I have 4U Mx90 and MX JJS. Probably, my mx90 still wrapped with the double layered plastic. That's why, I feel that it is heavier than my MX JJS.
So far, I have not done any bp measurement. Based on my own feeling, I felt that both of my rackets (MX JJS and MX 90) have similar head heaviness. I have measured the circumference of both racket shaft (three readings - near T joint, mid point and near cone). 1.MX JJS - 2.4cm/7.64mm thickness 2. MX 90 - 2.3cm/7.33mm thickness The thickness of the shaft is based on the formula of which diameter (thickness of shaft) = circumference/3.14 Although the measurements look obviously different, I don't see any physically difference between the shaft of MX JJS and MX90.
Hi Warlock86, I suggest you to measure the diameter of the shaft by using a Vernier / Digital Caliper.
nah, don't need it for much else... the circumference calculation is good enough for our purposes more important to have a digital scale accurate to 0.01g
Got my MX90 finally. It is actually slightly more head light, and slightly more flexible than my Victor JJS. You can find some BP, shaft/frame thickness and weight readings I took here. http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...t-and-Weight?p=2193860&viewfull=1#post2193860
Thanks Naim.F.C for sharing. If you don't mind, please let me quote your findings in here. Like what I thought, MX 90's shaft is not close to 7.0mm (in terms of thickness). However, as compared to MX 70, MX 80 and MX JJS, it is definitely smaller.
I was thinking about this earlier. I have no idea how much extra size, paint and lacquer could add, but one thing I will say is that the paint and clear finish is a lot thicker on my MX90 and BS12 compared to the JJS, at least on the frame head anyway. The JJS has a noticeably thinner, almost matt like finish on the art without the same thick polished overcoat. The other Victor's seem to have a much thicker art finish. I was surprised at how much thinner the Yonex racket was all around though. Not a huge fan of the frame design compared to the victor's, but I must say, they have some quality engineering in being able to make everything so thin, but equally strong and solid.
Yup, probably Yonex rackets undergo better Q/C than in Victor ones. However, in terms of playability of rackets, I would prefer Victor MX over yonex ones.
My interpretation is that Naim.F.C is implying that JJS has more carbon fibre material, which explains why it's such a solid hitting racket for its wt.
I only meant the paint work is thicker on the MX90 compared to the JJS, which might be one of the reasons why the frame head thickness is slightly more. That being said, I'm not sure why the JJS hits harder, or if it does as I have yet to test the two rackets. Won't be able to till Sunday. But I wouldn't be surprised if it did based on the slightly added head heaviness, extra stiffness and shorter and thicker shaft. I guess I'll have to wait and see.
Perhaps you still don't understand what I'm trying to imply. If you have 2 rackets with same specs ie wt and bp and frame design (forget about shaft stiffness for the moment), then the one with less paint or clearcoat will have more carbon material. Which is the JJS. And that is why JJS is more solid, because more carbon fibre is more solid than more paint. Does that make sense now?
It does, and that makes perfect sense. But I don't think in this instance the MX90 has more carbon in the frame head compared to the JJS. If anything the MX90 potentially has more as it is thicker (even taking in to consideration the thicker paint), but it's impossible to tell without stripping the paint on both. That said, there likely is more carbon in the shaft of the JJS compared to the MX90, again, dictated by the thickness difference. But a thicker frame/shaft doesn't necessarily mean harder hitting, as I'd imagine it'd depend on the composition and compression of the fibre. The VT80 for example feels absolutely just as solid and it has a much slimmer shaft and frame.
so, my two MX-90s 3U arrived today from MBS. Although they look completely identical, they have quite different shaft codes (HKA and HKL) and different cardboard covers (see pic). I measured the BP of both rackets unstrung, with plastic wrapping on (which is pretty huge). One is 296mm, the other is 291. And actually i could feel that one is a more head-heavy piece even before i measured the bp. I can't measure the overall weight, but it feels rather close, a normal 3U weight, not too heavy, not too light. I haven't had the rackets strung yet, but even with some stringless swings i think it's a keeper. And what's more - initially i was going to keep only one racket and sell the other, but now i think i'm going to keep both ) The less head-heavy one for doubles and the more head-heavy - for singles ) Or maybe one of them will be working better than the other for me - can't tell without extensive play ) Anyway, going to string them tightly with VS850 - at around 27 to 29 and see how they perform for me compared to my JJS and the others )
Open the plastic wrap at the grip for measuring the original BP I have 3 pcs of MX 90 [all specs : 3U/G5 - TWN Code], Original BP = 297 - 298 mm
[MENTION=108123]swunk[/MENTION] Most importantly, how does the stiffness compare between JJS and 90...
without plastic wrap the BP of the one with 296 will definitely go around 300, maybe even more. the bp of no string and plastic wrap is rather close to what will be with string and and overgrip, that's what matters to me. visor, well i can't really bend the shaft without the string, but it seems about the same.
Which one was head heavier, the one with the orange/yellow cardboard string cover, or the one with the white (diamond shape like) victor string cover?
that's what i don't remember )) took them off quite quickly. can see by the cone code when i get home.
