In the general board they have a thread about PVC hammer handles. 

My hammer unfortunately use 1/2 PVC and I cannot not get Schedule 80 PVC in that size.  I love throwing the hammer with 1/2 Schedule 40 PVC handle because it flies farther probably due to the whippy nature of the handle.  However, I would not want to use it in competition because it is not fair or even close to a 3/4 schedule 80 handle let alone a ratan handle hammer.

I could use logic of others and state: Since there is no rules outlawing the whippy 1/2 Schedule 40 handles, than any hammer record set with that kind of handle is legitimate. 

Its the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law  -- Allowing that record to stand would be legalized cheating.  I would hope that a record would not stand if it was broken using 1/2 Schedule 40 handle.

What do others think?

First: I am an average hammer thrower and perhaps the whippy handle helps poor and average throwers more than good to great throwers.  Good throwers have the form to get the hammer head moving faster where it would be harder to get a whip in the handle.  However, throwers whose forms are not there yet may not get the same speed on the hammer head and can generate a pull that flexes the handle to get a whip effect on the last pull.

Second: Many have suggested that ADs and other get together and discuss issues that may affect the games and decide on a set of rules – We don’t need a national governing body to see that most of the rules out there are almost identical and vary on how good or poorly they are written and a few other minor issues. 

However, new issues do come up.  I imagine that when PVC handles started to appear they were the ¾” variety. So before a record is set using ½” Schedule 40 PVC hammer handles, why not look at the issue.

Third: If there is a mechanical advantage of having a whippy handle, than using such a handle would be like using a corked bat in baseball except for one thing, the bat is not legal and the whippy handle is. 

Wayne Hill wrote: the key point is that there's no rule about the stiffness of the shaft.

I agree that this is a key point -- there are no rules on the stiffness of the shaft.  I also put forth that when PVC was added, throwers, ADs, and other concerned parties did not discuss this issue, well at least I did not find any postings on this issue in my brief search.  Since I do not make hammers, I do not know if ½” handles are recently introduced or have been around from the inception of PVC handles. 

So when was PVC added to the rules? Did anybody discuss the stiffness? Did schedule 40 and 80 exist?  Was there 1/2" and 3/4" handle sizes?  This all goes towards whether the rules still hold or should they be revisited.  (this is why I am bringing this issue up now rather than later) 

I am also not trying to start a movement against PVC handles in general, or having a "stiffness rule" unless we have Viagra as a national sponsor of Highland games.

Wayne Hill wrote:   I doubt that it will allow the hammer to go significantly farther than a stiffer handle.  Basically, I don't see that it provides a mechanism to store significant energy

My case: If I hold from the handle end of my light hammer parallel to the ground, the shaft made from 1/2" Schedule 40 PVC will sag almost 30". that is a lot of flex and that has to come into play well throwing the hammer.

So how does this help throw the hammer?  I am not sure of how it helps but I have a sneaking suspicion that it does and how much it does depends on the skill of the thrower and what style of throwing is being used. 

It would seem that "American" style of throwing where the last pull is huge, could take advantage of a whip effect.  If the head is dragging behind the handle and whips forward upon release, one would think that greater distances would be generated over similar throw with out the same flexible handle. 

On the other hand, no matter the whippy handle, after the first few winds, the hammer head is approaching the maximum speed a thrower can generate.  Can a thrower generate a whip when winding the hammer on the final wind?  Maybe?

If there is a whip effect on the final pull that translates to more distance, than should the handle be used? and if used, should it count toward records which were made using a stiffer handle?

Wayne Hill wrote:   .... it certainly doesn't add energy to your winds.

When I first start my winds, the flex in the handle does whip the head around near the top of the wind – gravity fights the head on the way up in the first wind (30" static flex, is there more when pulling the hammer around?), bending the handle back.   As the wind approaches the top, gravity is working less and the flex comes out of the handle.  This helps get the hammer moving faster at the top of the first wind. 

Does it help in the last wind?  Is there flex in the handle on the last wind and how much?  I do not have a high speed digital camera to explore these issues.

