Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/243492348
CITATIONS READS
21 6,949
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Albert Raymond Penner on 15 December 2016.
563 Am. J. Phys. 69 共5兲, May 2001 http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/ © 2001 American Association of Physics Teachers 563
ary plate have given higher values for e. For example, Lie-
berman and Johnson11 give values for e decreasing from ap-
proximately 0.76 for impact speeds of 37 m/s to values of
around 0.72 for impact speeds of 50 m/s. Applying a linear
fit to their results gives the following empirical equation for
the dependence of e on the initial clubhead speed and loft,
e⫽0.86⫺0.0029v ci cos , 共5兲
and this equation will be used in the subsequent calculations.
After contact with the clubhead, the golf ball will not only
begin to compress but will also start to slide up along the
face of the clubhead. The friction between the ball and the
clubface will turn this sliding motion into a rolling motion.
Both Cochran and Stobbs and Chou et al.12 found that the
initial spin of the launched ball was independent of the sur-
face of the clubface for the typical loft angles that are found
with drivers. This indicates that the ball is in a pure rolling
state when it leaves the face of the clubhead, in which case
v b f p ⫺ v c f p ⫽ b f r. 共6兲
Solving Eqs. 共4兲 and 共6兲 for v c f n and v c f p , respectively,
and substituting these expressions into Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 re-
sults in the following expressions for the launch velocity
components of the golf ball;
v b f n ⫽ 共 1⫹e 兲v ci cos / 共 1⫹m/M 兲 , 共7兲
and
Fig. 1. 共a兲 A clubhead of mass M, loft , and speed v ci before impact with
a golf ball of mass m and radius r. 共b兲 The velocity components of the v b f p ⫽⫺ v ci sin / 共 1⫹m/M ⫹mr 2 /I 兲 . 共8兲
clubhead and golf ball after impact.
The launch speed and launch angle of the golf ball are then
given by
during impact. The resulting equations, along with the con- v bo ⫽ v b f ⫽ 共 v 2b f n ⫹ v 2b f p 兲 1/2, 共9兲
servation of linear momentum, allowed the launch speed, and
launch angle, and initial spin of the golf ball to be deter-
mined for a given initial clubhead speed and loft. However, bo ⫽ ⫹tan⫺1 共 v b f p / v b f n 兲 . 共10兲
the collision can also be analyzed without reference to the The spin of the golf ball when it leaves the face of the driver
forces and torques, by simply considering, in addition to the is determined by Eq. 共3兲,
conservation of linear momentum, the conservation of angu-
lar momentum. Conservation of linear momentum along the bo ⫽ b f ⫽⫺m v b f p r/I. 共11兲
normal and parallel axes and conservation of angular mo- A standard USGA approved golf ball has a diameter of
mentum about the impact point lead to the following equa-
4.27 cm (1.68⬙ ) and a mass of 45.9 g 共1.62 oz兲. Using these
tions:
values along with a mass of 200 g and an impact speed of 45
M v c f n ⫹m v b f n ⫽M v ci cos , 共1兲 m/s for the clubhead, which are typical values for a drive,
Eqs. 共7兲–共11兲 were used to determine how changing the loft
M v c f p ⫹m v b f p ⫽⫺M v ci sin , 共2兲 of the clubhead changes the launch speed, launch angle, and
and the initial spin of the golf ball. The results are shown in Fig.
2. As is seen, the launch speed of the golf ball decreases with
I b f ⫹m v b f p r⫽0, 共3兲 increasing loft while the initial spin of the ball increases.
where v c f p and v c f n are the velocity components of the club-
head after impact, and v b f p , v b f n , and b f are the velocity B. Dynamic loft of the clubhead
components of the golf ball after impact.
Energy is lost during the collision as the ball becomes The loft, , used in the theoretical model of the impact and
seriously deformed and the forces involved in the compres- in Fig. 2, is the angle the clubface makes with the vertical
sion phase are not equal to the forces during the expansion when the clubhead impacts with the golf ball. This angle is
phase. The loss in energy can be taken into account through properly referred to as the dynamic loft of the clubhead. The
the coefficient of restitution, e, which relates the relative ve- dynamic loft, in general, is not equal to the clubface loft
locity along the line of impact after the collision to that be- which is typically specified on the golf club. The clubface
fore, loft is the angle the clubface makes with the vertical when
the sole of the clubhead is at rest on the ground. The differ-
e⫽ 共 v b f n ⫺ v c f n 兲 / v ci cos . 共4兲
ence between the clubface loft and the dynamic loft is due to
Cochran and Stobbs gave a value of 0.67 for e, for a well hit the flexing of the golf club shaft.
drive, although no specifics of how this value was obtained The motion of a golf club shaft during a swing is similar
were given. Measurements of golf balls fired into a station- to the motion of a whip. Initially, at the top of the swing, due
564 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 5, May 2001 A. Raymond Penner 564
Fig. 3. The forces acting on a golf ball as it travels through the air with
velocity v b and backspin b .
air. The force due to the air can be resolved into a component
which acts parallel to the direction of motion, the drag, and a
component perpendicular to the velocity vector, the lift. Fig-
ure 3 indicates these forces acting on a golf ball traveling at
a speed v b with backspin b in a direction of with respect
to the horizontal.
