I assume you refer to Prince O3 speedport rackets (never heard of any O2 line).. Which at least the first one released felt very "plastic".. and the do have durability problems (I know some prince sponsored players using them). O3 speedport is really a super-sized stringholes.. Before launching these Prince used grommet-less designs on normal size string holes on their Y-shaped prince More and more+ racket ranges.. The direct string contact is really good imop.. But it is of course more complicated to produce racket if they need to be molded or use two halfs (as in the prince case) than to simply drill holse in the frame... BTW i didn't like the first O3s either (I bought the White, Silver, blue and red ) .. /Twobeer
nod. I too like a all grommetless racket. Advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially for the high level performance. That's why i questioned the 'it suck' part. O3 design wasn't optimized for badminton IMO, basically prince transfer their tennis design onto their badminton O3 gears, riding on the same marketing train so to speak.
Yeah sorry, I keep calling the O3 the O2 for some reason. Not sure what the new versions are like, but for this exercise it's a bit pointless because nobody - myself included - is going to pony up 5-1O grand for a custom mould.
You can build a racket to whatever the specs you wanted , but unless you do testings than it might be pointless. Testing includes selecting your materials (alloys) for the shaft and frame and try to find the materials you are most satisfy with (you might want to alter the specs due to the different material you would be trying out) . Once you are satisfy , you can then incorporate some fancy alloys , or other materials that would synergize /improve the overall performance of the racket (more testing needed). I would guess the last stage of the testing would be the durability of the racket and the monster that you would have built.
didn't u hear Tiger got beat up with a golf club lately? Rumour has it that he's being holed up with Rachael Uchitel at the present He is resting (holidays) now.
I don't really see how this could possibly work. To begin with, it's pretty much impossible to make a racket to an exact specification. This is why most manufacturers only use the 2U/3U/4U weight classification system -because they are only capable of producing rackets whose weight is consistently accurate to the nearest 5g. The same applies to balance points. Not only that, but if you start changing the materials used in different parts of the racket it's even less likely to be on-spec, as the manufacturer has to guess how this will affect the weight/balance. If a custom bike frame/golf club is 5g off spec it doesn't really matter - badminton rackets are obviously a lot lighter though, and require a much higher level of precision. If you really want a racket to an exact spec, the better alternative is to buy from Panda/SOTX/KarakalKat etc, who individually weigh & balance each individual racket, and allow the customer to choose. You don't get the custom graphics, but let's face it - most of us couldn't design anything that looks half as good as what the pros come up with anyway (I'm speaking from experience here). So yeah, basically I think if you're serious and have the money to do it, your best bet would be to go down the same road as Dinkalot.
That's all rubbish. You're used to the current mass production mentality that has pretty lax QC in the grand scheme of all things composite. Tennis and bandminton rackets are not high end carbon bikes, planes or yachts. The actual real world problem is.....current manufacturers can't seem to get their head around 'value add', because they're all of the mentality that the way to do things is make as many as possible as cheaply as possible. That's what causes QC problems, it's not that making a racket +/- 1or 2g is some magical impossibility. In fact, I'd guess that discrepancy is mostly in the paint, because if you put 85g in the mould, 85g comes out. Anyway, I finally get to have a hit this Wednesday so that's all I'm thinking about at the moment.
I'm assuming you'd have to get them made in a factory which already produces badminton rackets, due to the very high cost of tooling. In which case, you're going to have all the same QC issues that other brands have. I think you'd really have to be quite naïve to believe that the factory will suddenly up their standards - especially for someone who's only ordering a relatively few rackets, and as such is not considered a particularly valuable client. They might say they can do it, but they won't. I wish you every success, and hope I'm wrong, but...
You can't assume anything because I haven't even made any protos yet. I also never said I expected anyone to up their standards, although I think it's equally naive to assume that any given company for some unknown reason can't improve their quality, given the impetus. I'm sure if I waved ten grand in the air, it would move mountains But again, all this is just thinking out loud. I'm just getting a feel for avenues of opportunity and I'm fully aware of the limitations and hurdles. Who knows if anything will come of it.
Would it be possible to "recreate" a racket.. Personally I don't think I've played with enough rackets to have one entirely custom made, but i would be willing to pay for example an arc10 (tweaked just a little ) with a custom paint job and a "white label" Cap and cone..
but is that really worthwhile? so in the end you get an Arc 10 that is probably priced like one but has practically no resale value?
Well for me it is...arc10 is really my "niche" racket And i dont sell my rackets like to keep them for a collection i put a few on my wall looks really good ><
