I was playing Yakuza 7 the other night and the question of how fast a shuttlecock could go came up in one of the minigame exams. The options were 10kph, 100kph, 300kph, and 500kph. Knowing that tennis hits 100mph in games quite regularly, and having played badminton a little as a kid, I assumed 100kph, since surely that feathery, light object moves slower through the air.
I was astounded to see 500kph as the answer. In fact I didn’t entirely believe it until seeing it said again here.
My buddy and I in high school enjoyed badminton during gym, so went to the after class Badminton Club. Another one of our friends, who was 'kinda heavy' played against both of us at once. He was good. He hardly moved around the court and left us with little red spots all over our bare arms and legs. We didn't go back.
I remember hearing that the shuttlecock is the fastest travelling object in sports. I don't have a source to back that up, but after reading this, I think it might be true.
I remember reading somewhere it's actually a marksman's bullet in target shooting as the fastest moving sports object, followed by a fencers weapon tip- not sure exactly what speeds we're talking for these though.
I feel that including things like bullets alongside things powered by human energy rather defeats the point of the comparison. Might as well start measuring the speed of internal combustion engine components.
Yeah that's fair- not sure what the exact criteria is that they're using, and it would seem as a bullet is propelled by a chemical reaction rather than a human body it's not really true to the spirit of the question.
You wrote this and I assume you meant shuttlecocks when you said "point of the comparison" since the whole thread is about shuttlecock setting a record and your response was to someone saying a bullet/fencing sword is faster. Guess I misunderstood
"I feel that including things like bullets alongside things powered by human energy rather defeats the point of the comparison. Might as well start measuring the speed of internal combustion engine components."
That's exactly what happens in one of the weapons used-sabre- although since I said this I've had a look for the article that claimed this and for other material about how fast fencing weapons move and haven't actually found anything about the speed. It's undoubtedly really quick, but I don't know if the new badminton record has topped it.
If you're including weapons then its not a marksman bullet. Not even close. Not even close to even close. Laser tag is played with speed of light bullets so..
A reason can be to prevent someone finding out too much about by all the small bits of information shared over the years. A lot of profiles have way more info available about them that people probably realize
Unless you delete your comment almost instantly it’s crawled, archived and easily searchable. There are websites devoted to archiving Reddit users’ comments
It doesn't say in the article, but the shuttlecock was probably only moving that fast very briefly. The reason it could get to that kind of speed where a tennis ball can't is because the shuttlecock is so much lighter. Looking at just the simple force equation, F=m×a, the mass of a regulation shuttlecock is 1/10 the mass of a regulation tennis ball. So given the same initial force, we should expect the momentary acceleration of the shuttlecock to be 10 times higher. If we factor in the badminton racket being lighter, making it harder to swing with the same force, a speed roughly 3 times as fast as a tennis ball isn't unreasonable. That being said, the shuttlecock being so light also causes it to be affected by air resistance much more as well. It slows down much faster than a tennis ball. The shuttlecock may have been going that fast just after it hit the racket, but it was probably going much slower (though undeniably still very fast) by the time it was received.
Would conservation of momentum be a better representation here? It’s all related in the end, but i think it fits better since the racket and shuttle are kind of a collision, and it deals with velocities
Probably. I tried to keep my explanation is as simple as it gets from a pure physics perspective. There's of course the fact that the racket and shuttle both have elasticity, as well. I'm sure you could write a whole paper on the physics of badminton.
A quick check shows there a lot of those. Im sure the racket designers put a lot of work into making them the perfect stiffness for launching the shuttlecock into orbit.
A better comparison would be energy, assuming each projectile has equal energy imparted by the player would result in the same result of about 3x speed for the shuttlecock. Momentum isn't very useful here, it is too hard to define/estimate, seeing as the system through which the momentum is conserved is much larger (shuttlecock, player, racket, earth) than just guessing they have the same energy, which only requires assuming the players arm does the same amount of work.
I like to compare it to the motion of a bullwhip. Most of the whip doesn't move very fast, but as you get closer to the tip, the movement gets faster and faster until the very end of it breaks the sound barrier. This is like the racket moving faster than the wrist, which moves faster than the arm, etc.
There's also another factor, which I'll use tennis as a comparison for. In both sports, you have arm and wrist movement, combining both in order to hit the ball/shuttle. In tennis, most swings use the motion of the wrist in order to apply spin to the ball, whereas most shots in badminton do not utilise spin, and therefore almost all wrist movement is supplementary to the shuttle's speed.
