confused w/ the term "MTM"

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by mr_fro2000, Sep 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    You know the answer to that. New technology aided these changes and hastened them.
     
  2. connico

    connico Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    277
    [​IMG]

    Well done OP, trolled the lot of them.
     
  3. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    5263:

    You should listen to Suresh or read my post.
     
  4. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I haven't seen what an isolated racquet would look like in either case, but, I would think the difference would be very obvious, if not drastic. That's the whole point isn't it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  5. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    What part is not correct? I think the "modernness" of a stroke is a matter of degree. No one was hitting forehands quite like like Federer, Nadal or Djokovic with wood and gut. As I mentioned, some hit with modern technique, but, not with the extreme grips, rotation and swing paths that these players hit with today. Maybe Vilas was the closest.
     
  6. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    Limp,

    Right, matter of degree. Occasional elements versus normative when we look at the history. And I am sure Novak knows what he is talking about. His forehand would have looked very different if he had to play with wood.
     
  7. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Limp, we have gone over this several times and reached agreement to an extent.
    This is a thread asking about MTM, and the MTM modern Strokes were developed
    in the late 60's and in use by early 70's with wood rackets; modeled
    and based on strokes with wood rackets
    well before poly, and well before
    MTM, as MTM was modeled on previous great strokes. Maybe your comment
    is true to a large degree based on some general sense of modern, but the modern of MTM
    in the OP was well before both modern rackets and string.

    We agree that the strengths of modern played well with the new tools, but who
    can say which was more important. A case could be made that the modern strokes were
    key to the widespread use of the tools since power of the new
    tools would have been harder to control without having the modern strokes
    out there to take advantage of their qualities. I'm not making a case either way,
    as to me it is silly to speculate on the chicken or the egg.
    You are entitled to your opinion of course, but 1000% used here is absurd,
    especially given we have the fact that Oscars instruction came earlier than
    the new tools.

    Interesting that all 3 players you cite have very different looking Fhs to most,
    but can all be tied together by fundamentals of MTM instruction that predates
    all 3 of them. Each of them meets the basics of the MTM Fh even though that
    instruction was developed well before all of them hit the tour. Much different
    than someone like JY reviewing tape for years after they are great to bring any
    relevant point to bear.
     
  8. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Yes, to a matter of degree that is far less than 1000, and more like 900+%
    away.
    Was 1000%, but now it's normative and occasional elements.:)

    I'm not sure Novak has any idea how he would fare if he and all the others were
    using wood now. Odd you would take his gracious type comment, showing respect
    for the history of the game to mean something of actual substance related to
    how he would fare. Another example of the type of evidence you accept for your
    theories. I would gladly bet that he would still be able to be at the
    very highest levels of the game if all were using wood rackets, but would give
    Fed an edge. Even that is complete and pure speculation,
     
  9. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    If you mean made it more obvious that the modern strokes were easier to learn
    and use, yes. I agree that the new tools greatly sped up the change that was already
    happening and maybe even added a level of amplitude as well; but that is not
    close to what was stated imo.
     
  10. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    From my view, there is no chicken and egg debate. A degree of the modern technique being used today was being used by many players (some more than others), before modern racquets were developed. By degree, I mean the amount and speed of upper body rotation, the amount of arm supination/pronation, the severity of the ascending swing path, the racquet speed, the grip, etc. But, the technique being used in 1970, which incorporated these elements, continued to evolve to the degree they are being used today as the racquets got bigger, lighter and more rigid, and the strings able to impart more spin. I would think that Oscar's MTM approach evolved with the equipment. That only make sense. The severity of today's technique just wasn't practical with wood racquets.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  11. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    I always appreciate you non-biased view (with respect to MTM) and
    You know we generally agree on most things here and even with JY most of the
    time when he's not twisting things to take a poke a Oscar.

    I agree that the strokes evolve and often gain amplitude. I agree that is likely to
    continue as well, but that is not the same as what was posted earlier.

