Despite all the new high tech materials now available it is impossible to manufacture a flawless racquet. Any racquet is as good as the quality of the mold used. There are no molds in use by any racquet manufacturer that are even close to precision tolerances.
For example you will find many plastic tumblers that look round but they leak if you have water in it. The reason is that both the tumbler cover and the body are not perfectly round. American Tupperware makes plastic tumblers with a higher precision and they do not leak, but they charge a much higher price. The difference is due to the molds used. Tupperware molds used for making tumblers are huge machines, precision made in Switzerland, and they 'spit' out a tumbler cover at an agonizing slow rate. Cheaper molds can churn out the same cover at 100 times that rate.
Racquet molds are not precision molds and that is the reason why the final product is at most 80% of its efficiency.

Precision molding = flawless?

What is a flawless racket?

Precision molding = flawless?

What is a flawless racket?

One major flaw is that no racquet made todate can be perfectly symmetrical. This adversely affects a racquet's face stability, not unlike having the racquet face slide to one side when smashing. Asymmetry exists everywhere, left vs right, top vs reverse side, etc. Even the simple shaft is not truly round at any spot.

There is a price if you want to have a perfect or almost perfect racket. Computerized laser molding can be a solution. But then its just not wise to do.

But really, no racket is ever flawless - a perfect racket would also play flawlessly and you can't really even define that, let alone do it.

But really, no racket is ever flawless - a perfect racket would also play flawlessly and you can't really even define that, let alone do it.

So true.. It just puzzles me how we can discuss the making of a perfect racket before knowing what it really is.

Irrelevant trivia: most plasticware makers use an 'O'ring or similar soft expandable material to achieve a seal. My tupperware water jug uses the latter concept.

How do you know racket moulds aren't "precision" moulds, and what is your definition of "precision"?

There can't ever be a perfect racquet, everyone is different, so it can't possibly suit everyone. But I might be completely missing the point :). A perfect *form* though, if that's what you mean? Apart from there being no such thing as *true* prefection, yeah I guess you could get closer to it. Would it make that much difference though?

You only have to get a few racquets of the same brand, weight, strings, b/p, etc. and they will all play differently. Hold one racquet with its face facing one way and it will play differently vs being held with its face facing the other way.
The graphite that racquet manufacturers buy from graphite manufacturers have gone through precision manufacture with some being the end product of 3,000 degrees C 'cooking'. All the racquet manufacturers do is to use a cut length of the prepag and insert it into a cast iron mold and bake it. Even the surfaces of the molds are rough, with not a single mold a true mirror-image between one side vs the opposite side. If they use 500 molds in one baking session, all the 500 molds will have imperfections different from each other.
Some racquets are really bad. Even Yonex is poor here although better than many others.
This may not pose problems with tennis or squash racquets, but it can become a problem with very light badminton racquets. AOTBE, oval shape racquets are better than iso shape ones. If they can solve this problem, we can then expect to see very light racquets of less tha 80g capable of more power than today's less-than-perfect 2U racquets.

Despite all these imperfections, players like Lee Chong Wei and Lin Dan can still smash and hit the lines at great percentage and accuracy... Really scary to think what they can do with a perfect racquet... :eek:

IMHO.

it is impossible to make a flawless racket because no one know what a flawless racket really means.

and if one do manage to define what it means (and of course, have everyone agree on the definition), you will have to convince everyone that it is really something that matters and something that anyone should lose any sleep on.

despite saying that, i think it is an interesting academic exercise to try to figure out what it is and what can be done to achieve it.

It is not impossible to make a perfect racket "technically" with the right balance etc... provided the company have funds to make those rackets for retail.

But then as players we are not all perfect in our technique and skills anyway.. whether we are beginners or Pro level.

Good to know that rackets can still improve for the future, and a nice topic i'll have a chat to an engineering friend about, cheers.

Taneepak, when you use the term 'flaws' do you mean structural flaws in the racket? Or do you mean flaws in the sense that each racket will be slightly different from the next?

think the difference in weight will have much greater effect on tennis racquet because they can vary about 20 + grams. On the other hand badminton racquets difference of only few grams would have smaller difference to people.

i think a couple of grams in a badminton racket has quite a bit of effect.

what taneepak is saying here though, is probably the difference of 0.001 grams, and a imperfection of 0.001mm that makes it flawed.

