The physics of badminton: What gives Badminton rackets their power

[kirbosmash]

Physics and Power, by Kirbosmash


As a high school student, I am required to take math and science courses- this year, I took Calculus and Physics. With my obsession with badminton rackets and my gifts in physics, I have decided to write a report on what gives badminton rackets their power. For those too lazy to read the whole thing :rolleyes:, scroll down to the bottom for the summary.

First off, what is the scientific meaning of power? Answer: Momentum. By the law of conservation of momentum, the momentum of the racquet is completely transferred to the birdie. Thus, to find what makes rackets powerful, we must find what gives the racket the most momentum.

Physics equation: Momentum = Velocity x Mass

The variable that affects both velocity and mass is of course, the specs of a racket - head heavy/ head light/, etc. For a greater velocity, the mass of the racket must be less. No, I take that back, the swing must be fast.
A "head light" racket swings faster than an "even balanced racket" which swings faster than an "even balanced racket."

The "overall racket weight/mass" is not as influential to the speed of the racket as much as where the weight is located - since the contact point with the birdie is at the head (where the strings are), it is only logical that the accountable mass for momentum is located there.

Thus, to determine power, we must use the velocity of the swing, and the mass of the head. Of course, ordinary badminton players can not measure this as accurately as scientists, so we must use comparative reasoning instead.
1. as stated above, head light rackets swing faster. However, head light rackets have less mass at the head. The faster swing generates more power, but the lack of mass lessens it.
2. Even balanced are in between.
3. Head heavy rackets swing the slowest, but with the most mass at the head, they are naturally powerful.

Finding the right balance is key - if one can swing a racket very fast, then a head heavy racket would be beastly, however, an even balanced or head light racket would do just fine - according to the equation momentum = m x v. For someone not swinging as fast, they will benefit in terms of power by using a head heavy racket, as opposed to a head light racket (which would give them almost no power).

More skill = increased racket speed = more racket options.


Conclusively, this means that the power of the racket is based on the "specs" of the racket almost soley. That makes us wonder, what differentiates between two rackets with the same specs then? It isn't power, at all - don't be confused by the Company's slogans that the extra $$$$ means more power. The extra $$ must equate to better feel and/or durability, as opposed to power, since power is based upon the laws of physics.


Summary: rackets vary by balance and mass in order to change how powerful a racket is. A racket that has a lot of mass at the head, while still being able to swing fast (not hard, fast), would generate the most power. However, that is extreme and of course sacrifices control and sometimes, your arm (injuries). It is much easier to swing a racket with less weight at the head but since it has less mass, it will not have as much power. Swing speed and mass are inversely proportional with power, increasing swing speed but decrease head mass, decrease swing speed but increase head mass --> "power" can come in many ways.

extra $$ leads to better feel and durability, but not necessarily power. On a final note, physics makes power, it is power. Let this advise your next racket purchase.


Thanks for reading,
Kirbosmash

[jymbalaya]

you kinda missed a key point. The racket itself.

the racket is composed of wood, and carbon fibers/ graphite. this brings into play torsion, tensile strength, flexibility, etc. these also contribute to power generation.

The strings are another component. they are strung at certain tension, and have different characteristics that allow for power generation.

[Gemcat]

You are right about the general physics of human physiology. If you punch someone in the face at 30km/h is of course more powerful than at 5km/h. If you add a iron knuckle to your fist, the damage can be double because of the weight. But for badminton, you have to take in consideration of the racquet itself as well. Like jymbalaya said, the density of material and flexibility of an racquet will greatly contribute to how much power you will have when you swing. If you have learned Pivot-Theory, then you might want to read on more about that as in badminton, there are many pivot points. Shoulder pivot -> Elbow pivot -> Wrist pivot -> Shaft pivot -> Frame pivot...Something like that I believe. So, head heavy racquets are not necessarily more powerful than head light or even balanced racquets due shaft stiffness. Think of this, why would racquet company release many different specs of racquet of the same line?

