A very simple question without any scientific explanation needed: if such a low tension would benefit the game and power so much, why are you the only one claiming its merit and why no pros ever took advantage of such low tensions? Especially younger players or women?
@Budi, by the way, does your little girl also smash "400+ km/h" and easily clears cross court backhand? @s_mair, I understand that these discussions can get out of hand, be too time consuming, and tiring. I totally respect if you retire from the argument at this point, but on physics and arguments backed up by research, we can't really agree to disagree. @LenaicM, I think you get the wrong impression of what I said from @s_mair's comments. If you go over what I said, I only argued the physics, and quoted from the paper. To summarize: - Pros can compensate and get the same performance no matter the tension, and apparently they prefer to get control more easilty. - There's a clear rule of thumb of the tension recommendation for the average user. It goes against my _personal_ preference, and I'm not arguing against it (it's only a rule of thumb after all) or trying to convince anyone of anything. I was only looking for a heavy head racket recommendation, and people started criticizing my choice of string tension, suggested I'm a clueless beginner, etc. If you do ask my humble personal opinion, then yes, I personally think that everyone should give lower tension a go with no ego involved: http://web.archive.org/web/20200313...badminton-could-be-doing-more-harm-than-good/
Well, obviously racket tension is a personal preference and I will leave it at that. Thank for your composed answer.
The trampoline analogy is interesting because if the trampoline were suspended from one end on a long pole which had different elastic properties then it would make the object bouncing on the trampoline behave differently. It comes back to the idea of matching string tension to racket flex for optimal performance. Probably meaning the racket flex is chosen for whatever reason then the tension and elasticity is matched. It doesn’t mean you can’t hit well with opposing extremes but this is about optimal situations, not just useable. As rackets have gotten stiffer, tensions have also risen it would seem. Is it the effects of the racket repulsion or string repulsion that benefits the hardest hitters or both in unison? Along with lower tensions it is accepted that more flexible rackets can create more power but whilst they are more whippy they have worse control/predictability. Assuming better players need a more predictable response and better/different technique compensates for less power then that probably explains the difference in preferences despite the conclusions from the research paper. Also, the swing motion is not linear so when hitting with a rotating, twisting racket you don’t want excess dwell time necessarily. Interestingly there is similar findings in tennis regarding speed and spin. Players can achieve the same or more with looser strings but the feel of tighter strings is preferred by more people. Going back to the trampoline analogy, the trampoline is tuned for an average human with typical velocity. If you start jumping from a 30 meter platform (therefore greater velocity) it will give a very different experience. Racket strings are tuned for a certain range of expected inputs. Hence the grading of soft, medium and hard. So, @Zohar which strings do you use? I may have missed this so sorry if I have. The argument for 16lbs being more powerful is technically correct in isolation but there could be other factors that might skew the real world results that are melting my brain.
well, im far from pro & yes her power wont even close to me. I can block her power shot with 1 eye closed. But that not the point. With correct technique 22lbs is easy & enjoyable to gain access for power/long shot. I uderstand that each has different physical attribute which different from one to others but thats why i use this little girl as an example. No power but with good technique able to perform long clear shot easily. Then again, i reread all the post before where all this discussion start. For that i can understand abit if my assumtion is correct. I guest that you are still young & havent work, so you had no previlege to experiment with & cant afford to restring often so you use such low tension & you just try to defend your logic to reason with your lack of fund. As i think there is no risk playing with such low tension, i will stop arguing with you. Eventually with time you will learn yourself about it. Yes there might be risk for others beginneer getting missguided by this but isnt we reader need to be smart to not makes conclusion based on 1 data only & we had some people here who care for it in case someone ask here & makes it right.
Chances to brake your legs by hitting the ground is higher when jumping on the lower tension one. Did I just brake the legs of your argument?
@Ouchie, not sure why the spring need to match the elasticity of the pole in a trampoline (or string and frame in a racket). They seem to me uncorrelated. As I mentioned, I don't feel much regarding the shaft stiffness: I played with AX77 (medium flex) and with zf2 (extra stiff), and I didn't feel the difference. In terms of technology, I think the issue is to create a flexible shaft. Stiff is easy, just use graphite. For something flexible, you'll need material that is strong enough (close to the graphite). Similar for the weight. At least, this is what I think someone told me, and I know nothing about. There was a period when I played everyday and broke the string (bg65) within a month. I experimented with higher gauge string (Ashaway), but it felt too stiff. It took me about two years to realize that the string breaks at the same place, where I scrape it on the outside of the frame on the floor. For a while, I played with bg80power, and last time I put ng99. Reading the properties again, I'd probably go next time with ng95. They are all 0.69, where I'm looking for something durable that is still tolerable (in terms of power). I think one time I tried 0.66, but it broke withing two weeks. I assume you raise the question: If someone is aiming for stiffness and control, then why use 1. a low gauge string with high tension instead of 2. a high gauge string with low tension ? I assume the answer isn't to break the string as often as possible.
A colleague of my brother-in-law heard rumours from a friend of his mother's cousin (who is said to be a cleaning lady in the Yonex R&D department) that they are experimenting with some kind of ultra-light nano-tubes-rubber as shaft material for their upcoming AX101VX racket. Apparently, they tried it with jelly but all the prototypes got eaten by the testers.
why not sweety thing We can maintain our sugar while playing for longer duration. We can lick our racket while playing
In cold and dry climate, 16lbs can be a very suitable tension because it provides the power. A lot of people who play recreational badminton just like to smash and do long clears because it's enough to have fun and beat their recreational opponents. Shuttle placement is not too important, that's for more serious level.
this is why i questiom his skill as he use 16lbs. Recreation is good but actual competitive play wont be good, but im done arguing with him as most likely he just reason himself for limited fund he had.
For everything that has any elasticity in the racket or strings then there will be some correlation. If we can feel it or measure is another thing. I meant for the trampoline and pole to relate to the string bed and shaft. If the string bed and shaft flex and repulse under equal loading at a different rate/frequency then it is possible that a stiff shaft will flex then rebound before the strings. Maybe this adds to the effect on the strings by adding more input force but you will miss out on the combined/synchronised rebound effect. More here from a tennis viewpoint which backs up the understanding that lower tensions are more powerful... https://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/BasicFacts.html There is probably a lower limit whereby the strings just move around too much rather than stretch linearly and repulse linearly but that will vary based on the amount of force applied which is an individual variable. It's fair to say your preference is for soft strings at low tension. Some people prefer hard strings at high tensions. It's only a preference but science does support the theory to a certain extent, real world practice at high level is a counter argument, maybe because strings are not the only part of the "machine" that is moving and reacting to inputs and power is not the ultimate goal, control or a responsive feeling is. I am going to try it out once this pandemic passes. It has been decades since I played lower than 20+.
