2003 Yonex rackets measurements

[cooler]

It is accepted fact that many players and fanatics have debated endlessly on various technical specification of badminton rackets without any definitive conclusion because many arguments were based on personal and subjective evaluation. To resolve these questions on racket performance and specification, detailed measurements of each racket and version are needed so that a consistent comparison can be made.

This is a series of presentation of such technical data of badminton rackets. Every effort is made to focus and compare one parameter at a time while keeping other variable constant. In my possession is a line up of all (well, from mp24 and up) 2003 yonex badminton rackets in brand new condition. All rackets are strung with bg65 string. No overgrip and in G4 grip size (with some exception as noted). I did not take measurement on unstrung rackets because they won't reflect REAL LIFE performance.

For the first comparison - racket stiffness. This is a total stiffness test, shaft + frame. Therefore, it is a real life comparison. I had referenced all the racket stiffness to cab20M. Since i do not have the original 2UG4 cab 20 with me, i chose cab20M because i believe yonex had kept the legacy and performance of the original cab 20 in their cab 20M with only difference of having Muscle power grooves. I figured that we all tend to agree that the cab 20 is perceived as a balance racket and most of us had used and come to know how a cab 20 feel. The term relative stiffness here means how much more a racket stiffer than the cab20M. For example, the mp99 is 5.07% more stiffer than the cab20M.

One big surprise from the test result is that the AT700 isn't extra stiff nor stiff, more like medium stiff. Another surprise is the mp33 is just as (slightly more) stiff as a mp100. Well, i'll let you guys/gals make your own judgement yourself. I think the test result presented below is self explanatory.

DISCLAIMER: Yonex did not supervise nor designed the test. Yonex is not be liable for any damages result from the use or misuse, directly or indirectly, of the data presented here. Ditto for badmintonforum members. The data presented in badmintonforum is original. Badmintonforum cannot guarantee of accuracy of data that may appear elsewhere.

[kwun]

cooler, you do own a cab22, no? that's is generally known to be a stiff racket, i wonder if you can take one more measurement and include that in the data.

excellent data, first class stuff!

[JChen99]

cooler, was this done on only one racket of each model? or several rackets/model?

[freeheeler]

come by the weights of your rackets?

Looking at the stores, they differ a lot

http://www.badmintonalley.com/rackets_info_yonex-at700.php

http://www.tennisnuts.co.uk/ishop/677/shopscr1538.html

Just curious

Martin

[kwun]

becareful with the weight. cooler listed that his AT700 is a 3U version. while i believe in the US and UK, they only have 4U version and thus explains the weight difference.

but it would be interesting to know what type of scale cooler used to measure the weight. as he shows two significant digits so the scale is precise enough to measure up to the nearest 0.05g?

also, according to cooler's claim. the weight is with string so it will certainly differ than those claimed by other like Yonex who specifies unstrung weight.

[cappy75]

Hey Cooler,

How did you measure stiffness on those racquets?

[cooler]

Originally posted by JChen99
cooler, was this done on only one racket of each model? or several rackets/model?

yes, the above data are for one individual racket, not mean average of several rackets. Besides, how many rackets per model per test is enough? The weight data presented as secondary data, it has no influence of stiffness performance.

The weight range of U,2U,3U,4U, etc (5 g increment) specified by yonex doesn't mean their rackets have loose tolerance, the range of weight of each weight bracket is more or less controlled by the grip size. A 3UG3 WILL WEIGH MORE THAN A 3UG4 of the same model because a G3 handle has more wood than a G4.

More your information, i personally have been using a 3UG3 MP99 for a 10-11 months. It weighs 93.9 g (with bg80 string though, my guess is that it would weight ~ 94 g if strung with bg65). From the table presented with a 3UG4 MP99, this one weight 93.00 g, a difference of 0.9 g (or ~1 g if bg65 was used) per grip size increment it seem. Since there is 4 grip size per weight (U) catergory, it does comes pretty close to the 5 g spread tolerance as specificed by yonex for each weight bracket. I have observed that last few years yonex racket weight consistency had improved year after year. The weight range within each U is mostly to cover difference of grip size.


Case in point. I have in possession TWO mp33
.........shaft......... cone.........estimated date of acquired from yonex warehouse.... weight with bg-65
MP33 4499759 210832CD September-03.....92.45 g
MP33 4214428 310132CD June-03............92.55 g

so u see, the range variation of 0.1% isn't that bad at all. It is small enough to be explained by the difference of wood source (ie, which part of tree trunk that wood came from) :rolleyes: ;)

[cooler]

the above 2 mp33 are both 2UG4 with Bg65 string

[cooler]

it is self explanatory

[cooler]

Originally posted by cappy75
Hey Cooler,

How did you measure stiffness on those racquets?

The old fashion way, I bend them:o :)

[cappy75]

How about tying a 1lb measuring weight to the end of the racquet frame (with the racquet handle anchored to a table or something) and measure the length of the flex? Wouldn't that be more standardized?

[cooler]

I can assure all of you that the test methodology used is very standardized, consistent and repeatable.:)

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
cooler, you do own a cab22, no? that's is generally known to be a stiff racket, i wonder if you can take one more measurement and include that in the data.

excellent data, first class stuff!

Thanks kwun. For that, cab22 relative stiffness as requested. I have also added the infamous blacken. BTW, cab 22 should read cab 20 power because that is the one i got. Technically, cab20 power is equivalent to cab 22

[JChen99]

Originally posted by cooler
so u see, the range variation of 0.1% isn't that bad at all. It is small enough to be explained by the difference of wood source (ie, which part of tree trunk that wood came from) :rolleyes: ;)
I see your point cooler :D
btw... is it possible that you get your hands on a CP/CN racket to do some tests? it would be a good idea since it could possibly end the CP/CN racket debate once and for all :D well... at least the rumors about it being "more stiff" :p

[bigredlemon]

Originally posted by cooler
I can assure all of you that the test methodology used is very standardized, consistent and repeatable.:)
Standardized, consistent, and repeatable equates with percission, but to not to accuracy nor reliability.

We'd like to hear the details of how you measured the stiffness.

Also, i doubt that your measured stiffness equates to actual stiffness feeling. Presuming a shaft with the same degree of bending, a racquet with that shaft that is twice as heavy would be twice as flexible, and yet your rating scale would not detect such a difference.

Static stiffness is not the same as dynamic stiffness.

[cooler]

BRL, i didnt say the stiffness data presented would be the holy grail answers to all question about stiffness. Yes, it is static stiffness comparison, it suppose to be a guide. I did not claim to be a dynamic stiffness comparision. If you want a dynamic review, go read the racket review section, you will see the opinions vary much much wider than my data on static stiffness.

http://www.badmintonreview.com/rp/showcat.php?cat=3

Even if i have a $1,000,000 machine to do dynamic stiffness testing, new questions and doubt will come out of it. It will never ends. It like you asking answers to the 10th decimal place after i gave you data with 9th decimal place.

[cooler]

Originally posted by JChen99
I see your point cooler :D
btw... is it possible that you get your hands on a CP/CN racket to do some tests? it would be a good idea since it could possibly end the CP/CN racket debate once and for all :D well... at least the rumors about it being "more stiff" :p

for cn/cp and jp rackets, i think weight is the important parameter to measure. The whole agrument of owning cn/cp and jp rackets is that they can withstand higher tension.

[kwun]

also notice in the chart, if we take out the data point for the mp33. we have the 2U racket being the stiffest, then the 3U, then the 4U.

the MP33 just seems to be sitting at the wrong place.

[kwun]

another observation. the cab20MS that cooler has is a 3U. while the cab20 original that most ppl were accustomed to mainly comes in 2U.

but still, not a bad idea for the reference point.

not too surprising about the cab22.

i already offered cooler two of my old Iso900 SS for measurement. one CN, one SP, both cracked at the frame. we will have to wait till next time we meet though.

[cooler]

dont think so kwun. I got two mp33 and both came within .075% stiffness difference with each other. I had repeated the test twice. I even done gut feel flex test using my hands and it does feel stiff for a medium range racket. I think we shouldn't see mp33 as a medium range racket but yonex might want a light and stiff racket in their line up, it is just my guess. I have tried this racket and it is a fast and very maneuverable racket, very snappy, great for double. The performance (double games) seem to support the racket stiff and balance (to be posted soon) ;)

Too bad i dun have a 2UG4 cab 20 to compare with. I only got a U cab 20 and it is not with me now.

[Neil Nicholls]

MP33 looked out of place to me too.

I would have expected it to be between the MP24 and the MP99,
and for stiffness to be MP33 > MP27 > MP24

Not being up-to-the-minute with Yonex products I don't know which of all those are Long.

Cooler, does your stiffness test take into account that a short racquet will seem stiffer than a long racquet?

[kwun]

cooler. i see. i see.

i am sure cooler's measurement will no doubt generate a lot of interests as it is the first objective and quantitative measurements we've seen.

however, while we do so, i like to applaud cooler for being the 'guy of action', who actually took the time and effort to make all these measurements for everybody.

:D

[cooler]

Originally posted by Neil Nicholls
MP33 looked out of place to me too.

I would have expected it to be between the MP24 and the MP99,
and for stiffness to be MP33 > MP27 > MP24

Not being up-to-the-minute with Yonex products I don't know which of all those are Long.