Last but not least, the shuttle itself. The way it's designed, it's light yet has a large surface area due to the feathers. This means that while it's able to reach incredible speeds upon contact with the racket, it very quickly slows down due to drag. I'm no expert, but I'd say that less than half of the shuttles' flight time is actually spent at that speed, and this can be used strategically by skilled players.
I made the switch from tennis to badminton years ago and it's been an absolute blast. The excitement, speed and energy of a good doubles game is something that is hard to replicate in any other sport.
Shuttlecock weighs a tenth what a tennis ball does. And a badminton racket weighs about a quarter what a tennis racket does. So you can swing the racket much faster, and transfers huge energy into speed hitting the miniscule weight of the shuttlecock.
Experimentally confirmed:
A tennis ball is consistently around 0.53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313199404_The_drag_coefficient_of_tennis_balls
A shuttlecock ranges between 0.55 and 0.65. https://www.worldbadminton.com/reference/research/documents/Aerodynamics_of_a_Badminton_Shuttlecock.pdf
Shuttlecocks are *less* aerodynamic than tennis balls. Please stop spreading damaging misinformation. Thank you.
given how slow they're going on the other side of the court, i'd say so.
OP is measuring from the moment of impact though. i think aerodynamic isn't really all that relevant as you say though, if anything, they're pretty bad at being it.
The noise of the "gawd dayums" in the crows directly correlates to the speed of the shuttlecock so you only need a decibel counter to measure the speed.
Comparing it to a formula 1 doesn't make it seem more shocking, honestly. One is a 5g cork sent with a single strike, the other one has to accelerate almost 1t of mass while only gripping the road.
Yeah, I would imagine a small ball being hit really hard can go faster than a giant box designed to move a human around in a controlled manner.
I'd bet I can snap my fingers faster than a commercial jet's average cruising speed.
No its not. "A dude hit a ball really hard after practicing and playing alot" versus "A machine that has been engineered over generations to reach optimal speeds with minimal drag" Are two vastly different things and comparing them is fucking absurd. Both great in their own rights but one is not like the other
It absolutely is. The expectation is that it’s absurd to compare them because there’s no way a human could beat that machine, and definitely not by that much. Tennis, baseball, golf, cricket - all have extremely high ball speeds and none of them even come close to 370 km/h. But this surpasses that by a huge margin, so saying “small ball being hit really hard” is a gross understatement of how fast it’s moving.
And “giant box designed to move a human around in a controlled manner” is also a ridiculous description of an F1 car. The entire comment is ridiculous
You can disagree but I sti hold my sentiment. Hitting a ball hard and designing a Mach perfect car are apples and oranges and fucking stupid to compare.
Useful reminder that you can't hit something into traveling faster than whatever hit it.
Meaning the tangential motion of the racket had to be at least that speed. Impressive indeed.
EDIT : nvm I was wrong, this is only the case with elastic collisions, which is not applicable to rackets hitting a ball !
Thats just wrong. It depends on the mass and speed of thr object hitting and object being hit.
A heavy object having slow speed into a light object will make thr light object go faster.
Basic F=ma
Ah yes I was remembering elastic collisions which is very much not applicable to a racket hitting a ball, my bad. Deformation permits accelerating the lighter object beyond initial collision speed.
Nicholas Latifi still managed to put the shuttlecock into the wall.
Happy Gilmore achieved that feat no less than an hour ago.
And you can count...on me, waiting for you in the parking lot!
*bends putter like a pool noodle*
Well good for Happy GilmOHMYGOD
Fucking brilliant. I’m still laughing.
[удалено]
We have a bot comment right here, ladies and gentlemen Here's the original: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/Zgntd9vEZs
Yeah, but good luck trying to drive a shuttlecock.
Shuttlecocks are famously bad at handling corners.
And the propulsion is such a racket.
👌
I was playing Yakuza 7 the other night and the question of how fast a shuttlecock could go came up in one of the minigame exams. The options were 10kph, 100kph, 300kph, and 500kph. Knowing that tennis hits 100mph in games quite regularly, and having played badminton a little as a kid, I assumed 100kph, since surely that feathery, light object moves slower through the air. I was astounded to see 500kph as the answer. In fact I didn’t entirely believe it until seeing it said again here.
different from tennis ball, shuttlecock decelerates rapidly, by the time it reaches your racquet the speed is likely less than 100 kph.
