So,do you think that the description must be changed with something better? I think that it should be correct. It's not very objective that "Overall Section".
Lightning
(Oct. 11, 2011 4:08 PM)Arupaeo Wrote: To me it seems that (at a basic level) smash is the combination of 3 elements:
1) total energy produced by collisions (force)
2) net vector direction of that force
3) mass of the "smashing" bey compared to it's opponents
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotq.html
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/mo.../u4l1a.cfm
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae462.cfm
http://www.school-for-champions.com/scie...essure.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
force is shared equally; effective smash attackers cope with this force. smash attackers ideally have a very small very outward contact point with which to attack their opponent. ideally the smash attacker is very heavy. smash attackers ideally have outward focused weight (metal face is fine). If a wheel does not have all of these things (outward contact point + heavy + good weight distribution) it is likely a poor candidate for smash. If the contact point is very inward the force it takes to stop the wheel is very low and thus likewise it delivers very little force. this is also why wider wheels with outward focused weight are much better at defense. If the wheel fails in terms of width/weight distribution/inertia compared to the defensive beyblade it will likely be on the losing end of the collisions.
This is why Leone's ridiculous shape is not a problem. It is absurdly heavy (doesn't need metal face), can move quickly (due to no metal face), has a very outward focused weight, and has many small ridges and corners to bludgeon opponents with. It is also why killer sucks (light weight small diameter bad weight distribution large contact points).
Thanks McFrown!
LOL, yes force is distributed equally (as Newton could tell you) and yet some beyblades are more equal than others (as Orwell might say) in the resulting impact!
I think youve raised a new subset of interesting questions, the first one being: Is smash primarily delivered by the rotating contact point hitting the opposing beyblade? Or is smash primarily delivered by the movement of the beyblade through the stadium? (ala sliding shoot) Or is it some combination of both? Some attack beyblades clearly need to move through the stadium to be effective (dare I say lightning?), while others (that we consider to be capable of "one hit knock outs" even when not moving - like VariAres) do not.
You also make a specific argument about the size of the external contact point and the distance from the wheel (contrasting killer & leone) that I found to be interesting. I would love to hear your analytical comparison of Killer vs. Vulcan in this regard as they share some similar characteristics (light, small, large "arm" protruding) but have very different real world results. To me, the rounded upward-sloping shape of vulcan's arm is the difference that makes it a better attacker than killer's blunt non-sloped arm that only seems to produce recoil. But again, it is your take on their difference that I would love to hear.
LOL, yes force is distributed equally (as Newton could tell you) and yet some beyblades are more equal than others (as Orwell might say) in the resulting impact!
I think youve raised a new subset of interesting questions, the first one being: Is smash primarily delivered by the rotating contact point hitting the opposing beyblade? Or is smash primarily delivered by the movement of the beyblade through the stadium? (ala sliding shoot) Or is it some combination of both? Some attack beyblades clearly need to move through the stadium to be effective (dare I say lightning?), while others (that we consider to be capable of "one hit knock outs" even when not moving - like VariAres) do not.
You also make a specific argument about the size of the external contact point and the distance from the wheel (contrasting killer & leone) that I found to be interesting. I would love to hear your analytical comparison of Killer vs. Vulcan in this regard as they share some similar characteristics (light, small, large "arm" protruding) but have very different real world results. To me, the rounded upward-sloping shape of vulcan's arm is the difference that makes it a better attacker than killer's blunt non-sloped arm that only seems to produce recoil. But again, it is your take on their difference that I would love to hear.
The only thing movement does is improve the chances of that contact point hitting the opponent instead of just brushing up against and grinding the opponent. The 'less round' a Beyblade is the less important it is for it to move. Vulcan's wings are thinner than Killer's and also are distributed up/down instead of side/side. The contact point is also smaller. Thusly it has a much better smash attack (pretty sure it's a little wider too?). I don't think the slope has anything to do with it (look at Bull and Quetzalcoatl).
(Oct. 13, 2011 3:13 AM)Mc Frown Wrote: The only thing movement does is improve the chances of that contact point hitting the opponent instead of just brushing up against and grinding the opponent. The 'less round' a Beyblade is the less important it is for it to move. Vulcan's wings are thinner than Killer's and also are distributed up/down instead of side/side. The contact point is also smaller. Thusly it has a much better smash attack (pretty sure it's a little wider too?). I don't think the slope has anything to do with it (look at Bull and Quetzalcoatl).
OK, I can totally get behind the "more round needs to move more" argument.
In order for me to really understand the distinction you are making with the contact points of Vulcan, Bull and Quetz, (vs. Killer) and how that differs from my inference, I need some additional help from either Santa Claus or a current university student majoring in engineering. I will now address a statement to either of these parties:
We need to do some controlled testing under the watchful eye of a high speed camera. ( Something like this would do nicely http://www.aostechnologies.com/high-spee...eed/q-pri/ ) Then we could really see where on the contact points contact is actually being made, along with the resulting change in vector of the colliding beys.
Any engineering students reading this post can respond via PM with their offer to volunteer the use of university equipment. Santa can either PM me or just leave the camera under the tree 11 weeks from now...
I think we might be saying nearly the same thing, and chipped paint from Vulcan tells some of the story, but I would still love to get my hands on some high speed film data.
I've edited the article by replacing best with 'most popular' if that is okay with you guys.
![[Image: uKF94LK.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/uKF94LK.gif)