User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Tension, Stiffness and Durability

    Is there any correlation between the manufacturer's rated tension for a racket and the durability of the racket with respect to clashing? Also, will flexible rackets be more durable, possibly because it can flex a bit when it is clashed?

    Say for example, would a racket rated for holding 25 lbs possibly be more durable than a racket rated for 18 lbs? (25 lbs might be AT800 DF, 18 lbs might be ISO MP 63)

    And for stiffness, maybe MP88 against a Cab 22?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TW
    Posts
    3,949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGr8Two
    Is there any correlation between the manufacturer's rated tension for a racket and the durability of the racket with respect to clashing? Also, will flexible rackets be more durable, possibly because it can flex a bit when it is clashed?

    Say for example, would a racket rated for holding 25 lbs possibly be more durable than a racket rated for 18 lbs? (25 lbs might be AT800 DF, 18 lbs might be ISO MP 63)

    And for stiffness, maybe MP88 against a Cab 22?
    Think about Cab 20 (2U) and MP-100(2U) as an example:
    Cab20 is rated for 20 pounds, and MP-100 is rated for 22 pounds, however, if there is a clash between them, I bet Cab20 will survive 80% of the time.
    (if you want an extreme case, then I can give you a Steel racquets, which is rated for less than 18 pounds, and if there is a clash with MP100, you should know the answer)

    If there is something to do with the rated tension, they I bet all manufacturers will be "racing" the rated tension because it will mean better durability to users. That's just too weird.

    About the stiffness, that's something worth the science and calculations.
    For less stiff shafts, they might have more bending to take out the impact a little more than the stiffer ones.
    Using MP88 and Cab22 is not a fair test.....because they are totally different.
    You can use ISO-TIS-SX and ISO-TIS-SA as an example since they are the same series but different stiffness at the shaft. However, how to run the test will be the problem.....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    New York, US
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think use "clash" as a standare is reasonable at all, since too much factor(s) got involvled:

    1. How u rate how serious a clash could be?

    2. Various spots on the frame are weaker than others

    3. How to consider the factor of previous damage, such as bad string job, paint chip, internal crack, etc

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TW
    Posts
    3,949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyBuddy
    I don't think use "clash" as a standare is reasonable at all, since too much factor(s) got involvled:

    1. How u rate how serious a clash could be?

    2. Various spots on the frame are weaker than others

    3. How to consider the factor of previous damage, such as bad string job, paint chip, internal crack, etc
    Totally agree, it's nearly impossible to have a clash test unless done by robots' arms and for new racquets only. (Very costy)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are ovals more durable than isometric heads then?

    Also..for AT's Armor systems....does it mean anything?

    We could run an organization to which ppl interested can donate to the project

    Quote Originally Posted by bluejeff
    Think about Cab 20 (2U) and MP-100(2U) as an example:
    Cab20 is rated for 20 pounds, and MP-100 is rated for 22 pounds, however, if there is a clash between them, I bet Cab20 will survive 80% of the time.
    (if you want an extreme case, then I can give you a Steel racquets, which is rated for less than 18 pounds, and if there is a clash with MP100, you should know the answer)

    If there is something to do with the rated tension, they I bet all manufacturers will be "racing" the rated tension because it will mean better durability to users. That's just too weird.

    About the stiffness, that's something worth the science and calculations.
    For less stiff shafts, they might have more bending to take out the impact a little more than the stiffer ones.
    Using MP88 and Cab22 is not a fair test.....because they are totally different.
    You can use ISO-TIS-SX and ISO-TIS-SA as an example since they are the same series but different stiffness at the shaft. However, how to run the test will be the problem.....

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    411
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It doesn't have to be perfect. But using new rackets will help, and standarding the point of impact and the force can be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyBuddy
    I don't think use "clash" as a standare is reasonable at all, since too much factor(s) got involvled:

    1. How u rate how serious a clash could be?

    2. Various spots on the frame are weaker than others

    3. How to consider the factor of previous damage, such as bad string job, paint chip, internal crack, etc

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,511
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also to add to LB's list, the angle of the clash is very important too. I had a "robust" and relatively new CAB23 destroyed simply because it's in the way of a partner's follow-through swing (ie. frame edge onto frame face). Sometimes, it's just out of my hands when it happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyBuddy
    I don't think use "clash" as a standare is reasonable at all, since too much factor(s) got involvled:

    1. How u rate how serious a clash could be?

    2. Various spots on the frame are weaker than others

    3. How to consider the factor of previous damage, such as bad string job, paint chip, internal crack, etc
    Last edited by cappy75; 07-18-2004 at 07:39 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Tension/stiffness correlation??
    By macatawa in forum Badminton String
    Replies: 0
    : 08-03-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. dynamic tension & stringbed stiffness
    By SystemicAnomaly in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 0
    : 05-20-2007, 08:41 PM
  3. stiffness and tension
    By calvin91 in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 1
    : 05-07-2007, 02:37 AM
  4. Tension --> Durability and Power
    By molohov in forum Badminton String
    Replies: 20
    : 03-29-2007, 10:20 PM
  5. stiffness and string tension
    By cycilver in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 3
    : 03-28-2007, 10:53 PM

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
  •