Before we used to have standard length racquets. Then long racquets came in. Has badminton irreversibly switched to long racquets for the adult player?
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.
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...
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.
Only for the last decade already ; 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 ...
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!
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.
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 ....
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.
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.
That also makes sense, but the stiffness can be adjusted by using stiffer or thicker shaft, or longer handle.
That's why I said shaft : handle ratio below that 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.
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
You should check my racquet history before posting such things. Guess what I learnt/came back from injury with?