FAKE Archsaber 10 Review

[buffedupboy]

Hi folks,

It's my first time doing a review of a racquet so I may not be doing it well/ right, but here goes anyway. Please by all means this should not be read as an endorsement of buying a fake/ replica racquet. Or should it be a warning to others but I always believe in choice in this world.

I was given this racquet by a supplier friend in China just for giggles. So I tried it out and give him an honest opinion and here it is:

1) First Impressions and background

I am an intermediate player, I used to play competitive badminton at state level a very very very very long time ago. We are talking some 20 years ago. After a series of operations on my knees, I rate myself as a low intermediate and play extremely conservatively just so I don't injure myself and can continue playing the next week.

I've used many different racquets in my day, but would say my favourite racquet of all time was the Cab 20. I now use an old Aerotus 66, something I have used since I was still competitive and it has served me well. I always prefer head light and stiff racquets as I've always had a problem with control and not the lack of power.

The racquet looks really really good. Decals are applied well, paint scheme is flawless. Granted I didn't have an original side-by-side to compare, but on it's own I can see how some people are fooled into buying it as an original. The specs are near identical too:

a) 3U G5
b) approx 95g (strung)
c) length 670mm
d) centre balance point 290mm
e) shaft diameter 7.2mm

2) During Play
The first time I picked up the racket I felt that it was heavy. This is definitely due to the head heavy design. Swing times were slower, contact was later and general fatigue set in faster. However, after weighing it and doing some physical measurings, I realised that it is actually lighter than my current racquet.

The racquet was immediately restrung with a Forten Pro Touch 66 at 26lbs to make it a fairer review as the original strings were just too low in tension. I have all my racquets strung at 26lbs on BG66 since forever. I have a theory that ALL strings actually play the same if their dimensions are the same and they are strung to the same tension. Many would disagree but my experience has been such. To my amazement, there was no change in my opinion after restringing!!! lol....the racquet still felt sluggish and heavy when hitting...

3) Attacking Play
Despite the head heavy orientation of the racket, it lacked any power in smashes. The head and shaft felt extremely flexible and the racquet definitely felt like it was flexing in torque. This was confirmed by twisting the head in your hands, it was easy to rotate it even with your hands. This may be due to the non-oversized/ wide body of the head and T-joint.

Shots were flying all over the place and drops were not accurate and I couldn't understand why, maybe I was having an off day. However upon closer scrutiny, I realised that the head balance was one-sided. It was heavier on one side of the racquet which definitely affected the accuracy of the shots.

4) Defensive Play
Lifting, clearing and general defending was also slow. The head heavy configuration made for very sluggish shots. The flexible shaft also made for very short and innacurate flicks. In fairness it could have also been because of my inability to adjust to the racquet as I've only really used the racquet for 2 hours whereas I've used my current racquet for close to 15 years.

Conclusion
I think it would be pointless having a 10point ranking system because of the subjectivity of such a system, but as an overall I would rate this racket perhaps a 4/10. I ask myself repeatedly whether I was biased because I had prior knowledge that it is a fake/ replica. However I can honestly say that I have been very very fair in the appreciation of it, I changed strings, swaped grips and tried to treat it as my other racquets. IF this was an original Archsaber 10, I would then have to give the Yonex Archsaber 10 a 4/10 rating too. Again I would like to stress that this is not a review to discourage or encourage you to get a fake/ replica racquet. However do note that there are definite differences between them. My supplier told me that they are only about USD18/ racquet. That is indeed a crazy price as you can imagine how much a racquet cost to make. Next up is a NS9900, I've been told that it will be made according to the original spec and carbon layup, it cost alot more to make this. I'll post a review once I get it too just as an academic exercise.

Regards,
Sean

[y_o_n_e_x_m_a_n]

so thanks for your review on a FAKE Arc 10.

so now we know how a FAKE Arc 10 feels like :D

so can you show some pictures of your FAKE Arc 10? :cool:

so that we can know how a FAKE Arc 10 looks like :p

[Daniel.A]

Well for starters, I will assume the fake Arcsaber 10 is spelt Archsaber 10 since you keep referring to it in that way :D

[Louislkw]

Pls upload some picture of the Archsaber 10 and NS9900 rollibob. Many thanks. :D

Ah, you also have a NS9900, appreciate your review soon. :)

I'm more interested to know the performance of ur NS9900 compare to mine one. I'm mean Yonex. :p

Is there any chance that I can get one of these to test it out? :D:D

[buffedupboy]

Hi guys,

My bad ARCSABER 10. Why can't they just keep the names simple like they used to?? Can we all say CARBONEX? lol.... I'm sounding old now.

