User Tag List

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 150
  1. #69
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,761
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    I can't see any numbers relating to badminton or any explanations about the numbers used with regards to badminton on that page. It's just a wiki page with elastic collision equations. How do I know what numbers to enter into those equations? you said I got the wrong numbers so whats the point. No help. Thanks anyway appreciate it.

  2. #70
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    I can't see any numbers relating to badminton or any explanations about the numbers used with regards to badminton on that page. It's just a wiki page with elastic collision equations. How do I know what numbers to enter into those equations? you said I got the wrong numbers so whats the point. No help. Thanks anyway appreciate it.
    You read the wiki section - it explains what goes where...

    Consider two particles, denoted by subscripts 1 and 2. Let m1 and m2 be the masses, u1 and u2 the velocities before collision, and v1 and v2 the velocities after collision.
    Name:  Capture.JPG
Views: 178
Size:  14.2 KB
    Actually you can say m2 is the shuttle, and u2 = 0 to simplify things.

    It's still not that accurate, though because the racket motion is not really linear - angular momentum should be considered.
    Last edited by amleto; 05-18-2013 at 07:39 AM.

  3. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Given the constraints of the principle of conservation of linear momentum (PCLM) and assuming that the racket is very heavy relative to the shuttle and that the shuttle isn't moving appreciably horizontally, then a purely elastic collision would result in a shuttle speed of twice the racket head speed.

    Given that any collision is not going to be fully elastic & that the racket head isn't infinity massive relative to the shuttle, I think 70mph off a head-speed of 50mph is plausible.

    As the racket head gets lighter, then the head speed will increase. However, due to the PCLM, the 'speed multiplication' ratio will worsen. I would suggest that there's an optimum head weight which will differ for each player. Too light and there will be insufficient momentum to transfer much impulse. Too heavy & the head speed will suffer.

  4. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Given that a racket swing isn't linear by a long shot, conservation of linear momentum alone doesn't do you much good.

  5. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good insights shared by visor, amleto, CA, LL and other folks of “analyzing split second shuttle hit and what happens to generate power as output result”.
    We all have right approach & Logic as well intuitively understand in real life but completely articulating it in mathematical models as well as using physics equation to exact ‘predication of shuttle speed’ is something required lot of resources (skills, equipment’s, money etc) which only professional entity like Yonex or Adidas or some national level Badminton sports organization (say China, Japan, Indonesia or Malasia) could only do it.
    But to revise this approach on further logical lines

    1. Player’s (Body) ability to Generate “Kinetic Energy” on the similar basis of “Maximum Power Transfer Theorem : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum...ansfer_theorem


    Now it’s used for electric motor but then at the end of day our Body is also “Motor”. We use our internal (chemical?) energy to convert into actions (think about footsteps, hand actions, swings etc).

    Observation : As each player is different in terms of body / Stamina / Strength … while holding racket (primarily weight of racket)while “creating KE = ½ MV**2” from internal chemical body energy using similar Body Motor principal (Maximum Power Transfer Theorem) would react different.

    Too heavy racket and we get tired quckly while playing. Too lite and we feel like we are not “maximizing” our body strength. There is optimum point between multiple M and V points (individual players vary) which gives different selection of racket weight.

    Fact : Racket weight plays important role in this Step 1 (impacting on KE & V for a given M)


    1. With KE generation having “InElastic Collision” on Shuttle and momentum equations. Unfortunately lof ot variables missing or has to be considered (as Cheug) pointed out as “energy transfer” get allocated into multiple events (like shuttle sped, shuttle spin, sound generation as well as “angle of collision (think about straight line hitting or slicing shuttle or at angle etc)

    Fact : Panhandle gives more chance of “Maximum Energy Transfer”.
    Fact : Player’s Technique is also important (not to be confused with panhandle grip J) in terms of contact area (sweet-spot).

    If we observe how many of us do the “normal grip like’ activity using hand in real life to maximize body outputs while doing physical activity. How many of us write on paper (for 3 hours straight) using “forehand grip on pen / pencil. Majority of us would use Panhandle grip right J ?

    May be Forehand grip was useful when “more than natural ability power generation” was required in the past (think about Heavy wooden Rackets). So the grip was invented. So there is a reason why beginners use Panhandle grip (without coaching instructions) as our Human body Instinct selects as more natural alignment of body action for Maximum Power Theorem principal (without realizing all the technical mumbo jumbo what we are discussing so far ).

    But ultimately when given opportunity our body (Human Evolution Tendency) will go back to natural body moments which are based on Horizontal & Vertical as major movement with occasional twist (angle adjustments).

    From that perspective with lighter racket why Panhandle grip seems like natural alignment with Body movement of daily life and may have to be considered.

    Before someone jump on this lacking power in pand-handle style … Here is my argument … Pros use High string tension because although it gives less power but they get more control using in forehand grip.

