Is having more holes means better (both in terms of stringing convenience and having bigger sweetspot)? Does 76 holes is better than 74 holes and 74 holes better than 72 holes? The reason I am asking is the new Astrox Nextage has 80 holes...
Victor Meteor series had 80 holes as well. Allegedly it made the string bed feel tighter without the tension actually being as high. But as a stringer the extra blocked holes around the frame were honestly a hassle.
Nah... Dont trust brand says. Its all marketing stunt. Yesterday they say the more the better, today less are better, & who knows what they say tomorow. But logically... More hole mean more string thus more air drag. But as there are more string mean more surface to wistand preasure thus mean durable string life. But as there is more surface, its harder to sink down the shuttle to string bed thus less repulsion. But how much we can feel the different.... Its another story.
Isn't it the opposite though? Since it's harder to sink the string bed, it means more repulsion? If you have less holes, like Astrox 88S Pro with 68 holes, then you have more shuttle hold instead?
Phew, those are a whole bunch of things mixed together. First, we have to differentiate between the number of holes and the number of strings. Most rackets these days still have 22 main strings and either 21 or 22 cross strings. This can be achieved with the racket having either 72, 76, 80 or even 88 holes. And the new 68 holes freak pattern from Yonex as well. There are some freak rackets from Forza with 96 holes that have two extra main strings or the other way round a couple of Babolats with only 20 main strings. But the huge majority of rackets have a 22 x 21 or 22 x 22 stringbed. What makes the 72 holes rackets different from others there are the heavily angled outmost main strings. Let's compare (sorry for the different picture sizes). 72 holes: 76 holes: The outmost main strings are almost parallel to the center ones on the 76 racket, whereas they are heavily slanted on the 72. This results in a completely different string density if you hit the shuttle in the red area or the blue one and the shuttle will feel and come off very differently. And even more so compared to a hit in the sweet spot. This will be a lot closer on the 76 racket since the string density is more even and a lot more similar to the sweet spot. And in my basic understanding, the shuttle should respond more similar to a sweet spot hit when you get closer to the frame - aka: "a bigger sweet spot". And from what I can tell, most manufacturers going for 80 holes or more are doing this with the main purpose of having a controlled distribution of the main strings and the outmost main strings as parallel as possible to the center ones. The Yonex 68 hole rackets are playing in a league of their own with their super weird uneven stringbed, so I don't know where to put those tbh.
Around 12 years back, my silly me bought a Forza Ti 555VS and this was absolute unplayable for me. The stringbed was so dense that even at 11kg I had the feeling to play with a plank of wood. I also want to add this video to complement @s_mair s incredible post (Thx for taking your time and the effort ): which refers to the contact point of backhand serves (timecode) which include also the red area marked by s_mair.
I own exactly the pictured 72 hole racket above. It's the Calibar 600B and I own also several other 76 hole Li Ning rackets. Although I fully agree to s_mair's theoretical remarks I cannot really identify that the 72 hole racket has an real disadvantage or a 76 hole racket is more forgiving. With reference to ucantseeme'S video one could even argue the 22x22 stringbed of the 72 hole racket has an advantage e.g. during a back hand serve because at the top end it has almost one cross string more than the 76 hole racket and the cross strings generally cover a larger area. (see bleck lines next to outer cross stings)
I have kept two Yonex rackets only and the good old Voltric 80 does show the same as top end rackets from the "dark side". NIce regular and parallel mains instead of slanted outermost mains. I have no idea if a few holes less have a large impact on production cost or if it's just a feature that helps to set the top class apart from the second tier. Might be a mixture of all. Slightly better sweet spot and fancier 76 hole rackets and marginally lower production cost for 72 holes.
I think my main critism of the 72 pattern from Li-Ning is that they use it in the highest price segement in history and not consistent, which leaves no argument for more stability of particular frames. For me this is a feature a modern premium racket must have. Even if there would be performance disadvantages with the 76 holes pattern I would just prefer it for the fact that it is (even it is just for me) slightly more comfortable to string and easier for grommet maintenance. I string my own rackets quite often and don't get paid for it. So I just like it easy and comfortable for myself (that was also the reason why I sold my MX80's). I personally don't want to misuse this thread to talk about my silly likings and preferences. I just don't understand this decisions by Li-Ning.
Don't know what they did in the past in the premium segment but my N7II, TC75(N9II) and the Calibar 900B have 76 holes. My 600B is midrange and 72 holes therefore I assumed they do it in midrange and entry level only. but my N80TD has 76 holes, too. Thankfully s_mair does not charge me more for a 72 holes string job Edit: Did not read how the 72 hole story started --> Axforce -- sorry - now I understand that it it completely inconsistent. Does not make sense at all.
Hey guys, has anyone tried the 3D Calibar 600C? I've looked through these forums and other pages but found nothing, so seeing if anyone has ever tried it. I'm currently using the Victor Auraspeed 98K in 4U. It just feels like I'm swinging nothing because of its stiffness and light head. So, I'm looking for something that's a little heftier and not as stiff. I used to use N7II/TC70 before (regrettably) selling them, and it's quite difficult to find them again. The 900B sounds good too. But since the 600C is super cheap through Canadian sponsorship pricing, I'm leaning towards it. If anyone has other racket recommendations feel free to say so. Thanks!
Did you look or use search? --> https://www.badmintoncentral.com/fo...libar-600c-combat-eu-gbr-germany-sold.189395/ Regarding specs the Calibar 500 is closer to the N7II but I would also tend to the 600C instead.
Missed this one! I was using the google search function to filter results and show only those from this forum thanks for this
https://bbs.badmintoncn.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2530585 More AX100 pics, super gorgeous. Fan in me want Yuta to endorse this.
I only find these measurements. https://youtube.com/shorts/Kskwa7jd53w?feature=share But would take it with a pinch of salt. IMO head weights don't match with the low balance points, overall weights and low swing weights. The head weight must be 1.5 to 2g lower. Title says head light, but such dry head weights for a 4U are in my books head heavy and the 3U versions must be real bangers which I doubt.
Thanks for that In terms of "feel", the BladeX 900 Max Sun 4U feels quite light compared to other rackets of similar weight, if that makes any sense I have both 3U and 4U versions of the previous model (BladeX 800) and also can hardly feel the difference in weight between those two and with this newer racket. It is probably something to do with the weight distribution and the thin shaft Hence my question as I ponder buying the moon version ...
new BladeX 800, new shoes, and of course Axforce 100 http://bbs.badmintoncn.com/thread-2536684-1-1.html
Axforce 100 gives me strong Astrox 88D pro vibes. The new Blade X800 is now fully recessed and looks kinda evil. @s_mair that must be a beauty for you.