Cooler, does your stiffness test take into account that a short racquet will seem stiffer than a long racquet?

last question first. Yes, i did normalized to each their own length, that is why i showed relative stiffness, not absolute nor total stiffness.

That was the purpose of going through the rigorous testing so that we subjective human being can see the racket specification objectively. Yes, normal logic would lead us to say mp33 performance to fit within trend of other mp's numerical model naming convention. However, if we apply this logic to the MP88, then MP88 stiffness should fall between MP99>MP88>MP77 but this is not the case. MP88 is more flexy than the beginner racket mp24. I'm sure most of you out there had felt the mp88 and it has a very flexible shaft.

[cooler]

Thanks Kwun:)

As the second part of this thread, the table shows the racket head balance point of the 2003 yonex rackets (from mp24 upward). Since each racket has difference length, i am showing the result in term of relative head heaviness or tippyness. Yes, some of the result may alarm you but that's how the data came out. All actual measurements are to 0.5 mm. No, i did not use my index finger as the fulcrum. The width of the fulcrum used was 0.5 mm, similar to a dull knife.

0 means balance similar to a 3U cab20M
negative means relative percentage head lighter than a cab 20M
positive means relative percentage head heavier than a cab 20M

[kwun]

with the 3 factors, weight, head balance and total length of the racket, we have sufficient data to measure the static head heaviness of each racket. cooler, can you calculate the head heaviness for us?

[ants]

Great stuffs..

[Neil Nicholls]

Originally posted by cooler
Yes, normal logic would lead us to say mp33 performance to fit within trend of other mp's numerical model naming convention. However, if we apply this logic to the MP88, then MP88 stiffness should fall between MP99>MP88>MP77 but this is not the case. MP88 is more flexy than the beginner racket mp24. I'm sure most of you out there had felt the mp88 and it has a very flexible shaft.

My expectations weren't based on the numerical naming of the racquets, but from Yonex's graph of whether each racquet is more for Singles or Doubles, and Offense or Defence. And then just comparing similar weight racquets, which is why I didn't mention MP88.

Maybe what we are seeing with the MP33 is because it does not have the Ultimum-Ti shaft, whereas the MP77/99/100 do.

[cooler]

neil, Utimium Ti doesn't dictate shaft stiffness. MP88 has Utimium Ti shaft as well.

That is the whole point of my exercise, to bypass generalized terms like extra stiff, stiff, Med stiff, Med, Med flex, flex. It's different from year to year, brand to brand. MP88 and MP33 are i think very misundertood rackets. In yonex's chart it catergorized as a double racket and yet pros that i know who uses mp88 are peter gade, mia audina and ardy wiranta. I dont know yet any pros who use mp88 for double. Of course i dont know all the top players out there so i might missed some pros who do use mp88 for double.

Last weekend i went to see the Jr national qualifying competition. The most common racket used by the U19 was the MP33. Of course common doesnt mean 50% or more like the shoes (shb89). It was more like 10%. Second was MP99. The rest were other yonex, forza, victor, black knight, etc

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
with the 3 factors, weight, head balance and total length of the racket, we have sufficient data to measure the static head heaviness of each racket. cooler, can you calculate the head heaviness for us?

I didnt understand this question. I thought the table had showed how head heavy each racket compared to the cab20M. Ex. the balance point of AT700 is ~ 6% further up the racket than a cab20M.

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
also notice in the chart, if we take out the data point for the mp33. we have the 2U racket being the stiffest, then the 3U, then the 4U.

the MP33 just seems to be sitting at the wrong place.

that is not a sound conclusion. there are 3U MP100, 2U MP99, 3U cab22/cab20 Power, 3U MP88 out there which i havent got hold of but i'm confidence that their stiffness are comparable to each of their 2U's counterpart.

[kwun]

Originally posted by cooler
I didnt understand this question. I thought the table had showed how head heavy each racket compared to the cab20M. Ex. the balance point of AT700 is ~ 6% further up the racket than a cab20M.

the balance point of a racket is not very useful a measure on its own. the true static "heaviness" of a racket should be the moment generated by the racket, ie, the distance to the CG of the racket multiplied by its weight (N*m).

let's give an example, a 1m long uniformly thick steel rod may weight 20kg with a balance point at 50cm. while a 1m long plastic rod weighting 200g also has a balance point at 50cm. the steel rod has a higher moment and thus much harder to swing.

the same can be said about badminton racket. a 80g racket and a 100g racket with the same balance point, the 100g racket will be harder to swing. and thus the real value we need to look at is not merely the balance, but the actual moment which is a combination of the balance and weight.

[kwun]

Originally posted by cooler
that is not a sound conclusion. there are 3U MP100, 2U MP99, 3U cab22/cab20 Power, 3U MP88 out there which i havent got hold of but i'm confidence that their stiffness are comparable to each of their 2U's counterpart.

i wasn't making a conclusion, just merely an observation.

i am not convince about your claim though, it'd be an interesting experiment now that you have the setup... ;)

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
the balance point of a racket is not very useful a measure on its own. the true static "heaviness" of a racket should be the moment generated by the racket, ie, the distance to the CG of the racket multiplied by its weight (N*m).

let's give an example, a 1m long uniformly thick steel rod may weight 20kg with a balance point at 50cm. while a 1m long plastic rod weighting 200g also has a balance point at 50cm. the steel rod has a higher moment and thus much harder to swing.

the same can be said about badminton racket. a 80g racket and a 100g racket with the same balance point, the 100g racket will be harder to swing. and thus the real value we need to look at is not merely the balance, but the actual moment which is a combination of the balance and weight.

i see i see :) However, just for completeness, the rod example u have highlighted is straight forward, linearity. For an objects with irregular shape, moment of inertia would still be different even when these irregular shaped and density profile object have similar CG location and weigh similarly. If we assume the rackets to the ideal case of the rod (linear system), then the cg * mass comparison is pretty straight forward. It was this issue of irregular frame shape that held me back of not doing the moment calculation;)

Before i make those calculation, please note the limitation of calculated moment of inertia from some excerpts that i got from a space industries measuring device manufacturer. Of course, the content contain some marketing messages as well. No , i do not plan to buy one of those MOI measuring instrument :(

Why measure Moment of Inertia The MOI of simple shapes may be calculated by well known methods. However, reducing complex shapes or compound objects to an assemblage of simple objects and summing the moments of inertia can lead to large errors. It is more practical and faster to accurately determine the MOI of complex objects or of objects with varying density by direct measurement.
Measuring MOI directly has these advantages:

Greater Accuracy - Typical errors in calculated MOI can range to over 30% due to simplifying the part shape, or making assumptions about average density. If hanging wire or trifilar pendulums are used to measure MOI, large errors result from multiple mode oscillations.

Cost Savings - Measurements can generally be made in a small fraction of the time required for exact MOI calculations. Cost savings in engineering time alone can quickly pay for the instrument. Furthermore, calculations do not account for manufacturing variations.

Quality Assurance - Military and industrial specifications frequently set limits on MOI (and CG location), where these parameters are critical to the performance of rockets, projectiles, and re-entry components

[bigredlemon]

Originally posted by cooler
BRL, i didnt say the stiffness data presented would be the holy grail answers to all question about stiffness. Yes, it is static stiffness comparison, it suppose to be a guide. I did not claim to be a dynamic stiffness comparision. If you want a dynamic review, go read the racket review section, you will see the opinions vary much much wider than my data on static stiffness.

http://www.badmintonreview.com/rp/showcat.php?cat=3

Even if i have a $1,000,000 machine to do dynamic stiffness testing, new questions and doubt will come out of it. It will never ends. It like you asking answers to the 10th decimal place after i gave you data with 9th decimal place.
You said it was a real life comparison, when in fact it was a lab comparison. In the real world, you only experience dynamic stiffness.

Dynamic stiffness can be tested very cheaply. A small weight, pen, and paper is all you need. Since dynamic stiffness (not static stiffness) is the only number that matters and can be very cheaply measured, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask for it.

[kwun]

Originally posted by bigredlemon
You said it was a real life comparison, when in fact it was a lab comparison. In the real world, you only experience dynamic stiffness.

Dynamic stiffness can be tested very cheaply. A small weight, pen, and paper is all you need. Since dynamic stiffness (not static stiffness) is the only number that matters and can be very cheaply measured, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask for it.

i see. so are you volunteering?

[kwun]

Originally posted by cooler
i see i see :) However, just for completeness, the rod example u have highlighted is straight forward, linearity. For an objects with irregular shape, moment of inertia would still be different even when these irregular shaped and density profile object have similar CG location and weigh similarly. If we assume the rackets to the ideal case of the rod (linear system), then the cg * mass comparison is pretty straight forward. It was this issue of irregular frame shape that held me back of not doing the moment calculation;)

Before i make those calculation, please note the limitation of calculated moment of inertia ...

understood. but the static moment is closer an indicator than just balance point alone. if we have equipment limitations that disallow us to get to the true value, we just have to settle for the closest approximation within our constraints.

