Results 52 to 68 of 105
07-31-2008, 11:37 AM #52
It is amazing some feather proponents, who lack knowledge about nylon shuttles, come to this 'mavis 350 vs 500' thread to debate about nylon shuttles, and try to steer on topic posters to go off topic.
Last edited by cooler; 07-31-2008 at 11:47 AM.
07-31-2008, 11:41 AM #53
I have a tube of slow mavis 300 that weighs in ~ 4.78 to 4.86 g range. That is another reason why i prefer 300 over 350/500, 300 tend to fly slower than 350/500 in my area. Disregarding the weight, the 500 does feel heavier on impact.
Last edited by cooler; 07-31-2008 at 11:54 AM.
07-31-2008, 03:52 PM #54
Originally Posted by Twobeer
And what exactly has I written that leads you to beleive I think some people who use plastic Mavis shuttle or buy badminton-sets at the gas station can't be highly skilled players??
You start in insulting tones, and ask for hard data supporting "my" "case" ??
I don't have a "case".. I am trying to give an honest opinion about the perforamnce of Mavis 500, 350 and 300 in this thread.
Obviously, you have a problem with people that don't find these shuttles to be the best thing since sliced bread.. But that's OK, everyone are free to use them if they like to play with them.. Their quality are just not accepted for international tournament play as of today.
By straying from the topic, and mocking my arguments (from other threads), becuse they don't match your view of the universe , is just a sure way to close down this thread as well
Originally Posted by Twobeer
Last edited by twobeer; 07-31-2008 at 04:00 PM.
07-31-2008, 04:26 PM #55
Mavis 350 yellow and Mavis 500 below..
07-31-2008, 04:58 PM #56
The thing I though was questionable is that SH had:
avg Medium M300 = 5.05g
avg Medium M350 = 5.07g
avg Medium M500 = 5.10g
cooler ( http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...17&postcount=5 )
avg Slow M300 = 4.85g
avg SLOW M350 = 5.00g
thus giving a 0.20g difference between a slow 300 and a medium 300, and only 0.07g diff between avg of slow and medium 350.. I would expect the difference to be about 0.2 between the slow mavis 350 and medium version..
looking at the small difference in weight on medium 350,300 and 500, one would expectect small difference in weight on the slow versions as well (if they are consistent)..
thats what I felt was odd.. Maybe I was not clear :-)
07-31-2008, 05:30 PM #57
Which shuttlecock use cork for the head and which one uses plastic rubber for the head?
They probably used a cork head on plastic to get a similar feeling as a feather.
07-31-2008, 05:50 PM #58
My source of mavis is different, i buy from different club players who have bought them in bulk, M300 and M350 likely not made in the same year let alone same batch. Who know how long they were stored, ie plastic is more complicated than u think. However or whatever these nick picking difference, even my weight statistic from different sources still lead to the same conclusion on weight of mavis product line. I don't have sufficient M500 around to show any conclusive data. They feel heavy and pricey so i dont have too many of them around. There are reason for this weight difference but i will hold this info morsel in my sleeve. U can say cooler is full of crap and bluffing. It's your call.
Last edited by cooler; 07-31-2008 at 05:57 PM.
07-31-2008, 10:18 PM #59
Why do you spend so much time and effort to weigh different brands and speeds of Mavis shuttles and not test them for the more meaningful speed test on the courts? Just select Mavis tube each of slow Mavis 300, 350, 370, and 500 and test them for the more meaningful speed on the courts in Cooler's city. Silentheart can repeat the test with medium speed Mavis and get a player who can hit consistently to do the test.
At least Cooler can have bragging rights that all slow Mavis 300, 350, 370, and 500 passed the court speed test in his city.
07-31-2008, 11:42 PM #60
And your point is?
07-31-2008, 11:51 PM #61
08-01-2008, 12:17 AM #62
08-01-2008, 12:25 AM #63
08-01-2008, 12:31 AM #64
Just a question is the price difference between these shuttlecock big or small?
08-01-2008, 03:11 AM #65
Why the reluctance to court test all the Mavis models? Perhaps other players who play with Mavis can volunteer? Could the unpredictable pattern of collapse of the skirt between each test hit send the shuttle over a wider distance range, or even under or over the distance limits? To solely highlight its weight consistency and "run away" from speed testing on the courts looks more like a smoke screen.
Again, Silentheart and Cooler, how about biting the bullet and do the right thing?
08-01-2008, 07:10 AM #66
If you have read what cooler has written, it is obvious that he HAS tested his shuttles for correct speed. He even elaborates on how he adjusts speed on plastics (which I beleive does not work very well, becuase the Mavis plastic shirt always strives to go back to its original shape it has when it was molded).
Regardless of what shuttle is used its speed can be adjusted (albeit with Mavis just temporary).
The BIG problem with the Mavis shuttles discussed in this thread is NOT the speed when testing using an underam-stroke from the base-line..
This test has been designed to test the speed of feather shuttles and is based on the assumption that the tested shuttle has the correct flight path anything flying can basically be adjusted (even spheres to play with sold for recreation here in sweden) to have the right distance but the test really mandates a good trajectory to begin with.
The problem is the non-rigidity of the folding shirt, the flat trajectory and minimal spin, making these shuttles inferior to more expensive alternatives.
Maybe cooler is "lucky" that an un-pressed Mavis 300 slow, in most cases have the right speed for his environment.
But I don't think you would agree that Mavis is a good shuttle, even IF cooler could proove to You that his Mavis 300 in most cases have consistent and correct testing-speed for his high-altitude courts? right
Last edited by twobeer; 08-01-2008 at 07:18 AM.
08-01-2008, 09:32 AM #67
1) Mavis does what it design to do. It is a plastic shuttle design to perform closer to the real feather shuttle than other brand's plastic bird. Mavis does great on that.
2) Mavis has average consistency and durability much better than feather shuttle.
3) Mavis was never meant to replace the real feather shuttle.
Mavis plays and feel different than feather shuttle. Different strategy and tactic need to be adapted between Mavis and feather. Mavis is not a bad shuttle, it is just a better than average/good simulation of the feather shuttle.
08-01-2008, 09:46 AM #68
By David1990 in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 14: 05-25-2009, 07:12 PM
By eddiemon in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 270: 07-15-2008, 01:24 PM
By St00pid in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 8: 05-25-2007, 01:58 AM
By pentium4 in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 24: 11-20-2006, 11:07 PM
By newbie in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 14: 02-04-2002, 06:46 PM