User Tag List

Page 310 of 324 FirstFirst ... 210 260 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 LastLast
Results 5,254 to 5,270 of 5494

Thread: APACS fan club

  1. #5254
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    59
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Apacs is made in Malaysia I believe.

  2. #5255
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Setapak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysi
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    just bought a Tweet 8000, can't wait to try it~
    Name:  C360_2013-04-16-15-03-57-118.jpg
Views: 823
Size:  91.4 KB

  3. Likes BBEdrummerAK liked this post
  4. #5256
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brunei Darussalam
    Posts
    1,572
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    apacs cap had a UK printed on it. is apacs a UK brand but made in malaysia?

  5. #5257
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has anyone tried the Slayer 99 and Sotx W7?

  6. #5258
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default stern 85

    Quote Originally Posted by thejym View Post
    I had a chance to try out the Stern 100 and 85 today.

    Stern 100

    First impressions: Very visually appealing. Frame looks like the Nano 900 Power White but a bit thinner. Flex wasn't as stiff as other rackets I've used.

    Warm up: Plays like the Nano 900 Power White, but a faster swing (due to a thinner frame, which incidentally can hold more tension). It took a few minutes for me to adjust to the higher tension (I had it strung at 32x35lbs), but I was still able to get about the same power as the Nano 900 Power White at a slightly lower tension.

    Game time: It feels comfortable and natural, doesn't take any getting used to. Smashes are not as powerful (due to higher tension), but more accurate. I can use a shorter, quicker overhead swing for nice attacking clears whereas I couldn't do that as well with the Nano 900 Power White.

    Stern 85
    First impressions: This reminds me of a chrome version of the AT900T. Head-heavy with a fast swinging frame.

    Warm up: Already warmed up.

    Game time: I played doubles with this, since I chose it as my doubles racket. Much more maneuverable than the Nano 900 I was using before, but still having enough power in the back court to cause some damage. Feels comfortable.

    Overall, both the rackets felt perfectly fine and comfortable with me. I think this is because they are not altogether different from rackets that I've played with in the past (AT900T, AT900P, Wilson Dynapower 9500, Nano 900 Power Red/White), which is great. Sorry I couldn't tell you more about the rackets, but I didn't want to say "it's a hard smashing racket" when perhaps I'm just having a good smashing day. I think they fit into my style of play very well so I can focus on my technique instead of trying to choose another racket.

    I'll be happy to answer any questions or take some pictures if you guys like.
    Hi,

    Isn't the stern85 med stiff and even balance? How come it feels like the at900t orAT900P?

  7. #5259
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Defensor View Post
    I have 2 Apacs ...

    1.Nano900 Power
    2.NanoFusion Speed 722

    Inexpensive backups for my Yonex Ti-10 .

    Supposed to be just backups , now Ti-10 my back up !!

    Just love NanoFusion Speed 722 , simply magnificent .

    I love the sound , with 24lbs Yonex BG-66 string .

    Good net control , good smashing power , extremely good in looping shots ( baseline ) .

    If u are those guys who likes playing cross-net drops , drop shots , this NanoFusion Speed 722 nice !

    Light head , overall quite light weight .

    As for NanoPower900 , it is very good for smashing !!!! Not for defense though .

    Not a bad racket overall , good base line , not as good as NanoFusion Speed 722 .
    Ahhhh...this is what I was wanting to read! I see however this post was from 4 years ago this December, so I am hoping not much has changed in the Nano Fusion Speed 722. But this review still makes me more excited about my recent purchase that I am now awaiting, which happens to be the Nano Fusion Speed 722. Anybody play with this racket more recently that might have something to say about it?

  8. #5260
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,650
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It seems that the big 3 racquets from Apacs now are T300, L70 and Slayer 99. Has anyone tried all three racquets and wish to write up a small comparison.

