Haha...the more the merrier. Adjust your timing ehh? Thats the correct way to do it. I wish i can do that like the old days. Now, i’m totally depend on technologies to help me..hahaha. Especially against all ex-state junior champs, 20years younger than me.
Short and sweet: any change of angle due to a racket is either 100% placebo or the player being unable to get a proper angle with a different racket, i.e. lack of skill. Lengthy explanation with some impromptu calculations thrown in: If we assume this "whipping effect" is an actual feature of the racket, where the shaft is so stiff that the racket head flexes forward when you hit the shot (that will atuomatically mean you sacrificed a lot of power, as you need to decelerate the racket to do that) with the shaft staying approximately straight and completely upright (both entirely unreasonable idealisations, but they increase the difference in favour of this 'technology'), we get a different angle, yes. Taking my own measurements, on a standing smash I hit the shuttle at roughly 2,7m. Assuming I hit it almost perfectly, it will cross the net at around 1.6m, traveling roughly half the court (6,7m) horizontally and 1m vertically. Assuming further that I hit the shuttle in a straight line (not the case realistically, but once more in favour of this idea) and that it leaves my racket at a right angle, I will get 2 right triangles sitting on top of each other, which will allow us to determine the angle at which we hit the shuttle (the sum of the acute angles at the net of both triangles). For case A), we take a 'common' racket and assume it is approximately straight, as it should be unbending at the moment I contact the shuttle. That gives us a vertical cathetus of 0,6m for the bottom triangle (2,2m - 1,6m: height of the center of my hand minus height of the shuttle at the net). The horizontal cathetus is 6,7m. On top of that sits the second triangle, which shares the hypotenuse with the bottom one, and has a cathetus of 0,5m (distance from the center of my hand to the sweetspot of the racket) opposite the acute angle we're looking for. Solving for these angles and adding them gives us an angle of 9,380° relative to the floor. Given how quickly shuttles decelerate, this is highly unrealistic, but let's compare. For case B), we assume the racket shaft stays perfectly straight and is completely vertical at the point of contact. That adds another 0,35m to the height, giving us a cathetus of 0,95m for the bottom triangle (the 6,7m court length stay the same). The top triangle will have a cathetus of 0,15m instead of 0,5m. Solving for both angles and adding them up again gives us a hitting angle of 10,086° relative to the floor. A stunning difference of 7,5%, even with the ENTIRELY unrealistic idealisations. In reality, this difference would be much smaller, the main factors being a) the racket shaft wont stay completely stiff with only the racket head bending, i.e. you dont get a full 0,35m added height and b) you dont hit the shuttle in a straight line, as it decelerates quickly, so any difference between the angles will be reduced further. Once again, given the dimensions of the court, humans, and the racket, shifting the bending point of the racket for an improved shot angle is nothing but placebo. A realistic difference could only exist if the height difference between the net and players was smaller (so, shorter humans or higher nets) and/or rackets were significantly longer. I'm well aware that these 'calculations' are just super rough approximations, but all assumptions and idealisations were in favor of the racket with this feature, so it doesn't matter much. More realistic models will result in a smaller benefit. Edit: added a crude picture of the geometry. My explanation sucks, maybe this helps.
Wow...long, detailed explainations. I never thought up to that level after playing for 30years of badminton. And its not wrong imo. In badminton especially doubles, its so fast and furios. Shuttle flying so fast you cant always put yourself in a perfect position just like your controlled simulation. You have to smash off balanced, jump backward to reach just to maintain the attacks. With this steepness techs in a racket, it make things easier. But if you’re just playing just for fun, sweats and calorie burn, this techs wont mean anything. Just stick to rackets that comfortable to you.
Its basically the same racket. Just an "upgrade." Similar aerodynamics, speed, power, touch/control. Very user friendly just like the BS12. Not sure if the "enhanced whipping technology" is really true, but I do think that it does help quite a bit compared to BS12.
I don't know why everyone raves about the BS12. The shaft is so flexy and head so floppy that I always feel the head lagging way behind. But this ARS 90S at least I can use it somewhat, as long as I don't overcome the shaft, then it becomes inaccurate eg. drives, smashes at 100% power. Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk"> It's just acceptable. Needs some adaptation, but I find the 4U 88D much nicer, more powerful, more predictable, more solid, more accurate, more maneuverable ... at least for my swing style. Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Fine hahaha. Wouldn't be fair to compare it to the 88D even in 4U though but that's what everyone wants thinking you're comparing fruit that unfortunately aren't even remotely the same genus..... Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
Thats the feelings when you hold the right racket. Everythings is nice and smooth. When you playing, evey shots is clean and spot on. Easier to dictate the pace
Comparing both the apple and the orange, I'm thinking the 88D is built for explosive compact swings (like mine) and the 90S is for longer build up swings. After a few more hours play I'll know whether I'm keeping it or not. It's too bad because dang... the chameleon purple green colour looks so much nicer than 88D's drab red/green paint job. Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Yes it looks so good doesn't it. Is it bad that I use both about the same? Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
Can someone give me advice on whether the 3U Astrox 88S or the 3U AuraSpeed 90S would be better? I am thinking about adding another racket to my collection. My current to go rackets are Lining N9ii and 3U JetSpeed S10 (besides Z-Strike and Z-Slash that I don't use much anymore since I play double mainly). I found the N9ii to be very good but a little bit head heavy/ slow on a tired day while the JetSpeed S10 to be very fast but is lacking a little bit of power. Many thanks,
Well, base on your descriptions on other rackets, i will strongly recommend another li ning9ii...haha. Are you always tired? Since you already have what best for you just use it. But if you want a new collection, ax88s is a good bet.
It doesn't really. But having tested lead tape out of curiosity before, my opinion at least is that I don't need to change what isn't broken. The biggest concern with using lead tape isn't whether your frame aerodynamics are altered or not IMO. It's whether your shaft can take it it you put too much. Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