Instead of looking for perfection in a racket. I think we just have to improve our own skills and technique first and get the 2nd best Racket next to perfect to use. Get a reliable brand that is back up with R&D and not Copy Cats.

Even the surfaces of the molds are rough, with not a single mold a true mirror-image between one side vs the opposite side.

How do you actually know this?

If the moulds are CNC'd - and I can't see how they wouldn't be - then how in heck can they be asymetrical?

The variation in weight between rackets that are supposed to be the same seem like acceptable manufacturing tolerances to me.

Are bandminton rackets really that badly made? I'd really love to see some examples.

How do you actually know this?

If the moulds are CNC'd - and I can't see how they wouldn't be - then how in heck can they be asymetrical?

The variation in weight between rackets that are supposed to be the same seem like acceptable manufacturing tolerances to me.

Are bandminton rackets really that badly made? I'd really love to see some examples.

I have 5 different racquets that all show the surfaces of the molds, and some are rather rough.
It is not the variation in weight but its uneven distribution. If you hit well this makes a lot of difference in racquet face stability. If you don't hit well, it makes no difference.
There is one way to find out. Send me your best racquet w/o strings with return postage costs, and I think I can improve on it. It will take me a few days.

changing a racquet from the current armortec or ti-10 to say, a "flawless" one would make only like a 1 percent of difference in the game since the current racquets we use are relatively close to perfect as it is

and plus flawless racquets are even more impossible to make because you can always better something. perhaps in the future we'll replace graphite and after that we'll replace what we used to replace graphite...

say a racquet is 99% perfect
then we make it 99.9% perfect
then 99.99
then 99.999

I have 5 different racquets that all show the surfaces of the molds, and some are rather rough.

Pictures mate, pictures.

Pictures mate, pictures.

Sorry, no pictures because it is proprietary. You can play with them but no pictures.
Some months ago (early Jan) I offered to forum members a chance to try out two of my "straight-out-of-the-mold" racquets in Kuala Lumpur when I was on a visit. No one took up the offer except Oldhand, who asked me to make a detour to Singapore instead, which I couldn't. However there was one forum member who saw my two carbon black racquets in KL, but only for less than a minute.
I still have one carbon black racquet which I have problem fitting it into a suitable wooden hold. This one is a tough nut to crack because all attempts to 'balance' it to have near perfect face stability have not been successful todate.

Even if the mold is perfect, the racquet still can not be perfect. In engineering term, depend on the application, we have tolerance. We describe the spec with +/- tolerance. So, without any description and tolerance, your claim of perfect racquet means absolutely nothing to me. We try to pin down what you say, when we come up with some things proves you wrong, you say you mean something else. This is just waste of our time.

My offer still stands: send me your best racquet, preferably a so-called JP or IP Yonex racquet, with return postage, and I believe I can return it to you the same racquet that will have better face stability. It must be a blank racquet with no strings. The racquet will be returned to you looking exactly the same and also weighing almost the same. Only one racquet will be entertained.

May I ask what the definition of face stability is?

I think in order to have a useful discussion on this we need to have parameters such as the tolerance levels specific to each item. eg weight, symmetry, balance point, flex or other more technical criteria.

Also I think it is worth mentioning that Taneepak means technical flawlessness not a perfect racket as in one which every player will prefer.

The racquet will be returned to you looking exactly the same and also weighing almost the same. Only one racquet will be entertained.

Can I ask what you are going to do with the racket?

From an engineering perspective, I believe it's not possible to create a flawless racket. To me, rackets are like technology, always changing.

Of course we can find ways to improve racket stability, increase tolerance in manufacturing processes, but there's always room for improvement, always new things being introduced.

For example, we use high modulus graphite now, some other companies start introducing new materials into the racket, but perhaps in the future some synthetic material that's created in a lab may prove to be more cost effective, efficient, stable and lighter. But will the racket made of this be flawless then? Maybe something else can replace it.

In my opinion, a technically flawless racket is not possible because someone will claim a racket is "flawless", then maybe in a few years something else more "flawless" is developed.

We can produce something with a +/-.01% tolerance, but it may be replaced by a racket with +/-.00001% tolerance, as long as technology is expanding.

