I was just wondering how the attributes are quantified in terms of the scaling from 1-20? Although I personally appreciate this approach of trying to look for a methodology of trying to measure a given racket's characteristcis and performance. Would you say that this is more scientific compared to a more of a "feel" type of racket testing like Paul's?
Hi Jackie, The results have been read correctly, out of the 550+ stiffness tests carried out, most results are what might be expected or thereabouts, but there are 20-30 rackets like the ZF1 that have shown shocking/surprising results. In terms of the test itself, to simplify; if you hung two rulers over a table one soft plastic and the other made of iron and then place the same weight on the end of both, they will flex differently. If you can measure that difference you can create results accordingly.
Hi, So the scoring was done once we were aware what different ends of the performance spectrum were for each area i.e. highest and lowest smash speeds, same for maneuver results and so on. Then the score is allocated according to the various high's and low's - hope that makes sense? I think all Badminton Fans love Paul's work, hes done a really good job! Our approach is scientifically based, of course feel is really important, but difficult to quantify, still working on that The creator of BRR wanted to create a system where rackets could be directly compared, so we string all rackets with the same string to the same tension and all rackets are tested in the same way which allows for players to compare across manufacturers etc. On a personal level I like the fact no importance is placed on manufacturer or expensive or cheap rackets, they are handled in the same way.
No need to simplify, I was interested in the actual method and not some illustration. There are different approaches to measuring stiffness, what I was interested in is which method you employ and what the accuracy (measurement tolerance) is. The result of the comparison you posted seems very counterintuitive, but that's not the main motivation for me asking, it's more my curiosity. I did voice my concerns already, so I won't repeat them, but they haven't been assuaged by this particular reply. Part of running decent and valid tests is understanding your measurement methods and their accuracy and weaknesses. It enables you to critically judge your results and allows you to spot problems.
I agree with J4ckie, I wasn't convinced by your explanation. I'd like to understand exactly how you test it. I still don't get what you are measuring (what are those 1.04g ??)
These units are definitely confusing even for dumb University grad like me with a science background from a Russell group Uni and postgraduate study. I am not convinced about the weight of the racquet gives anything meaningful. Even manufacturers state mass as a +- value recognising variability in the manufacturing process. However whether that's a range , standard deviation, or standard error of the mean with appropriate confidence limits I have no idea. It would be nice to have a S.E.M. +- 95% C.I. from a sample of racquets which are the same model.
But wouldn't this provide a still very limited results to be able to give a more objective advise on the issue of racket + string + tension equations? There's been some discussions here on how certain type of strings perform differently on certain models/types of racket and on certain given tensions. I would be interested to know if some tests can be done on "which racket using which string and at what tension" would produce some varying and interesting results. If feedbacks from players could be gathered as well and be included in the tests, I'm thinking that might result in a more enlightening approach on the matter?
