[Review Experience] Bonny 1982 B129

Jayce September 6, 2024 4 0

As early as a year ago I wrote a review of the 1982L, belonging to the biased control style of tuning, while the 1982 series also belongs to the hard tuning, biased offense of the first line of products to 129/142 as a benchmark.

Previously has been on Bonny’s product line classification doubt, in each fine-tuning on-line a new code named beat may cause consumer confusion, in communication with industry insiders learned that, first, Bonny previously invested too much in research and development led to feather racket department can not make ends meet until later to take around the boutique racket type of “baby steps” Continuously fine-tune the strategy to adapt to the market; Secondly, the carbon fiber production line to the feather racket department’s capacity is not enough, resulting in Bonny racket production per batch is small.

Parameters: 4UG4, 295mm balance point in the air, stiff center stick, fluid box frame, 27lbs vbs66n drawstring.

The difference a center stick tuning can make to a racket is fundamental. the 1982L has a solid but soft feel in the hand, while the 129 feels noticeably stiffer in the swing. While the 295mm is indeed on the balanced side of head weight, the weight of the racket in the hand is still one of the thicker grades of the 4u rackets. You can feel a strong sense of resistance when you break the center stick with your hand.

Until I pulled the first board, I felt the 129’s hardness is not only reflected in the center stick. vbs66n is not a hard line by any means, but in the 129’s line bed feel close to the bg65ti, even if there is a slight sense of head weight when pulling the ball, but also need to have some power to hit the ball in place. This performance is naturally not “energy efficient”, but the speed and accuracy of the ball are satisfactory, and it is a cost-effective trade-off for advanced players. A wide range of flat and high ball movement should be a good tactical option for this racket. The reliable feel and large sweet spot of the teardrop box frame are also beneficial for net play. Despite the official positioning of B129/142 offense – B130/143 offense and defense (control), it is clear that the B129 is still very impressive in control.

Heavy kills are a strong point, and as a 4u racket, there is neither the inertia advantage that comes with extreme head weight, nor the energy storage properties that are attached to a strong hold, relying on the overall hard bouncy nature of the racket to slam the head hard towards the opposing floor. With enough explosiveness, it doesn’t disappoint in terms of downward pressure. However, this is also enough to show that this racket is not a newbie can master the racket, the power is not decisive, there is no ball speed, especially in the point in the kill on the wrist load is slightly large, contrast with the 1982L. For advanced players, it is also a test of physical fitness, and it is not easy to maintain explosive power at all times in a game of confrontation. The good thing is that the racket frame is larger, and the feel is stable and forgiving when doing some backcourt slice sliding technical moves, so it is convenient to adjust the rhythm of the game. In terms of ball-killing feedback, the 129 is not quite in line with the cranky, hard pop of the Chopper series, favoring a more rigid, powerful feel.

Of course, this tuning makes it disadvantageous in catching kills and passive ball handling, and the flat draw block is not very friendly.

“Aggression” is my impression of the B129. Even though it’s a 4U, it’s not bad for singles. This racket is very competitive and professional, if the B129 had a 3U version, it would be out of my range.

It’s just that the overall stiffness has increased the brittleness of the racket body……. The rackets hit each other, and I’m responsible for it, so I can’t say anything about it. In addition to continue to seek relief for tennis elbow, these rounds of high poundage hard racket is really a little top for the body.