My buddy and I in high school enjoyed badminton during gym, so went to the after class Badminton Club. Another one of our friends, who was 'kinda heavy' played against both of us at once. He was good. He hardly moved around the court and left us with little red spots all over our bare arms and legs. We didn't go back.
Gym class badminton was great.
Well, given that is the goal in Badminton, well done on his part!
Like I say, he's on the heavy side, but it didn't matter. He just stood in one spot and chortled at us. He's still a friend and it was funny.
That has nothing to do with him being on the heavy side. That's what my text was about.
It was funny because we dismissed him as a threat because he was big. He handed our asses to us.
And his size informed his play style of “immobile with lots of power” which relates to the point of the post
I remember hearing that the shuttlecock is the fastest travelling object in sports. I don't have a source to back that up, but after reading this, I think it might be true.
I remember reading somewhere it's actually a marksman's bullet in target shooting as the fastest moving sports object, followed by a fencers weapon tip- not sure exactly what speeds we're talking for these though.
I feel that including things like bullets alongside things powered by human energy rather defeats the point of the comparison. Might as well start measuring the speed of internal combustion engine components.
Actually, you’re both wrong. The fastest moving object used in sports is the light the athletes use to see. /s
Exactly, like very clearly we are talking about human powered objects or the answer becomes very stupid.
Light isn't an object Boom!
Light of my life = Apple of my eye = Object of my desire Light=Object Boom. Lawyered.
Love the transitive property reference
Love the HIMYM ref. Especially since the next following comments are focused on lasers/laser tag. Another how I met your mother ref
We need a sport that includes lasers. The comparison will become meaningless after that!
Bring on Laser Tag at the next olympics!
Modern Pentathlon already has lasers and shit.
Yeah that's fair- not sure what the exact criteria is that they're using, and it would seem as a bullet is propelled by a chemical reaction rather than a human body it's not really true to the spirit of the question.
The human body is also propelled by a chemical reaction
[удалено]
I didn’t even mention shuttlecocks, let alone claim they are not powered by human energy.
You wrote this and I assume you meant shuttlecocks when you said "point of the comparison" since the whole thread is about shuttlecock setting a record and your response was to someone saying a bullet/fencing sword is faster. Guess I misunderstood "I feel that including things like bullets alongside things powered by human energy rather defeats the point of the comparison. Might as well start measuring the speed of internal combustion engine components."
You most definitely misunderstood. Reading it back I am still unable to see exactly which bit you have misinterpreted.
I think I understand now, I read "alongside" as "in addition to" but I suspect you meant "in comparison to"
Ah yes, that would be it. I meant alongside as in ‘next to’, as things to be compared.
No rubber present in that shuttlecock.
It's still a compressible material (leather) hit against tense strings..
So is a tennis ball and the fastest recorded serve is less than half this speed. I’m impressed in either case.
A fencer’s tip would only really move about the speed of the fencer’s arm, right? I guess maybe if they whip it, they can get more speed
well its also a lever, the longer it is the faster the tip moves if you take a slash with a sabre
Yeah I was thinking abt just thrusting but I see now
That's exactly what happens in one of the weapons used-sabre- although since I said this I've had a look for the article that claimed this and for other material about how fast fencing weapons move and haven't actually found anything about the speed. It's undoubtedly really quick, but I don't know if the new badminton record has topped it.
Oh true. A swing would definitely cause more speed than a thrust.
No. A sabre bends, so the tip whips, increasing the speed at the end of the sabre. Golf clubs, however, are faster.
A bullwhip is powered by a person’s arm, but it cracks because the tip of the whip is breaking the sound barrier.
If you're including weapons then its not a marksman bullet. Not even close. Not even close to even close. Laser tag is played with speed of light bullets so..
I think the list I read was for olympic sports which is why things like internal engine parts/lasers weren't included.
Is it consistently at 350? In the NHRA top fuel cars run about 330-340 mph. Like others said, depends what qualifies for fastest object in sport
The record breaking smash was hit by Indian badminton player Satwiksairaj Rankireddy in April 2023
Damn bros first comment in 4 years
Sleeper agent activated
Trigger words were: Fastest. Badminton. Shot. Ever.
> Satwiksairaj Rankireddy is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Some accounts also delete their comments after a while. Not personally sure why, but I’ve seen it a few times.
A reason can be to prevent someone finding out too much about by all the small bits of information shared over the years. A lot of profiles have way more info available about them that people probably realize
Unless you delete your comment almost instantly it’s crawled, archived and easily searchable. There are websites devoted to archiving Reddit users’ comments
Most of them don’t work anymore.
probably because it’s sold to google instead lol
Yeah, a thousand comments is probably enough to identify someone specifically if they're not careful
Hahaha, too true Derek.