  9. #5261
    Regular Member demolidor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    @Hollanti
    Posts
    11,571
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBEdrummerAK View Post
    Ahhhh...this is what I was wanting to read! I see however this post was from 4 years ago this December, so I am hoping not much has changed in the Nano Fusion Speed 722. But this review still makes me more excited about my recent purchase that I am now awaiting, which happens to be the Nano Fusion Speed 722. Anybody play with this racket more recently that might have something to say about it?
    That probably means Ti-10 was too much to handle , rather than these rackets being "better" ...
    Better suited is more like it and nothing 'wrong' with that

  10. #5262
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,962
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phandrew
    It seems that the big 3 racquets from Apacs now are T300, L70 and Slayer 99. Has anyone tried all three racquets and wish to write up a small comparison.
    I think the T500 belongs in that category as well, but maybe that's just me.
    The T300 and L70 have the same boxframed rackethead and a 7.0mm stiff shaft, the T500's frame differs only in the shaft: it tapers towards the head giving it a more flexible feeling that the other two. The Slayer 99 is the odd one out with it's bizar frame construction, however it's very fast for a 2U.

    The T300 is a solid even balanced racket, probably the fastest of the 3 (300/500/70). The L70 is almost the same racket, but a much more head-heavy racket. Both the T300 and L70 have that rock-solid feeling to them.
    The T500 is just as headheavy as the L70, but more of a medium-stiff feeling. It's not as rock solid, but feels a bit more forgiving compared to the other 2.

    I could never really get used to the Slayer 99, it's 2U even balanced with a diamond-shape (Bravesword-like) frame. It's heavy and still so fast, I broke a lot of strings on mishits with the Slayer 99.
    However, if you can get used to it, it's most like the T300. Maybe it's slightly faster and more powerfull, it's also slightly less solid as the T300. But maybe that's just my perspective.

  11. Likes phandrew liked this post
  12. #5263
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Demolidor, you're probably right. It's just that the NFS722, on 'paper', sounds like a racket that will work for me now days. I'm older, though not "old" (turning 35 this year), and I just can't play like I did in my 20's. It doesn't help that there was good number of years where no place was available to play badminton, so my arm just isn't in the shape it once was.
    My interest in the NFS722 is due to wanting a lighter racket, something that won't require a ton of effort to wield. I notice now, even though my game is coming back nicely, my shoulder and wrist are just getting tore up using a heavier overall and head heavy racket, even if my technique is sound. And besides that, I'm not at a level of play a lot of you guys are in this Forum. I only get to play one day a week currently, until our group can get larger and show badminton is legit again for Anchorage, Alaska. I do get to play with people that have played (and done well!) in tournaments down in the states, and one of them even getting to go as far as playing in an Olympic qualifying tournament for the US.
    ANYWAY, this racket just sounds ideal for me, was just looking for some more feedback on it. :-)
    Last edited by BBEdrummerAK; 04-17-2013 at 08:54 AM.

  13. #5264
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brunei Darussalam
    Posts
    1,572
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinichi View Post
    apacs cap had a UK printed on it. is apacs a UK brand but made in malaysia?
    can anyone answer this

  14. #5265
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phandrew View Post
    It seems that the big 3 racquets from Apacs now are T300, L70 and Slayer 99. Has anyone tried all three racquets and wish to write up a small comparison.
    So I have the T200 (identical to the T300) and the L60/70.

    T200/300: even balanced, 3U, stable frame. It's good at defending smashes and doing drives. The only issue I had is it's not as good for smashing from the rearcourt. I mean it's still good for smashing just not as powerful from the rearcourt. Great singles racket since you do more clearing and less smashing from the rearcourt (at least I do), good all-around for doubles as well. Many people on the forum enjoy its all-aroundness.

    L60/70: head heavy, 3U, very stable frame. It's really good at defending smashes, a little slower with drives. Good smashes from all around the court. It's also a good singles racket since there are fewer fast exchanges like drives compared to doubles, while your clears and smashes are powerful. For doubles, it's a little harder to defend with since it is a little heavier, but it's countered by a powerful smash.

    These rackets really depend on your strengths and weaknesses. So this is my play style:
    -Defense: I'm good at defending smashes both backhand and forehand, so I was fine with both rackets
    -Drives: I'm about average with these, so the T200 was a little better for me since it's more meaneuverable.
    -Clears: L60/70 were better for clears, since they're more HH it went further and it was especially useful when you're out of position or doing a punch (attacking) clear. T200 was still good and went the distance but just requires a little more effort.
    -Smashes: I like to make those big smashes to win the point or to set up a netkill. I would say L60/70 was better fore/mid/rear court whereas the T200 was good fore/midcourt, a little weaker in the rearcourt.
    -Droptshots: I'm good at doing dropshots from any position on the court. No real difference with either racket.
    -Netshots: I can do crosscourt netshots and tumble it over the net. No real difference with either racket for me.
    -Stamina: After about 2 hours constant play with no breaks, I start making a few mistakes with the L60/70, not as much with T200. Both rackets have the same stiffness and I'm used to it so I wasn't sore from hitting too much with either racket.
    -Strings: I usually use BG80 @ 23lbs. I can do an underhand clear end to end and pass the backline ~0.5 ft. @ 25 lbs. it lands between doubles service line and singles service line. I prefer to play @ 23lbs. since I need the power to get out of trouble once in awhile and it is more forgiving; the smashes are more precise for me.

