Racket release overkill - who can still follow?

I don’t think any but one of these points are quite true. Pros and amateurs alike have all used rackets of varying stiffnesses. 14 players, including 2 men (including Wang Chi Lin) used the NanoFlare 700 at Tokyo Olympics. It is “medium” flex. 2 men used NanoFlare 800LT. If I read this forum, I’m to think that clearly Wang Chi Lin can’t have a good smash, and 5U rackets have as much smash potential as a pool noodle. It just isn’t true.

The stiff shafts that were out there, which I prefer mind you, also take a toll. They can be unforgiving, and the reality is most of those playing them are not Pros. The advanced materials that made them stiffer are also the advanced materials allowing them to flex differently, return from deformation faster, etc. a controlled flexing is actually more desirable than complete stiffness, it is a relatively stiff FEEL that most people like since it feels more solid. But most people don’t have the physicality to play super stiff rackets. Or someone buying a top end super stiff racket and stringing it at 23-24 lbs. why? You’re putting a soft trampoline on a stiff rackets. There are softer strings, but people would rather bg80 at 23 than SkyArc at 28.

this isn’t to say no one can handle the stiff rackets, but that there is often a disassociation between racket and strings and tension. Also, stiffness just doesn’t matter. There is a mixed doubles pair with the woman having an 3U ArcSaber 11 Pro and the man having a 4U ArcSaber 7 Pro, the rear court player has a more flexible, lighter, and head lighter racket.

people gravitate towards what pros are using sometimes, not what is actually the best racket for them.

 

Yeah, theres way to many releases and re-releases in the last few years. Its like basically adopting the fast fashion model, without the cheaper prices unfortunately.
I'm personally okay with the Yonex pro/tour/game/play system, especially if they do away with the separate low/mid tier models, but they still have some of those to keep things confusing.
Victor on the other hand, as other have stated is a complete mess. Even just following the regular releases is a chore, but to add to that they have collab/special versions with no clear model # or equivalents. I tried one of the Snoopy rackets and I quite like it, but it was limited and I cant find any equivalent. Closest spec wise is the now new Crayon shinchan collab racket, but now it has a free-core handle instead, which likely makes it feel completely different.

 

Yeah, that always bothered me too with the victor collab rackets. I know the Hello Kitty racket had a Thruster version. I looked everywhere and asked everybody what model it was a repaint for or what model it was closest to. Came up completely empty.

Victor has had many cool looking rackets with no real specs released or comparisons. I would have been ALL OVER that overly expensive Lambo Jetspeed racket if I knew the model is was a repaint for. But of course there was 0 info on it.

 

+1 about the special editions from Victor. My first experience with them was the CNY Thruster. Never got much info from Victor's website but I'm guessing its a Thruster Onigiri repainted. Was pretty nice to play with, large head, flexy and fully recessed frame but it was way too orange to be a CNY imo.

Then came hello kitty, decided to go with the mid-range DriveX because it looked the cutest. Pretty decent very fast and easy to play. Not sure which DriveX racket it was base on tho.

The JS-CNY for 2024 tho was a complete surprise. Super headheavy for any JS, thought it was offspec but I had 4 feel / 2 measured the same. But also instead of being ultra stiff as indicated on the shaft, its also I would say medium stiff towards the flexy side and a full size head. But atleast this paint job looked nice and the racket was pretty cheap compared to the regular jetspeeds tbh.

 

Some of this yearning for a simpler past seems to be rather incorrect I think. They always had lots of models, but these extra models which don't become popular just quietly die away, and nobody even remembers they exist.

For Victor they had the Bravesword 1-25 or some crazy number, plus some named ones, the 12 wasn't even that popular at the start if I recall correctly (I saw more BS10?), until LYD and the Korean team started using it. Victor also had all these other wierd lines, e.g. ArteryTec (knockoff Armortec) and many others.

Yonex were a bit more restrained (esp at the higher end), the difference now is that they have the Tour/Game/Play models, but these are just knockoffs of their own models, which is a clever idea, stops the likes of Apacs etc from "stealing" those sales.

I think the manufacturers themselves don't actually know how/why a model becomes popular, and rely on a scattergun approach and see what sticks. I question how well they know how to tune them, it is not easy, it seems that rackets in testing and games are different. Fundamentally it seems to come down to random initial popularity which then causes more popularity, so then once something becomes popular they use the same Gen II/Pro etc strategy as they did with the self-pirace strategy.

