blades and rubbers by borrowing them from club mates. I also spend a lot of time reading about equipments (because I don't want to spend too much money). And I reached the conclusion that the scientific approach won't work. It can give you clues about an equipment how it might work, but it can't replace trying the equipment.

The scientific approach works much better than you think it does if you can measure objective physical properties of the blade under fairly standard conditions. In fact, I suspect that with 3 or 4 numbers or at most 10 measurements, you can get bout 90-95% predictability about how well a blade will play for you. This is a good start.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I don't have too much money to spend on TT, but I've played with a ton of blades and rubbers by borrowing them from club mates. I also spend a lot of time reading about equipments (because I don't want to spend too much money). And I reached the conclusion that the scientific approach won't work. It can give you clues about an equipment how it might work, but it can't replace trying the equipment.

The scientific approach works much better than you think it does if you can measure objective physical properties of the blade under fairly standard conditions. In fact, I suspect that with 3 or 4 numbers or at most 10 measurements, you can get bout 90-95% predictability about how well a blade will play for you. This is a good start.

I don't think these two posts are mutually exclusive.

The more equipment you have tried, the more you actually know things that feel good for you and work for you, the more the numbers can help.

But it is pretty nice to have the racket in your hand to test first hand how it feels.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[mlax]

Here's a spreadsheet that is going around at MyTT.com: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tnzuhP98Iwl3_ZYIKs770Z4GeEXB1cPaF6xXC3IMLfg/edit?usp=sharing

and also posted a submission form for people who want to contribute: http://goo.gl/forms/HGki3A0DqfYSXT2A3

 

[ttmonster]

so somebody already had the idea ...

Here's a spreadsheet that is going around at MyTT.com: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tnzuhP98Iwl3_ZYIKs770Z4GeEXB1cPaF6xXC3IMLfg/edit?usp=sharing

and also posted a submission form for people who want to contribute: http://goo.gl/forms/HGki3A0DqfYSXT2A3

 

[apodra74]

I tested my blades again today what I noticed that can make your measurements go all over the place is if you hold the blade lightly or really tight.
Btw I tried with Donic ball p40+ and with a Nittaku Premium 40+ similar results with both balls loose grip, the blades I tested:
Stiga Ulf Tickan Carrlson allround AN 82gr (30 years old) = 1184
Donic Ovtcharov Carbospeed FL 88gr = 1674
Butterfly Schlager Carbon ST 95gr = 1943
Butterfly Schlager Carbon FL 100gr = 1948
Xiom Axelo FL 87 gr. = 1981

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I tested my blades again today what I noticed that can make your measurements go all over the place is if you hold the blade lightly or really tight.
Btw I tried with Donic ball p40+ and with a Nittaku Premium 40+ similar results with both balls loose grip, the blades I tested:
Stiga Ulf Tickan Carrlson allround AN 82gr (30 years old) = 1184
Donic Ovtcharov Carbospeed FL 88gr = 1674
Butterfly Schlager Carbon ST 95gr = 1943
Butterfly Schlager Carbon FL 100gr = 1948
Xiom Axelo FL 87 gr. = 1981

Where is Der_Echte when we need someone to talk about hand pressure!


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[apodra74]

Schlager carbon when gripped with a lot of pressure gave me a few times 2900 instead of 1900+

 

[6Finger]

Hi Baal,

Yes, i was at the TT shop today. It feel slightly thicker, larger.

The new version of viscaria handle seem thin or same as the older version.

I'm a cpen holder and thinking to try out shakehand.
I narrowed down to Korbel (5 plywood) as it seem same as the blade built currently im using now (YEO).

YEO exists in shakehand too, flared and straight handles. So why not try with the same blade
One of the best blades I owned and tried.

@apodra74
I hold the blade as I hold it while playing, lightly

@ttmonster
No, actually thread was started after author was inspired with this thread.
I do read that forum to and was planing to post there but someone posted this part about measuring frequency and since that part is most interesting to me I skipped on posting there.

 

[NextLevel]

I don't think these two posts are mutually exclusive.

The more equipment you have tried, the more you actually know things that feel good for you and work for you, the more the numbers can help.

But it is pretty nice to have the racket in your hand to test first hand how it feels.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

Yes, but there is a slight skepticism in his post which I think doesn't appreciate fully the direction the world is headed in. I will give an example.

How many of us have bought shirts and gone crazy about getting a precise fit? Well, a former business school classmate designed a system where with 3 measurements from your body, he can get a shirt that fits you. This system is a 95% satisfaction rate which is much higher than the current measurement system for shirts, which says you must always try before you buy.

For me, I am noticing that blade thickness is a factor as well as handle design. So something like, under 6mm thickness, under the 1500 frequency, flare handle with certain dimensions and soft to medium hard outer ply may fully specify what I like. Maybe head dimensions might play a role too. But after listing all these things, it might be enough to say whether someone will NOT like a blade and save them the trouble of even wasting time testing it. And maybe if there is nothing to dislike, then trying it out may be the final step. We are not as unique as we think we are.