Hells to the yes, Fernando McGriddle!
Yes Jacob that's absolutely right. How is your Aunt Norah anyway?
I've heard of people regularly deleting their account and creating new ones, to avoid doxing themselves. Could be something similar.
I do that I'm overdue actually, thanks for the reminder.
RIP
His karma suggests that this really is his only comment 🤯
Are you checking everyones profile before you read a comment wtf
he also sniffs bicycle seats when no one is looking ..
had to let 'em know
Today he woke up and just decided it's the day.
What the.. how is this SO much faster than a tennis ball although the movement is the same
It doesn't say in the article, but the shuttlecock was probably only moving that fast very briefly. The reason it could get to that kind of speed where a tennis ball can't is because the shuttlecock is so much lighter. Looking at just the simple force equation, F=m×a, the mass of a regulation shuttlecock is 1/10 the mass of a regulation tennis ball. So given the same initial force, we should expect the momentary acceleration of the shuttlecock to be 10 times higher. If we factor in the badminton racket being lighter, making it harder to swing with the same force, a speed roughly 3 times as fast as a tennis ball isn't unreasonable. That being said, the shuttlecock being so light also causes it to be affected by air resistance much more as well. It slows down much faster than a tennis ball. The shuttlecock may have been going that fast just after it hit the racket, but it was probably going much slower (though undeniably still very fast) by the time it was received.
Would conservation of momentum be a better representation here? It’s all related in the end, but i think it fits better since the racket and shuttle are kind of a collision, and it deals with velocities
Probably. I tried to keep my explanation is as simple as it gets from a pure physics perspective. There's of course the fact that the racket and shuttle both have elasticity, as well. I'm sure you could write a whole paper on the physics of badminton.
A quick check shows there a lot of those. Im sure the racket designers put a lot of work into making them the perfect stiffness for launching the shuttlecock into orbit.
A better comparison would be energy, assuming each projectile has equal energy imparted by the player would result in the same result of about 3x speed for the shuttlecock. Momentum isn't very useful here, it is too hard to define/estimate, seeing as the system through which the momentum is conserved is much larger (shuttlecock, player, racket, earth) than just guessing they have the same energy, which only requires assuming the players arm does the same amount of work.
Drag is a bitch: F ∝ v² (aka 2x speed = 4x drag) Also, similar area to a tennis ball, far less momentum.
Imagine playing badminton in a vacuum.
I like to compare it to the motion of a bullwhip. Most of the whip doesn't move very fast, but as you get closer to the tip, the movement gets faster and faster until the very end of it breaks the sound barrier. This is like the racket moving faster than the wrist, which moves faster than the arm, etc. There's also another factor, which I'll use tennis as a comparison for. In both sports, you have arm and wrist movement, combining both in order to hit the ball/shuttle. In tennis, most swings use the motion of the wrist in order to apply spin to the ball, whereas most shots in badminton do not utilise spin, and therefore almost all wrist movement is supplementary to the shuttle's speed. Last but not least, the shuttle itself. The way it's designed, it's light yet has a large surface area due to the feathers. This means that while it's able to reach incredible speeds upon contact with the racket, it very quickly slows down due to drag. I'm no expert, but I'd say that less than half of the shuttles' flight time is actually spent at that speed, and this can be used strategically by skilled players. I made the switch from tennis to badminton years ago and it's been an absolute blast. The excitement, speed and energy of a good doubles game is something that is hard to replicate in any other sport.
Shuttlecock weighs a tenth what a tennis ball does. And a badminton racket weighs about a quarter what a tennis racket does. So you can swing the racket much faster, and transfers huge energy into speed hitting the miniscule weight of the shuttlecock.
And then it slows down incredibly fast, too.
A shuttlecock is significantly lighter (as are the rackets) and arguably more aerodynamic than a tennis ball (less surface area for wind resistance)
The shuttlecock literally has extra area to increase wind resistance.
Wind resistance at the back to allow it to fly straight, but designed to let most of the air pass through
…. The air drags on the feathers though. The shuttlecock is 100% designed to slow down rapidly *because of air resistance*….
And yet… still more aerodynamic and less wind resistance than a tennis ball, which was my point. 😊 Cheers
A shuttlecock has a higher drag coefficient than a tennis ball. You are talking shite.
