New Z-Slash smash speed record

Is there a math professor or............nerd..

roy b said:
...
FHF' s smash was recorded by looking at the first 15cms or so of shuttle flight after being stuck by the racket.

TBH's smash was recorded by looking at only the first 3 cms of shuttle flight after being struck by the racket - the moment of maximum speed only !!!!!

No wonder TBH's figure was much higher !!!!!! It didn't take into account the significant deceleration affecting the shuttle over the longer distance in the case of FHF .
...
Click to expand...
;)..(i know there are some math buffs in BC)..to help us formulate or quantify or figure out the actual speed of FHF's smash if the shuttle was recorded at the same 3 cm distance after it was struck by the racket (like TBH's smash)?:cool:
*FHF's record is @ 332 km/h
 
roy b said:
Forum member Jerby first mentioned this in the Arc ZS Review thread in the Equipment review section.

FHF' s smash was recorded by looking at the first 15cms or so of shuttle flight after being stuck by the racket.

TBH's smash was recorded by looking at only the first 3 cms of shuttle flight after being struck by the racket - the moment of maximum speed only !!!!!

No wonder TBH's figure was much higher !!!!!! It didn't take into account the significant deceleration affecting the shuttle over the longer distance in the case of FHF .

Oh so sneaky Yonex. Great marketing though.

Unfortunately, most people on this forum are ignoring the simple fact that the system used when measuring the Arc ZS smashes is fundementally flawed and designed to deceive. People just WANT to believe desperately that this racket is the new messiah so they turn a blind eye to the simple facts.
Click to expand...
recording the maximum speed is not fundamentally flawed.
It is the slower speed recordings that weren't conduct in the same way as TBH test. Tests should be done in consistent manner with each others or else they shouldn't be used for direct comparison with each other

personally, i much rather have 1/2 of that 421 kpm and landing the shuttle at strategic position, like inches from the line or hard to reach spot around your opponent's body
 
Last edited:
cooler said:
recording the maximum speed is not fundamentally flawed.
It is the slower speed recordings that weren't conduct in the same way as TBH test. Tests should be done in consistent manner with each others or else they shouldn't be used for direct comparison with each other

personally, i much rather have 1/2 of that 421 kpm and landing the shuttle at strategic position, like inches from the line or hard to reach spot around your opponent's body
Click to expand...
for what? scratch?
But all seriousness. To smash that fast, the angle is in pretty limited range. Also, Master Cooler is right, Location is more important than the pure speed.
 
silentheart said:
for what? scratch?
But all seriousness. To smash that fast, the angle is in pretty limited range. Also, Master Cooler is right, Location is more important than the pure speed.
Click to expand...
all i can divulge is that i have different 'hard to reach' spots for male and female opponents:p
 
cooler said:
recording the maximum speed is not fundamentally flawed.
It is the slower speed recordings that weren't conduct in the same way as TBH test. Tests should be done in consistent manner with each others or else they shouldn't be used for direct comparison with each other

personally, i much rather have 1/2 of that 421 kpm and landing the shuttle at strategic position, like inches from the line or hard to reach spot around your opponent's body
Click to expand...

"The slower speed recordings weren't conducted in the same way as the TBH test" - well, hardly surprising since the slower speed recordings were done a long time before the TBH test was ever imagined !!!!!!!

So, just a minute, which came first ? The chicken or the egg ?

Recording the maximum speed (over 3 cms) IS flawed when the norm is to measure over a longer distance. It was simply done the SECOND way to deceive and to sell more rackets.

Yes, tests should be done in a consistant way - so why did Yonex 'move the goal-posts' so to speak, from the known, general way of measurement ??

I don't think I have to answer that one.

As to the relative merits of a hard smash, I agree with you totally. As I have said before, smashing is just one of many facets of our great game - and one of the least important.
 
As I said, such "speed measuring" is kind of meaningless unless we measure everything in exactly the same situation.

But I don't think it's fair to call the Yonex measurement "flawed". How come measuring speed at 15cm is OK but at 3cm is not? If FHF can have his smash measured at 0.01cm and get 600km/h, do it. It's good for badminton. I don't see any reason why such measurement should be criticized.

roy b said:
Forum member Jerby first mentioned this in the Arc ZS Review thread in the Equipment review section.

