Part 3 - Relative Moment This is part three of the 2003 (yonex) racket measurment focused on moment or the twisting force needed to put the racket into motion from the rest position. It doesn’t reflect perfectly the amount of totally energy to fully swing the racket but the relationship between moment to angular momentum should be reasonably close. Again, the result presented is referenced to the 3U cab20m. Less than 1 mean the racket take less effort to move it than a 3U cab 20m. Relative moment greater than 1 means it would take more effort to move it than a 3U cab20m. I’m sure BF members could draw many conclusion from these data.
I'm sure several of us would still like to know how you measured the stiffness. i.e. what equipment etc. If you clamped the handle in something did you clamp it right at the butt, in the middle, by the cone. Some of us just need to know Also, when you normalise results for different length racquets, are you using the total length of the racquet, or just the length of the shaft, or shaft+head ?
the definition of relative movement is vague. How did you measure this? Since there is no static force against angular movement, the value for every racquet should be about 0. (1/infinity to be exact.)
It's obvious you are too quick trying to be overly precise and critical with my data while you haven't understood the objective of the matter. The (Part 3) data presented relates to relative moment, NOT relative movement. How it was calculated? check kwun post not too far up from here. http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12833&perpage=10&pagenumber=4 Moment does not necessarily has to be associated with movement or motion. For example, it's like Arnold Schwarzenegger twisting your arm behind your back. You feel pain but you ain't moving. Of course Arnold can apply lock-arm force + some additional moment (N-m) and you would be flying somersaut and experiencing lots of angular movement or momentum. (hasta la vista, baby)
agree with cooler. there can be lots of interacting forces / moments in a static system. BRL, time to go dig out those high school textbooks...
Neil, I clamped the handle, not the cone because some shaft flexing does occur inside the cone. I normalized it to each racket total length.
I don't have a ti-10 with me now. Maybe later when someone let me borrow his/her ti-10. Ahhhh, come to think of it now, there is one person near new condition too
need to make a note. next time when i see cooler (whenever that might be...) i should donate him my broken rackets for testing. that'd include my Iso900 SX, SS(CN,SP), Ti-10, Aerotus 77/110... it is a good cause, afterall.
Actually, the best person to donate racquets for testing is Ricky! Our infamous BF member has so many different makes and models.
not sure if Ricky wants to donate for lend a US$300 extremely rare JP/CP racket to cooler to "bend"...
LOL, he should, in the name of science and the betterment of mankind Actually, all tests are were conducted WAY below the yield stress region but still large even to simulate the 'bending' stress from a super hard hitter. IE, all original physical properties are preserved.
JP racket is not rare ... it is around everywhere. For CP rackets, I don't mind to lend some of them for test if you guys come to HK. A side track topic - I heard that AT700 has been arrived ... but I still haven't seen it so far. I'm checking with my sources to see whether they can get one for me ... at reasonable price.
before i show the result, would you like to take a guess? like what do u think your ti-10 stiffnes relative to those rackets i have listed. It would be make good comparision of human subjective feel to objective measurement.
question if mp88 is more head heavy than mp77, then does that mean that IF the weight ratios(head heaviness) are kept and IF mp88/77 are the same weight, then mp 88 will be more powerful in smashing?
