NanoSpeed 8000 Review

**Renkinjutsushi** · 03-22-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by jeremy

Any rocket scientists in the house who can explain how the Nanotubes & fullerene C60 affects the performance of the new yonex rackets? anyone...?

fullerene C60 is basically using C60 (carbon) to make fibres to use to make the racquet. C60 (common name fullerene) is special because of the moelcular structure.... using only carbon atoms, they have a bond of 4 (meaning each carbon atom can connect with 4 other atoms).... using this info, you can make 'bucky balls' and such... a specific example is the shape of a soccer ball, the carbons can bond and form a shape EXACTLY the pattern of a soccer ball (pentagons and hexagons).... this shape is very strong because the bonds are all used, and the inside of the soccer ball-shaped fullerene is empty, so it's strong AND light.... other uses is to make strong circles with the carbon atoms, and make a 'cylinder' which is like a fibre, again the bonds are strong and the space in the middle of the circle is empty (less space, less weight)

so using 'nano-technology' (fullerenes) they can make strong fibres or whatever that are also light and make racquets with them. also, carbon is strong lol, compare diamonds with graphite (mechanical pencils), both are pure (or almost pure) carbon, but everyone knows a diamond is SUPER hard...
hope this info helped

ps. no, i'm not a nerd who crossed by a badminton forum, i really DO play badminton lol (i want a nanospeed that's even-balanced or head-heavy

since i'm used to my iso 900 )

**Renkinjutsushi** · 03-22-2005, 07:59 PM

just to add that i'm not sure about how the fullerenes affect flexibility and vibration absorption of racquets

**Renkinjutsushi** · 03-23-2005, 10:01 PM

now i'm thinking.... why is it that most sites of the NS 7000 & 8000 say that it weighs 80 - 85 and above? i thought that the use of nanocarbons should reduce the weight

then again... maybe yonex used the reduced mass to add more features to it

sigh... anybody want to comment on my explanation on nanocarbons/fullerens/C60 ? i'd like some encouragement or even corrections... i am the bored...

**justin_hkboy** · 03-23-2005, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by bluejeff

Some Japanese saying that, it would be released in April.............

I have no idea how cooler can manage to get a picture of it

you can get a pic of it in the Yonex official website, www.yonex.co.jp

**taneepak** · 03-23-2005, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Renkinjutsushi

now i'm thinking.... why is it that most sites of the NS 7000 & 8000 say that it weighs 80 - 85 and above? i thought that the use of nanocarbons should reduce the weight

then again... maybe yonex used the reduced mass to add more features to it

sigh... anybody want to comment on my explanation on nanocarbons/fullerens/C60 ? i'd like some encouragement or even corrections... i am the bored...

If a racquet is too light it might not even hit a fly. Using nano in a racquet becomes a balancing act. What other, heavier but smaller, materials do you use with nano to strike the ideal balance? There is a Chinese nano racquet that has a nano shaft and a heavy frame. It has the ultimate in power drives, clears and smashes, but nothing in other areas. No wonder its b/p is more than 32.5cm. Maybe the use of the heavier tungsten for weight and mass balancing, because you need very little of this heavy stuff, together with more and more nano on the frame might yield something interesting.

**Renkinjutsushi** · 03-24-2005, 03:53 PM

thanks

that's interesting to know, never htought about that

**V1lau** · 03-24-2005, 04:17 PM

This has got to be the ugliest color scheme of any of top yonex racket ie mp99 & 100, AT line I have ever seen...Like kwun said, the funky color is probably a sign of it authenticity...to much sake in the yonex labs...Anyways I am glad yonex is coming out with these new rackets as it makes my fav racket mp99 more cheaper.I can't wait for the next line, let see iso, muscle, armor. nano...i think the next line will probably like QUARK EVOLUTION. Well now I have to save some money to stock up on mp99s!!!

**bluejeff** · 03-24-2005, 06:39 PM

There you go, MP99 is a safe choice

, I will probably do the same as well.