    Quote-"two fundamental differences between the two styles of hitting.
    Both of these differences are made possible by the size of modern tennis racquets"
    If the rackets made it possible, then it was not possible before. I felt I knew what
    you meant, and was only making a comment on this due to the 1000% claim
    that was so out of place here.

    What we see today still works off the fundamentals that MTM
    published in the late 80s, just like MJ built on the basics learned with Dean
    Smith. That's what great players do...they build on solid basics and take them
    further. I think that is what you share on here each day. Now I don't know
    where Dean learned those basics just like I don't know where Fed's coach learned
    modern ones, but that is largely irrelevant to this discussion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  12. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    5263:

    Yes if I disagree with Oscar I am twisting that on top of my own values to "take a poke" at Oscar. That's just crap.

    Anyone who disagrees with him is clearly motivated by factors other than truth. Again, crap.

    It must be sad and lonely here for you now without the leader and his yap yaps.
     
  13. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    No, sorry, but nice try. I can't count the times I've caught you and corrected
    the mis-info you put out about MTM. Either you were twisting it or just mis-
    informed. I gave you the benefit of knowing your subject.
    By the way, I didn't say anyone, but that is just you twisting again isn't it. lol
    Thanks for giving me a quick example of how you operate.

    About the lonely part...maybe you need to share more info with me, as I have
    no idea what you are referencing there.
    But I'll be glad to share with you the many wonderful things happening in my
    life right now if you are so interested. What email would you like me to use?
    :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  14. bhupaes

    bhupaes Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    957
    Indeed, that is the point. So much so that if I were to prioritize the characteristics of modern tennis going from the most important to the least, I would say that the path of the racquet relative to the ball is the primary distinguishing feature of modern tennis. The next prominent feature is an enormously improved awareness, and use, of body kinetics in stroke making. I would put equipment at the bottom of the heap from the point of view of defining modern tennis, but it is significant in that the resulting increase in speed and spin has fostered new tactics and forced players to achieve ungodly fitness levels.
     
  15. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with Limp. Why don't you just butt out since you can do nothing but suck up to the leader. You have nothing to contribute that is substantial, either on your own part or as part of the cult.

    When you say you have caught me in lies about Oscar that is genius. A basic liar's premise.

    And please don't email ever. I have absolutely zero interest in what may be happening to you. Wait--unless the new is you have decided to stop posting permanently like the other yap yaps--email me that and I will send you a present.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  16. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    I guess suck up is right there on your mind as you try to work that on limpin.
    He's a pretty sharp guy and likely will see right thru your efforts though:)
    He values his position as unbiased and realizes the new tack taken now that
    efforts to paint him as a MTM person have rightly failed.
    It will be interesting to see if you can get him to go for your strawmen:)
    Probably have to try your usual of taking you efforts to email, but I bet he is
    on to your game, lol.
    good luck!
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  17. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    Chuck do us all a favor and just shut up. You alone are the master that puts the suck in suck up.
     
  18. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Now Johnny boy, is that anyway to act?:)
    Are we Cross?
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  19. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    I repeat. You have zero credability. Just go back to crashing navy jets.
     
  20. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    More twisting there, but lets just give it a rest, oK? :)
     
  21. JohnYandell

    JohnYandell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,677
    Yes. Shut up and that will be fine.
     
  22. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,941
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    and we were doing so well... delete thread...
     
  23. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,411
    FrisbeeFool,

    i haven´t found anything on footwork from mtm, but contrary to you i´m not mad at them for it.
    maybe i haven´t looked closely enough or in the wrong places or should just buy some of their dvds:)
    with my advanced players i´m obviously doing movement drills
    lots of excellent info available on the internet like the one you mentioned.
    with a lot of seasoned players who come to me hoping to improve their game it´s more a process of unlearning bad habits.
    i find that in the past, too much emphasis has been put on teaching ´proper´footwork to beginners, thereby confusing them. some people move so awkward on a tennis court, like they would never do on a soccer field, for example.
     