[bigredlemon]

Originally posted by cooler
i see i see :) However, just for completeness, the rod example u have highlighted is straight forward, linearity. For an objects with irregular shape, moment of inertia would still be different even when these irregular shaped and density profile object have similar CG location and weigh similarly. If we assume the rackets to the ideal case of the rod (linear system), then the cg * mass comparison is pretty straight forward. It was this issue of irregular frame shape that held me back of not doing the moment calculation;)
Irregular shapes can be approximated to a rod if there is no angular rotation along the axis perpendicular to the rod. This is true for all strokes except a smash, in which there is a small 90 degree rotation that is negligible. Thus it's perfectly fine to approximate a racquet as a linear rod of non-uniform density. If you presume the hitter always hits in the same spot on the string bed, you can further approximate it as a point-mass or ball at some distance from the axis of rotation.

With either approximation, MOI is easy to calculate.

[cooler]

brl, obviously you had taken my words out of context. I could have reported stiffness in term of deflection per unit length of racket shaft. Real life meant stiffness in relation to a known or common reference point like a cab 20, in my case i didnt have a cab 20 so i used cab20M. If you are so adamant about knowing real life dynamic, just ignore this thread and go read the racket review in the BC section. I can also tell you how to experience real life dynamic stiffness but i doubt kwun would let me elaborate in BF :p :o


Dynamic stiffness can be tested very cheaply. A small weight, pen, and paper is all you need. Since dynamic stiffness (not static stiffness) is the only number that matters and can be very cheaply measured, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask for it.

Well, let see you run some dynamic stiffness test on your rackets. I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to ask for it.

[cooler]

Originally posted by bigredlemon
Irregular shapes can be approximated to a rod if there is no angular rotation along the axis perpendicular to the rod. This is true for all strokes except a smash, in which there is a small 90 degree rotation that is negligible. Thus it's perfectly fine to approximate a racquet as a linear rod of non-uniform density. If you presume the hitter always hits in the same spot on the string bed, you can further approximate it as a point-mass or ball at some distance from the axis of rotation.

With either approximation, MOI is easy to calculate.

kwun, brl, i agreed.
I just want people here to understand the limitation of calculated MOI although it's very small in this case.

[bigredlemon]

if i'm going to systematically report real world stiffness, i'd be sure to do that.

[bigredlemon]

Originally posted by cooler
I can also tell you how to experience real life dynamic stiffness but i doubt kwun would let me elaborate in BF :p :o
Don't take comments on the limitations of your measurements too personally.

[cooler]

This is part three of the 2003 (yonex) racket measurment focused on moment or the twisting force needed to put the racket into motion from the rest position. It doesn’t reflect perfectly the amount of totally energy to fully swing the racket but the relationship between moment to angular momentum should be reasonably close.

Again, the result presented is referenced to the 3U cab20m. Less than 1 mean the racket take less effort to move it than a 3U cab 20m. Relative moment greater than 1 means it would take more effort to move it than a 3U cab20m.


I’m sure BF members could draw many conclusion from these data.

[Neil Nicholls]

Originally posted by cooler
The old fashion way, I bend them:o :)

I'm sure several of us would still like to know how you measured the stiffness.
i.e. what equipment etc. If you clamped the handle in something did you clamp it right at the butt, in the middle, by the cone. Some of us just need to know ;)

Also, when you normalise results for different length racquets, are you using the total length of the racquet, or just the length of the shaft, or shaft+head ?

[bigredlemon]

the definition of relative movement is vague. How did you measure this?

Since there is no static force against angular movement, the value for every racquet should be about 0. (1/infinity to be exact.)

[cooler]

Originally posted by bigredlemon
the definition of relative movement is vague. How did you measure this?

Since there is no static force against angular movement, the value for every racquet should be about 0. (1/infinity to be exact.)

It's obvious you are too quick trying to be overly precise and critical with my data while you haven't understood the objective of the matter.

The (Part 3) data presented relates to relative moment, NOT relative movement. How it was calculated? check kwun post not too far up from here.

http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12833&perpage=10&pagenumber=4

Moment does not necessarily has to be associated with movement or motion. For example, it's like Arnold Schwarzenegger twisting your arm behind your back. You feel pain but you ain't moving. Of course Arnold can apply lock-arm force + some additional moment (N-m) and you would be flying somersaut and experiencing lots of angular movement or momentum.:o (hasta la vista, baby):p

[kwun]

agree with cooler. there can be lots of interacting forces / moments in a static system.

BRL, time to go dig out those high school textbooks... ;)

[cooler]

Originally posted by Neil Nicholls
I'm sure several of us would still like to know how you measured the stiffness.
i.e. what equipment etc. If you clamped the handle in something did you clamp it right at the butt, in the middle, by the cone. Some of us just need to know ;)

Also, when you normalise results for different length racquets, are you using the total length of the racquet, or just the length of the shaft, or shaft+head ?

Neil, I clamped the handle, not the cone because some shaft flexing does occur inside the cone. I normalized it to each racket total length.

[bigredlemon]

eck... i misread that word.

[Framerate]

Make my day and add a Ti-10 Long to your tests...

[cooler]

Originally posted by Framerate
Make my day and add a Ti-10 Long to your tests...
I don't have a ti-10 with me now. Maybe later when someone let me borrow his/her ti-10. Ahhhh, come to think of it now, there is one person ;) near new condition too

[kwun]

need to make a note. next time when i see cooler (whenever that might be...) i should donate him my broken rackets for testing. that'd include my Iso900 SX, SS(CN,SP), Ti-10, Aerotus 77/110...

it is a good cause, afterall.

[Pete LSD]

:D :D :D Actually, the best person to donate racquets for testing is Ricky! Our infamous BF member has so many different makes and models.

[kwun]

not sure if Ricky wants to donate for lend a US$300 extremely rare JP/CP racket to cooler to "bend"... ;)

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
not sure if Ricky wants to donate for lend a US$300 extremely rare JP/CP racket to cooler to "bend"... ;)

LOL, he should, in the name of science and the betterment of mankind:) :D

Actually, all tests are were conducted WAY below the yield stress region but still large even to simulate the 'bending' stress from a super hard hitter. IE, all original physical properties are preserved. :)

[Ricky]

Originally posted by kwun
not sure if Ricky wants to donate for lend a US$300 extremely rare JP/CP racket to cooler to "bend"... ;)

JP racket is not rare ... it is around everywhere. For CP rackets, I don't mind to lend some of them for test if you guys come to HK. :)

A side track topic - I heard that AT700 has been arrived ... but I still haven't seen it so far. I'm checking with my sources to see whether they can get one for me ... at reasonable price.

[shelwinbautista]

you have weight of at500 4U?with bg-65 string?tnx!

[cooler]

Originally posted by shelwinbautista
you have weight of at500 4U?with bg-65 string?tnx!

if you send me one, sure;)

mostly likely 86 to 88g

[cooler]

Originally posted by Framerate
Make my day and add a Ti-10 Long to your tests...

before i show the result, would you like to take a guess?
like what do u think your ti-10 stiffnes relative to those rackets i have listed.
It would be make good comparision of human subjective feel to objective measurement.

[Ricky]

Originally posted by cooler
before i show the result, would you like to take a guess?
like what do u think your ti-10 stiffnes relative to those rackets i have listed.
It would be make good comparision of human subjective feel to objective measurement.

I guess it is ~5%, a little bit below MP99.

[|BLAI|]

question
if mp88 is more head heavy than mp77, then does that mean that IF the weight ratios(head heaviness) are kept and IF mp88/77 are the same weight, then mp 88 will be more powerful in smashing?

[Neil Nicholls]

Originally posted by |BLAI|
question
if mp88 is more head heavy than mp77, then does that mean that IF the weight ratios(head heaviness) are kept and IF mp88/77 are the same weight, then mp 88 will be more powerful in smashing?

Given your assumptions I think you would be right, but only if the player was strong enough to swing the head-heavier racquet at the same speed as the head-light one.

[ayl]

Original quote by Cooler

Moment does not necessarily has to be associated with movement or motion. For example, it's like Arnold Schwarzenegger twisting your arm behind your back. You feel pain but you ain't moving. Of course Arnold can apply lock-arm force + some additional moment (N-m) and you would be flying somersaut and experiencing lots of angular movement or momentum.:o (hasta la vista, baby):p

Cooler you do make some great visuals for a scientific study! :D

Any chance of you getting a Cab21 and Ti-10 and put them through a comparative test?

[cooler]

yes i do:) but the data i got (or will get) are from used cab21 and ti-10.

[cooler]

Originally posted by ayl
[B]

Cooler you do make some great visuals for a scientific study! :D

Any chance of you getting a Cab21 and Ti-10 and put them through a comparative test?

here are the results. Remember, references are made to a brand new cab20MS. My next project is to investigate stiffness vs time of usage.


relative stiffness: used CD ti-10: -1.00%, relative moment: 1.0658%
relative stiffness: used....cab21: -0.30%, relative moment: N/A (repaired frame)

the above say this used cab21's stiffness is similar to a new cab20MS while an used ti-10 is 1.% less stiff than the reference. Surprising huh?;)

[Fusion_M8]

Cooler, according to your tests, the MP24 is stiffer than the MP27, but both are relatively head light compared to a standard Cab20. Thus will it be fair to say that if I'm looking for a cheap racquet that can offer me good stiffness for power and head lightness for control, the MP24 might be a better choice than the MP27???