    I haven't tried the Slayer 99, but I would think it plays similar to the L60/70 since they're both head heavy and 3U. There's a 2U Slayer 99 but I think that's just ridiculous.

  15. Likes phandrew liked this post
  16. #5266
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    The Slayer 99 is the odd one out with it's bizar frame construction, however it's very fast for a 2U.

    The T300 is a solid even balanced racket, probably the fastest of the 3 (300/500/70). The L70 is almost the same racket, but a much more head-heavy racket. Both the T300 and L70 have that rock-solid feeling to them.
    The T500 is just as headheavy as the L70, but more of a medium-stiff feeling. It's not as rock solid, but feels a bit more forgiving compared to the other 2.

    I could never really get used to the Slayer 99, it's 2U even balanced with a diamond-shape (Bravesword-like) frame. It's heavy and still so fast, I broke a lot of strings on mishits with the Slayer 99.
    However, if you can get used to it, it's most like the T300. Maybe it's slightly faster and more powerfull, it's also slightly less solid as the T300. But maybe that's just my perspective.
    I'm really curious about slayer 99. I read on some apacs store that it's design seem to be the same with lethal 100 : bulge in 12, 8, 4 o'clock, diamond shaped frame, around 2U weight, etc. Are slayer 99 exactly identical with lethal 100 (except the paint) ?. Just tried my friend's lethal 100 and it's really-really fast and powerful. I want to buy slayer 99 or lethal 100 but need some input on slayer 99 to make a final decision.
    Last edited by surajaya; 04-17-2013 at 08:45 PM.

  17. #5267
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    305
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surajaya View Post
    I'm really curious about slayer 99. I read on some apacs store that it's design seem to be the same with lethal 100 : bulge in 12, 8, 4 o'clock, diamond shaped frame, around 2U weight, etc. Are slayer 99 exactly identical with lethal 100 (except the paint) ?. Just tried my friend's lethal 100 and it's really-really fast and powerful. I want to buy slayer 99 or lethal 100 but need some input on slayer 99 to make a final decision.
    Scroll down to read the specs:

    Slayer 99: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/APACS-SLAYER-...ht_4404wt_1348

    Lethal 100: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/APACS-LETHAL-...ht_4548wt_1348

    Overall they're really similar. Slayer 99 being a little more HH and Lethal 100's shaft is a little thinner by 0.3mm.

  18. #5268
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phaaam View Post
    Scroll down to read the specs:

    Slayer 99: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/APACS-SLAYER-...ht_4404wt_1348

    Lethal 100: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/APACS-LETHAL-...ht_4548wt_1348

    Overall they're really similar. Slayer 99 being a little more HH and Lethal 100's shaft is a little thinner by 0.3mm.
    Other source say that they're identical in BP :
    http://www.apacshk.com/product_info....3bd6776f7d186d

    http://www.apacshk.com/product_info....3bd6776f7d186d

    So which source is more credible ?.

  19. #5269
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    3,962
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what I tried (I only briefly had the 100 in my hands) the rackets are identical, but the slayer99 has a stiffer shaft. But I tried the 2U of both.

  20. Likes surajaya liked this post
  21. #5270
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    From what I tried (I only briefly had the 100 in my hands) the rackets are identical, but the slayer99 has a stiffer shaft. But I tried the 2U of both.
    Thanks for your reply. Really help me in making a decision since I tried the 2U version too.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    : 04-14-2012, 03:08 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    : 07-18-2011, 10:38 AM
  3. Replies: 55
    : 10-21-2008, 10:52 AM
  4. Badminton Club (Should i stay/move on to another club)
    By !┐Clue?! in forum General Forum
    Replies: 8
    : 10-15-2008, 01:20 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    : 08-23-2006, 10:14 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
  •