**Kai91** · 03-25-2005, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

If a racquet is too light it might not even hit a fly. Using nano in a racquet becomes a balancing act. What other, heavier but smaller, materials do you use with nano to strike the ideal balance? There is a Chinese nano racquet that has a nano shaft and a heavy frame. It has the ultimate in power drives, clears and smashes, but nothing in other areas. No wonder its b/p is more than 32.5cm. Maybe the use of the heavier tungsten for weight and mass balancing, because you need very little of this heavy stuff, together with more and more nano on the frame might yield something interesting.

Actually this is not really hard for Yonex to implement since they are using buckyball but it will add to the cost price.

Buckyball like Renkinjutsushi said, it is hollow thats y it is light. And my brother have told me, it can be used to hold other things than injected into the body. So if that is they case, Yonex could simply add a few Ti Atom inside the Buckyball and able to tolerate tremendous tensions. So others can safely string their racket esp the pros. Yonex don't have to get them a racket each time they break it.

**SteveStanley** · 03-25-2005, 08:16 AM

Anybody in the forum (in the US) is selling this racket? How much?

**manabu** · 03-25-2005, 09:56 AM

from what I understand, fullerenes are sorta related to the perhaps more famous "Carbon Nanotubes", in a way that the nanotubes are sealed with the half spherical shaped fullerenes cap.... blah blah..

The racket has to be in similar weights (eg: 2U, 3U, 4U etc..) as the ones existed simply because of "getting used to factor", it's too risky for a big firm like Yonex to revolutionise the industry with a light weight racket imagine 6U that people would take a long time to adapt.

Although the technology might compansate with the issues of stiffness and structure integruity due to the lower density (with Bucky balls in between as suggested by Yonex?

) but the formula of momentum (p=mv) is independent of the materials used still... so I would reckon that for rackets of similar head heavyness (or balance point), a 2U racket would hit the shuttle further than a 6U (say..) racket with the same swing.

The only problem that I have with the colour scheme of the new NS series is that itz getting harder to judge between the NS7K and NS8K and AT700, other than that Im all good with what's on the rackets

any1 keen to elabrate the difference in shape between the NS7K and NS8K? I thought they are both ISO??

sorry for the long post and feel free to comment people, Im here to promote the freedom of speech and I hope I didnt mislead any1

a

**bluejeff** · 03-25-2005, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by manabu

The only problem that I have with the colour scheme of the new NS series is that itz getting harder to judge between the NS7K and NS8K and AT700, other than that Im all good with what's on the rackets

Duh, once you see them, you will notice they are VERY different rackets in terms of looks.

**HKChua** · 03-26-2005, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by manabu

...any1 keen to elabrate the difference in shape between the NS7K and NS8K? I thought they are both ISO??

a

NS7K - Isometric
NS8K - Box Shaped

**cooler** · 03-26-2005, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by HKChua

NS7K - Isometric
NS8K - Box Shaped

you mean

NS7K - aero shape

**Der_Coach** · 03-27-2005, 04:43 PM

I have used th NS8000 for 2 weeks now - I don't like the finish at all; it looks cheap - NS7000 looks so much greater. The first time it felt so light (used AT800 off before) and I wondered how to get speed with at such light raquet but now when I used it - I have never had a such good smash before so go for it!!!

**mgsmith1** · 03-27-2005, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by HKChua

NS7K - Isometric
NS8K - Box Shaped

NS7000 is supposedly 'head light' , and the NS8000 a bit more head heavy.

**Renkinjutsushi** · 03-27-2005, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by manabu

Although the technology might compansate with the issues of stiffness and structure integruity due to the lower density (with Bucky balls in between as suggested by Yonex?

) but the formula of momentum (p=mv) is independent of the materials used still... so I would reckon that for rackets of similar head heavyness (or balance point), a 2U racket would hit the shuttle further than a 6U (say..) racket with the same swing.

just wanna mention that the velocity should be noted as well because the velocity of the swing is dependent on how fast you can swing it, which can depend on the mass of the racquet... so there's a point where too low of a mass can decrease the power but also there's a point where too high of a mass can decrease the power as well....