Faulty design but TC700 is not? I think they are well designed, it's just that not TOO MANY people can handle it. Afterall, Mizuno and Yonex both deflected from the usual ISO (from classic oval to make it ''semi iso; semi oval''), thus, it evolves from there. Guess, we'll have to see if Yonex totally dumps the ''semi iso; semi oval'' shape altogether. Btw, any experience with Sotx Woven 16 that you can share with me? Tks. I know how a Woven 16 plays from my perspective but thought you have so much more experience with different brands of rackets. I trust that you are one of those guys who gets the framework of a ''semi iso; semi oval'' shaped racket. It's like somebody learning to ride a bike in 30 minutes while others takes days.
Be careful here.. You have to differentiate between Real-life smashing and Yonex marketing here.. If you look at stats from radar guns in tournaments (last world championship for example).. Players using it does NOT produce the fastest smashes.. Usually heavier rackets seem to porduce bigger top speeds in game play. The arc Z has been tweaked aerodynamically to produce less drag in a normal swing, and this is what yonex highlighted in measuring the initial speed the first few centimeters the shuttle has when smashing using it in a lab-environment. Problem is of course that that test doesnt really compare it with other rackets, as similar test has not been published for any other models.. The only comparable data I know of is the radar measurements from tournaments. and these have not confirmemed the marketing hype that this racket produces faster smashes than more heavier "power rackets" with larger sweetspot. /Twobeer
i'll have to go with twobeer on this one smashes and things feel crispier with aerodynamic frames (z-slash, victor bs11, bs09) but it suffers in other areas such as clearing (lighter) and drops (doesn't have the solid feel of head-heavy rackets) crispier smashes doesn't always mean faster
thanks for your input, u r now switching into topic for aerodynamic within Z-slash...do Yonex ve the best aerodynamic frame build into z-slash? was it really much better than NS9900 and AT900T frame design? If we would like to benchmark other brand i would BS11 is the best aerodynamic if not the best but at least the most most obvious frame design can just seen by naked eyes... so the debate here was aerodynamic frame from Z-slash contribute 51% until its was nominated by Z-slash fans that claimed to be most powerful and best smashing racket ever by our beloved forum fans? fans lets share more on your side of stories with better justification... honestly i doubt how shaft stiffness, frame weigth, shaft length, frame shape from Z-slash ve really came out with a best combination ratio to create such a powerful smashing racket every under the yonex brand...
bro, this word was widely used and cliamed for Z slash by the forum fans... i am now try hard to get justification from all... was it facts or just myths
I think it would be fair to say that the "power" from the racket is as much "power" that can be given from the wielder.
Depends on the combo of head heaviness + stiffness. Most extra stiff racquets at least in Yonex are relatively headlight eg Ti10/NS9900 The smaller the sweetspot, the more focus is the repulsion of the strings when the shuttlecock is squashed into the stringbed The racquet has a higher racquet head speed owing to less drag, it is moderately head heavy and has very thin/aerodynamic frame Owing to leverage, the longer the shaft the bigger the d. Therefore M (moment) = F X d, more moment or torque is generated Aerodynamic design, the frame is thinner than most Arsaber slim head design, hence less drag or resistance when the racquets cuts thru the air. Not a conclusion, but just application of general knowledge. I believe that's the philosophy or rationale behind the arcZ design. That may or may not translate into real world performace, which depends on other factors like skill, strings, shuttle, wind, etc.
Semi ISO isnt really the same as ARC-Z "narrow" frame or classic.. i Have tried different "semi" frames from Forza (CF-frame), Mizuno, Carlton etc. and they usually have quite OK sweetspot (granted, a tad smaller than the best iso rackets).. But this fact itself is not why i have a problem with Arc-Z.. For me it is the combination of the narrow fram (which makes it have samller sweetspot than the "semi"-isos, very close to pure oval imop) with the extra long high flex shaft that make it a poor control racket. If the TC700 had had a too felxy shaft i think it would also be a bad design..
If you are consistently hitting the small sweet spot (which as Twobeer says is questionable FOR ANYONE) then it is not an indication of your proficiency, but is an indication that you are playing against inferior opponents who allow you to do it !! The pros don't hit the sweet spot all the time because their pro opponents don't give them the chance ! This is one of the major reasons I believe that the pros are not using the ARC ZS.
Exactly, Twobeer. Haven't we been here before ? - on this thread and many others . There's marketing hype........ and then there is Yonex marketing hype !!
I didn't feel the ArcZ have a smaller sweetspot than the TC700. In fact, I've stacked both the ArcZ on the TC700 and the frame shape is almost identical. Lb for Lb, the TC700's tighter string bed gives it a smaller sweetspot. However, I agree with you that ArcZ's combination of smaller (than normal) sweetspot yet somewhat flexy shaft gave me a lot of problem, especially in defense. I will not go so far to say that the ArcZ is a bad design though.. it just obviously did not work out for a number of folks. As a saving grace, there are folks who loves it and there are pros who uses it.
Perhaps I should rephrase (probably been moonlighting), if someone can hit very hard, the sweetspot naturally spreads out, don't you agree? By how many percentage points, that I am not sure. Not all pros wins it all by smashing alone you already know that; one just can not win everything with their smashes! Aerodymically speaking, the Z is by far a better design than the BS series imo. Normally I string all my rackets at 28/30 (strung my one and only Woven 16 at 35/37 just for the heck of it and I'm not cut out for it, I know immediately right away so now it's strung at 28/30). With the Z, the more I played with it the ''truer'' its flex (mid stiff--stiff; not the ''true'' flexy kind though, you know what I mean) came clear to me...I wasn't going to string it higher and higher BECAUSE it just bends the shaft even more the harder I hit at it SO I lowered it to 26/28 and now it's about as good as it gets. Gotta experiment. My TC700 is strung at 28/30, unfortunately I am nowhere near your proficiency in harnessing its true potential! What I am really saying is, the Z is not badly designed, it's just not for everyone but it's the best smashing racket for me (Smashing department alone! Z best!). Of course nothing compares to SiW 35 just like nothing comapres to your trusty TC700 (aherm, nearing a dozen in count?)!
No, I disagree. Why would it ? Agreed Great quote. Ants would be proud of you . But please tell me WHY is it better ??
Why would it not? A sweetspot is not an acute spot...inertia forces the resistance of that tiny spot to widen a bit. Aerodynamics of the Z has been describe by Yonex and forumers alike (it's nearly a year since Z's inception, no point in being redundant.). I wouldn't want to throw in my bits and pieces of FORMULA 1 body aeros. However, just a simple fact check re BS series, don't they look like armoured vehicles? Just how long the BS line would stay in production is indicative! Admittedly though, I think BS 10 is really a good one anyhow!
Why is that only ''we'' know the merits of SW 35? For those who aren't a fan of SW35, just enjoy your respective favourites, I know we can not be all the same. Cheers,
Because only "we" are good enough to use it ? (except for JJS, LYD, PSH, LHJ, and the rest of Team Korea) On a more serious note, most likely it is due to the fact that Victor rackets, aren't as readily available as Yonex Rackets.
No, this is not correct. At any given 'inertia', the sweet-spot (call it area) remains the same. Merely hitting harder means that off-centre smashes are harder but still not as hard as sweet-spot smashes. Come on now. You are Ants in disguise, aren't you.
Factor in the give of the string bed which no matter how tightly strung (even at 40 lbs) still has to deform upon impact--yeah, it may crash the cork but the strings are going to budge anyhow. Even a concrete wall has to cave. Btw, lots of people confuse the sweet spot from the sweetest spot, so yeah, it's not a dead spot, mind you!
