## User Tag List

1. silentheart, blitzzards, thanks for noting the air resistance effect at the racket top.
I wasn't plannig to reply to taneepak's previous post because he has a 'selective' view on basic physics. I like to note his illogic statement which u two had also caught.
Originally Posted by taneepak
One more cross string at the top will not significantly affect air resistance as the velocity at the tip is so much greater.
i dunno where he learn that drag force becomes insignificant with increasing speed. It baffles me. At low velocity, drag force can be at 1 to 1 with speed increase. At higher velocity but subsonic, drag force is more than 1 to 1, it's to the square of velocity.

2. and p is Reynold constant?

3. depending how fast u can swing the racket, air resistance from the extra cross string can be significant for some and not to others. Point of debate here is not if air resistance from the extra cross is signficant or not but rather how taneepak present a biased view to make his case. He said the awl can cause heat damage to the string, and removing 1 or 2 cross string at the throat to reduce air resistance but at the same time, saying adding an extra cross string at the top is insignificant.

4. Originally Posted by Pete LSD
and p is Reynold constant?
no, that isn't a 'p' but it is called 'rho', it represent air (fluid medium) density in fluid mechanics

5. Originally Posted by cooler
silentheart, blitzzards, thanks for noting the air resistance effect at the racket top.
I wasn't plannig to reply to taneepak's previous post because he has a 'selective' view on basic physics. I like to note his illogic statement which u two had also caught.

i dunno where he learn that drag force becomes insignificant with increasing speed. It baffles me. At low velocity, drag force can be at 1 to 1 with speed increase. At higher velocity but subsonic, drag force is more than 1 to 1, it's to the square of velocity.
I am sorry for butchering the formula. I need to keep it simple and stupid for his understanding...

6. Originally Posted by silentheart
I am sorry for butchering the formula. I need to keep it simple and stupid for his understanding...
i dont have any pics but over here, there is a popular stringer who weave the top and throat space with all strings, forming a net like surface area at the top and bottom racket frame. Imagine the energy loss on every swing.

7. Oh sorry, I mixed up Rho (not Pho yum) with Reynolds Number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number

Originally Posted by cooler
no, that isn't a 'p' but it is called 'rho', it represent air (fluid medium) density in fluid mechanics

8. Originally Posted by Pete LSD
Oh sorry, I mixed up Rho (not Pho yum) with Reynolds Number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
np. The teacher i had for that course was Dr. Rowe

9. Badminton is all about how you feel. put little tape on the top ,it is less than 1 gram. You would feel it difference. I even feel the shaft become more flexible. Change your grip position, little up little down. Racket feels different. It is not really a science. Even I am a engineer, my science analysis show me the difference should be less than 2%. But I feel is what I feel. And eveybody is different.

10. Originally Posted by Tim1456
Badminton is all about how you feel. put little tape on the top ,it is less than 1 gram. You would feel it difference. I even feel the shaft become more flexible. Change your grip position, little up little down. Racket feels different. It is not really a science. Even I am a engineer, my science analysis show me the difference should be less than 2%. But I feel is what I feel. And eveybody is different.
science never claim whether u can feel the <2% or not, it is there to give us an impartial quantifiable value, especially helpful for those who can't feel the <2%.

11. Non-quantifiable huh? Guess someone can come up with a formula for that touchy-feely thing too, for sure!

12. Adding an extra cross string at the top will increase the racquet's swingweight slightly. This will increase power, even if that extra string weighs about 0.05gm.
As a matter of fact some racquets use rather wide x-section at the top (shoulder) frame for power. It dose not seem to slow down the racquet to the extent of reduced power.
On the contrary, a slimmer waist x-section as in the ARC Z does reduce air resistance, to the extent you can feel the increased speed and hence power. This is reduced air resistance to increase power, provided you have the hand speed to take advantage of it.
Any increase weight at the top or shoulder increases swingweight and hence power, albeit a little slower on the uptake. This increased power from swingweight can be felt by everyone, including beginners.

13. it can be felt by everyone...as long as you tell them what to feel...

I think you have a confirmation bias, but that's just me, I've only read the last half of this discussion.

You can be right in theory, and it looks like a valid point that around the T-joint area the airflow gets very turbulent. But to state that one extra cross, 3 inches of 0.70mm string has any significant impact just doesn't sound very probable.
Just like saying that 3 inches of 0.70mm plastics strings on the top of your frame can make you racket more headheavy. You're right in theory, but it's completely negligable.

14. Originally Posted by jerby
it can be felt by everyone...as long as you tell them what to feel...

I think you have a confirmation bias, but that's just me, I've only read the last half of this discussion.

You can be right in theory, and it looks like a valid point that around the T-joint area the airflow gets very turbulent. But to state that one extra cross, 3 inches of 0.70mm string has any significant impact just doesn't sound very probable.
Just like saying that 3 inches of 0.70mm plastics strings on the top of your frame can make you racket more headheavy. You're right in theory, but it's completely negligable.
Dear Dr. J,
That is what we have been saying all these time. If Taneepak convince himself that by using g-string he can move faster because it is so thin. I think he will use it. Thank you for point out that he "CAN" be right, but we know he is wrong...
Have a nice rest of the week.

15. An efficient racquet swing motion is not as simple as just hitting a shuttle with brute strength. You will note that at the start of the backswing for a forehand shot the arm supinates, and it then rotates by pronating as you start the foreward swing to make contact with the shuttle. Two important things should be noted here. The racquet hand and thus the racquet face have turned almost 180 degrees for that arm rotation. Of course you can get enough leverage with a 90% turn but 180% is more efficient. This rotational movement of the arm/hand is executed with a timely late acceleration of the racquet just before impact for increased speed and power. The 180% racquet face turn increases leverage and the late acceleration increases speed. The area around the T-joint is an impediment, especially to those who do not know how to use arm rotation and late acceleration to punch through this barrier.

16. Originally Posted by taneepak
An efficient racquet swing motion is not as simple as just hitting a shuttle with brute strength. You will note that at the start of the backswing for a forehand shot the arm supinates, and it then rotates by pronating as you start the foreward swing to make contact with the shuttle. Two important things should be noted here. The racquet hand and thus the racquet face have turned almost 180 degrees for that arm rotation. Of course you can get enough leverage with a 90% turn but 180% is more efficient. This rotational movement of the arm/hand is executed with a timely late acceleration of the racquet just before impact for increased speed and power. The 180% racquet face turn increases leverage and the late acceleration increases speed. The area around the T-joint is an impediment, especially to those who do not know how to use arm rotation and late acceleration to punch through this barrier.
so everybody who disagrees with you just doesn't know how to hit properly?

You do, by now, realise nobody is arguing your theory, but just that this whole "extra cross adds a lot of drag" argument is insignificant in our view...right?

I have to mention this here, all your arguments always tend to go in the same fashion:
1) assertion A (an overgrip makes your racket lighter, an extra cross adds drag, bottum up stringing is bad)
2) everybody who disagree's with you doesn't understand the theory
3) everybody who then disagrees with you just hasn't tested it, because if thye had teste dit, they would clearly agree with you.
4) everybody who then disagrees with you just doesn't feel it because they're such bad players.

I always forget what comes next....

Anyway, that was my extremely off-topic remark, sorry

@ Silentheart,
A man can try, right?

17. Originally Posted by jerby
so everybody who disagrees with you just doesn't know how to hit properly?

You do, by now, realise nobody is arguing your theory, but just that this whole "extra cross adds a lot of drag" argument is insignificant in our view...right?

I have to mention this here, all your arguments always tend to go in the same fashion:
1) assertion A (an overgrip makes your racket lighter, an extra cross adds drag, bottum up stringing is bad)
2) everybody who disagree's with you doesn't understand the theory
3) everybody who then disagrees with you just hasn't tested it, because if thye had teste dit, they would clearly agree with you.
4) everybody who then disagrees with you just doesn't feel it because they're such bad players.

I always forget what comes next....

Anyway, that was my extremely off-topic remark, sorry

@ Silentheart,
A man can try, right?
I am not saying that anybody who disagrees with me doesn't know how to hit properly. Of course anyone who can hit properly may also have different opinions and he may hold completely opposing opinions. This is natural as there is a diversity of view points. I just want to clarify this point.
1. Assertion A is not exactly what I say. I have no comments on overgrip. It is my opinion an extra cross at the bottom slows down hand speed. Of course you can disagree-there is nothing wrong with that. It is just a difference of opinion. Bottom up cross stringing is not as good as top down cross stringing insofar as playability is concerned. Again, this is an opinion. Others like you and Silentheart may disagree-there is nothing wrong with that.
2. Come, come, I have never said this at anytime. You can have your own ideas or theories, and I have mine. Of course they can be different from each other.
3. Again, I have never said that. How in the world can I claim that? Of course anyone who is curious may want to test it out. Whether he finds anything positive or negative is none of my business-it is his own findings which may or amy not agree with mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
4. Come on, you are implying that anyone who disgress with me are considered by me as bad players. How absurd can you be?

Page 8 of 11 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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