The rackets have improved I think in the last 10 years, possibly even if the same model, my new JS10 black gold has a distinctively more efficient shaft than my JS10 original.

 

Well, I don't believe it that they have improved.

1. What is more efficient? Maybe its only for your playing style, because the flex of the racket is different at all.
2. I don't think the material used is any better than it used to be. There is surely better material on the market, but it is not used for the rackets because it is probably too expensive.
3. The shaft and frame can become softer and more flexible over time. Especially if you play with it a lot. Maybe that is the less efficient for you.
   
4. If the materials were better now, there would be fewer frame breaks or sunken grommets. But I would say that this has not changed in the last 10 years.

 

Did Victor ever EXPLICITLY claim they used EXACTLY the same materials and processes? I was confused myself initially with this, and wondered if they just use the same shaft material/process on all their "higher end" rackets being manufactured at the same time to reduce on SKU and retooling. Can they even buy exactly the same raw carbon and resin as before? Maybe in the last 10 years they found some better carbon/resin/manufacturing process and just moved to that.

From a marketing point of view they may prefer to say the new JS10 is "the same" as before, or otherwise keep it vague. The people buying these are people trying to get backup rackets, or otherwise try the old classics, so they would want it to be "the same" as possible, lest the "improvement" mess it up. The sorts of people who really believed in Victor's ability to improve things with fancy technology would just buy a completely new Auraspeed etc racket.

I have three JS10 4u. The original and watermelons are made in Taiwan, blackgold is made in Nanjing. I recently made an experiment, had them all strung at the same tension with same string N65.
The headweights are OG<blackgold<watermelon. I think the watermelon is the stiffest and the most inefficient (for me), but it might be more the headweight on that one is more than the other two. But the shaft on the blackgold really is more efficient, and the efficiency applies to both BH and FH at different control/power levels etc. Maybe it is slightly more flexible?

I basically used the OG as my main racket for the last 9 years (3-4 times a week) since whenever that JS10 came out (with a NS9900 as backup until I got the watermelon). I suspect my swing/technique/timing has molded around it, so one would think that I would be best with that one, but it doesn't seem like it. I still use the original more in "harder" games because netting and close control is better, but that is just me being used to it.

Just one datapoint, maybe I lucked out, maybe its degradation as you say, but anyway that is my experience.

 

Seo is using a 3U version (not commercial) and Marin also said CKYEW that she uses a special one made for her. I don't think they are exceptions, so I don't think that pros use a commercial version. IMO this not a good argument, since we don't know what they really use and repainted versions are over a decade a topic at BC.

See above. We don't know what he is using, it looks like a NF but could be 2U, with a stiff shaft. We simply not know.

I agree with you, that many people tend to choose wrong and demanding rackets for they strength and are so afraid that they could overflex the shaft, loose control and can't smash. The funniest I have strung was a ZFII and AT700 at 8x8,5 kg with BG80P for a male player.

You meanDechapol/Sapsiree, right? As said before, we don't know what they exactly use. I wouldn't be shocked if he uses a 3U version or they switched colors on the repainting. The 7 Pro is IMO not more flexible than the Arc11Pro. The labelling from Yonex you can't trust, when you see the stiffness measurements by VNB.

I personally think, you are right that people tend to brands and even models which their idols use. On the other hand, we also see many pros with shoulder and elbow taping, wrist taping...maybe this is a trend of their physios now or rackets are even for some pro players too demanding and tensions to high?

I personally don't like the fact that rackets are more and more made of plastic with bumpers and strips. I thought the e-tune era is over?

To come back to the topic of the thread, I personally think that it is only a back and forth in designs and no real improvement. I struggled to replace my rackets, so I keep them even if discontinued and not available anymore, I feel that there is nothing better out there, only worse.

I also can't follow this flood of releasing. The rackets have same names, look the same and IMO the brands have at the moment no idea what the could change except the paint job and naming. I'm really out of this game with the pro/tour thing and when Li-ning changed the name of the N-Series into this Calibar, Aeronaut and Turbocharging and made color variants of the same model to new models with different specs, which was a total confusing.
What Victor and Yonex are doing I don't get as well. I await a new series since years, but they make the Arcsaber and BS line great again. Especially the old ones have nothing in common with the new rackets.
ATM moment I'm really afraid to buy an actual model, because even next year their will come the updated version which is different to the previous one.
Can we have something like a Duora Z-Strike which is since 7 years available with no tweaking, face lifts, new control caps or colors and good as it was initially made, please?

