well, that link is to a site which sell feathered arrows, of course only the good points are mentioned. It's like reading 2beer's posts on this thread . I have glanced through various archery sites. They have the same debate, feather vs synthetic vanes. Both have their pluses and minuses, however, feather arrows users don't look down on plastic vane arrow users. Their main conclusion are: 1. feather vanes is more forgiving, just like what i have said many times before, feather shuttles are easily to use. Plastic vanes are more consistent. Feather vanes are noiser. Feather arrow slow down on long distance. All characteristic of feather shuttle 2. since they don't have a sanctioned body to tell which kind to use, they use both feather and plastic, a personal preference. http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/usenet/vanes2.html The advantage of plastic fletching is that it can be moulded into a number of shapes which can enhance the performance of modern arrows. The weight and shape can also be consistently monitored in the manufacturing process. There is little point in spending good money on sets of carbon arrows with a guaranteed consistency of manufacture, and then fletching with goose quills which the Good Lord may have madeto a lower QC tolerance http://forums.pse-archery.com/showthread.php?p=277468
I think he is intentionally missunderstanding what I mean by inconsistency here.. I fully agree that an artificial shuttle can be Potentially much more consistent (especially considering all individual feathers will by mother nature not be an 100% match as well!!!) The reason I say plastics are more inconsistent, have more to do with the fact that they are less rigorously QC tested on production. so dependend on the compound mix of the day, inpefections in the natural cork used (they still use this not-so consistent material in the more expensive plastic shuttles) shuttles will leave the production line with inconsitensy, unless individually tested for speed, spin, weight and balance. It is also easy to see how inconsistent current availablie plastics are by just picking upp two models from different brands and see how different they are in speed/flight. Let me put it this way.. every one is very consistant, but the different plastics are not very consistant compared to other batches or even more so compared between different brands and models.. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology exists today to produce a shuttle that is consistant, but When we discuss plastic on these forums we generally refer to what currently is available at the shops.. /Twobeer
Boy I ban myself for getting inte this argument once more.. sigh... My final say: After reading ALL coolers comments about the greatness of plastic shuttles (or to be more precise the greatness of Mavis 350/370), I started thinking... What if this was an argument with cooler where I was saying I felt Mavis 350 (made partly from plastic but use natural cork) was a better shuttle than Mavis 7 (made from 100% syntetics).. Then basically all arguments presented could be repeated, and coolers main arguments would indicate using Mavis 7 would be the way to go.. More syntetic, hence more consistant, faster but not worse, just different, longer lasting, better economy, more environent friendly etc. etc. And then we could repeat the same argument with Mavis 7 against a no name backyard plastic that would have an even flatter trajecotry, higher speed, more foldable shirt, and being even less expensive than Mavis 7.. etc.. It all boils down where you draw the line between what you consider good, acceptable and bad.. This will be different for different people, but there IS a reason that people "take the pain" of replacing shuttles more often and paying more to use natural feather than a Mavis 350.. The only other explanation would be that players (including myself) that are paying a premium to use these goose-shuttles are stupid and gullable, and can't judge and compare the performance of these shuttles compared to the current crop of artificial alternatives. As I also mentioned earlier, I have no issues with syntetic shuttles if flight performance and rigidity would match the current best shuttles. But I have a hard time buying into the concept that we suddenly should embrace the 30 year old or so shuttle technology that is partly natural material and partly syntetic. I try not to look down on ANY badminton player.. regardless if they are using AS-50, mavis-7 or some extremely cheap duck-feather shuttles. But I would like nothing more than to give every kid the opportunity and possibility to play with the best shuttles and equipment in general. I think all badminton players deserve the best!! I think this is the best way to promote tha game all of us BF members love. /Twobeer
Its completely different comparison... Plastic vanes for arrows are mimicing the feathers the current syntetic shuttles dont use any vanes at all!! In badminton the slow down property is actually desirable (to get a not to flat trajectory). In arrows I would assume the oppsite is desirable, less slowdown and flatter trajectory... Apples and oranges again my friend.. /Twobeer
You know, TB. It's just so difficult to ban ourselves from this endless and petty argument . I have a feeling the next argument will be over the spin rate of feather Vs. nylon shuttles. Then someone will comparison that bullet projectiles on and on and on . . .
