Measurement of the Modeling Parameters for a Maxiflex “B” Springboard

Abstract

The characteristic modeling parameters (spring stiffness and effective mass ratio) were determined experimentally for a Maxiflex “B” board. The results indicated that the Maxiflex “B” board was substantially less stiff than a Duraflex board. Most of this decrease in stiffness is a result of the added second taper in the Maxiflex “B” board. Calculations, based on theory, revealed that the perforations in the Maxiflex “B” board reduced the local stiffness over the end region of the board by an additional 10%. As a result of its greater compliancy, the Maxiflex board also had an effective mass ratio that was greater than that of the Duraflex. It was clear from these experiments that the acknowledged superiority of the Maxiflex “B” board over the Duraflex could be attributed directly to the increased compliancy found in the Maxiflex “B” board.

Parameter Determination for a Computer Simulation Model of a Diver and a Springboard

“…The vertical stiffness parameter m (7551 Nm -2 ) was close to the initial estimate (7143 Nm -2 ) taken from the study of Sprigings et al (1990) whereas the parameter c (3597 Nm -1 ) was less than its initial estimate (4375 Nm -1 ). The calculated values of m and c correspond to a stiffness of 5386 Nm -1 which was similar to the measured value of 5446 Nm -1 when the toes were at the end of the springboard, and this value lies within the range for a Maxiflex-B springboard reported by Miller and Jones (1999): approximately 4300 Nm -1 to 5500 Nm -1 for a fulcrum setting of 7.5.…”

“…Initial estimates of the springboard parameters m and c in Equation (1) for foot placement were taken from the study of Sprigings et al (1990).…”

Effect of jump heights, landing techniques, and participants on vertical ground reaction force and loading rate during landing on three different Korean teeterboards

“…The MaxiFlex B diving board had a stiffness approximately two to three times smaller than the three Korean teeterboards used in the present study. This can be explained by the fact that this diving board is about twice as long and half as thick 7 as the teeterboards used in this study. The material (i.e.…”

Optimal compliant-surface jumping: a multi-segment model of springboard standing jumps

“…Equivalent board mass m b and stiffness k for fulcrum settings S ¼ 1; 5, and 9 were measured by Sprigings et al (1990) and interpreted by Miller et al (1998). Cubic spline interpolations for m b and k at other settings were calculated (Cheng and Hubbard, 2004).…”

“…Linear and rotational mass-spring models for springboard were examined (Sprigings et al, 1989(Sprigings et al, , 1990; Kooi and Kuipers, 1994) as well as springboard kinetics (Miller, 1983) and tip kinematics (Jones et al, 1993;Jones and Miller, 1996;Miller et al, 1998). However, most studies focused on running-dive kinematics including vertical velocity (Miller andMunro, 1984, 1985) and angular momentum (Sanders and Wilson, 1987;Miller and Sprigings, 2001), rather than studying how surface compliance would change jumping strategies.…”