DinkALot's Racket Review

[tucked]

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

Hi Allan,
Last time quite budget wise & using AMP90/95, suddenly boom and bought 3 at once. Took loan from bank?
hehe I m still using AMp90 but had the same problem u did. Shuttles going more flat rather than down. Did the AMP95 help?

I am thinking Ti10 but but but AMP 90 is still hard to let go.

[krisss]

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

Oldhand , any updates with the system being fixed?

I still can't see it :O

[DinkAlot]

Oldhand , any updates with the system being fixed?

I still can't see it :O

I sent all the updated reviews to Kwun except the racket review, still putting the final touches on it. Will be done tonight.

[Danstevens]

I sent all the updated reviews to Kwun except the racket review, still putting the final touches on it. Will be done tonight.

Excellent. You're a badminton god, sir Dink.

[DinkAlot]

Excellent. You're a badminton god, sir Dink.

No, Panda barely even plays anymore.

On another note, Panda is working on his own racket design called the...

...PANDA POWER PANDAMONIUM!

...Panda plans to have some kind of contest for some free rackets...

...so stay tuned...

[Danstevens]

No, Panda barely even plays anymore.

On another note, Panda is working on his own racket design called the...

...PANDA POWER PANDAMONIUM!

...Panda plans to have some kind of contest for some free rackets...

...so stay tuned...

But you devote a lot of time in to making other players' experiences better with your awesome reviews.

OK, I will do

[Fidget]

No, Panda barely even plays anymore.

On another note, Panda is working on his own racket design called the...

...PANDA POWER PANDAMONIUM!

Let me guess, stiff and head heavy?
Maybe this style will inspire: http://www.amazon.com/Stellian-2-in-.../dp/B001LQHM30

I'll hold out for the Panda Technique.

[DinkAlot]

Let me guess, stiff and head heavy?
Maybe this style will inspire: http://www.amazon.com/Stellian-2-in-.../dp/B001LQHM30

I'll hold out for the Panda Technique.

Stiff, yes. Head heavy, no. The ideal BP is around 285-295 for Panda.

Hopefully the rackets will be here today...they are in customs.

[jerby]

So, while we're ont he subject of your rackets. What is(/was) your current go-to racket? Or have you been completely pre-occupied with your own prototypes?

Lemme guess, a 10mm thick shaft?
Looking forward to the review.

(while on the subject of review, terribly OT, but I just have to ask you, How's ashaway's new string?)

[DinkAlot]

Current go to is the APACS Lethal 50. Hard to beat the combination of all-around.

If a bit lighter swing weight I'd go with the APACS Tantrum 200

If a bit heavier, APACS Nano Pro 9900 which very close to a Woven 11 in all aspects except normal length 675mm. Gram for gram, I used to believe the 11 was the hardest hitting racket; now it might be the NP9900.

The PPP (Panda Power Pandamonium) is just a hybrid/collaboration of all the attributes I like in an assortment of rackets. I'm putting them all into one and see what happens.

For instance:

+AT900P-like X-Box Frame good for 32lbs.

+Trying both traditional and NS9000-X string pattern

+10mm longer handle than standard for better control/stiffness

+7.2 - 7.8 stiffnesss rating

+Plan to use Toray Torayac M60J High Modulus Carbon Fiber for maximum durability. Torayac M60J is among, if not the strongest, PAN based carbon fibers commercially available.

I'm no materials or racket making expert. I'm just going with what I like and what is recommended to me based on my limited research. If it works, great, if not, keep trying until I get it right.

I'll never claim "effortless power" or unbelievable performance or "this is the best racket". But once it's done, if to my satisfaction, it should be an excellent quality racket and one of the best bangs for the buck.

So, while we're ont he subject of your rackets. What is(/was) your current go-to racket? Or have you been completely pre-occupied with your own prototypes?

Lemme guess, a 10mm thick shaft?
Looking forward to the review.

(while on the subject of review, terribly OT, but I just have to ask you, How's ashaway's new string?)

[jerby]

I'll never claim "effortless power" or unbelievable performance or "this is the best racket". But once it's done, if to my satisfaction, it should be an excellent quality racket and one of the best bangs for the buck.

Darn , you ruined every possibility for pun/cracks about the E-1000

It sounds like your having a blast finding your way through the racket-manufacturing-industry How big is your sample? 20 pieces? a hunderd?

(btw, if the 7,2-7,8 is liek the Sotx scale...that's extra extra stiff Now, 2U or 3U?)

[DinkAlot]

Weight will be anything I want from 84-92g. My prototypes, which did not come today are 88g, BP295.

Yes, the scale is the standard "Chinese Scale" aka "SOTX Scale". So yes, they will be extra stiff but forgiving at the same time, kind of like the Woven 11.

Darn , you ruined every possibility for pun/cracks about the E-1000

It sounds like your having a blast finding your way through the racket-manufacturing-industry How big is your sample? 20 pieces? a hunderd?

(btw, if the 7,2-7,8 is liek the Sotx scale...that's extra extra stiff Now, 2U or 3U?)

[Sketchy]

How did you get this job, if you don't mind me asking? (I presume it's not a hobby)

It just sounds really interesting is all. I don't even know how you'd get into the industry or what courses you'd take at uni.
It seems like racket design is mostly "materials science" more than anything - I don't really see anything very revolutionary in terms of design, since iso frames.
Or are designers all ex-players now?
Good luck with it anyway

[DinkAlot]

This is not my job, it's a hobby, like badminton.

