For those who tried 5U and 6U rackets, may i ask about its compromise on power? how do you guys rated these rackets?
Apacs Nano SuperLight Technical Specifications: Material: Toray T1000 ( Ultra High Strength Nano Carbon) Weight: 72-74g Balance Point: 315mm +/- 3mm Length 675mm Reference link: http://www.apacsuk.co.uk/apacs-nano-superlight/prod_41.html
Hi ants, have you used 3U arcs and if so, how do they compare to 2U? Cos I am thinking of trying 2U arc10 since I seem to like the added power of my 2U aerotus
cool! I thought aerotus65 is such an ancient racket nobody would be using it ;I dont know if the perception of weight may also be affected by the balance of the racket....not sure abt the specs of aerotus but certainly, the head heaviness of 3U arc10 may have caused it to feel like a 2U headlight racket (maybe aerotus series??)
It IS ancient, and I guess it's also rare nowadays. Very much like an old Alfa Romeo - Wonderfull but oh so fragile. I've had a few. They tended to desintegrate in my hands. I've got one left that's allmost ok but I don't dare to restring it because it has a crack. But that's not the question. The question is if it's lighter than other 2U. I'd say no, It only gives you that impression. It's head light and aerodynamic. I've had other aerotus rackets too. They were also a bit like the 65. The only one I have left and in use is a aerotus 100 2U. It's a bit sturdier and feels like a 2,5U, if you see what I meen. I belive you are right about the perception of weight.
If I've got the choice, I would go for the 2U racket any time. I come from the era of carbon shafts and metal heads. The all carbon rackets were God sent and nobody cares about 1U/2U or 3U at those days. Carbon = light. I am now playing the plenty of 3U rackets, Ti10, ArcZ, a few more Carltons. They are light, but if I switch back to the heavier ones, I don't have any problems at all.
I too come from the pre carbon era and can play with all kinds of crap. Nowadays i usually warm up with a cab 8dx in U, strung at 23x25 with nbg95 (sweet spot the size of a nickle). When I get the feel for that I switch to a cab 20 or 21 in 2U, and then later on I might get a cab 20 in 3U. I don't know what I prefer. Ok, I wouldn't go for a U in an important match situation. I'm still very much used to 2U so that would probably be my default choice. 3U came late to me. In a way it makes me feel young and fit agan. I can do crazy deceptive stuff at the net and still generate enough power. But somehow sertain strokes just isn't the same. It's probably just old habits stuck in my wrist. I should say 2U, but thats so oldie so... 3U baby
2u is just too heavy for me, probably because i'm a weak player, after a few hours of playing i tend to get tired, and i think most of my rackets are 3u, and i do have a couple that's 4u but again i don't play with them much. i do have an HL racket that's <75g (according to the company) and tho it's flexible and the strings aren't that tight, i still couldn't generate too much power due to it's weight. so i guess overall i would have to say 3u for both singles and doubles/mixed
i like lighter rackets, but not light to the extent where its too light. I prefer lighter rackets because I personally think badminton is a game of wrist, and heavier rackets will toll on the wrist more. I dont know, maybe stronger players will like 2U, but since i like to use my wrist a lot, i'd go for 3U.