The drag, F D , on a ball of radius r traveling through a
fluid of density , 1.204 kg/m3 for dry air at 20 °C, and at a
speed v b is given by
F D ⫽ 12 共 r 2 兲 C D v 2b , 共12兲
where C D is the drag coefficient. The drag coefficient de-
pends on the Reynolds number, the nature of the ball’s sur-
face, and in general on the speed of the ball and its spin.
Similarly the lift, F L , acting on the golf ball is given by
F L ⫽ 21 共 r 2 兲 C L v 2b , 共13兲
where C L is the lift coefficient. The lift and drag coefficients
measured by Bearman and Harvey were found in general to
decrease with increasing speed and to increase with increas-
ing spin. Using these coefficients, Bearman and Harvey cal-
culated the carry of golf balls for the same launch parameters
that were obtained from high speed photographs of balls hit
by a driving machine. Good agreement was found between
Fig. 2. The dependence of the golf ball’s 共a兲 launch speed ( v bo ), 共b兲 launch
angle ( bo ), and 共c兲 initial spin ( bo ) on the loft 共兲 of the clubhead.
the calculated golf ball carries and the measured carries for
hexagonally dimpled balls and therefore it is these drag and
lift coefficients that will be used in this paper. Given these
to the inertia of the clubhead, the shaft will bend back so as coefficients, the motion of the ball follows from Newton’s
to leave the clubhead behind. However, the clubhead not second law applied to the x and y axes of Fig. 3:
only catches up, but the shaft flexes forward such that at
impact the clubhead is several degrees ahead of the position a x ⫽ 共 ⫺F D cos ⫺F L sin 兲 /m, 共14兲
it would have had if the shaft had not flexed. Jorgensen pho- and
tographed a particular swing of a professional golfer and
measured the actual angular deflection of the clubhead prior a y ⫽ 共 ⫺F D sin ⫹F L cos 兲 /m⫺g, 共15兲
to impact to be 3.3°. The dynamic loft is therefore approxi- where g, the acceleration due to gravity, will be taken to be
mately 3.3° greater than the clubface loft in this case. The 9.81 m/s2.
flex of a given golf club shaft will depend on the material, The rate at which the spin of the golf ball decays, or the
size, and shape of the shaft and on the mass and velocity of angular acceleration, has been determined in wind tunnel
the clubhead. However, in general, the dynamic loft will be tests. These tests indicate that the decay is approximately
several degrees greater than the clubface loft. exponential with the spin rate on landing for a driver shot
estimated to be approximately 75% of the initial spin rate.
C. Trajectory and carry of the golf ball The following empirical equation for the angular accelera-
Once the golf ball leaves the face of the clubhead its mo- tion, ␣, of a golf ball, obtained from the results of Smits and
tion will be determined by the forces due to gravity and the Smith,13 will be used in the calculations,
565 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 5, May 2001 A. Raymond Penner 565
Fig. 4. Theoretical values for the carry 共———兲 of a golf ball for dynamic Fig. 5. Experimental values 共•兲 of the coefficient of restitution (e f ) versus
lofts ranging from 10° to 14° in steps of 1° versus the launch velocity ( v bo ) the magnitude of the landing velocity ( 兩 v bqy 兩 ) along with Eq. 共19兲.
of the golf ball compared with the experimental carry results of Williams 共•兲.
566 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 5, May 2001 A. Raymond Penner 566
Fig. 6. Theoretical values for the bounce 共---兲, roll 共-•-兲, and run 共———兲 of Fig. 7. The carry 共---兲 and drive 共———兲 of a golf ball versus the dynamic
a golf ball, for r ⫽1.0, versus the launch speed ( v bo ) of the golf ball loft 共兲 of a 200 g clubhead for various initial clubhead speeds ( v ci ).
compared with the experimental run results of Williams 共•兲.
567 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 5, May 2001 A. Raymond Penner 567
experimental results. The parametric fit of the run model
with Williams’ data gives a reasonable result for the general
behavior of a golf ball after landing. These models allow the
question of what clubhead loft will lead to the maximum
drive distance to be answered. The optimum dynamic lofts
for drivers that were determined agree reasonably well with
the lofts of drivers used in the game.
Further analysis of the problem would require additional
data on the relationship between the clubface loft and the
dynamic loft. Also, experimental measurements on the indi-
vidual contributions of the bounce and the roll to the run of
a golf ball and their dependence on the landing velocity com-
ponents would be required.
