stick length affect on shots

[evor1 6]

does having a shorter stick make your shots less powerful? assuming the same flex. my xxx lite stick is about 1.5 inches longer than my stealth and it makes my slapshots quite a bit better. i think i want to cut it down though for stick handling. will it be okay to use a dremel to cut my stick?

[hockeyplaya97 0]

Personal preferrence.

[sniper44 0]

you are correct, if you have two identical sticks but one is shorter, the shorter one will be stiffer. You could also use a dremel to cut your stick.

[TBLfan 25]

Be careful with the dremel as you want to cut a straight line. Run it at the lowest setting. As far as the shot goes, it depends on your style/form as well as strength because cutting a stick will effect the stiffness of the stick. Some will agree that a longer stick will give you better leverage with slap shots but that is still up to the user and their ability.

[DamnLocust 0]

I've used a dremel on more than one occasion and find it to be fairly precise. I usually put a strip of tape around the cut area and go around the whole shaft with marker at the cutting point. This makes a nice guide for your cut. After I cut the four sides, I use the top of the cutting wheel to sand it all even and touch up the cut.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

Actually, physics would tell us that the longer the shaft (all things considered equal - stiffness and the like) the faster the head speed and thus the more power on your shots.

I wouldn't think that cutting it down 1.5 inches would stiffen the stick enough to be noticeable nor offset the head speed and torque conversion.

[mackallica 0]

I was using a cut-down vapor xxx until I snapped it, I ran out and bought another, same flex/curve but didn't have time to cut it down. I noticed my shots were a lot higher than normal with the longer shaft. I could be nuts, but this is what I noticed.

[jesse_19_94 0]

i find that when i switched to a longer stick, i had a much harder slapshot, but i had a weaker snap shot and wrist shot. then when i tried a shorter stick again, my slap shot got weaker and my wrister and snapper got better. but it is still personal preference.

[fedorov#91 0]

I was using a cut-down vapor xxx until I snapped it, I ran out and bought another, same flex/curve but didn't have time to cut it down. I noticed my shots were a lot higher than normal with the longer shaft. I could be nuts, but this is what I noticed.

probably cause it was flexier

I was using a cut-down vapor xxx until I snapped it, I ran out and bought another, same flex/curve but didn't have time to cut it down. I noticed my shots were a lot higher than normal with the longer shaft. I could be nuts, but this is what I noticed.

probably cause it was flexier

[MLSman 22]

I was using a cut-down vapor xxx until I snapped it, I ran out and bought another, same flex/curve but didn't have time to cut it down. I noticed my shots were a lot higher than normal with the longer shaft. I could be nuts, but this is what I noticed.

probably cause it was flexier

Um...he said same flex/curve.

The reason why that might be happening is because of the longer length. Think about it. Whether a hockey stick or a golf club, there is this concept called a "swing plane"...it is pure physics (Newton's second law of motion).

"Newton's first law of motion predicts the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are balanced. The first law – sometimes referred to as the "law of inertia" – states that if the forces acting upon an object are balanced, then the acceleration of that object will be 0 m/s2. Objects at equilibrium (the condition in which all forces balance) will not accelerate. According to Newton, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object – changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction."

The last line is crucial, because modifying the length of a stick affects the swing plane (increases the arch), thus affecting the unbalanced force. With a longer swing plane, less force is required to provide velocity, but the increase in length is affecting direction because your follow through is now longer.

Hockey is ALL about physics.

[TBLfan 25]

yeah it was the same flex but he cut the first one making it stiffer.

I'm thinking you guys are assuming that the speed of the swing is directly linked to the speed of the puck. That is not the case, the speed of the shot is linked moreso to the amount of flex you get and the release of that flex.

[MLSman 22]

yeah it was the same flex but he cut the first one making it stiffer.

I'm thinking you guys are assuming that the speed of the swing is directly linked to the speed of the puck. That is not the case, the speed of the shot is linked moreso to the amount of flex you get and the release of that flex.

Not at all.

