不同材質網球拍之特性分析

目的：本研究在探討石墨烯、碳纖維及碳鋁合金三種不同材質網球拍之恢復係數、振動及選手知覺的差異。方法：以石墨烯、碳纖維及碳鋁合金材質網球拍為受測球拍，加速規固定於球拍握把底部上量12公分，使用發球機135公里/時，撞擊網球拍，架設高速攝影機於球拍側面，觀察其恢復係數及振動之表現；再以單盲方式進行選手正反拍抽球訓練5分鐘，完畢後立即填寫選手功能性量表。再以SPSS 12.0統計套裝軟體進行獨立樣本單因子變異數分析，比較不同材質網球拍振動及恢復係數的差異，當統計達顯著水準，以LSD法進行事後比較，顯著水準皆為α=.05；再以百分比長條圖進行不同球拍選手知覺功能性量表比較。結果：石墨烯、碳纖維及碳鋁合金三種不同材質網球拍之間的恢復係數沒有差異存在。在拍柄、拍頸及傳遞比上皆達顯著差異依序為拍柄振幅碳鋁合金>石墨稀>碳纖維；拍頸振幅石墨稀>碳鋁合金>碳纖維；傳遞比石墨稀>碳鋁合金>碳纖維。結論：石墨稀材質網球拍在振幅部分較好，則碳纖維在選手知覺量表得分較高，因此選購球拍可往這方面材質球拍進行參考。

關鍵字

石墨稀；碳纖維；碳鋁合金；振幅；恢復係數

並列摘要

Purpose: This study compared the differences in coefficient of restitution, vibration, and athlete perception among tennis rackets made using different materials (i.e., graphene, carbon fibers, and carbon aluminum alloy). Methods: Tennis rackets made using graphene, carbon fibers, and carbon aluminum alloy were used as the test rackets; an accelerometer was placed 12 cm above the grip of the tennis rackets, after which the tennis rackets was impacted with tennis balls pitched using a pitching machine at 135 km/hour; a high-speed camera was installed on the side of the rackets to measure the coefficient of restitution and vibration; a single-blind method was used for the athletes to practice forehand and backhand drives for 5 min, after which they immediately filled out a performance scale; an independent sample one-way ANOVA was conducted using statistical software SPSS 12.0 to compare the differences in the coefficient of restitution and vibration among the tennis rackets made of different materials. When the differences were statistically significant, a post-hoc comparison was performed using the LSD method, where α=.05 was set as the significance level; and the athletes’ perceptions of the performance of the different rackets were compared using a percentage bar chart. Results: No differences were observed in the coefficient of restitution among the tennis rackets made using graphene, carbon fibers, and carbon aluminum alloy. By contrast, significant differences were observed among the three tennis rackets in the handle, throat, and transmissibility. The performance of these rackets is listed in descending order as follows: (a) handle vibration: carbon aluminum alloy > graphene > carbon fibers; (b) throat vibration: graphene > carbon aluminum alloy > carbon fibers; and (c) transmissibility: graphene > carbon aluminum alloy > carbon fibers. Conclusion: The tennis racket made using graphene outperformed the two other rackets in vibration, whereas that made using carbon fibers scored higher than the other two rackets in the athlete perception scale. Accordingly, these material characteristics may be considered when purchasing them.