G.

[cooler]

Originally posted by Fusion_M8
Cooler, according to your tests, the MP24 is stiffer than the MP27, but both are relatively head light compared to a standard Cab20. Thus will it be fair to say that if I'm looking for a cheap racquet that can offer me good stiffness for power and head lightness for control, the MP24 might be a better choice than the MP27???

G.

yes, if that's what u wanted.
here is something not published, the mp24 is 0.65 cm (6.5mm) longer than mp27. Shhh.

[Fusion_M8]

ssshhhh.....I won't tell if u won't tell..... ;-)

[Winex West Can]

Originally posted by Fusion_M8
Cooler, according to your tests, the MP24 is stiffer than the MP27, but both are relatively head light compared to a standard Cab20. Thus will it be fair to say that if I'm looking for a cheap racquet that can offer me good stiffness for power and head lightness for control, the MP24 might be a better choice than the MP27???

G.

A little bit off-topic but you get better power with a more flexible racquet so the MP27 is a better choice than the MP24 in that regard.

[Fusion_M8]

Originally posted by Winex West Can
A little bit off-topic but you get better power with a more flexible racquet so the MP27 is a better choice than the MP24 in that regard.

Not as far as energy transfer goes.... I believe the more flex a component has, the less energy is transfered, thus when I smash the shuttle, the less flex a racquet has, more of the original energy is transfered to the shuttle.

I also believe the more flex a racquet has, there will be less feel and control.

But of course, many people will say I'm wrong, but I trust what I have learnt from 18 years of badminton experience.

But thanks for pointing that out to me anyway!

G.

[taneepak]

I think there is some confusion and misunderstanding about a racquet's stiffness or flex as they relate to power. Measuring a racquet's stiffness by bending it does not tell you its flex. It merely tells you the racquet will give you added whip if it bends uniformly, which it should if you are looking for a little more whip.
The flex of a racquet is primarily a stiffness test on the frame, although the shaft can also be stiffened. Comparing a mildly stiff shaft with a very stiff shaft by bending tells you nothing, as both will bend.
Racquets that are rated as not stiff will have their frame flex more, and lose energy. You cannot see the difference in frame flex with your eyes : there is a way to measure it in the plant. However, I can try to draw an analogy.
Lets say you change your car's steel wheels for aluminium alloy wheels of the same weight, the first thing you will notice is that your car will handle and ride better. This is because steel wheels flex more under load or cornering forces. Ditto for stainless pots (flex more with a lot of hotspots) vs cast iron pots when boiling liquids or cooking anything.
In other words, you have to take the manufacturer's word on it's racquet flex stiffness.

[ants]

in a way i do agree with u. sometimes pll differenciate stiffness of the shaft instead of the frame. :)

[cooler]

I don’t where to begin to reply. Your last post contains so many flaws and disconnected illogic that may snow someone who don’t know material mechanics and physics. To clarify my point, allow me to dissect your last post. Your quotes are in between asterisk (*).

1. * I think there is some confusion and misunderstanding about a racquet's stiffness or flex as they relate to power.* I think you are the one who is confused and misunderstood on my chart of racket stiffness.
2. *Measuring a racquet's stiffness by bending it does not tell you its flex.* I say it does. If not, can you provide me a better and more reliable stiffness test that doesn’t cost thousands of dollars.
3. *It merely tells you the racquet will give you added whip if it bends uniformly, which it should if you are looking for a little more whip.* Wrong again, stiffness tell us more than just ‘whip’, which I find your term ‘whip’ is so general and vague. Define your term ‘whip’. I can get more whip just from striking the shuttle harder, independent of racket stiffness. All people are looking for more whip. So, are your saying beginners should get the stiffest racket because it give the most whip?
4. * The flex of a racquet is primarily a stiffness test on the frame* Hahahaha, this is so (censored)…well, what can I say. Tell that to a golfer, stiffness is all on the club head, hahahaha. So, if someone want a whippy racket, what kind of frame should he get? LOL.
5. * Comparing a mildly stiff shaft with a very stiff shaft by bending tells you nothing, as both will bend.* LOL, yes, we all know everything bends, including concrete. So you are saying bending the shaft doesn’t tell us anything about the racket except they just bend? Even a little kid can answer this one.
6. *Racquets that are rated as not stiff will have their frame flex more, and lose energy* How about a racket with Aluminum frame and 1st generation graphite shaft. The Al frame won’t flex more just because the flexy shaft flexes more. What make you think flexiness relates to degree of energy lost?
7. * You cannot see the difference in frame flex with your eyes : there is a way to measure it in the plant.* LOL, sure I can see it, that’s how I measure stiffness, with length, width, and depth measurements, all read by my eyes. I bet that’s how yonex measures stiffness too. If I use my 2 hands and bend a racket, I can see the shaft bending in a curvature, amazing huh?

Your analogy of steel vs Al rim make no sense to me in relating to racket stiffness and performance. Beside, Al rim with same weight as steel must have to be a bigger rim. Are you saying yonex should use aluminum shaft? Yonex had use steel shaft before. On pots and pans, you are so out of it. Hotspots have nothing to do with pot’s stiffness. It have to do with material heat conductivity constant and thickness.

8. * In other words, you have to take the manufacturer's word on it's racquet flex stiffness.* WRONG. Manufacturer’s word is just a guidance. Case in point. AT700 is rated extra stiff by yonex. My tangible test show it is NOT even just stiff, more like medium flex, similar to mp27 and a tad stiffer than cab20MS. My claim is back with number liking me saying the temperature is 27.3 degree Celsius, not like saying it's extra hot in yonex terminology. Furthermore, feedback from many AT700 users says AT700 IS NOT STIFF at all.

[taneepak]

Racquet flex is not a test of shaft stiffness. It is measured on the Babolat RDC as flex number, using a 25kg load on the string bed, repeat, string bed, of the frame. The shaft has no string bed to test, and it is not directly in contact with the strings like the frame is, where the greatest impact and flex occur.
Yes, older racquets made from steel and aluminum did flex more, despite their apparent 'rigidity'. Just like steel car wheels and stainless steel pots. But that is another story.
Yes, on the shaft: you can have two racquets of the same material and same flex, with one having a longer shaft than the other but the overall length of both is the same, both racquets will be rated as equal in flex stiffness. However, the longer shaft will have more 'bend' and, consequently, will have more whip. Testing for racquet whip is one very important test you should do when choosing a racquet from the same brand and model.

[cooler]

Originally posted by taneepak
Racquet flex is not a test of shaft stiffness. It is measured on the Babolat RDC as flex number, using a 25kg load on the string bed, repeat, string bed, of the frame. The shaft has no string bed to test, and it is not directly in contact with the strings like the frame is, where the greatest impact and flex occur.
Yes, older racquets made from steel and aluminum did flex more, despite their apparent 'rigidity'. Just like steel car wheels and stainless steel pots. But that is another story.
Yes, on the shaft: you can have two racquets of the same material and same flex, with one having a longer shaft than the other but the overall length of both is the same, both racquets will be rated as equal in flex stiffness. However, the longer shaft will have more 'bend' and, consequently, will have more whip. Testing for racquet whip is one very important test you should do when choosing a racquet from the same brand and model.


LOLOL. I dare you put a 25kg (55 lbs) load on a badminton racket string bed to test frame flex. I repeat, i dare you. Now i realize the cause of all the flawed statements in your past posts. I concluded that you have basically taken what you have read or heard (from other uninformed friends) about TENNIS and transferred directly to badminton without understanding the underlying principles of science and its limitation. (It's like a 5th grader briefly read a university science book and declare that he can skip junior and high school science). In this case, the babolat RDC test and number are designed for tennis racket. You see, in today's tennis rackets, the shaft is a truss, built to resist flexing. All the flexing and other racket characteristic are defined by the frame. THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR BADMINTON RACKET.

your statement *like the frame is, where the greatest impact and flex occur* is for tennis racket. In badminton, greatest flex occurs at the shaft piece AND we want minimum flexing from the frame.

It is obvious (to me) that you have also misunderstood why performance drivers prefer Al or Mag rims over steels. Yes, that's another story. It's enough schooling for today.

[Neil Nicholls]

But what does the Babolat RDC measure?
Is the racquet handle clamped and then the amount the head moves is measured?
Or what? Does it make a difference what the string tension is?

But then, cooler continues to not give us details of exactly how he made his measurements. I think as far as we got was that he clamped the handle and then bent the racquet.
How did you bend it. Apply a weight? Where did you attach it? At the throat, middle of the strings, top of the racquet?
Where did you measure the deviation? At the throat or head of the racquet, or where?
You give us a relative stiffness figure based on the total length of the racquet, which is probably only valid if you bent the entire length of the racquet. I would have expected the length to be the distance between the clamp and the point at which the force is applied.

It might sound like picking at little details, but you are giving numbers to several decimal places. Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I am interested in the details.

[taneepak]

The Babolat RDC (racquet Diagnostic Center) machine to test a racquet's flex is like a giant racquet stringing machine, holding the racquet frame with clamps or grips. A load is then put onto the string bed to measure its deflection. It is French made. There is another similar diagnostic machine that is swiss made which the industry uses. I am not sure what Yonex is using, as they could be using their own; but I have sent an inquiry to Yonex Japan for more details.