I guess I could take some pics of the racquet when I have the time. Sorry I've been really busy lately.

I don't actually have a fake NS9900, I should have it at the end of the month though as my supplier will include it with my next shipment of goods then. I suppose you can borrow mine to try it out when it arrives.

I am assuming they don't all play the same because my supplier was asking me whether I wanted the racquets high or low spec (i.e cheap or expensive). The Arc 10 was a cheap speced racket and the NS9900 was supposed to be more high/ expensive.

[Louislkw]

Hi guys,

My bad ARCSABER 10. Why can't they just keep the names simple like they used to?? Can we all say CARBONEX? lol.... I'm sounding old now.

I guess I could take some pics of the racquet when I have the time. Sorry I've been really busy lately.

I don't actually have a fake NS9900, I should have it at the end of the month though as my supplier will include it with my next shipment of goods then. I suppose you can borrow mine to try it out when it arrives.

I am assuming they don't all play the same because my supplier was asking me whether I wanted the racquets high or low spec (i.e cheap or expensive). The Arc 10 was a cheap speced racket and the NS9900 was supposed to be more high/ expensive.

Thanks for the info. If you wanna let go the racket just let me know.

A racket from the same factory with evil empire is not the fake racket probably. These rackets beleive are all in the shape after the production cycle just that secretly ship out without the knowledge. The painting and the gromments is doing in other place.

A fake racket is produced by use of different material, technology and etc..

Your china supplier should know the racket is low end replica, high end replica (use of graphite), normal factory racket (with T-joint) can take high tension and original factory racket.

[roy b]

A racket from the same factory with evil empire is not the fake racket probably. These rackets beleive are all in the shape after the production cycle just that secretly ship out without the knowledge. The painting and the gromments is doing in other place.



Please, PLEASE stop fooling yourselves, guys. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Danstevens]

There's just a point I want to make about this review of a fake Arcsaber 10. With all due respect to buffedupboy, this review has no relevance to anything and holds no water at all. In the factories which fake rackets are made (no, not the Yonex OEM factories), there isn't necessarily any quality control at all. It doesn't matter what comes out of them as long as it looks like the real racket. If you buy a fake, you may get one which is wildly off-spec or breaks very soon. Of course, when your fake racket does break, you have no-one to turn to and just have to buy a new racket. I would highly recommend not buying a fake racket and instead, buying a low priced, quality racket from the likes of Apacs or any of the other good value brands which are frequently discussed on these forums.

As for the dismal performance of the fake arc10, it's hardly surprising. I'm no expert on graphite but I know for sure that the graphite in the fake arc10 will not be the same as in the real arc10. There is simply no way that the fake manufacturers can afford (or need to) put high quality graphite in to their rackets, they'll just put in the "bargain basement" stuff and be done with it. This would limit how powerful the racket was and deaden the feel. As always, there's a reason that a lot of fakes are cheap to buy - they're dirt cheap to make because they contain rubbish materials and no quality control. The worst type of fake racket is of course, one that you pay nearly the full retail price of a legitimate Yonex racket so be careful and conduct the appropriate checks before you buy. On a side note - fake Arc-ZS rackets are slowly starting to appear on eBay.

[mhigham]

There's just a point I want to make about this review of a fake Arcsaber 10. With all due respect to buffedupboy, this review has no relevance to anything and holds no water at all. In the factories which fake rackets are made (no, not the Yonex OEM factories), there isn't necessarily any quality control at all. It doesn't matter what comes out of them as long as it looks like the real racket. If you buy a fake, you may get one which is wildly off-spec or breaks very soon. Of course, when your fake racket does break, you have no-one to turn to and just have to buy a new racket. I would highly recommend not buying a fake racket and instead, buying a low priced, quality racket from the likes of Apacs or any of the other good value brands which are frequently discussed on these forums.


I disagree with your initial statement Dan, which to be fair you contradict yourself.

I've often wondered how such a racket feels/plays, entirely appreciating that there is no single answer to that given how hugely the performance varies (which you point out in your post above).

I found it very interesting reading an unbiased opinion of a fake racket, if nothing else just to highlight how utterly worthless they are (I was particularly surprised by the unevenly balance sides) rather than the standard "don't waste your money they are rubbish etc etc".

I genuinely hope a few people read just how unpredictable these rackets can be and choose to buy something else. I think the original post would be quite valuable in that regard.