Just try a very high serve with feathers and plastics. The feathers will go up high and then turn around for the descend and it will drop almost vertically. Plastics cannot do that, impossible to see a vertical drop. Looks like the only supporters of plastics are from Canada. Good gracious, what is happening to badminton there? My advice is that if you are serious about learning real badminton skills and strokes, and want to have an international future, think and play with feathers only. Staying with plastics will only end in everlasting regret and a wasted opportunity.
So, you don't believe that just because of that alone players will tend to smash more than drops or clears with the plastics???
That is an absurd statement. If people want to play with plastics for recreational purposes, there is nothing wrong with that.
This statement is intended for players who want to play competitive badminton, as alluded to in the lines before the statement.
From the newscientist article: -Plastic shuttlecocks have less control than feathers, which reduce the variety of shots/strokes and lead to a less tactical game. -The less rigid skirt of plastics affects the impact with the racquet, the flight through the air, and the rate of spin. -Feathers are ideal for badminton (not plastics). -The fine-tuning players achieve with feathers cannot be reproduced with plastics. -Small variations in the way the racquet and plastic skirt make contact lead to large differences in the way the skirt deform, making control harder. These alone are more than enough to ban plastics from tournements. Plastics should be ignored by players who want to play badminton the way it should be played.
I think it is time to close this thread now; The arguments are getting more & more personal & the egos wont let anyone back down either. Players who want to play recreational badminton can play with plastics; players who want to become 'world champions' can play with feather.
yes, mavis 7 is 100% plastic but yonex purposely use a lower design class skirt for a lower product line. I highly believe the cost of making mavis 7 and mavis 300's are about the same. Mavis 7 is for those players who value shuttle durability the most. Any profitable corporation will supply their market with broad product line. It is just smart business. Unfortunately, the feather is the standard bwf adopted but i've said many times, it is just one particular standard base on tradition and history. If u downplay a 30 year old plastic shuttle, the feather shuttle design is over 100 years old FYI. Yes, mavis 300/350/370/500 is composite of synthetic and natural (the cork). Reason is cork in plastic shuttle is not that expensive. I already made the case earlier.Wine bottlers are going to plastic stops and/or metal caps, cork supply is plenty driving price down. Feather shuttle is not 100% natural either. The cork sheathing is rubber, just like mavis. The glue is now polyurathane. Now, there are feather shuttle cork made from chopped up cork powder, compressed and glued, like particle board. I think the yarn tying the feathers are now synthetic type too.
no worry, i think everyone here is staying in topic. If a poster has a personal ego issue, it just goes to show their technical reasoning is poor
That is fine line, my friend. If you are willing to go to any length to prove your technical reasoning is good and not willing/open to accept other views, that is what is called EGO. & it is definitely a very fine line.
u r just a late comer to this topic. I was never a plastic hardliner. I was never a promoter of plastic but rather a defender of plastic from feather hardliners. I enjoy playing badminton with either mavis 300's or feather, i mix with plastic and feather crowds, isn't that a good enough proof? Plastic is not well understood or appreciated by the traditonal feather players. I have never asked feather players to revert back to plastic, where as feather hardliners see things only 1 way, their way or no way. Why are u saying i'm not accepting other people views? On the contrary, it is the opposite that is happening. Fact should not be seen as a 'view or opinion'. Fact is fact. If an object last longer, its performance will stay consistent longer. I never said mavis is replicating feather flight. I also know that feather can not replicate mavis's flight either.
Now, why do you think I was talking to just you. The whole world does not revolve you, give some space for others too. I was talking generally to the folks who are arguing here pointlessly for months now to prove what??? Plastics are better than feathers?? or vice versa? & then what??? There has to be a point to all this at the end. If not it is completely useless.
hmm, i guess you are the one who is willing/open to accept others view huh? don't try to see this as an personal attack but rather me showing a mirror reflection of yourself. My words are supported by action.
