Results 69 to 85 of 104
Thread: Mavis 2000 Review
07-26-2009, 10:25 PM #69
Hiii... here in India Mavis 2000 is for 11 USD almost... not very costly if u ask me... but then Mavis 350 in itself is for 9.5 USD around.. Setting up a distributorship.. any takers.. .. kiddin...
07-27-2009, 10:32 AM #70
2. where and when did i said before that future development of plastic shuttle is not necessary??? I did said before mavis should be used in some bwf competiton because mavis is just another equipment to compare skills of players. Just in tennis, neither grass, clay or hard court is better the other courts, just a different standard to compare skills of players. I also did said before that no plastic shuttle be equal to feather, and vice versa but this doesnt say i want to discourage improvement of plastic shuttles. Plastic shuttles already has many advantage over feathers, like durability and consistency. It is just flight profile that are different to feathers. We all like durability and consistency of any products while flight profile is just a personal taste and liking. Take string, nylon replace guts, u seem ok with that. Take carbon fiber, u seem ok with that in replacing wood and aluminum. Take polyurthance foam grip, u seem ok with that over leather grip. Take polyester shirts, +90% of us seem ok with that over the old cotton shirts. It comes down to at what point r u willing to change. So far, it seem we all have adopted alot of equipment change already.
Last edited by cooler; 07-27-2009 at 10:37 AM.
07-27-2009, 11:29 AM #71
At least to me, saying something is "good enough" is pretty close to saying that future development is of low prio..
Originally Posted by cooler;
If it is just as good just "different" why improve it??
Originally Posted by cooler;
I am the first one to switch over to an artificial shuttle if it is IMPROVED over the current best material available (goose feathers+cork).
I am curios cooler.. Do you think any improvement of Plastic shuttles is "neccessry"? What improvements would you like to see, if any? closer trajectory to feathers or keep the pattern of Mavis 300 at your altitude as the reference standard? Better durability than Mavis 300?
What is your take on Mavis 2000? If they fly more like feathers but are less durable than Mavis 300? Which shuttle do you then prefer the more long-lived Mavis 300 or the more "shorlivet" more feather-like trajectory 2000 ??
07-27-2009, 11:32 AM #72
yeah i tried medium speed too. i forgot to add, the leather on the cork and the cork itself does die fairly fast. in fact, one of the blue ribbon on one of them started falling off half way through ..
07-27-2009, 11:38 AM #73
Me and Kwun discussed this and I still find that since the plastic shuttles have a flexible skirt they will continue to feel rubbery. That is why the shots dont feel crisp coming off the racket. If plastic shuttles were to gain momentum they would have to change towards a stiffer design literally imitating a feather. However, if they then imitate a feather's characteristics/stiffness, we will lose that wonderful plastic durability. I think plastic feathers would be good, not for their durability, but for its consistency since it would be from a more sustainable source.
07-27-2009, 12:16 PM #74
maybe with all the advances of biotec a gene desigend mass produceabel feather could be "grown" at low cost for shuttles :-) another option :-)
07-27-2009, 10:46 PM #75
07-28-2009, 11:14 AM #76
making shuttle is not like making AMD to perform like intel CPUs.
Even if high tech fibers could replaces feathers, it still wouldn't feel and fly like feathers. Why? because old school generation still want it to feel like feathers. Ask why Coke can't make diet coke to taste like regular classic coke cola. If you're trained in feathers, u would still want to play feathers over a $100 high tech synthetic shuttle in competitions. Improvement in plastic shuttle would only improve the $/performance ratio, it can't duplicate feather performance. Every player has their own $/performance ratio threshold. For pros when $=0, that ratio is irrelevant. Yonex and other equip. makers know when to stop improving. Even tho i have said dont stop advancement in plastic shuttle design, sadly, the equip. makers will halt improvement at certain point.
07-28-2009, 11:28 AM #77
True that some naturally occurring resources are nearly impossible to duplicate, such as gut tennis strings, but like the others said with technology advances you just dont know what the future holds. Case in point, ZyMax strings are starting to become popular as they have been in development for a while and are now showing to be a viable alternative.
Companies like yonex know if they ever stop advancing equipment design, they will die. They made new plastic shuttles this year, and they also came out with a new feather line as well. With the global climate moving towards a new 'green' perspective the reason for producing artificial isnt just for cost, but to be 'green,' renewable and clean.
07-28-2009, 11:42 AM #78
Isn't feather shuttlecock came before plastic shuttle of the 1950's. I recall that badminton was standardized back in the 1800's? isn't feather shuttles are more ancient?
