APACS Feather Weight 500 - The world's lightest racket

I had the version prior to this one and I've never liked it. Did you try any of the earlier models? Don't expect any power from this racquet, but I'm guessing it will be fine for lifts and defense but nothing else
 
Hi everyone,

I have bought an Apacs feather weight 300 not long ago. It was strung at about 24-25.

I had only use it for the third day and it snap during a smashes. ( Not Clash)

It snap at 7'OClock.

What would you do if its you?? I would like to hear your view. Thank You.
 
Badminton racket has undergone such massive evolution since many decades ago. Back then, it was around 250gr for a wooden racket, then reduced to +150gr with introduction by first carbonex series of yonex. Today, it is merely 89gr and still.... going for 63gr? Next decade, someone would probably invent a robot with badminton racket... and use smartphone to control the robot. :)
 
I have both the feather weight 200 and 300 the 200 was the lightest racquet before the 500's release. I don't really like the 200 its way too light for me and when pushed to the back trying to return to the back court takes quite a bit of effort. Its highly maneuverable and good for defense and net play I find. The 300 being more head heavy suits me better. So based on my experience with the 200 I don't think I will be picking up a 500
 
I like the Featherweight 200. So I have ordered the 500 to try it out. In 4-6 weeks I will post a review.
 
1hotdr, how was the fw500? I ordered one as well but it won't be here for another week. How did you string it compared to your normal string tensions?
 
I really like the fw500. It came without grip tape... but that is to showcase that the handle is not just a chunk of wood; it is hollow carbon fiber that is part of the racket!

I find the balance to be really head heavy compared to the fw200. I haven't done proper measurements because there is string and grip tape on the rackets but I would say it is 20-25mm more head heavy than the FW200. Probably in part due to the handle weighing almost nothing.

Anyway, it is not a very powerful racket as you just can't be very powerful at 63 grams. But it is more powerful than you would expect. Because it is so head heavy it feels at least as powerful as the 69 gram featherweight 200 and more powerful than the Yonex FB.

It is also fairly flexy. This means that it isn't too too difficult to get a moderate amount of power. I like this racket a lot for doubles, however my wife has decided that she likes it too so I haven't got as much chance to use it. She is coming from a Tantrum 500, which is a very different racket: much heavier. She never liked the FW200, so I didn't expect her to like the FW500. However, like the Tantrum 500 it is quite head heavy and flexy so I think that is what she likes about it.

I am not a huge smasher. In doubles I often have to smash several times to win a rally anyway so the FW500 is not a disadvantage for me there. In fact, it makes it easier to smash over and over. But to get the power you need a more compact swing using more forearm and less shoulder (compared to the typical 87 gram racket). For defense I love the speed. Touch shots (slow drops, tumbling net shots) I lose a bit of accuracy with a lightweight racket but I find I play fewer touch shots in doubles anyway.

I received the FW500 strung at 23 lbs with .66 guage apacs string, which is OK, but I will likely re-string it to 25lbs with bg80 (0.68 guage string). That is what I use with the FW200's for doubles. Thicker BG80 needs a higher tension to feel the same as thin string. For reference I am playing singles with an Apacs Virtuoso Performance 3U racket strung with BG80 at 27 lbs.

I would like to hear your impressions of the FW500 when you get it. I loved the 200, but I find the 500 to be better in every way.
 
1hotdr said:
I really like the fw500. It came without grip tape... but that is to showcase that the handle is not just a chunk of wood; it is hollow carbon fiber that is part of the racket!

I find the balance to be really head heavy compared to the fw200. I haven't done proper measurements because there is string and grip tape on the rackets but I would say it is 20-25mm more head heavy than the FW200. Probably in part due to the handle weighing almost nothing.

Anyway, it is not a very powerful racket as you just can't be very powerful at 63 grams. But it is more powerful than you would expect. Because it is so head heavy it feels at least as powerful as the 69 gram featherweight 200 and more powerful than the Yonex FB.

It is also fairly flexy. This means that it isn't too too difficult to get a moderate amount of power. I like this racket a lot for doubles, however my wife has decided that she likes it too so I haven't got as much chance to use it. She is coming from a Tantrum 500, which is a very different racket: much heavier. She never liked the FW200, so I didn't expect her to like the FW500. However, like the Tantrum 500 it is quite head heavy and flexy so I think that is what she likes about it.

