User Tag List

Page 5 of 58 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 55 ... LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 984
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    714
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroSOFInfinity View Post
    Well, think of your racket being stripped 1/2 the power for smashing, and you need more strength to hit a shot back. That's the reason why - I have used a 4U Voltric 80 before, and it is already very hard to do a powerful smash.... Imagine a 6U?

    Unless Yonex have something up in the sleeve which we don't know about yet in the design of the racket..... Who knows until someone gives a review about it.
    Sounds a little extreme. Using that same logic, then that mean everyone should use a 2U racket then right? Shouldn't we be using something that will help us maximize our swing speed and power?
    Last edited by Sgt_Strider; 02-18-2013 at 05:38 AM.

  2. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    461
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    Sounds a little extreme. Using that same logic, then that mean everyone should use a 2U racket then right? Shouldn't we be using something that will help us maximize our swing speed and power?
    That's why I said "unless there is something up in the sleeve".

    The 4Us I used before are the VT80 and AT700P - and they feel just like my 3U Arc10PG.... so imagine a 6U Arc?
    Last edited by ZeroSOFInfinity; 02-18-2013 at 06:10 AM.

  3. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Maritime canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    So if the swing speed is faster, then in theory it'll generate more power then right?
    Ya but I'm not sure a persons swing will stay faster. I find with lighter rackets my swing is faster while I adjust to it but eventually my swing goes back to normal. Maybe that's just me though.

  4. #72
    Regular Member gundamzaku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,483
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by decoy View Post
    Ya but I'm not sure a persons swing will stay faster. I find with lighter rackets my swing is faster while I adjust to it but eventually my swing goes back to normal. Maybe that's just me though.

    just based on how it feels, nothing scientific, when i use a relatively lighter racket, my swing speed immediately goes a tad bit faster. however, that doesn't mean that the increase in my swing speed will compensate for the lost of mass to have the same power at the end. and unfortunately for me, my swing does goes back to normal as well, just so that the timing is the same, which causes me to lose power, somewhat.

    again this is not scientific and i'm not trying to prove anything, but just my experience switching from what i normally use to a lighter racket.


    i am very curious as to how this racket will perform. i have used light rackets and i have not gotten anywhere with them. light racket as in the nanospeed 9000 or nanospeed 9900 or nanoray 700 rp/fx. so knowing how i play, i'm sure that my wrist action will be really fast, but it will not be able to generate any power off of a 6u racket.

    it is good to see that yonex finally made a racket in the superlight weight category to satify this niche!

  5. #73
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Faster racket doesn't mean more power. Kinetic energy of the racket is completely irrelevant - what matters is the momentum. When two moving bodies connect, they can transfer (part of) their momentum to each other. With M=v*m, a faster swing speed will not factor in more than the mass (this is a very popular error amongst Wing Chun/Jeet Kune Do practicioners who also claim that the kinetic energy matters and thus hitting speed is more important than body mass).
    The whole momentum debate has occurred several times already so I'm not really up to making the whole argument again...just research momentum and mechanics (more specifically, kinetics) if you're interested in this. Otherwise, take my word (as an engineering student who passed the kinetic mechanics test) that only the momentum matters, not the kinetic energy.

    On a more personal note, I don't believe a 6U racket will satisfy a real need - it's just too light to be useful, really. No one has THAT quick a swing!

  6. #74
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    4,086
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    Faster racket doesn't mean more power. Kinetic energy of the racket is completely irrelevant - what matters is the momentum. When two moving bodies connect, they can transfer (part of) their momentum to each other. With M=v*m, a faster swing speed will not factor in more than the mass (this is a very popular error amongst Wing Chun/Jeet Kune Do practicioners who also claim that the kinetic energy matters and thus hitting speed is more important than body mass).
    The whole momentum debate has occurred several times already so I'm not really up to making the whole argument again...just research momentum and mechanics (more specifically, kinetics) if you're interested in this. Otherwise, take my word (as an engineering student who passed the kinetic mechanics test) that only the momentum matters, not the kinetic energy.

    On a more personal note, I don't believe a 6U racket will satisfy a real need - it's just too light to be useful, really. No one has THAT quick a swing!
    Good point - while the kinetic energy varies with the square of the swing speed, this doesn't address what happens to the racket when the shuttle is hit. It doesn't just plow through; there's deformation and "bounce-back".

