Lets consider Yonex Arcsaber 10 for a moment. It's a $200+ racket. Comes in 2U/3U weight, stiff flex and even balance. Lets compare it with a $50 racket that has the same characteristic. Both racket has the same isometric head, length, flex, balance, string tension, grip and weight. The only difference seems to be the material used to make the racket. Now it occured to me that both racket would play almost exactly the same. So why would knowledgeable people buy the Arcsaber 10 or other high end racket when there are $50 rackets with the same characteristic?
Because people are willing to pay for the prestige of owning an top-end racket that the pros use, even if there is very little difference between them and the cheaper rackets.
It really depends on your level and demands. If you like higher tensions, have a higher swing speed, resulting in shaft bending... the Arc10 should be more stable, hence precise and might be more powerful. Regardless of how good one racket is on the paper, in the end it is you, who has to play with it and if you feel with one cheaper racket as confident as with one higher priced racket, everything is fine. Take the money left and spend it on new shoes, shirts or what ever. ^^
this is tangible costs (cost of material and production) vs intangible costs (brand name & quality of craftmanship). would you say a Merc S-Class is worth 10 times a Honda Civic? cost-of-production-wise maybe just 5 times, or not even that. so the "premium" you're paying is on intangible assets. what is intangible? things that can't quantitatively be measured by money, such as your confidence over the brand, or using such brand makes you feel happier and more prestigious, mentally perform better, etc...
It's all about branding or trademark. A by product of capitalism. A people's racquet or communist racquet is no match for a Branded racquet.
we can use car as the same example for badminton racket u can drive a german made car with the same specifications as compared to a japanese made car. but the mentality of many drivers r very different. applies the same to badminton racket. if u ask me, i prefer german than japanese car. n for rackets, i prefer japanese than chinese even though they have the same specifications. (thats provided i have the money to spare)
High end rackets seem to have more consistent specs (balance, stiffness, etc). Perhaps more time spent on QC or a more labour intensive manufacturing process to ensure more consistent specs.
Hmm I didn't know that kind of prestige exist in the badminton world. I mean, it's a racket, no one even look at it.
Let me start with this: it's not only about brand and prestige, there are lots more things to justify the price. What you pay is what you get, and market is mature enough to know it's prices.
Is that true though? I can see it for a really cheap racket but $50 - $100 rackets should be fairly consistent.
The problem with these type of questions is that there's never any scientific testing behind any responses - it's mostly speculation and assumption, which are often extremely logical and hard to argue against.
the design of a racket is not simply just materials and aesthetics. there are more to it that manufacturers can charge for. but before talking about that, let's talk about the -ends first. high-end rackets for higher prices are usually designed (and marketed) for more advanced players, cheaper rackets are usually designed for low level players. lower end rackets are usually more forgiving and less stiff, while higher end rackets are less forgiving, stiffer to match the ability of stronger players. carbon fiber (the dominant material used today) comes in different grades, and it happens that the less stiff materials are cheaper than the stiffer ones. so that justify a bit why high end rackets are more expensive. but not totally so. the material difference cannot be $50 as you probably guess. so what else justify it? firstly, there is the design, not color/paintjob design, but the engineering design. more time, technology are spent in higher end rackets, they are usually the cutting edge stuff which takes engineering time. this can be anything from a new mold (say Brave Sword) to verifying a new stringing pattern (say Babolat 20x21) to trying to match the character of a new type of CF (say woven), or Spiral wound shaft in Spira21. these all takes engineering skill and time. putting all these together and synergetically producing a racket that plays well, that is the key to being a high end racket. not just the material cost alone. lower end or 3rd tier brand rackets may not put in the same amount of engineering effort and the result maybe sub-par. or may not, some times there are good cheaper rackets too but not all the time. it is kinda like why a Picasso cost so much? he doesn't use particularly expensive canvas nor paint, those materials certainly don't cost millions.
No. There is a clear cut technological differences that you can weight and beneficial to the gradual improvement of rackets from time to time. So its not like comparing which Roti Prata is the best in town. Without those 1st tier brand and their products, we would have been stuck with wooden rackets.
Lets take NS9900 for example (the best racket ever a long with BS10) is there any of its equivalent that cost $50? If there is, can I please order 1000 of those??
I use this hypothetical question in many places, but i think its also apply here: 2 identical Lin Dan come to a badminton court, one is holding his beloved N90 and the other Lin Dan is holding $50, which Lin Dan would you put your house on?
Let me ask that another way: 2 identical Lin Dan come to a badminton court, one is holding his beloved $50 (that he's won all his titles with) and the other Lin Dan is holding N90, which Lin Dan would you put your house on?
Your notion is indeed full of assumption and speculation which are often extremely logical and hard to argue againt. My say is stop the finger pointing and get down to the facts.
I will bet LD with his N90 given that he's given the time in the world to practice and get use to it!!
Lets not argue that $50 racket is as good as the high end ones, cos they are not. I think the OP is just asking how can we justify the price difference.