I am sure you have observed that some players lose power in their power shots either through slicing the bird or hitting it with a bent arm, or he may even mishit it. All these are self-inflicted that have similar adverse effects to hitting a racquet with poor face stability on the so-called sweetspot.
There is one forum member who will be asking me to try to 'improve' his ARC 10. I will do it for free and see if he can tell find any difference.

I look forward to hearing the results of this.
It's quite interesting, imo.

Taneepak, why not just make your own brand of rackets if you think the quality is so bad.

"Make it and they will come", as the saying goes.

Bandminton seems ripe for a new upstart to make some blingy, super high quality rackets.

Taneepak, why not just make your own brand of rackets if you think the quality is so bad.

"Make it and they will come", as the saying goes.

Bandminton seems ripe for a new upstart to make some blingy, super high quality rackets.
He did, we test, no body come...
According to him, all his racquets we got from the store are off spec...

He did, we test, no body come...
According to him, all his racquets we got from the store are off spec...

basically, yes. he did. people bought it, some like, some don't like. nobody managed to confirm his wild claims of his super rackets. some ended up in the used market. and then later on he claimed that they are "off-spec".

and then they disappeared.

May I ask what the definition of face stability is?



just a reminder for someone to answer this.........

Taneepak, why not just make your own brand of rackets if you think the quality is so bad.

"Make it and they will come", as the saying goes.

Bandminton seems ripe for a new upstart to make some blingy, super high quality rackets.

He did, we test, no body come...
According to him, all his racquets we got from the store are off spec...

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29446&highlight=e-1000

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30646&highlight=e-1000&page=13

even if someone come with a "flawless" racquet, there's definitely someone who will find some flaws with it.

it's us.

He did, we test, no body come...
According to him, all his racquets we got from the store are off spec...

basically, yes. he did. people bought it, some like, some don't like. nobody managed to confirm his wild claims of his super rackets. some ended up in the used market. and then later on he claimed that they are "off-spec".

and then they disappeared.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29446&highlight=e-1000

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30646&highlight=e-1000&page=13

To put it in perspective it must be pointed out that none of the above has even played with the on-spec one, designated TEP Select, which actually was a different racquet from the prematurely released E-1000. The TEP Select is long at 680mm, the other 675mm.

Been a long time between drinks, mate.

If you've got a superior racket, you could do worse than to give it to someone like Dinky Panda for his stamp of approval.

If you've designed and made a racket that's better than what's out there, then you have to get it out there for people to see and try.

Asking people to send you their rackets so you can mod them is not the way to do anything.

just a reminder for someone to answer this.........

I am surprised you don't know what a racquet's face stability is. Face stability can be very high to very low.
Maybe some explanation below will be useful.
When a player hits a power shot the racquet frame is sujected to enormous twisting forces. The quality of the materials used and the design profile of the frame have a material effect in resisting such forces. Also low quality materials are less stiff and more flexible, resulting in the racquet frame behaving like'tofu' when hit with a power shot. Inability to resist such forces and the frame feeling 'tofu'-like will result in a racquet with poor or low face stability. On the materials side ultra high modulus graphite is a superior material to ordinary carbon. On the profile design side, a larger x-section is better, which is why a box shaped x-section is almost always used for racquets that are primarily designed for power. On the flip side a larger x-section is slower than a smaller x-section. One great advantage of a large x-section is low cost, because very cheap and low grade carbon can be used.
There is also another area that can cause face stability. Because racquet molds are not precision molds they cannot produce high precision racquets the way Formula One racing cars' crankshafts are made. The car you and I have can be revved up to only about 6,000 revs vs a racing car's more than 20,000 revs.
If you have sensitive touch and feel you can rotate your racquet, first with one side up and then the second time the other side up, you will feel one side or orientation will go faster than the other side. In play, as you hit a power shot-and here we are assuming you hit the shot perfectly-the racquet face will slip very slightly to one side. However if you are a player who grips the handle very tight before impact, then it makes no difference. This 'slip' is due to the racquet's dynamic imbalance, and will reduce face stability.
Beginners who mis-hit, slice when smashing, or who hit with bent arm are contributing to the effects similar to low face stability-power is lost.

Been a long time between drinks, mate.

If you've got a superior racket, you could do worse than to give it to someone like Dinky Panda for his stamp of approval.

