# "Faster" swing = more power? opinions please

Discussion in 'Techniques / Training' started by Boaster, Feb 24, 2010.

1. ### Boaster Regular Member

Joined:
Oct 15, 2006
Messages:
28
0
Location:
Ok, so I've been reading that the pronation and supination is the main movement/action to generate power/speed through impact.

So, would swinging faster always equate to more power? I have a feeling it does, but when I use a heavy racket (HH or not 2U heavy 3U) and hit, it will seem to produce a stronger shot. Of course physics comes into play with moving a heavier mass to transfer but was wondering if a lighter racket (still 3U but easier to swing) moving "faster" would also produce a powerful shot?

#1
2. ### AntoTH Regular Member

Joined:
Feb 14, 2010
Messages:
18
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
Catania, Italy
It should depend on how much stiff the racket is...

I mean, flexible rackets tend to "flex" with the swing and this gave extra power to the shuttle on the impact, but if the movement is done "too" quickly the speed is somehow nullified by this "flex effect".

On the contrary, stiffer rackets tend to be less powerful but a good-made quick swing is able to get the best from them

To summarize...

Flexible rackets ----> More speed ----> less power (or equal power)
Stiff rackets ----> More speed ----> more power

It should be like this
hope it helps ^_^

#2
3. ### PapA_xlonG Regular Member

Joined:
Aug 4, 2009
Messages:
159
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
JB/Singapore
Based on conservation of momentum, m1v1 = m2v2 (m is mass, v is velocity),
for same racket (m1) and same shuttle (m2), the faster u can swing (higher v1) will produce higher speed of shuttle (v2) ideally.

So i think this is a trade-off case. When u use heavier racket (higher m1), ur swing speed required will be lower than when u use lighter racket to produce same smashing power (speed of shuttle, v2).

I hope i explain it clear enough. Correct me if i am wrong.

#3
4. ### AntoTH Regular Member

Joined:
Feb 14, 2010
Messages:
18
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
Catania, Italy
If we're considering only racket weight you're definitely right

However, i believe that stiffness plays an important role too, as i've explain

#4
5. ### PapA_xlonG Regular Member

Joined:
Aug 4, 2009
Messages:
159
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
JB/Singapore
Ya. The 4 key parameters when deciding which racket to buy. Racket weight, shaft stiffness, head heavy/balance/light, and the last one your badminton skill or can say as your playing style.

Actually the string and tension, also does significant effect to it also. So hard to consider all factors ya.

#5
6. ### Boaster Regular Member

Joined:
Oct 15, 2006
Messages:
28
0
Location:
Thanks for the replies, I guess trying to figure out if most things being equal:

shuttle mass, swing speed, stiffness, string tension would the shear weight of the heavier racket always produce a stronger shot versus a lighter version?

#6
7. ### AntoTH Regular Member

Joined:
Feb 14, 2010
Messages:
18
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
Catania, Italy
yes, but you have to consider that the heavier racket requires more strenght to generate the same swing speed than a lighter one.

So, with your conditions (and with the same weight distribution too), the heavier racket will generate more power but the player will get tired sooner xD

#7
8. ### druss Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 19, 2009
Messages:
1,717
33
Location:
Edmonton, AB
Just to clarify since the first object, the racket, does not stop and therefore transfer all it's momemtum the equation is actually...

m1v1 = m2v2 + m1v3

#8
9. ### uncle_peanuts Regular Member

Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
Messages:
49
0
Occupation:
Location:
asian/na
in general, yes. the faster you can swing a racket (which proper form etc.), theoretically, you should be able to generate more power. the faster you swing, the more torque one can generate = more power.

#9
10. ### cooler Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
Messages:
21,947
20
Occupation:
Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
Location:
Basement Boiler Room
not that simple
energy transfer from string to shuttle isn't like 2 colliding billard balls

#10
11. ### visor Regular Member

Joined:
Dec 7, 2009
Messages:
14,588
679
Location:
Vancouver, BC
Yes, more power can only come from either faster racket speed or heavier racket. Of course, a stronger player can get both. But given the same player, it depends on two factors. If using a heavier racket, whether he has the strength to wield it effectively without getting overly tired; and if using a faster racket, whether he has the right technique and timing to hit it right. So, as you see, there is no free lunch. It really depends on the strength, stroke, tecnique, and timing of your swing.

#11
12. ### druss Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 19, 2009
Messages:
1,717
33
Location:
Edmonton, AB
I know it's not... but it's a simple enough approximation and closer than the original posted equation.

