View Single Post
Old 05-06-2008, 11:19 PM   #38
jasonchu's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Coast
Posts: 207

Originally Posted by J D View Post
Greg, I noticed you have a disclaimer for Wilmot McCutchen's findings; "Please note that although Wilmot's approach seems to have some validity, and is the only empirical method we currently have for calculating racquet comfort, different people will interact differently with different racquets. So, a racquet that some might think is comfortable might not seem that way to others. Likewise, a racquet that some might find painful to use might be fine for someone else."

You attribute inaccurate results to player differences. This does not explain why frames like the Pure Drive would be in the top third of his Wilmot's list of arm safe frames whiles racquets like the Dunlop 200G 95 are in the bottom third. Obviously, only some seriously flawed theories could produce rankings like this, regardless of individual player differences.

I don't know why Wilmot stopped updating his site. I do know he left the boards here after his results were questioned on many grounds and even he admitted that his theories and work had significant limitations. Since he stopped updating his site at the same time, I assumed he had gone back to his drawing board to try and address these issues in some manner. Admittedly, this was just an assumption.

I understand the desire for quantifiable and absolute evidence regarding arm safety. IMO, this information is eventually going to come from biomedical engineering, not physics, because you are right about differing interactions. Since results will vary from player to player, it is only in understanding this phenomenon that we will ever be able to accurately predict a frame's arm safety for any one individual.

Any purely mathematical theoretical approach, given the current level of knowledge, is going to be seriously flawed, no matter how exhaustive it attempts to be. I have to question recommending this research to anyone since it seems so credible when it really isn't. The well being of people's arms and wallets are on the line. I think anyone would get a much better idea of which frames are more arm friendly simply by reading this board.
can you help with an illustration for your example's calculation? I would think the pure drive as a head heavier balance and lighter overall mass would rank lower than the dunlop 200G which is a higher total mass and more headlight balance. I find your points quite interesting as I always thought McCutchen's general premise was higher mass, more head light = better for arm.
jasonchu is offline   Reply With Quote