If you've designed and made a racket that's better than what's out there, then you have to get it out there for people to see and try.

Asking people to send you their rackets so you can mod them is not the way to do anything.
Sir DinkALot did get a e1000. There is a reason why it never made it to the list...

I am surprised you don't know what a racquet's face stability is. Face stability can be very high to very low.
Maybe some explanation below will be useful.
When a player hits a power shot the racquet frame is sujected to enormous twisting forces. The quality of the materials used and the design profile of the frame have a material effect in resisting such forces. Also low quality materials are less stiff and more flexible, resulting in the racquet frame behaving like'tofu' when hit with a power shot. Inability to resist such forces and the frame feeling 'tofu'-like will result in a racquet with poor or low face stability. On the materials side ultra high modulus graphite is a superior material to ordinary carbon. On the profile design side, a larger x-section is better, which is why a box shaped x-section is almost always used for racquets that are primarily designed for power. On the flip side a larger x-section is slower than a smaller x-section. One great advantage of a large x-section is low cost, because very cheap and low grade carbon can be used.
There is also another area that can cause face stability. Because racquet molds are not precision molds they cannot produce high precision racquets the way Formula One racing cars' crankshafts are made. The car you and I have can be revved up to only about 6,000 revs vs a racing car's more than 20,000 revs.
If you have sensitive touch and feel you can rotate your racquet, first with one side up and then the second time the other side up, you will feel one side or orientation will go faster than the other side. In play, as you hit a power shot-and here we are assuming you hit the shot perfectly-the racquet face will slip very slightly to one side. However if you are a player who grips the handle very tight before impact, then it makes no difference. This 'slip' is due to the racquet's dynamic imbalance, and will reduce face stability.
Beginners who mis-hit, slice when smashing, or who hit with bent arm are contributing to the effects similar to low face stability-power is lost.

Sorry, I am not technical, but basically face stability means strength, either by rigidity (anti tofu), material, shape or precision cutting to ensure the perfect form to give strength?

Sorry, I am not technical, but basically face stability means strength, either by rigidity (anti tofu), material, shape or precision cutting to ensure the perfect form to give strength?

Perhaps someone who has a fast video camera can record power shots at about 300fps, and on slow playback you can actually see the racquet frame bending or twisting. This deviation from a rigid and flat frame under dynamic conditions is referred to as face stability performance.

Perhaps someone who has a fast video camera can record power shots at about 300fps, and on slow playback you can actually see the racquet frame bending or twisting. This deviation from a rigid and flat frame under dynamic conditions is referred to as face stability performance.

I hope I don't jump the gun here, but basically then now Face stability is rigidity.

If this is the case then I
in normal rackets are the heads of rackets built stronger than shafts?

Since the higher the level of "face stability" the better in this area Head), however in a shaft it is the taste of the user as to the level of stiffness.

I hope I don't jump the gun here, but basically then now Face stability is rigidity.

If this is the case then In normal rackets are the heads of rackets built stronger than shafts, since the higher the level of "face stability" the better in this area, however in a shaft it is the taste of the user as to the level of stifness.someone who's keeping talking about face stability really not certain what specific(s) he talking about. You see, face stability is a catch all term to reflect many other technical qualities. What taneepak meant exactly about racket frame quality is unknown in this case, therefore the term face stability is used. The word stable mean resist changes, therefore, frame face stability quality could cover many many areas like:

1. resist deformation, ie. rigidity (which u have mention)
2. resist shocks
3. resist temperature expansion/contraction
4. resist chemcial degradation
5. resist micro cracking
6. resist going off balance (which can be achieve by design itself or high quality manufacturing process)

Therefore, u can't extract the correct message from taneepak in this case because he is using a loose term..face stability. He can use any of the above properties for defense and throw u off balance.

I hope I don't jump the gun here, but basically then now Face stability is rigidity.

If this is the case then I
in normal rackets are the heads of rackets built stronger than shafts?

Since the higher the level of "face stability" the better in this area Head), however in a shaft it is the taste of the user as to the level of stiffness.