The basic regulations were drawn up in 1887. In 1893, the Badminton Association of England published the first set of rules according to these regulations, similar to today's rules, and officially launched badminton in a house called "Dunbar" at 6 Waverley
2. Good point indeed. Plastic shuttles (ie mavis 300+) improvements are in durability and consistency over feathers. Don't these improvement count? Sure it didn't improve over the feather in feel but isn't 2 out of 3 pluses considered significant improvement? Feather shuttle has only one thing going for it, the feel. This take me to our example of nylon string over gut. U said we accepted nylon string because it's an improvement over gut string but isn't this analog to plastic shuttle? Nylon improvements were in durability and consistency catergories but it definitely doesn't feel like true gut but yet, we got 99.99999999999% acceptance on nylon string. Your parable is a bit weak here.
3. the answer is E-zzzzzzz. It's not high tech or advance material. Since the cost of manfacturing mavis (vs feathers) is so low (by my estimate), drop the price of mavis, say by half, and watch the big shift to plastic shuttle. If u want a gigantic shift, drop mavis price by 75%.
mavis 300 or mavis 2000? i havent tried M2000 yet because i haven't pick up a tube yet. My gut feel is same as your or any feather players, stay with what i'm familar with, which is mavis 300. That's why i have no urge to try M2000.
Last edited by cooler; 07-28-2009 at 11:46 AM.
07-28-2009, 02:03 PM #79
i do know that both feather and plastic (mavis) shuttles contain both natural and synthetic materials. The key difference is still in the skirt construction and material.
I play mavis not because i can't tell the difference between feather and mavis. It is me who is debating with all the feather proponents in BF. Surely i won't attempt to go on debating this topic under numerous threads with feather proponents if i couldn't tell the difference between feather and mavis. i would have lost in the first round.
synthetic cork is not new and duplicate cork performance just as well. It just comes down to cost. I also made a post (in other thread) about wine industry is switching from cork to screw/plastic caps. Wine industry (old thinking) resisted but educated wine buyers insisted screw cap. Screw cap is winning.
2. point is, it's still not the same feel.
3. i didnt say stop and close shop. I said or what i meant was yonex know when to stop (step on the brake) and when to accelearate (gas pedal).
Last edited by cooler; 07-28-2009 at 02:14 PM.
07-28-2009, 02:26 PM #80
What do you consider the best yonex plastic shuttle then and how much are they in ús please
(sorry for being slightly off subject)
07-28-2009, 02:47 PM #81
A more valid comparison is if we made a 0.80 super durable string that last for years before it breaks, but have extremely bad performance/repulsion.. It could still be 2 our of 3 (more durable and more consistntly (bad), but worse performance, 2 out of 3).. The "consistency and durability" would NOT offset the lack of performance.. Durability is utterly useless if the perforamncce isn't acceptable.. which is a prereq imop before anything else..
Last edited by twobeer; 07-28-2009 at 02:52 PM.
07-29-2009, 11:54 PM #82
07-30-2009, 12:56 AM #83
My crystal ball clouded over lately LOL. Que sera......sera
08-05-2009, 04:25 PM #84
Originally Posted by twobeer
I sincerely doubt there would be a significant shift to plastic if prices where dropped.. If economics where the "only" factor and people does not care about performance they buy plastics over feathers even without a price-drop. just like people buy graphite rackets instead of sttel rackets based on performance, not economics..
Everything has a price and every individual has their price point.
People now commonly buy graphite rackets because the cost of manufacturing (price point) had dropped to the point it is affordable to almost all players.
08-05-2009, 04:36 PM #85
People accepted nylon strings because it allowed high tension (+25 lbs) which gut could not provide +25 lbs tension with reasonable duration. IF the gut string could give +25 lbs tension with reasonable durability, i am very sure its performance would exceed the performance of bg66 or ngy98 at similar high tension. IE, it was the durability factor of synthetic strings at high tension that boosted its performance or i mean, make up for the lack of performance. IF u compare 'performance only factor' of gut vs nylon strings at the same tension and disregard durability factor, gut outperform nylon strings. Yet, it is durability (ie pricing value) that made people switched to nylon strings.
By ioxyg3n520 in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 8: 02-12-2012, 02:48 PM
By Hinrik in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 2: 08-05-2010, 04:21 PM
By firearc in forum ShuttlecockReplies: 19: 05-27-2010, 01:43 PM
By mamapoko in forum Market PlaceReplies: 0: 05-13-2010, 12:13 PM
By zazaza in forum Market PlaceReplies: 3: 04-14-2009, 06:00 AM