Well in the past, when I've tried to smash hard with my cheap Cab 8600 light, I find a lot of smashes end up too high making it easy for the opponent, and when I try to adjust downwards I just hit it into the net. When I smash not so hard, my smashes are fine, but I always thought it was because when I smash hard my accuracy goes down. However I've recently bought an AT700 and I find that my smash accuracy is a lot more consistent now, so I think I realised it must be to do with the shaft stiffness. When I bend the two different rackets, they actually both feel similarly like medium stiffness, however the AT700 is classed as extra-stiff, so I think the snap-back mechanism really does make a difference. So despite many people classing the AT700 as medium stiffness, I think Yonex is probably right in classing it as extra-stiff. Has anyone else experienced this?
i am not sure if that is a fair comparison. aside from shaft stiffness, the cab8600 is also different from the AT700 on many other categories, including balance, head shape, racket length.
string tension of cab vs string tension of at700? regardless of the flexibility, you should be able to adapt to the racquet, however in general, yes a more flexible racquet gives less accuracy.
Could the "interia" be applied in this scenario ? In my opinion, more flexible results less accuracy.
Would the stability of the racket be an issue? As in, would the racket hit the shuttle twice, as the shaft would bend back and then forth ever-so slightly, to impact with with an additional, seemingly negligible tap? If such were the case, then stiff rackets would help solve this problem, as they snap back into place without going forward, as you would need to create momentum from motion in the opposite direction.
I would rather say many other factors (as kwun listed) could be listed way over the shaft stiffness. Personally, I will think balance, the sweet spot size and string tension is more important than the stiffness. It appears that you current AT700 suit for your playing more than the Cab.
sso why do people have flexible racquets if it's less accurate? i always thought it was more flex more accuracy cos the shuttle stays on the racquet a little longer so you can guide it more, but am i wrong?
Same question ? I was also wondering about this, flexible racket contribute to inaccuracy. Currently I'm using two racket apacs nano900speed and kason carbon 1. The n9Kspeed weight 89g with grip n string, med flex, headlight strung with apac 0.63 string at 24lbs. The carbon 1 weight 85g with grip n string, even balance, flexible and strung with bg80 at 22. It seems that I have more accuracy and power with the n9Kspeed than the carbon 1, and also I experience more mishit with the carbon 1, and I'm really frustated with this ( well because the carbon 1 cost twice than the n9kspeed). I ve been playing with the carbon 1 for more than 2 weeks now with average 5 hours/week. Sometimes I wonder, maybe this carbon 1 is a fake, it also vibrate a lot more than the n9kspeed. Anyone can advice how to make a proper adjustment ?
i think i'd be more worried about stiffness of the frame rather than stiffness of the shaft. torsion from even slightly off-center shots will result in a greater reduction of accuracy than any flexible shaft could.
Maybe it's the string tension, because the cab 8600 is at slightly lower tension by 2-3 lbs than my AT700, however I didn't realise the tension would make such a big diff. to accuracy. And by accuracy, I meant the height of the shuttle, I can control the direction fine, and I know I'm hitting the sweet spot because I can feel the difference when I miss it.
Hi hitman71,as i know,higher tension meant for more control,and if u wanna hit/smash with it,u have to put more power than when u're using lower tension.If u have enough power,then the outcome will be amazing.Stiffness for myself,since i have one extra stiff racket,i feel that my shots r faster,and accurate,since there'll be less vibrate going on,because those stiff rackets often come with a heavier weight than the flex.While the flexier racket r more forgiving.Hits bounces more,so,if u're looking for control,dont pick flex racket.But if u play defense,flex is the weapon.I'm also using kason carbon 3.0,which is more all-round,and somehow it's good for smashes.I guess 1.0 is more of a single smasher,however its stiffness is considered as the flexiest amongst the others(2.0,3,0),while the 3.0 is the lengthened,stiffest(head heavy),and the 2.0 is made for doubles(shorter shaft).
Btw,i got my question as well.Currently,i am also using an extra stiff racket.87g,n i strung it to 25 lbs(0.66).It's an oliver,fetter smash 105.I dont know whether has anyone tried that racket before. The problem is stiff rackets should do greater smash,but somehow i feel i lost the power that i delivers to smash whenever it hits the shuttle,compared with my other rackets.But,from rallies,shots..i gotta admit that it somehow faster. Is it my racket's problem, the sweet spot, its frame,or is it just me who is not really suitable to play with an extra stiff rackets?since i can smash better with my other rackets,which is less stiff than the oliver.
If u play pool,when u r using a lighter cue(flexier),u will feel that somehow u may not be able to set the ball where u've planned.It somehow misses,even a bit,compared to when u play with a heavier cue(stiffer).Of course,u know which one requires more power to play,rite?But the control outcome will somehow be better if u play with the heavier one.So,my point is all depends on ur own level.If u ask a beginner to play with a heavier cue,he might not like it n cant use the best out of it.Same as if u ask a pro to play with a light cue,he might not be able to play his best.