Face stability of a badminton racquet is often touted by Yonex for its box shape design, initially with their famous Carbonex series. Yonex actually uses the words "high face stability" to claim "The Yonex Box Shape for high stability and high durability produces the solid feel on impact....builds long-lasting structural integrity....supressing twisting of the frame at impact for more powerful and more accurate shots". This was all Yonex could claim that their Carbonex series had high face stability was due to its Box Shape used in the frame, because this series never used ultra high modulus graphite.
Yes, the frame is king in a badminton racquet, hence it is here where all the stiffest graphites are or should be used. The use of ultra high modulus graphite for the frame from a good graphite manufacturer is the best. But for practical reasons such as minimizing frame breakages from racquet clashes, an all 100% uhmg frame might have a rather short service life because its extremely stiff material, whilst ideal for that 'effortless' shot that goes that extra mile, is easy to shatter. That is why uhmg is combined with other stronger but less stiff material to make the frame less susceptible to premature breakage. For the frame stiffness is the key, not strength.
However, for the shaft cheaper and much stronger materials can be used, because you don't want the shaft to have any of the type of material stiffness that is the gold standard for the frame. All shafts need to bend, its bend varying from little to more flexible. Now, this shaft flex has nothing to do with the flexure or stiffness of the materials used. Shaft flex is used for the bend property for the shaft. Two identical shafts with the same properties will behave identically. However, if one racquet has its shaft slightly longer than the other racquet's shaft, then despite their similar materials the first shaft will have a more flexible shaft.
Briefly, the flex or stiffness as are presented to the buying public refers only to the shaft's flex. It does not denote quality. But if manufacturers reveal more details of what materials are used for the frame and shaft, then you can get a rough idea of the quality of the materials used. For example, the AT 700 and AT900 use uhmg as the primary material for the frame but only hmg for the shaft. This means their frames have high face stability; and if any one of them has a box shape design thrown in then it should have more effortless power but slightly slower.
If you disagree, you can follow Cooler's take on everything about face stability.

There is no flawless racket
everyone has there own needs like feel power comfort or control

Face stability of a badminton racquet is often touted by Yonex for its box shape design, initially with their famous Carbonex series. Yonex actually uses the words "high face stability" to claim "The Yonex Box Shape for high stability and high durability produces the solid feel on impact....builds long-lasting structural integrity....supressing twisting of the frame at impact for more powerful and more accurate shots". This was all Yonex could claim that their Carbonex series had high face stability was due to its Box Shape used in the frame, because this series never used ultra high modulus graphite.
Yes, the frame is king in a badminton racquet, hence it is here where all the stiffest graphites are or should be used. The use of ultra high modulus graphite for the frame from a good graphite manufacturer is the best. But for practical reasons such as minimizing frame breakages from racquet clashes, an all 100% uhmg frame might have a rather short service life because its extremely stiff material, whilst ideal for that 'effortless' shot that goes that extra mile, is easy to shatter. That is why uhmg is combined with other stronger but less stiff material to make the frame less susceptible to premature breakage. For the frame stiffness is the key, not strength.
However, for the shaft cheaper and much stronger materials can be used, because you don't want the shaft to have any of the type of material stiffness that is the gold standard for the frame. All shafts need to bend, its bend varying from little to more flexible. Now, this shaft flex has nothing to do with the flexure or stiffness of the materials used. Shaft flex is used for the bend property for the shaft. Two identical shafts with the same properties will behave identically. However, if one racquet has its shaft slightly longer than the other racquet's shaft, then despite their similar materials the first shaft will have a more flexible shaft.
Briefly, the flex or stiffness as are presented to the buying public refers only to the shaft's flex. It does not denote quality. But if manufacturers reveal more details of what materials are used for the frame and shaft, then you can get a rough idea of the quality of the materials used. For example, the AT 700 and AT900 use uhmg as the primary material for the frame but only hmg for the shaft. This means their frames have high face stability; and if any one of them has a box shape design thrown in then it should have more effortless power but slightly slower.
If you disagree, you can follow Cooler's take on everything about face stability.

there so much mumble jumble in your post; your belief versus yonex marketing verses, frame versus shaft, stability vs flexibility, etc. I can not find any coherent statements or thoughts.

you said: uhmg is the best, give best stability, yet u also said uhmg frame would shatter much easier. How does a racket breaking apart easily translate to high stability? U manage to find a void in my list of stability, now i have add durability in my above list, resist to breakage.

you said: uhmg give effortless power, then why not use uhmg in the shaft as well?? shaft bending property is a very important component in power generation. Since we rarely clash racket on the shaft, why not manufacturering uses uhmg in the shaft to give more 'stability' and more 'effortless power'?

vectran is a very flexy and stretchy material and yet u used on the E-1000's frame construction. With such low modulus value, how can the E-1000 give user the 'effortless power' feel as advertised?

