User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 103 to 119 of 134
  1. #103
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craigandy View Post
    IMO Taufik can hit it as hard as FHf because Taufiks wrists look a lot more flexible pivot point and relaxed as well. I think he time his hitting so well to have strength at the point of contact exactly.(tighten grip). If you look a LD and others wrists they do not "flow" as much as taufiks and don't look as flexible, they look more rigid.

    I don't think it accounts for BP at all.I am starting to think overall weight is king for power and head light and head heavy only preference either a wristy(head light) player or a more arm swing(head heavy). BTW just not to get confused, I don't think Taufik is a wristy player just that he has more flexible wrists. I see for instance LJB as a wristy player Fhf more an arm hitter.
    That's an interesting idea. Ofc its known arm players prefer more flex to maximise contact time. Wristy players prefer stiff so they can transfer power faster due to their shorter swings. But now I'm thinking there could be even more to it, Like the wrist flexibility so he is able to do a longer swing and transfer energy over a greater distance unlike FHF and LD. Yh, LYB is a good example. But then I'm wondering why PG can't do the same. Ofc he moves his racquet faster than any other player when he does his deceptive shots with extraordinary control and he displays that flexibility in his wrist a lot, but he doesn't seem to be able to generate power as comfortably in overheads or backhand shots in the same way that TH does. Thanks for your input, its given me a lot to think about. Might have to learn some biology now and figure this out. I think the sliding-filament model of muscle might be worth looking at.

  2. #104
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Just thinking further on craigandy's idea of comparing rackets of differing head wts swung at differing max racket speeds, without the need to measure those pesky shuttle speeds.


    Assumptions:
    1. That one swings a racket with a certain head wt at a certain max speed, and that another racket with the heavier head wt will be swung at a max speed that is lower than the lighter head wt.
    2. That these max racket speeds are comfortably reproducible over many successive swings, ie good technique (please, no panhandle grip! ) and near but not 100% effort, to avoid muscle fatigue and also more accurately reflect reality.
    3. Linear collision at strike.
    4. C is the same for both rackets. Obviously, same strings, tension, shuttle, conditions.


    From Line and Length's equation for partially elastic linear collisions:
    Vs/Vr = (C + 1)*Mr/(Mr+Ms)

    Vs = (C + 1)*Mr*Vr/(Mr+Ms)



    Now if Vs of racket 1 is set to Vs of racket 2, ie you want the heavier racket to hit at least the same shuttle speeds as the lighter one:

    (C + 1)*Mr1*Vr1/(Mr1+Ms) = (C + 1)*Mr2*Vr2/(Mr2+Ms)

    Mr1*Vr1/(Mr1+Ms) = Mr2*Vr2/(Mr2+Ms)

    Hence we can see, as expected from conservation of momentum, how much faster one needs to swing a lighter racket to compensate for lower head wt, or alternately how much more head wt one needs to compensate for a maxed out swing speed.

    Now, time to check out that tracking software link to check out my swing speeds with my various rackets...
    Thanks!
    This would be a good statistical test if someone can compare e.g. average racket + shuttle speed with head heavy racket, and then compare with head light racket.

    Those equations say that for head heavy racket with approximated mass at 40g, and a head light racket with approximated weight at 35g, the head light racket need only be swung 1.05% faster!

    I'm pretty sure that if we got a large enough sample, we would disprove this!

  3. #105
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,604
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default


    Vr2 = Vr1*Mr1/Mr2*
    (Mr2+Ms)/(Mr1+Ms)

    Mr2 = Mr1*Vr1/Vr2*(Mr2+Ms)/(Mr1+Ms)

    Plugging in those example wts give 1.59% difference in swing speeds, not 1.05%. Not much difference, but still... something somehow doesn't add up.

  4. #106
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,604
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also another thought, since craig and Notorious have brought up shaft flex and matching biomechanics:
    do any of you play golf?

    I ask because I don't but I've seen and heard how the pros have their clubs customized with respect to shaft flex, swing wt, angle, length, etc according to the player's swing profile.

    Would be interesting for someone to do that for badminton. I would be the first to sign up.

  5. #107
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,791
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Also another thought, since craig and Notorious have brought up shaft flex and matching biomechanics:
    do any of you play golf?

    I ask because I don't but I've seen and heard how the pros have their clubs customized with respect to shaft flex, swing wt, angle, length, etc according to the player's swing profile.

    Would be interesting for someone to do that for badminton. I would be the first to sign up.
    Yeah I play golf and was kinda in someway looking to get the ball rolling with this discussion to get ideas and facts that i could use to at least video analyse myself and customize to some extent, and yes golf was the inspiration. In golf this is common, Joe Public can walk into one of the fitting centers and get customized clubs.

    I don't think it would work in badminton though because imagine all "those" folk that use 28lb+ tension Voltric z force's or MX 80's After analyze the swing you have to tell them you need to use a 21lb flexi racket with an enlarged sweet spot or be better off with a Yonex mp2 junior.

