Twobeer Great comments - I like your thinking! Yes, I'm sure the slighlty elongated and more flexible shaft of Z Slash plays a significant role in the speed of the head. I also take you point about the comparisons of the AT900's. It's a shame we can't compare like for like, but no two racquets are alike. The 900's certainly play very different and the frame shape and weight variations ensure they are poles apart in terms on performance. Neither match the head speed of Z Slash. I am fortunate as I get to do a lot of demo sessions for Yonex and therefore have the luxury of continually borrowing the demos from my contracted retailer. I don't have the scientific knowledge to drill down into racquet make up etc. I can read what the marketeers spin out but I'm more interested in closing my eyes and feeling what the racquet is doing. There is a definate higher pitch swish of Z Slash and a more powerful feel. Whilst I know the head of my Nano 9900 is lighter I'm getting to the point where I'm gravitating towards the extra the Z Slash offers. It's then up to me to resolve the consistency element of the racquet. This threads taken quite a turn because of the comments made. Thanks. By the way, if you've watched my video on the comparisons of these two racquets, then thank you. I don't know how it's happened but I just scored over 1000 hits in less than a week! If you haven't seen it, you can go to www.badminton-coach.co.uk To your success Paul www.badminton-coach.co.uk
The Z does indeed have a higher pitch when you wave it through the air, which means it's travelling faster. Not that I need empirical proof when it's so obvious when you play. I remember the first time I played with it I was completely swinging too early and actually completely missing some really easy shots! I stood there looking at the racket going wtf!
update Well, I now have both rackets to hand, but I'm yet to play with them thanks to this flu. They will debut with me next Wednesday. First impressions of the 9900 are that it's going to be a wonderful doubles racket: short shaft, good balance and excellent head speed (nice high-pitched whine and good cutting). Stiffness is slightly less than that of the 9000X. The Arc-Z is totally different - it has HUGE headweight, a longer shaft, and is far more substantial than its slenderness suggests. Also, the Laser Yellow is slightly less lurid in person, and the whole paintjob is actually of rather high quality. I can see this being a singles-only racket unless it's WAY more manouevrable than it's letting on. Stiffness is attenuated somewhat by the long shaft, so there should be some decent power, but the stringing pattern looks very dense to my eyes. Looking forward to getting some rallies in with these two. In the meantime - eye candy...
Mark The Z Slash doesn't feel head heavy at all and is brilliant in defence and around the net. i used to use AT900 Power - now that's head heavy in comparison. In fact I'd say Z Slash sits seomwhere between Nano9900 and AT900P in my opinion. I do laugh at times that players have different rackets for different events. I completely understand the logic. I prefer to have three rackets the same so I'm pretty well covered in terms of string breakage. It's then up to me to make the racket perform but I've never needed to switch rackets to move from mixed to level doubles or singles. Great photo Mark! Enjoy your testing next week - if you've got your strength back. Paul www.badminton-coach.co.uk
Mark A, i got both racquets and been playing at least 6 months w ns9900 and over 2 months w arc zs. without getting into other specifics... ns9900 is head light, absolutely. arc zs is ever so slightly even balanced static weight and a bit head heavy in swing weight, to put it succinctly. it's not head heavy in static weight at all, though a lot confused it w head heaviness when handling it, but it does only feel so, especially, when swinging it and to a greater extent smashing. MetalOrange
Geez, put any of the Armortecs in one hand and the ZS in the other and then tell us what's head heavy and what isn't! Your eyes are gunna pop out of your head how fast the ZS is.
The reason the Arc Z Slash is faster is due to reduced air resistance. The T joint and waist area are the major parts that provide air resistance. It is not unlike the diameters of the feathers and base of a shuttlecock where the larger they are, the higher the drag. In a badminton racquet the less surface areas at the waist and T-joint area-and this means all the surfaces in the swing direction of the racquet-the less the air resistance. Not only that, you can also reduce air resistance by omitting the cross string at the bottom grommet #10, more so than at the top. I am basing my opinions on my experience in both feather shuttlecock and racquet design.
thoughts... Having given the Z a proper workout last night, my opinion of it is not good (at least as a doubles racket). The extra shaft length and colossal head weight really compromise the defense and flat play, and being a wrister it doesn't give me any power hike over my beloved 9900. It is very good at clearing and lifting, though - basically anything where you can get a decent wind-up. I'll be restringing it to match my 9900 and giving it ONE more go tomorrow - I think it deserves the benefit of the doubt as it is such a radical departure from every other YY racket. After that, look for it in Buy & Sell - I'll use the proceeds to get another 9900...
i agree that it is really good at lifting and clearing but it definitely is good in flat drives too. normally, i would recalibrate my wristy moves (arc zs) say when i am using my ns9900. i think a cm of difference in shaft length is alright b'cos it's still the same overall length thus, the extra oommph! i am closing in on my net play but not close enough comapring to ns9900. ns9900 just gives you that bit more room to slice, drop tumble...those net shots.