One of the greatest misunderstanding about racquets is that material strength is everything. It is not so. Strength and stiffness are roughly inversely proportional to each other. If the materials used in your racquet can take 40 to 50 lbs tension, you can be quite sure that it has low stiffness-not good for racquets but very good for clashes.
Perhaps you may want to revisit an earlier thread under Equipment, "Taking a leead from mussels to create durable stretchiness".

Mr. T.
Please define strength. We keep running into the issue that you do not define your term clearly. That is why so many people question your posts. I have ask you to be clear before and yet you still can not be clear on your current post. There is just no way to have a clear and meaningful debate or conversation with you. Sorry, I am just tireed of your pointless posts.

Mr. T.
Please define strength. We keep running into the issue that you do not define your term clearly. That is why so many people question your posts. I have ask you to be clear before and yet you still can not be clear on your current post. There is just no way to have a clear and meaningful debate or conversation with you. Sorry, I am just tireed of your pointless posts.

I will try to explain the difference between strength and stiffness with an explanation using a badminton racquet shaft.
Let us say we have two identical racquet shafts, except one, called A, is made from hmg and the other, called B, uhmg. If you bend A with say a force of X value it will bend say Nth of a mm. Now you do the same with B but here you will find B hardly bends. Repeat the test this time with 3X force. A will bend 3 X Nth mm whilst B will again hardly bend. Ultimately you test it with 10X force. A will bend even more but B will shatter. A will continue to bend more with larger force until it breaks at maybe 20X force.
Toray's hmg T1000g is exceptionally strong and will not break even with 100X force. But it has very poor stiffness. It is very strong for a good reason, because its special application is for fuel storage tanks in aerospace.
I believe a Chinese manufacturer is using Toray's T1000g/resin for its shaft and a matrix of T1000g, a higher tensile modulus hmg, and resin for its frame.
Maybe one day science can learn something from mussels to create both very stiff and very strong materials.

I think we are getting out of line here. But it will be interesting to hear from others besides Cooler and Silentheart. If others find what I have posted to be a waste of time, then I would like to know so that I will not bore all of you to death.

If there is interest in some sort of table showing the inversely proportional nature of strength to stiffness of carbon graphite materials used to make badminton racquets, I will be happy to provide. This may be useful for potential OEM racquet marketers to work with racquet manufacturers on their specific needs.

Great effort I'd say but it might not be very economically viable. I am just guessing here, but the way I look at it, even if what you said is true, I doubt any company will invest in those technologies just because it will cost them time and money when quality control is the cheapest method to filter out the best racquets. But of course, this is a grey area as you will not know how significant the difference in feel and it is something hard to quantify. You would also have to carry this out on a large sample population. If it turns out such that 80-90% of the test population recognise the difference in feel, then it would definitely be something that worth looking into/investing. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.

I am actually interested in this area, started just a while ago, but more towards improving the material/overall design rather than perfecting the current design. The final step of perfecting any design is always costly as you try to narrow product deviation.

Please don't get me wrong, perfecting something is always fun, just like how many of us would like to perfect our stringing ;)

I don't get it.

Forget the physics lectures - if you can make a better widget, make it, and they will come. Full Stop.

Personally I think it would be easy to make a high end racket or even start a market for custom rackets - assuming you have the resources which it sounds to me like you at least have some access to. If you honestly think high end rackets are that bad, make your own.

Hey, I'm not a marketing genius or a massive believer in the free market system, but just taking a quick look at other sports that utilise carbon fiber, it seems clear to me that there is a gap in the market for handmade, ultra-high end rackets.

