Though AX88D 4u is very forgiving, the game might tend to be very boring and long. Please refer to Momota & Cheng-Long's games. That's how AX88D 4u will be played alike. If you are already at very high level, AX88S 3u will bring you funny games at the cost of higher stamina consumption.
Hi guys, thanks @braveswordfan for your feedback. I think i have narrowed it down to 3 options for my new racket. Ax88s 4u Ax88d 4u and N9-II 3u Right now I am using a 3u dzs which i really like alot from its specs, what bothers me is that damn small sweetspot combined with the stiffness which hurts my palm after half a year really much. From what i have read the order of head heavyness should look like this Ax88d>N9-II>Ax88s From the controll aspect the ax88s should win and thats why i probably prefer it the most, my fear is that I am losing so much on power that even normal clears become a problem. Could anyone tell me how the DZS fits into the order of power I have posted above? If I had access to an Ax88s 3u i would have already ordered one, but sadly in europe there are no 3u's -.- Any ways thanks in advance, and I hope someone can help me with my problem Edit: I had a js-12 4u in the past which I wasn't very happy with. I always assumed it was because it was too flexible. But maybe it was simply the 4u weight since my other racquets are 3u (at900 p and dzs )
In term of Swingweight AX88S < AX88D slightly & < N9ii a lot. Since N9ii is 3u If there's only 4u AX88 available, IMO, AX88D is the only model to be considered.
All depends on your skill level. If you are highly skilled, 88S 3u is your best choice. Below that, 88D 4u almost applies to everyone. Some skilled players also prefer 88D 4u if their style are mainly defensive and control oriented.
Dear Genkz. Like U I am in the process of finding my next racquet. My read of this thread info is summarised as follow: 88S 3u and Fortius tour 3u are fast and powerful but required good skill and technique. 88D 4u on the other is very easy and forgiving to play but of slower tempo if I understood foo.tw correctly. DZS as far as I know is a very demanding racquet more in the first category. Small head/ small sweet spot and stiff shaft. One of my club mate has just brought a DZS from HK and I will try to lay my hand on it and have a feel. If U can wait a week can give U some feedback. 3u N9ii is very much in between the two category. I know in my heart I want Fortius tour 3u but my head is saying it should be an 88D 4u as I am only a mortal. Best wishes. Eddie
Hello, I would like to ask you about 3U versions... I am currently testing the 4U versions. I am playing singles in low league and doubles in amateur tournaments. My main racket is ArcZS and my playing style is tight net and drop shots, using almost all opportunities to smash. Here are my thoughts on them. 88S 4U - pretty useless on singles... almost no smash power 88D 4U - overall I liked it Do you think the 88S 3U would be the right choice or the 88D 3U? I am kinda afraid that the 88D 3U would drain my stamina too much since its a HH racket.
3u 88S smash harder than 4u 88D . 3u 88S also has good defense / control / speed. But 3u 88S IMO, drains stamina pretty fast.
Hi Foo, I am just wondering by draining stamina pretty fast, how would you compare 3u 88S and 3u 88D to 4u ZF2?
If 3U 88S smashes harder than 4U 88D ... I am ok with that My smashes are more about the placement than power and specs wise 88S is similar to my ArcZS. Thanks
Interesting to know indeed, and more in general, I am a bit confused that a weight difference 4u/3u would completely change racket behaviour in a general advice where the racket is good at.. Not to offence the nice indepth review and maybe its that I am a noob in racket testing, but i would expect that there are players that like and are used to 3u and that there are players that like and are used to 4u and within their weight class, a racket comparrison gives the best insight. Hence it might be difficult to advice on the playability of a racket in a weight class where one is not at his or her best... any thought? For me, I found out that I played with 2u for more than a decade now and I cannot say that it worns out my stamina pretty quick. But maybe I would have been better of with a lighter racket after all. Now I ordered a 3u 88d.
1. IMO, weight matters. Same model different weight, in most cases, are totally different rackets. Surely, there are special cases where different weight perform the same, but in such cases their swing-weights are mostly identical. 2. This kind of cross compare requires a reference point which in favorable factor - a single reviewer. Of course, you can calibrate personal difference to show verdict from multiple person. However, I don't have such kind of luxury and I don't think anyone will do so. 3. This cross comparison is meant to guide people choosing what's most suitable among 4 AX88s, not to compare the rackets among their specific weight range. It will be a much larger work to do so and I won't do that. 4. Though I'm not interested to do large comparison, I can tell you that AX88 series perform quite well among all rackets - that's where their sales figure came from. Also, I think swing-weight classification is much more justified than weight. 5. I agree that in most cases ppl has their preferred weight. But it's not the case for me. My preference is towards rackets with best overall performance. Win rate speaks for the rackets. AX88D 3u is a good choice and I myself also favor this one in 4 AX88s. It's not all round but specially designed to punish lifts. The energy efficiency, IMO, is better than AX88S-3u. Why I mentioned about energy-inefficiency of 3u 88S is because that's what it is. To make a relative heavy racket plays fast, there are some prices meant to be paid.
Thanks for clarifying Foo, Sounds like valid points... Ive never been superfast in defending in doubles and never gave fast manouvreable rackets a change, maybe thats why I didnt really notice ineffiency with my 2u mp100.
Same here.. I find it hard to believe that a racket could change drastically because of a gram or 2 weight,, take the highest weight 4u @84 and lowest 3u @85 And they will be totally different rackets? Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Statically, such kind of weight can hardly be found in Yonex rackets. Most Yonex rackets are made 93g for 2u, 90g for 3u, and 86g for 4u. It's already hard for me to find 89g 3u racket. You wanna find 85g 3u yonex racket, good luck with that.
Shuttle bouncing off string bed before the shaft can fully release its repulsion. This happens when the shaft stiffness is far behind the string bed stiffness.
I might use other words, but up to here, I agree. I wouldn't go as far too say that you are completely wrong, but let's look at it in more detail, but keeping it as simple as possible, therefore not doing the real physics here. Please keep that in mind when complaining. It's just a picture, not a physics class. Before hitting the shuttle, you'll accelerate the racket. This causes a bending of the shaft, but the strings will not move (at least not enough to take it into account). So what happens when bending a racket and releasing it? It will behave like (it is!) a damped harmonic oscillator. Think of a spring or a pendulum or... A badminton racket. So it will oscillate: moving forward until bending to the other side, backward again and so on... it will stop very quickly due to the dampening. I guess we can agree that you want to contact the shuttle when the racket is moving forward with the highest velocity possible. This is when it's straight again for the first time. Let's come back to the harmonic oscillator once more. This means (and trying to bend your rackets by hand, you'll agree) the force needed to further bend the racket is proportional to the displacement already made. So the more you want to bend the racket, the more force you need. This would mean to further accelerate the racket. Actually, this is the reason why the racket behaves like a harmonic oscillator, but I tried to start doing an observation. For a more flexible shaft, the increased force per unit of displacement is smaller than for a stiffer shaft. So accelerating two rackets the same way until a max speed is reached, the more flexible racket will bend more and be straight later. Assuming the maximum swing speed a player can generate doesn't change, there will be a racket with the ideal stiffness for him. A too flexible racket will still flex too much when contacting the shuttle and a too stiff racket will either be just straight and not moving again or even be swinging backwards (we don't want that!) as a worst case. All of this is irrespective of the stiffness of the stringbed. The x-axis shows a time scale, the y-axis shows the speed of the racket's head ignoring that it will be different for rackets with different stiffness (and for different frames and weights and...). Underneath, the flexing of the racket is illustrated. It is easy to imagine that a steeper acceleration curve would yield a more stiff racket as a result (not changing the maximum speed) when also contacting the shuttle earlier. For all of this, the stringbed and its stiffness is completely irrelevant. So what might the stringbed change? The duration of the shuttle contacting the strings is longer for softer strings (no explanation needed, I think), so the point of impact is not a point, but a period and thus delaying the release, giving the racket/shaft more time to straighten and release the energy stored. Of course the achieved head speed, the acceleration and everything will change for different frames (profiles), different weights and different distributions of this weight, so there will not be an ideal stiffness for you that applies to every racket. Edit: I just wanted to post this (slightly changed) as a further explanation to the sticky thread on stiffness, but I'm not allowed to do it.
Both Shaft and string need time to release power, say t1 and t2 respectively. The stiffer they are, the shorter t1 and t2. The best result always happens when t1 and t2 are aligned. However, their starting point are not aligned. Best situation: t1 <-----------------------> .........t2<----------------> Shaft lag: t1<------------------------> .........t2<---> ................t3 <---------> In this case, the power from t3 is wasted. (And, BTW, power from t1 is not linear.) String lag: t1<------------------------> .........t2<--------------------------------> In this case, the power from t1 is totally lost. Appendix: Medium setup t1<------------------------> ........ t2<----------------> Stiff t1<---------> .........t2<-> Soft t1<--------------------------------------------------> .........t2<------------------------------------------> This is to say: the softer it is, the less% power it loss when not aligned. The stiffer, the harder to align t1 & t2. However, stiff setup may generate best power when aligned.