You are correct that the flex has an impact on velosity. The fact is that the "whip" of the stick caused by the flex will increase velosity. It is the combination of swing speed and flex that provides puck speed. Cutting his stick will modify the flex of the stick - inverse relationship of height to flex.

What I was specifically responding to was his question of the increased height on the puck. He is swinging his stick the same way he did the old one, and that increase in stick length is the direct cause of the puck height issue.

[TBLfan 25]

I think swing speed would count less than flex towards the final speed of the shot. Just look at the speed of a wrist shot. Unless you're counting the speed of the blade through the shot instead of point of contact... In which case I don't see how a longer stick would benefit more than the puck being in contact with the puck longer and even at that it's only a minimal difference.

And for your last statement I can agree. Since the puck stays on the blade longer the puck may go higher... if you aren't pointing to where you want the puck to go because that follow through is the key to accuracy with any stick length.

[repus 0]

So the general question of the length affecting the shot, is true, but there is a lot of physics involved. This holds true with the flex of the stick.

Though this is a saturday, I will try and get this right.

First length of the stick does have an impact, think of your shot as a lever in action. Where you place your hands on the stick creates the fulcrum between your hands. The longer the stick, the longer the lever. When you swing your stick, the tip of the lever is increased based on the length of the stick.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever

Basically the amount of distance that the end of the stick moves is increased based on the increased length. It does take a bit more force, but there is low resistance.

Now flex is another thing that comes into play. When a stick starts to flex, it starts to store up energy in the elasticity of the stick. As the stick starts to straighten back out, the energy is then returned to he stick, thus increasing the force against the puck.

The lower the flex isn't always better. If your stick does not start "unflexing" or returning the stored energy when the puck leaves your stick, all of that energy is lost. This gets down to a lot of technique and choosing the right flex.

Flex can definitely help snap/wrist shots as you can load the stick up on the ice before even moving into the puck thus adding into the speed of the shot (think standard amount of force from moving the stick + force added from flexing the stick in advance)

When you go to a slap shot, its a bit more difficult to store the energy in advance and then have it return in time for the puck to leave your stick. This can be seen in the slapshot competition in the all-star game. One piece composite sticks aren't destroying the records compared to wood sticks.

-dave

[TBLfan 25]

One thing we haven't really stated(although we probably assumed most were already taking in account) is that while the longer stick gives you better leverage it doesn't necessarily mean more flex. While you're putting more leverage in the longer stick the stick flex may be too light of a flex or too stiff of a flex. I doubt that someone that is 5'7" and 150lbs using chara's 65-67" stick(or however long it is) in 140 flex isn't going to get as much power as with a 58" stick in 90 flex. There's a lot of variables when it comes to this.

*Player size strength

*Stick length

*Stick flex rating

And form:

*Puck hitting the correct part on the blade

*Ability to roll over your wrists correctly

*Ability to transfer weight correctly

*Where to swing the stick depending on the flex

*Relation of the puck to the body

The last point is another issue that we haven't discussed. Some argue that with a shorter stick and higher lie you can get better leverage being that you'd be shooting the puck from closer to your body... All the while some say that you get better leverage when you extend your arms with a longers stick and lower blade lie.

Basically it boils down to YOU. Your form and style of play. There isn't a magic answer here, just a bunch of confusing variables that we forget all about once we step on the ice.

[jokerit1967 0]

I was using a cut-down vapor xxx until I snapped it, I ran out and bought another, same flex/curve but didn't have time to cut it down. I noticed my shots were a lot higher than normal with the longer shaft. I could be nuts, but this is what I noticed.

probably cause it was flexier

Um...he said same flex/curve.

The reason why that might be happening is because of the longer length. Think about it. Whether a hockey stick or a golf club, there is this concept called a "swing plane"...it is pure physics (Newton's second law of motion).

"Newton's first law of motion predicts the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are balanced. The first law – sometimes referred to as the "law of inertia" – states that if the forces acting upon an object are balanced, then the acceleration of that object will be 0 m/s2. Objects at equilibrium (the condition in which all forces balance) will not accelerate. According to Newton, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object – changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction."

