This is topic Tennis physics, sort of ... in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=040933

Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Watching the Aussie Open at the moment. The question has occurred to me:
Why do tennis balls have a fuzzy surface, and what does it do to them aerodynamically? Just one of those dumb thoughts.
Anyone know?
 
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
 
It makes them less damaging to my dog's mouth?
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Why are Tennis Balls fuzzy?
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
Well, thank you kindly, Farmgirl [Smile]
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
And the MadScientist explanation is HIGHLY misleading. For practical purposes, a rubber ball is not smooth as in slippery.
The nylon fuzz is less sticky when hitting a solid surface than rubber. So it lessens the effect of the ball's spin on the bounce. ie The bounce is more predictable, and thus easier to play.
The more predictable bounce is the main reason that the fuzz was added. Besides rubber being stickier on the bounce, skidding grinds a rubber ball. The more slippery fuzz allows the ball to last longer while keeping the ball round for longer. The unpredictability of balls lacking roundness being the impetus to add the fuzz in the first place.

Increases the Magnus Effect. Top foreward-spin makes the ball drop faster onto the court. Bottom backspin makes the ball travel in a straighter path. A left slice makes the ball curve right. A right slice makes the ball curve left.

Top spin will also cause a ball hitting the net's tape to more often land in the opponent's court. A bottom spin will make it nearly always fall back into your own court. Even when it doesn't, a back spin into the tape will cause the ball to pop up nearly vertically, allowing the opponent plenty of time to slam it.

[ January 24, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
 
And thank you too, aspectre.
 
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
aspectre makes more sense. I was just seeing if it could be found with a quick google search. I had no idea if it was a correct answer [Smile]
 
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
In fact, the MadScientist explanation is just flat out wrong. Even in air, a smooth surface isn't the most efficient at either reducing drag or increasing lift. Vortex shedding decreases lift on aircraft wings, and increases drag. And reduction of vortex shedding is why golf balls have dimples, racing yachts have riblets, and fast-swimming sharks have "sandpaper" skin.

[ January 24, 2006, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2