Author: tt4me
Subject: Spin Ratings
Posted: 12/04/2013 at 1:51am
No, it would be easy. I could write a specification.
Don't make it difficult. Did you read the pdf I posted a link too?
Each thickness of sponge would need to be tested.
The friction isn't that important. Most rubbers have more than enough friction. It is how the top sheet stretches across the surface of the rubber and snaps back that is important.
You break this up into normal and tangential components.
If you put a ball on a LP the ball always comes to rest on 3 pips. It isn't that hard to compute how much force is required to push the ball up and over to an adjacent 3 pips.
Subject: Spin Ratings
Posted: 12/04/2013 at 1:51am
 cole_ely wrote:It would be tough to standardize spin tests as has been suggested. |
No, it would be easy. I could write a specification.
| There are so many factors involved. |
Don't make it difficult. Did you read the pdf I posted a link too?
| What thickness of sponge? |
Each thickness of sponge would need to be tested.
| It's easy to measure topsheet friction, but how about sink? |
The friction isn't that important. Most rubbers have more than enough friction. It is how the top sheet stretches across the surface of the rubber and snaps back that is important.
| How fast is the ball coming on the test shot and at what angle? All that can have an effect. |
You break this up into normal and tangential components.
| When the ittf tests pips you get a frictional coefficient expressed in mu. Not so with topsheets. |
If you put a ball on a LP the ball always comes to rest on 3 pips. It isn't that hard to compute how much force is required to push the ball up and over to an adjacent 3 pips.