[cooler]

Originally posted by taneepak
Racquet flex is not a test of shaft stiffness. It is measured on the Babolat RDC as flex number, using a 25kg load on the string bed, repeat, string bed, of the frame. The shaft has no string bed to test, and it is not directly in contact with the strings like the frame is, where the greatest impact and flex occur.


Obvious you don't know what that above test is for. I presented racket stiffness data in my chart. You are talking about string bed stiffness, taken from the context of tennis racket. Read this and learn

The RDC is a high tech instrument capable of taking precision measurements of several racquet and string specifications. It can measure weight, balance, stiffness, string bed stiffness, and a particularly critical characteristic known as “swing weight”.

example of string bed stiffness tests

BENCH TESTING
The two coils tested measured 40'5". The diameter ranged from 1.29 mm to 1.32 mm. Stringbed stiffness of 81 RDC units was recorded immediately after stringing at 60 pounds in a Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 95 (16 x 18 pattern) on a continuous pull machine. After 24 hours (no playing), stringbed stiffness measured 74 units, representing an 8.64% tension loss. Our control string, Prince Synthetic Gut Original Gold 16, measured 80 RDC units immediately after stringing and 73 RDC units after 24 hours, representing an 8.75% tension loss.


It has nothing to do with frame stiffness. It measures string bed tension. We BF here already know about string tension loss after stringing. We just havent measure them like in tennis. There are more money in tennis and golf, that is why those sports can go afford to tackle more parameters of that sports.

I have made attempt to measure other racket parameters like balance (tippyness), stiffness (relative stiffness), swing weight (relative moment) and weight like what the rdc machine can do, all before i even know about this babalot machine. :o

[Winex West Can]

...I am not going to jump into the string bed stiffness vs shaft stiffness debate.

This is for cooler. Since you have measured the flex of the Yonex racquets, are you able to do the same test for other manufacturers (e.g. Winex, Babolate, BK, etc.) using the same baseline racquet (Cab 20MS)?

[cooler]

Yes i can. I have said before my tests are repeatable and consistent.
I can also re-normalize all values back to a orginal cab 20 too if i have one although we could debate on which cab 20 to use (gold vs green cap, U, 2U, 3U, red, blue or orange version) as not many player is lucky enough to try the 'true' original cab20. IMO, the 'gold standard' should be a gold cap cab 20 with 2UG4 grip, preferrably a new one :) No SP vs CD vs JP vs HK etc variables to deal with.

To understand each racket behavior(without really touching it), one must able to mentally combine, imo, these 3 key parameters, stiffness, balance and swing moment. Weight, string tension, string gauge and grip size are important too but maybe too many parameters to juggle at one time for some.

[taneepak]

The racquet's flex or frame stiffness, not the string bed, is measured on the Babolat RDC machine as flex numbers. It is not tension-loss numbers. The RDC flex numbers are what they say.

[cooler]

If that's the case, then this RDC stiffness test is flawed because string tension is integrated with the frame characteristic. Since string type and tension are not standardized, the test result cannot be consistent nor repeatable by other technican working somewhere else. For example, a tightly strung racket can strengthen a frame. Would a 70 lb strung tennis racket flex the same as a 30 lb same tennis racket? well, i don't want to beat to death on the RDC number or test. Bottom line is that the babolat RDX machine is designed for measuring tennis racket, and stiffness test seem to involve bending the frame.

I'm sure that machine can be adapted for badminton rackets but internal electronics need to be regeared or recalibrated for more delicate badminton rackets.

[cooler]

Originally posted by Neil Nicholls
But what does the Babolat RDC measure?
Is the racquet handle clamped and then the amount the head moves is measured?
Or what? Does it make a difference what the string tension is?

But then, cooler continues to not give us details of exactly how he made his measurements. I think as far as we got was that he clamped the handle and then bent the racquet.
How did you bend it. Apply a weight? Where did you attach it? At the throat, middle of the strings, top of the racquet?
Where did you measure the deviation? At the throat or head of the racquet, or where?
You give us a relative stiffness figure based on the total length of the racquet, which is probably only valid if you bent the entire length of the racquet. I would have expected the length to be the distance between the clamp and the point at which the force is applied.

It might sound like picking at little details, but you are giving numbers to several decimal places. Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I am interested in the details.

yes, i bend the entire racquet, fix point at the handle, so even the shaft inside the cone is free to flex.

[shelwinbautista]

since i honestly believe what cooler has to say about things,which is better for u mp24 or mp33 and why?tnx cooler!regardless of the price!

[cooler]

Geez, you put me in a position to reply, good tactic;)

since u have said a racket that that fits my need and price is not a concern, then i would be choose the MP33 of the two.

from the chart, u should see mp24 is head light. A balanced weight is as head light as i would prefer. MP33 is balanced like the cab20MS. MP33 is stiffer too. Together i find in MD i can do more drive shots. The stiffness helps compensate a bit on not being a head heavy racket during smashes.

Mp24 is a lively racket too but it's a bit too flexy for me.
MP33 uses high modulus graphite throughout, while mp24 uses regular graphite.

last national junior qualifying touranment i went to watch, i saw highest percentage players were using mp33, around 20%.

Only disadvantage of mp33 is it cost more than mp24 and don't come strung.

[shelwinbautista]

tnx cooler!

[shelwinbautista]

it should come to us as no surprise that the more expensive ur racket, the better!is their any cheap yonex racket perform better than the high end rackets of yonex like mp99?

[cooler]

you should ask that as a general question in a mp99 thread. This thread is about racket measurements.

answer: you have answered your own question.

[cooler]

As Part Four of the racket measurement thread, i have look into how racket stiffness hold out over time. I think most of us don't give much thought about this topic when comparing rackets from various sources like friends, stores or their own. Well, the result of my test would change that. I haven't post it before because i lack the racket samples to make comparision at single point in time. The result shown below are from tests conducted consectively with same measuring devices.

I don't say the result applies to all badminton rackets but if MP99 with H.M. graphite, Ultimum Ti frame and shaft does, i'm sure the other rackets of 'lesser' quality should suffer more stiffness degradation.

The reference racket is a brand new cab20MS with relative stiffness = 0

[Kelvin]

Cooler,

If I didn't know you better, I would have to say you have too much time on your hands LOL

but because I know you, and know what a scientific mind you have, as a fellow analytical, I can say awesome work here! :)

I've been waiting for some sort of actual quantitative analysis... and objective at that.

I would send you my unused cab22 if you wanted to get a anoter measurement on the cab20power/22.

Also I would send you a cab20MS 2u, just to see if there really is any major difference, but by what your findings indicate, really 2u, or 3u should be pretty much the same.

I also have a used cab20long you might want to test out...
:p

Let me know... lol
Or when I come back to Calgary, we'll perform your measurement tests on these goodies...
Oh, one racquet i would like you to perform a test on is the Blue racquet that I had purchased, the same one that Sareno uses...
I forget what it's called now lol... but that racquet with it's oval shaft, was really really stiff. I couldn't even use it... lol.
I did remember having one left, but lent it out, and never saw it again :p

Anyways... keep up the good work!!

[cooler]

thanks for the compliments kelvin.
for your racquets, try to estimate the amount of time used as it would make a difference if we are comparing something really close.

oh, that unknown racquet is LeVeL, with kelvar, it's not really stiff, it's super stiff.:p
btw, u didnt lent your 2nd one to me, unfortunately;)

too bad u had listed all the rackets here (public media) that u wanted to lent to me or else i might hoping you forgot about them too:rolleyes: :p

[bluejeff]

cooler, I really think you should take a trip to Ohio, US to have a good bend(s) of my rackets :):)

By the way, wow, the new racket is A LOT stiffer than the used ones. That's beyond my imaginations!

[other]

heh.......how flexible must my originlal cab 20 be now then:)

[cooler]

i'm not really surprised with the result. I feel my older rackets aren't as stiff as when they were new. That kinda prompted me to look into this to make sure that it wasn't the effect of me getting older. ;)

[TheGr8One]

If you can get a hold of these: Ti 10 and Cab 30MS and add them to the chart, I'd really appreciate it. I'm due for a new racket and I'm thinking about those 2.

I wonder how MP33 compares to Ti10..since Ti10 is extra stiff. And Cab23 is stiffer than Cab20MS..so where does that leave the Cab30MS..? Of course...Cab30MS isn't available in Canada yet.

[cooler]

TheGr8One, please read page 6 and 7 of this thread.

[TheGr8One]

Okay..so you have measurements for Ti10...too bad you can't edit the original post however..scrolling through and reading the whole thread is just..time consuming.


The administrator has specified that you can only edit messages for 15 minutes after you have posted. This limit has expired, so you must contact the administrator to make alterations on your message.

The mod should allow editing of the message after 15 minutes in this case. That way you can put new changes on the original post.

[cooler]

OT

the 15min time out rule has its merit. I dont like to see poster change his old posts to support his change of view or mislead other of what he/she had once said before.

[Winex West Can]

Originally posted by TheGr8One
Okay..so you have measurements for Ti10...too bad you can't edit the original post however..scrolling through and reading the whole thread is just..time consuming.



