Hi All: I just want to share the images of the New EdgeSaber 10 from APACS. Your comments/ opinions are welcome! I am sure most of you think this is a copycat of Yonex. However, based on my perspective, APACS is considered the "best" on cloning racket, if it is what the intention of this company. At the price of merely 20% to the Yonex, APACS is very stable, and convincing to play. Probably, if you are an average player (like myself); close your eyes and hit the shuttle with this racket. You may think that you are holding Yonex or something in that price range. I am not promoting this racket for the sake of the company. However, it is probably the "Honda S2000", when you think twice to spend money on BMW Z4.
O.O Holy...I think Yonex has a Partner. These are not just imitations anymore!!! Think of it like Toyota and Lexus. Maybe Yonex and Apacs are owned by the same person. >_>
yep, Apac is receptive to market demand. they supplied not just or better quality racket to Yonex but also to the Tactic type, "cross-striker". I seen one of those near to KL Badminton Complex, 32 courts, shop (outside the complex). Quite impressed with their quality for a 50usd racket. A short holiday trip to KL can now be very exhilarating both for the rackets shopping & as well as for the private training in the complex.(spectator of course) what else can you ask for? cheers joeling
Does anybody know the price for this racket in RM? Is it even out yet? Wonder if it's head heavy/even balance/head light...
yup,... excuse me for not making that clear, I buy rackets in pairs,.. in case i break one during a game,.. or break a string,.. then i have the same racket as back-up.
I heard that it's selling for RM110 just for racket (add 25 for string n grip). KL price. So i don't get to buy... Cos live in Pg
I have not tested this particular Apacs racket.. But I highly doubt they are using CS nano-tubes, epoxy t-joint, ultra-PEF in this "lookalike".. It is insulting to Toyota to make the comparison between S2000 and Z4 i think!!! It would be a more fair comparison if Proton made a "Pronda S2000" that was based on a Proton Saga with Honda S2000 lookalike bodywork... Correct me if I am wrong.. Does the Apacs use the Ultra-PEF and CS-Nanotubes in constructing the racket?? /Twobeer
I am not trying to defend this racket. However, the terms of "Ultra-PEF" and "CS-Nanotubes" are only "marketing-terms" from the manufacture, which it indicates the products to be unique. This is also applied to car manufacture in the early 90's with DOHC (Double Over-Head Camshaft) for Mitsubishi, Twin Cam Toyota (Twin Camshaft). Both means two intakes/ outakes valves per cylinder. Now, we hear Honda VTEC (Variable Timing Electronic Camshaft)and Toyota VVTi (Variable Valve Timing). Both means the valve is electronically controlled. If we know how the engine works, do not you think that all new cars are now controlled by ECU (Electronic Controlled Unit) to justify how much fuel to send to the engine? So why Honda and Toyota have to mention the system to the public? Isn't it marketing? Fords, GM and others are doing the same concept, except they are not particulate to be technical. By the end of the day, people will look for HP and fuel efficiency. The same with the racket. People will justify how solid and convincing the racket when it hits the shuttle. To me, APACS are at the price point advantage is comparable to Yonex, without underlining the Ultra-PEF" and "CS-Nanotubes" terms on the marketing brochures.
uh, the good sir twobeer has a point look around the forums. people have proved that yonex actually does live up to some of their technology, such as the aforementioned t-joint. there is no guarantee that the racket has the same durability as well as specs and playability.
Well If you want to "twist" it that way.. Graphite rackets are just a "marketing-term"... and Wooden rackets are the same... This comparison is only relevant IF the racket HAS the same technology but under a different name (analogy would be with Victors "Wave" technology and SOTX "Circle Power" which is the same technology applied but using different name (like Twin CAM /DOHC). Still DOHC is different to OHV or SOHC, would you not agree? http://www.samarins.com/glossary/dohc.html Being quite a car-fan myself I know that a good ECU can make a hell of a difference tuning the car and get more HPs.. quite a lot of japaneese makers like APEXI etc making better ECUs to replace car makers originals.... Saying all ECUs are equal is like saying all laptops are the same (or all rackets are the same, for that matter ) I would say ANY maker apart from Yonex are at a price-point advantage.. And if you really care about the feel, and abilities of a racket.. Why choose one that has been made to look like something else??? Why not encouraging companies who try to use their own heads instead of trying to "feed" on someone elses success... /Twobeer
I am sorry if "twobeer" is "upset" when replying this threat. However, I am thrilled to find your arguments to be a little off the topic. You said: Being quite a car-fan myself I know that a good ECU can make a hell of a difference tuning the car and get more HPs.. quite a lot of japaneese makers like APEXI etc making better ECUs to replace car makers originals.... Saying all ECUs are equal is like saying all laptops are the same ---- Actually, ECU is just a box of electronic parts. The design of ECU box will not make a good car. The programming and the chips of the ECU will make the different. Also, if APEXI is making a better ECU, why car manufactures did not ask APEXI to make one for them, instead of spending time to research one to each type of car? Oh, I almost forgot, APEXI does not make ECU for every car. Do you know why...as being the best but it is not compatible or in current terms "plug-n-play to all cars? So back to the topic and my point: If you are an average player like myself, you may not feel the significant for spending $240.00 to get Yonex. APACS racket is significant to play your best game at a fraction of the cost. That is it! I am not trying to argue here... I am just pointing the + side of APACS racket.
I agree with two beers, yes the Apac does look like the ARC10 but I'm pretty sure it's not made of the same material or with the same technology behind it. That's like buying a cheap copy kit for your car vs buying the real kit. Yes it looks the same but quality wise you're taking a big risk. As to the ECU, well, I'm sure the cost of the Apexi programmed chip will have something to do with it also does everybody want to use a performance ECU in their car?
Wont the new ECU use more fuel, cause more engine wear etc. i.e. things that dont really concern performance car enthusiats (who buy the ECU), but would concern the average car buyer? Surely the car maker would set their ECU to the best tradeoff between all the different factors. So a new ECU is just a different set of tradeoffs, probably more orientated towards performance. On topic: Its really sad that makers like APACS are so gutless they feel they have to piggyback names off others. I for one would never buy anything like that, it seems almost illegal trademark infringing. The non-yonex manufacturers dont HAVE to copy names like that. For example SOTX gives their rackets completely original names, but still do well regardless, based on the performance of their rackets and good reviews. For technology like hidden t-joints, the market seems a bit too small, so I guess some measure of copying is always going to happen. As far as materials technology is concerned, since badminton manufacturers are too small to do any serious R&D, so all of them get their raw materials (carbon nanotubes) etc from the same chemical industry people. But why copy NAMES???