[Tsumaranai]

I'm pretty sure what you have described is already a general understanding. There are definitely, as others have said, many other different variables that would affect it. There is no real objective way to measure the strength of a racket itself, as it is the person wielding the instrument that generates the power.

[chewablemorphin]

You completly missed strings, strings, act as a spring to amplifly the momentum created by the swing.

The strings are the torsion coefficient that multiplys the force created by the swing, focusing it on the shuttle. Tension is stored energy in the racket, this, also, gives rackets there power.

The thickness, and elastic qualitys of the string play a huge role in the performance of the racket.

[atingd]

Gotta love your "gifts in physics" rofl

[jhirata]

Kirbosmash, are you implying that..

This:
http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50175948/Badminton_Racket_Set.jpg

is more powerful than..

this? ( If the swing speed, strings and string tension remain constant ):
http://www.just-rackets.co.uk/gfx/uploads/img_1_26082008233024199_m-tec70page.jpg

[cl427x]

Aw give him a break. He's just expressing his enthusiasm :)

[Tsumaranai]

Maybe if he was him. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090528/od_afp/swedeneducationoffbeatiraq_20090528124335 :p It's alright. We're just giving friendly criticism. ;)

[stumblingfeet]

Something else to consider is that as you learn to swing faster, you will begin to approach a maximum speed that is dependent on limb length, CNS speed, muscle insertion angle and muscle-tendon ratio. The idea is that for an explosive movement, once an object starts moving your leverage on it changes, plus your muscles generate less force at high speeds. This is why you want to accelerate your arm with as much initial force as possible, to maximize impulse. You do this instinctively when using the stretch reflex.

What this means is that with a light racquet, you might get to a point where you just can't get the racquet to a faster swing speed. It just has too little inertia to allow you to load it fully. With a heavier racquet, you might be able to get it to a faster speed.

However, be careful with your terminology. With the light racquet, you can still improve "power" by having the same swing speed at contact but with less preparation time for the stroke. Remember that power is force over time, so minimizing time is a valid way to improve power. Just remember that in this case the improvement in power means you can get your smash off more quickly, and therefore use it in more situations. It doesn't mean that the smash will have a higher shuttle speed.

[wannaliquorbox]

you guys are so mean...c'mon, he is only in high school and trying to show off a little by applying what he learnt.

but the general consensus is right, there are many more variables than the momentum of the racket that ultimately determine the power of the stroke/speed of the bird.

[Tsumaranai]

Well, in a way, we're not really chastising him, but elaborating on the general conditions he already laid out.

[blindfury]

Kirbosmash, sorry to tell you this, but your report elaborates only at a mediocre highschool level, if i were you, i wouldn't dare type the sentence "my gifts in physics". Don't take this as an insult, but please NEVER, EVER, initiate an unnecessarily long post with self-righteousness and ignorance.

[jhirata]

"Power" not only can be based on the racquet's balance and weight..
You have to take in all these other variables like frame stability, tensile modulus (stiffness)~shaft/frame flexibility and length, aerodynamics, etc, when the swing speed, string, string tension, hitting angle, air density, shuttle used, etc are all constant.. it gets quite complicated IMO.

Kirbosmash, I suggest you to read through all of taneepak's... physics talk ;)

[Gemcat]

"Power" not only can be based on the racquet's balance and weight..
You have to take in all these other variables like frame stability, tensile modulus (stiffness)~shaft/frame flexibility and length, aerodynamics, etc, when the swing speed, string, string tension, hitting angle, air density, shuttle used, etc are all constant.. it gets quite complicated IMO.

Kirbosmash, I suggest you to read through all of taneepak's... physics talk ;)

That, my good sir, completely blew my mind. I could've sued taneepak for murdering my brain cells.:D:D:D

[kirbosmash]

wow so mean. I had to leave early because I went to play at Bintang Badminton so I did not get to finish my report. I"m not trying to show off - to be honest, I"m trying to stop my urges to keep buying more rackets.

I forgot to mention, as many of you kindly pointed out, the string tension and strings. Well of course that is important. The repulsion rate is directly related with the speed of the swing, - less tension for a slow swing, more tension for a fast swing. This leads to my next point, the stiffness of the racket. A flexible racket helps a slow swing because after the racket hits the bird, it rebounds faster than the swing. However if the player swings faster than the racket, then its useless.

