# Thread: 2003 Yonex rackets measurements

1. If that's the case, then this RDC stiffness test is flawed because string tension is integrated with the frame characteristic. Since string type and tension are not standardized, the test result cannot be consistent nor repeatable by other technican working somewhere else. For example, a tightly strung racket can strengthen a frame. Would a 70 lb strung tennis racket flex the same as a 30 lb same tennis racket? well, i don't want to beat to death on the RDC number or test. Bottom line is that the babolat RDX machine is designed for measuring tennis racket, and stiffness test seem to involve bending the frame.

I'm sure that machine can be adapted for badminton rackets but internal electronics need to be regeared or recalibrated for more delicate badminton rackets.

2. Originally posted by Neil Nicholls
But what does the Babolat RDC measure?
Is the racquet handle clamped and then the amount the head moves is measured?
Or what? Does it make a difference what the string tension is?

But then, cooler continues to not give us details of exactly how he made his measurements. I think as far as we got was that he clamped the handle and then bent the racquet.
How did you bend it. Apply a weight? Where did you attach it? At the throat, middle of the strings, top of the racquet?
Where did you measure the deviation? At the throat or head of the racquet, or where?
You give us a relative stiffness figure based on the total length of the racquet, which is probably only valid if you bent the entire length of the racquet. I would have expected the length to be the distance between the clamp and the point at which the force is applied.

It might sound like picking at little details, but you are giving numbers to several decimal places. Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I am interested in the details.
yes, i bend the entire racquet, fix point at the handle, so even the shaft inside the cone is free to flex.

3. ## cooler!

since i honestly believe what cooler has to say about things,which is better for u mp24 or mp33 and why?tnx cooler!regardless of the price!

4. Geez, you put me in a position to reply, good tactic

since u have said a racket that that fits my need and price is not a concern, then i would be choose the MP33 of the two.

from the chart, u should see mp24 is head light. A balanced weight is as head light as i would prefer. MP33 is balanced like the cab20MS. MP33 is stiffer too. Together i find in MD i can do more drive shots. The stiffness helps compensate a bit on not being a head heavy racket during smashes.

Mp24 is a lively racket too but it's a bit too flexy for me.
MP33 uses high modulus graphite throughout, while mp24 uses regular graphite.

last national junior qualifying touranment i went to watch, i saw highest percentage players were using mp33, around 20%.

Only disadvantage of mp33 is it cost more than mp24 and don't come strung.

5. ## tnx.

tnx cooler!

it should come to us as no surprise that the more expensive ur racket, the better!is their any cheap yonex racket perform better than the high end rackets of yonex like mp99?

8. ## Stiffness versus Time

As Part Four of the racket measurement thread, i have look into how racket stiffness hold out over time. I think most of us don't give much thought about this topic when comparing rackets from various sources like friends, stores or their own. Well, the result of my test would change that. I haven't post it before because i lack the racket samples to make comparision at single point in time. The result shown below are from tests conducted consectively with same measuring devices.

I don't say the result applies to all badminton rackets but if MP99 with H.M. graphite, Ultimum Ti frame and shaft does, i'm sure the other rackets of 'lesser' quality should suffer more stiffness degradation.

The reference racket is a brand new cab20MS with relative stiffness = 0

9. ## LOL

Cooler,

If I didn't know you better, I would have to say you have too much time on your hands LOL

but because I know you, and know what a scientific mind you have, as a fellow analytical, I can say awesome work here!

I've been waiting for some sort of actual quantitative analysis... and objective at that.

I would send you my unused cab22 if you wanted to get a anoter measurement on the cab20power/22.

Also I would send you a cab20MS 2u, just to see if there really is any major difference, but by what your findings indicate, really 2u, or 3u should be pretty much the same.

I also have a used cab20long you might want to test out...

Let me know... lol
Or when I come back to Calgary, we'll perform your measurement tests on these goodies...
Oh, one racquet i would like you to perform a test on is the Blue racquet that I had purchased, the same one that Sareno uses...
I forget what it's called now lol... but that racquet with it's oval shaft, was really really stiff. I couldn't even use it... lol.
I did remember having one left, but lent it out, and never saw it again

Anyways... keep up the good work!!

10. thanks for the compliments kelvin.
for your racquets, try to estimate the amount of time used as it would make a difference if we are comparing something really close.

oh, that unknown racquet is LeVeL, with kelvar, it's not really stiff, it's super stiff.
btw, u didnt lent your 2nd one to me, unfortunately

too bad u had listed all the rackets here (public media) that u wanted to lent to me or else i might hoping you forgot about them too

Page 9 of 22 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•