Two refute or prove to myself, I will be putting a new Rattan handle in one of my light hammers and a new ½” schedule 40 PVC handle in the other. I plan on recording my throws in practice.  However, I refuse to design a statistical sampling methodology (experiment) to make it a statistically sound study (that is bringing my work to practice and that I will not do.)

I hope I explained my concerns and views a little better this time -- I have a lot of questions that I could not get answered without posting them. 

I have not used a 1/2" schedule 40 handle at the games that I am an AD so I have not been faced with this issue of what to do if a record is set.  

Perhaps after a month of practices and recording distances, I will have a better feel of whether this is an issue. 

Mark "McSanta" McVey

The more I think about it, those who wrote the rules should revisit them. 

The difference between a track and field hammer and a Scottish hammer is that the Scottish hammer is on a rattan, cane, or wooden shaft.  This implies a certain degree of rigidity in the handle. 

I am assuming the use of PVC occurred because it was a cheap substitute for Rattan.  I am also assuming that when PVC was first used, it was more rigid and no one consider the flexibility or stiffness in the handle as being an issue. (3/4 handle? Schedule 80?)

I do not believe a handle that sag over 30" (such as 1/2" Schedule 40 PVC handle) is anywhere near comparable to a rattan, cain,  or wood handle.  As a substitute for a rattan, cain, or wood handle, the 1/2 schedule 40 PVC is an extremely poor substitute.

As the way the rules are written, I could use a 1/4" PVC handle with a built up hand and it would be called a "Scottish hammer" - I would need to insert a cable through the handle for safety reasons. 

So why not take it to the ridiculous extreme and coat the cable with plastic and attach it to a handle? -- wait a minute, would that not be a T&F hammer?      

So perhaps, the few people who have authored rules and those who keep records should revisit this issue.  Add some verbiage about stiffness of the handle should be similar to that of a rattan handle otherwise the throw will not count toward any records. 

It is fair to those who came before these handles and makes comparing records over time much easier. 

Mark "McSanta" McVey

I also doubt that would add any appreciable distance to a throw from simply having a more flexible handle.  Essentially you're saying that you can store enough potential energy in the flex of the handle to further accelerate the head when it comes around.  Right?

Considering the mass you're trying to accelerate in the first place, I doubt that would have much effect.  And even then you're really only talking about the difference between that and a thicker PVC handle or rattan.  I would think you would get more difference just from personal thrower preference.

If you're worried about it, test it.  Get a group of people together to throw, and do alternating rounds with handles of more and less flexible materials.  Probably at least 3 rounds with each, and see if there are any differences across all throwers for the different materials.  You could even make sure it's people that rely on a big last pull to emphasize any effect from the flex.

McSanta wrote: The more I think about it, those who wrote the rules should revisit them.  The difference between a track and field hammer and a Scottish hammer is that the Scottish hammer is on a rattan, cane, or wooden shaft.  This implies a certain degree of rigidity in the handle.

It is not unheard of to see carefully shaved and shaped hammer handles at certain games in Scotland. Some years back when James Macbeath was visiting out here in CA he 'prepped' the handles on a few hammers that John Ross had, they were awesome.

Ed,

Isn't Decatuer Games your 1 year anniversary ? 

I have noticed that AA is using 3/4" Schedule 80.  Merl has a method of making 1/2 schedule 40 stiffer that has nothing to do with little blue pills!  Merl splits 1/4" tubing and slides this within the 1/2 tubing.  I have not yet done this.

I have not yet tested whether It makes a difference in the results of my throws.

Mark

Your right, Decatur last year was my first game.  I don't suck as bad now as I did then, but progress is slow when you start something like this at my advanced age.  I'm sure I wouldn't continue with it if it wasn't for the support and encouragement that I get from all you guys. Thanks.

I know this reply is nearly a monthy past the last post..

Be careful on using the 1/2" PVC unless your are ABSOLUTELY certain the weight won't be affected.

I've thrown 1/2" PVC hammers at several games - the bummer is that the two times I've seen the hammer weighed - it was a few ounces light (the 3/4" PVC is several ounces heavier and makes it legitimate).

As others have indicated - the stiffness and overall flexibility of the hammer is not the issue, but the weight will definitely get you.

Dave