Regarding the VT series vs AT series, it's fairly clear the voltrics were fairly superior both speed and power wise (the flagship being the ZFII). There is a definite improvement. People say NR was inferior to NS, but the only rackets I have heard stand out are NR900 and Z-speed for the nanoray line and the NS9900 for the nanospeed series. All rackets have their own advantages. Wouldn't the series be called on a similar level if not better? I guess rackets have improved over the past 10 years or what not (that's far longer than I played). Thing is I'm starting to see a decline in terms of improvement for Yonex.
NR900 don't swing as fast as a BS or any other sword profile frames or some compact head at same head weight. The NR900 is not even close. And that's the valid point without any tech-talk or definitions.
Well maybe that's because there's very little room now for Yonex to improve as they have almost reached bleeding edge technological improvements on their stuffs. Either that, or some people just have alpine proportion expectations from the evil empire
This is probably true from a theoretical standpoint. For me, the difference in speed between anything headlighter/more compact/whatever than NR900 would mean I would swing hardly any faster; it would not make a difference.
Yes but it's not just Yonex, but across all badminton racket manufactures. There is only so much you can develop when the rules are fixed. In F1 they give the rules a complete refresh to allow for new innovations but in badminton that doesn't happen, so there will come a time when we will no longer see any more major developments. However I think we will still continue to see very small steps in racquet innovation but nothing that will make a drastic difference - for some time. I still see Yonex as the leaders in racquet technology particularly as they were the ones that have made the biggest strides so far with things like the built-in t-joint, iso head, longer shaft, compact head etc. I have always been a fan of Yonex and Victor racquets and interested in the technologies they bring to the table for many many years now. Yonex for me has always been the one that comes up with relatively sensible, practical but perhaps slightly conservative ideas which generally do work, and does make a tangible difference although nothing has come through in recent years that is worth writing home about. Victor on the other hand, is like an enthusiast but imaginative kid that comes up with some wacky ideas which are "cool" but on occasions leaves you asking yourself whether it actually works. I remember about 25 years ago, there was a kid at my club that came in with a Victor that had a frame profile that was as thick as a tennis racquet, around 20mm thick but had a "widebody" shape. It looked pretty menacing, like a sledgehammer on court. Or more recently, the Victor Magan which had a bridge at the T to reduce the effects of torque, or how about "Inner waves" to increase sweetspot size!? Really? The Bravesword shape is for me Victor's biggest contribution to racquet technology, here is something that not only sounded great on paper, it actually worked extremely well in practice. A shape that fundamentally for me, cannot be bettered as an aerodynamically efficient shape that doesn't significantly compromise stiffness. I think the Astrox despite all the marketing hype that usually comes with new releases, for all intents and purposes will just be the Arcsabers with a new name. I hope I'm wrong but for now there doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about them - although it probably won't stop me buying one to try!
Y'know I was thinking about this. Are we 100% sure that more aerodynamic is *always* better? Half of the China team use the beefier rackets that have the AT shape. Last 3 MS golds were AT style frames. I've had this feeling for a while that I don't generate the same shot power or quality with very aerodynamic rackets. I don't know, I feel like.. the reduced surface area creates an increased perceptive stiffness. The material isn't actually stiffer, but it is harder to activate due to less air resistance. This means you *have* to swing harder and faster to generate an acceptable shot, to bend the shaft, to put some power into it. These older rackets, they seem more consistent in that regard. Sometimes being forced to hit harder and faster isn't all that beneficial, it applies more pressure to you as a player. EDIT: On this note, doesn't it seem weird to you that Yonex never released a sword frame? I don't think it's out of their capability. I think that it genuinely might be sub-optimal. I'm glad that Yonex are releasing a racket that doesn't have silly fluff like the Duora system or E-Tune though. It's overdue.
IMHO that Duora thing was the daftest idea they've ever had. I'll probably give one of these Astrox thingies a whirl when the time comes.
Is "Daft" a new Yonex technology? A duo shaft which is flexible on one side for power (forehand) and stiff on the back hand side?
From a physical point of view, it's not possible. You can have a material that bends differently in differents planes (anisotropic deformations), but it has to have the same flex in the same plane (whether its flexing forward or backward)!
Theoretically possible if the material stretches and compresses at different rates. (Disclaimer: I'm not a material engineer in any way)
If my memory serves me right, for a given material, the elastic modulus applies for both compression and stretch. So it cannot compress at different rates. And if you glue different materials together you just get an "inbetween" modulus, but it will never stretch and compress at differents rates. I had some mechanics courses in my engineering degree, but I'm not 100% sure about this anymore .
It won't matter to Yonex (marketing) whether it is possible or not. I imagine then promoting some anosotropic split stacked (ASS) nanotubes although one of you marketing geniuses might come up with a better name for this:
