The companies that are not giving warranty to their top end rackets past 30 lbs are just being cheap or skimping on quality. As a long time YY user always worrying that my Arc 11 frame is going to collapse, switching over to lining with tension warranty up to 32 lbs makes such a huge difference. There is no reason why Yonex still only cover warranty up to 28/29 lbs for their top Astroxs. Mizuno is even worse with most rackets only warrantied up to 27 lbs. Lining Extreme series even cover warranty up to 35 lbs. Time for other companies to follow suit. Always wanted to try Mizuno but that 27 lbs number and stories of frame sinking have scared me off.
same opinion as you. i don't bother about continuous or special grommet after changed to lining rackets. just buy box of lining grommets and i am set to use for long time.
Idk why, when other smaller brand are able to make much stronger frame, the big brand like Yonex with all its experience & high tech as they claim fail to create a stronger frame.
Another reason is they purposefully make their rackets less robust so if they break, people will buy more. It's the same with BMW. Good performance, crap durability.
I do recall a shop owner saying his best money maker is the Nanoflare 700 and not the more popular Astrox 88. And that's because the 700 breaks more easily, which results in more repurchases. But only Yonex has the sales power to get away with something like that.
Like you, I am a Yonex user, but I say there is no point to a 30lbs+ manufacturer rating if it can't be backed up. I would go as far as saying that 30 - 32 is near the yield (failure / permanent deformation) point, for most rackets in the near term (1-3 years). If you want your ARC-11 frame to last indefinitely, I would stick to the rated 26-27lbs + 10% if you are confident in your stringing machine and ability and are confident of not clashing your racket around. Yonex as a company in general, seems to be of a sensible one of a calculated approach, their philosophy and pattern of understating a products actual performance ratings is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, Victor's Thruster TK-9900 had recalls on the first two versions (mark 1 and mark 2) for fatal frame failure defects and issues with sunken grommets; their mark 3 was finally released, but only the 4U versions were released to europe outside of asia for reasons unstanted. Similarly, Apacs rating all their rackets universally at 38lbs is plain silly, when they tend to be some of the flimsiest offerings around because they break apart spectacularly from the lightest of clashes. Alternatively there is a Yonex line called the DG series, where they were rated by Yonex for 35 lbs. I personally own three of the original orange and black Voltric DG10's and they've all survived to date with no visible signs of frame fatigue. The most abused DG10 has seen 31-34 lbs regularly for the past 4 years, while one has sat on the shelf for 4 years at 34lbs non stop. I would say that the DG10 is more resilient than the ZF2 in terms of resilience, but the ZF2 is a harder (more brittle) material (I am saying this from experience with a broken ZF2, strung at 26, that cracked at the 10-2 position from a light clash, but interestingly its not caved in yet, and the strings are not cut). Look into "Young's modulus" and "Flexural modulus" properties of carbon fiber composites and you'll understand what and why. Lastly, note that conventional isometric frames, which you see on almost every racket other than a select few Yonex rackets with compact quad frames(ZF2, NR-ZSP, VTDG10), are a weaker structural form, from an engineering structural perspective. Note: Yonex's Durable Grade series was launched back in late 2016, so 35lbs Yonex ratings are not a new thing.