In order for companies to truly make rackets more powerful, they would have to find a way to make it flexible, so flexible that its' faster than any human swing. That material is too futuristic- not only must it be ultra elastic it must also be ultra durable - this is star trek and stargate material.


And wow you all focused on "gifted in physics." I was only trying to get your attention. Maybe I got it too much.

[jhirata]

I"m trying to stop my urges to keep buying more rackets.
TwoBeer would probably tell us all that one TC700 is enough ;)

[Tsumaranai]

I don't quite get how a racket is supposed to be "faster than any human swing" and how manufacturing a flexible shaft will allow for this? Wouldn't a durable stiff shaft be more helpful for that goal?

[Gemcat]

And wow you all focused on "gifted in physics." I was only trying to get your attention. Maybe I got it too much.

Haha, maybe many of us are very envious of you having "the gift", so we all started bashing your statements for fun.

Just kidding, you are alright.:D

[blindfury]

And wow you all focused on "gifted in physics." I was only trying to get your attention. Maybe I got it too much.

We are not intentionally focusing on your "gifts for physics", there's just nothing else to focus on :rolleyes:. Please, don't think of us as mean :D.

[chewablemorphin]

In order for companies to truly make rackets more powerful, they would have to find a way to make it flexible, so flexible that its' faster than any human swing. That material is too futuristic- not only must it be ultra elastic it must also be ultra durable - this is star trek and stargate material.



This is not necesarilly true either, having a material that is flexible, in a sense would be a whip. The problem with that is it would be imposible to be consistant, having to time every shot perfectly. There are reasons why people who like to smash, use stiff rackets. The racket is a mere extension of the body, when you swing, you swing with all of your body's inertia, thats where the power comes from, weight transfer, which then is amplified by the shoulder rotation, which then is amplified by the rist, and finally by the racket itself. You could increase the power simply by making the racket longer, increasing the levrage.

[jhirata]

You could increase the "power" simply by making the racket longer, increasing the levrage.That's true because work = force x distance..

Also, Momentum = Mass x ( velocity which is [Distance travelled / time])
The mass and the length of the racquet can both affect the "power", given that the swing speed remains constant.. and also lets say, if racquet A and B have constant "x" mass and "y" "length" ( in general ) and if racquet B has a more aerodynamic frame and shaft profile. The aerodynamic"er" frame will reduce the time taken to swing the racquet if the distance swung remains constant for all racquets, therefore also the "power" will increase as the velocity value in general will also increase.

"Mass" is just too vague as well as Kirbosmash mentionned, it should be taken in context of "sweetspot" or the balance point/centre of gravity from the pivot, and also the total mass of the racquet.
So simply, the balance point can also affect the time taken to swing. Lower bp ( or just lower "mass" ) will give faster swing speed ( there is a limit to this swing speed ). Higher bp ( head-heavy ) racquets will have greater value of "mass" and may take more time to swing the racquet a constant distance, but if the weilder can swing the racquet fast enough ( lets say, at the same speed as the head-light racquet), the head-heavy racquet ( and also heavy in general ) can produce more "power" than a "light" racquet if the racquet length ( most importantly ), strings, etc remain constant.

The stiffness of the material used in the racquet will also affect the "power" and durability. The flexibility/stiffness can change the output "power", but it also depends upon the user as explained by Loopy:
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40187

So pretty much, there can only be "powerful racquets" if everyone are physically the same, which isn't the case. Basing our racquet purchases on the racquet's marketed "power" is just non-sense.

[chewablemorphin]

What jhirata says is completly true, rackets don't swing themselves. The power is in the wielder, not the racket.

[kirbosmash]

That's true because work = force x distance..

physically the same, which isn't the case. Basing our racquet purchases on the racquet's marketed "power" is just non-sense.


we agree on something jhirata.

