Based on a vietnamese youtube channel, they measured the Axforce 90 Dragon damn close in terms of stiffness like ZFII. Tectonic 9 is slightly more flexible. Calibar 900C should be an 8.0 according to Li-Nings Chart, so afaik 90 Dragon and Calibar 900C should be the stiffest of their rackets. A ZFII user should look at these both first. But ZFII is a compact head, they will feel very different. I would also tend to focus just on the Axforce 90 Dragon, because the Calibar has a more aerodynamic frame, which won't offer the boxier fell of a ZFII.
Just saw this posted by Li-Ning Thailand on FB Obviously, soon is a relative concept... More details will follow as and when they become available
If I remember well, there will be a BladeX 900 Sun and a Moon version as well, thus echoing the AXForce's 90 Tiger and Dragon pair. It is not so much the name that matters, but the technical innovations it will bring to the range, if any
Not much positive improvement in tech innovations recently, I felt victor's free core has most benefit among any other gimmick that has come out (or lack of that) recently.
Yeah, I do enjoy the almost vibration-less from freecore. I understand there are some durability issues, but given time, I can foresee this plastic handle will be the future of badminton rackets
Are we at like the mobile phone industry where technology has matured and not many new ideas come out now?
We have been in that state for the past 10 years. It was mostly clever marketing that let us believe in significant new technologies that were added to the racket design. What we see now that it’s getting more and more difficult to keep that illusion alive. Instead the brands seem to just knock out a gazillion of random rackets in the hope that one or the other will stick. The Freecore handles are interesting though. I’m really looking forward to giving that a try at some point.
What I don't get: Why the heck does Li-Ning still hold on on 72-holes the oldschool pattern? I would understand if they would do it continous inside a series (like the Aeronauts) but it seems a matter of luck for me if a racket comes out which gets my attention but is dismissed due this oldschool pattern. Maybe I'm here a bit picky and fussy and for others this is no issue? We also see this in the designs. There was a tendency where Yonex convinced us that a full recessed frame has huge advantages and it became important for some users and even youtubers here. Now Yonex bring us a new invented Arcsaber 7 (It's a 15 years old model, how much they have in common, I don't know, but is more the name) and start to give some areas no recess to advertise advantages. I have the impression we go around in circles. It also seems (at Li-Ning) that the diversity of rackets is just based on colors and names and differences become so small that it becomes a pain in the ass to make a decision. I also like this idea. IMO one of the most interesting invention in the last 10 years. Found a short video of the Blade X 900 Sun:
I fully understand your issues with the 72 holes rackets. For me it's also not as tringing related issue - but looking at those awefully angled outside main strings and comparing them to the nicely parallel ones on any 76-racket, it's obvious to me which one will have the larger sweetspot towards the sides. Or better: Which one will feel more consistent when hitting towards the sides of the head. Absolutely. Apple has always been brilliant at this. They deliberately remove a beloved feature with a new model, only to bring it back two models later and market it as if it was the re-invention of sliced bread. And the customers fall for it. Every. Single. Time. I'm heavily fighting my GAS to get an Auraspeed 9oK II just for the fun of it. Interesting specs, great looks and it somehow feels as if someone has put some thought into the whole package.
Since I read here that the Halbertec 8000 is a slow, sluggish and demanding racket I found this Youtube channel (I don't understand any word, but their measurements are really helpful to compare rackets): timecode with weight, swing weight, stiffness, balance. Sounds based on the data not damn slow. Also it is stiffer than the Tectonic 9C. So the impressions on the previous site were slightly off.
Ah shopVNB, pretty nice resource for looking up measurements. From listening to it a few times,@ 8:40 the host speaks way too fast for me, he says the racket is pretty headlight and not extra stiff but stiff enough so that you can have fast / constant rallies. He mentions Goh V sem type racket which hints @ Jetspeed 10 in my book and the weight / BP seems to match a JS10. But I never really got around to understanding the stiffness measurement from this channel, is it higher the number the stiffer or lower?
IIRC the low end rackets from Li-Ning have high numbers and are also on paper flexible. The x-stiff rackets from Yonex have a low number, so I come to this explanation: Lower number -> stiffer higher number -> more flexible These measurements also weaken this rule of thumb that Li-Ning rackets are always more flexible compared to Yonex. I was kinda shocked that a youtuber uses the 88D Pro (stiffness 8.155) reviewed the AX90 Tiger and Dragon as wet noodles without control and beeing too flexible. While VN measured the Dragon at 8.172 and the Tiger at 8.524 (take note the 88s Pro is at 8.775 and marked as stiff) stiffness. So the rule of thumb Yonex always stiffer than Li-Ning is not something which is always the case. This shows even more that everybody has a bias, it is not always so easy like we wish and reviews should be taken even more with a pinch of salt. I guess that his impression were the culprit of the smaller sweet spot of the oldschool pattern. As stringer and reviewer he should know what patterns have an impact in terms of sweet spots. I don't want to discredit him, I love the content, but if you are loyal to a brand and in touch with it, you are not objective anymore.
I remember that we had this topic years ago. If I remember correctly, the stiffness is measured by applying a static weight load on the fixed shaft (or handle, I'm not sure about the details) and then you measure how much the racket is bent downwards from a horizontal line. So it's indeed: high number = big bending = high flexibility low number = small bending = low flexibility Why manufacturers are not giving us these standardised values is beyond me. Same as with swing weight instead of the useless balance point. By the way: I just ordered the Auraspeed 90KII. The GAS was strong with this one.
Hi, has anyone tried axforce 50? I am interested to buy one, but there are not much info and reviews about that racket
I remember. As long as it is the Li-Ning thread, we should refer to this brand. In the past they made it: But since we also strungle with string gauge (which each brand measures different e.g. tensioned or untensioned) it is just a dream that manufacturer provide standardized information about their rackets. I personally think that brands don't have a priority that you can pick the racket which suits you immediately and love your GAS, especially when you are not 100 satisfied and look for something else.
just imagine, you play a few tough matches in training and loose, had a few bad days due sleep, eating, work and we all had moments then to look for a different racket, because it sounds like a quick and easy solution.