FHF' s smash was recorded by looking at the first 15cms or so of shuttle flight after being stuck by the racket.

TBH's smash was recorded by looking at only the first 3 cms of shuttle flight after being struck by the racket - the moment of maximum speed only !!!!!

No wonder TBH's figure was much higher !!!!!! It didn't take into account the significant deceleration affecting the shuttle over the longer distance in the case of FHF .

Oh so sneaky Yonex. Great marketing though.

Unfortunately, most people on this forum are ignoring the simple fact that the system used when measuring the Arc ZS smashes is fundementally flawed and designed to deceive. People just WANT to believe desperately that this racket is the new messiah so they turn a blind eye to the simple facts.
Click to expand...
 
As long as Yonex mention the "3cm", I don't see anything wrong with hyping 421km/h.

The technology of measuring speed is evolving. As I said, in 1997 DJ's smash is measured at 199km/h. Around the same time Simon Archer's smash (I have the impression that it's not in a match, correct me if I am wrong) is measured at 260km/h. Those measurement must be taken over an even longer distance than 15cm. So should we go back to those very old ones? Of course not.

roy b said:
"The slower speed recordings weren't conducted in the same way as the TBH test" - well, hardly surprising since the slower speed recordings were done a long time before the TBH test was ever imagined !!!!!!!

So, just a minute, which came first ? The chicken or the egg ?

Recording the maximum speed (over 3 cms) IS flawed when the norm is to measure over a longer distance. It was simply done the SECOND way to deceive and to sell more rackets.

Yes, tests should be done in a consistant way - so why did Yonex 'move the goal-posts' so to speak, from the known, general way of measurement ??

I don't think I have to answer that one.

As to the relative merits of a hard smash, I agree with you totally. As I have said before, smashing is just one of many facets of our great game - and one of the least important.
Click to expand...
 
ye333 said:
As long as Yonex mention the "3cm", I don't see anything wrong with hyping 421km/h.

The technology of measuring speed is evolving. .
Click to expand...
No. No. No. It is not 'evolving'. That gives an impression of a constant improvement.

The technology of measuring speed is 'changing' - and for marketing purposes only. Why change, if not to deceive ?

Maybe car performance should be measured over 0 to 6 mph rather than 0 to 60 mph ???????

Re. earlier speed records, sorry but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
 
Hmm.....Why can't they do a record in a professional game? If they have all that time making marketing schemes, go invent a Eagle-Eye for badminton! Geez~!
 
on the record tbh might have the "worlds fastest smash", but i think most people on this board will probably say that fhf can hit a lot harder.
i mean, he was recorded at 324km/h during a match!!
 
roy b said:
Recording the maximum speed (over 3 cms) IS flawed when the norm is to measure over a longer distance. It was simply done the SECOND way to deceive and to sell more rackets.

Yes, tests should be done in a consistant way - so why did Yonex 'move the goal-posts' so to speak, from the known, general way of measurement ??
Click to expand...
but the objective is to obtain maximum speed and not where the camera capture the shuttle. Same thing when the police give u a speeding ticket, they don't care if u have tail wind or big tire or your bad speedometer or if u oversped for only 1 microsecond. Yes, the goal post is moved but with better camera and electronics.

If i show u a nice 12MP photo taken by the latest Canon MK## camera and compared to your 3MP photo taken by an older camera, same object, is the 12MP photo flawed?

Sure yonex use it to sell racket but the test result isn't flawed. It's no difference when canon or nikon show off their camera performance
 
Last edited:
Ferrerkiko said:
Then do u know what is jung jae sung smash speed and what racket victor is he using ?
Click to expand...

nt sure for both qns..everytime i watch JJS n LYD play there isnt any speed meter..but from wad i see JJS speed is faster than LYD and mayb is abit below or around the same lvl as FHF
 
1) prior and current speed records are tested with different methods (ie distance difference) they are not exactly the same. So, yes, Yonex market is playing trick.
2) Since many of you have seen the first record on youtube, some of you kids are very smart in math and physics. Why not calculate the speed of first speed record based on the second method?
Then you can tell if the ARC-Z is actually faster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top