Conservation of Energy would be better but also much more complicated.

#12
Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
13. ### cooler Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
Messages:
21,947
20
Occupation:
Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
Location:
Basement Boiler Room
that momentum balance equation is based on conservation of energy

#13
Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
14. ### cooler Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
Messages:
21,947
20
Occupation:
Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
Location:
Basement Boiler Room
since pros use basically similar rackets as what we can buy in the store, if u want to hit as hard as the pros, speed is the main variable u can change for more power.

#14
15. ### druss Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 19, 2009
Messages:
1,717
33
Location:
Edmonton, AB
Actually, the momemtum equation is based on force not energy.... the conservation of energy is a scalar equation since it does not involve direction while momentum does which makes momentum a vector, as is force.

Conservation of momentum is actually based on Newton's third law and is derived by taking the law the next step.

F = ma where a = v/t

So F = m x v/t if you consider that the time is the same and that it's a closed system then you end up with

m1v1 = m2v2 which is the current conservation of momentum equation.

#15
16. ### staiger Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
Messages:
775
0
Occupation:
Investment Banker
Location:
Manchester
actually it is the force of the acceleration of the racket head generated at the moment of impact and not velocity. I would say 65% wrist and 35% forearm strength , some more technical players would be around 75% wrist and 25% forearm and they tend to smash harder and more accutate as well.

#16
17. ### cooler Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
Messages:
21,947
20
Occupation:
Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
Location:
Basement Boiler Room
yes, i should had said conservation of momentum as mv is momentum. However, when i said conservation of energy it is not wrong. In fact your posted conservation of momentum equation m1v1=m2v2 is derived from conservation on energy principle for ideal or near ideal condition but in real world, perfect ideal condition is very rare so it was safe for me to say conservation of energy

#17
18. ### kwun Administrator

Joined:
Apr 24, 2002
Messages:
39,483
684
Occupation:
BC Janitor
Location:
Santa Clara, CA, USA
as with most things in badminton, things are not so simple as you think there is always some equilibrium maximal point.

let me talk about the extremes first.

with a very heavy racket, let's say, imagine swinging a steel rod, you get very little speed, and at the same time, very little power.

with a very light racket, let's say, imagine a bamboo stick (the ones your parents whip u with), you get very very fast speed, but since it is so light, you also get very little power.

the optimal maxima point is at the middle. so it depends on where you are currently on the curve, you may need to try to get to the maxima by using a heavier or lighter racket.

this is of course, assuming that your strength is constant and everything else are the same.

#18
19. ### chris-ccc Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 1, 2006
Messages:
26,910
15
Occupation:
Location:
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Generally, faster swing = more power

.
IMHO, generally, faster swing = more power.

Let's not look only at Badminton. Let's also look at other sports, like Golf, Tennis, Squash, Table-Tennis, etc... All their equipments (clubs/rackets) are getting lighter and lighter, and their players are able to swing faster now. And players are getting more power into their shots.

But as kwun pointed out "there is always some equilibrium maximal point". It would be unreal for a Tennis ball to get much power when hit with racket as light as our Badminton racket. Perhaps, such a light racket would break if used on a heavy Tennis ball.
.

#19
Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
20. ### druss Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 19, 2009
Messages:
1,717
33
Location:
Edmonton, AB
I suggest you google it before you get yourself even more messed up...

The conservation of momentum is similar to the conservation of energy theory in that they both deal with ideal conditions and have both mass and velocity in them but the conservation of momentum theory IS NOT based on the conservation of energy theory.

kinetic energy …

is a scalar.

momentum …

is a vector

kinetic energy …
is not changed by a force perpendicular
to the motion, which changes only the
direction of the velocity vector.

momentum …
is changed by any force, since a change
in either the magnitude or the direction
of the velocity vector will result in a
change in the momentum vector.

kinetic energy …
is always positive, and cannot cancel
out.

momentum …
cancels with momentum in the opposite
direction.

kinetic energy …
can be traded for other forms of energy
that do not involve motion. KE is not
a conserved quantity by itself.

momentum …
is always conserved in a closed system.

kinetic energy …
is quadrupled if the velocity is doubled.

momentum …
is doubled if the velocity is doubled.

So even though the equations are similar, one is not based on the other.

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/2cl/ch04/ch04.html

Now I may not be as strong on the dynamics side of physics since I went into civil engineering instead of mechanical engineering but I'm no slouch at it.

#20
Last edited: Feb 24, 2010