Cheers

Mark

[Dreamzz]

i'd be interested to see if the opinion changes if the tester didn't know whether the racquet was genuine or fake. we might get some surprising results.

[roy b]

I genuinely hope a few people read just how unpredictable these rackets can be and choose to buy something else.

They are NOT unpredictable, Mark !!!!!

They are predictably terrible :):):).

[silentheart]

To members who posted in this thread.
1) This is a good topic to bring up from an unbiased view. I agree with Mark.
2) I think Dan has the good intention to ask Sean not to spend too much time and energy looking into fake Yonex racquet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
3) I think Mr. Buffed here did a good job and he is not a boy anymore.:D
4) Just want to point out 1 minor point. Yonex do use OEM factory in china to make the Basic and lowest end MP series racquet and that is it. There is no such "OEM" to make any other mid and high end racquet. Yonex owns the factories in Japan and Taiwan. Since they are own by Yonex, by definition, they are not "OEM".
A thank you for Sean spending his money and write up this review.

[druss]

I also agree that the review was a good idea. Let's be honest, the clones/fakes are out there and people are buying them, some knowing they are fakes, others not.

While I don't believe that the clones are anywhere as good as the real thing, I do think they are almost as good as the $40 rackets out of big sporting goods stores and are much better looking too.

Buyer beware is a lot easier with reviews like this.

[issarakaya]

Clone is different from fake, clone have brand name like Apacs, Fleet, Winex blablabla :D and of course some of them have a good quality cause they have QC in their factory.
Review from fake is useless cause there was no QC, every piece of fake rackets (same model and buy from same place) could be different BP, feel, stiffness, etc.

[roy b]

Review from fake is useless cause there was no QC, every piece of fake rackets (same model and buy from same place) could be different BP, feel, stiffness, etc.

Exactly. Pointless.

And maybe allowing reviews of illegal fakes on this respected website might be misinterpreted by some as some kind of endorsement.

People, PLEASE PLEASE avoid these fakes. They are not good for our sport.

[druss]

Clone is different from fake, clone have brand name like Apacs, Fleet, Winex blablabla :D and of course some of them have a good quality cause they have QC in their factory.
Review from fake is useless cause there was no QC, every piece of fake rackets (same model and buy from same place) could be different BP, feel, stiffness, etc.

I love sweeping statements like this, you know this for a fact because???

I just bought an Apacs Lethal 70 which was 10mm outside spec for balance point. The other two were fine.

While I certainly don't argue the fact that there would be little to no QC on these "fakes", I also can't see how you could prove that the specs varied so much unless you went out and did a scientific test with a large enough speciman group.

In my work I don't trust anything that can't be backed by testing, do the fake makers test? I actually dont' know, do you? Can anyone on here prove how much variation there is in these fake rackets?

[roy b]

I love sweeping statements like this, you know this for a fact because???

I just bought an Apacs Lethal 70 which was 10mm outside spec for balance point. The other two were fine.

While I certainly don't argue the fact that there would be little to no QC on these "fakes", I also can't see how you could prove that the specs varied so much unless you went out and did a scientific test with a large enough speciman group.

No need for the smug. There was no 'sweeping statement'. It's called common sense :rolleyes:.

Fakes are made in many different locations and with little or no QC. It's pretty damned obvious that quality and specs are not controlled (or are even relevant to the manufacturer) and will vary, rendering reviews pointless. A fake Yonex is probably made on the same machine as a fake Victor, but then painted differently.

There's no proof either way , but come on, let's be sensible here :rolleyes:.

Or are you trying to imply that reviews of ALL racquets are pointless ???

Or are you trying to imply that two-bit back-street manufacturers create uniform specs in their fakes ???

Oh, by the way, I have an Apacs Nano 900 Power. It ain't to spec - Apacs ain't too hot on that either.

[roy b]

In my work I don't trust anything that can't be backed by testing,

When John Lennon was once asked whether he believed in fairies, he said "yes, I believe in everything that hasn't been proven to be not true. So, yes, I believe in fairies."

You believe in fairies, I assume.

[mhigham]

Clone is different from fake, clone have brand name like Apacs, Fleet, Winex blablabla :D and of course some of them have a good quality cause they have QC in their factory.
Review from fake is useless cause there was no QC, every piece of fake rackets (same model and buy from same place) could be different BP, feel, stiffness, etc.

Again, I totally disagree. There is value in someone taking the time to accurately describe the characteristics of a fake racket, be it an Arc10 or other 'high end' racket - purely as a method of informing others what they can expect and as evidence of how poor they can be.