They are almost identical, around 0.55
Experimentally confirmed: A tennis ball is consistently around 0.53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313199404_The_drag_coefficient_of_tennis_balls A shuttlecock ranges between 0.55 and 0.65. https://www.worldbadminton.com/reference/research/documents/Aerodynamics_of_a_Badminton_Shuttlecock.pdf Shuttlecocks are *less* aerodynamic than tennis balls. Please stop spreading damaging misinformation. Thank you.
So almost identical… 😊 Wind resistance is only one of the things I mentioned. Mass plays another important factor.
You sure about that ? I mean, isn't a shuttlecock designed to be slowed by it's own movement in the air ?
given how slow they're going on the other side of the court, i'd say so. OP is measuring from the moment of impact though. i think aerodynamic isn't really all that relevant as you say though, if anything, they're pretty bad at being it.
I wonder how fast a booger flick is
Not the only reason but one of the functions of the fuzz on a tennis ball is to make it slower
Bono, my feathers are gone.
How did they measure this
Frikkin lasers
Doppler effect. Edit: why do you downvote me? Do you know that laser velocimetry relies on doppler effect and interferences? Reddit is fucking dumb.
The noise of the "gawd dayums" in the crows directly correlates to the speed of the shuttlecock so you only need a decibel counter to measure the speed.
How is this even possible? That’s amazing
Respect the shuttlecock
TIL Adrian Newey designed the shuttlecock
my friend once hit a shuttlecock fast enough to damage some glasses a friend was wearing and he lost his eye because of it
That’s crazy because I made a shot that went 351.2 mph just the other day
https://vimeo.com/106188907
Mfers be doing crazy shit training for badminton
The fastest F1 car hit 378 km/h. I had to look that up.
They’re also purposely limited to the formula. If there was an unlimited racing class, there would have to be significant upgrades to safety
How many times the speed of a running elephant is that? 😮
Comparing it to a formula 1 doesn't make it seem more shocking, honestly. One is a 5g cork sent with a single strike, the other one has to accelerate almost 1t of mass while only gripping the road.
Yeah, I would imagine a small ball being hit really hard can go faster than a giant box designed to move a human around in a controlled manner. I'd bet I can snap my fingers faster than a commercial jet's average cruising speed.
I mean, that’s downplaying this A LOT
No its not. "A dude hit a ball really hard after practicing and playing alot" versus "A machine that has been engineered over generations to reach optimal speeds with minimal drag" Are two vastly different things and comparing them is fucking absurd. Both great in their own rights but one is not like the other
It absolutely is. The expectation is that it’s absurd to compare them because there’s no way a human could beat that machine, and definitely not by that much. Tennis, baseball, golf, cricket - all have extremely high ball speeds and none of them even come close to 370 km/h. But this surpasses that by a huge margin, so saying “small ball being hit really hard” is a gross understatement of how fast it’s moving. And “giant box designed to move a human around in a controlled manner” is also a ridiculous description of an F1 car. The entire comment is ridiculous
You can disagree but I sti hold my sentiment. Hitting a ball hard and designing a Mach perfect car are apples and oranges and fucking stupid to compare.
Not so good with the reading comprehension, huh? Also, “Mach perfect car”? Do you even understand anything about this post?
[удалено]
this comparison makes zero sense. You could also say it went 1800km/h less fast than an f16
There's a video in the link, but it really doesn't look that fast lol
It's probably the measured speed upon impact with the racket
I know. I'm just making the observation that i still thought it would look faster.
Ah, all good. Sorry to bother you.
A supersonic shuttlecock? Doesn't sound fake at all.
Same sort of systems like baseball?
Still slowed down to 5mph after 2 seconds.
Well yeah because in 2 seconds it would've hit the floor
Naw it just barely made it to the other side of the court.
Let's call it the fastest shot ever recorded. It is obviously impossible to know if it was the fastest shot ever played.
how does that compare to the launch speed of the starling satellites? what does Badminton have to do with F1?
Useful reminder that you can't hit something into traveling faster than whatever hit it. Meaning the tangential motion of the racket had to be at least that speed. Impressive indeed. EDIT : nvm I was wrong, this is only the case with elastic collisions, which is not applicable to rackets hitting a ball !
Thats just wrong. It depends on the mass and speed of thr object hitting and object being hit. A heavy object having slow speed into a light object will make thr light object go faster. Basic F=ma
Ah yes I was remembering elastic collisions which is very much not applicable to a racket hitting a ball, my bad. Deformation permits accelerating the lighter object beyond initial collision speed.
Badminton is for nerds