Hello, to all the pro. all there I would like to ask which racquet frame design/technologies provide the most stable shot when it impact with the shuttle :- 1) Frame with Titanium Mesh composite. (Ex. Ti-10) 2) Muscle Power frame. (Ex. MP-77, etc.) 3) Armor Tec box shape frame. (Ex. AT-700, etc.) 4) Frame with Nano tech. carbon composite. (Ex. NS-8000) Thanks you.
having tried with at and ns i would say ns > at not a scientific test of any kind tho... you haven't tell us what you think
i'd go for TI or NS... muscle-power is desinged for tension retainment (sp?) and at is desinged for power(/head heavieness)
If we are considering just the frame only, then I will probably think about a racket that has both 1 and 2, one of which would be MP-100. (MP100 is an ISO head racket with Ti Mesh at the sides.)
Hi everyone, I'm no engineer but i have used and own some of Yonex's TI, MP and AT rackets, I have found that the AT is the most stable. Its heavier head feels much more solid on returns and net play which has virtually no shock coming through the shaft. I havent used the NS series so I cant comment of those. However, I believe the NS series with its thin layered construction and head light properties may not be as stable as something heavier like the AT head. Its probably more a swift racket allowing you to cut the shuttle down faster.
The modulus of all the different materials in a racquet frame and shaft determines the face stability of a racquet. All racquets are subject to the 'torsion' test-where the racquet is held by a special device at the frame top at one end and at the other end on the handle-after they come off the production run. The 'torsion' test is a kind of screwdriver twisting-similar to wringing a wet towel dry-with a specific known pounds or kg of force. Lower modulus racquets will easily break if subject to a torsion load/force that is normally used only to test higher modulus racquets. The higher the modulus the greater the face stability of the racquet. Although words like high modulus, ultra high modulus, nano, kevlar are indicative of very high racquet stability, the devil is in the percent of these materials relative to the total.
You are actually asking two questions : Frame design and construction materials. There are four kinds of frame design. The main difference is the size of the sweet spot. From large to small: Round, Isometric, wide body, and oval shape. There are always two sides of a coin. Larger sweet spot means lesser power but higher margin for error. You can use square root 2 formula to calculate this simple mathsmatics. Wide body seems to be more popular amongst most intermediate players. In pro level, that is a completely different story. It really depends on how you play to get the optimum advantage out of the racquet. If you desire and can produce critical accuracy in most of your strokes, the oval shape is definitely the best choice. If you require a larger margin for errors, use the isometric or round shape racquet will minimize your frustration, especially when you need to play to game 3. In terms of construction materials, steel is stiff. High modular carbon is light weighted and flexible. This seems to be the best to me. Titanium is very dead. More importantly, choose a racquet with a suitable balance point. 285-290mm for offensive players; 270-285mm for normal players. If you are intending to put overlay on the handle, make sure you buy an offensive one and adjust the balance point accordingly.
for most stable shot(badminton), throat and shaft design is also important as racket is now 1 piece (excluding handle). Best frame doesnt equal to most stable shot.
You are right. Most newly developed racquets have kick points built in the shaft. Gosen 5400 even have two kick points, one near the throat and one near the handle. You will be amazed if you try this racquet. Your accuracy will improve instantly.
if you haven't felt a perfect stroke with a carbonex, you have never felt a stable shot before. most carbonex racquets are quite unforgiving, i think, but when you connect... its basically a... "wow".