Badminton technology is currently overrated and overhyped.

Panda is not making any new technological jumps in badminton technology nor making any type of claim like that. Panda is using old school, good'ol premium quality carbon fiber and mixing and matching characteristics and attributes already tried and true.

If Panda were a car company, it would be Lexus technology (which basically takes existing tech and improves on it) and refinement, Audi panache, Ferarri performance (hopefully), at a Honda price.


The major advancements in badminton rackets to this Panda are:

+Wood to steel
+Steel to aluminum
+Aluminum to graphite
+Graphite to woven graphite
+Addition of the T-Joint
+Isometric frame

Minor Advancements:
+Addition of the different frame shapes, balance points, shaft length, stringing pattern, U-Shaped Grommets, Muscle Power grommets, Visible Hollow, Vibration Filter Cap

Questionable "advancements":
-Nano just about everything
-Ti-Mesh & Kevlar Mesh
-Tapered shaft

Not an advancement:
-Grommet less holes
-More cross strings than mains
-Weird/inverted frame shapes with weird stringing patterns
-Ceramics
-Laser frames
-Calling your racket "Nano" when there is not "nano" in it. It may not be an advancement in technology but it maybe an advancement in performance, i.e. the racket may play better.

How did you get this job, if you don't mind me asking? (I presume it's not a hobby)

It just sounds really interesting is all. I don't even know how you'd get into the industry or what courses you'd take at uni.
It seems like racket design is mostly "materials science" more than anything - I don't really see anything very revolutionary in terms of design, since iso frames.
Or are designers all ex-players now?
Good luck with it anyway

[DinkAlot]

Or are designers all ex-players now?
Good luck with it anyway

In general, pros do not know about racket technology or design but they do know what they like and don't like. They know the optimum feel and balance they want and each player is different, usually dependent on what they play and their style of play.

Relatively speaking...

...Professional singles players will want a more head heavy, heavier, moderately stiff, longer shaft, shorter handle racket.

...Professional doubles players will want a more balanced, aero frame, stiffer, short shaft, longer handle racket.

Singles players have much more time to respond than doubles players. They do not perform lightning fast reflex shots relative to the doubles players. They need to be able to clear "effortlessly" whereas double's players are pushing and reacting to the bird in a totally different way.

So there is no best or ideal, all-one racket. It depends what you play. Since Panda plays doubles and mixed exclusively, Panda's more into moderately balanced rackets. And that's what's going to be made.

The level of play plays an important role too. For instance, if one is a "D" player and with a head heavy, stiff racket can smash through "D" opponents, he'll opt for the head heavy, stiff racket over a balanced one. As the "D" player improves and takes on "C" players, he won't be able to smash through and get tired easier and most importantly, cannot transition fast enough, he now opts for a more balanced racket. He still can't smash through them but at least he's faster overall, more able to keep up. Eventually he improves and now is a "C" player. He now likes his head heavy, stiff racket again because he has relatively good success smashing through his "C" opponents. It's not the racket, it's the player improving, be able to keep up with his opponents. Eventually, "C" player moves to "B" and cannot smash through again, he goes back to the more balanced racket...it goes on and on.

There are too many variables, maybe one day you play great with that extreme racket, then you can't do it again. Maybe you have a bad day and you can't play well with any racket. 95 times of out 100, it's the player not the racket.

Finally, you know yourself best. At least you will in time. You will know what is best for you. The best way to find your ideal racket is to select a racket as your benchmark, your favorite or current you are most familiar with and then test one other racket with the same string, tension, grip size and test them side by side. One will be better than the other. Keep doing this until you are satisfied. Do not test multiple rackets, it'll get confusing.

[Sketchy]

So what, you get a factory in China or somewhere, that's already making rackets for other companies, to make some with your materials and according to your spec?
Are you producing all the detailed plans (computerized 3D models etc) or just the basics, and leave the rest up to the manufacturer?
I'd have thought it would end up costing you a small fortune that way, unless you produce them in very large numbers and/or sell them at a very high price.
They're not exactly the kind of thing you can make in your garden shed though, are they?

Sorry for all the questions, but I do find it fascinating

[Sketchy]

The level of play plays an important role too. For instance, if one is a "D" player and with a head heavy, stiff racket can smash through "D" opponents, he'll opt for the head heavy, stiff racket over a balanced one. As the "D" player improves and takes on "C" players, he won't be able to smash through and get tired easier and most importantly, cannot transition fast enough, he now opts for a more balanced racket. He still can't smash through them but at least he's faster overall, more able to keep up. Eventually he improves and now is a "C" player. He now likes his head heavy, stiff racket again because he has relatively good success smashing through his "C" opponents. It's not the racket, it's the player improving, be able to keep up with his opponents. Eventually, "C" player moves to "B" and cannot smash through again, he goes back to the more balanced racket...it goes on and on.

Interesting. I never thought of it that way before, but it makes a lot of sense. I did go through a phase of liking the smash-oriented rackets for a while, before going back to lightweight rackets. Unfortunately I haven't made it to the level where I like head-heaviness again yet