 

I think that's a separate point though and actually you're agreeing with me that most of the information that is given out on expensive rackets as to why they are better than cheaper ones is marketing hype, stiff or flexible shaft being an example. Generally speaking stiff rackets are more expensive than more flexible ones (the 800LT is classed as stiff btw even if it is light)

When I was looking for a new stiff racket a few years ago within a certain budget there were not many options. Many years beforehand I could get less expensive stiff rackets, so at some point stiff generally became a premium feature amongst manufacturers. Yes I'm sure there are exceptions but the general association is stiff=high level and expensive and certain manufacturers have done it this way for years. This isn't negated by the fact that some pros are (allegedly) using more flexible rackets like the NF700, The point is that it generally costs much less to buy a flexible racket than a stiff one, and they are generally classified as beginner/intermediate rackets. So if flexibility is now becoming a more marketed desirable attribute when they've pushed the stiff mantra for years, manufacturers profit margins are greater for releasing more high end flexible rackets, and people should have been buying cheaper rackets all along.

The attitude that certain racket types and manufacturers are better is not specific to this forum, there are more dissenting voices about this than most places. You can find posts of mine over 20 years old about this.

https://www.badmintoncentral.com/fo...roof-that-a-racket-doesnt-make-a-player.4507/

You'll also find me arguing over 20 years ago that my beloved 75 gram karakal racket that I ending up using for over a decade wasn't too light to generate power, this is when 4u's were being classified as too light!

I currently use a cheap 5U and find it better than an expensive 4U but that might just be due to my body mechanics. You're preaching to the choir on racket selection being a personal thing. However, given that people don't often have the option of testing out different rackets and are spending a lot of money I can see why they gravitate towards standard attributes of 'good rackets' such as 4u, made by a trusted manufacturer, and stiff.

 

In a roundabout way

For example, the new 88 pros are the first to feature "flex force", a special material which allows the racket to flex more than the previous versions.

Either presented enthusiastically as "more hold time", or "more snap" depending on the reviewer.

It makes total sense for a manufacturer to make their high end rackets more flexible as not only are they (probably) cheaper to produce they're easier to use.

 

I was under the impression that material costs is a small fraction of what it costs for a racket to be made. Most of it goes to 'research' and 'marketing'.

My example is some Apacs rackets use 'high end' material. The Apacs virtuoso performance uses 40T material in the shaft but still around less than £40 in Malaysian market. I'm sure they're not selling these rackets for a loss.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

Well, quite. But just as an observation most of the cheaper rackets aren't stiff. I'm sure there's an extra cost somewhere in producing a stiff racket but even if it's small if you're selling many of these things it's still going to affect your bottom line. Even so, the major thing for a manufacturer is that if you're able to produce a user friendly racket that pro's (allegedly) use, you're going to sell a lot of them.

 

I think we’re talking about different things. “Soft-flexible” and “stiff-flexible”. The reason beginner/intermediate rackets are flexible isn’t because it’s necessarily cheaper to produce, it’s because those with slow swing speeds can’t create any flex in a stiff racket. Flexible rackets make it easier. Why would they produce an entry level stiff racket that entry level players couldn’t use?

as far as flexibility and whip goes, I honestly don’t find NF700 much softer ‘when playing’ than a Victor TKFE, but many do. There are plenty of rackets that I find quite soft, and I wouldn’t use and honestly find difficult because they are so soft. But I think as people talk about new rackets being less stiff, it’s not as if the rackets aren’t still quite stiff, just less stiff or differently flexible than earlier version, not even necessarily more flexible, just flexing differently.

I think this is the point of the materials that are used. They behave differently, the deal with vibration differently.

 

I think this is partially correct, we know the NanoFlare that Marin and Seo used were 3U, Marin’s may also be stiffer, but I don’t think every one. There are those that say they are using 5U NF700 why lie? Why 800LT if 2U not just saying 3U 800? That just doesn’t make sense. I understand the skepticism, but there is no need to flat out lie about the LT vs regular 800 or something.

yes, I was referring to them, but they say what weights they use. Why would she lie about 3U? Why would he lie about 4U, and not just just say 4U “customized for him”? It’s not like people wouldn’t buy it and then those that care try to figure out the customization.

