Badminton racket GGG- built-in system for changing balance point (BP)

Interesting concept. It has occurred to many, but you've gone and done it. Congratulations.

But it seems that with your racket, the faster one tries to swing, the more difficult it will be -- like pulling a resistance band.
Perhaps that works for a well-prepared smash. But would it not adversely affect a player's ability to perform a smash-return or the quick spike-like stroke that folks call a "stick smash"?

Will be interested to read independent reviews of your product once it's out there. Good luck.

 

There is the slight problem of the design being illegal. Under BWF rules, the racket cannot be adjusted mid-game by the user.

 

This is great; I love seeing a bit of innovation at the grassroots level. If the price is reasonable then I would be really interested in buying one and posting a review here/ pass it around to my friends in my University's squad. Until then I'll reserve any judgements and preconceptions!

 

very interesting if you could successfully achieve satisfactory testing. I wonder if Yonex/Victor/LiNing/etc would start contacting you to buy the patents, and bury it deep inside the deepest ocean. You see, in a long-term vision, these giant companies do not like an all-in-one racket available on market, or else for many years ahead all they could ever come up in a racket is a new price tag and colors and nothing else. RSL achieved these all-in-one properties and successfully implemented it in their Diamond series racket (Adidas got it too in their Switch rackets) BUT only problem is,.. you need to cut off the string if you want to change racket's properties (Balance Point) and attach/detach the metal plate. BUT yours would be superb if outlook is just pure racket without no fancy helmet around the head, but inside the head/shaft lies a sleeping HULK that can be awaken if you're angry to your opponent!

 

4.3.2 shall be free of any device that makes it possible for a player to change materially the shape of the racket.

You're moving material from one part of the racket to another, ergo, you are changing its shape.

 

not if the moving part is being done hidden inside the racket (and the coach keep their mouths shut), hence the appearance of racket will always remain the same. Unless,.. of course, the referee or officials decided to test-out and feel the racket itself.

 

Yeah don't quit your day job and take up law.

Damjan, I'm very curious about your invention, but there's a couple of issues I see with having a 'mechanical' element to the racket.

The first is adjustability. On what are you basing your head velocity figure, and should it not be adjustable? I can imagine individual users wanting varying degrees of head-heaviness as they already do with non-mechanical rackets - unless you are planning on selling different models with different initial balance points which to me somewhat defeats the purpose.

Secondly, where exactly in the weight being shifted to? Most people tend to prefer a 'head heavy feel' racket to carry its weight at the top of the head. If you have the mechanism in the shaft, that in my mind won't work because you are not changing the swing-weight signiciantly.

Finally, in dynamically changing the balance, you're now introducing a variable that the player's physiology has to compensate for. For example, the head speed of the racket will change depending on weight distribution, so players could find themselves getting to the shuttle either too early or too late depending on what stage the weight is transferring in the racket.

I like the fact that you're wanting to introduce some interesting technology into the badminton scene, but you certainly are throwing in some variables which may be difficult to control or for a player to adjust to.

 

>4.3.2 shall be free of any device that makes it possible for a player to change materially the shape of the racket.<

Please excuse me if I am wrong as English is not my first language, but it appears to me that “materially” means “substantially” or “significantly” here, but not the actual material per se! If so, it is saying the SHAPE of the racket should not be changed substancially, not the distrubution of materials.

If that is indeed the case, then the GGG racket doesn't break the rule!

But then, of course, I don't have a law degree

 

Well we can all argue the legal technicalities as laypeople, but it's really a problem for further down the track. At this stage it's probably the least of the challenges facing the concept.

 

For these reasons I think it would be great to see some testimonials from people who have already tested the racket for you, as anecdotal and vulnerable to bias as they may be

 

thats an ambiguous rule on BWF, imagine by swinging you are already flexing the racquet.. upon shuttle contact the frame does flex and change its shape momentarily.... so......

 

Yeah, no kidding... just look at the ZSpeed... the frame is specifically designed to flex at around 3 and 9 o'clock. I'd imagine there would be a significant material change in shape of the frame at impact.

 

Absolutely the rule is ambiguous, but ambiguity leaves things open for lawyers to make money, and we want to avoid that at all costs.

I'm with you on the Z-Speed. I was surprised when it came out because of exactly the design feature you mentioned, but as there are already rackets on the market such as the Gosen Aermet series that has a specifically designed flex point in the shaft that having one in the head is effectively the same thing.

As with the 'Hawkeye' style line call system, I think as with many things BWF is way behind the 8-ball on these rules. They're way too ambiguous and I'm not sure exactly what the point of them is in the first place.

 

So the weight is in the shaft? when the shaft bends does the spring and weight not jam up?