[mhigham]

"No need for the smug. There was no 'sweeping statement'. It's called common sense :rolleyes:.

There's no proof either way , but come on, let's be sensible here :rolleyes:.

Or are you trying to imply that reviews of ALL racquets are pointless ???"



One one hand you acknowledge there is no proof, but then you suggest the review of the racket (which provides the proof) pointless? Doesn't make much sense.

[cooler]

no mention on how good this racket making fake shots lol

[roy b]

"No need for the smug. There was no 'sweeping statement'. It's called common sense :rolleyes:.

There's no proof either way , but come on, let's be sensible here :rolleyes:.

Or are you trying to imply that reviews of ALL racquets are pointless ???"



One one hand you acknowledge there is no proof, but then you suggest the review of the racket (which provides the proof) pointless? Doesn't make much sense.

With great respect mhigham, my gripe is not with yourself. And my comment re. proof is about overall QC, something not covered by your review or any individual review.

My point is that reviewing fakes may be MISCONSTRUED by some as endorsing them. We need, on this website, to send a clear message that fakes have no place in our sport.

Your review was done in good faith I agree. But, your reviewed racquet will be different to the thousands of other fakes out there, so really doesn't tell us anything. Your results should put some people off these racquets, with luck (so, maybe not so pointless as I said). BUT, I'm not so sure about publicising the racquets on this site though.

[MetalOrange]

hey guys, equipments fakes just like software piracies aren't legit anywhere.

thus give roy b a break, we all know what he meant.

please guys, don't let all these topsy-turvy impertinence go on.

cheers,

[silentheart]

no mention on how good this racket making fake shots lol
As long as you are not faking me or I am not the one getting faked. fake or frak, they are all the same...:confused::eek::D

[roy b]

hey guys, equipments fakes just like software piracies aren't legit anywhere.

thus give roy b a break, we all know what he meant.

please guys, don't let all these topsy-turvy impertinence go on.

cheers,

Thanks, MetalOrange :).

I'm bowing out here.

To conclude. Common sense dictates that fakes have little or no QC and regularity in specification. Reviewing a fake doesn't tell us anything as specs vary so much. They are ILLEGAL and should not be discussed on a respected website - discussing them, even negatively, may be seen by some as some kind of endorsement. Everyone should make it clear that fakes have no place in our sport.

I'll go get a beer and leave the others to abuse me :rolleyes:.

[MetalOrange]

roy b,

do just that. i'm having a guinness myself.

cheers,

[roy b]

roy b,

do just that. i'm having a guinness myself.

cheers,

Zywiec for me (Polish beer) :):)

Cheers.

[Danstevens]

I disagree with your initial statement Dan, which to be fair you contradict yourself.

I've often wondered how such a racket feels/plays, entirely appreciating that there is no single answer to that given how hugely the performance varies (which you point out in your post above).

I found it very interesting reading an unbiased opinion of a fake racket, if nothing else just to highlight how utterly worthless they are (I was particularly surprised by the unevenly balance sides) rather than the standard "don't waste your money they are rubbish etc etc".

I genuinely hope a few people read just how unpredictable these rackets can be and choose to buy something else. I think the original post would be quite valuable in that regard.

Cheers

Mark


Hi Mark, I suppose the review has some use in the sense that it's the first I have seen of its kind however, I think it only confirms what most of us knew already - fake rackets just don't perform well. In my personal opinion, an even better review would be a comparison between a lot of fake Arc10s (to check out the QC) and a real Arc10 (to compare with the real thing). Obviously a review like this would be much more time consuming and expensive for the OP and what he's done so far is still a good effort. Perhaps I'll have to do a comprehensive fake vs legitimate rackets test at some point. The only thing is, I don't know if I can really see any point in doing so as the result is almost certain anyway.


To members who posted in this thread.
1) This is a good topic to bring up from an unbiased view. I agree with Mark.
2) I think Dan has the good intention to ask Sean not to spend too much time and energy looking into fake Yonex racquet. Please correct me if I am wrong.
3) I think Mr. Buffed here did a good job and he is not a boy anymore.:D
4) Just want to point out 1 minor point. Yonex do use OEM factory in china to make the Basic and lowest end MP series racquet and that is it. There is no such "OEM" to make any other mid and high end racquet. Yonex owns the factories in Japan and Taiwan. Since they are own by Yonex, by definition, they are not "OEM".
A thank you for Sean spending his money and write up this review.