[kirbosmash]

This is not necesarilly true either, having a material that is flexible, in a sense would be a whip. The problem with that is it would be imposible to be consistant, having to time every shot perfectly. There are reasons why people who like to smash, use stiff rackets. The racket is a mere extension of the body, when you swing, you swing with all of your body's inertia, thats where the power comes from, weight transfer, which then is amplified by the shoulder rotation, which then is amplified by the rist, and finally by the racket itself. You could increase the power simply by making the racket longer, increasing the levrage.



Interesting concept with the leverage idea - that physically should work. When I say flexible, I mean that this material is completely out of our league - say, 75 years in the making - it catches the bird for a split seconds then rebounds it faster than any swing - it basically makes "cheating" rackets.

[weeyeh]

The only comment I have is the above applies fundamental physics which works on rigid systems. Assuming rigid systems helps the students to understand/approximate what they learn as related to what they observe in the general world.

The problem is the world and definitely our racket system is not rigid. The strings stretches, the shaft and racket head flexes, and even the grip/body system of the player introduces flex.

Jhirata: the "work done" calculation is wrongly applied. An increase in length of the racket shaft at the same angular velocity increases the "speed" of the racket head. And Taneepak's version of physics is indeed mindblowing at times.

[alexh]

...First off, what is the scientific meaning of power? Answer: Momentum. By the law of conservation of momentum, the momentum of the racquet is completely transferred to the birdie....

It's a nice report, but your badminton is better than your physics!

Power and momentum are two different things in physics. You've given the correct definition of momentum. Power is defined to be the rate of work done--that is, power equals force times distance divided by time. It's easy to look up these words in wikipedia or other web sites.

Only a part of the racquet's momentum is transferred to the shuttlecock. If the momentum were completely transferred, that would mean the racquet would stop moving at the instant it hit the birdie. (Look up "elastic" versus "inelastic" collisions if you want to learn a little more physics here!)

Thanks for posting your article, it's a good way to get an interesting discussion going!

[kengcyap]

Don't know if anyone is still viewing this thread, but since I just read it, I'll give my two-cents worth. Kirbosmash is not wrong, but he only attempted to address half the problem. The first problem is momentum, while the second problem is momentum transfer. To maximize power, you need to maximize both.

As we know, momentum is proportional to mass and speed. If you want to raise mass only, try use a tennis racket, and you'll find that your birdie can't go very far. If you raise the speed only, try the lightest racket, but your birdie can't go very far either. As racket mass (or mass moment of inertia to be more precise) goes up, your swing speed can only go down, but you may still have net momentum gain, as long as your swing speed does not reduce too drastically. If you make a plot of mass moment of inertia (y-axis) vs. momentum (x-axis) for yourself (which depends on how well you can maintain racket speed as the mass moment of inertia goes up), you'll find that your curve peaks at some point. This peak tells you the optimum moment of inertia for you (which is personal), and it helps you decide your own optimum racket.

Assuming now that you have chosen a racket that allows you to generate your maximum momentum (which would probably still a lot lower than that of Mr. Tan Boon Heong), now the next question is, how well can you transfer all this momentum to the birdie. Instead of a simple kinematic problem, we are now dealing with a more complicated structural dynamic problem. This is where shaft stiffness and string tension matter. Your swing speed excites a series of frequency responses, and only part of these responses are transferred to the birdie. Here's the hint: birdie (cork) has a natural frequency, and the key to maximize momentum transfer is to maximize the excitation at that particular frequency.

I'm gonna stop right here, as I'll have to start charging consultation fee from here on :-)

[Omage007]

indeed an expensive powerful racket might only help you perform few % better then a cheaper racket, the badminton player skill and strength is the key point of the overall performance; LinDan can beat you easily with a USD $40 racket eventhough you use a USD $400 racket. . . :D

[tckang]

I am a no brainer and by now after reading the full 2 pages of this thread, i am suffocated and drown in physics, which i failed miserably in high school :p
To me, i like to live in a simple world and makes complicated thing look simple. Since i have no "gift of physics" . i see the whole thing this way:

Badminton = (racket + string + grip) + (PEOPLE + SKILLS) (Of course there are shoes and birdie and your shirt pants undies, etc.)

