Can you provide some info on the technical improvements the U2 / T2 have over their predecessors? I recall seeing Ti-Mesh being incorporated into T2 but you said this is not the case in a few posts back?
Some pages back, Panda had mentioned T2 has 15% flexier shaft and 25% firmer frame (prev 30T, now 40T graphite) in order to make it even more user friendly. For the U2, bp reduced by 5mm and shaft 15% flexier to match T1 again in order to improve usability.Just search "trinity improvements" under Dinkalot's username.
Err... I don't think you understand. I have read all the posts by dink, and am just confused by some inconsistencies. One of his post said: "For instance, the Trinity 2 (T2) improvements over the T1: 1) Stronger and stiffer frame: will use ~25% stronger graphite, which is also ~15% stiffer, translating into greater power. 2) Shaft will be about 15% more flexible to make it easier to generate power. 3) More durable finish: proprietary 620PP dual finish. Still working on this... 4) Ti-Mesh: the original Ti-10 had mesh around the 3 and 9 position when the mesh is needed ideally at the 2, 5, 7, 10 positions. We are working on incorporating this currently. Hence the 1+ month delay in introducing the T2..." I just wanted Sir Dink to confirm what actually went into the final product of T2.
I doubt the Ti-Mesh would make any difference to the stability of the racket , that maybe why Dink have not incorporate it into the T2 . IMO , more is less !
Uhhhh... 1) There are no inconsistencies. 2) You may have read all the posts but then you didn't read too carefully. Answer: Yes, there were a total of 4 improvements in your original reference including the Ti-Mesh. It was on Post # 654 http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1290985&postcount=654 But if you look at Post # 687 http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1302684&postcount=687 It does not mention the Ti-Mesh anymore, only the 3 other improvements. Conclusion: no inconsistencies, just updated.
From my point of view posts 654 and 687 were inconsistent as they had different specs while 687 did not explicitly state that Ti Mesh was abandoned. That was all I wanted to know, thanks for the answer.
Gıve Dınk a break. It ıs hıs hardwork.. he deserve the credıt here. Anyway when the product ıs good ıt wıll speak for ıtself. And ım pretty sure Dınk ıs aımıng to do that.
Prob another just a noob question of mine ): But.. what does TiMesh do for the racquet? (other than sound cool to me )
I don't understand why all of you think im approaching the subject with animosity , I just wanted to confirm, that's all! Nowhere did I say having Ti Mesh is good or bad, or whether I would have prefered to have it or not. Again, just double checking! Sorry if the way I presented it seemed hostile
I had Ti Mesh on one of my carlton racket , and it is still a poor racket. What made the Ti10 an excellent racket is the overall design of the racket, (the right balance ), and only a very small contribution is due to the Ti Mesh that Incorporated within the frame. I cant remember what Yonex said the Ti-Mesh does but I would not notice the difference anyway with or without it.
Is all cool bro , it is better to ask and clear the doubts , I see you are interested in the T2 as well , thats why you are reading the thread.
Ti mesh was probably needed to stabilize the frame in the past, but now with stronger 40T graphite, the whole frame can be made stronger without having a few small patches of Ti.
