I don't know what you think i am getting at, i am agreeing that the QC is important, very important in fact. What my point is for joe bloggs to do all this would be impossible. If you are going to do an experiment like this the best way is to pick one variable.
There are 4 simple tests a potential buyer can carry out to find which racquet, even of the same model, is better. I will give you one example of the tests but will not give you details on how the test is carried out. Just have a look at the racquet frame and its stringbed. The interface between the frame and the stringbed imposes a load on the frame, resulting in distortion and warping, with power shots. The degree of distortion/warping will depend various factors, namely, the Youngs modulus of the raw materials that go to make the frame, the dimensions of the frame, and the string tension. Very high tensions will impose or transfer a greater load onto the frame and distortions/warping will be higher with power hits. One tip, if you have racquets that are relatively of low youngs modulus and the frame dimensions are slim, then you can offset this by using lower tension. Low tensions will take more of the load with less stress on the frame, resulting in reduced frame distortion/warping common to high tension. Very high Youngs modulus frame does not distort/warp as much and hence will give a real punch with high tension. Yes, this can be tested.
Yes this can be tested but we its not about "which racket is better for me", its "what gives badminton rackets their power". Its a combination of things and you would have to do lots of testing to find generally what gives power, not what just suits you as a player.
Thats not true. Good racket store the energy and release it during the impact with shuttlecock. Cheap racket tend to convert some of the energy into vibration, etc. Remember, Input = Output + energy lost
Totally agree with you! However, one simple truth is a cheapo racket can beat a top grade racket...well, at least not in the world stage anyways.
Physics-vs-Art of Playing Badminton . Hahaha... To some, it's the racket used; to some, it's the string used; to some, it's the technique used; etc, etc, ...... To me, it's the technique used. Just give any racket to Lee Chong Wei and/or Lin Dan and play against them. I am sure that they won't say that they depend on their equipment(s) to defeat us. .
What is the best colour for overgrip? . Hahaha...... BTW, what is the best colour for overgrip? To me, it is BLACK. .
Well, as any know-it-all self-righteous high school physics kid would tell you, red is by far the fastest and can be proven by the use of a mass spectrometer, MRI and two cans of beans. However, the real world practicality of black simply cannot be ignored.
I believe thats not relevance. It's not about win or defeat, but energy transfer : Input = Output + % energy lost. The one that has minimal % lost is the best (no matter who use it).
The ART plus PHYSICS of Badminton will help us to play better . This I agree. Each player has his/her favourite racket. What I implied to our BCers was not to depend on our equipment. It's better to depend on our our skill. Once we have good skills, we can still play well; even if we don't have the latest equipment. Equipment will be better as we move on. Skills will too. To me, playing Badminton is an ART. However, I need to correct the debate: The PHYSICS do help. So, let's agree that: The ART plus the PHYSICS of Badminton will help us to play better. .
There are heaps of good players that play with 75 buck rackets and K-Mart shoes that wipe the floor with players with more 'advanced' rackets. Like me, for example. Rackets are mostly for fun, something to try out to experience the various nuances possible, and to keep the great wheels of the capitalist machine well oiled. There will be nothing that 'revolutionises' rackets in the next 20 years. A mid range model from any of the majors is all the racket 95% of the players out there will ever need (until they become one of the 5%, of course.) And all this despite precocious teenagers 15 minutes of scientific experience! Who would've guessed!?
Nobody believes those smash speed records. This was discussed ad infinitum when the Z was first released.
This is a very interesting thread. Your combined points will give the science of badminton rackets. And others are also right that it's not just the racket but also the wielder. I will try this tomorrow during my game. I will determine/compute for the mass, speed, distance, power, force, momentum, aerodynamics, tension, modulus, angle, inertia, weight distribution, etc. I just hope I'm done computing by the time the shuttle strikes my court.
If someone is interested in the rackets only behavior during a Smash should read the article " Dynamic Model af Badminton Stroke(P254)" in the book "The Engeneering of Sports 7"(Springer, by Margaret Estivalet & Pierre Brisson) I think you can read it in every University for free, or download the ebook (google + rapidshare + The Engineering of Sports 7..."free"... you know what I mean). Also it would not improve your game; but interesting. The racket exhibits an elastic deformation (reversible) during the acceleration of the stroke. The deformation swings back and may increase/decrease the impact velocity when the timing is correct/incorrect. The window for a perfect impact is very narrow ~20ms . The main massage of this article is, that the right timing of the shuttle impact is important to get the "extra" power due to the elastic deflection. Stiffness, weight and balance point of the racket can influence the timing a lot.
I read that too There are a few interesting articles in the series - eg. one about synthetic shuttle design, and one about making something to launch shuttles... Also some good ones about skiing too, if anyone else is interested in that (might just be me).