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    These are not scientific terms to be "defined." It is well commented on by many pros (verified ones LOL) who have become commentators that larger heads with more sweetspot area, poly strings, and new lighter materials have revolutionized the game. There is no point is pretending that it did not happen because Laver could hit topspin in 1965. In fact, in his book, Oscar explains the concept of a "modern sweetspot" which was almost as big as the head itself. Now, you may laugh at that claim and rightfully so (we all did), but the point is he explained his "hitting on the lower half" idea using the expanded sweetspot (and you explained it again properly LOL). So it is clear that you have not understood his teachings regarding equipment.
     
  25. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,537
    Now boys this has really gotten ugly. Lift it up a notch OK.
     
  26. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    What a rip off! My Tennis Channel disappeared last night. Turns out it has been moved to a higher package on ATT Uverse. Since I cannot live without the channel, I agreed to pay $15 more a month and get a bunch of more channels which I will never watch.

    These guys kill any bill in Congress which mandates that viewers choose their channels and pay per channel.
     
  27. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    I agree this is a better way to state it and agree this make a lot of sense.
     
  28. bhupaes

    bhupaes Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    957
    I recognize it is beyond my expressive powers to get my point across to you in this forum, so I won't even try. Sorry! On the plus side, I believe I just saved everyone a barrage of redundant verbiage... :)
     
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I don't agree. The equipment is what has allowed the game to evolve as far as it has. The degree of departure from traditional strokes to the modern strokes we see today would not be a practical way to hit the ball with wood racquets. Did you know that the sweet spot on a traditional wood racquet is barely the size of a tennis ball?

    Laver was probably the hardest hitter, with fastest racquet speed, the biggest supination/pronation, the steepest ascent, and the heaviest topspin in the history of tennis with a wood racquet. But, Laver's stroke wasn't half of what today's players are doing in those respects. It couldn't be, even with Laver's amazing talent and freakishly oversized left arm. You just can't swing at the ball like that, with such a steep swing path, with a heavy wood racquet, and consistently hit the tennis ball size sweet spot, much less generate the racquet speed of todays game.
     
  30. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    You need to get it across to Oscar, not me, because he was the one who pointed out the role of the modern sweetspot in current frames and its role in topspin. It is OK if you don't agree with him and think that it is easy to hit with topspin with a 65 sq inch frame. Actually, I was able to do it too, but probably not at the pro level.
     
  31. bhupaes

    bhupaes Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    957
    Agreed, absolutely! Equipment has influenced the evolution of the modern game. But my point is, when you are trying to define what the modern game is, where would you fit in equipment? Let's say you watch a Laver/Rosewall game and a Federer/Nadal game and are asked to point out what the differences are. Where would equipment come in, in your description? One can play modern tennis with older equipment, and one can play classical tennis with new equipment. That's why I believe that equipment is not a defining characteristic of modern tennis, although it is a primary enabler. Maybe I am just quibbling and we are all actually in agreement... :)
     
  32. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    Chris Evert has said that most of the attention in her time went into making solid contact with a tiny sweetspot leaving little room for anything else. I guess Bhupaes knows more than her though I personally will go with what real pros say.
     
  33. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,779
    Your premise is wrong, that is the problem.

    "One" is too vague. Surely one person like Laver can hit with a lot of topspin. But it is extremely difficult for most people, even pros, to play the modern game with old equipment. As has been pointed out before, Djokovic has confirmed it. Chris Evert said that a long time ago. JMac has said it a hundred times. Wayne Bryan tried to prevent his sons from playing a wood expo before the USO out of fear of injury.

    Read the expert Rod Cross here and learn the facts before arguing:

    http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/01/the_inch_that_changed_tennis_f.html
     
  34. treblings

    treblings Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,411
    i love that article by rod cross:)
    rosewall and hoad barely breaking a sweat.
    players grunting and screaming and reaching for their towel because of the demands of the modern game.
    do post that in the former pro forum
     
  35. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    Here is very good analysis of the typical Nadal FH racquet path http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...is/Speed-and-Spin-Nadals-Lethal-Forehand.html.