I will say that the Yuta Watanabe racket info and switching has been a bit odd, so that situation could be all smoke and lies.

if you look at the 2024 Yonex catalog, it actually still lists the ZStrike, probably too many pros still use it to discontinue it. But we also can’t forget they are a business, when the Minions stopped winning then stopped playing, who was buying the 88D/S Pro? I like mine, but the S really suffered and was not as popular as original version. They come out with new versions when sales stall, not when convenient for consumers to just keep playing the same racket for 20 years.

I wouldn’t be that surprised if a new NF700 came out soon, and not surprised that the redesign of NF800 brought the frame style in line with other models in the series, nor am I surprised it wasn’t the 700 Pro, which would have to be more flexible to be similar at all.

to the original topic, I don’t find it hard to follow, but I haven’t been playing for 10-20 years, so learning about legacy models people love is actually harder. I will say the lack of info on Special edition Victors is maddening, but generally speaking they don’t have the most advanced features. Like the Anders Antonsen In The Woods rackets, almost seems like 90K II, but not all the top end materials. But otherwise not overly difficult if you exclude those and “collab” models.

Li Ning having 4 models for every model is a bit confusing, diff weights AND balances for the “same model.” But again they seem to be cleaning this up and slowly discontinuing quietly, in the meantime there are a lot of rackets.

I think it is really just a matter of taking the time to be fully up to date, if you care and then keep up. It’s a bit hard to casually follow it and then you’re trying to figure out 30 or 40 new rackets.

 

Well, no by definition, something that is flexible isn't stiff, the two things don't go together. You can't have a stiff flexible shaft. You can't have a "soft" shaft either because there's no concept of soft in relation to the flex of the racket. Rackets are classified as stiff or flexible according to how much they bend by the manufacturers themselves. I have no concept of what the heck "soft flexible" and "stiff flexible" is.

Now you're going back on your view that the stiffness of the shaft has no relation to the player level. Which is it? For what reason can a lower level player play with a "medium flex" NF700 and not a "stiff" and lighter NF800LT exactly? This is exactly how Yonex markets their rackets. There's no definition of "soft flexible" or "stiff flexible" anywhere. What are we talking about if not this marketing guff around the stiffness of rackets and who it's applied to? Why even bother to mention the stiffness of the shaft if it has no bearing on anything and people have to eventually come up with their own classifications of racket stiffness such as stiff-flexible and soft-flexible, like anyone else is supposed to understand what that means?

 

im not going back, I’m describing something that I feel when playing, and materials science says is possible. It’s not binary. Modern stuff rackets can still be stiff and respond as an old stiff racket might, but be easier to use. Because the shaft is in fact flexing, but the way it flexes and rebounds is different than just a soft flexible shaft. Yes, ultimately it’s not as stiff, but the reality is it IS still stiff, it may react just as quickly as older stuff rackets but in fact be flexing ever so slightly more, but recovering fast enough that there isn’t a timing delay, but you do benefit from the additional speed of the flex recovery

 

this conversation can happen about many materials, why was and is Vectran used but not Dyneema or Kevlar for strings? Old Dyneema had more creep than original Vectran, we don’t want our strings stretching out more over time. Otherwise Dyneema has properties that might be better for strings. New versions of Dyneema have the same or less creep than Vectran. Why not Kevlar? More creep. However Vectran is less durable than both, and lower UV resistance, badminton is indoors, you say, only one problem then.

but that’s the point right? We’re not talking about one material, one construction, an entire shaft. Something could still be very stiff but have different properties. People talk about marketing hype, or use of more plastic. What is plastic? What kind of plastic? Do they have differently? Do they react different to stress or vibration? A rubber like material would not be great for the body of a car, but for weather stripping, it’s great, for vibration reduction, great. You can call it marketing hype, but for example LiNing couldn’t afford to flat out lie, badminton isn’t their money maker. They would be sued, or banned from selling places. They couldn’t operate distributors places.

 

Easier to use by who?

This whole thing reads like a load of yonex marketing.