Box shape vs Aero shape durability?

**phaaam** · 01-02-2009, 12:16 AM

Well the topic says it all. A good example would be the AT900P vs AT900T with the same weight of course. Just wondering if the power frame has anything to do with its durability when strung at high tensions or clashes. Any input would be nice. Although I've heard that withing the AT900 series durability is pretty close.

**chongkiatz** · 01-02-2009, 08:28 AM

actually how to determine a racket is in box shape or aero shape?

**drbrain** · 01-02-2009, 09:38 AM

Here is the explaination:

**chongkiatz** · 01-02-2009, 09:53 AM

owh...i know what u mean already...thx for the information...

**DonnyGan** · 04-16-2009, 01:41 AM

somehow i feel & play better with AT900T than power & i'm wondering if it was the aero frame that gives the differences. Swing was faster & sweet spot feels larger than AT900P.

**colekwok** · 04-16-2009, 09:28 AM

In the old days, aero frames tended to crack more easily. Say, a Cab20 vs and Aerotus strung at 24lb. But I guess with the material science nowadays, it makes not much of a difference.

**silentheart** · 04-16-2009, 09:48 AM

Given the wall is the same thickness for aero and box frame. Then by design, the box frame is tougher and more robust (Note, I did not say stronger because depend on there the force is applied) However, given the same amount of materiel is used and frame shape (same AT900 shape) is the same (aero vs box is the cross section), aero and box shape are about the same toughness.
The issue with Cab vs AR is that higher end AR are wide body and to keep the racquet at same weight, the wall become thinner. Therefor the AR is not as durable.

**taneepak** · 04-17-2009, 12:02 AM

The box shape has higher face stability and durability, AOTBE. Here is one way to test a racquet's frame stability: Hold with one hand the top of the frame and with the other hand the throat end. Then do a twisting movement, similar to testing for torsion. A box shape, AOTBE, will twist less.
However, a box shape is slow and clumsy compared with an aero shape.
You can make a powerful racquet with very cheap materials with a box shape; it is more difficult to do it with an aero shape. The better the raw materials to make an aero shape frame the more expensive it becomes and also the more fragile because of its extremely high youngs modulus (extraordinarily stiff and easily shattered). It is possible to make an aero racquet more powerful than a box racquet but it will cost many times more. That is why, within the same price range and same series, there is no aero racquet that is more powerful than a box one.

**silentheart** · 04-17-2009, 09:35 AM

Another classic wrong post. Please read the title and the original question and respond accordingly or mention "I like to hear myself talk" in the post.

**taneepak** · 04-17-2009, 10:06 AM

Yes, with the same weight a box shape cross-section is stronger than an aero shape cross-section. This is why almost all building beams are rectangular in profile or cross-section. A box shape is closer to a rectangular shape; an aero closer to a round shape.
The volume of the box shape profile will be larger than the volume of the aero shape profile. This with the same weight for both means the box shape can have thinner thickness than the aero, and yet stronger.
If you look up Yonex's catalog on box shape, it says "The Yonex Box Shape for high face stability and high durability produces the solid feel on impact and a gutsy metallic resonance on center hits that make powerful Carbonex Series racquets a favorite among singles and doubles pro players. The Box Shape builds long-lasting structural integrity into the Carbonex frame-suppressing twisting of the frame at impact for more powerful and more accurate shots".

**cooler** · 04-17-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by silentheart

Another classic wrong post. Please read the title and the original question and respond accordingly or mention "I like to hear myself talk" in the post.

Regardless of what was the thread title, i can not support what taneepak had said, he is mixing up too many different principles together making it to sound correct.

**colekwok** · 04-17-2009, 10:49 AM

"Technically speaking", taneepak is correct. But let's put it this way, box shape frame is probably more durable than aero shape frame and mostly likely to take higher tensions. To simple way to explain is that box frame can withstand stress from all angles than aero ones.

P.S. The topic is indeed a bit strange, well the way it was written ......

**silentheart** · 04-17-2009, 11:08 AM

Hi Colelwok,
We have no issue with his conclusion. I agree that your term "technically speaking" but I would argue his reasoning is wrong.
Thank you.

**taneepak** · 04-17-2009, 11:18 AM

Well, I was inadvertently tempted to reveal how to test for structural integrity of a badminton racquet frame this time.
But it will take more than this to lure me to reveal the three unique techniques of testing the playability of a racquet, let alone a method to retune one.

**taneepak** · 04-17-2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by silentheart

However, given the same amount of materiel is used and frame shape (same AT900 shape) is the same (aero vs box is the cross section), aero and box shape are about the same toughness.

Silentheart and Cooler, don't you think this is nonsense? Both above aero and box have the same "length", derived from having the same frame, same amount of material which means same weight, but with the box having a larger cross-section hence a larger volume (cross-section area x length) and thinner walls, yet stronger.
Maybe, a structural engineer who specializes in load-bearing beams used in buildings can have an input on this.

**cooler** · 04-17-2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by colekwok

"Technically speaking", taneepak is correct. But let's put it this way, box shape frame is probably more durable than aero shape frame and mostly likely to take higher tensions. To simple way to explain is that box frame can withstand stress from all angles than aero ones.

P.S. The topic is indeed a bit strange, well the way it was written ......

your view doesn't give us a warm feeling.
"'technically speaking' taneepak is correct" - doesn't give comfort to those who have broken their rackets, 'practically speaking' viewpoint would be much more helpful to readers.

your statement " box shape frame is probably more durable than aero shape frame and mostly likely to take higher tensions" is just a subjective argument, not a objective one.

**cooler** · 04-17-2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by taneepak

Silentheart and Cooler, don't you think this is nonsense? Both above aero and box have the same "length", derived from having the same frame, same amount of material which means same weight, but with the box having a larger cross-section hence a larger volume (cross-section area x length) and thinner walls, yet stronger.
Maybe, a structural engineer who specializes in load-bearing beams used in buildings can have an input on this.

lets look at yonex warrantied tensions. It seem they are rating them similarly, why not give AT900P/AT800OF and AT700 a slightly more higher tension rating than the AT900T/800DE?