I am not a huge smasher. In doubles I often have to smash several times to win a rally anyway so the FW500 is not a disadvantage for me there. In fact, it makes it easier to smash over and over. But to get the power you need a more compact swing using more forearm and less shoulder (compared to the typical 87 gram racket). For defense I love the speed. Touch shots (slow drops, tumbling net shots) I lose a bit of accuracy with a lightweight racket but I find I play fewer touch shots in doubles anyway.

I received the FW500 strung at 23 lbs with .66 guage apacs string, which is OK, but I will likely re-string it to 25lbs with bg80 (0.68 guage string). That is what I use with the FW200's for doubles. Thicker BG80 needs a higher tension to feel the same as thin string. For reference I am playing singles with an Apacs Virtuoso Performance 3U racket strung with BG80 at 27 lbs.

I would like to hear your impressions of the FW500 when you get it. I loved the 200, but I find the 500 to be better in every way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the review. I also have a Yonex FB (5U JPY coded). Is the FW500 a lot more flexible than the FB? I also don't understand Apacs' stiffness rating system. Apacs simply describe some of their racquets as just flexible and for some it's described as flexible with a numerical value like 8.5. I don't understand what that means.

How head heavy is this racquet? As head heavy as a Yonex VTZF racquet? If this racquet is as flexible as you have described it, then I can probably deal with the head heaviness. Do you have the BP information available?

I am currently using the BS12, but I wouldn't mind going with something lighter for doubles. The FB have its issues, but I do enjoy using it for doubles.

Have you used the FW300 yet? The specs seem pretty good as well. Since there's no grip tape, I'm assuming one has to put an overgrip on it?

Where did you get the FW500 and for how much?
 
I bought my fw500 off of badmintonace on eBay. I've ordered about 8 rackets from him now and each time has been a good experience. my racket won't be here until mid next week so I can't give any review yet. As for the fw300, I love it. But I also love lighter weight rackets. It is pretty flexible but for me it doesn't feel like a wet noodle
 
Sgt_Strider said:
Thanks for the review. I also have a Yonex FB (5U JPY coded). Is the FW500 a lot more flexible than the FB? I also don't understand Apacs' stiffness rating system. Apacs simply describe some of their racquets as just flexible and for some it's described as flexible with a numerical value like 8.5. I don't understand what that means.

How head heavy is this racquet? As head heavy as a Yonex VTZF racquet? If this racquet is as flexible as you have described it, then I can probably deal with the head heaviness. Do you have the BP information available?

I am currently using the BS12, but I wouldn't mind going with something lighter for doubles. The FB have its issues, but I do enjoy using it for doubles.

Have you used the FW300 yet? The specs seem pretty good as well. Since there's no grip tape, I'm assuming one has to put an overgrip on it?

Where did you get the FW500 and for how much?
Click to expand...

I put an overgrip on the racket and the handle is still pretty small. You may need two overgrips or a very thick single grip.

I have not used the FW300 but it does get good reviews.

Apacs flex ratings make no sense to me either. In fact all their specs make no sense to me. I have used the Lethal 60, Virtuoso pro, and Tantrum 500 all with very similar specs but they played completely different.

With grip and string I can't really measure the balance point but it is over 300mm for sure. It does indeed feel as head-heavy as a Voltric Z-force: that is a good comparison. However, it is soooo much lighter than a z-force. While the z-force felt ponderous and slow to me the FW500 is lightning fast.

The price for the FW500 was $80 USD (plus shipping) from sportsnetbiz store on facebook. That was months ago now, so the prices may have increased or decreased. It seems that exchange rates affect the price of rackets from Malaysia a fair bit.
 
I had two FW500. If they keep in one peace:rolleyes: its a lovely racket to play with. As also the FW200 but they broke really easy at the handel and above. I guess I stick to the FW300. They break also but not as fast :)
 
Fw 500

Hi, im quite new here and i play with plastic yonex mavis 350 bird.

I own a light weight Nano fusion speed 722 (BG65,25lbs) which is my main racquet weighs ~78gms, i fell in love with this racquet so as a backup i went for even lighter and purchased a FW500 yesterday withY-BG65, 25lbs tension.

Can someone shed me knowledge about FW500 in detail?
 
I got featherweight 500 with 30lb tension, yes light as hell and surprisely strong racket for the wieght. I'm a heavy smasher player done few clash with ur player and still in one piece
 
I had the same problem when I test yonex fb, hard to deliver power and work more on lift shot. But buying featherweight 500 63g with heavier head make alot difference, control and power (not massive power)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top