Tag: Badminton Racket

羽毛球球拍

Badminton Racket Kawasaki TU160 Reviews
This new product was provided by the retailer, but the naming feels a bit off. Kawasaki’s previous rackets typically followed a format of an object plus a number, where the object represented the style of the racket. However, the T160 is named after the “Mao Xiong” strategic bomber… After some inquiry, I discovered they intended to nickname it “White Swan.”
Regardless, this is my first time trying a Kawasaki racket in this segment, so let’s see how it performs.
Parameters: 4U G5, with shrink wrap, total weight 92.9g, balance point 282mm, shaft length 215mm, made from 30T material, moderate to soft stiffness, fluid box frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 string grooves, warranty up to 28 lbs, strung at 24-26 lbs with XB63.
The racket comes in two colorways, and I tested the white version. My earlier critique may seem puzzling, so let me clarify: it neither achieves the elegance of a swan nor the imposing presence of a bomber—so why this name? The blue and white paint job gives off a somewhat generic vibe, and the design elements feel sparse. The paint lacks depth and appears rather plain, fitting for a product below the mid-range. I expected more from Kawasaki, as they usually excel in aesthetic design; this racket seems mediocre. I personally think the gray-gold version looks better, but if they spent the time saved on paint to improve performance, I’d wholeheartedly approve.
The weight distribution is pleasant. With a 4U specification, it has some head weight, which feels comfortable. Although adding grip tape alters the balance significantly, I could still feel a bit of head heaviness that provides a good leverage sensation without making it difficult for beginners to swing.
The frame design lacks special technologies, and the box frame itself is a very mature choice, providing a large sweet spot and decent torsional stability. I didn’t experience any discomfort while adapting to it. The T160 is a racket that anyone can handle. When hitting high clears, the shaft deforms easily, and its elasticity is good, making it effortless to send the shuttle to the back line. It’s clear who this racket is aimed at; beginners can use it easily, and even more advanced players can enjoy it during casual play.
Recently, among lower-end rackets, the Bo Li Nebula provided a surprisingly high-level offensive experience, and this one does too. Judging a racket’s offensive capabilities solely by its shaft stiffness can be misleading. With the T160, it’s easy to feel its softer nature helps generate power, yet it still showcases decent explosiveness during smashes—shots are quick and fast. Although its weight is lighter due to being 4U, this entry-level racket combines continuity and initial speed to deliver high output in fast-paced exchanges. With strategic shot placement, it can certainly lead to victory.
Remarkably, the shaft’s recovery speed is better than many products in the same category, making it less prone to mishits during flat exchanges. Even without demonstrating exceptional cross-category performance, it can easily handle most situations faced by amateur players.
This racket is my first true experience with Kawasaki’s technical capabilities, largely due to its overall tuning, which surprised me. It doesn’t feel like a racket made with just 24T for the frame and 30T for the shaft. In my view, it reaches the level of mid-range “sugar water” rackets like the TK15, which features a 6.8mm flash shaft constructed from M40J. This gives a sense of overcoming expectations. Throughout my testing, the T160 didn’t display any of the typical weaknesses associated with low-end rackets, which is why I repeatedly sought confirmation from the retailer about its pricing and positioning—it was truly unexpected.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki NEZER Y Reviews
This year, Kawasaki introduced a complete spatial coordinate system with the Razer lineup, and having previously used the Razer Z, I can honestly say it has the best materials among the three, ranking half a notch above the X and Y models. However, I felt that the stiffness of the Z could be improved, so I decided to acquire the remaining two models. Let’s start with the Y, which has been getting some attention.
Parameters: 4U G5, with a base, total weight 93.0g, balance point 295mm, shaft made from 40T material, shaft length 215mm, moderate stiffness, wind-breaking frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 string grooves, warranty up to 30 lbs, strung at 25-27 lbs with KT66F.
Kawasaki chose to stand out visually by stacking materials. The overall deep blue color features extensive water transfer decals, with snake scales at the 4 and 8 o’clock positions and a design on the cone cap that resembles last year’s Razer model. Compared to the more luxurious Razer Z, the color choice makes the Y appear more three-dimensional and less flat.
Additionally, Kawasaki’s square racket cover is always a classic.
The balance point of this racket is not high, and the grip feels standard. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about the feel. The new Razer certainly feels quick; the 4U wind-breaking frame combined with a moderate head-heavy design gives a sharp sensation while swinging. If it didn’t have other specifications, it would obviously be better suited for doubles play, but the light feel raises concerns about its stability and solidity.
The large frame offers a high margin for error, but it lacks a strong sense of cohesion; while the shaft has decent elasticity, it seems to have a bit of its own character. It responds better when you apply some power; if your swing is too casual, the feedback from the Razer Y feels rather insubstantial. The shaft deforms easily, and it allows for quick swings, making it user-friendly.
However, as I continued playing, I started to feel something was off. The Razer Y has good materials and can generate considerable speed when hitting high clears. Yet, the lack of head weight exacerbates its torsional stability issues, leading to dispersed shot placements. With the same power, my shots often seemed to fluctuate between being short and going out. Was it my touch or lack of skill? Maybe, but unfortunately, it reminded me of the Blue Factory’s SNP in terms of consistency.
