Well, I bring this discussion up because aside from minor negligible technological differences, most iterations of rackets seem to just change actual racket properties. I.e, head heavy, light, level of stiffness, length of stem, size of grip etc. This isn't necessarily a case of one model being better than another, just different. The technological differences, such as internal materials etc, tend to make little real world difference and most often can't actually even be confirmed. For example, has anyone actually chopped up a VT70 and VT80 to compare the frame innards? So basically, I guess my question is, are newer rackets actually even better, or just different? Why is an Arcsaber 10 or 8DX for example, better than an Arcsaber 7? What's to say a Victor BS10 isn't better for the said person than a Victor 11 or 12? I tend to get the feeling, especially with Yonex rackets (less so with Victor one's), people are very quick to jump to the latest and greatest in almost flavour of the month fashion, but rather than getting something actually technologically much more advanced, they are getting something simply incrementally different, more so in racket characteristics and less so in technology. For example, since the release of the N9900 and now VT80, you rarely hear people showing interest in wanting to buy predecessors of models in each range, unless it's a question of money. So are the latest in each range actually much better, or again, just different? What's your take?
Read my post, goes in to more detail. By better, I guess I mean technologically more advanced and with better play characteristics, not just different characteristics. If you look at most product cycles, mobile phones, TV's, consoles etc, price increases are understandable to some degree as the technological improvements are usually quite substantial and evident. With sports equipment, especially rackets etc, I find things to be less obvious. for example, why is the VT80 so much more expensive? Is it just Yonex taking advantage or marketing, or are the internals really that different or more costly to manufacture? I was actually really pleased when recently I purchased the BS10 and saw it had an angular more aerodynamic frame. It's a bit different and probably required more R&D to develop beyond Yonex's usual habit of just changing the length and thicknesses of certain products, but otherwise keeping things in overall design, pretty much the same.
But 'better' can mean so much: you can say 'better' is getting more power from a racket while not having to put in more ffort, or you can say 'better' is more feeling in a racket, of 'better' is being able to handle high tensions better? I think the racket company's do their best to make people think the improvements are massive, like they reinvented the racket itself. But if the technological jumps are that big, why don't the proffessional players switchs rackets more often? And why are the 'simple brands' who don't market new technology so well still keeping up? When li ning launched their first series everybody was raving about them, but the 'generation 2' rackets hardly had the same effect (and also the chinese players seemed to stick with what they got for the greater part). When you look at Panda Power rackets, or Zelm, babolat or Karakal they dont market new materials, or new technologies, but for some reason their performance doesn't really lag that much behind the rest(if at all). And with yonex's new "voltric system" (Or whatever), which has been called a step backwards by some, why do some players switch and some don't? Let's not even start about the arc-Z and that marketing campaign... But I don't want to pick on only yonex, I demo'ed Carlton's Prototype V1.0 and this "razor technology" wasn't anything 'shockingly new' to me. All I see is that time and again the manufacturers make claims about big improvements and they never really live up to them.
I think it basically boils down to the fact that badminton rackets aren't "mobile phones, TV's, consoles etc." There's only so much you can do to a racket and only so much you can improve before it becomes something else. If you add wings or a turbo engine or a PEZ dispenser grip then it's not a badminton racket anymore and you won't be allowed to play with it. Of course, this doesn't stop the racket-producing companies from wanting to make more money, so they have to come up with creative ways of showing off supposed "improvements", like "sound filters" or a player's signature on the shaft or just a new color.
I would say tenchology has advanced in badminton rackets with respect to the quality of the carbon involved - rackets generally seem more solid these days & are more durable throughout the range (mid/lower rackets are better). For more defined technology however this is less clear cut: Titanium, Boron, Woven, Grommet indents, Nano technolgy, Tungsten(!) All the above have been introduced at various stages, but none has been a game changer like The change from Steel-Carbon & Carbon-wood where basically every racket has to be in that material to compete. Grpahite was a game changer in the Mid 80's but since then it has not changed much (IMO)
I think the question about the racket is not a matter of better or not. There are different approaches for the evolution of rackets, and if you ask, have badminton rackets evolved, my answer would absolutely be YES! In my experience, rackets have been developed in different ways: - Material - Balance - Functionality - Design Don’t forget that most materials already exists but are very costly to produce in mass production. Even carbonbinds at moleculair level exists for decades before it has been used in a racket. Some technologies are used to influence the balance of the racket, some are used to stiffen a racket, or both. If you go back to the Carbonex generation, the racket wasn’t even personal. I mean: there are different rackets, but no balance differences in design. Now you can choose between 3 different balances and even choose your own flex. There are single, double, offensive, defensive and even women’s rackets if you look at functional level. They are all designed according to some assumptions, but we are all unique in our style, power and level. Don’t forget the Aerodynamic frame (widebodies) and isometric head designs which are still used in modern rackets. So if you ask if badminton rackets has become better? I cannot answer that because it’s very personal. The racket on the other hand, is more personal than ever. What is my experience with rackets in the last two decades? Rackets become lighter, faster and stiffer and hold higher tensions. Modern rackets are also feels ‘dead’. I cannot feel the power when I smash hard. There is no vibration. New material, design and techniques are so common nowadays, you have to go back to the classics to compare and appreciate the new technologies. So I still play with carbonex rackets. I do agree that not all improvements are worth to try.
It`s fair to say that the most significant improvement in recent years is the isometric shape head. other than that, i echo everyone`s point of view above....wether it is better or not, it`s very personal
Its improvement from year to year is of little significance . For me, the big changes in racket properties are from wood to metal, and then from metal to graphite. We can describe the major changes as follows; * A wooden racket head with a wooden shaft. * A wooden racket head with a metal shaft. * A metal racket head with a metal shaft. * A metal racket head with a graphite shaft. * A graphite racket head with a graphite shaft. Within the wooden period, the laminated racket head played an important role in strengthening the racket head/frame. Within the metal period (steel, then aluminium), the idea of a flattened shaft played an important role in the better flexing of the racket. Now, within the graphite period, materials are getting stronger and lighter. Racket head could be shaped differently. Currently, IMHO, its improvement from year to year (from model to model) is of little significance. .
Material wise, it may not be leaps and bounds kind of improvement but every subtle new technology does incrementally make rackets better, it's much more robust than it ever was. However, most of the improvements we've seen are more on its design aspects. Head shape, cross section, shaft length, handle length, kick points (multi kick points). Specificity of the stiffness to where a certain kick point is located, etc. Aerodymics wise, there certainly are better rackets to pin point. But let me just single out the Bravesword series, it supposedly is to cut through effortlessly, it does (there are better aerodynamically designed rackets that doesn't require knife-like edges!)! Shall we say it's an improvement altogether or partial? I believe it only serves those craving for a little bit more speed for the smash down. How about players who are mainly deceptive at the net? Drop shots, tumble and spin which is laterally effective but may not be the forte of the Bravesword series. Just a case in point. My two cents.
I think this thread is so subjective..... By the way why not we enjoy each of the technologies despite the mega marketing promos..... Feel the different in playing style using each high end racket which have those high tech materials, design etc..... The most important is your confident level during playing the badminton...... Only my point of view.......
I think this thread provides a healthy discussion about technology of rackets.. yes, we should enjoy technologies but as a consumer, we got rights to know what we are buying. and here in BC is the perfect place to share opinions about the impact of new technologies. maybe you are happy to buy a racket which everyone said is good, but some people wants to know more than that. "The most important is your confident level during playing the badminton......" I dont think this is relevant to this thread, Naim F.C is genuinely asking a qustion which some people might be interested in. ofc at the end of the day, only your skills matter, but it wont hurt to know what you are actually holding..........