    The picture 1, clearly demonstrates that around impact, frames from #5 to #7, there is no “special” horizontal across motion at all. It occurs after impact, frame #9.

    [​IMG]

    The picture 2 shows that during contact racquet’s path is almost straight forward. IMO, it must be this way if we want to hit powerful FH.

    There also is no compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration.

    So far I see zero correlation between Wegner recommendations and real professional game. That’s why virtually nobody can comprehend MTM. We cannot see what is not there.:confused:
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  36. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Are you serious?? That is what you see when you look at that?
    Pic 2 bears little resemblance to pic one to start with.

    You really can't see how the arc starts at #6 and is very heavy by #7 on to 8?
    Wow. That explains a lot about your observations.
    Not sure what a "special horizontal across motion" is?
    But it is clearly across.
    Doesn't the greater gap between #s indicate more speed?
    And it's only from 2D perspective right?
    Are you the one who did that pic 2? which seems to have come from an
    entirely different observation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  37. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    Why have you never read messages from other parties carefully? The picture 2 has come from The New York Times video, see please post 135.
    I didn’t insert all frames in picture 1 in order to demonstrate the ball’s path clearly. So, you cannot evaluate speed and acceleration of the racquet.

    About arm speed and acceleration see my old post.

    I analyzed Federer inside out hard FH on the APAS System http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLmCqGIotM

    There are data about his arm speed and acceleration around the wrist during forward swing.

    [​IMG]
    Figure 1. Speed and acceleration of the arm

    The picture demonstrates that Federer is able to increase acceleration/force of the arm from frame #1 to #9. The magnitude of the force declined after frame #9. Around impact, frame #24, acceleration decreased more than 70%.

    So, he is not able to accelerate the arm significantly near impact. But, this is very hard FH and without doubt he is trying to produce maximum acceleration/force.

    Question: What is wrong with Federer?

    There is figure from http://sanderroosendaal.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/muscle-power-vs-contraction-speed/

    [​IMG]
    Figure 2. Muscle force versus muscle contraction speed

    Figure 2 shows the muscle force versus muscle contraction speed. It’s a very important graph because it marks where classical mechanics stops and exercise physiology starts. Note that the graph is idealized, with no absolute values on the axis. Each athlete will have a slightly different graph, which will probably also change as a result of training.

    This fundamental property of muscle has numerous biomechanical consequences, including limiting racquet speed and force around impact.

    So, there's nothing wrong with Federer. It's just a biomechanical law that he must unquestioningly obey!:)

    If you don’t like my analyses, please reveal your own, enough already useless words without any proof. :evil:
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  38. nabrug

    nabrug Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Toly,

    Why do you want to convince 5263 (and other amatures)? He is a very part time teacher. I am a full time professional who can hit almost every pro stroke. All your observations about the serves and ball trajectories are correct. The MTM observations (up, across and ?) are so naive. Maybe that happens but is so general that you can maybe help an intermediate player. It is not describing the far more complex arm and racket action of the pro's. I am making models of these actions. It is as naive as the Smart Targets System which is already a system and what you can buy next year.

    I like your thoughts and studying. Please continue. Answer people like 5263 once and than let them think what they want to think.
     
  39. Off The Wall

    Off The Wall Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    492
    IMO, given the target path (DTL) and his arm extension, there cannot be a lot of horizontal motion, but some will be there because of his wrist movement. His big controlling spin is TS, and lots of it.
     
  40. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Maybe?
    You mean a super pro of inner systems like you who can hit nearly every shot
    isn't sure or doesn't know?
    You have been talking inner characteristics for over 5 yrs now and I've never
    seen anyone who had a clue what you are saying, despite numerous request
    for you explanations by full time coaches, so really can't wait to hear of your
    advanced models, lol.:)
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  41. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Ok, first, sorry I didn't find that Pic 2 that was on the screen for a couple of secs
    during that vid, but to my defense, it was mostly blocked on my screen
    by a big pause symbol for some reason.
    On the bright side, that symbol was helpful once I located that frame. It was
    very useful to show how incredibly inaccurate that stroke path illustration was.
    Watching the few secs prior where it had the swing, I could use the pause for
    reference to the path and then see how way off the pic two lines were drawn in.
    Its not even close. It's like they used something totally different, like say
    a traditional perspective on extending the swing path down the target line.
    So maybe you also need to look at things more carefully and see there is the
    evidence (not Proof of course) you request.

