Modular polo mallet head design

Thor!

I guess the MILK guys could take 15mm off the overall width. Their heads are 125mm, that would certainly help.

I think theyre pretty close with the design and i like the fact that the machining is built for production with still the right amount of "build it yourself" involved.

i'm not convinced with the milk tbh. The capped end is concave after a few sessions and is not as accurate as i had hoped. They also said not to drill it, as it will considerably weaken the structure.

see above mate... BUT they're suggesting that you can use it twice by re-drilling the pole position, so kinda weakens the statement. Fair enough though they are saying to only drill 14mm and it is at the strongest/thickest part of the head.

i'm not convinced with the milk tbh. The capped end is concave after a few sessions and is not as accurate as i had hoped. They also said not to drill it, as it will considerably weaken the structure.

I bet the guys arnt happy with the concave either.... Im sure they'll sort the problem.

maybe a internal cross structure would help?

Really quickly:

if they were to make the head width 110mm (to match RV width)

88g / 125mm = 0.704g/mm

0.704*15mm (difference in length) = 10.56g

88g (current milk weight) - 10.56g = 77.44g (110 width milk)

see above mate... BUT they're suggesting that you can use it twice by re-drilling the pole position, so kinda weakens the statement. Fair enough though they are saying to only drill 14mm and it is at the strongest/thickest part of the head.

No, because that's why they have the ridge around the inside at that point, so that you can drill it.

I would not makes holes in the thin plastic between the ends and the middle.

Really quickly:

if they were to make the head width 110mm (to match RV width)

88g / 125mm = 0.704g/mm

0.704*15mm (difference in length) = 10.56g

88g (current milk weight) - 10.56g = 77.44g (110 width milk)

I don't think that adds up, because if they made it thinner, they would almost certainly not be reducing the width of the thick bits (the middle and the ends), they would simply be reducing the amount of thin plastic between them, so the weight reduction would be less then that.

88g (current milk weight) - 10.56g = 77.44g (110 width milk)

Nope, the thickness isn't consistent, the material you'd remove is very thin (2mm)... most of the weight is in the middle/ends (where it holds/wears).

"really quickly" its not like im making the thing. LOL

i'm not convinced with the milk tbh. The capped end is concave after a few sessions and is not as accurate as i had hoped.

Yeah, you are right Brendan. I compared them last night, and there is a noticeable difference between my used one, and my new one.

While the new one is also slightly concave, on the old one it keeps a 1cm ring around the outside, but then the middle bit has gone a bit more concave.

I'll mention it to them.

strength vs weight init.

you kinda need to be the man with the drawing and the machine and a series of prototypes TBF. im just saying theres room for improvement.

Drilling 'speed holes' isn't really the same as drilling 'pole holes' though. I guess the pole hole won't introduce as many 'false rebounds' as said speed holes which I'm assuming are like the ones in the 3pmh.

So
RV 106gm / superior head
milk 89gm

What's the news on the 3pmh capped John, and good, any idea how heavy?

Am I the only one who hasn't notice 'false rebounds' with 3pmh (international) heads?

I built up an Asim head, (the black pipe with speed holes) and it was ludicrously light, but I noticed the larger internal diameter of the ends tends to launch the ball into the air on shots. I'm guessing people pretty much exclusively use caps on that stuff?

The thinner cap on the milk does help save weight, but they could up the power transfer (and remove the concave warping) with thicker material.

Also, people shouldn't just concentrate on saving weight, there is a point where you lose the pendulum of your swing/lose power (strong wrists for the win).

Granted a super lightweight mallet does enable lots of nifty ball handling/Josh-cheater-goal opportunities (carbon golf shaft and small chunk of HDPE is your best bet there).

Am I the only one who hasn't notice 'false rebounds' with 3pmh (international) heads?

It is physically impossible for a hole of say 30mm to have an impact on the rebound of a ~70mm diameter ball. Cheater mallets have an impact, as do huge holes, I reckon the 3pmh holes make no difference at all. It's more likely that the milk heads feel better for receiving passes because they look more solid, or because the material marginally cushions the ball on impact, or it's just here'say.

Also, people shouldn't just concentrate on saving weight, there is a point where you lose the pendulum of your swing/lose power (strong wrists for the win).

tots. but a light mallet head does mean quicker transfer of power.

ha plus a dodgy sketch

1 Attachment

This geekery still doesn't rival the sword discussion on LOBP.

I remember a time when i could delete comments like that.

i say up the wall thickness,
reduce the width,
change the internal profile,
drill to loose weight

...and also to this.... buy what they have so they can afford to do a mark II/III

I remember a time when you would make comments like that.

I remember when comments like that would get a man killed

I'd kill a man for less

Take it to the Milk development forum Ray, you'll be warmly received:
http://milk-bike-polo.com/milkuser/

im gonna kill you jon. sorry.

WrongRay!

I'm not as strong my male counterparts, and my wrist is pretty knackered from my inability to tuck and roll, so I need light light light heads. I'd love to have a capped light head but I guess that's oxymoronic [sic].

Keeping crossed fingers for 3pmh capped to be awesome.

I'm away for a week but if you do a Milk run, then please put me down for 1, ta.

Coming soon: