i guess off-spec means defective item? say the racket is designed to be x(+-2gr)gram, and bp of y(+-2mm) its off spec when the racket is outside of the range? i am fine w/ having the idea of off-spec racket, but this isn't the problem biggest problem with e1k and many rackets produced in china, whatever eepak says, i will assume 1) material are acceptable quality, 2) production plant functions as expected, i would assume he uses machinaries that are comparable to bigger companies the problem then would be the quality of the QC department, the business ethics of the manufacturer, and what lies the companies hold from the public with all these so-called "off-spec" rackets in the market, i would suggest to clean them before promoting how "great" the racket is, it is no point if only 20 out of 1000(or 100000) rackets that are in-spec, an example would be one of the members in this forum had received 3 off-spec rackets when his(or her?) frd's parent asked to get an in-spec racket regardless of how turbo-charged or magically vectran do to the racket, shove off those junkies that are not supposed to exist outside of the production plant first, add a layer of QC or something at the retailer in HK before those "off-spec" rackets gets out of the store? or keep a better eyes on your racket, no one would give a damn about how customized racket perform, it is the mass production quality matters reviving this thread imo is pointless unless more than a few people would get the good ones time to sleep, sorry for the grammer/organization of them
Oh, don't get me wrong, I can hit decently hard with the Nano, it's just that I can hit harder with many other rackets.
i'm getting really interested in how hard your smash is it sounds (and seems) like u reach at least 300 km/h to me
I can't see how one can associate a player's racquet preference to a racquet's quality issues. Saying "one" racquet is off spec to one player and on spec for another is confusing. This logic dictates that Yonex must have people who like playing with head light racquets QCing the NS7000s and have people who prefer head heavy to QC AT700s. We are talking "design" specs, not what specs players perfer. As to your four 800OF, all I can say is tolerance, high end and low end. I do agree with hydrocyanic's view in QC, or lack of, in many of the companies in China. Many companies will dump their product which doesn't meet the design spec, into the market to get some of their cost back. And it is when this happens that kills a good product. Have you ever wonder why racquets have different weight classes? It is because of people demanding the right grip sizes for their favorite racquet. When you add the fact that the frame/shaft doesn't always weight the same and to put different size grips on, you have to re-balance the racquet and that might add/reduce the weight of the racquet. Just so people don't start asking why one racquets weight more and one less, they stick a label on it telling us what weight class it is in.
Agree with Cooler here. A racket is just minor part of the equation, the key is the player and how he/she adapts to each racket. We are adapting every day. Even a perfect, on-spec racket will not be perfect every day. You could be tired/sore and not lift the racket or well rested and too strong for the racket, hitting everything out...lots of physical/mental variables.
Remember the quote, "Don't hate the player, hate the game"? Maybe some are changing it to, "Don't hate the player or the game, hate the equipment."
You're all basing your point on players being able to adapt to the equipment, which is true, we know that, it's been dicussed in other posts. But this post is about QC, and design spec, and QCing the product. Why are we going off topic?
Because every post, on every board, eventually everyone goes OT at one point or another. Also, this post is not about QC and design spec. If you read the original post, it's about reviewing the E-1000. See how going OT is so easy?
i see what you are saying, but what you say sums it all up so i don't bother with saying "woohoo! cooler is right" i just want to mention that this thread has no point if only two people(forest and taneepak) have what he called an "on spec" racket even if eepak put nano rocket into the frame to help you swing better and recover better, hell, if the racket float on its own and play better than lin dan, no one would care if no one else can get them QC is part of the review imo, we don't need one for yonex b/c they are known to be consistent(or no one cares yet), chinese production plants for smaller companies do need to take note of it dink: other than the serial, overgrip and maybe the phototaking threads, i think most threads had been OT'ed anyways
Can't wait for dink to go OT to more topics to demonstrate his point Basically, a review no longer represents a true evaluation of the racket design if the reviewed racket is significantly off spec. Maybe an on spec racket is heavier, and would be more powerful. Or maybe the on spec racket is lighter, and an on-spec racket would provide better control. I can come up with more examples, but you get the point. I'll agree that being off spec does not make the racket inherently bad, however, if the buyer was intending to buy a head-light racket, and the racket was even-balance because it was off spec, the racket is to blame. Sure, the buyer can adapt to the even balance racket, but it would not be suitable for the buyer's playing style, if, for example, the player plays front court most of the time, and would require a head light racket for quick responses. The buyer can change playing styles, but the change should be because of the spec as chosen by the buyer, not because the racket is different from the spec advertised on the racket. Similarly, if the racket was specified to be stiff, and was actually flexible, then the buyer might say the racket provides poor control, even though if an on-spec racket would have actually provided good control. Also, off spec rackets gives a poor impression of the manufacturer. Of course, if the buyer isn't even aware of the racket being off-spec, it wouldn't be a problem. I'd be weary of spending hard earned money on products that don't meet their specifications. Case in point: mission critical software; who would be willing to put up with a program that crashes, if it was used in banking systems?
give me a break....... 1. i already have said off spec discussion here exclude structual defect, ie your software crashes example is not off spec, it's a total product failure 2. off spec doesnt mean trying to make a ns7000 and ending up with a AT700 balance and weighted equivalent racket Come on, even a chinese peasant working in a racket sweat shop could tell the difference between an intended racket like the e-1000 and a e-1000 that feel like a 3u AT700. taneepak already had praised the technical competency of the plant supervisor and workers. If they ok'ed it, surely i bet most of u here probably couldnt tell the difference anyway except taneepak who uses the minute difference of e-1000 as a way to explain the poor feedbacks. Case #3. Bill gate know in his head all the flaws and off specification in DOS, win 95, win 98, win ME, win NT, win XP but you saps all bought his operating system at full price and use them knowing it all of his O/S are off spec. How many of u bot linux which contain less flaws and off spec design? Why do u keep buying MS's off spec products? u can quote me all the ISO9000 to me if u want but that does not mean u know what u r talking about
i own several off spec yonex rackets(many more beside the 800of example i gave). many people believe same model of SP, JP and CN/CP play very differently. many people willing to spend hard earned money to buy off production spec CN/CP rackets that don't meet the buyer's specification. hmmm, is yonex losing sales during the past years?
Cooler, why not send me one of your top racquets? I am sure I can return it to you with improved performance. This is the ultimate test.
I find that a bit hard to believe, to be honest. You could probably indeed, make the racquet(s) closer to their original specification, but there are Far too many variables such as swing-speed, angle / style / player's own preferences / strength Etc. - Far too many variables to say it'd be improved in performance for Cooler. "Improved Performance" to me, sounds like you mean you could make it better or easier for people in general to use, which I agree on. It's entirely possible that an On-spec E-1000, for example, is better in your eyes because more people find it easier to use and get the general features the racquet was designed for. However given a lot of people on here have their own, quite specific preferences, changes to Cooler's racquets would not necessarily an improvement in his opinion. Just because the racquets aren't exactly as were designed, doesn't mean that Cooler dislikes them; he could be an offensive player for example, and if he preferred Very head-heavy racquets and had something he liked the Flex of, such as an MP88, he may like it more if it was just a little head-heavier than usual.
i think by asking this request, u r proving to us that u just don't understand about racket design/interaction with intended users. U never met me before, u dunno whom i play with or against, how i play, ratio of plastic versus feather, ratio of MD,XD and MS plays, and u can design or modify my racket into some optimum rackets? LOL. Yes u can optimize my racket according your spec but i hardly play badminton like u do, for better or worse. Come on, stop this silliness.