The mod should allow editing of the message after 15 minutes in this case. That way you can put new changes on the original post.

Then we should get the mods to take the tables of data that Cooler has provided and put it in a new and closed thread (sticky) with a reference to this thread.

Cooler, I would be interested in gathering comparison data with other non-Yonex brand racquets.

[other]

yeah, like the reviews section.....you can just have a spreadsheet type page with all these measurements. i doesn't have to be part of this forum, but people can obviously talk about it here.

[kwun]

cooler. any chance of getting your hands on a cab30ms to add to your data set?

[TheGr8One]

Somone should mail cooler every new racket to test :p

[Winex West Can]

Originally posted by cooler
As Part Four of the racket measurement thread, i have look into how racket stiffness hold out over time. I think most of us don't give much thought about this topic when comparing rackets from various sources like friends, stores or their own. Well, the result of my test would change that. I haven't post it before because i lack the racket samples to make comparision at single point in time. The result shown below are from tests conducted consectively with same measuring devices.

I don't say the result applies to all badminton rackets but if MP99 with H.M. graphite, Ultimum Ti frame and shaft does, i'm sure the other rackets of 'lesser' quality should suffer more stiffness degradation.

The reference racket is a brand new cab20MS with relative stiffness = 0

Some of the articles that I read in raquettech.com seems to suggest that the reason for the decrease in stiffness is dued to microcracks forming within the racquet due to stringing and restringing, etc. It would be interesting to compare a new racquet to one (same model) that was manufactured a while ago but never used. This is still not completely accurate too as materials used could be different (i.e. not from the same batch).

[cooler]

Originally posted by kwun
cooler. any chance of getting your hands on a cab30ms to add to your data set?

I'll check with eggroll. I'm sure he will get the first few in to show to retailers. I haven't talk to him for a while.

[cooler]

Originally posted by Winex West Can
Some of the articles that I read in raquettech.com seems to suggest that the reason for the decrease in stiffness is dued to microcracks forming within the racquet due to stringing and restringing, etc. It would be interesting to compare a new racquet to one (same model) that was manufactured a while ago but never used. This is still not completely accurate too as materials used could be different (i.e. not from the same batch).

Unlike the tennis racket, major flexing of badminton racket occurs along the shaft. Repetitive restringing does weaken the frame but i dont see it would affect badminton racket stiffness degradation. The cause of the weakened shaft is the same though, microfracture of carbon fibers proportional to the maxiumum flexing that the shaft subject to over time.

[eggroll]

Hi Cooler,

Haven't been here in a while and was going to e mail you directly but thought for the benfit of the BF'ers I would post here. I have all the new raquets in( At 800, 300, cab 30 etc.) and will get the new frames to you for your measurement and demo use as soon as I can. I have two of everything coming including the new shoes. Delivery will be tommorrow. Call me on my cell so we can get together. I will need to get the discontinued models from you to sell. Thanks for your help this season. Keep the faith brother!

[cooler]

By request (winex west can), this post form part five of the 2003 yonex racket measurements. He wanted to know how new racket stiffness varies among the same model. Although i admit i only have 2 samples of each model to examine, the results are consistent and inline of what they should be. These data are not made up or measure just now. I had collected these data since day 1 when all the rackets were measured, eliminating the possibility of change of ambience condition, equipment fluctuation and of course gravitational constant :p

This and previous stiffness results tend to say yonex rackets have stable performance parameters between different weight class, grip size, and within product model. (I'm not saying other brands don't). It's just that from only 2 samples of each model, mp99, mp33, and cab23, the stiffness trends fall within range of what it is expected. Deflection measurements are within +/- 0.5 mm

(eggroll's mp33 can be considered brand new as i doubt people want to demo a mp33 when eggroll have mp100/99/88/77, AT500/700 in his bag)

[AZNJORDAN69]

Cooler have u ever tried at700 ?
tell meh wht u think about at700
cuz i just bought one

[bluejeff]

Cooler have u ever tried at700 ?
tell meh wht u think about at700
cuz i just bought one
Why don't you look at the first page? He has AT700 in the data.

[ants]

Any luck on testing Ti10 ? It will be good if we can have some results.

[cooler]

Any luck on testing Ti10 ? It will be good if we can have some results.

check in page 3 of this thread.

[cooler]

I havent got all the rackets yet.
This is a brief highlight and should be treated as preliminary.
Until i have them all in, i won't be measuring other parameters.

Relative Stiffness (preliminary)

AT800 OF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT800 DF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT300 (4UG4) : 3.45%
MP66(3UG4) : -6.72%

[AzNbOi2747]

I havent got all the rackets yet.
This is a brief highlight and should be treated as preliminary.
Until i have them all in, i won't be measuring other parameters.

Relative Stiffness (preliminary)

AT800 OF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT800 DF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT300 (4UG4) : 3.45%
MP66(3UG4) : -6.72%

the "relative stiffness" seems to be low for the MP66, does this mean it is for defensive play and 'bends' more when you smash?

[AzNbOi2747]

the "relative stiffness" seems to be low for the MP66, does this mean it is for defensive play and 'bends' more when you smash?

btw, is it good for me to get a flexible raquet since im not that strong/built and would it help me in my smashes since it "bends" more or should i stick with stiff raquets?

[schrumpl]

does anybody know how the new mp-30 compares to the discontinued mp-33? is it the same? just wondering because the design is different.

[ants]

I havent got all the rackets yet.
This is a brief highlight and should be treated as preliminary.
Until i have them all in, i won't be measuring other parameters.

Relative Stiffness (preliminary)

AT800 OF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT800 DF(4UG4): 7.40%
AT300 (4UG4) : 3.45%
MP66(3UG4) : -6.72%


AT800 OF and DF have the same stiffness?

[cooler]

btw, is it good for me to get a flexible raquet since im not that strong/built and would it help me in my smashes since it "bends" more or should i stick with stiff raquets?
A general answer, yes. Badminton isnt all about smashing. One shouldn't look for a racket only good for smashing. Other strokes are equally or more important than a smash. A stiff racket actually reduce smashing speed for beginners or weaker swinging players

[cooler]

AT800 OF and DF have the same stiffness?

That's what it seems like from preliminary measurements

[bluejeff]

cooler, if it's not too troublesome, could you please combine all the data (and results) into one? It's kind of a pain reading them over pages and in segments:)

[cooler]

each test parameter should rank on its own table.
if i combine them all in a table set, you'll be reading in jumbles.

[bluejeff]

What I meant is to combine the similar ones.... :)

Like, put all similar tests (with the same base) together.....head heaviness tests together, stiffness tests together.....etc

[cooler]

my replies.....

1. that's what i've done
2. if i combine them all, and rank say stiffness, the other test data will be unsorted
3. i dunno what u r trying to say

[bluejeff]

my replies.....

1. that's what i've done
2. if i combine them all, and rank say stiffness, the other test data will be unsorted
3. i dunno what u r trying to say
lol......sorry.........forget about it then.

[charzord]

would be cool? if we can try bending the four tisp's, then we'll know how much they differ.....

[zerochillnet]

The old fashion way, I bend them:o :)

bending them...hmm so have u ever snapped any racquets? or should i say how many have u snapped?

[cooler]

bending them...hmm so have u ever snapped any racquets? or should i say how many have u snapped?

Nope. Since the racquets aren't mine, breaking them wasn't the objective of the test. The force applied is no more than a super hard hitter smashing a shuttle at 364 km/hr.

[mxmcat]

Very very interesting tests Cooler. Finaly, I don't have any regret for my purchase of a MP 33. They are in sales here at 59€ ( instead of 100€) with a BG65 string mounted...


Hope to read more tests like those...

[cooler]

Well, in the stiffness chart, there is a racket, MP100, that wasn't truly as new to have the same benchmark comparison with other new rackets. That MP100 shown was actually a demoed provided by eggroll. Last week i got a brand new CD mp100 so i took the opportunity to conduct another measurement. Tippyness and relative moment shouldn't change so i didnt measure those parameters. Here is an updated stiffness chart. As u can see, mp100 is quite stiff, when it's new ;)

[ants]

Maybe you should try test on those TH rackets

[FEND.]

mmm.

Once again, cooler forgot the cab30ms. The wait goes on......

~Cheers

[cooler]

mmm.

Once again, cooler forgot the cab30ms. The wait goes on......

~Cheers

I don't have the 2004 racquets yet :o That new mp100 was a replacement racket for a sponsored player who cracked his mp100 on concrete wall after it 'slipped' out of his hand LOL

[dr4g0n]

cooler, can u explain 2 me y the MP33 is at 92g.

I thought it was rated at 85-89

[cooler]

the string...........

[mankind]

any specs of the Cab 30 Muscle?

[ka_rasilainen]

I dont understand how Mp99 can weight 93g. With 3U G4 it should weight 85-89. Yonex website and every shop in internet says so.:confused:

Almost all of those rackets should weight something like 85-89:confused:

[Neil Nicholls]

The 2U, 3U, 4U weight ranges are the weight of the racquet before it has been strung.

String weighs a few grams, so when the racquet is strung the weight increases.

