Are the long racquets the standard now?

Discussion in 'Badminton Rackets / Equipment' started by Cheung, Sep 18, 2014.

  1. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    Before we used to have standard length racquets.

    Then long racquets came in.

    Has badminton irreversibly switched to long racquets for the adult player?
     
  2. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    You haven't seen the end of it yet... rule 4.1 states that the length can be up to 680mm, while we're only at 675mm currently. ;)
     
  3. TeddyC

    TeddyC Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    ( ●.●) --O #>
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Lol...how the heck will 5mm or 0.5cm affect one's game...?
     
  4. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    5mm increase in bp is quite noticeable. It'll be the difference between VT80 and VTZF.

    My question though is why most manufacturers have been currently stuck at 675mm for the past 10-15(?) yrs... when 680mm is allowable. I think perhaps the racket becomes unwieldy. But what do I know...
     
  5. TeddyC

    TeddyC Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,279
    Likes Received:
    2
    Occupation:
    ( ●.●) --O #>
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Now I get it...nvr thought bout bp.
     
  6. Gary Lim

    Gary Lim Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Singapore
    Actually a 5mm increase in length would result in a < 5mm increase in BP, depending on how head-heavy or head-light the racket is.

    If it's perfectly balanced, a 5mm increase in racket length would result in a 2.5mm increase in BP.
     
  7. demolidor

    demolidor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,507
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    @Hollanti
    Only for the last decade already :D; but Carlton still makes 670mm rackets as well

    There have already been (SOTX for one iirc) and still are 680mm rackets; one very recent model in fact is a 680mm one but don't recall which one it was right now ...
     
  8. DuckFeet

    DuckFeet Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    320
    Occupation:
    Computer rebooter
    Location:
    Swindon
    I had a few 665s. Hateful things. I cut one up for toddler racquet.

    It's just like holding the buttcap, yes unwieldy but some do it, probably saving a few pence per racquet on that 5mm less carbon in the shaft.

    I might make a 680 with a handle swap stuck 5mm lower. Will report back!
     
  9. R20190

    R20190 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Likes Received:
    414
    Occupation:
    Chartered Civil Engineer
    Location:
    London, UK
    It may be to allow themselves 5mm in tolerance so they are never infringing on the 680 limit?

    675 does feel about right for me, I was skeptical at first when I got my first 675mm racquet, Ti10. But I've not looked back since. I wouldn't want anything longer.

    I suppose with carbon technology advances since it was first used in badminton racquets, they are able to increase the length to the optimum without increasing the weight or reducing the stiffness of the racquet.

    Going back 25 years, if they had lengthened say the Cab 20 by 10mm to 675mm it would have probably had to be very flexible or would be too far too heavy with the materials available at the time.
     
  10. demolidor

    demolidor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,507
    Likes Received:
    127
    Location:
    @Hollanti
    Unwieldly? 665mm are much more maneuverable imo. Of course back in the days when 665 was the standard the top models came in that length whilst towards the "end" it was the crappy lower end models left in that length

    edit: good point by R# squeezed in between ....
     
  11. orangenetic

    orangenetic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    korea
    A few mm in shaft length is a super big difference. You can see many manufacturers use different shaft lengths to make the shaft stiff or flexible.
    When you see rackets with the same specs except for stiffness, it's most likely they changed a slight shaft : handle ratio.

    680mm racket would end up with a super long head which would end in more resistance, long shaft which would end in a really flexy shaft, a long handle which wouldn't be needed.

    So no need to put extra grams in making a racket. Seems like theyre happy with 675mm.

    My old yonex isotour 800 is a widebody, short shaft. It's supposed to be kind of a medium stiffness shaft but in game it's kinda stiff cuz the racket is short. Few mm is a big difference.
     
  12. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Manufacturer tolerances are quite tight. But you may still be right about that, since the head frame can get long and narrow by a few mm if the stringer is not careful in mounting the racket or adds too much cross tension.

    So, safer for manufacturers to make a few mm shorter than the max of 680mm.
     
  13. visor

    visor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,401
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    That also makes sense, but the stiffness can be adjusted by using stiffer or thicker shaft, or longer handle.
     
  14. orangenetic

    orangenetic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    korea
    That's why I said shaft : handle ratio below that :p

    Btw thicker shaft may end up with a slower racket...so I don't think that's a common way to change stiffness. All companies are craving about their "super super super slim shafts". Yonex said VT80 has slimmest shaft in the world, Victor says stuff like 7.0 shaft, etc. So it's mostly shaft : handle ratio or material toughness.
     
  15. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    At the moment, my kids are using standard length racquets. I just wonder if they should be using long racquets. They are still shorter in height than the net
     
  16. DuckFeet

    DuckFeet Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    320
    Occupation:
    Computer rebooter
    Location:
    Swindon
    675 isn't standard?
     
  17. Cheung

    Cheung Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Messages:
    23,818
    Likes Received:
    4,791
    Occupation:
    wannabe badminton phototaker
    Location:
    Outside the box
    People with real skill learnt with 665 ;)
     
  18. orangenetic

    orangenetic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    korea
    I noticed Gosen's new Gungnir series? are 680mm in length... should be interesting.
     
  19. orangenetic

    orangenetic Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    korea
    Does my isotour 800 count :p
     
  20. DuckFeet

    DuckFeet Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    320
    Occupation:
    Computer rebooter
    Location:
    Swindon
    You should check my racquet history before posting such things. Guess what I learnt/came back from injury with?
     

Share This Page