One last thing, was wrong about the Duora 77, the ZF1 is better, for those who are interested, below are the independent test results:
You are aware that a comparison like this simply makes no sense at all, aren't you? A mid-level Duora against a former highest-end Voltric. And what should be the conclusion in regards of which racket would be more suitable for LCW (that's where we have started, right?)? On a side note: You rate the ZF1 as "medium flex", the D77 as "stiff"? Am I the only one who thinks that there must be something wrong with your measurement method?
I agree with you bro. He needs to verify again his data. ZF1 is one of the extra stiff racket i ever own after AT700. And for scoring, it's very subjective. Everyone know it well here
Agreed they are not two rackets i would put side by side, i was simply retracting my comments from earlier in the thread regarding the LCW 77. I think LCW smash would seriously benefit from ZF2 as oppose to ZF1. Yes the same equipment was used to test all rackets and despite re-testing the results appeared the same. The machine we use isolates the shaft and does not take into consideration the head stiffness, some manufacturers measure the whole racket stiffness.
Maybe you are reading it wrong ? I don't know the machine so it is just pure speculation but if the value is the deformation of the shaft then the smaller value = the stiffest The results would then makes sense. It also reminds me of a method SOTX is using : they attach a 20kg weight in the middle of the shaft and measure the deformation. Edit : but yeah the "g" is bugging me. What could you possibly measure with that ?
LCW's smash probably wouldn't get much better if he switched to the ZF2. They're both high end rackets so switching from one to the other isn't likely to make a big difference in a pro's game. Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Yeah, I never bought that. You know, if rackets didn't make a difference - even for the pros - then why go through all the repaint and disguise hassle? Why not just switch to another racket?
Well between a ZF and ZF II. I'd say the difference is probably marginal IMO. But there must be something about the ZF that married LCW to it so loyally. Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk
Yeah you're right I think they do make a difference. Just not a massive one i.e. Chong Wei wouldn't randomly start winning if he switched to ZF2. Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I dont think that is the case. In his case, Duo77 has stiffness value 1.16g and categorized as stiff while ZF1 has stiffness value 1.04 as categorized as medium flex. So his stiffness unit is not the inverse of stiffness, it goes along with the stiffness
Hi the scoring is s This relates to pressure applied No not reading it wrong as lower resistance implies lower stiffness and higher implies greater stiffness. Not sure about the g, would need speak to manufacturers
I was just trying to say that maybe it is the opposite (= there is a mistake in the interpretation) : 1.16 = medium-stiff 1.04 = stiff I don't think the machine indicates if it is stiff or not, it just writes a number, the interpretation is up to you. But since then BRR insisted that he's reading it correctly and that the value indicates resistance. I'll be curious to understand how the machine works, and what does the number means exactly. The first thing I imagined was that it applies a certain mass in the middle of the shaft and mesure the deformation. That was discarded by BRR. The next thing I imagined would be that it applies pressure until the shaft bow with a certain angle. Then it registers the mass that was needed to bend it. => It might be that but I have two interrogations : 1) how is that possible that the ZF1 would be less stiff 2) what means g, as it cannot be the mass, 1,16grammes is nothing for a racket shaft, I think it won"t bend at all with such a low weight.. So yeah, as I said, I would be very interested in understanding how this machine works and what does it measure exactly...
There are number of points here: We secure the racket into a clamp, we then a place bar across the neck of the racket which is pressure sensitive (not sure what this bar is called) we then apply pressure (same on all rackets), the machine picks up resistance, the more resistance required the stiffer the racket is deemed and adversely more flexible - hence the higher and lower readings. We have then categorised these measurements for players with less knowledge of rackets into flexible, stiff, medium stiff and extra stiff. All racket measurements are taken in the same way.
My advice is to be very sure about the variables being presented. There are some very knowledgeable people out there whose application of physics and engineering principles get used on the forum. Be very wary about extrapolating results to claiming definitively what racquet is better for a certain player. Making such a claim gets you nowhere pretty fast without having evidence. Can you see the irony of having scientific data and then claiming a racquet will be better without a validation process?
Yes I understand, we are not trying to recommend a particular racket is worse or better for a certain kind of player as every players individuals needs are met differently. The scoring is simply objectifying our findings - we have written about choosing a racket on the site too.
Well if a racket has 99/100 would I be expecting every single pro player to use it? You can’t judge a racket by score, it’s a very personal thing. Using a head heavy racket doesn’t mean producing a faster smash, that’s pure nonsense. I’d bet LCW to laugh at this. Honestly, quit with your stuffs, you’re bugging a lot of people here and there. You might be older than me, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than everyone else and can twist real facts. Peace out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That makes no sense, at least not the way you presented it. If you apply the same force (or, more likely, torque/moment) on every racket, and they have only one other bearing which is your pressure sensor, all rackets should have the same result. You must have described the test wrong in some manner. The data I have seen (stiffness values for the ZF1 and Duora77) certainly seem to indicate that a stiffer shaft produces a lower number, as the ZF1 should definitely be stiffer. Personally I find it concerning that you run a review site and claim to have fairly objective tests, yet dont seem to understand your own tests. Forgive me if I misinterpreted something quite badly.
It's about staying with what you're comfortable with. The racket might not have a very big effect on their max effort smash, and they might be able to (eventually) adapt to everything, but even the very best players have strengths and weaknesses in their game, and the racket should empower their strengths. Also, just because they can adapt to anything doesn't mean they are comfortable doing so (or even with the end result). The best thing a professional athlete can probably say about their equipment is that they don't notice it at all, and waste next to no thoughts on it. It allows them to focus on their game and what they themselves can do. Every thought spent on your equipment (after the initial testing and decision of what to use) is basically wasted as you could instead think about your game or just concentrate harder. Anyhow. I don't think LCW is necessarily significantly better with the ZF1 than with the ZF2, but he is probably more comfortable with it and by now he most likely doesn't want to risk screwing up a couple of tournaments by switching and maybe not even liking the end result, so he goes the repainting way - which is not much of a hassle, actually, considering what Yonex stands to earn by having him endorse a new racket almost every year. His specs are most likely custom anyway (Cherry-picked more likely than special-made), so giving his selected rackets a different coat of paint isn't really much extra effort.
