User Tag List

Page 220 of 334 FirstFirst ... 120 170 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 270 320 ... LastLast
Results 3,724 to 3,740 of 5667

Thread: APACS fan club

  1. #3724
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone know the APAC Rapier 88 SG? Please!!!!!

  2. #3725
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rosleesari View Post
    Anyone know the APAC Rapier 88 SG? Please!!!!!
    apparently NOT...... so far

  3. #3726
    Regular Member ziggy87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MAS - PJ
    Posts
    1,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy05 View Post
    There are a few factors to this. The unstrung masses of the racquets are different, therefore it is an Apacs QC problem. The string weight could cause the problem, a higher tension would stretch the string more and so it would be thinner, so overall it would have less mass and weigh less than the the lower tension string and this could cause a slight weight difference.
    Could be the grips on the racquets, if you have any. Or when they say Apacs 9900 (86-89g) for example, you might have one that is 86g and one that is 89g.
    Have you weighed them yet?
    will that have massive difference? o.O
    how heavy is a pack of string? should be less than 10g?

  4. #3727
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysi
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    high tension can reduce the thickness but would not make the mass reducing...I think more correct is thinner string have lesser volume in total and lesser volume have lesser weight. Am i right?

  5. #3728
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuzent View Post
    high tension can reduce the thickness but would not make the mass reducing...I think more correct is thinner string have lesser volume in total and lesser volume have lesser weight. Am i right?
    Of course U r right. But are we talking grams, centigrams or milligrams here. If a racket specs vary +- 3grams itself then the weight difference for the string is INSIGNIFICANT on the overall. The impact on the weight of the racket head will be unnoticeable even by a pro. (pls Correct me is someone knows better)

  6. #3729
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sg
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Lethal 9 and Nano 900 Power red

    Hi guys,

    I couldnt not control my itch and I bought two apacs:

    1. Nano 900 Power Red @BG66 24lbs
    2. Lethal 9 @BG66 25lbs

    Just finished my two hours game play, tried both, today I like the feel of the L9. It can swing very fast and got very nice wind sound. The feel of power from my hand pass to it and net play were good.

    Due to the good feel of L9, i did not really give chance to N900P Red tonight. But I did feel the 24lbs tension seem do not feel as good as 25lbs on the L9. Will try the N900p Red next week and see how. Maybe restrung it to 25lbs as well?

    Btw, both apacs (square head) are a bit longer then my YY C9 and YangYang tatic 9000 (round head). Just now I hit and saved few points which were quite surprised myself. Or maybe due to the square head got more surface area?

    Anyway, many thanks to verybody here. Nice thread

  7. #3730
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I string my rackets to 22lbs and before that at 19.8lbs on a Apacs Lethal 60
    Last edited by kingskawn; 01-12-2011 at 11:20 AM.

  8. #3731
    Regular Member Andy05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Stockton-on-Tees, UK
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuzent View Post
    high tension can reduce the thickness but would not make the mass reducing...I think more correct is thinner string have lesser volume in total and lesser volume have lesser weight. Am i right?
    The higher tension would stretch the string making it thinner, therefore reducing the overall mass of the string in the racquet. And a thinner string would become thinner reducing its mass within the racquet.
    Kiloo, I was just saying it could be possible that the 2 racquets are 3grams apart, and with the minimal effect of the string and grips it could cause this effect.
    And also if you haven't weighed them have you held them in opposite hands, I always feel a racquet in my non-raccquet hand is heavier than in my racquet hand, only slightly but I notice it.

  9. #3732
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    pahang
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    my apacs nano9900 = bg66 (carlton string) @ 24 lbs.

  10. #3733
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sg
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Played the N900power last night. I think this racket do no suit me. I failed to generate power or feel of control thru it. While with the lethal 9, I felt my power passed to the shuttercock and felt its touch on the string and where it go and how far i want it to go.

    Think will restring the N900power sooner.

  11. #3734
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    pahang
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyone know the APACS SLAYER 660????

  12. #3735
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Where else?
    Posts
    2,146
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    anyone used the Apacs Super Light II? any thoughts?

  13. #3736
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llpjlau View Post
    anyone used the Apacs Super Light II? any thoughts?
    excellent, depending on what u looking for. Right now switched to the Feather weight 100.

  14. #3737
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Where else?
    Posts
    2,146
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiloo View Post
    excellent, depending on what u looking for. Right now switched to the Feather weight 100.
    being so light, does the Apacs Super Light II lack in power?

  15. #3738
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    pahang
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what the diff. between apacs nano 9900 and apacs nano 9900 power?? seem like same design...

  16. #3739
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llpjlau View Post
    being so light, does the Apacs Super Light II lack in power?
    Now, now. This depends on the player. If U want power, prob a slightly head heavy choice, but not necessarily a heavier all round racket. Best as I always say: TRY ONE for yourself.

  17. #3740
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mauritius
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzroll View Post
    what the diff. between apacs nano 9900 and apacs nano 9900 power?? seem like same design...
    Check the racket well I think U mean N9900 and N900 power. Two completely different kettle of fish. The N9900 is a light mostly even balanced racket and a clone of the Yonex NS9900. The Nano 900 Power is a heavier racket which is slightly head heavy. (IMHO)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    : 04-14-2012, 04:08 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    : 07-18-2011, 11:38 AM
  3. Replies: 55
    : 10-21-2008, 11:52 AM
  4. Badminton Club (Should i stay/move on to another club)
    By !┐Clue?! in forum General Forum
    Replies: 8
    : 10-15-2008, 02:20 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    : 08-23-2006, 11:14 PM

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
  •