Carbonex 20 and 21 "ANOMALY" - please help !

**R20190** · 10-09-2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by concretemad

To me, the 'claimed' material technology is marketing gimmick. the physical specs only relevant.

weight, balance, stiffness and frame cross section. dont really give a d*&# on the fullerene, xt carbon, kevlar, titanium..........all the 'bs'.

Thanks, but isn't stiffness a function of the material property?

**maxout** · 10-09-2012, 07:17 PM

R20190,

Thank you for your "memory jogger" on basic material science and definition of "modern badminton game" for me. Embarrassingly, I have completely forgotten my sciences and engineering and got carried away with my emotions and "feel" when using the Cab20.

Yes, you are spot-on in saying that durability, stiffness, ability to withstand high stringing tension etc are affected by the inclusion of composite material into the base graphite compound. Coupled with the changes in design and nature of the game, it is true that badminton that I used to play - 15-points, rally based game, has transformed into a fast-paced offensive game. The new R&D conducted is also geared towards the modern game.

Thus, the question now for me is whether do I change my style of play or remain back in my comfort zone ? Interesting question for it will also dictate my choice of racquet ....

Time to sit back and think a bit .... THANKS !

**sayshh** · 10-10-2012, 01:47 AM

@maxout

I think if Cab 20/21 serves your purpose while playing your games then that's good enough. IMO the materials don't matter if you can play your best game with it. Most of the racquets (even made with humble carbon-graphite, no fancy stuff) can match today's fast paced attacking badminton. The only risk lies in string tension, so if unless you really need string tensions in excess of 25 lbs you don't have to come out of your comfort zone. Good luck with your selection though.

**raistian** · 10-10-2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by R20190

I can see myself having a long and interesting chat over a coffee with someone like you!

...

The feeling's mutual

Maybe one day you could visit Melbourne - we could have a hit & have a cold one after!

I myself have been playing for 30+ years. Badminton's in the blood - dad was a local champion & gave me a racquet as soon as I could walk. Went to badminton school & all that but didn't go pro - mom pulled me out & told me to study

since there's no future in badminton except coaching or opening a shop (this was in Indonesia a long time ago).

I get what you're saying about modern badminton game & would like to address a few things. Please don't take this as an argument - it's looking at the changes from a different angle.

The old-school badminton was not necessarily slower nor less explosive. Players were shorter back then (because of diet, genetics etc). Simply put, shuttlers had different built which affects play style. Covering the court took more steps so the strategy evolves around corner-placement to stretch your opponent (stealing your words - they're perfect BTW

). Jumping was more of a flying jump rather than a hop (for their height old-school players jumped higher than today's). This affects recovery/ response time so smashes were more reserved for that killing shot. The games were slower & less explosive by physical limitations.

These limitations extend to musculature as well. Players were happy with a "high" tension of 24-26lbs, less stiff shaft etc. Today's racquets would be considered unwieldly back then. Natural gut was also preferred because of its feel. Synthetic existed but considered sub-par (plasticky) - whether this was caused by less advanced technology or not is beyond me as I was too young to know or care about these things

.

Old-school badminton is like a revolver compared to today's semi-automatic.

Over time as they became taller & stronger plus with technology advances, players & their equipment evolved. However, today's racquets - from technology perspective - are not that different. I hope I make sense by saying this: suppose that Yonex needed a tech level of 10 to make Cab20 & 21, they wouldn't need 20 for AT900 - a level of 12 or 13 maybe (a level 20 would have to be significantly different - a full titanium racquet for example

).

This is why older racquets are good - they represent peak performance/ value. Except when supply & demand comes into play as per OP's experience

.

Personal note:
Ironically - I prefer Cab20 for doubles & Cab21 for singles. I find Cab21's more head heavy & slower for doubles. I do have to check their weights (3U, 4U etc) though, maybe I'm not comparing apples & apples.

**concretemad** · 10-10-2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by R20190

Thanks, but isn't stiffness a function of the material property?

stiffness = kEI/L

yes but how much can it be?

**maxout** · 10-11-2012, 01:36 AM

"CONCLUSION"

I got a BRAND NEW REPLACEMENT CAB20sp (neon-orange) today (3UG4) - I am IN LOVE (again)

!!!

Thank you to everyone for your inputs, they have really helped me to think and decide.

The rational head says go ahead with the VT7 ... but the heart says, " Trust the "FORCE" "

BTW, I have a MINT CONDITION VOLTRIC 7 (played less than 2 hours) - no scratches, no marks, etc etc ... FOR SALE !! String: BG66 (21X22 lbs) 3UG5

Anyone interested, just let me know ....