User Tag List

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 137 to 153 of 210
  1. #137
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,237
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think yonex is trying to recreate a demographic of customers for the ti-10.
    they're doing this buy making the new ti-10 easier to use... this enables a larger and wider range of people to use it... sort of milking the customer base for whatever more than ti-10 can draw in.

    seriously, the old ti-10s were nuts. they hit hard. very hard. its hard to use. plus they felt like a big hammer.

    recently we ordered three 3U's and one 2U ti-10 (old style paint 2005), and wow, if i can, i'd say these weren't ti-10's anymore.

    i didn't need any adaptation time at all, between my regular ns8000s, and i'm sure we all consider a ns8000 and a ti-10 to be rather different. they felt great right off the first swing.

  2. #138
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Richmond, BC
    Posts
    5,209
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Alex, I just ment for you to write properly (instead of "this sucks"), as Mannie written it in a differently way to send a similar message.

    I wanted to add that, you would need to know who your audience is.

  3. #139
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Camrose, Alberta, Canada. (1 hour south of edmonton)
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok if this will make you stop crying, Carbonex's mean nothing to me I have no opinion on them and now I'm being politically correct to shut your mouth. Ya know if you're going to university you should probably take an english class or something because your horrible at it.

  4. #140
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chickenpoodle
    i think yonex is trying to recreate a demographic of customers for the ti-10.
    they're doing this buy making the new ti-10 easier to use... this enables a larger and wider range of people to use it... sort of milking the customer base for whatever more than ti-10 can draw in.

    seriously, the old ti-10s were nuts. they hit hard. very hard. its hard to use. plus they felt like a big hammer.

    recently we ordered three 3U's and one 2U ti-10 (old style paint 2005), and wow, if i can, i'd say these weren't ti-10's anymore.

    i didn't need any adaptation time at all, between my regular ns8000s, and i'm sure we all consider a ns8000 and a ti-10 to be rather different. they felt great right off the first swing.
    good reason, but what i see it is that yonex is trying to cut down cost
    for 2years now yonex has yet to release any more racket w/ UHMG, while some might argue that how yonex call their material is arbitary, there is an extend to which they can define imo

    from the "recent" release rackets, i only see at700 has it on its frame, didn't bother to check w/ at800, but none of ns-series has it

    maybe fullerene is really better, but it doesn't hurt to produce a nano-UHMG racket rather than nano-HMG right?

    personally i wouldn't be picky on material use on the racket, since all those hi-tech stuff might just be few percent of the whole racket, but what yonex doing is... cheesy

    given the product line that yonex has in general sense, mp/at/ns should cover most user's preferences already, keeping ti10 can treat it as classic, but reintroducing it seems odd

    just my view...

  5. #141
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Richmond, BC
    Posts
    5,209
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex_jacobsen
    Ok if this will make you stop crying, Carbonex's mean nothing to me I have no opinion on them and now I'm being politically correct to shut your mouth. Ya know if you're going to university you should probably take an english class or something because your horrible at it.
    I finished English classes (includes Tech writing) at the University, therefore, there is no need for me to take English related classes.

    BTW: You are violating the forum rules.
    Last edited by Matt; 03-29-2006 at 12:37 AM.

  6. #142
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
    good reason, but what i see it is that yonex is trying to cut down cost
    for 2years now yonex has yet to release any more racket w/ UHMG, while some might argue that how yonex call their material is arbitary, there is an extend to which they can define imo

    from the "recent" release rackets, i only see at700 has it on its frame, didn't bother to check w/ at800, but none of ns-series has it

    maybe fullerene is really better, but it doesn't hurt to produce a nano-UHMG racket rather than nano-HMG right?

    personally i wouldn't be picky on material use on the racket, since all those hi-tech stuff might just be few percent of the whole racket, but what yonex doing is... cheesy

    given the product line that yonex has in general sense, mp/at/ns should cover most user's preferences already, keeping ti10 can treat it as classic, but reintroducing it seems odd

    just my view...
    UHMG is just too expensive to use now. Even the AT700, AT800 DE and OF, and the MP100 have to resort to an alloy of of ti and UHMG to reduce costs. But this comes at a cost of a heavier and higher beam (cross-section), slowing down the racquet. The older Yonex Swingpower has all UHMG on the frame and a much smaller cross-section, giving it enhanced speed and maneuverability.
    I think it will make no sense to produce nano-UHMG. HMG has more voids for the nano to fill; UHMG has much less voids and the high costs of UHMG will make the price of racquets beyond the reach of most players.