    As to accel, why do you bring it up that you don't see it there, then come back
    and say it is not set up to use for that purpose? Maybe that is why you don't
    see it?
     
  42. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    I’m retired engineer and have too much free time. But, my brain cannot quit working. So, to keep it busy and happy I decided to analyze tennis strokes from engineer point of view. This is really fun for me. :)
     
  43. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Concerning the bolded part, I suppose you could, but, it wouldn't be optimal. In other words, I think Don Budge would play a higher level of tennis with his racquet than Djokovic would, and vice versa.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  44. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    About approximation:
    Here is picture that combines the racquet path and its approximation from New York Times. It seems they did very good job.

    [​IMG]

    If you know any better approximation algorithm, just let me know. However, I must warn you that no one has yet invented a perfect approximation.:confused:
    About acceleration:
    Did you read post 137?:shock:
     
  45. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,987
    Location:
    San Diego
    Wouldn't be difficult to determine rhs from a graphic like that because that kind of pic only shows the horizontal movement? What about the low to high movement and the wrist flex and pronation which all contribute to the speed of the face. You can't really see the wrist and forearm movement contributions in that pic only horizontal movement of the entire racquet. no?

    So even if the arm itself isn't accelerating at contact the racquet head should be because of the above movements. You can't see wrist and forearm movements in that pic but we all know it's there and with nadal he uses a lot.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  46. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    acceleration... you brought it up in 135 I think with this..."There also is no
    compact swing and sudden, 3” before impact, racquet acceleration."

    Then you come back in #137 and say, "So, you cannot evaluate speed and
    acceleration of the racquet."

    So first you claim that sudden accel is not there
    (never mind MTM does not claim sudden accel),
    then come back and say it cannot be evaluated.
    I'm just asking, which way you want it?? Are you going to claim it's not there
    or claim it cannot be evaluated from the info??

    And NO, that is a very poor job with the illustration and shows several inches,
    if done to scale, of straight forward swing where there is none and has the
    last part of the straight section up at the frame instead of the middle where
    it started and was tracking! Those are the critical inches
    where the face is coming across. The small straight section would be the
    lead in and rt before contact the face is coming across at greater than the
    angle this illustration has at the end of it's straight segment. Don't want to be
    mean, but surely you were not that sloppy with your work as an engineer, right?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  47. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,380
    in my view toly's latest graphic from NYT is pretty accurate depiction of how I imagine Nadal's swing path would be. it's from the top view so the vertical path can't be seen but it's surprising how little pulling across there is on that graphic. don't want to knock MTM, just saying. 5263 your latest comment sounds pretty harsh kinda unbecoming.
     
  48. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    Hey, I will apologize. But, must say I'm quite astounded. Just shows how 2 folks
    can look at the same thing, but see it different. I don't know what you expected
    to see but the swing is just what I knew it would be and is critically different
    from the pic#2. I'm not surprised some won't get the importance of it, but
    for you and an engineer...I'm sort of floored.
    But I do apologize if I've been unbecoming and don't really intend to be harsh so
    much as to drive an important point.
    And thanks for letting me hear that in a direct and positive way. I'll work on it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  49. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,447
    wish I had somewhere to send my version of that pic with the proper line
    drawn for the path, so to show what a huge difference it makes. tinypic
    was not working for me.

    Don't you see how the fat yellow line is inside the contact point at contact,
    (instead of over the contact area)
    then well outside the contact point in the next ref pt?
    (again, instead of over the contact area)
    Proper line should be more than 30 degr off of the target line.
    What did you expect?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  50. connico

    connico Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    277
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page