Re: The question of "Are newer rackets better or just different?" - They're definitely different, which I think inevitably means that some people will prefer them and some won't (you can never please everyone). I don't think the Arc7 / Arc10 comparison is a good one, because they're both from the same generation of rackets, but intended for different styles of play. However, you could compare the AT800Def and the AT900T which is a direct replacement for it. There are certainly still players who prefer the older racket, but perhaps more people prefer the AT900T, or perhaps the AT900T is just preferred by Yonex's target demographic - I couldn't say. Personally, I have a suspicion that all these fancy new materials are just a way of concealing the use of lower quality materials for the majority of the racket structure. Seeing as how the cost of graphite has been increasing at a dramatic rate since it was first used in badminton rackets (more than doubled in recent years, apparently), I'm guessing it's cheaper for manufacturers to use low quality graphite, and then strategically place small quantities of more expensive materials to retain the performance. You look at old rackets, and they used to have solid carbon shafts, and in some cases carbon handles - now they almost all have hollow shafts and wood handles, which are obviously cheaper. As far as actual design is concerned, I think it was more or less perfected a long time ago. We probably won't see any major innovations unless there's a change in the rules, allowing for larger heads or longer shafts or something. Some of the gimmicks that manufacturers are coming out with at the moment are just ridiculous (Yonex sound-filter, APACS adjustable balance, etc). And some of it's just fashion. First we had oval frames; then isometric frames became popular and everyone decided they were the biggest innovation since graphite rackets; and now we're going back to ovals again with so-called optimetric or hybrid frames...
I think in the last 3 years or so things have definitely slowed down in terms of real noticeable tech advances but that doesn't mean small changes aren't welcome either. Many people are still on the hunt for the perfect racket, if we only had big jumps without the little refinements in between, no one ever would. Also, if you can't afford new rackets then don't buy them. I just restrung an aerotus 70 for someone, still his only racket.
The fashion aspect is always a seller. Look at the PG and LCW specific rackets with their own paint scheme on existing rackets. Also, why do you think Apple sells so many products? The tech specs are lower but they do great marketing vs their competitors. I'm not sure that "should" is the word to use. If that was true we'd be using wooden rackets with BG66UM... I also think that even small improvements can have great results. An example is the victor bravesword, I think the profile of the head with a sword type leading edge does make it faster.
Naim, I think you pose a very good question mate. Firstly, the reason why the Arc 10 would be considered 'better' than its little brother, the Arc 7, is because is has the added benefit of Super High-Modulus Graphite and Ultra PEF built into the frame and shaft. Carbon graphite is actually a very expensive material which would explain why the Arc 10 is considerably more expensive. I actually own an Arc 10 but prefer the Arc 7. Sketchy makes a good point though that comparing the two is probably not a good comparison as both rackets are of the same generation and designed for different styles of play. Last year I emailed HEAD and asked why there was such a marked difference in price when comparing the top-of-the-range Head Metallix 10000 and mid-range 4000 since both rackets used the same materials. On paper the only diiference was the flex and balance point. Bare in mind that the Metallix 4000 costs around £50.00 and was previously used by Zhou Mi. According to Head, the reason why the 4000 cost considerably less was because the 'top-of-the range' rackets tend to have stiffer shafts compared to rackets lower down in the range. I have no doubt that if Lee Chong Wei had been using his trusty 'old' AT900 P instead of the new Voltric 80 he would have still beaten Lin Dan in the All-England Final 2011.
In the past 20-odd years, no one had actually had to think about their racquets warping! As a kid and student, I used to spend sleepless neurotic nights worrying about my racquet retaining it's shape (wooden frame, see?) and if I had applied the correct pressure on the screws of the racquet press. Heh, you young whippersnappers don't know how lucky you are.... (grumble, grumble...)
oh yes. i remember a video of i think Liem Swee King getting off the airplane (after winning AE) and he had a few rackets with him and they are all on clamps!
Very interesting discussion, and it's certainly insightful to hear some of your opinions. With respect to "new technologies". One of the big additions to the Yonex VT80 seems to be a "sound filter". What use this has on the court I don't really know, it seems more cosmetic than anything. But in real world use, I have read countless posts from people saying they basically noticed no difference between the sound of the VT80 and the sound from half their expensive rackets, so what gives? Should we not start questioning and critiquing rackets for their supposed "new" attributes? I mean, they're charging us more because of them no? I'd personally like to see a dissection of the shafts, heads and handles of multiple top rackets such as the Arcsaber 7/10, Nanospeed 9900, 8DX, VT70, VT80 etc to see just how different they really are inside. For example, how does "nanopreme" really stack up to "Ultra PEF High Modulus Graphite 1234lets just make up another word Mark II".