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    3,954
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Faster racket will increase chances for injuries, since we might think that the faster our swing, the more powerful the shot will be. However, i have to agree with j4ckie, it is the body mass that really matters.

  8. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    shingaporu
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    Faster racket doesn't mean more power. Kinetic energy of the racket is completely irrelevant - what matters is the momentum. When two moving bodies connect, they can transfer (part of) their momentum to each other. With M=v*m, a faster swing speed will not factor in more than the mass (this is a very popular error amongst Wing Chun/Jeet Kune Do practicioners who also claim that the kinetic energy matters and thus hitting speed is more important than body mass).
    The whole momentum debate has occurred several times already so I'm not really up to making the whole argument again...just research momentum and mechanics (more specifically, kinetics) if you're interested in this. Otherwise, take my word (as an engineering student who passed the kinetic mechanics test) that only the momentum matters, not the kinetic energy.

    On a more personal note, I don't believe a 6U racket will satisfy a real need - it's just too light to be useful, really. No one has THAT quick a swing!
    kinetic energy is related to momentum by the relation of


    energy is not created nor destroyed, its just transferred or converted upon impact.

    otherwise, take my word (as a non-engineering biologist whom did not take anything in close resemblance kinetic mechanics in both undergrad/gradschool), that momentum and kinetic energy... have an intimate relation in the bedroom...

  9. #77
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,200
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whether you use momentum or kinetic energy to explain the shuttle impact, the best combination would still be to have more mass moving at a faster velocity.

    From my experience with various frame designs, this is best achieved with a solid aerodynamic frame, for example, MX series, or Panda Precision Pro / Revelation.

    And finally, match the shaft flex to your swinging / whipping action and you'll have a fast powerful racket.
    Last edited by visor; 02-19-2013 at 08:44 PM.

  10. #78
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,200
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    My take on this FB racket is that Yonex manages to shave wt (mass) mostly from the shaft and the handle in order to bring it down to 73g. Perhaps they shaved some from the frame too, but too much from there would compromise durability and also transfer of momentum / KE at impact.

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    shingaporu
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yup...the ultimate combi is big mass at max velocity (with max velocity obtained through strong acceleration)..

    chinese kungfu analogy.. its how people use bamboo poles, or flexible wooden sticks but yet able to smash tiles or even bricks, although i might need a huge sledgehammer for the same job..

  12. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I should receive this racket very soon to test it. I'll make sure to review it, and of course compare it to Black Knight's Photon racket

  13. #81
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    714
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Whether you use momentum or kinetic energy to explain the shuttle impact, the best combination would still be to have more mass moving at a faster velocity.

    From my experience with various frame designs, this is best achieved with a solid aerodynamic frame, for example, MX series, or Panda Precision Pro / Revelation.

    And finally, match the shaft flex to your swinging / whipping action and you'll have a fast powerful racket.
    Can you clarify that further?

  14. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    My take on this FB racket is that Yonex manages to shave wt (mass) mostly from the shaft and the handle in order to bring it down to 73g. Perhaps they shaved some from the frame too, but too much from there would compromise durability and also transfer of momentum / KE at impact.
    I hope your hypothesis is true. Assume that FB has very-very light shaft (and frame weight almost equal to 3U racket), this will make the weight distribution concentrated on the handle & frame. Momentum loss will not be too significant but maneuverability will be significantly faster.

  15. #83
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,200
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    Can you clarify that further?
    Here... http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...lity-explained

  16. #84
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    shingaporu
    Posts
    501
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Speculations!! Time to figure out if its true. Have in my hands a arcFB with ultimax at 25lbs. Going to play in an hr's time

  17. #85
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vajrasattva View Post
    kinetic energy is related to momentum by the relation of


    energy is not created nor destroyed, its just transferred or converted upon impact.

    otherwise, take my word (as a non-engineering biologist whom did not take anything in close resemblance kinetic mechanics in both undergrad/gradschool), that momentum and kinetic energy... have an intimate relation in the bedroom...
    Well, no one ever said anything about kinetic energy being destroyed And that equation just proves my point - the momentum is the squareroot of Ek*2m. With Ek=1/2mv thats sqrt(mv) and p=mv....which is just what I said.

Page 5 of 58 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 55 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •