User Tag List

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 137 to 153 of 171
  1. #137
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    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.
    this is unrelated to adding or substracting 1 extra string discussion, it's should belongs to Techniques / Training forum

  2. #138
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    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.
    U r totally confused as u can't tell the different between swingweight and drag force effects .

    As u seem not to appreciate the parameters expressed in the drag force equation, u don't have the support on what you're talking about. U automatically assumed increase in power of a swing from the extra 0.05g weight and it's fault. If this was true, the racket market place will only have 1 type of racket, the head heavy kind and nanospeed model line would be a joke. What happen here is you only saw the +ve from the 0.05g but ignored the -ve effect of the 1 extra top cross string which we have tried to drum into your head regarding air resistance on the top cross string. Since u r making a big case about the swing power gain from the 0.05g, i say the -ve effect is even greater as drag force slow down your swing. U naively assumed everything being equal but decrease in swing speed decrease swing power even more so than the gain from the 0.05g. If u dunno, the power gain or loss is to the power of 3 of velocity change.

    what all the claims u have made here in this thread are unsubstantiated or it's only from 1 sided view.
    Last edited by cooler; 02-24-2010 at 01:29 PM.

  3. #139
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Using the thread title to start off, let us imagine the following identical racquet brand setups:

    1. Racquet A with the standard 22 cross strings, with top cross across the top grommets #7 and the bottom cross across the bottom grommets #9.
    2. Racquet B with the same cross strings as 1 plus an additional cross at the bottom grommets #8, making a total of 23 crosses.
    3. Racquet C with 21 cross strings,identical to 1 but missing the bottom cross across grommets #10.
    4. Racquet D with 21 cross strings as above 1 but with a missing cross string across the top grommets #8.

    Let us compare racquets A and B. Some may find one better than the other. If racquet A is no worse than racquet B, then that extra cross of racquet B is redundant.
    Racquet C vs racquets A and B. Now, if racquet C is no worse than A and B, then A and B could be considered redundant., unless they bring some advantages.
    Racquet D is the other side of racquet C, both 21 crosses with a missing cross. Now, if racquet D is no worse than racquet C, then why not try D? However, this racquet D might be considered illegal as it makes the stringbed center area less dense than the other parts.

  4. #140
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,657
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Using the thread title to start off, let us imagine the following identical racquet brand setups:

    1. Racquet A with the standard 22 cross strings, with top cross across the top grommets #7 and the bottom cross across the bottom grommets #9.
    2. Racquet B with the same cross strings as 1 plus an additional cross at the bottom grommets #8, making a total of 23 crosses.
    3. Racquet C with 21 cross strings,identical to 1 but missing the bottom cross across grommets #10.
    4. Racquet D with 21 cross strings as above 1 but with a missing cross string across the top grommets #8.

    Let us compare racquets A and B. Some may find one better than the other. If racquet A is no worse than racquet B, then that extra cross of racquet B is redundant.
    Racquet C vs racquets A and B. Now, if racquet C is no worse than A and B, then A and B could be considered redundant., unless they bring some advantages.
    Racquet D is the other side of racquet C, both 21 crosses with a missing cross. Now, if racquet D is no worse than racquet C, then why not try D? However, this racquet D might be considered illegal as it makes the stringbed center area less dense than the other parts.
    I would like to get some clarfication on your post first.
    a) Let us compare racquets A and B. Some may find one better than the other. If racquet A is no worse than racquet B, then that extra cross of racquet B is redundant.
    Define better: What do you mean better?
    b) However, this racquet D might be considered illegal as it makes the stringbed center area less dense than the other parts.
    Please explain or point out to me where in the rule of badminton say this is illegal? I might be consider all the racquet you use are illegal because every racquet center area is denser than the throat area and they are also less denser than the 12, 3, and 9 o'clock.

    On your racquet example, I assume you are using the exactly the same model of the racquet, right? If not, please specify why not.
    For your argument sake, I will suggest you to add 1 addition racquet. Same model, with 1 additional cross string on top and omit the last string on B9.

    Also, please state that all the shots are impact on or near the center of the racquet which define as intersection of 2 center main and 10th cross string from the top (because racquets has 21 to 23 cross difference).

    You still do not know how to design an experiment...

  5. #141
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    I would like to get some clarfication on your post first.

    b) However, this racquet D might be considered illegal as it makes the stringbed center area less dense than the other parts.
    Please explain or point out to me where in the rule of badminton say this is illegal? I might be consider all the racquet you use are illegal because every racquet center area is denser than the throat area and they are also less denser than the 12, 3, and 9 o'clock...
    I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying ".....all the racquet you use are illegal because every racquet center area is denser than the throat area and they are also less denser than the 12, 3, and 9 o'clock.."?
    I think you are mixed up in between dense and less dense.
    BTW, of course the center of the stringed area must be denser than other parts. This is the same as the center area must not be less dense than other parts.
    Pls refer to law 4.2 and 4.2.1 which says "The stringed area shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings either alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross. The stringing pattern shall be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the center than in any other area.

  6. #142
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,657
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying ".....all the racquet you use are illegal because every racquet center area is denser than the throat area and they are also less denser than the 12, 3, and 9 o'clock.."?
    I think you are mixed up in between dense and less dense.
    BTW, of course the center of the stringed area must be denser than other parts. This is the same as the center area must not be less dense than other parts.
    Pls refer to law 4.2 and 4.2.1 which says "The stringed area shall be flat and consist of a pattern of crossed strings either alternately interlaced or bonded where they cross. The stringing pattern shall be generally uniform and, in particular, not less dense in the center than in any other area.
    Please read it correctly. The center can not be less dense than any other area. ie. The other edges can be less dense than the center. That is the all in all the racquet design. Just to prove you are wrong. Look at any racquet on standard pattern. The string density near the 5 o'clock area is less than the string near the 2 o'clock area. Also, even string with 23 cross on standard pattern, the string density is still less than the center. So, if you think the string density should be same over the entire string bed, the racquet you designed is illegal.

    And, you still have not respond to my other questions.

  7. #143
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Please read it correctly. The center can not be less dense than any other area. ie. The other edges can be less dense than the center. That is the all in all the racquet design. Just to prove you are wrong. Look at any racquet on standard pattern. The string density near the 5 o'clock area is less than the string near the 2 o'clock area. Also, even string with 23 cross on standard pattern, the string density is still less than the center. So, if you think the string density should be same over the entire string bed, the racquet you designed is illegal.

    And, you still have not respond to my other questions.
    Of course it is possible to string a racquet with a less dense center area, simply by omitting a few cross strings in the middle.
    My earlier suggestion of A/B testing of a racquet with one missing cross at the top grommets #8 against a racquet with one missing cross at the bottome grommets #10 is to find out which has better playability. I thought it might be, not will be, considered illegal but that is not the main point.
    The main point is which racquet plays better. It will be interesting to find out.

  8. #144
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,657
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Taneepak,

    It is illegal to have less dense center area, that is what the law says. Please read, If you do not know how to read, please ask some one to translate for you. What I am triying to explain to you is your statement is wrong. "However, this racquet D might be considered illegal as it makes the stringbed center area less dense than the other parts." Also, if you compare the standard pattern racquet, the 2 o'clock area of the racquet has higher string density than center, that is just the geometry goes. So all the racquet you are using with standard pattern is illegal?

    I ask you "DEFINE THE TERM BETTER", and you just skip over that question?
    You also fail to reply a simple question that all the racquet used in this comparison are same make and model.

    I just can not have a logical discussion with a person like you because you either omit question or just answer with some facts you made up.

    Sorry, I am not going to participate with this conversation any more.

  9. #145
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toulouse France
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gentlemen please, I'm enjoying reading both your posts. It's clear to me that you are two people from very different cultures with very different references, expressing fairly complex ideas and having some difficulty understanding each other.
    Let's all calm down, re read the others posts, and stop trying to make points of each other.
    Bear in mind the idea that this isn't an argument, it's a discussion. Please.

  10. #146
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    100% Agree with what you are saying. The thread pretty much run its course already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grotius View Post
    Gentlemen please, I'm enjoying reading both your posts. It's clear to me that you are two people from very different cultures with very different references, expressing fairly complex ideas and having some difficulty understanding each other.
    Let's all calm down, re read the others posts, and stop trying to make points of each other.
    Bear in mind the idea that this isn't an argument, it's a discussion. Please.

  11. #147
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is right, let us keep our cool and just discuss rationally without risking getting a heart attack.
    Of course I don't expect everyone to agree on the merits of my own preferred stringing practices, which I like to reiterate again:
    1. One missing cross string at the bottom grommets #10.
    2. Always use a 4 to 6 loop starting knot stringing the crosses top down. Using 4 to 6 loop starting knots require lots of practice. With thin strings like ZM62 it requires even greater patience.
    You cannot use a 2-loop starting knot. It just doesn't work well except for tennis.
    3. No string pre-stretching and no load spreader.
    4. Thinner strings or smaller frame racquets like ovals will require some decrease in tension vs thicker strings or iso frames.
    5. Get rid of any U-shaped grommets at the throat area and replace them with small single ones. Take a look at Li Ning's N series on how grommets at this T-joint area should be like.
    You can of course disagree with the above, but why not give it a go. Maybe Silentheart should at least experiment with it.

