User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 52

Thread: Frames

  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default pic of c4

    pic of c4
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ichan

    thanks for the matweb link, i did some background checking on aermet. Technically, aermet alloy compare very well with Ti alloys and in some application, is even better than Ti alloy. Material wise, ti cost a bit more but in a badminton racquet, material cost difference to make the frame is not significant. However, to make aermet as light as Ti alloys, it has to be very thin, in the range of 0.5 to 0.7mm for bike frame. The expensive part is welding them perfectly at this (or less for badminton frame) wall thickness, a task that is even tougher than welding Ti alloys. If aermet frame is constructed like the old cab8, the external T joint would minimize or eliminate the welding process. I'm beginning to like this material because it's potential is not yet fully exploited yet.

    (back in 1995, i read about some really light mountain bike ~21 to 22 lbs range that was made from 'special' thin walled chrome moly steel, however, aermet was not mentioned but now i bet it was made from aermet tubings)
    Last edited by cooler; 05-24-2002 at 03:34 AM.

  3. #20
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,067
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    cooler. from what i have seen, carbon fiber composite and other material are usually butted and then glued together. that's what they did to a bicycle frame that i used to own. while it is a strong bond, i am wondering how strong it'd be for badminton. the contact surface at the T area is quite small, and i think it will need a generous amount of butting to get that to be strong.

    the contact surface between the CF and the Ti on the club head seems to be quite large.

  4. #21
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,067
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    with the thin tubing i still think we should go the route of a full titanium frame+shaft. perhaps experiment with a rod vs. tube shaft (for testing stiffness and durability vs. weight), and then the T-joint can be carefully TiG welded together.

    if they make oval shaped Ti rod, that would be even better, we can use a thicker one on the shaft, that will make it stiffer and more aerodynamic.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hey Kwun and cooler maybe you two should start a new racquet company! And everyone here will buy off ya! (at a discounted price ofcourse)

  6. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thanks zxz (i might consider renting it out instead ) Right now, i don't have the R&D budget like yonex or callaway to make a beta version of my prototype(s). However, i do think it is do-able project because if one look at callaway C4, it is selling 479 USD retail, just a little bit more than twice of a mp100 but the C4 used lot more carbon fibers and exotic material than a mp100. Beside one could buy a clone C4 for about 125 to 175 USD, cheaper than a mp100. Maybe this is why yonex is not coming out with any major innovation, what good to them if a racquet that is light, strong and last forever?

  7. #24
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,067
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    cooler, you know where to go for manufacturing cheap clones, right? China.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kwun.... this site is getting enough hits... I think enough for people to pay you to put ads and banners on this site (not big banners though cause they might ruin the site ) Maybe you could do that and then save up enuff money to make the racquet! lol..

    If not then could always buy a software for badminton chat :P

  9. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    About C4:

    http://www.blackknight.ca/eng/badminton.htm

    Black Knight has an whole line of rackets made
    with C4.

    I think the Quality/Price ratio of those is much
    higher than what Yonex does.

  10. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default sergesa

    i think black knights's C4 racquet is just coincidently named and is not constructed like the way callaway C4 #1 wood. Black knights racquet description is quite brief and general and mentioned titanium mesh which is not the way C4's and its clones golf club head are constructed IMO. Golf is a sport where money is usually no object and many innovations are being incorporated or tested out first. Even though C4 wood is retailed at 479 USD, i'm sure callaway will sells more C4 #1 wood than yonex's MP100, in both US and world market wise basis.
    Last edited by cooler; 05-25-2002 at 09:26 PM.

  11. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cooler

    http://www.blackknight.ca/eng/e_ba2006.htm

    the M-2006 C4...

    "Features Carbon4. Extra length (68 cm.) one piece,
    wide body racquet with Carbon4, titanium and hi-modulus
    graphite fibres..."

    I believe a Titanium Driver features a 100% forged Titanium face...

    ...which cannot, in any way, be compared to Titanium mesh
    in badminton rackets.

    Still, that does not prevent Yonex from advertising the
    TITANIUM series Ti-3, Ti-5, Ti-10, etc... or from
    adversiting TITANIUM in their other models.

    In this perspective, Black Knights's C4 racquets cannot be
    more coincidently named than the Titanium series of all
    manufacturers.

    All top of the line models of all major makers feature
    Titanium AND hi-modulus graphite fibres.

    We should be careful in our dismissal of the C4 of the Black Knight
    badminton line.

    Who knows, this might be an addition to racket material as
    major as Titanium was.

    If Yonex had come up with C4, would we be having this
    conversation?