Sorry if I offended you here... you are not a hard hitting, how do you find yourself to fire 400km/h smashes. In fact, it was very difficult for us to get a smash over 300km/h regardless what rackets you are using at the moment. The national players were well trained and they have to lift the dumb bell around 70 pound during their practise (3 to 4 days muscle training). If you ever watching live tournament, you will find that the smashes from the national players were very hard. But those smashes most likely less than 300km/h, player like Fu Haifeng (China Man Double) can fire up to 332km/h as fastest shuttle speed record so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Haifeng My personal opinion, we will gain the advantage over our opponents if we can clock the smashes speed around 200 or 250km/h (except state or national game). Unless you consider yours badminton skill higher then national players, otherwise it is extremely difficult to smash up to 400km/h. Apologize if I did offend you. Yonex advertisement is somehow over emphasizing of it 414km/h but it is very subjective. Because the test completed under their own test and it is not come from real game.
thoughts... I think it's time for a direct comparison. Both rackets strung exactly the same for testing and both were used only for men's doubles. As usual, this is only my opinion. Also, I'm still learning with the Z, so there may be an epiphany further down the line. Power - Arc-Z > NS9900 (just) The Z wins here thanks to the greater ease with which it can reach the back of the court (and smash). However, my timing was dreadful to being with - you really have to put the work in to get dialled in with this thing, especially if you're coming of the back of short head-lights as I am, and it is NOT forgiving of off-sweetspot impacts. Control - NS9900 > Arc-Z Balance and shortness win out here, with the Z's head weight and length making shots feel more detached than with the 9900. Having said this, the Z's string bed did feel slightly tighter, probably thanks to the pattern being a bit denser near the top. The Z also serves beautifully. Defence - NS9900 >>> Arc-Z There was no way the Z was going to win this - it's just too long and too head heavy to match the lightweight, nippy 9900. If I do manage to lift, though, the Z hits them to the moon, and if I'm lucky enough to pull off a drive we're usually attacking on the next shot. Stability - Arc-Z > NS9900 I can't understand this at all. Despite being more aerodynamic, I don't get as much of a shock when I frame with the Z as I do with the 9900. I noticed during stringing how strong the Z frame is - could be to do with the new shape. The Z also has good feel at the handle, probably due to the shaft and head thinness not consuming much vibration. I opined when I first heard the specs that the Z would be a phenomenal singles racket, so it's good to see my prediction so confirmed - it could very easily replace an AT700 or SW35, and I can't wait to try it there (we play at my old high school and it's exam week, so we're limited to doubles thanks to having to clear desks out of the way). For doubles, though, it needs serious effort to adapt to the wild departure in shaft and hoop. Hence, I shall keep plugging away... M.
Do you think the Z is a good enough racket that it's worth the time investment to learn it? After all, that time is just for learning how to use one racket, does not really benefit badminton skills, and could be spent elsewhere?
Based on my feelings right now? No. I think the Z is such a departure from the norm that its benefits are outweighed by the time and effort required to get fully dialled in. It is NOT like, for example, going from an NS9000 to an NS9900, or from an AT700 to an AT900P - the Z requires a real quantum leap, during which my game most definitely suffered. I can completely understand why Taufik went back to his Arc 10 for the latter stages of the Japan... You are 100% correct in that it is the only racket of its kind, and IMO adjusting your whole game around it (if you have to do so; some will not, so I hope these people don't shout at me) is not worth it. However, if you are used to rackets of this balance you will be better equipped to make the transition - remember, I am a child of Nanospeeds. My local YY dealer says it's not selling very well either...
Have had my ups and down with the new z slash, always going back to my arc 10. However, last week and today i spent a long time adjusting to the z slash, and i must say, im glad i didnt sell it. it truly is a wonderful racket and is worth spending a bit of time adjusting. There isnt a person in the top 10 in singles using it at the moment, and to be honest, who cares. it shouldnt put you off in any racket. I do think the rackets are getting too overpriced though, which is probably leading to lower sales.
So what do you guys think.. Do you think Z is the right way to go to design racket? i.e. longer shaft, and smaller frame.. If it is a good idea.. why not make the frame even smaller and the shaft even longer? For the ones who like Z.. would you like a Z-harder version with smaller frame, smaller sweetspot, longer flex shaft for more power when hitting an optimal sweetspot hit?? Do you think it would be a good idea to maybe half the size of the Z frame and make the handle ultra short to allow for a much longer shaft than what the z has??!? I am sure this could increase the smash speed, but would it be playable?? is it even deisrable?? /T
i personally think the z slash design is just about right, any smaller of a sweetspot then i think it wouldnt benefit. The z slash to me is just a more attacking version of the arc 10
I haven't read all 6 pages but to me the z slash is a great racket as long as you're focused. If you're in the mood for lazy baminton this is NOT the racket to be playiing with. If you play golf you'll understand when I say that this is like the tour version of a driver. Great power and precision when hit properly, awful when you don't have the tecnique to use it properly.
But in golf the ball does not move when you aim Golf is more like the static lab-speed test they done with the arc-z.. Totally different thing if used in a real comeptetive game... /Twobeer
Have you ever actually played golf? I'd like to see you put 10 in a row right down the middle of the fairway. A shuttle does not travel 300 yards when you hit it, the smallest error in trajectory will put the ball on another fairway.
