Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread: NS 8000 vs MP100 vs Ti-10
04-15-2005, 10:08 AM #1
NS 8000 vs MP100 vs Ti-10
this shld be interestin... i haf both mp100 n ti 10 already... but i still wonderin how nanospeed is... ppl pls give ur comments.
04-15-2005, 11:26 AM #2
Originally Posted by tonny
Hope this help.
04-15-2005, 12:05 PM #3
Can you post more detailed comparison when you have time? I own a Ti-10 and really love it. However, Nanospeed 8000 seems to share some characteristics with Ti-10 thus I am contenplating to either get another Ti-10 or Nanospeed 8000 when the price drops down. I am going back to Taiwan this summer and I will be in the middle of the release of Nanospeed 8000. Anymore info will be helpful. Thanks a lot!
04-15-2005, 01:03 PM #4
I don't know how you got the impression that NS8000 is similar to Ti-10 ... imo, the only similarity is probably both of them have slim frame design.
Ti-10 (as well as MP100, Armotec 700) are offensive rackets which are very head heavy and stiff. In fact, the balance of these rackets is not even towards the racket head, but the tip. As a result, these rackets can produce very powerful smash (of course, you must have strong arm/wrist and good technique). However, they are relatively slower in defense such as returning net attack, return smash, etc. They also require people with stronger arm/wrist to get use to.
In contrast, NS8000 is a head light balance racket. Yes, head light, not even even balance (MP90 is even balance). It is not stiff but not very soft too. I'm not sure whether it is because it is made of special carbon, it gives very solid feel. As a result, it gives excellent control when you play net shots, overhead shots, trickly shots, ... The advantage is apparent. However, it just can't produce smashes with the same punch from offensive style rackets, can't even match MP90 or AT800 DF/OF, but it can be adequate in most cases, especially if your style is not hard hitter, but a more tactical player - NS8000 allows you to control your shot very precisely and you will have very good speed with this racket.
Comparing with NS7000, which imo, is a very weak in terms of generating power, NS8000 is much more usable. As I said above, it has head light balance - I've just compared it with my ISO900SR CP, I would say it may be even more head light. With this head light balance, its power level is satisfactory, but just far from what you can get from Ti-10 type racket.
Well, I'm not saying NS8000 is not good and not worth a try. In fact, many people used to think they are offensive players, however, once they have tried less head heavy racket, they may find that they can actually play better with a defensive type racket. Using NS8000 is a very different experience from using Ti-10, but it may not necessarily bad, just depends on your play style.
For me, if I'm in good form, MP90 is still the best overall racket for me. It has the best balance imo in terms of power, control and manuverability.
04-15-2005, 01:29 PM #5
is NS8000 comparable to Ti 7 then? Ti 7 is also slim and headlight.
Also, you should be aware that Yonex places NS8000 as offensive, NS 7000 nearly balanced between offensive and defensive.
04-15-2005, 08:57 PM #6
Originally Posted by Ricky
04-15-2005, 09:33 PM #7
Originally Posted by virusvoodoo
04-15-2005, 09:47 PM #8
Originally Posted by TheGr8Two
I think you are talking about this graph :
However, you should check the product description at http://www.yonex.co.jp/badminton/pro...000/index.html. The paragraph below the balance point diagram clearly states that the racket is using a top light design with near even balance. It is definitely a very different racket from Ti-10 or MP100. However, you may position the racket as offensive because the racket head is very light so you can attack much quickier.
04-15-2005, 10:22 PM #9
according to that chart, NS8000 is a good racquet for smashing?
That's different from what Ricky said though
04-15-2005, 11:31 PM #10
ricky: i recently purchased a NS7000 and i does give me a head light well balance feel to it, however i am also interested in NS8000
as for NS8000 vs ISO800, how will you compare these two racket
04-16-2005, 09:30 PM #11
before we go any further, i feel need to post up the new racket comparison chart. i dont understand how can a head light racket (NS8000) be the 2nd most offensive racket, while almost all the rackets immediately above and below it are extremely head heavy rackets?
btw kwun/mods, the attachments isn't working for me.. when i press "upload" it goes to a page display error page
04-16-2005, 09:59 PM #12
Just wondering where Ti-10 would stand on that chart? Would it be near MP100?
04-16-2005, 10:05 PM #13
04-16-2005, 10:06 PM #14
Originally Posted by Dave18
hope it doesn't kill my hosting, as uploading pics isn't working
edit: since BJ already beat me to it, i took off the pics so i wont dissapoint people who read this post when i delete the pics later
Last edited by SWC_Ant; 04-16-2005 at 10:09 PM.
04-18-2005, 11:30 AM #15
Originally Posted by dranmo
I didn't use ISO800 extensively before. However, based on my experience, they are very different as well. ISO800 is a relatively head heavy (not the same league as Ti-10 of course) racket designed for offensive double player. It also didn't use slim frame design, the length of the racket is also shorter ... they are just two completely different racket.
As I said before, based on my experience, the closest one is probably the Swing Power family (SA/SR).
04-18-2005, 11:44 AM #16
Originally Posted by Ricky
04-18-2005, 12:02 PM #17
Originally Posted by rjcorcuera
Don't get me wrong - I'm sure they're all great rackets - but do you really need ALL of them?
By jayda in forum Buy & Sell - Read the rules sticky before you postReplies: 3: 10-26-2010, 09:08 AM
By jei28 in forum Buy & Sell - Read the rules sticky before you postReplies: 0: 08-01-2009, 11:36 PM
By forumer in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 9: 02-01-2007, 08:02 PM
By Clyde99 in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 8: 01-31-2006, 04:32 PM
By kakabobo in forum Market PlaceReplies: 8: 06-25-2004, 11:25 AM