Hi Sir Dink, I am interested to know more about Panda rackets. Where can I search for the details? Any website or seller in malaysia?
Yes, just playing the waiting game. Hopefully, customs will be kind (usually is) and let the shipment pass through fast.
I thought I'd post my current thoughts on the Panda Power Ultra I. I bought a BP290, 87g version from Elliott. My usual setup is alternating between BG66 @ 30lbs and Zymax 62 at 28lbs. I must be very very lucky, because each setup lasts me 3 weeks give or take, when playing about 2 hours every day. Along with the Zelm PP10000, this is my absolute favorite racket. I don't find it too demanding and the extra power is fantastic when you need it. The stiffness really doesn't bother me. I think its because I've gotten used to the stiffness by now. It is the most stable racket I've ever used. The "kickpoint?" when smashing is astonishing. You feel immediately the power that was transferred into the smash. The control it has is ridiculous. My net shots have gotten a lot tighter than before. Net play had always been one of my weak points. Therefore, I previously avoided prolonged confrontations at the net. One thing that I've found is that this racket really favors people with strong wrists. If your technique is arm swing based, this racket will not perform for you. I have not tried the other Panda Power rackets, since I've been short of funds lately. However, the Ultra is currently my singles racket, and the Zelm is my doubles racket. I've used the Ultra for doubles, and it works perfectly fine for me. However, the Zelm is simply better in this regard for every area not labeled "Power Smashing." If I cannot find another Panda Power Ultra, these are traits I would hope to see in the Ultra III. For me, this would be my ideal racket, and I would probably start using the Ultra I as my doubles racket. - Same stiffness - More head-heavy (BP 305 or more) - A slightly heavier racket (90-95g) - Better (stronger?) paint job - If possible, a longer shaft or a longer handle. I loved the Woven 11, and would love to see a similar racket. Again, these are simply my thoughts on the Ultra I.
305+ BP!!!! I found 294 just rite for doubles play but 300 would be nice for singles. You must be a god if you want something that would be like a sledge hammer. I found the paint to be really good on the U1, but on one of my U2's it already has 3 chips from birdies tat hit the frame.
Well, maybe BP305+ is overdoing it a bit. I would be perfectly happy with a BP300-BP305. It would certainly help in power generation from the racket. I don't mind the current paint job, I just hear that the paint job on the Trinity 2 is better. Obviously, this is not the case for the Ultra II, as you have proven. haha, Maybe I want a sledge hammer. It'll be my boomstick. My opponents will cower in fear every time I wind one up.
Just a question regarding the current design of panda power rackets. Would you ever consider widening the cone of the racket slightly? I usually use it for serving or net play on other rackets but it is slightly too small for this on the PP's. I don't mean a fancy octahedral, multi dimensional, aerodynamic technological marvel. Just a slightly wider, shorter cone. Or one that is flatter, so that the thumb doesn't tend to roll off it when playing net kills. Or would this be difficult with the grip size used on the racket?
We've not had any problem with wielding the current cone but were thinking of using the AT cone. Current solution: you can wrap your over/replacement grip up to the cone.
I remember I really loved the cone of my Cab 8600Ti, my first racket. Really made my net game for me, it hasn't been the same since I changed rackets to shorter, smaller cones.
Update: Out bound customs = rackets almost in Panda's paws. Panda should have the rackets in a day or so.
Panda did not expect so much demand for the racket. Also forgot about Chinese New Years = nearly one month no production. Oooops, Panda's bad.
