Results 341 to 357 of 820
Thread: DinkALot's Racket Review
03-10-2009, 10:52 AM #341
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.
03-11-2009, 02:01 PM #342
03-11-2009, 02:06 PM #343
03-11-2009, 02:08 PM #344
03-11-2009, 02:12 PM #345
03-11-2009, 03:01 PM #346
03-11-2009, 03:08 PM #347
03-11-2009, 03:54 PM #348
03-11-2009, 04:00 PM #349
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?)
03-11-2009, 04:33 PM #350
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.
+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.
03-11-2009, 04:43 PM #351
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?)
03-11-2009, 04:47 PM #352
03-11-2009, 05:02 PM #353
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
03-11-2009, 06:34 PM #354
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
+Addition of the different frame shapes, balance points, shaft length, stringing pattern, U-Shaped Grommets, Muscle Power grommets, Visible Hollow, Vibration Filter Cap
-Nano just about everything
-Ti-Mesh & Kevlar Mesh
Not an advancement:
-Grommet less holes
-More cross strings than mains
-Weird/inverted frame shapes with weird stringing patterns
-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.
Last edited by DinkAlot; 03-11-2009 at 06:36 PM.
03-11-2009, 06:55 PM #355
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.
...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.
03-11-2009, 06:58 PM #356
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
03-11-2009, 07:05 PM #357
By DinkAlot in forum Clothing & FootwearReplies: 269: 06-12-2013, 11:22 AM
By DinkAlot in forum Badminton StringReplies: 441: 06-08-2013, 09:18 AM
By DinkAlot in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & ToolsReplies: 309: 12-30-2009, 01:26 AM
By gy79bc in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 14: 06-04-2008, 07:51 PM
By yoyomonkey in forum General ForumReplies: 4: 08-31-2006, 12:07 PM