Based on my SIMPLE equation above,

For a beginner ,
You should concentrate only on PEOPLE + SKILLS. Train with the proper footwork, how you hold the racket, how you swing how you smash, etc etc FIRST. Forget about racket + String + Grip and all the fancy science behind that, you do not need them, not yet.

Now, suppose you are Lin Dan,

By then, you can take out PEOPLE + SKILLS as they are already reaching a very sustainable high level consistently. So, now you can look at Racket + String + Grip to ENHANCE (Note the word ENHANCE) your overall badminton play and enjoyment.

on the other hand, if you are Lin Dan,
since your PEOPLE + SKILLS is almost equal to infinity (max), you can substitute racket + Grip + String = 0 (i.e cheap USD20 rackets, string, grip) and still thrash anyone with PEOPLE + SKILL = 0 (i.e no proper skill, wrong skills, etc.)

So is Racket + String + Grip important ? Yes, but NOT until you have got the PEOPLE + SKILLS, i.e proper foundation, the correct gripping of racket, the swing, the smash, the footwork etc.

OK enough of no brainer equation, time for me to hit the court now.

Cheers
:D :D :D

[Loh]

This is not necesarilly true either, having a material that is flexible, in a sense would be a whip. The problem with that is it would be imposible to be consistant, having to time every shot perfectly. There are reasons why people who like to smash, use stiff rackets. The racket is a mere extension of the body, when you swing, you swing with all of your body's inertia, thats where the power comes from, weight transfer, which then is amplified by the shoulder rotation, which then is amplified by the rist, and finally by the racket itself. You could increase the power simply by making the racket longer, increasing the levrage.

Interesting point you made on highlighted above.

Now that you mentioned it, does it mean that in general a player with a longer arm (such as a tall player) would be able to execute a more powerful smash, given all other conditions are similar?

[taneepak]

It is misleading to focus on sheer racquet power. What is more important is to strive for a racquet with effective power for that particular player. A very long racquet with its extreme swing weight is not an effective power racquet because it is only powerful in very few situations.
It may be interesting to note that a racquet with effective power is also a highly controllable racquet.
A racquet derives its power from the youngs modulus of its materials-and this has nothing to do with the stiffness of the shaft-and from slim dimensions of the racquet frame in all the directions of its swing. Materials with very high Youngs modulus are extraordinarily stiff as they are the end product of 3,000 degrees C. They are very stiff but more brittle. It is these qualities that will allow the racquet to be designed to have slim frame dimensions, which will increase its swing speed (note, not swing weight) from reduced air resistance.
However, you can also design a racquet with equal power, but not the same degree of effective power, with lower Youngs modulus materials like those graphite that come out from 1,500 degrees to 2,000 degress C. To do this you need to have thicker frame dimensions to offset that "jelly-like" distortion of the frame from power hits. This however comes at a cost, and that is it will have reduced swing or hand speed because its thicker frame dimensions wil meet greater air resistance. But you will get a stronger racquet that can withstand clashes better than the more expensive higher Youngs modulus racquet.
With very high Youngs modulus materials you also eliminate any "jelly-like" feeling with no loss of fast hand speed, which will provide you with excellent control-the shuttle will zero in like a laser from any shot and not wonder off sometimes unpredictably.
There are a few simple methods of testing a racquet for these qualities before you buy the racquet.

[Smithy88]

There is only one way to test this. You have to test every single variable.

You need:

3 Rackets: All Extra Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Medium - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light

This way you can test every variable of the racket. You can test:

a) Varied stiffness in ALL head heavy rackets
b) Varied stiffness in ALL even rackets
c) Varied stiffness in ALL head light rackets

Here we have tested how the stiffness of the shaft is affected by the balance

d) Extra stiff in ALL varied balance
e) Stiff in ALL varied balance
f) Medium in ALL Varied balance

Here we have tested how balance is affected by the balance.

These 2 may sound the same but they are not as the first you are testing one stiffness with different balance i.e 3 Head heavy 1 stiffness. The second is testing one balance with different stiffness i.e. 3 Stiff 1 balance. For all of these rackets you need to use the most basic of swings at an average tension.

