User Tag List

Page 39 of 85 FirstFirst ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... LastLast
Results 647 to 663 of 1441
  1. #647
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    I string and do some modifications/then test a few NS9000 quite often. To me it is not a fast racquet at all. Its dimensions are moderately fat. If it trims down its x-section to about 10mm or no more than 10.25mm on its width and 6mm or less on its height (including the T joint bulge), then and only then can it be considered fast and maneuverable. But then at these reduced dimensions it may not have the power. Compromise and more compromises, that is what the NS9000 is about. Racquet balance is also a factor but not in the same way as a slim x-section.

    You can swing two identical racquets, one with string, the other without. This gives you an idea of the effects of air resistance.
    I assume you have done a wind tunnel test?
    Also, may I ask what is your racquet head speed during a defensive clear of a return smash? I would like to know in the case of your racquet is on forhand side and you need to defend a smash on the back hand side (or vice versa). My understanding is in the case the racquet BP and head lightness trump all the air resistance because you need all the initial acceleration you can get from 1 side to another. Then stop, then flick. Unless all these moves are done in at higher than 150 km/h (or about 94 mph) the corss section makes very small difference.
    It is not the effect of air resistance, it is effect of extra mass on the racquet head. To debunk your claim, just put 4g of leads tape (1 2g lead tape on the oppiside of the fram wall (about 13~14th grommet on the side). This will simulate the same effect of the string weight. I can tell you it will swing like the same racquet with string. Slower because of extra mass, not air resistance.

  2. #648
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    We have moved from heavy wooden racquets to lighter aluminium ones, and then to carbon graphite, and now to carbon graphite with a matrix of other high performance fibers. Over the same time, weight has also decreased from close to 150g to the 4U to 2U we see today. But we are still stuck with 2U weight category racquets for the last 20+ years for power.
    I think we have today the raw materials to dispense with 2U or even 3U weight categories. Power comes from racquet head speed (of course technique is important) and less from weight, as it should be. Lighter and faster racquets of say the 4U or lighter class is the way to go. If improved performance racquets of today still have to depend on weight for power, say a 2U, I don't think we will ever make a quantum leap forward. We need to think outside the box. Remember the shuttle is less than 5g in weight. You don't need a sledgehammer to it hit hard and fast.
    According to classic physic, you still need to transfer of momentum. Also a head heavier racquet will help stablize a off center shot. FYI, the vibe you mention about NS9k-x is due to the head light with stiff shaft property. It need stiffer shaft to stablize a off center shot. That is why most heavy hitters like head heavy AT racquets vs def players like NS racquets.
    Any lighter head for NS you will run the risk of breaking the frame because the momentum can not effectively transfer over to the shuttle.

  3. #649
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, Jerby, You know I am kidding right???

    I just want to bring up 1 racquet. CAB20 BABY! It was good then and it is still as good as 20+ years ago.

  4. #650
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    Sorry, Jerby, You know I am kidding right???

    I just want to bring up 1 racquet. CAB20 BABY! It was good then and it is still as good as 20+ years ago.
    Wrong, its better than it was 20+ years ago .

  5. #651
    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 silentheart View Post
    Sorry, Jerby, You know I am kidding right???

    I just want to bring up 1 racquet. CAB20 BABY! It was good then and it is still as good as 20+ years ago.
    In holland, we often make jokes about "learning to ride on an old bike"....
    I don't know how that flies in English

    when I see a post by you...the default modes is "can't be actually serious"

  6. #652
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerby View Post
    In holland, we often make jokes about "learning to ride on an old bike"....
    I don't know how that flies in English

    when I see a post by you...the default modes is "can't be actually serious"
    I wish I was the emp sitting on Johhny Mc match. My answer is "Just Kidding..."