  7. #143
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Camrose, Alberta, Canada. (1 hour south of edmonton)
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What forum rule did I violate that you didn't already violate? exactly

  8. #144
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    UHMG is just too expensive to use now. Even the AT700, AT800 DE and OF, and the MP100 have to resort to an alloy of of ti and UHMG to reduce costs. But this comes at a cost of a heavier and higher beam (cross-section), slowing down the racquet. The older Yonex Swingpower has all UHMG on the frame and a much smaller cross-section, giving it enhanced speed and maneuverability.
    I think it will make no sense to produce nano-UHMG. HMG has more voids for the nano to fill; UHMG has much less voids and the high costs of UHMG will make the price of racquets beyond the reach of most players.
    yeah, exactly, but imo its cheesy to lower the quality of the material but having the same name attached, make it something like ti9 or ti6 or something...

    as for saying HMG having more voids to fill, i don't think yonex will be using more fullerene on HMG than UHMG anyways, since fullerene should be even costier to make?


    alex: it is not about forum rule, but about how useless your post is

  9. #145
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
    yeah, exactly, but imo its cheesy to lower the quality of the material but having the same name attached, make it something like ti9 or ti6 or something...

    as for saying HMG having more voids to fill, i don't think yonex will be using more fullerene on HMG than UHMG anyways, since fullerene should be even costier to make?


    alex: it is not about forum rule, but about how useless your post is
    The qty of fullerene used with HMG is so small that it actually costs Yonex much less to make nano racquets than say their Swingpower or even their MP100.

  10. #146
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    The qty of fullerene used with HMG is so small that it actually costs Yonex much less to make nano racquets than say their Swingpower or even their MP100.
    how much would you think ns8k would cost it uses UHMG than HMG?

  11. #147
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
    how much would you think ns8k would cost it uses UHMG than HMG?
    I think it will cost Yonex about Yen 3,000 to Yen 3,800 to make each ns8k. If they use UHMG the costs will easily double.

  12. #148
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Yogyakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    234
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
    yeah, exactly, but imo its cheesy to lower the quality of the material but having the same name attached, make it something like ti9 or ti6 or something...
    That was what I was talking about. Latest (2005) release of old scheme Ti-10s even still has the words "Ultra High Modulus Graphite" printed on them, right? It would be such a shame if actually no UHMG is used in the racket, only HMG. However, it's all just based on assumption, no scientific evidence.

    When I first tried my friend's Ti-10, I love it. I ask a friend of mine to buy it from Singapore. I specifically asked for the old color scheme. It turns out that this Ti-10 is head light even though it still uses the old color scheme. The racket has not arrived here yet, but I am disappointed already.

  13. #149
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blinan8088
    That was what I was talking about. Latest (2005) release of old scheme Ti-10s even still has the words "Ultra High Modulus Graphite" printed on them, right? It would be such a shame if actually no UHMG is used in the racket, only HMG. However, it's all just based on assumption, no scientific evidence.

    When I first tried my friend's Ti-10, I love it. I ask a friend of mine to buy it from Singapore. I specifically asked for the old color scheme. It turns out that this Ti-10 is head light even though it still uses the old color scheme. The racket has not arrived here yet, but I am disappointed already.
    yonex can't really put HMG while stating its UHMG, the argument saying it is arbitary in the quality of grahite can easily be tested using yonex's older UHMG rackets

    i think it is normal for a racket of the same model to vary a little bit per racket as it would cost too much on the defined defects, how did you measure its bp? original wrap and everything?

  14. #150
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Yogyakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    234
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrocyanic
    i think it is normal for a racket of the same model to vary a little bit per racket as it would cost too much on the defined defects, how did you measure its bp? original wrap and everything?
    Yes, I agree. There must be slightly differences between the same model.

    I have not measured the balance point of my racket since it is not here yet. However, one thing for sure is it is not head-heavy. My brother who has held the racket said that it is very light.. I will measure the balance point (without string and grip) when the racket arrives and report it here.

    Thank you.

  15. #151
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    525
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blinan8088
    Yes, I agree. There must be slightly differences between the same model.

    I have not measured the balance point of my racket since it is not here yet. However, one thing for sure is it is not head-heavy. My brother who has held the racket said that it is very light.. I will measure the balance point (without string and grip) when the racket arrives and report it here.

    Thank you.
    i think the bp stated by many websites are stock grip w/ string...

    feeling light can be many reasons, good luck

    if you feel too headlight you can always adjust through grip wrapping

  16. #152
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Strange, if the Ti10 is an UHMG (old version) or an HMG (new version), why then is it called the Ti10 (Ti for titanium)?

  17. #153
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sin Min
    Posts
    700
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Strange, if the Ti10 is an UHMG (old version) or an HMG (new version), why then is it called the Ti10 (Ti for titanium)?
    guess is for the little bit of titanium they put at 9 and 3 oclock

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. introduce myself
    By preser in forum Introduction
    Replies: 2
    : 10-12-2009, 01:12 PM
  2. Introduce me
    By Sinar Mataram in forum Introduction
    Replies: 6
    : 08-26-2009, 12:54 AM
  3. Hi I'd like to introduce myself
    By whitewolf_193 in forum Introduction
    Replies: 9
    : 06-12-2008, 06:02 AM
  4. Hey everybody, I'd like to Introduce myself =)
    By Angie_mui in forum Introduction
    Replies: 17
    : 08-23-2005, 06:23 PM
  5. Introduce Yourself?
    By hhppyy in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 16
    : 02-13-2003, 01:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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