Then you move onto strings. You now need to string one type of racket with every different string. To make things average out take a stiff shaft with even balance as its the mid point.

Once you have done that you then need to combine the lot. String every single different racket with every single different string to find which is the best combination.

That isn't even including physical variables i.e. who is using the racket.

Basically the whole idea is a bit much as badminton companies have physicists working on this stuff who can use their knowledge and computer programs to test their theories.

Why do you think there is rarely an extra stiff head light racket. Its because you would get no power at all and would be 100% defense.

The best option to test this theory is to pick just one variable, the racket being the obvious one but you need to find them with similar technology.

[teoky]

There is only one way to test this. You have to test every single variable.

You need:

3 Rackets: All Extra Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Medium - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light

This way you can test every variable of the racket. You can test:

a) Varied stiffness in ALL head heavy rackets
b) Varied stiffness in ALL even rackets
c) Varied stiffness in ALL head light rackets

Here we have tested how the stiffness of the shaft is affected by the balance

d) Extra stiff in ALL varied balance
e) Stiff in ALL varied balance
f) Medium in ALL Varied balance

Here we have tested how balance is affected by the balance.

These 2 may sound the same but they are not as the first you are testing one stiffness with different balance i.e 3 Head heavy 1 stiffness. The second is testing one balance with different stiffness i.e. 3 Stiff 1 balance. For all of these rackets you need to use the most basic of swings at an average tension.

Then you move onto strings. You now need to string one type of racket with every different string. To make things average out take a stiff shaft with even balance as its the mid point.

Once you have done that you then need to combine the lot. String every single different racket with every single different string to find which is the best combination.

That isn't even including physical variables i.e. who is using the racket.

Basically the whole idea is a bit much as badminton companies have physicists working on this stuff who can use their knowledge and computer programs to test their theories.

Why do you think there is rarely an extra stiff head light racket. Its because you would get no power at all and would be 100% defense.

The best option to test this theory is to pick just one variable, the racket being the obvious one but you need to find them with similar technology.

You are right on the scarcity of extra stiff head light racquet and NS9900 is one of them. Mine had a bp of 275mm ! However, the power generated is still pretty decent PROVIDED you can compensate with a fast swing.

[Smithy88]

It is still possible but for the average player its too much of a beast.

Its all about the best combos really and also how you feel with the racket. Mid/stiff and even balance or head heavy is a good combo for me doubles wise on the defensive. Head heavy and stiff for singles and if i am attacking in doubles a the same as singles but a lighter racket does the job.

Most of the physics i would say is about the player, you can say all day a head heavy racket gets more power than head light but it depends. Assuming you hit the sweet spot then Head Light (less head mass) needs a fast swing and head heavy (more head mass) doesn't need to be as fast.

So you would think connecting with less mass you need more power. Its not a case of the connection more getting the racket to that connection. If its mass it at the head the that will create more drag. So in reality you need a faster swing to connect that mass.

This is why i use head heavy rackets, i can feel the drag but i swing head light rackets stupidly fast that i can't adjust and miss the birdie.

So overall yes more mass equals more power on connection but its like finding terminal velocity, you need to add drag into the equation. You can throw a pebble faster than you can a rock, you need more energy in the throw to throw the rock as fast.

[taneepak]

There is only one way to test this. You have to test every single variable.

You need:

3 Rackets: All Extra Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Stiff - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light
3 Rackets: All Medium - 1 Head Heavy, 1 Even, 1 Head Light

This way you can test every variable of the racket. You can test:

a) Varied stiffness in ALL head heavy rackets
b) Varied stiffness in ALL even rackets
c) Varied stiffness in ALL head light rackets

Here we have tested how the stiffness of the shaft is affected by the balance

d) Extra stiff in ALL varied balance
e) Stiff in ALL varied balance
f) Medium in ALL Varied balance

Here we have tested how balance is affected by the balance.

