Sir, I am not bickering with you. I am simply stating facts. To answer your question: no; because the racket(s) are not out of spec. You keep thinking the racket(s) are off spec because there's some lead tape or other variable involved. They are not. This is the way the manufacturers do it. Racket manufacturers who don't use lead tape many times use heavy epoxy inside the handle. Just about all manufacturers use something to fine tune the racket(s) if necessary. That is all.
comment was not aimed at you at all. sorry if it came across that way. onto the reply: I am trying to get at is: What would happen if you asked the manufacturer to NOT adjust with epoxy or lead or ...? Will this be detrimental to cost/profit/number of undesirable rackets?
I'm guessing since you will get a bunch of different BP's then you could just call some of them "Head Heavy", "Slightly Head heavy", "Even Balance", etc. like the other manufacturers do and have 3 different product lines.
As stated before, all manufacturers will use lead in the handle to adjust balance as needed. This is no secret.
Purely coincidentally something I bumped into when tidying up: Yonex Nanoscale Technology - (roughly translated and summarized) due to this development (Fullerene) a 15% weight reduction was achieved for the shaft (more hollow) which could be shifted to the handle allowing for the manufacturing of very stiff headlight rackets (NanoSpeed)
Yup, so the weight is now shifted to the handle, not added, which is important. If you chop off the head of the at900p and the ns9900 and weigh them, the at900p would weight a lot more. If the difference in balance is achieved by adding weight to the handle the racket heads would weigh the same. During play it would feel different, but no speed advantage would be achieved. My assertions are simply from my experiences from playing with a at900p and a ns9900, the latter which I sold because I cannot use a headlight xtra stiff racket properly. There is nothing I can add to the at900p's handle to make it fast like the ns9900.
Of course not. One is a power box frame design, the latter is an aero thin frame design. If you weighed just the head of both, you'll find that the former will weigh a few grams heavier than the latter.
As above by Visor (wanted to mention that straight away but lett is slide, better to experiment with would be the AT900T) but the point here was it's not headlight because the frame has been made lighter but the weight reduction was added back on the handle end (higher density wood?) ... (I guess that's why there still are no xtra stiff headlight 4U, 5U's, etc.) And even then picking up a modded 275mm (strung) AT700 feels light as a feather even if it is actually heavier But who knows, perhaps in the follow up to the NanoSpeeds with use of the NanoPreme material ...
Speaking of Ashaway, Panda has been using the new ZM70 at 30, 31, 32 and 33lbs., it's tremendous, Panda's go to string. The new ZM67 at 29, 30 and 31lbs. is tremendous as well, so crisp but need to see how durable it is...
The weight and balance of the racket from the fulcrum to the head would have a major effect on the flex, keeping in mind the difference in flex of a Tpro(playable by most players) and the Ultra(need a very strong arm/wrist to use effectively) is only 1 'flex' unit, so i would say we can't assume 0.3 'flex' unit is rather insignificant, though it would require the equations of how they calculated this flex to determine with more confidence how much this effect has, for all we know this may not be a linear scale... measurements that calculate how much force it takes to bend the racket x mm, beam bending theories are generally non-linear... http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-57979.html http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-64353.html if the replies are true, SOTX scale is use for pp, which means 20kg at the t joint?
Not sure of the weight/location of the weight, but the methodology is the same - I think the scale is quantifacted and may be as basic as mm of deflection.
Not sure if you're directing this comment at me, but yes that is obvious - that weight affects amount of flex. The SOTX scale (used by dcbadminton) is measured by degrees of flex when a 20kg weight is placed on the t-joint, with supports at the handle and the top of the head. Ashaway's scale uses the same method measuring only the flexibility of the shaft and not of the whole racket, as the head of a racket is often made of a different material to the shaft. A better measurement would be to have separate readings for the head and the shaft using a scale based on a function of young's modulus. But back to your point, you can't compare two different rackets just because they are "almost" of the same flex scale and say [some arbitrary measurement of flex] is significant just because the rackets play completely differently. You said it yourself that weight distribution affects how much the racket would flex during play. A head heavy racket of the same SOTX flex measurement would flex more than a head light version. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter if it is significant, the whole point is that flex can simply be controlled.
no answers? ........ I was thinking maybe panda racquets could do without because dan sells a wide range of weight/bp anyway, so it doesn't matter if there is a spread.
No one answered because your question was blindingly obvious and if you thought about the question yourself before asking it, you would know the answer.
