Games using tangible projectile – Projectile – per se; part thereof or accessory therefor – Arrow – dart – or shuttlecock; part thereof
Patent
1997-10-01
1998-12-29
Ricci, John A.
Games using tangible projectile
Projectile, per se; part thereof or accessory therefor
Arrow, dart, or shuttlecock; part thereof
A63B 6718
Patent
active
058533400
DESCRIPTION:
BRIEF SUMMARY
The invention relates to a badminton shuttlecock.
Serious club badminton players use only feather shuttles and all senior tournaments stipulate their use. This is because no design of artificial feather shuttlecock performs in a sufficiently similar way to a feather shuttlecock. All present designs fall down in some or all of the following ways: the rigidity of the skirt; the speed of rotation through the air at different velocities; the initial speed off the racket face; the sound and/or feel of the shuttlecock when hit; the tumble characteristics when a soft `net` shot is played; the appearance of the shuttlecock.
This is not to say that feather shuttlecocks are seen as the ideal. Natural feather shuttlecocks can never be consistent and have to be selected at manufacture and often undergo further selection by players. They can be more affected by the atmospheric conditions than synthetic materials. They seldom last a whole game, and often change their flight characteristics in the process of a rally. Because the feathers can be disturbed players can indulge in "gamesmanship" by tampering with them. Since the flight performance is so inconsistent and assessment is subjective, players are known to reject shuttlecocks as a further form of gamesmanship.
Most innovations in synthetic designs are concerned with mimicking the natural rotation of the feather shuttlecock. They do this with varying degrees of success but normally at the expense of the structural integrity of the skirt. Hence, when they are hit hard, the skirt streamlines and travels faster than a feather shuttlecock. This biases the game too far towards the hard hitting players. The lack of rigidity of existing synthetic designs also causes the skirt to collapse on impact with the racket, such that the nose often leaves the racket face pointing downwards, rather than upwards as with a feather shuttlecock. The rigidity of a feather skirt gives an immediate bounce response and hence a fast tumble speed.
There has been little apparent attempt to emulate the acoustic qualities of feathers. This is more important than generally realised or admitted to by players. The solid impact noise of a feather shuttlecock is rewarding to players and gives important feedback as to where it has been struck on the racket and the technique of the hitting action. This is partly due to the substance of the feather and partly due to the radial displacement of each feather, and the rigidity given by the feather stem.
Most synthetic shuttlecock designs use a one piece injection moulded skirt. The hollow construction of a natural feather stem gives a very high strength to weight ratio, which cannot be achieved with a solid section as in the injection moulded designs which exist. Two recorded designs attempt to overcome this problem with the use of two components to the skirt. Patent application GB 2263412A shows a skeletal rib structure supporting a film skirt. The main purpose of this is to support helical fins to increase the spin speed of the shuttlecock. There is no enhanced integrity with this type of construction and the rib and/or film thickness would have to be minimised (in order to compare with the weight of a feather skirt) to such a degree that the skirt would collapse on impact and at high speeds. Patent GB 1542497 shows a shuttlecock having a skirt formed by a double skin pleated film structure. However, the regular pleated structure would not induce any flight spin which is essential to the flight characteristics of a shuttlecock and the general performance would be unacceptable. When in contact with the strings of a racket, the rigid peaks of this structure would give a very different response to a feather shuttlecock. Very thin material would be necessary to keep the weight within specification which would not afford a practicable production process. The same is true of UK patent application GB 2283687A which shows a shuttlecock having a skirt formed by a corrugated sheet and a reinforcing band.
Even if the nose of the shuttlecock is struck first, the skirt
REFERENCES:
patent: 2538348 (1951-01-01), Amphlett
patent: 2626806 (1953-01-01), Carlton
patent: 2830817 (1958-04-01), Schoberl
patent: 2860879 (1958-11-01), Carlton
patent: 3831943 (1974-08-01), Popplewell
LandOfFree
Shuttlecocks does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Shuttlecocks, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Shuttlecocks will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-1418542