  6. #108
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post

    Vr2 = Vr1*Mr1/Mr2*
    (Mr2+Ms)/(Mr1+Ms)

    Mr2 = Mr1*Vr1/Vr2*(Mr2+Ms)/(Mr1+Ms)

    Plugging in those example wts give 1.59% difference in swing speeds, not 1.05%. Not much difference, but still... something somehow doesn't add up.
    No, I believe I am correct
    Code:
    >>> mr1 = 0.04
    >>> mr2 = 0.035
    >>> ms = 0.005
    >>> vr1 = 40
    >>> vr2 = vr1 * mr1 / mr2 * (mr2+ms) / (mr1+ms)
    >>> vr2
    40.63492063492064
    >>> vr2 / vr1
    1.015873015873016

  7. #109
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    No, I believe I am correct
    Code:
    >>> mr1 = 0.04
    >>> mr2 = 0.035
    >>> ms = 0.005
    >>> vr1 = 40
    >>> vr2 = vr1 * mr1 / mr2 * (mr2+ms) / (mr1+ms)
    >>> vr2
    40.63492063492064
    >>> vr2 / vr1
    1.015873015873016
    Hey Smart guy. You are partially correct at best but who is nitpicking

    1.0158... is 1.016 is 1.02. If you want to do rounding or lazy ok as 1.01 but DON'T calculate it as 1.05

    one step at a time and check your math specially when you are sticking with your point. Specially taking deep dive in complex equations

    SZ

  8. #110
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Just thinking further on craigandy's idea of comparing rackets of differing head wts swung at differing max racket speeds, without the need to measure those pesky shuttle speeds.


    Assumptions:
    1. That one swings a racket with a certain head wt at a certain max speed, and that another racket with the heavier head wt will be swung at a max speed that is lower than the lighter head wt.
    2. That these max racket speeds are comfortably reproducible over many successive swings, ie good technique (please, no panhandle grip! ) and near but not 100% effort, to avoid muscle fatigue and also more accurately reflect reality.
    3. Linear collision at strike.
    4. C is the same for both rackets. Obviously, same strings, tension, shuttle, conditions.


    From Line and Length's equation for partially elastic linear collisions:
    Vs/Vr = (C + 1)*Mr/(Mr+Ms)

    Vs = (C + 1)*Mr*Vr/(Mr+Ms)



    Now if Vs of racket 1 is set to Vs of racket 2, ie you want the heavier racket to hit at least the same shuttle speeds as the lighter one:

    (C + 1)*Mr1*Vr1/(Mr1+Ms) = (C + 1)*Mr2*Vr2/(Mr2+Ms)

    Mr1*Vr1/(Mr1+Ms) = Mr2*Vr2/(Mr2+Ms)

    Hence we can see, as expected from conservation of momentum, how much faster one needs to swing a lighter racket to compensate for lower head wt, or alternately how much more head wt one needs to compensate for a maxed out swing speed.

    Now, time to check out that tracking software link to check out my swing speeds with my various rackets...
    when you go on such granular details of physics dealing with force, momentum, torque, mass, velocity as scientifically measurable characteristics as end output the input to cause this becomes secondary and non-relevent.

    folks can use
    basic, Bevel, Panhandle or any other damn grip based on situations ...

    By the way it's really cracking me up abt how collective wisdom is progressing on this thread and ultimately coming to same scientific discovery inclination which was made in other threads like with lighter rackets which giver faster swing speed and more wrists game style option panhandle could become more acceptable as compare to last 30-40 years.

    please continue .. The more scientific discovery you will do more you will realize the EVOlUTION is already underway

    since this thread started becoz of that 'unusual' thread it wld be more ironic the further you will fine tune this thread the more it will support the original thread topic of lighter rackets and grip styles allowed to optimize benefit in terms of Time, Power, Control integration parameters

    SZ

  9. #111
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amleto View Post
    No, I believe I am correct
    Code:
    >>> mr1 = 0.04
    >>> mr2 = 0.035
    >>> ms = 0.005
    >>> vr1 = 40
    >>> vr2 = vr1 * mr1 / mr2 * (mr2+ms) / (mr1+ms)
    >>> vr2
    40.63492063492064
    >>> vr2 / vr1
    1.015873015873016
    Quote Originally Posted by Superzoom View Post
    Hey Smart guy. You are partially correct at best but who is nitpicking

    1.0158... is 1.016 is 1.02. If you want to do rounding or lazy ok as 1.01 but DON'T calculate it as 1.05

    one step at a time and check your math specially when you are sticking with your point. Specially taking deep dive in complex equations

    SZ
    yeah, ok, I was dumb. twice. That's expected, though because of my low IQ.
    Last edited by amleto; 06-09-2013 at 04:56 AM.

  10. #112
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    actually I wont bother

  11. #113
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,791
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Check this vid out, this is the product of evolution.


    This ain't gonna get done with a pan handle grip. Pronation/supination is key to being able to swing faster.

    But please try to proof this wrong along with the other panhandle theory stuff.
    Due to the nature of this thread though and to forward what I have read from you before, I want tracker results and inputted figures to formula's as the only acceptable propositions.