From my experience the flexier racket is only less accurate once I put over a certain amount of power into the shot, I use it for doubles a lot, and my drives, clears, net shots are all accurate, if I smash at 50% effort it's still accurate, but once I smash with over lets say 70% effort then it gets inaccurate. So it only gets inaccurate once you reach a certain swing speed in my opinion. Most beginners cannot swing the racket this quick, therefore the inaccuracy due to flexing won't affect them.
analogy invalid if you are talking about the whipping effect that is believed in golf, it plays a very tiny role in badminton if it ever exists at a noticable scale. the sticky post of yours is correct for golf, but not really for badminton. i'll give u a few reasons why such an analogy can't be made. (a) in golf, every club does its own specific job. woods for distance, putters for accuracy. so the woods shaft can be optimized for woods job. in fact the whipping model (the double pendulum model) makes most sense for woods, not much for putters (i know very little about the game of golf i must admit. am i correct here?) in badminton, one racket does all, Lin Dan's AT900P is his woods, his irons and his putters, for smashes, clears, retrievials and net plays etc, for power, speed and accuracy. so you can't really optimize the shaft flexibility only for smashes (assuming the whipping effect does play an important part in smashes). in short, in golf, it is optimization; in badminton, it is compromise. (b) the golfers postion themselves comfortably to blow out the full power for the longest distance. the more professional the golfer, the more consistently he swings. the shaft flexibility can be designed to such a precision that by the time the club head hits the ball, the shaft has bent right back, giving the max speed. but if you design such a club for a beginner who doesn't have a consistent swing pattern, it's difficult. in badminton, no one has such luxury. the ball is flying, the player is running if not in the air, the swing distance varies every time..... it's virtually impossible to put in the maximized whipping effect precisely (even if it is there, it changes all the time) into the racket design. it'll screw your smashes more often. (c) a golf club shaft is much longer, ~120cm, which means it bends more significantly than a badminton racket shaft, making the whipping effect much more pronounced. as a matter of fact, the whipping effect for a badminton racket does not exist at such a scale that it is worth consideration in the design. two reasons: (1) a maximized whipping effect only tops up a tiny percentage of racket head speed (point (a) & (c)) and this tiny bonus will be achieved at a very very low success rate (point (b)). (2) shafts are too stiff for whipping effect to come into the equation (because the stiffness is required by other more important factors). at such stiffness, not even Fu Hai Feng can get demonstrate any difference with or without whipping effect. we can do a thought experiment with some reasoning: take off the head from a wood and connect a string (flexibility infinite) to it. now swing it to the head speed at which Tiger Woods hits the ball with his wood. what will you get? you will kick the ball very far. maybe something a handicap can do with a proper club. now take off the head of a badminton racket and connect it to a string and swing it to the racket head speed at which Lin Dan smashes with his AT900P. what will you get? you won't smash as hard as I can do with my racket. I'm not even a handicap. discussion? the shaft of a golf club is mainly used for accerlation of the club head. if you can achieve that kinda head speed without the shaft, you can hit the ball far without the shaft. the shaft of a badminton racket is not only used for accerlation of the racket head (the shaft is heavily engaged during the collision for power and accuracy, unlike a golf club shaft), even if you can accerlate the racket head to that kinda speed, without the shaft, you can't smash at all. no power, no direction. conclusion? big difference in physics between golf clubs and badminton rackets which makes the analogy almost invalid.
In general, flexible shaft gives more power for people with slow-medium swing speed with minor accuracy decrease. For fast swing speed, power will be less and accruacy is drastically worsen. String tension is the same but its effects are more pronouce than the change in shaft stiffness. The physics in golf and badminton is very similar, you just have to look at what you're trying to compare and don't over analize, especially if you know very little about it.
itz about how you hit the bird and ur technique and timing. assuming a stiff vs flexible racket. the shaft of the flexible racket is bending more than the stiff racket when hitting a shuttle. the bending effect creates a slightly different path than the stiff racket's path. at the same point of contact, the shuttle hit off a flexible racket will go flatter (less downward) then a stiff racket. if you are of average strength, the flexible racket will give you more power than the stiff racket which results in a difference in the landing spot of the shuttle (flexible racket = further landing spot assuming same swing). if you get the control right (you'll have to work this one out urself), you will be able to make the shuttle go as steep with a flexible compared to stiff racket.
Smichz, You said that flex is best for defense, yet the this flex racket (carbon 1) is more of single smasher. won't single smasher means offensive play and is there a different between single & double smash ? Actually my other racket was strung at higher tension (24lb) compare to 22lb with the carbon 1. Anyway next thing that I will try is to adjust my swing speed / timing and maybe get it restring at higher tension.