[cooler]

side notes:
- CAB22 (CAB 20 POWER) is still the king of stiffness for the yonex line
- mp44 is a regular length racket, not long as inscribed on its shaft.
- Armortec limited edition rstiffness resemble AT700, as most members here have already knew.
- armortec 800 DE and OF stiffness are close enough to say they are similar
- no change in mp88's stiffness between 2003 and 2004

[bluejeff]

side notes:
- CAB22 (CAB 20 POWER) is still the king of stiffness for the yonex line
- mp44 is a regular length racket, not long as inscribed on its shaft.
- Armortec limited edition rstiffness resemble AT700, as most members here have already knew.
- armortec 800 DE and OF stiffness are close enough to say they are similar
- no change in mp88's stiffness between 2003 and 2004

Wow, I am surprised that Cab30MS is stiff :eek: !

[cooler]

The (preliminary) stiffness for new AT800 that i had posted previously were slightly higher than those shown above

AT800 OF(4UG4): 7.40%(new)
AT800 DF(4UG4): 7.40% (new)

[FEND.]

Wow, I am surprised that Cab30MS is stiff :eek: !

Could it be that it is because the cab30 cooler tested is 2U while the ones we use are 3Us.

[bluejeff]

Could it be that it is because the cab30 cooler tested is 2U while the ones we use are 3Us.
Possible, if that 5 grams of difference are located in the shaft.

[FEND.]

Possible, if that 5 grams of difference are located in the shaft.

Wonder if cooler will get a 3U Cab30 if that is the case .....

[cooler]

wrong assumption, yonex rackets that i have tested so far have consistent stiffness and balance point between their respective 3U/4U and 3U/2U versions. Rate of change after been used is another matter.

If you read that table closely, the 2 mp88's (stiffness) should have dispelled your assumption already :rolleyes:

[cooler]

Wow, I am surprised that Cab30MS is stiff :eek: !

why do u thot so initially? There are 2 ways to tell it would be x-stiff before even formal testing.

1. just casually bend the racket and compare them to other rackets in your collection :D
2. It's in the blood. (history)

[bluejeff]

why do u thot so initially? There are 2 ways to tell it would be x-stiff before even formal testing.

1. just casually bend the racket and compare them to other rackets in your collection :D
2. It's in the blood. (history)
Well, comparing Cab30MS to my MP99 (3U and brand new ones), I felt MP99 is more stiff.

Also, inside the Yonex's catalog, MP99 is rated as "9" while Cab30MS is like "8".

[cooler]

Well, comparing Cab30MS to my MP99 (3U and brand new ones), I felt MP99 is more stiff.

Also, inside the Yonex's catalog, MP99 is rated as "9" while Cab30MS is like "8".

- where did u get that rating( i only got the north american catalog)?
- u should bend them again :p

[bluejeff]

- where did u get that rating( i only got the north american catalog)?
- u should bend them again :phere you go :) (the japanese catalog ratings.)

[cooler]

ic, however, there isn't yet a 100% proof that mp90=mp99 (performance wise) either so u have derived an inferred conclusion, not scientific enough against Cooler's rigorous testing standard :p

just do a common sense test, do a set of rapid wrist swings back and forth for each of these 2 rackets and feel which is more stiff :rolleyes:

[bluejeff]

By the way, cooler, if you have any chance, make sure you test the Cab-20 Long. I have a pair here and they are just so stiff (compare to my Cab-22, Cab-20L is probably in that range, and even more stiff then Cab-22:eek: ) that hurts my hands. So, if you have any chance, make sure you try those :)

It might be the king of stiffness !! :D

[cooler]

By the way, cooler, if you have any chance, make sure you test the Cab-20 Long. I have a pair here and they are just so stiff (compare to my Cab-22, Cab-20L is probably in that range, and even more stiff then Cab-22:eek: ) that hurts my hands. So, if you have any chance, make sure you try those :)

It might be the king of stiffness !! :D

problem is there isnt many 20L around for me to test. It was introduced at the time of isometric ti10 i think.

maybe ur comparing a new 20L and your used cab30 ;)

[bluejeff]

problem is there isnt many 20L around for me to test. It was introduced at the time of isometric ti10 i think.

maybe ur comparing a new 20L and your used cab30 ;)
No, in case you don't know, I always buy rackets in at least a pair. So that I will always have a brand new racket for comparing. :)

(Yeah, Cab20L is rare, that's why I still keep them :p)
New Cab20L vs. New Cab22 or New Cab30MS

Results:

Cab20L is obviously more stiff than Cab30MS without any doubt.
Cab20L is more stiff than Cab22, but not by much (but still very noticeable easily)

[TheGr8Two]

Can someone post the translation of the columns please?


here you go :) (the japanese catalog ratings.)

[napee]

i just bought an MP-24, of course influenced by the test results here which places it just below MP-99 and the fact that it is a 'long' racket. i also think it looks almost similar to a Ti-10 with its red, black, silver colour scheme. i'm going to use this mainly for doubles (afraid to break my Ti-10 like what happened to my Prince NXgraphite) and maybe for singles, against lesser opponents :p

i just bought my Ti-10 Long 4 days earlier, so i may do some gut-feeling test to gauge their relative stiffness. don't worry, both are strung with the same string (same black colour too ;) ), BG66 @24lbs, by the same stringer, using the same machine.

side-by-side measure also proves there is very minimal length difference between the two, although Ti-10's longer length is due to the shaft but the MP-24 due to its longer handle. same as MP-30, but not MP-27?

yet to have any feel of the MP-24 yet. probably earliest on monday. ;)

[napee]

i just bought an MP-24, of course influenced by the test results here which places it just below MP-99 and the fact that it is a 'long' racket. i also think it looks almost similar to a Ti-10 with its red, black, silver colour scheme. i'm going to use this mainly for doubles (afraid to break my Ti-10 like what happened to my Prince NXgraphite) and maybe for singles, against lesser opponents :p

i just bought my Ti-10 Long 4 days earlier, so i may do some gut-feeling test to gauge their relative stiffness. don't worry, both are strung with the same string (same black colour too ;) ), BG66 @24lbs, by the same stringer, using the same machine.

side-by-side measure also proves there is very minimal length difference between the two, although Ti-10's longer length is due to the shaft but the MP-24 due to its longer handle. same as MP-30, but not MP-27?

yet to have any feel of the MP-24 yet. probably earliest on monday. ;)
OK managed to try out the MP-24 vis-a-vis the Ti-10. the MP-24 is stiff. but it has no power. its stiff but the shaft feels hollow. and too head light maybe.

doing my serves, the MP-24 has about 10-15% less distance compared to Ti-10. much smaller sweet spot too. so if anybody thinks the MP-24 is such a deal (stiff racket, long size) think again. the higher priced racket have its merit.

i think i'm spoiled by the Ti-10. even a Cab20TiPwr feels not powerful enough :p

[jkusmanto]

Just looked the Yonex Japan web-site.
For AT-800OF and DE, there is a size : 4U5, 3U4・5
What is those mean ?
Is it : 4UG5, 3UG4 and 3UG5 ?

[cooler]

Just looked the Yonex Japan web-site.
For AT-800OF and DE, there is a size : 4U5, 3U4・5
What is those mean ?
Is it : 4UG5, 3UG4 and 3UG5 ?

yes, i suppose that's what it mean for jp version only.
however, there are 4UG4 and 3UG3 in other country code as well.

[jkusmanto]

Thanks Cooler !


yes, i suppose that's what it mean for jp version only.
however, there are 4UG4 and 3UG3 in other country code as well.

[shamrock]

Why not compare stiffness of a 3U MP33 with a 2U?:confused:

[cooler]

Why not compare stiffness of a 3U MP33 with a 2U?:confused:

Because i don't do fake 2U MP33, LOL :rolleyes: :p

[shamrock]

I am sorry to forget that there is only 3U version of MP33 available, but i still suggest u to compare a 3U AT700 with a 4u. I think the method u utilized to measure stiffness of a racket is some physical ways, and the results somehow depend on the weight of racket. So that u can probably get different results of the 2 AT700s just because different weight.:D

[cooler]

I am sorry to forget that there is only 3U version of MP33 available, but i still suggest u to compare a 3U AT700 with a 4u. I think the method u utilized to measure stiffness of a racket is some physical ways, and the results somehow depend on the weight of racket. So that u can probably get different results of the 2 AT700s just because different weight.:D

don't need to test your theory because i know there is no difference (within yonex quality control tolerance).

[cooler]

Using similar test procedure, the racket stiffness of the NS7000 and 8000 are:


NS7000 3UG4 12.21%
NS8000 3UG4 11.96%

The difference is close enough to say they have similar stiffness.

You can compare this result to other yonex here
http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12833&page=14&pp=10

[Jungkung]

cooler ! could you measure another factor such as head balance and tippyness for newer series ? thank sir.

[cooler]

cooler ! could you measure another factor such as head balance and tippyness for newer series ? thank sir.

I haven't started that exercise yet, too busy playing instead :)

[badmtnproDC15]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the Armortec 800 OF/DF? I am a singles player who is pretty much all around but I like to smash whenever I am able 2 get a good chance but id definatly appreciate placement and control... can anyone point me in the right direction?????:confused:

[cooler]

I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the Armortec 800 OF/DF? I am a singles player who is pretty much all around but I like to smash whenever I am able 2 get a good chance but id definatly appreciate placement and control... can anyone point me in the right direction?????:confused:

go read about it in the product review section.
this thread is about racket measurement, not subjective review.