These 2 may sound the same but they are not as the first you are testing one stiffness with different balance i.e 3 Head heavy 1 stiffness. The second is testing one balance with different stiffness i.e. 3 Stiff 1 balance. For all of these rackets you need to use the most basic of swings at an average tension.

Then you move onto strings. You now need to string one type of racket with every different string. To make things average out take a stiff shaft with even balance as its the mid point.

Once you have done that you then need to combine the lot. String every single different racket with every single different string to find which is the best combination.

That isn't even including physical variables i.e. who is using the racket.

Basically the whole idea is a bit much as badminton companies have physicists working on this stuff who can use their knowledge and computer programs to test their theories.

Why do you think there is rarely an extra stiff head light racket. Its because you would get no power at all and would be 100% defense.

The best option to test this theory is to pick just one variable, the racket being the obvious one but you need to find them with similar technology.

These tests will lead you to nowhere. Using your criteria one can have a very stiff racquet with "jelly-like" materials of low quality carbon. Stiffness of the shaft is utterly useless on a frame that will distort from power shots. The frame is the heart of a racquet, its shaft can be designed to be from flexible to very stiff to suit individual timing and preferred flex or bend point.

[Smithy88]

These tests will lead you to nowhere. Using your criteria one can have a very stiff racquet with "jelly-like" materials of low quality carbon. Stiffness of the shaft is utterly useless on a frame that will distort from power shots. The frame is the heart of a racquet, its shaft can be designed to be from flexible to very stiff to suit individual timing and preferred flex or bend point.

What i am getting at is the amount of variables involved in this. Ok lets move onto the next one, materials and technology. Lets assume all these rackets are made with this the same.

The you would need a stupid amount of rackets to test the different combos of materials and technology.

[taneepak]

What i am getting at is the amount of variables involved in this. Ok lets move onto the next one, materials and technology. Lets assume all these rackets are made with this the same.

The you would need a stupid amount of rackets to test the different combos of materials and technology.

No, not really. Japanese OEM manufacturers use a typically Japanese method which is simple but quite revealing. You can see some of these Japanese QC inspectors in only the very large racquet plants in China, testing each racquet individually at relatively high speed. But this Japanese method only tests for precision manufacturing, not for youngs modulus under load.
I use a 4-step protocol, including the one used by the Japs.

[Smithy88]

What i mean is for someone to just go out and scientifically test how to get the most power there is too much to go through compared with what the QC inspectors and experts working for these companies already know about racket technology.

[taneepak]

What i mean is for someone to just go out and scientifically test how to get the most power there is too much to go through compared with what the QC inspectors and experts working for these companies already know about racket technology.

But this is very useful when your friends go into a sports store and want to buy a racquet model that is really great and not end up with one that is very stiff but of poor materials.

[Smithy88]

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.

[taneepak]

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.

[Smithy88]

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.

[surajaya]

Physics and Power, by Kirbosmash
extra $$ leads to better feel and durability, but not necessarily power. On a final note, physics makes power, it is power. Let this advise your next racket purchase.


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

[RSLvictorSOTX]

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:D!

However, one simple truth is a cheapo racket can beat a top grade racket...well, at least not in the world stage anyways:).

[wiwi86]

seriously i feel that it all lies in the player.

[weeyeh]

seriously i feel that it all lies in the player.

Nah.. it's the strings... :P

[chris-ccc]

Nah.. it's the strings... :P
.
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. :p:p:p
.

[Maklike Tier]

Nah, it's the colour of your overgrip.

[chris-ccc]

Nah, it's the colour of your overgrip.
.
:D:D:D Hahaha...... BTW, what is the best colour for overgrip?

To me, it is BLACK. :):):)
.

[Maklike Tier]

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. :D

[surajaya]

.
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. :p:p:p
.

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).

[chris-ccc]

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).
.
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.
.

[Maklike Tier]

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!? ;)

[na_twins]

It has to be the combination of both the player + racket

eg:-

Bunhon Tan + ARC-Z = 421 Kmph

[Maklike Tier]

Nobody believes those smash speed records. This was discussed ad infinitum when the Z was first released.

[venkatesh]

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. :D :p

[greblu]

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.

[Sketchy]

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).