  7. #653
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    According to classic physic, you still need to transfer of momentum. Also a head heavier racquet will help stablize a off center shot. FYI, the vibe you mention about NS9k-x is due to the head light with stiff shaft property. It need stiffer shaft to stablize a off center shot. That is why most heavy hitters like head heavy AT racquets vs def players like NS racquets.
    Any lighter head for NS you will run the risk of breaking the frame because the momentum can not effectively transfer over to the shuttle.
    I have a prototype "raw" racquet (called X), iso-shaped, 85.7g with string at 675mm length, or when extended 87.1g with string at 680mm length, that uses a radical matrix of material/epoxy resin, b/p w/o string of 28.6cm, with x-section dimensions of 10.2mm width and 5.95mm height (I believe it is about as slim as you can get now), extraordinarily stiff. It is very fast, as tested on the courts by players against ATs and NXs. The difference after playing with the X and then reverting back to the ATs and NXs is very obvious in speed and maneuverability. Its power is its strength and weakness. For many players the extremely stiff frame (shaft is made moderately flexible to moderate the extreme frame stiffness) makes the racquet too hard and stiff to play with any power. But for the advanced players who have high racquet hand speed the racquet has enormous power with the frame acting like a condenser. It needs high hand speed to unlock its "condenser" power. Despite its slim dimensions and enormous power, off-center hits are as solid as spot-on center hits, with utterly no "jelly-like" feeling.
    There are enough new age materials and resins to put together an ultra fast and powerful racquet today in the below 90g weight category.
    In the 1950s we had 150g wooden racquets; in the 1960s we shaved off 30g to 120g; in the carbon graphite age from the 1980s we shaved off another 26g to 94g. Today we are still stuck with 94g (2U), despite so many improved resins and materials.

  8. #654
    Moderator Oldhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,322
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let's keep this all related to the Yonex ArcSaber 10

  9. #655
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    169
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sure with the current technology we could make a racquet that could withstand all the forces or even much greater forces with a weight of 20g. Costs aside, how viable is such a racquet? You would have to swing almost 5 times faster to get the same transfer of momentum. As we're human's we have physical constraints, the faster we accelerate something in our hands the more we are prone to injuries. I think racquets in the future will become slightly lighter, maybe like 5/6/7U, but not much more after that, not unless we're all on steroids

    I'm getting an Arc10, but it won't be here for a while

  10. #656
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [quote=... I think racquets in the future will become slightly lighter, maybe like 5/6/7U, but not much more after that, not unless we're all on steroids
    I'm getting an Arc10, but it won't be here for a while [/quote]

    Cannot agree less...

    Leveraging the racket weight, power and control is not mere quality control; getting the best out of best. It is more of market research; knowing what people want; adopting new standards to meet the demand. It not creating something superb and wanting the entire market to adopt new practices into order to adapt to the superb qualities.

    Arc Saber 10 is a revolutionary product; one that has evolved over the number of years, through successes and failures...

    Yes, Arc Saber 10 is the one...

    Thanks.

  11. #657
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Niche Marketing! :P

    Does anyone know what the retail price would be for this racket in Canada?

  12. #658
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    About $230~$240 USD

  13. #659
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inu33 View Post
    Niche Marketing! :P

    Does anyone know what the retail price would be for this racket in Canada?
    MaxSports is selling it at $250. So i'm assuming its going to be up there. Just think of how much the retailers sell the ARC7's and add $20-30 to it :P

  14. #660
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    27
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the more i use arcsaber 10 the more i am convince that its strength as compared to other yonex racquets is its ability to remain stable even in cases of offcenter hits. As if it was design more for ordinary recreational players than for professional players (which is a good thing for me). I applaud the designers of this racquet. We can discuss and analzye the dimensions and physics of racquets all day long but in the end we the players will be the best judge which racquet would work best for our style of play and technique.

  15. #661
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    HKG
    Posts
    1,273
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    played with the 10 again last night, and like most people, i can't get enough of it. even though i was half dead, i just wanted to play more. the control of it just gets better with each match; smashes feels more solid and the sound it just awesome and drops from the back, especially the cross courts, are accurate and tight - something i can't really do with the 900P

    now a colleague of mine wants to buy one, and one still with a ??

    I LOVE IT!!

  16. #662
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like the 7 more for double... I think the 7 is faster. (note: please don't give me those x-sec crap again)

  17. #663
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So is it definitely a good upgrade from Acr 7 at extra $30 bucks?

    I liked the medium flex of Arc 7 and even balance, but it sounds like Arc 10 has better review at little more $.

    so tempting...

Page 39 of 85 FirstFirst ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yonex ArcSaber Z Slash Review
    By ants in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 2027
    : 05-23-2012, 06:19 PM
  2. Yonex ArcSaber 8 DX Review :D
    By Deathblader in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 13
    : 11-25-2010, 05:22 PM
  3. Yonex ArcSaber 9 Review
    By silentheart in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 53
    : 07-16-2010, 06:36 PM
  4. My Review: Yonex ArcSaber 9 vs. Ti-10 (3rd Gen.)
    By magiadam in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 6
    : 11-03-2008, 02:48 AM
  5. Yonex ArcSaber 10's personal review from other person
    By ThinkRiver in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 1
    : 02-23-2008, 04:41 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
  •