[Midget_Boy]

Could you edit your first post and include the 2004 racquet measurements (or what you have done) as seen in page 8? Also plan on finishing some of the 2004 racquet measurements? Just wondering.

[hydrocyanic]

got any new input on the head balanceness chart?

thank you


Thanks Kwun:)

As the second part of this thread, the table shows the racket head balance point of the 2003 yonex rackets (from mp24 upward). Since each racket has difference length, i am showing the result in term of relative head heaviness or tippyness. Yes, some of the result may alarm you but that's how the data came out. All actual measurements are to 0.5 mm. No, i did not use my index finger as the fulcrum. The width of the fulcrum used was 0.5 mm, similar to a dull knife.

0 means balance similar to a 3U cab20M
negative means relative percentage head lighter than a cab 20M
positive means relative percentage head heavier than a cab 20M

[bluejeff]

sooner or later, we are going to need a 2005/2006 chart :)

[ants]

Coming out soon guys.. dont worry.

[DinkAlot]

Dang Cooler! I just found this old thread, great info man! :D

*props to Cooler*

[DinkAlot]

Coming out soon guys.. dont worry.

WOOOO-HOOOOO!!! :D :D :D

[cooler]

WOOOO-HOOOOO!!! :D :D :D

so far only 'new' racquets out are ns7000 and 8000. Maybe more new ones out soon, usually JP has new ones around November.

[cooler]

This is part three of the 2003 (yonex) racket measurment focused on moment or the twisting force needed to put the racket into motion from the rest position. It doesn’t reflect perfectly the amount of totally energy to fully swing the racket but the relationship between moment to angular momentum should be reasonably close.

Again, the result presented is referenced to the 3U cab20m. Less than 1 mean the racket take less effort to move it than a 3U cab 20m. Relative moment greater than 1 means it would take more effort to move it than a 3U cab20m.


I’m sure BF members could draw many conclusion from these data.

Thanks to hydrocyanic inquiry, the previous relative moment data weren't given in percent like in other relative data tables. Here are the relative moment data converted to percentage relative to cab20ms.

[cooler]

on head heaviness of ns7000 and ns8000, they are quite similar. However, the grip size distorted the outcome because the G4 grip from the ns8000 feel like a G3.5 and the G4 from the ns7000 feel like G5. Anyone here tried ns7000 and 8000 and comment on their grip size?

[hydrocyanic]

thank you cooler :)

by any chance you have the relative moment data on the at800de as well?

another question:

since the rackets' stiffness degrade over time, how would that affect the relative moment?

thank you :)

[DinkAlot]

Cooler: I hope this is not asking too much but can you put all three findings into one spreadsheet? This would be easier to compare. Thanks, Sir. :)

[DinkAlot]

Cooler: just want to confirm the B-8100 is the Blacken, all stainless steel racket and of all the rackets you have tested so far, it's the hardest to "move".

Thanks.

[DinkAlot]

Cooler: sorry one more thing, based on your findings, is the 3U AT-700 G4 really that hard to move?

[cooler]

Cooler: just want to confirm the B-8100 is the Blacken, all stainless steel racket and of all the rackets you have tested so far, it's the hardest to "move".

Thanks.

Yes.
Yes, because it's also the heaviest

[TheGr8Two]

Anyone noticed that NS8000 feels easier to move than NS7000? I'm surprised because typically offensive rackets are slower and rely on momentum for power. Also, NS8000 is faster than AT800 OF, shouldn't NS8000 be more doubles oriented?

[DinkAlot]

Anyone noticed that NS8000 feels easier to move than NS7000? I'm surprised because typically offensive rackets are slower and rely on momentum for power. Also, NS8000 is faster than AT800 OF, shouldn't NS8000 be more doubles oriented?

Are you comparing the NS8000 and NS7000 in 3U and the AT-800OF in 4U? If so, not me; I find the 7000 to be the easiest to move.

[TheGr8Two]

I was comparing the 2U for both NS, and 3U for AT800.


Are you comparing the NS8000 and NS7000 in 3U and the AT-800OF in 4U? If so, not me; I find the 7000 to be the easiest to move.

[DinkAlot]

I was comparing the 2U for both NS, and 3U for AT800.

Ahhhh, OK, I never tried the 2U NSs.

[cooler]

Anyone noticed that NS8000 feels easier to move than NS7000? I'm surprised because typically offensive rackets are slower and rely on momentum for power. Also, NS8000 is faster than AT800 OF, shouldn't NS8000 be more doubles oriented?

No, armortec 800's are oriented for doubles.

there are more pros using ns8k for singles than doubles
there are more pros using AT800's for doubles than singles.

[Steven_Master18]

anyone have the stifness of the mp 30?

[cooler]

from yonex site


Muscle Power-30
Flex: Medium
Frame: Graphite
Shaft: H.M.Graphite
Weight (grams): 3U (85-89g)
Grip Size: G4

i dont have a mp30 on hand

[husaari]

How cool to see Blacken in the charts. That's what I started with back in the 80's :-)

[Chire]

Is there any data available concerning the relavite moment of the AT800 series Offensive and Defensive versions?

[hydrocyanic]

Using similar test procedure, the racket stiffness of the NS7000 and 8000 are:


NS7000 3UG4 12.21%
NS8000 3UG4 11.96%

The difference is close enough to say they have similar stiffness.

You can compare this result to other yonex here
http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12833&page=14&pp=10


just want to revive this, what is the relative movement on these 2 then?

any eta for ns9k measurment? :rolleyes:

[cooler]

just want to revive this, what is the relative movement on these 2 then?

any eta for ns9k measurment? :rolleyes:

Nanospeed 7k and 8k rackets are head light balance and have relative moment less than the reference cab20. Sorry, i dun have the ns9000.

[jcl49]

I don't know how accurate this is, as it quotes all 4 Swing Powers as "excellent power" (!)

[jerby]

what good is a racket chart when all they do is rate their arckets as "excellent"
by that chart wich is more powerfull, an mp77 or an mp100..and all their mp's have "great" control....bad chart if you aks me..

[cooler]

what good is a racket chart when all they do is rate their arckets as "excellent"
by that chart wich is more powerfull, an mp77 or an mp100..and all their mp's have "great" control....bad chart if you aks me..

very true. I wouldn't do all those measurements if those charts are useful.

[milton_ng]

Nanospeed 7k and 8k rackets are head light balance and have relative moment less than the reference cab20. Sorry, i dun have the ns9000.

Hie cooler..hope u could advice me here whether are the balance point of these two racquets about the same? thnx lots ya

[jerby]

cooler,

did you measure the balance points of the at800 def/off?

little of the topic. but could you measure some other brands with the same method (stiffnes-test I mean) like Sotx? that would be very helpfull to me. and very interesting:p

[hydrocyanic]

cooler,

did you measure the balance points of the at800 def/off?

little of the topic. but could you measure some other brands with the same method (stiffnes-test I mean) like Sotx? that would be very helpfull to me. and very interesting:p

he did on at800 o/d, but cooler didn't put it in excel format

... about time to test ns9k.. eh? :D

[cooler]

sorry for the late reply, i notice a new post from this thread only today.
well, i don't have measurement for other brands because I don't have any of those on hand:D I use to demo rackets for yonex but not anymore, so any late models I don't have measurement on them. I could test client's rackets but their usage time and how hard they play (ie history) are unknown and may skew comparison to measurement data of new rackets. Also used rackets have different overgrips on them.

[danielchua2]

erm... how does the stiftness affect the player's strokes on the shuttle?

[cooler]

erm... how does the stiftness affect the player's strokes on the shuttle?You will find a lot of discussion regarding to this topic in these threads

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/search.php?searchid=614781

[ahmeh]

can i know detail for ti-7 light? overall is it a good racket..cos i used for double..

[phandrew]

can i know detail for ti-7 light? overall is it a good racket..cos i used for double..

I think it is a head light/balanced racket with a medium stiffness.

[cooler]

can i know detail for ti-7 light? overall is it a good racket..cos i used for double..
it's an old racket, i dont have specs on that.
Also, i think yonex had change the specs on ti-7

[george@chongwei]

it's an old racket, i dont have specs on that.
Also, i think yonex had change the specs on ti-7
do u ahve specs for yonex ti-1?

[ahmeh]

i heard tht light is newer version of ti-7....is it true? just wanna check out....the ability of the racquet....n overall is it a good racquet

[phandrew]

do u ahve specs for yonex ti-1?

Ti-1 is a head light and flexible racket, similar to the NS6000

[george@chongwei]

Ti-1 is a head light and flexible racket, similar to the NS6000
yeah, u are right..!:)
im currently using that racquet and found it very comfortable with my style of play:):)

[cooler]

racket science 101 (basics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQAQiQgmU5A

[LeeBo]

does anyone know the lenght, i know its a bit off topic but im doing a subject in school and i need to know

[LeeBo]

the lenght of a racket

[phandrew]

the lenght of a racket

Depends what racquet you are talking about. Racquets can come in difference lengths ranging from 660mm to 690mm

[LeeBo]

thanks phandrew i found that very helpful!