So it can replace trying the equipment if the test is likely to be a waste of time.

 

[6Finger]

NextLevel I completely agree and that was the whole point of me writing this thread.

You wrote interesting parameter, head size.
I am convinced besides the frequency one more thing strongly influences blade speed.
Weight is obvious so lets skipp that one.
Thickness influences speed too but I suspect head size too, and by great extent, I just didn't have enough blades to test it and since my EJing is over I dont think I will.

2 carbon blades with roughly same frequency, blade that was lighter by 5 grams but thicker 1mm and with head size 158x152 vs 157x150, lighter but thicker and biger head blade is quite a bit faster.

 

[Baal]

I don't have too much money to spend on TT, but I've played with a ton of blades and rubbers by borrowing them from club mates. I also spend a lot of time reading about equipments (because I don't want to spend too much money). And I reached the conclusion that the scientific approach won't work. It can give you clues about an equipment how it might work, but it can't replace trying the equipment.

I have tried many blades too. To be honest, we have never really tried a "scientific" approach. What have we had in terms of objective measures? Weight, and blade dimensions and thickness, and really that is about it. We also have completely subjective measures of "speed" and "control" with numbers that people pull out of thin air. So we don't really know how well something like this can work unless we try it. The blade manufacturers will never provide it, they thrive on EJs and confusion. In fact, I suspect a more detailed analysis of what these phone apps give would tell us a great deal, but just getting the one number is helpful within limits -- such comparing two blades that might be regarded as similar -- like a Donic True Carbon with one of the Btfl ALC blades for one example.

I know that there is obviously a certain quality of blades that makes them great that cannot be easily captured in a single number, but it might be surprising how few numbers we might need to home in something we would like a lot.

This reminds me of mountain bikes, which were not invented by any one person, but by grass roots innovation like this. I think this is one of the best things I have seen on TT forums in a long time, and it is quite interesting that the idea is "in the air" and it turns out that several people around the world have been playing around with this (so there is already a quite large database).

 

[ttmonster]

I meant the idea of consolidating information in a single google doc and encouraging people to contribute ..

YEO exists in shakehand too, flared and straight handles. So why not try with the same blade
One of the best blades I owned and tried.

@apodra74
I hold the blade as I hold it while playing, lightly

@ttmonster
No, actually thread was started after author was inspired with this thread.
I do read that forum to and was planing to post there but someone posted this part about measuring frequency and since that part is most interesting to me I skipped on posting there.

 

[NextLevel]

NextLevel I completely agree and that was the whole point of me writing this thread.

You wrote interesting parameter, head size.
I am convinced besides the frequency one more thing strongly influences blade speed.
Weight is obvious so lets skipp that one.
Thickness influences speed too but I suspect head size too, and by great extent, I just didn't have enough blades to test it and since my EJing is over I dont think I will.

2 carbon blades with roughly same frequency, blade that was lighter by 5 grams but thicker 1mm and with head size 158x152 vs 157x150, lighter but thicker and biger head blade is quite a bit faster.

I suspect that they are linked but the way the blade feels in the hand is what I mean when I am speaking of thickness. Because of composites, you can get a Timo Boll T5000 which is as thin as a regular under 6mm blade but which has an OFF+ speed. You can also get a thicker blade which is all wood or maybe even ZLF which plays like an OFF- blade. I prefer the feel of the thinner blade, but I might not like the speed. I might prefer the OFF- speed, but not like the thickness. This is what I mean.

 

[Baal]

Head size will affect frequency. Smaller = higher

 

[NextLevel]

Head size will affect frequency. Smaller = higher

Yes, but again, blade construction can modify that with other features of the blade.

 

[tropical]

Good first cut attempt to help us choose a blade using a very simple method. I like it.

In my previous life I did a lot frequency analysis of various mainframe computer frames. We normally used a single natural frequency to tell how stiff a frame was, and thus designed a frame to have its natural freq much higher than earthquake frequencies to avoid resonance which could damage equipment. Of course this is a first and simple analysis before we got into deeper analysis of other mode shapes (2nd, 3rd, etc. order) Usually the 1st order is enough, though.


There is a relationship between stiffness and sound. My assumption here is the stiffer it is the faster a blade becomes. Also boundary conditions (BC's) will play a big factor and affect this natural frequency which affects stiffness then sound. BC's here is how firm you hold the racket and this is not well defined in the OP. Size of the blade affect stiffness as well. Think about guitar string. Using same tension the half long string will double its natural frequency because it is stiffer.

There might be some exceptions but I think they are rare that do not fall into the OP's methodology. The OP can be improved. 1st is to define how firm (for example a 10 lbs force clamping by using a 10 lb weight distributed evenly in the center area of 3 inches of the handle), height of the free falling ball, type of ball (Nittaku 3 star 40+ as an example), locations (center, away from center by a fixed distance - I think we may need to measure pitch freq when the ball fall around the sweet spot), pitch freq is good as spectrum analysis is beyond average folks here, etc.