  12. #114
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No way a panhandle can match a full pronation. A panhandle grip will only allow wrist movement of 1/2pi radians maximum (90degrees) but a full pronation allows you to accelerate the racquet over more than pi radians (180 degrees) so your angular acceleration can accelerate the racquet over more than twice the distance so you can get a much greater speed with pronation that with panhandle. Your muscle in the wrist used for panhandle would need to be more than twice as strong and the rest of your wrist muscles, ur fingers, ur arm and most of your shoulder combined to achieve the same head speed and momentum so there is no way a pan handle grip is close to as powerful no matter what some people think. Also, the rapid deceleration on the follow through of the pan handle shots will actually tear the sarcomeres and connective tissue in your muscles apart and cause small rips in your tendons which can take over 8 weeks to heal and may never heal properly or fully if done repeatedly not to mention the pressure your nerves come under from the stretch in complementary muscle which actually squashes and stretches the nerve at the elbow causing irreparable nervous damage if done too vigorously. I cannot stress how bad smashing with a panhandle grip is for your forearm muscles and it has no power or accuracy gain. Pan handle belongs for drives and net kills. Shots requiring more power than those will just damage your wrists and arms and eventually make you incapable of playing. Pronation is more powerful, more deceptive, more accurate, easier to recover from and causes far fewer injuries with proper technique. Just so you know.

  13. #115
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,604
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Please no panhandling talk on this thread... save it for the other one... :P

  14. #116
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNotoriousLIG View Post
    No way a panhandle can match a full pronation. A panhandle grip will only allow wrist movement of 1/2pi radians maximum (90degrees) but a full pronation allows you to accelerate the racquet over more than pi radians (180 degrees) so your angular acceleration can accelerate the racquet over more than twice the distance so you can get a much greater speed with pronation that with panhandle. Your muscle in the wrist used for panhandle would need to be more than twice as strong and the rest of your wrist muscles, ur fingers, ur arm and most of your shoulder combined to achieve the same head speed and momentum so there is no way a pan handle grip is close to as powerful no matter what some people think. Also, the rapid deceleration on the follow through of the pan handle shots will actually tear the sarcomeres and connective tissue in your muscles apart and cause small rips in your tendons which can take over 8 weeks to heal and may never heal properly or fully if done repeatedly not to mention the pressure your nerves come under from the stretch in complementary muscle which actually squashes and stretches the nerve at the elbow causing irreparable nervous damage if done too vigorously. I cannot stress how bad smashing with a panhandle grip is for your forearm muscles and it has no power or accuracy gain. Pan handle belongs for drives and net kills. Shots requiring more power than those will just damage your wrists and arms and eventually make you incapable of playing. Pronation is more powerful, more deceptive, more accurate, easier to recover from and causes far fewer injuries with proper technique. Just so you know.
    TIME Advantage could compensate 90 degress limitation (and hence "lack of Power" consideration).

    If you notice Power smash does NOT win rally. It's catching your opponent "before he / she recover" to take the shuttle and passing before that recovery wins the point. Naturally at advanced level it's Power Smash which does that and hence people relate More Power smash means better chance of winning rally and hence Power (hence Pronation).


    But if you want to to "Apple to Apple" comparison than consider the "trade-off of Power Loss ? against TIME gain".


    In a given TH example in (craigandy) .. TH hit that shot as 305Kmph (hitting speed) which caused oppoenent "no chance of recovery by the time his racket in the path of shuttle trajectory" where shuttle already passed him on ground (that split second difference caused by Power 305KMph smash speed).


    Now assume it's Panhandle shot. Let's say Power is less but TIME is gained for hitting early (Hitting early is the characteristic of Panhandle grip) . .say by 0.1 second.


    So whatever equation these guys are figureing with basic grip and time taken from racket hit to pass the opponent at say 200 km (normal Power smash speed at advanced level) .. add 0.1 second for panhandle grip hit and even probably 120 kmph could give you same effect to catch opponent before he/she recovers.


    Also Pronation could be done in Panhandle (not in full effect but 50-75% of basic grip). Panhandle grip (like others is at wrist / finger level) but your elbow .. you can do the pronation of Elbow (50-75% if not 100% of basic grip hit style).

    So on BOTTOM LINE effect of hittign before opponent is recovered is managed.


    I am sure few genius guys here with frame by frame ability can measure a time on basic hit .. add 0.1 second (assuming it's panhandle grip hit) and figure out how much "equivalent less speed" is needed for same BOTTOM LINE effect.


    SZ

  15. #117
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,604
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    See? Too late..........

  16. #118
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Please no panhandling talk on this thread... save it for the other one... :P
    Don't talk panhandle but figure out how 0.1 second TIME addition can allow reduction in speed per your equations.

    Consider it as some top level business strategy consultant is helping you in your equations .

    SZ

  17. #119
    Regular Member craigandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,791
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Superzoom Again only formulas, tracker vids, etc to prove this panhandle stuff not semantics, not for this thread. Sure everyone will be happy to look at your findings in this thread if you do that. Real figures though.

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