Yes, Master SH, I did make that post with good intentions, not just to shoot the OP and his review down. Actually, that reminds me, I forgot to thank Sean for his review in my first post so I will do it now. Thanks Sean!

[druss]

When John Lennon was once asked whether he believed in fairies, he said "yes, I believe in everything that hasn't been proven to be not true. So, yes, I believe in fairies."

You believe in fairies, I assume.

I love how you feel that you were attacked and yet can make a statement like this.

I'm an engineer, would you like for engineers to base their work on supposition and opinion? This biases me towards statements being backed up by facts, not opinion.

Beyond that I never made a statement anywhere that I considered fakes to be good rackets, only that it had not been proven that their specs were actually that bad.

I would not buy one myself unless it was maybe to compare them to the real thing.

As for "smug", your comments speak for themselves as does your condescending manner.

[Louislkw]

Please, PLEASE stop fooling yourselves, guys. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is all up to you to beleive or not to believe. You can have ur comments.

ANyway, I'm just sharing the info that gather. :)

[Gemcat]

A fake Arcsaber 10 is a good alternative in doubles....At least you don't have the risk of breaking your "REAL" Arc10 when you clash, just a cheap, fake Arc10 which looks exactly the same. Also, it's a real nice tool to lend to girls too!....(gigettygigetty!)

[buffedupboy]

Hi guys,

I know nothing about grey market racquets that fall out of the back of trucks :D. What I do know is this:

The racquet that I have comes from a small factory producing fake racquets and racquets for smaller brands. The guy who runs it used to work in a factory making yonex, he then came out and started his own factory. Obviously making replicas was the easiest to do. If you have dealt with Chinese factories/ companies you will understand it a little better, but essentially it's a lower risk and lower capital investment in regards to branding and marketing.

Like all other sporting goods, alot of work is sub-contracted out. That includes all big name brands, yonex, wilson, etc etc. The main and biggest difference (for badminton racquets anyways) is the ownership of the racquet molds. There are only a handful of big factories making racquets for the bigger guys. Then there are smaller factories for the lesser and newer brands.

It is not possible to ask a big factory to make say a BUFFEDUPBOY NS9900 :p from a YY NS9900 mold. Chances are the ownership of the mold is with YY and even if it was an open mold, chances of them producing in small quantities for you would be slim. Why would the factory jeopardize their relationship with YY for your small run of 100 racquets? Have you ever wondered why there are so many clone racquets in the market and who makes them?

Most of the time clone racquets are made by smaller factories who have already invested in a mold similar to a YY NS9900 ( to make replicas), and so opening up a decal mold for you would be easy.

Anyways, now back on point. One of the purpose of writing the review was to have it out there for those even considering buying a fake racquet to get one with their eyes open. I do not advocate buying a fake, in fact I didn't buy this as it was given to me for free. I even insisted that the decals be removed but it was too much trouble so they sent me one with decals and paint intact.

Arguing that the review was pointless as each fake racquet would play differently is not entirely true. For all intents and purposes, there are only so many ways to slice a racquet. Weight distribution, carbon layup, total weight, head shape, tube profile and material. If all these are the same, the racquet will play the same. IF the fake racquet was coming from the same source (and there are many factories in china making fake racquets), you can be sure that all the racquets will follow the same carbon layup and be finished the same hence play the same.

I am not here to tell you the doom and gloom of buying a fake racquet. However I want to point out again that the only constant is inconsistency. Normally for fake raquets, the weight, tube profile, head shape and maybe weight distribution would closely mimic the original. However other factors like the material, and in my case the weight distribution and carbon layup were not according to specification. Your fake arcsaber 10 may be different to mine and you MAY be lucky in getting one that is done well, but the chances are low. For that matter, buying a clone will also (as some have already pointed out), not guarantee any form of consistency as they are possibly made in smaller factories as well.

Now the point of contention. Can an average/ beginner tell the difference between real and fake. Well, for the most part IF there were a real one to compare to side by side, the average/ beginner will definitely be able to tell that they feel different. Which one they would prefer would be debatable and you will be suprised that some may even choose the fake as a better playing racquet. HOWEVER, for an intermediate/ advanced player you will definitely be able to feel the negative difference in performance (or that was what I felt anyways).

Will I use this racquet again? sure. Because personally I don't play competitively anymore, I play for the sake of remembering how it felt like swinging a racquet, contacting a shuttlecock and occasionally hitting a good shot. Using any racquet (even a fake one), makes the experience more random and fun.

Now, someone show me where I can buy a Carbonex 20 new!!