The last line is crucial, because modifying the length of a stick affects the swing plane (increases the arch), thus affecting the unbalanced force. With a longer swing plane, less force is required to provide velocity, but the increase in length is affecting direction because your follow through is now longer.

Hockey is ALL about physics.

The general physics laws/theories don't explain the stick length difference and its effect on the velocity of a slapshot in simple, clear terms. The theory is there but as an abstraction. If you use some of the derived principles/equations of physics such as torque, and momentum is simpler. (also it is also clearer if you don't assume shaft loading, etc. --> a rigid bar model is simpler to visualize, etc.

Look to the principle of torque or "moment" (or informally as rotational force) The principle (well aside from the 9.8m/s^2 of gravity acceleration - but to simplify we can estimate without thinking about the swing plane). In simple 2 dimensional terms - torque is equal to force times radius in SI measurements that is Nm (newton meter - for car people it's measured in lb-ft (foot-lbs it is loosely called) - ex. 2N * .5m = 1Nm to get the same rotational force or torque if the radius (stick length in this example) is doubled the 2N force @ 1m = 2 Nm ; also if we want to be lazy (conserve energy) -OR- weaker (cannot produce a lot of force) - you can create the same total rotational force we can exert only 1 N and use a stick of 2m in length to get 2 Nm. 1N*2m= 2Nm --->

essentially a longer stick (rigid in this model) with the same plane angle will yield higher torque, in turn higher velocity, and also higher work directed at the puck.

Someone help with the rest? Momentum is mass*velocity; however we have a an angular momentum (stick moving on some plane around the player) and this momentum will collide with a stationary puck --> we want the angular momentum to be turned into linear momentum (simplistically).

That's just a simple explanation because it has been a super super super long time since I've had physics (trapped in other disciplines).

Hockey is about physics, but it is complicated by biomechanics which has to deal with the inconveniences of human anatomy.

[voss 0]

is there some kinda of forumula to calculate how much stiffer the stick gets when you cut it. the guy i bought my stick from said something like 5 lbs for every inch. can anyone validate this

[Archangel#16 1]

I know that the ONE90 stick has notches on the back of the stick that gives it a different flex rating at that height. I think it gets higher the lower you go down, but I could be mistaken.

[jokerit1967 0]

is there some kinda of forumula to calculate how much stiffer the stick gets when you cut it. the guy i bought my stick from said something like 5 lbs for every inch. can anyone validate this

I know that the ONE90 stick has notches on the back of the stick that gives it a different flex rating at that height. I think it gets higher the lower you go down, but I could be mistaken.

Even though different brands are using different composites, wall thickness, and dimensions on shafts... if we assume that NBH did an "OK" job when they came up with the data on their shafts and the effects that cutting down YTH Flex 42, JR 52, INT 67, SR 77, SR 87, and SR 102 - they show on p.23 of the NBH 2007 Catalog (p.23 of the .pdf document here on MSH in the ice hockey equipment section) you can at least estimate or deduct that you can apply a similar formula for each OPS/or composite shaft out there. They show the increase in flex for a 2", 4" and 6" reduction in length.

Ex#1 SR 102 Flex

Cut down 2" = 108(+5);

4" = 115(+7)- net gain +13;

6"= 122(+7) net gain+20.

you could estimate that for each inch you cut down you get 3.33 flex points stiffer. So a working estimate yields approximately a 3.33% increase in stiffness per inch that you cut down a shaft.

Not as a rule or whatever... but for some other company using completely different numbers you could apply the 3.33% increase in flex to that company's numbers (as a roundabout guide) like using a puck's diameter to determine how much you are cutting off a stick or a person using relative pitch to tune an instrument.

Ex.#2 SR 87 Flex

--> three shortened lengths

2" = 96(+9);

4" = 105(+9) --> net gain = +18;

6" = 112(+7) --> net gain = +25.

the differentials are slightly changed for the three lengths (9,9,7) net for 6 inches = 25.

Average increase in this SR 87 FLEX points/inch = 4.16 Flex points.

