Ok this may sound convoluded but hopefully it'll be understandable: with a normal racquet, when the bird hits the string bed, it pushes into the string bed. You are exerting a force in the opposite direction through the shaft. Thus, everything below the point of impact wants to push forward, while there is a tendency to push away above that point. In essence, the head is bent a little. With armortec, there is a concentrated section of weight at the very tip, which also pushes forward due to momentum. (much more so than a regular racquet.) Thus, there is less head-bending, and thus the racquet head "acts" stiffer. Further, the boxy frame maxes the head "less-bendy" as well. with another racquet of the same head-heaviness and weight, more of the head weight is all around the racquet rather than just at the tip, so the effect is much smaller, because much of the weight is not above the poinit of impact. makes sense?
yes. i think your explanation is valid. however, certainly one cannot have completely head heaviness. there is gonna be a certain equilibrium point. the two ends of the spectrum for the equilibrium is: - if the distribution is too much towards the handle, the lack of momentum at the the top of the racket face is too small to maintain straightness. thus bending and the shuttle deflects. and since the CG of the racket is not near the head and the contact point is, then by conservation of angular momentum, the resultant force acting on the shuttle is smaller. - at the other extreme, if the distribution is too much towards the head, we have the reverse effect. the racket will bend in a concave fashion upon impact, assuming that the shaft is flexible (which is a valid assumption that holds on both cases) there exist an equilibrium. but i question where that equilibrium point is.
in the case of a head heavy racket, as the momentum of the head tip is high as you mentioned, there is little bending of the racket shaft. i actually questions if that is desirable. that in effect means that the flexibility of the shaft is effectively eliminated, and much of the thrust onto the shuttle is mainly due to momentum from the racket weight. i actually argue that the bending of the shaft is very important. even with a stiff shaft. the bending of the shaft "loads" up the shaft with potential energy and later on released, producing kinetic energy that is released into the birdie. without bending of the shaft. that load/release mechanism does not come into play...
i think the armortec frame is stronger than a conventional balanced racket head and head flexing is less prononuce from an AT head. In any case, i prefer a frame head to have minimum flex as possible.
at the other extreme, if the distribution is too much towards the head, we have the reverse effect. the racket will bend in a concave fashion upon impact, assuming that the shaft is flexible (which is a valid assumption that holds on both cases) kwun, for above case, i thought the head would lag even more so than a non head heavy frame, meaning more convex on impact side. If you remember, most comments from AT700 users were saying AT700 feels flexible although yonex rated the shaft as EXTRA STIFF. That is why yonex made the AT700 extra stiff for this 'light' racket. Of course, when i do get an at700, i will test its stiffness
AT-700 has Ultimum Ti, whereas AT-500 does not. Does anyone find that it actually makes a difference?
After doing a number of demo nights now I see many players that are less skilled prefer the 500 because they can execute net shots more consistently. This is , I beleive due to the fact that the shaft of the 500 is less flexible than the 700 and the feel is there. The 700 because it is stiffer feels not necessarly better but does not feel bad for a more skilled player.
Since I'm shopping for an AT myself, would you be able to say definitively that the AT500 is better suited for begginers and that the AT700 should only be considered by advanced players? Shouldn't the less flexible shaft of the AT500 be preferable for more powerful players?