[issarakaya]

Arguing that the review was pointless as each fake racquet would play differently is not entirely true. For all intents and purposes, there are only so many ways to slice a racquet. Weight distribution, carbon layup, total weight, head shape, tube profile and material. If all these are the same, the racquet will play the same. IF the fake racquet was coming from the same source (and there are many factories in china making fake racquets), you can be sure that all the racquets will follow the same carbon layup and be finished the same hence play the same.

Now, someone show me where I can buy a Carbonex 20 new!!

you can add Indonesia and Vietnam also ;)

YY Carb 20 still in production and you can buy online too, check market and place thread.

[Zabee]

hmm..but i think me friend Powersaber 10 is quite enjoyable when i'm using it ...:)

[hematose]

Sean, I think what you are trying to do is a great thing. Real comparisons between real and fake need to be made, but you call this a review?

The very first thing you said was:

The first time I picked up the racket I felt that it was heavy. This is definitely due to the head heavy design. Swing times were slower, contact was later and general fatigue set in faster. However, after weighing it and doing some physical measurings, I realised that it is actually lighter than my current racquet.

Do we need any more proof that you couldn't notice the difference?

You go on to describe several more problems, but then admit that something else might be causing the problem other than the racquet. Finally, you identify a serious flaw in the individual racquet you had that could easily explain all your problems. Others in this thread have fairly criticized you saying that since quality control is low on fake units, real results are all over the map.

Badminton is as much a sport of the mind as it is anything else. To do any kind of objective review, you have to eliminate the bias of your mind somehow when determining the results. That's why engineers like myself use numbers to characterize the things we do.

If you want to talk about damaging the sport, maybe you should talk about companies tricking the masses into spending $250 USD on a heavily marketed and fancily coloured racquet instead of on lessons that would actually improve their game. That's money that could be going into the pockets of all the instructors that read this board and supporting local badminton communities around the world instead of a faceless corporation in Japan.

Look at any info provided by Yonex: The only objective technical measurements given are weight and length which are virtually identical among most racquets. They don't even tell you (numerically) where the balance point is supposed to be or give you a useful figure like the moment of inertia. They don't give you Young's modulus/stress/strain curves for their products or durability numbers either.

If Yonex is supposed to be vastly technically superior to clones, they should be able to prove it through people that they don't pay in either large sums of money (sponsored players) or give a bunch of free stuff to. They should be able to prove it in double blind tests. If they really were a lot better, the clone/fake racquet guys would be out of business.

I appreciate the attempts by reviewers like Ants (who seems like a nice guy and gives away free racquets) but when your reviews start with phrases like "this is a weapon that should be feared..." or something to that effect, the eyes of any technically minded person should begin to roll.

I know many people who think their Arc10 clone racquets are just fine. Mine plays better than my backup Black Knight which I had to start using again when the strings broke, but I'll be honest and say that it probably had much more to do with being used to the racquet than it did with the racquet's quality.

I compared the real thing to my Arch10 with a digital balance and they were 5g off because one was 3U and the other was a 2U. The flex seemed qualitatively the same, though I lacked a good instrument to compare this.

If you are Lin Dan, maybe it makes a real difference for you. Otherwise, you're probably much better off spending a day or two practicing than you are a day or two working to buy the latest fancy piece of carbon from Yonex.

One entirely believable (though unproven) problem with fakes is that their quality control is poor by comparison. However, at less than 1/3rd of the cost, you can get several entirely usable racquets and still save money. Don't like one of the fakes you got? Give it to a kid or newbie at your club as a present.

Want to prove me wrong Yonex(Ants...)? Send me the real thing and I will perform a detailed comparison (including destructive tests; I'll destroy it to prove that I'm not just asking for a free racquet) between it and the Grade A and grade B clones that I bought off Ebay in the laboratories at the university I work at. I'm not going to hold my breath though. I'm sure Yonex has done these tests already and they are keeping the results very, very quiet.

[buffedupboy]

I posted what I observed and what I measured quantitatively. When I held the racket it felt heavier, but when I weighted it was actually lighter. I also explained that it was probably caused by the head being heavier as the balance points were different between my current racket and the fake Arc10.

I'm not about to set up a test jig to determine which is stiffer etc. and can only go by 'feel'. I am sure companies with their own molds and designs have their own test jigs (it's not expensive to set one up) and they probably have good reason not to publish the results as it opens themselves up to scrutiny, QC claims, competitive challenges etc.

Since you have a fake Arc10, I think it would be better to add your review here.