The results presented in this paper will hopefully be of
Fig. 9. The drive distance for the optimum dynamic loft versus initial club- interest to those students and colleagues who not only enjoy
head speed ( v ci ). an interesting and practical physics problem but who also
may find themselves at their local golf course.
ample, for an initial clubhead speed of 45 m/s, the dynamic
loft which leads to maximum carry, 209 yds, is 14.9° while 1
R. K. Adair, The Physics of Baseball 共Harper-Collins, New York, 1994兲,
the dynamic loft which leads to the maximum drive, 232 yds, 1st ed.
is 13.1°. This difference is a result of the horizontal compo- 2
C. Frohlich, ‘‘Aerodynamic drag crisis and its possible effect on the flight
nent of the landing velocity, v bqx , being greater at smaller of baseballs,’’ Am. J. Phys. 52 共4兲, 325–334 共1984兲.
lofts and therefore leading to greater runs and subsequently
3
P. J. Brancazio, ‘‘Trajectory of a fly ball,’’ Phys. Teach. 23, 20–23 共1985兲.
4
A. F. Rex, ‘‘The effect of spin on the flight of batted baseballs,’’ Am. J.
greater drive distances. Phys. 53 共11兲, 1073–1075 共1985兲.
The dynamic loft of the clubhead which results in the 5
H. Erlichson, ‘‘Maximum projectile range with drag and lift, with particu-
maximum drive distance is shown as a function of the club- lar application to golf,’’ Am. J. Phys. 51 共4兲, 357–361 共1983兲.
6
head speed at impact in Fig. 8. As is seen, the greater the P. W. Bearman and J. K. Harvey, ‘‘Golf Ball Aerodynamics,’’ Aeronaut.
clubhead speed, the lower the optimum dynamic loft. For Q. 27, 112–122 共1976兲.
7
example, for clubhead speeds of 35, 45, and 55 m/s, the W. M. MacDonald and S. Hanzely, ‘‘The physics of the drive in golf,’’
Am. J. Phys. 59 共3兲, 213–218 共1991兲.
optimum dynamic lofts are 16.5°, 13.1°, and 10.7°, respec- 8
A. Cochran and J. Stobbs, The Search for the Perfect Swing 共Lippincott,
tively. The dependence of the optimum loft on clubhead New York, 1968兲.
speed agrees, in general, with current practices in golf. For 9
C. B. Daish, The Physics of Ball Games 共English Universities, London,
example, the manufacturer of one popular driver15 recom- 1972兲.
mends a clubface loft of 11.5° for clubhead speeds up to 36 10
T. P. Jorgensen, The Physics of Golf 共Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994兲.
11
m/s decreasing to clubface lofts as low as 7° for clubhead B. B. Lieberman and S. H. Johnson, ‘‘An analytical model for ball-barrier
speeds in excess of 45 m/s. impact,’’ Proceedings of the 1994 World Scientific Congress of Golf, ed-
ited by A. J. Cochran and M. R. Farrally 共E & FN Spon, London, 1994兲.
The drive distance, corresponding to the optimum dy- 12
P. C. Chou, D. Liang, J. Yang, and W. Gobosh, ‘‘Contact forces, coeffi-
namic loft, is shown plotted against the clubhead speed in cient of restitution, and spin rate of golf ball impact,’’ Proceedings of the
Fig. 9. As is shown, the maximum drive distance increases 1994 World Scientific Congress of Golf, edited by A. J. Cochran and M. R.
from 140 yds for a clubhead speed of 30 m/s to approxi- Farrally 共E & FN Spon, London, 1994兲.
13
mately 300 yds for a clubhead speed of 60 m/s. A. J. Smits and D. R. Smith, ‘‘A new aerodynamic model of a golf ball in
flight,’’ in Proceedings of the 1994 World Scientific Congress of Golf,
edited by A. J. Cochran and M. R. Farrally 共E & FN Spon, London, 1994兲.
IV. CONCLUSION 14
D. Williams, ‘‘Drag force on a golf ball in flight and its practical signifi-
cance,’’ Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. XII 共3兲, 387–392 共1959兲.
The models of the impact of a golf ball with a clubhead 15
The data were obtained from the Ping company web site: www.pinggolf-
and the subsequent carry of the ball agree with available .com
VOCABULARY
If you think you can invent better words than those currently in use, you are undoubtedly right.
However, you are rather unlikely to get many people except your own students to accept your
terminology; and it is unkind to make it hard for your students to understand anyone else’s
writing. One Bourbaki per century produces about all the neologisms that the mathematical com-
munity can absorb.
Ralph P. Boas, Jr., ‘‘Can We Make Mathematics Intelligible?,’’ in Lion Hunting & Other Mathematical Pursuits, edited by
Gerald L. Alexanderson and Dale H. Mugler 共Mathematical Association of America, Washington, 1995兲, p. 232.
568 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 69, No. 5, May 2001 A. Raymond Penner 568