we are all yaking here because we are still waiting for more reviews of both on spec or off spec e-1000
lol thats hilarious. i concur with what you said about people's preference on onspec. its kinda of like comparing hand size and grip handle sizes.
Well, if I was to buy a product, I would want my product would be as consistant as any other product of the same line. If it is not, I might as well go choose another product. And yes........I agree with cooler....We're all just yaking to wait for another review...so soemone review it!
LOL, ur too naive grasshopper. my question to u is, do u know if your car was out by 5 hp? LOL better yet, no one has achieve the gas mileage ratings posted by car manufacturers, even tho they are follow the same spec in rating their new car mileage. let's go back to badminton. The only general specification given to u by yonex is weight or their U's. Do yonex give u the buyer the balance point spec for each racket model? the stiffness spec range of their shafts? Not only they don't disclose that, they might even give u inconsistent rating. Eg. AT700 is rated extra stiff. Are u eating that up??
outlah, u might be a super guru on manufacturing QC but that's mostly pertaining in your own little world or company or product line. I bet u that u dunno QC protocol and spec for yonex, nor proace, nor sotx, nor winex, nor wilson, nor taneepak. Therefore, what great QC knowledge u have in your line of work doesn't apply to badminton equip manufacturing. Every racket manufacturer have different tolerance on on spec vs off spec, we are just comparing oranges to apples. What's off spec for yonex is on spec for fleet and vice versa.
HEY! I resemble that remark. Oh wait, I am that remark. Oh yes, I like my DiaNmond Fighter...for now.
There is no value in comparing against other people's "specs". What you have essentially said is that other people's preferences are their "specs". People can change, but as I have said before, if someone wants to buy a racket with certain stated specs, such as having a balance point of 30cm, don't expect them to tolerate an actual racket with a balance point of 31cm. I certainly prefer knowing the specs as given by the company before I buy a racket. A vague description isn't enough. I always consider specs important, because I will know what to expect. Otherwise the manufacturer can give me any racket and say it is a good racket, even though it's not what I want. QC is important, don't play tricks on the definition of off spec. If I were reading reviews of a racket model, but each reviewer's racket are off manufacturer stated specs, how can I tell how an on spec racket performs? Not that I would care because if that many rackets are off spec, I won't even need to consider the racket. The manufacturer does not need to know each player's abilities to improve the racket. If Taneepak says he can improve the performance of a racket, there is a fair chance he can. The racket can improve even if some players can not notice it. As long as Taneepak can demonstrate the improvement somehow, then the racket has improved. For instance, Taneepak can demonstrate that it is possible to do faster smashes, or that the racket can withstand higher tension. It does not matter if individual players can not realize the improvement. If the improvement was targeted for offensive players, I don't expect control type players to benefit. Poor performance can be attributed to either the racket being off it's technical specifications, or that the racket design is unsuitable for the player. The racket being off spec can be enough to make a racket unsuitable. Adding a few grams to the head of a racket can push the racket to be too head heavy for some people, whereas without those few grams, the racket would be acceptable. Similarly, removing a few grams could make the racket too light for people who are used to head-heavy rackets and aren't used to the timing of a head-light racket. A manufacturer could designate one version of the model to be head-heavier and one version to be head-lighter, say model ABC-hh and ABC-hl, or some name to that the effect. Then I would have no problem with a racket being off some in between "spec", as long as it fits into one category because people can say which model they are reviewing. My point is, as Charzord has also stated, is that products should be consistent along the same line. I'm not asking for 100% consistency, but if, for example, a racket is designed to have a length of 68cm, I shouldn't tolerate an actual racket to have a length of 67 or 69. Since Taneepak said there have many off-spec rackets, I think it is important to take this into consideration, when someone writes up another review. If the new review is actually on spec, we can have more confidence in accepting it then if it were off-spec. Final note to cooler: do not reply to this post because you do not need to be concerned with the universal definition of "off spec". I'm only interested in expressing my views to others, and I don't mind if anyone disagrees. If you are going to argue with my view because you can not allow me to have my own view, then you have some serious problem. If you have constructive comments, share them, but don't make personal insults unless you want to be known as a flaming troll(how cool would be cooler be then? . You can narrow your discussion to your own definition of off spec, but I can also choose to discuss the true definition of off spec, as it relates to how people buy products in general.
Just because I can not measure it doesn't mean it is ethical for the manufacturer to provide off-spec products. A car's hp I might not be able to measure, and gas mileage varies depending on too many factors. Yonex may only give U's and general stiffness guidlines, but it better than giving nothing. For the most part, I use a Black Knight racket which actually specifies a stiffness rating number, which can be used to compare against different models. Doesn't mean I don't have a Yonex racket, but when I decided to buy the AT500, I read over your post on measurements, read the reviews, tested the racket myself before buying. Your measurements are very useful, even though they aren't official data. The measurements actually let me compare the AT500 against my previous MP77.
Just to alleviate a bit your feeling of being cheated (but in no way justifiying the questionable manner of selling to your parents.), the off spec one is not that far off from the on spec one. I have both. I don't feel the difference. Try using bg66 by the way works very well with mine. Also I have to agree that the racket is good for wrist palyers. (I'm detecting a trend here with the preferred layout of Taneepak... 4u, flexible, slightly head heavy rackets bp@305+- 2mm, hi tension with thin strings...).
Ya, We are talking about one product. Maybe I wasnt clear enough: I think many would like to know what is the tolerance for this product during the QC process? Is this tolerance reasonable for a badminton racket ? Is the designer using OFF spec as an "excuse" for less than ideal reviews? I believe these questions raised by some is legitimate and deserve a further look. After all, if a drug is "off" spec it would most definitely be taken off the market, and if a car is "off" spec it will probably be recalled, and the list goes on. Of course in this case the product is a badminton racket so I can understand that its not Recalled. However, off spec rackets being sold doesnt do the reputation of this racket or the concept of using Vectran for badminton much good especially when its original designer is claiming that most rackets are OFF spec. For all we know, vectran could be the next best thing to slice bread but with all this talk about ON SPEC/ OFF SPEC/ SEMI ON SPEC/ SEMI OFF SPEC is just not doing any justice to VECTRAN ! I mean would the same thing be happening if Yonex or SOTX or other major brand is trying to launch a Vectran racket ? Now, what we all like to know is this: IS VECTRAN a legitimate VIABLE material for badminton??? Is it as good as its been claimed? Is 100% vectran the best way to go for a racket ? could it be improved on? Lets stop talking about ON SPEC and OFF spec. THERE is no such thing !!! Every material offered on the market have good and bad reviews. Are we all going to let one designer determine what an "ON SPEC" racket should be? Are we going to let one manufacturer determine the fate of a potential revolutionary material? What if the ON Spec isnt all that great? The only thing in question is: IS Vectran good enough to be a top performance badminton racket? I am sure a "designer" of the first vectran racket has an idea of what an ON spec racket should be. But is that really the ideal spec for most badminton players? Maybe several versions of different specs should be released so the public could determine which vectran is best for them ??? At this point there is more questions than answers so lets STOP argueing over specs and focus on All rackets made from VECTRAN !!!
thx for the summary. I try to convey this same message back in post #20, I had even presented 2 examples. All this off spec / on spec / QC blah blah blah are just jive talking.
Hi, quoted so the reviews would be together.. As some of you know, I got the whole range to try, and after sometime using them, I would like to share some observations: Playability is good. I was surprised at the range of people who got used to the racket in a short time.. from advance to lower level palyers. Manueverability is very good. Initial problems were in fact, hitting the bird too early for some.. Power is definitely there, lower level players were the best beneficiary from this. Clears and smashes both good. drops I won't touch on as I feel string choice and tension is more a factor. Driving is also good, I was expecting some delay due to the flexible shaft but it didn't seem to matter. As to those concerned with accuracy, don't be. Initial smashes for some were a bit higher, but after adjusting, most players were back at what they were at originally... Some high level players didn't even need adjusting. Altho some needed a few shots to get the timing of the racket. Some bad news tho... I had two rackets broke (E-1000 and E-5000) for no apparent reason. Both broke while clearing, the E-1000 had a couple of clashes but didn't break. About two weeks later it just broke while the varsity player was doing warm up clears. The breakage wasn't at the area of the clash The 5000 broke while my wife was also doing clears (she is all of 92 lbs hehe), and her racket never clahsed with anyone. The most curious thing is both broke at about the same place (two o'clock - I will count the hole number when I get home later). Ants informed me also about a friend in Malaysia who had his racket broke. I have definite suspicion regarding the manufacturing process. It seems the factory hasn't perfected the manufacturing process. A veteran player also mentioned to me it could be the process of drilling the holes. will post again when I get something new.. regards
You notice that there's a vacuum? It's a purposeful vacuum, created by intent. Don't you feel the pull? Very irresponsible. Thread killing and goes against the principle of fair-sharing of information. -dave
Oh by the way, the e-1000 that broke was the intial off-spec one sent to me.. (I don't think the off-spec was the reason for breakage tho.. I'm really thinking manufacturing process here. ) From what I gather, when Taneepak says off spec, he means "not manufactured to his specifications." As you guys would remember his post about visiting the factory and talking to the people there. An on spec e-1000 was sent to me by Inskysport about a week after the off spec e-1000 broke. No charge, as it should be.
i guess product failure blow away the QC/QA of racket weight, balance point, paint quality, etc out the door doesn't it? taneepak, i'm not here to knock on your initiative to bring to market an innovative product but actually rather i admire it. However, u now learn that over promoting a prototype can backfire on ya, especially from many badminton critics residing in BF.
Manufacturing process should be improved. Because the racket has big potential. I'm ordering a couple of the E-5000 as my wife's clears are really suffering. I will talk to the owner to improve the manufacturing quality. Keep you guys posted.
Hmm, I guess when I go to HK in June, I'll take a look at the racket and see if it is a good one So far, the only image I have is the racket might be a little fragile. With just releasing for a few months, there are already few broken ones reported here.
Only one on-specs E-1000 was sent to Malaysia. The owner is din, a forum member. He still has the racquet and wants two more. There is nothing wrong with the manufacturing process, only the finishing process. Hopefully this will be corrected. The E-5000 is a low end model and hence has much lower tensile strength as well as lower youngs modulus. Drilling holes, what holes? The E-1000 grommet holes are not drilled separately like other racquets. They are made during the molding process using a very special mold. Also the so-called silicone grommets have no role in dampening vibrations. The Vectran material alone dampens frame shock and frame vibrations. The silicone grommet strips are there for cosmetic reasons, nothing else. They would disappear in time to come. A balance point of 30.2cm with string for the E-1000 and the E-3000 is off-spec. You will feel the racquet hitting the shuttle towards you instead of away from you. The tip of the frame of the E-1000 is narrow with a pyramid-like shape on the inner side and an aero-shape outside. If the sweetspot is not right the racquet will float, like a plane taking off, due to pressure differences, when you hit down or even clear. Yes, it will play no better than an off-spec E1000.