  12. #148
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default off topic-it's a long history (just a tip for you)..

    Quote Originally Posted by Grotius View Post
    Gentlemen please, I'm enjoying reading both your posts. It's clear to me that you are two people from very different cultures with very different references, expressing fairly complex ideas and having some difficulty understanding each other.
    Let's all calm down, re read the others posts, and stop trying to make points of each other.
    Bear in mind the idea that this isn't an argument, it's a discussion. Please.
    ..i know you're quite new in BC & probably don't know much of the personalities here, and i don't want to put anyone on the spot, but if you've read Mr. T's (that's short for taneepak), other posts you'll find out he's gotten into disagreements, arguments before with other BCers. I'm sure you won't be surprised after reading them.
    Of course, there could be more BCers involved, but i don't think they're as bold as the ones who've gotten down with Mr. T....Hopefully you won't get yourself into one..

  13. #149
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    ..i know you're quite new in BC & probably don't know much of the personalities here, and i don't want to put anyone on the spot, but if you've read Mr. T's (that's short for taneepak), other posts you'll find out he's gotten into disagreements, arguments before with other BCers. I'm sure you won't be surprised after reading them.
    Of course, there could be more BCers involved, but i don't think they're as bold as the ones who've gotten down with Mr. T....Hopefully you won't get yourself into one..
    Well, this is an unusual input and has nothing to do with the thread.
    I have a funny feeling ctjcad is calling this payback time after I sent him a strong rebuke a few months back in response to his unsolicited pm to me trying to convince me how bad Jewish people were.
    This is about putting things a little in perspective.

  14. #150
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ^^off topic-tis the reason why..^^

    - Mr. T, keep it up. All i did in that post, above, is to give Grotius (and maybe other newbies who don't know) a hint on the history pertaining to you in BC. Yes, a history filled with long and i would say useless debates (with countless members) that once in a while end up with the threads being locked or the mods giving a warning or two. Yes, a lot of us have seen them & please don't try to ignore that fact.
    And no, this is not the first or second time you got it on with silentheart. I'm sure many here would testify and agree with my claim.
    Pardon me if my posts seem to put you on a spot (which i think it has since you replied to it w/some uneasiness) but I hope and pray, for the sake of civility, that this will be the last major debate between you and silentheart and others.
    - Your funny feeling assumption of the reason why i made the above post is maybe funny, because of "payback time", but is totally wrong! Please check your PM box.
    - Sorry again, all, for this off topic post. This'll be my last one in this thread.
    Last edited by ctjcad; 02-28-2010 at 01:27 AM.

  15. #151
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toulouse France
    Posts
    125
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Taneepak, you say;

    5. Get rid of any U-shaped grommets at the throat area and replace them with small single ones. Take a look at Li Ning's N series on how grommets at this T-joint area should be like.

    Why is this? What advantage is there in replacing them with single grommets?

  16. #152
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    www.badstrings.com
    Posts
    670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs down where is the proof

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    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?
    agreed. i was going to say more, but this is a pretty good summary. Taneepak, do you also trim your grommits on the inside? Would taping the rim of your frame to cover the grommits provide even better aerodynamics? What about the polished finish versus the matte finish, which is better?

    Within these parameters we are discussing, you have provided and will not be able to scientifically prove that one more string provides, significantly less drag, nor adding one more string add's significant mass to affect the shuttle.

  17. #153
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If the grommets are long on the inside of the frame, I use a sharp diagonal cutter to shorten them. Have a look at the Li Ning N series frames. They have tight, small, and short grommets but not as short as mine especially around the waist area.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. adding 2 pounds to the cross, even on six point support machines?
    By asmd6230 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 3
    : 11-15-2011, 04:22 PM
  2. stretching or adding string tension that is already strung on a racquet
    By nutbad5981 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 6
    : 02-24-2010, 12:37 AM
  3. AT 700 LE extra cross
    By takumifujiwara in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 18
    : 03-15-2009, 01:02 AM
  4. Add a little extra tension if pulling more string?
    By lostatse in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 5
    : 05-12-2008, 07:45 AM
  5. Thinner or thicker string for extra power
    By boilermaker in forum General Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 01-14-2003, 03:57 AM

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
  •