    Well here you go you got alternative now where you can use Panhandle grip keep low tension (say 20-22) but with excellent control with Maximum Power Theorem usage, natural body alignment (hence ability to take / return shuttle) and ability to take Shuttle Early (Gaining on TIME) in the game.

    • TIME is such important dimension and it’s impact in game ... I will write separate post for it.


    SZ

  6. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fact : Panhandle gives more chance of “Maximum Energy Transfer”.
    saying 'fact', doesn't make it so.

    I've got no idea how you think a pan handle grip gives more chance of “Maximum Energy Transfer” when you already admit that pan handle cannot provide as much power as basic grip. Are you listening to yourself?!

    This is not even mentioning the fact that the theory has no relevance for energy transfer between a bird and a bat.

    Well here you go you got alternative now where you can use Panhandle grip keep low tension (say 20-22) but with excellent control with Maximum Power Theorem usage, natural body alignment (hence ability to take / return shuttle) and ability to take Shuttle Early (Gaining on TIME) in the game.
    This excellent control has come out of thin air I presume? Sorry, I suppose it is one of your 'facts'.

    I'm actually starting to hope you're a troll. If not, I feel bad for you, bro.
    Last edited by amleto; 05-18-2013 at 09:52 AM.

  7. #75
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok quick question … ( I wanted to keep it focused on Panhandle grip style but just to highlight it with Forehand style grip comparison .. it makes sense).

    We all know that ‘almost all Pros’ at international level (true for National / club / advanced level also) use HIGH STRING TENTION to get better control while sacrificing on power (which they overcompensate using superior physical strength & fitness).

    Now WHY IS THAT ? * Please take it as fundamental thinking on different level .. WHY ? *

    I mean by all definitions they are Elite PROs .. Many years of multiple hours daily practice with excellent preparation and understanding of the game.

    So * Control * should be the last thing they need to THINK or OVERCOMPENATE by going above manufacturing limits up to 30/32/34 etc.

    So given choice at least “some if not all’ should go the other way around and lower the tension to stay within limit and get POWER AMPED Up (at ‘relatively lower tension’ compare to 30-34 string tension)

    Yet everybody is going for HIGH STRING TENSION. By the way all are Forehand Grip style player J

    Now is it possible they think given a choice between POWER VS CONTROL . .their forehand grip NEED HELP on CONTROL ? (despite years of practice & preparation with forehand grip?)

    I am curious if anybody (including amleto) could explain the contradictions of HIGH STRING TENSION where as everybody agrees “Deep Penetrating Shots” (MORE POWER) would win the game


    P.S. You may want to correlate my earlier post context of “Natural Body Movement & Panhandle grip”

    SZ

  8. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are attributing too much power differential to string tension. As long as you can A) flex the strings, and B) hit the sweet spot (reduces with higher tension), you get full power. So if you can do A) & B) whilst increasing tension then you are not losing any power - only gaining control!

  9. #77
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,348
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    this panhandle grip discussion is not going anywhere if you don't recognize that proper badminton stroke technique require forearm pronation/supination (hence the basic grip)

    ... you can't be using wrist flexion/extension (as you would with panhandle grip) all the time because that would cause injury to your wrist over time

    don't be like those beginner aunts and uncles wearing wrist and elbow tensors that i see at the courts using this improper stroke... you're smarter than that... you're on this BC forum, being helped out by so many coaches and advanced players... please just think perhaps all these players who are trying to help you may know something you don't

    i admire your enthusiasm shown in your posts, but really you're trying to reinvent the wheel without having any knowledge of the basics

    now can we please get back to the KE and P calculations?
    Last edited by visor; 05-18-2013 at 04:52 PM.

  10. #78
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post

    now can we please get back to the KE and P calculations?
    there is a similar example to what would be suitable for us here at about 5 minutes
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtS5vBjW7h8

  11. #79
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=amleto;2085744]You are attributing too much power differential to string tension. As long as you can A) flex the strings, and B) hit the sweet spot (reduces with higher tension), you get full power. So if you can do A) & B) whilst increasing tension then you are not losing any power - only gaining control![/QUOTE]

    Bingo ! * only Gaining Control * Well why they need MORE CONTROL ? when more power is Winning formula

    @Visor - Technique / Style changes .. nothing is Static as part of Evolution. My discussion is about Panhandle Grip .. Not I need help to Improve game (with my panhandle grip style)
    By the way would you like to address the High String question

  12. #80
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,747
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kwun should add a thumbs down button just in this thread

  13. #81
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,236
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superzoom View Post
    Ok .. Evensince I am playing Badminton ... I am "Left Handed PanHandle Grip Player". I feel very comfortable in that style as in "born natural comfort zone".

    Now I know Coaches frown upon that grip and hold on racket. all the articles, material available are based on "Shakehand Grip Style" etc.

    Yet I wonder has this trend picked up as part of evolution specially with rackets are becoming lighter 4U / 5U or may be lower as years to come.