Average percentage increase in 77 Flex = 4.79%.

Ex.#3 SR 77 Flex

--> three shortened lengths

2" = 84(+7);

4" = 92(+8) --> net gain = +15;

6" = 100(+8) --> net gain = +23.

the differentials are slightly changed for the three lengths (7,8,8) net for 6 inches = 23.

Average increase in this SR 77 FLEX points/inch = 3.83 Flex points.

Average percentage increase in 77 Flex = 5%.

Notice some of the variance:

an SR 102 cut down 6" yields a 20 point increase.

an SR 87 cut down 6" yields a 25 point increase.

an SR 77 cut down 6" yields a 23 point increase.

average = 22.67 points average increase for the three sticks cut down 6".

notice that without any further calculation that you can draw many conclusions from the above data supplied by NBH (and many others, but I'm tired...):

Trends that did not occur: - 1.)

1.) the least gain in flex for 6" reduction in length was from the stiffest stick, but then the softest of three provided the 2nd lowest gain in stiffness points, whereas the 87 flex which was in the middle had the highest gain in flex points (+25).

2.) the last two inches(for 6") cut down did not consistently yield the least effect - on the stiffest stick it yielded the same effect +7 as the previous interval whereas the other two it flexes it yielded less effect than the previous interval.

3.) For SR102 and SR77 the first 2" yielded the least change, but for the SR87 flex it yielded +9 which is equal to its set's highest interval.

However,

the data showed that the middle interval of shortening @ 4" that interval was always at least equal to the highest interval of each individual sticks own intervals.

The stiffest stick did provide the lowest change for 6", but mainly due to the lowest value for an interval (which was the first 2") of +5.

anyhow - for a roundabout estimate of what you get when you shorten down a random stick you could estimate that in the

highest flex you get about a 3% increase in flex per inch,

and in regular and medium flex you pick up about a 5% gain

(discounting the anomaly that the middle stick didn't fit the expected trend properly since it was amenable to the highest change in flex at +25).

It's likely that a calculation can be off...I didn't check or prepare them before putting them in this post.

[providencebadboy21 0]

there are some fucking smart people on this site.

[chippa13 1844]

I found way back that when I shortened my sticks by about an inch or so that my slapshot velocity increased. The reason being that I was able to get my weight more over the stick and create more flex.

[jokerit1967 0]

I found way back that when I shortened my sticks by about an inch or so that my slapshot velocity increased. The reason being that I was able to get my weight more over the stick and create more flex.

leverage is good. combining the optimal leverage for someone's physical attributes and the optimal flex (including considering release characteristics) for someone's shot mechanics...

[MLSman 22]

jokerit1967:

This has been a great conversation! I think we are are the same train of thought. The linear momentum is easier and more finite of a calculation. With two people of the same height and strength, the linear momentum will increase proportional to the length of the shaft.

The more difficult calculation is the modification of angular momentum. If the human were a rigid body...like a hockey puck, then the calculation would be fairly straightforward. Each time the stick hit the puck, the puck would move at the same angular velocity:

L = ((Summation of)mr2)ω

= Iω

Even with the same person, however, the angular momentum will be a variable (not rigid), because not only does the pivot point change (affecting the muscles in the feet, back, and torso), so does the distance between the two arms holding the stick(affecting the hands, arms, and shoulders), thus affecting the calculation of torque and velosity.

There actually is a book on this subject, titled "The physics of hockey." It is a great read for the non science hockey player wanting to learn how to increase the velocity of their shot.

[jokerit1967 0]

MLSLAM

or anyone else for that matter - for these composite shafts is there MOI (moment of inertia) really compared for one stick to another?

I'm assuming that variance in sticks MOI would/could greatly affect accuracy... and depending on what the MOI is shots from undesirable points of the blade... further away from the fulcrum point may have a significant negative power reduction?

just wondering...

[MLSman 22]

MOI is not provided...like it is with most golf clubs. The only real information impacting fulcrum points provided with shafts are the locations of the "kick point", which for all intents and purposes identifies the point in which the stick will flex.