DinkALot's Racket Review

**allanQ** · 01-29-2009, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by DinkAlot

Go with the APACS Nano Power 9900 not the AMP90/95.

hi dinkalot .. i tried the APACS nano 900 power .. didnt like it .. and its abit slow for me too
bought YY ARC10 + AT900T + Ti-10(3rd gen) .. all strung at 25lbs bg66
played around with all the above racket .. ended up i liked Ti-10 the most

sold off the ARC10 and keeping the AMP90 and AT900T as collection .. prolly gonna buy another Ti-10 as backup ..
i got my speed and power as well as maneuverbility .. hehehe

thanks for your help anyways .. looking forward to your forthcoming review

**cooler** · 01-29-2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by twobeer

I thought every racket had a breakage rate of 100% (if used for infinite time)

/Twobeer

mathematically not possible

maximum chance of failure is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (infinite of 9's) but still not 100%

**twobeer** · 01-29-2009, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

mathematically not possible

maximum chance of failure is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (infinite of 9's) but still not 100%

I guess you meant "mimimum risk".. not maximum chance

/Twobeer

**Gold-** · 02-06-2009, 10:53 AM

which racket give the least vibration, any brand.

**jymbalaya** · 02-06-2009, 05:37 PM

1) who is this question addressed to?

plus, there is already a review. plus you already asked the question in other places, and have received answers. what was the point of this?

as stated in the other thread, an Apacs visible hollow will have less vibration. start your search there.

**teddy_kkk** · 02-14-2009, 01:27 PM

Still no news on the Apacs review yet? Actually thought of buying an Apacs clone but somehow saw a post saying that Apacs's own line is pretty good, so wanna know how they fare?

**jymbalaya** · 02-14-2009, 02:28 PM

Dinkalot put up his own review thread for the rackets. he also has stated his opinions numerous times. look through this thread, or look around the forum.

I advise using the search forms and looking in the equipment forum for further opinions from other members as well.

**arturosauce** · 02-19-2009, 03:17 PM

is there a tentative date for dinkalot's next update?

**mds14** · 02-20-2009, 12:20 PM

thxx.... but i need a review about yonex mp33, armortec500 and armortec superbrand limited..

**jymbalaya** · 02-20-2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by mds14

thxx.... but i need a review about yonex mp33, armortec500 and armortec superbrand limited..

yeah well, there is the search function. it really helps with these things.Also go to the review section of BC. the search form is right here. also, you could ask this on your thread.

Dinkalot is not here to gratify our every need. We should be grateful he has done so much already to give us this information.

**jun82** · 02-22-2009, 04:18 AM

Hi Dinkalot, may i know if Carbonex 20 Muscle SP is it similar to Carbonex 20 MS US in your list?

**jymbalaya** · 02-22-2009, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by jun82

Hi Dinkalot, may i know if Carbonex 20 Muscle SP is it similar to Carbonex 20 MS US in your list?

should be. same racket, just different codes.
Cab 20 muscle US, that is.

**jun82** · 03-01-2009, 07:39 AM

sorry.... anyone know why the racket review attachment is not being displayed anymore ? isit just me who can't view it or u guys oso can't ?

**Woody_TH** · 03-01-2009, 09:09 PM

I couldn't see too

***Oldhand*** · 03-01-2009, 09:34 PM

It's a problem with the external hosting domain.
At the moment, that is down.

Arrangements are being made to re-link the missing information.
Thank you for your patience

**foshomo03** · 03-05-2009, 10:13 PM

When will the racket reviews be posted once again? Im dying to see Dinkalot's marvelous work!

**Wexed** · 03-10-2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

mathematically not possible

maximum chance of failure is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (infinite of 9's) but still not 100%

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% = 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 , that's equal to
3 x 0.333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3 which is the decimal equivalent of 1/3 which if multiplied by 3 equals 1
99.99999% to infinity is equal to 1. That's why you keep this probability is never expressed to infinity since then it would be just as easy to say 100% :P

99.99% FTW plus that's still 1/10000, those are pretty shitty odds in my book.