  12. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default sergesa

    hope that my previous post didn't sounded negative about BK racquets. BK products is quite common in canada too. BK had embraced ultra light racquets since graphite racquets came into market. ie, they were selling 4U and 3U rackets since the yonex cab20 days. There are some very memorable BK rackets too but they are very model and vintage specific. There was a deal where i matched up an beginner who owned of one specific USED BK racket with one buyer who was willing to buy the BK owner ANY new yonex racket including stringing. Of course, the BK owner took the trade.
    Last edited by cooler; 05-25-2002 at 10:31 PM.

  13. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cooler,

    No problem with your post.

    I know BK are very popular in Canada.

    The 2006 will probably be my next try.

    We don't see many reviews of those rackets.

    I know a couple of guys who play with BK stuff
    and they seem to perform very well with the
    product.

    My feeling these days is that Yonex models are
    way overpriced.

    A couple of years ago you could get something very
    decent from Yonex around $130-$150.

    Now, with that kind of money, I'd go for a BK model
    any time.

  14. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default sergesa

    that was my original point, having similar ingredients do not mean similar physical properties because it depends on how the carbon fibers and titanium are put together, how much of the advertised exotic components are been incorporated in the racket or golf club. My only confusion is the usage of the C4 in M-2006 C4 model nomenclature, is it a model name or does it signify BK uses C4 in this racket and how much of it being used? Also, if C4 is being used in making M2006, why did BK listed hi-modulus graphite as one of their ingredient? Since "C4" can not be copyrighted or trademarked the same way intel can't for 386 and 486 cpu , it can be used or misused by anybody.

    Yes, titanium is a powerful marketing name and image, everybody is jumping into the bandwagon after it was first introduced by i don't who. We even have titanium grips and titanium battery too. Even some video cards has use titanium word in it model name
    Last edited by cooler; 05-25-2002 at 10:26 PM.

  15. #32
    Administrator kwun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Santa Clara, California, United States
    Posts
    36,067
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    (moved bike related discussions to Chit-Chat forum... )

  16. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The point I was trying to make is that as long as Yonex
    is using the Titanium thingy in its publicity, then this
    seems to be OK and everybody's happy.

    But if Black Knight uses the C4 principle in its publicity,
    then this must be very carefully scrutinized and we
    have to seriously question it and split hairs as much
    as we can.

    Is there a difference in racket technology since the
    advent of Kevlar and Titanium? You bet there is.

    Is there a significant difference between Titanium rackets
    and non-Titanium rackets? Yes.

    What is the proportion of Titanium in a badminton racket?
    Probably less than 10%.

    Does that make a significant difference? Of course it does.

    Should this technology be compared to golf club making?
    Of course not.

    Is it possible that Black Knight has found something new
    to add to the landscape of badminton racket technology?
    Well, maybe!

    Would we be questionning Yonex if Yonex introduced something
    like C4 in its techonology?

    NO.

    My point exactly.

  17. #34
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Originally posted by sergesa

    Is there a significant difference between Titanium rackets
    and non-Titanium rackets? Yes.
    Oh yes, for the producer it's like night and day. Ti mesh racquets can be sold at a higher price, and break more easily. It's a gold mine. For the consumer there are no significant advantages -- if any at all.


    What is the proportion of Titanium in a badminton racket?
    Probably less than 10%.
    Sergesa, when manufacturers state that this or that model contains 10% titanium, they don't mean a volume or weight percentage. This is marketing, and what they really mean is that 10% of the frame is covered by a useless glued-on Titanium mesh strip. Voila -- 10% titanium! Ti spells BS.

    Apart from that I agree with your post. Yonex has the market in its grip, and just because of that many consumers tend to be less critical of their products... after all, marketing does work!

    It would be so great if some manufacturer, such as BK, could come up with something that would threaten Yonex. But if BK is trying to compete with Yonex in terms of marketing lies, then I hope they fail miserably. Bring us new technology, technology that actually makes a difference!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 300 frames per second
    By Tomsk in forum Badminton Photography
    Replies: 25
    : 06-04-2008, 04:37 AM
  2. Why Oval Frames?
    By XKazeCloudX in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 9
    : 11-08-2007, 05:06 AM
  3. Bike Frames
    By wong in forum Chit-Chat
    Replies: 17
    : 06-14-2002, 01:02 PM
  4. Muscle Power Frames...
    By Andrew in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 4
    : 11-06-2001, 05:10 PM
  5. is thre any widebody MP frames???
    By Howard in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 1
    : 07-24-2001, 01:47 AM

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
  •