3 ms·
> Each SmartBroom has four sensors in the broom head that relay data to a small display unit. Hamilton took one for a spin down the ice, and the data was instan
by croon 9y ago
> Each SmartBroom has four sensors in the broom head that relay data to a small display unit. Hamilton took one for a spin down the ice, and the data was instantaneous — line graphs along with a slew of numbers that showed his force in pounds and his stroke rate in hertz. Hamilton also pointed to a figure that he described as his “sweeping performance index,” or S.P.I., a metric that combines power and speed in one easy-to-digest figure.
Is there an obvious true way to reach that SPI metric? Is it possible that optimizing for the broom-provided SPI gives you non-optimized performance? I would assume that you would need temperature measurements from the ground/ice since the article implies that's the function of sweeping:
> A quick primer on sweeping: It is important. The science behind it is much more complicated than people think. The simplified version is that sweeping slightly increases the temperature of the ice while creating micro-scratches on the surface. The result is that players are better able to control for distance and trajectory as the rock travels down the sheet. The sport hinges on precision, so every brush stroke counts.
Am I missing something?
- jrauser 9y agoYou could gather empirical data in controlled settings and make a model that relates the things you can measure easily (speed and downward force) to the things you care about (rock distance and control). I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that's what's been done here.
- fredophile 9y agoI would guess that maximizing the number would not always provide optimal results. I don't curl but if you ever watch curling you can see that they aren't always trying to provide full force all of the time. I'm sure that having a quantifiable number that gives an indication of how hard they're sweeping at any given point could be useful.
- jandrese 9y agoYeah, it's all about fine tuning the speed of the rock so it lands exactly where you want it to go. Curling is basically shuffleboard but you can adjust the slipperiness of the track while the rock is in motion. If the rock is already slowing down at the right rate (or not enough!) you definitely don't want to be sweeping. I do wonder where the sport originated. Ice shuffleboard is straightforward enough, but who was the genius that figured out you could sweep the ice to control the rock better. Why were there no killjoys yelling that it was cheating? How can this be an Olympic sport but dart throwing isn't?
- croon 9y ago> I would guess that maximizing the number would not always provide optimal results. I don't curl but if you ever watch curling you can see that they aren't always trying to provide full force all of the time. Sure, absolutely. > I'm sure that having a quantifiable number that gives an indication of how hard they're sweeping at any given point could be useful. This was the part I was debating. How they're weighing frequency against force to reach a unified metric. When and how much they apply that within a game is a separate issue.