Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

"Faster" swing = more power? opinions please

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

  1. Boaster

    Boaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    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?
     
  2. AntoTH

    AntoTH Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    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 ^_^
     
  3. PapA_xlonG

    PapA_xlonG Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    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. :)
     
  4. AntoTH

    AntoTH Regular Member

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

    However, i believe that stiffness plays an important role too, as i've explain :D
     
  5. PapA_xlonG

    PapA_xlonG Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    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. :D
     
  6. Boaster

    Boaster Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    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?
     
  7. AntoTH

    AntoTH Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    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
     
  8. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    10
    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
     
  9. uncle_peanuts

    uncle_peanuts Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    student of badminton
    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.
     
  10. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    13
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    not that simple:D
    energy transfer from string to shuttle isn't like 2 colliding billard balls:p
     
  11. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    13,663
    Likes Received:
    292
    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.
     
  12. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    10
    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 druss, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  13. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    13
    Occupation:
    Surfing, reading fan mails:D, Dilithium Crystal hu
    Location:
    Basement Boiler Room
    that momentum balance equation is based on conservation of energy;):p
     
    #13 cooler, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  14. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    13
    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.
     
  15. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  16. staiger

    staiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  17. cooler

    cooler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    13
    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:p:p
     
  18. kwun

    kwun Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    39,284
    Likes Received:
    551
    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.
     
  19. chris-ccc

    chris-ccc Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    26,910
    Likes Received:
    11
    Occupation:
    Professional Badminton Coach & Badminton Promoter
    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 chris-ccc, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  20. druss

    druss Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    10
    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 druss, Feb 24, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010

Share This Page