    In simple word in panhandle grip .. you get far better control on racket and may not able to put too much power (by advanced playing standard). However with lighter racket .. with faster swing speed and whip action ... now it was not as problematic as say .. 10-20 years back.

    also based on my person experience ... you use more wrist power than Shoulder ... so you can have very attacking / deceptive / defensive styles mixed in the same "flow of the game in the same rally" to keep opponents completly off balance about your approach to rally.

    1) (Remember better control ).. so easy to manipulate directions

    2) force applied on shuttle in "same hand action but varing at the strike moment" to take off a pace ot apply more as boost without letting opponent get the hint

    Questions

    1) Just wondering what's your thought about panhandle grip for today & future. any local level / national level coaches / players giving it a try ?

    2) As a player have you tried / feel good or bad about it ? (Need more skill / technique / hand-eye co-ordination / reaction time or less etc on given parameters)

    3) ant effect of this on physical strength (more injury prone / less inury prone, Foot movement etc)

    as far as me ... I can only play in that grip (last 30+ years) as my bio-mechnanic' is set in this way. I can say technique / skill / control wise I am one of the excellent player. My physical stamina / strength is not that good. Yet I can hold many players in respectable fight and many times end up

    Regards,
    SZ
    Answers to questions:

    1) The question should go back to you - have you seen any local level / national level coaches / players giving it a try ? For me, not seen it as the main grip used throughout. Only specific situations.

    2) Again, only specific game situations appropriate to choice of shot chosen.

    3) No comment


    I would say your ability to beat somebody in a game is only partially dependent on the technique. Experience and tactical acumen counts for a lot. What is your experience of playing national level players?

  14. #82
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    quick answer - I played at 1 level below National (state level) in India when I was young (25 years back). did not follow further as acedemics were more important

    Now so much more discussion happened after op post . .so let us focus current points in discussion

    Now so much discussion happen .. so feel free to comment on "Natural Movement of body .. Maximum energy Transfer principal .. Panhandle as natural grip body alignment" post #73. (based on KE & momentum)

    also please free to comment on post #75 .. Why basic grip PRO ELITE player require more CONTROL by 30/32/34 string tension breaking manufacturing limits where as MORE Power is winning formula by lowering or keep string tension in limit and utilizing reasonable trampolin effect

    SZ

  15. #83
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    actual physicist here
    Quote Originally Posted by Line & Length View Post
    Given the constraints of the principle of conservation of linear momentum (PCLM) and assuming that the racket is very heavy relative to the shuttle and that the shuttle isn't moving appreciably horizontally, then a purely elastic collision would result in a shuttle speed of twice the racket head speed.
    finally someone who got it correct.
    the absolute limit to the shuttle's speed is twice the racket head speed at the moment of contact (neglecting the shuttle's initial speed, which is an order of magnitude lower than the racket head speed for overhead shots)

    in practice the ratio is not 2 but probably around 1.6 I guess, due to various things that I can describe in detail if anyone wants.

    anyway, using "superlite" rackets does not increase the maximum possible shuttle speed.
    why?
    1. the most important factor to shuttle speed is the racket head speed at contact (which of course depends on power and technique). other factors like string tension just change the ratio of ~1.6 slightly.
    2. below a certain point, using lighter rackets does not really increase your maximum swing speed because your hand simply cannot rotate faster.
    3. normal weight rackets are already below this point.

    as far as shuttle speed is concerned, the potential benefit to lighter rackets is for overhead shots with less swing than a full smash (i.e. half smash, some clears). for these, the constraint is how fast you can accelerate and light rackets have an obvious advantage for that.

    this isn't taking into account how control and consistency changes for lighter rackets, but those are more subjective.

  16. #84
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,348
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^^ Very interesting... learn something new everyday!
    http://curricula2.mit.edu/pivot/book...l?acode=0x0200

    So the max speed of the shuttle is 2x racket head speed, and in reality less due to loss of energy and momentum in the collision.

    So if someone who has not yet reached his physical max racket head speed and acceleration with a certain racket, by switching to a lighter racket in both total wt and swing wt, he can swing faster to get a 1.6x faster shuttle speed.

    Time for me to try out the Arc FB to see if I'm near my max speed limit yet...
    Last edited by visor; 05-19-2013 at 03:21 AM.

  17. #85
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,882
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randomuser View Post
    actual physicist here

    finally someone who got it correct.
    the absolute limit to the shuttle's speed is twice the racket head speed at the moment of contact (neglecting the shuttle's initial speed, which is an order of magnitude lower than the racket head speed for overhead shots)

    in practice the ratio is not 2 but probably around 1.6 I guess, due to various things that I can describe in detail if anyone wants.
    How embarrassing for you that you missed the post underneath what you quote, which proves that that particular maths makes assumptions which are not true for badminton.

    Ho hum.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
  •