Looks good and I may just change to above. AR stands for all round playability-speed and power. You think Pioneer TEP-2 SP sounds better? But I want to get away from Yonex's SP racquets. Any suggestions on a general description to make a statement that it is a new endeavour? I do not want to reveal the matrix of materials to be used, to avoid the earlier indiscretion on the vectran racquet.
All-Round,Standard,Balanced,Even,Level,Regular,Neutral Pioneer TEP-2 Balanced Pioneer TEP-2 Standard Pioneer TEP-2 Regular dunno
TEP discovery power for power play TEP discovery speed for speed play TEP discovery balance for all rounded play TEP discovery fort for defence play
Tep Revolution P - For Power Tep Revolution S - For Speed Tep Revolution D - For Defence Tep Revolution B - For Balance
As a principle a good racquet design must be all things in one package-fast and powerful. Power is defined as the repulsion of the racquet from all elevations to all heights, not just for downward stroke where gravity from weight and a thick box-shape tip oftentimes compensate for a broad-beam frame's (AT 900P and AT800OFF) lack of real native of power. That is why, from a purist's point of view, the best racquet should have the slimmest beam and the smallest surface area at the T joint in the direction of the swing. This means lightweight materials and the best materials, hence high cost. The Pathfinder TEP 1000P will use a broad beam design, to cut down the cost of the materials. Not so the S type.
How about ... Tep GT (ie Grande Turismo) or GTep Aero TEP Speed TEP TEP velocity or you could calculate the CD factor (drag) and call it something like Tep CD8.46
A prototype of this racquet will be ready in a week's time. However, I have decided to drop this project all together, simply because the materials are too expensive and not viable.
??? I can't understand the resoning.. It all depends IF the more expensive materials produce a racket significantly better than less expensive stuff.. If the racket is superior to anything out there, I am pretty sure there will be people buying it for a premium (me included).. But of course if it is expensive and not significantly better than less costly alternatives.. then... /Twobeer
Materials themselves alone do not a good racquet make, although they do have an advantage. When the materials cost more than three times the cost of the highest quality ultra high modulus graphite, I do not see any sense in going ahead. It certainly will not play 3 times better. I did not realize the high costs until after works on the prototype have started. Besides, new materals have their pitfalls, like off specs production. But I am working hard on my humble "Budget Class" HMG racquet, and I think I have come up with one that may give the biggest bang for the buck.
hmmm.. I think 2 times the performance would be sellable at 4 times the price.. And price is always relative.. It Would of course be different if it was sold for 3 times the price of a Woven 16 ;P, or 3 times the price of a TEP "budget" ??? For a smaller/medium size company I think it is wiser to go top end (kind of trying to be the Ferrari of Badminton-rackets), instead of trying to get into the price/perfomance battle, where pure size and production quantities becomes more of a factor than material/design.. Also in "bang for the buck" , the "bang" is highly subjective when it comes to mid-range rackets... I am sure there is a market for a racket at $400 that is superior to all other rackets for most advance-level players.. I am not so sure a there is a market space for yet another mid-range model (just another one in the crowd..) /Twobeer