Please don't get me wrong, perfecting something is always fun, just like how many of us would like to perfect our stringing ;)
how about flawless user? :D

i do wonder how we are going to make flawless racquet. 100% even out through out the racquet's body. superb face stability. the shaft is made perfect balance. the wood for handle is same density entirely. thus, we have the flawless racquet.
how about stringing as mentioned by Fluxe? same amount/weight distributed left and right? top and bottom?
overgrip needs to apply correctly, no extra 0.1gram for all axis. :confused:

all and all, we gather 100 engineers to perfect or make the flawless racquet. final question, where do we get a flawless user/player to use it? totally 100% correct technique in each stroke? so, he/she will fully utilise the flawless racquet. ;)

I think we are getting out of line here. But it will be interesting to hear from others besides Cooler and Silentheart. If others find what I have posted to be a waste of time, then I would like to know so that I will not bore all of you to death.

Thanks for the invite...

I'm not bored... just bloody confused with terms that cannot be locked down. So here's one other who thinks it's a waste of time arguing about colour of chameleons (now, even that is specific in comparison).

how about flawless user? :D

i do wonder how we are going to make flawless racquet. 100% even out through out the racquet's body. superb face stability. the shaft is made perfect balance. the wood for handle is same density entirely. thus, we have the flawless racquet.
how about stringing as mentioned by Fluxe? same amount/weight distributed left and right? top and bottom?
overgrip needs to apply correctly, no extra 0.1gram for all axis. :confused:

all and all, we gather 100 engineers to perfect or make the flawless racquet. final question, where do we get a flawless user/player to use it? totally 100% correct technique in each stroke? so, he/she will fully utilise the flawless racquet. ;)

good point there.
it is useless to pursue flawless racket if we can't find a flawless stringer to give u a flawless string job on that flawless racket. Then we still have to deal with flawed users.

On another note, if I were to sell this product (the flawless racquet I have made), I wouldn't highlight the facts about stringing and also how individual skill/technique is the most important factor. I mean, give Lin Dan any racquet (of decent quality) and you can market it as the "flawless" racquet, at least in the mind of the people. However, if you can find a cheap way to mass produce these truly flawless racquets, then that is something you can market, just like how Yonex sell all of its claimed technologies. So, at the end of the day, it boils down how you market your product, not how good your product is. Of course, your product must have a certain standard. Racquets from Hi-Qua, Babolat, Apacs, and many others do not seem any worse than those of Yonex but they fail to market their products as well as Yonex.

That being said, I wouldn't just dismiss this idea of racquet perfection completely. This is similar to stringing. Some stringers (usually the commercial stringers) claim that perfect stringing is not important as long as your stringing is of certain standard. In fact, there is never a perfect striging as it is relative to every individual user and his/her skill but we discuss it because of our interests. Similarly, the point taneepak was trying to make is very relevant. So, saying it is not possible or unrealistic is, to me, unfair.

"Maybe one day science can learn something from mussels to create both very stiff and very strong materials. "

Diamond has been known as one of the toughest material and that is probably why graphite is so widely used in sporting world today. Unless people want to invest huge money in other unexplored material, I think badminton racquet will still inhibit the basic properties of a scaled-up pencil lead. What is the strongest carbon-derived material atm? Is it still carbon-nano tubes?

I guess badminton racquet manufacturers have to learn the reproduction cycle of mussel. :cool:

One more thing to add here... even when we can have a flawless racket... after stringing .. the racket might not be perfect anymore. We dont have a perfect stringing method.
In a way i agree with Uncle Taneepak on this.

But I guess it will still be better than a "worsely-produced" racquet.

Case 1a: For an imperfect racquet, perfect stringing will still amplify its imperfectness
Case 1b: Imperfect stringing will produce even worse result.

Case 2a: For a perfect racquet, a perfect stringing will do nothing to the racquet while,
Case 2b: An imperfect stringing will introduce a flaw which certainly be smaller than the amplification in case 1a.

Yea, it shouldn't have to come this complicated :p but just want to say an improvement in any "equipment" aspect will cumulatively have a significant effect on overall performance.

You can only improve so much in racquet design, then its effect on performance will plateau i.e. no matter how you change the design you only get a small improvement. Then you look at stringing techniques and this will also plateau. Then you move on to other variables such as "player" factor such as grip, technique, and posture, shuttles, comfort wear, and who knows, people may start to look at optimizing game temperature.

I am getting carried away, but let's just focus on the "racquet" design factor and disregard stringing and other variables. I am really keen to get an update from taneepak on his "project".