first, Let me ask you are you buying a racket or are you buying raw materials ? What you need to understand is that sometimes more of one material is not always better. Put it simply, Do you want a racket thats 100% boron? There should be an optimal blend of boron and graphites for desired performance and thats entirely up to the manufacturer. The key is hows the performance of the racket they produced. Another words, ultimately you are paying for performance and not material especially its not even visible as its hidden under paints and everything else. Quick question: What good does it do if you have a racket made of the most expensive material but doesnt perform better than the worst racket on the market ? Also, even if you are right that their tennis rackets have less boron, it doesnt mean anything about their badminton rackets LOL !! I figure a scientific mind like yours would be the first to understand that.
An inference is not proof. It is only an educated guess. My inference about Pro Kennex and boron content is reasonable, based on the pieces of information I have come across. 1. Boron is expensive. 2. Pro Kennex's boron tennis racquet was not nearly as expensive as Prince's. 3. At least one person I've read said Pro Kennex's tennis racquets didn't have much boron in them. 4. Like Prince, Yonex's Boron-2 racquet was expensive. I assume that Pro Kennex's boron racquets are less expensive. 5. The Yonex Boron-2 is delicate, judging from the reviews I've read. I assume its delicacy, leading to a shorter lifespan than equivalent all-graphite racquets, is due to a high percentage of boron. 6. Boron is brittle. 7. A person here said his Pro Kennex boron badminton racquet lasted a long time, perhaps even longer than his other racquets, and perhaps after dealing with less than ideal treatment.
Well, yah it did lasted a long time after my personal abuse however, i wasn't trying to point out that pro kennex's boron series has any less boron then other, cos .. i would have no way to find out exactly if it's long life span is related to its boron % in any way. If i have to put it in your prespective.. then i would make a wild assumption that particular racket is more durable then other boron series as it has lets say 1% of boron in it and the other 99% is plain old carbon graphite. Then i should come up with the conclusion that it will be as durable as other pure Carbon racket which in my case it did out lasted my other plain graphite racket . And how am i suppose to conclude from that? Would my other so called graphite racket i have has LESS carbon ? I was trying to say there is no one purely scientific way to estiblish how "Durable" a racket really is so may as well not worry bout it too much. There r just too many factors resulting in a racket breakage. clashs in a particular spot or way, tension too high, extreme hot/cold weather transection, craftsmenship defects. U simply can't rule out those factors and let alone come to a effective way to measure durability based completly upon the material being used. I believe some officals from Pro kennex actually troll this board as well and perheps he can give us some detail info on the compoiste on their boron line back in the 90s. But even so, i would say its of very little usage on wether my racket will be able to withstand a bad clash on a bad day. I would rather just ignor the material/technology/durability of a racket and only be concern if it feels right in my hand.
It can be theorized that, because boron is brittle, a racquet with a percentage of boron that is too high will not withstand regular use. This may or may not be the case. I have circumstantial evidence that points strongly to that conclusion. Scientific tests could prove it. There are potentially a number of variables, such as resin type, whether or not the graphite is braided, and other design attributes such as shaft thickness, boron location, etc. It's possible that Yonex's boron-2 racquet breaks easily, not because of boron, but because of some other reason. Only scientific testing can provide conclusive evidence. Lacking that, we have to use circumstantial evidence heuristically.
i believe it is more constructive if you can do a scientific prove isntead of saying "scientific test could prove it", or "it is possible..." blah blah blah this kind of argument is endless and... pointless
Superstition wrote: Personally, I base my conclusions first on personal experience, and second on scientific proof. I find it difficult to come to a solid conclusion on speculation alone. Super, I know your Yonex Iso racket got busted, but I wouldn't write off Yonex quality based on that. Yonex rackets from the Isometric line have historically been less durable than other Yonex rackets. In contrast, most Carbonex rackets are renowned for their durability. How long have you used Yonex badminton rackets? I have used Yonex badminton rackets for almost 10 years which is not long compared to many, but I have seen nothing to indicate that Yonex rackets are of poor durability or that they have generally been declining in durability. My advice to you is that you should try more rackets of many brands and product lines. Basing your conclusions on mere speculation make's it hard to learn from personal experience. I don't know about you, but (and I think most would agree with me) I learn best from my own experiences. So put away your suspicions and supersitions and explore a bit! Cheers.
and yours being constructive? give us the prove of your claims if you are making all those assumptions rather than begging yonex to testify their marketing and technologies, because like one of the above poster had mentioned, yonex has much greater credit than you on their products don't bother reply me unless you give facts, its annoying to argue under this kind of fashion personally, as long as weight/balance/length/price suits me, its all good
*SGP Spams a post in defiance * - Seriously, this post is getting no where and is leading purely to hostile bickering and retaliation. I see no point in continuing the debate (i.e. arguments) when it is CLEAR that there will be no definite conclusion with 100% certainty that everyone agrees on.
I'm not bickering or posting personal attacks. The discussion of Yonex's durability is a valid and important topic and shouldn't be locked.
This topic has been discussed in previous threads where the same conclusion has been drawn. This is the conclusion, in general that people have had their own experiences therefore everyone's opinion is different/unique on the matter. I do not believe there is anything to be gained from continuing this thread because while I agree the topic is important, durability in my opinion is More to do with physics of the circumstance. For example, the angle, power, velocity, reaction as to a collision of the racquet, etc. Or if you wish to argue not in a collision, then it may be to do with string, tension, grommits, head shape, what shots are used, Etc. - There are Too many variables to consider. There is no scientific gain from guessing or even making fairly educated assumptions. The matter is too complex to make is a guessing matter. Lastly, I did not point a finger at Anyone for making Any 'attack', I merely think Certain people May be taking the thread, and or it's responses a little too personally, as which is entirely natural especially when talking about a sport someone loves very much. To avoid any further aggrovation, it would be sensible to discontinue this thread; if you, superstition, are interested in the issue, try searching the previous forum threads on the matter to reveal what people have previously said on the matter.
The problem (as same as another Winex thread) is, someone simply refuse to take other people's ideas into consideration. All I see flowing around this thread is "me, me, me" after another "me, me, me". It's totally pointless to try to talk with someone who refuses to listen and learn. Therefore, at least, for myself, I decide to not to waste any time on such threads.
