Mavis 2000 Review

[alphazed1]

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...

[cooler]

Guys, lets not make this into a feather vs. nylon shuttle war

It is interesting to follow the progress of producing artificial shuttles that is trying to mimic feather shuttles properties, closer and closer.

Quill and Mav2K seems to be steps in the right direction, but most players agree there is still a long way to go... Some players (like Cooler?!) seems to think even the previos generation of plastics (Mav300,350,370 etc) where "good enough" for competetive play, and that maybe Mav2000 or future artifical shuttle development is not even neccessary.

I hope we vill se Mavis 3000, 4000, 5000 or 100000 progressing and getting better and better rigidity, fligth, spin and playability..

I will try to get my hands on some Mav 2000, have not tried them myself :-)

Cheers,
Twobeer

1. hmm,i was the one trying to divert this debate to a proper thread U r just using my post to launch your own comment

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.

[twobeer]

where and when did i said before that future development of plastic shuttle is not necessary???

As far as I remember you have not been aganist development (rather the opposite), but You have on a number of threads expressed the opinion, that plastic shuttles should be accepted (in their current form an quality) for BWF use, and that it really is not important "how" they fly, as it is "the same for both players" and not better or worse, just "different".. If the view that the trajecory and spin, weight, feel etc. is "good enough"..it would not make much business sense to spend lots of money on research on how to improve these shuttles...

At least to me, saying something is "good enough" is pretty close to saying that future development is of low prio..

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.

The above is a good example, of how your argument, at least to me, comes across, like you are more than happy with the quality of the plastic shuttle technologies developed in the 1950:s..
If it is just as good just "different" why improve it??

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.

strings and carbon development has always been based on IMPROVED perforamnce, if carbon rackets did not perofrmed better than wood rackets, I amsure we would still be playing with wood rackets (even though wood is a natrual resource)..

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 ??

/Twobeer

[ray_mond]

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 ..

[illusionistpro]

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.

[twobeer]

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.

yupp! But with advances in material-research maybe it can be feasible to produces an artifical that behaves lika a top-feather shuttle with great durability.. one could wish :-)

maybe with all the advances of biotec a gene desigend mass produceabel feather could be "grown" at low cost for shuttles :-) another option :-)

/T

[Kiloo]

yupp! But with advances in material-research maybe it can be feasible to produces an artifical that behaves lika a top-feather shuttle with great durability.. one could wish :-)

maybe with all the advances of biotec a gene desigend mass produceabel feather could be "grown" at low cost for shuttles :-) another option :-)

/T

I agree with twobeer. With the advancements of plastic tech and other synthetics The advent of a shuttle performing like a feather will see the light. Meantime I am waiting to try out the MV2K

[cooler]

yupp! But with advances in material-research maybe it can be feasible to produces an artifical that behaves lika a top-feather shuttle with great durability.. one could wish :-)

maybe with all the advances of biotec a gene desigend mass produceabel feather could be "grown" at low cost for shuttles :-) another option :-)

/T

just wishful thinking with your high tech viewpoint,
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.

[illusionistpro]

just wishful thinking with your high tech viewpoint,
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.

Unless you know the future you cant really say this is a fair statement. I can already tell you that you may be playing with partially artificial shuttle that you weren't playing with before, and if you couldnt notice the difference then a 100% 'plastic' shuttle could be possible! The part im talking about is the cork. There has been several companies which have started to shift to artificial cork.

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.

[cooler]

1. The above is a good example, of how your argument, at least to me, comes across, like you are more than happy with the quality of the plastic shuttle technologies developed in the 1950:s..
If it is just as good just "different" why improve it??


2. strings and carbon development has always been based on IMPROVED perforamnce, if carbon rackets did not perofrmed better than wood rackets, I amsure we would still be playing with wood rackets (even though wood is a natrual resource)..

3. 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 ??

/Twobeer

1. *cough* *spit* *sputter*
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.[5] 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.

[cooler]

1. Unless you know the future you cant really say this is a fair statement. I can already tell you that you may be playing with partially artificial shuttle that you weren't playing with before, and if you couldnt notice the difference then a 100% 'plastic' shuttle could be possible! The part im talking about is the cork. There has been several companies which have started to shift to artificial cork.

2. 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.

3. 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.

1. i believe myself enough to post my beliefs in BF that would last for eons If i'm wrong, i would make a note of it here as well. i don't run and hide.

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).

[LD rules!]

What do you consider the best yonex plastic shuttle then and how much are they in £s please

(sorry for being slightly off subject)

[twobeer]

1. *cough* *spit* *sputter*
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 discussion was about improvements in plastic shuttles (mav 2000 remember :-) ) which have been minimal the last 50 years..If we want to discuss improvements of goose feather shuttles today and trough history I think this is suitable to another thread..

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.

I do not agree with your analogy. the syntetic strings can be strung harder and provide more power/control than natural gut strings can provide (if it was just a durability issue all pros would use natural gut and have 10 rackets per match ready strung)..

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..

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%.

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..

[hunterkillerz]

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..

I'd have to say I'd agree with cooler. Sure pros and perhaps badminton clubs will play with feather, but most people would play with mavis or even consider playing with it. It may not be the same story in Asia, but in North America, mavis would be a huge hit since it's already being used by a lot of people here. Sad to say, but the world is still run by the flow of money.

[Kiloo]

My crystal ball clouded over lately LOL. Que sera......sera

[cooler]

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..

I'd have to say I'd agree with cooler. Sure pros and perhaps badminton clubs will play with feather, but most people would play with mavis or even consider playing with it. It may not be the same story in Asia, but in North America, mavis would be a huge hit since it's already being used by a lot of people here. Sad to say, but the world is still run by the flow of money.

Thanks hunterkillerz.
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.

[cooler]

I do not agree with your analogy. the syntetic strings can be strung harder and provide more power/control than natural gut strings can provide (if it was just a durability issue all pros would use natural gut and have 10 rackets per match ready strung)..

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..

..

this question is which came first.
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.