So, I tried to shorten my shots and focus on downward trajectories, but the downward pressure of the Razer was somewhat lacking. I attempted an outrageous smash from the forehand, but I misjudged the contact point, resulting in a high shot that barely cleared the net and ended up at the neighboring court’s sideline. Still, the Razer does deliver power; smashes produce a satisfying sound and impressive speed, reminiscent of a certain model from Brand B. However, at my current level, achieving a shot that combines power and precision with the Razer Y is not easy.
Despite feeling off at times, its performance in defense against smashes and handling passive shots is solid, showcasing a user-friendly aspect. Moreover, its performance in flat exchanges is quite good, offering quick, seamless strokes. If I didn’t glance at the balance point on the cone cap, I wouldn’t expect this to be a head-heavy racket.
Ultimately, I still couldn’t pinpoint what felt wrong. The interaction between me and the Razer Y felt lacking. From a price perspective, it’s worth considering, but it definitely won’t be a top recommendation for Kawasaki products from me this year.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki NEZHA 35 Reviews
This is a lightweight offensive racket that Kawasaki recently promoted with a fair amount of marketing resources. Packaged in a gift box and featuring design elements from “Investiture of the Gods,” this racket combines high-quality materials with a friendly feel. Before this, I hadn’t encountered a Kawasaki product in this specification that exhibited such a clear offensive tendency. After using the last two rackets, I think Kawasaki has a good grasp on creating mid-range ultra-light rackets.
Parameters: 5U G6, with a base, total weight 88.19g, balance point 301mm, shaft length 220mm, moderate stiffness, box frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 string grooves, warranty up to 35 lbs, strung at 26-28 lbs with BS900.
The matte finish features a bold red and blue color scheme, with decorations incorporating lotus flowers and wheels of fire, all aligning with traditional mythological themes. While Kawasaki excels in racket paint quality and artistic design, the visual impact of the Nezha 35 feels somewhat overwhelming; it’s like using a blue background with red text in a PowerPoint presentation.
The gift box is attractive, but inside there’s only a standard racket cover and grip.
The balance point of this racket is relatively restrained compared to many other 5U rackets. Despite not being bottom-weighted, it exceeds 300mm, and in hand, the primary characteristic remains its “lightness.” However, the swing weight is noticeably higher; the long shaft provides a strong driving sensation. You can leverage the shaft’s deformation to produce powerful shots, and this deformation’s rebound is quite impressive. Combined with the stability of the box frame, it can maintain good directionality even for long shots, allowing for excellent control on high clears targeting the baseline.
The shaft stiffness is moderate, and the Nezha provides good feedback during play without being burdensome. The ultra-light racket’s design requires precise short bursts of power, and I enjoy the concentrated feedback it delivers after hitting.
Since the popularity of ultra-light rackets like the Blue Factory’s “Hammer,” this category has become trendy. However, standing out among numerous competitors hinges on elasticity. The Nezha 35 benefits from its 40T material, allowing it to generate a significant downward force without excessive swing weight. Honestly, it struggles to pose a serious threat in the mid to backcourt; even with ample power opportunities, it can’t deliver strong offensive plays. However, its quick release, good elasticity, short preparation, and lack of rigidity offer advantages in dealing with proactive shots. Its capability for sudden downward interceptions or smooth pressure at the net increases the game’s tempo, aiming to see which team cracks first, which is precisely the Nezha’s desired scenario.
At the same time, the racket’s face performance is not overly aggressive, retaining a degree of ball feel. This is beneficial for controlling quick returns and net play, allowing for higher confidence and a positive feedback loop for users. While the Nezha may not match the stability of 3U or 4U offensive rackets, its advantages in agility provide valuable touch and finesse.
I would describe its defensive performance as “decisive.” It handles returns well, whether it’s reacting to smashes, exploiting gaps, or angled shots at the net. However, it lacks a bit of proper unload feel; when trying to manage a high shot during a return, it can go a bit too high.
The Nezha also excels in handling passive shots, with adequate shaft elasticity and a forgiving face. It offers manageable drive difficulty and swing weight, enabling players to generate power even from lower positions and place shots more accurately.
Moreover, the often-discussed issue of homogenization in Kawasaki products seems to have significantly eased in this ultra-light category, which can easily stumble. For instance, despite the Nezha 35 and the recently released Aurora 50S having different shaft qualities, both demonstrate distinct differences in swing speed, shot feedback, and tuning focus, all while being easy to use, showcasing a solid understanding of the product.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki NEZER X Reviews
Having a long battle line is not necessarily a good thing. Last year, the Kawasaki Razer 1916 had clear performance differences between its two versions, catering to different preferences. This year, inspired by that, they released three new models, but I haven’t yet found one that I’m fully satisfied with, indicating that their fast-moving product strategy is still a bit too aggressive.
Until yesterday, when I tried the Razer X, I finally encountered a racket that felt relatively harmonious to use.
Parameters: 4U G5, with a base, total weight 95.3g, balance point 293mm, 6.8mm shaft with 46T material, shaft length 215mm, moderate stiffness, aerodynamic frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 string grooves, warranty up to 30 lbs, strung at 25-27 lbs with KT66F.
This year’s three Razer models share the same design language, differing only in color tones. The X, similar in level to the Y, uses a dark base coat with a vibrant purple-red color that seems to indicate its aggressiveness. Due to the color differences, the snake scale stickers at the 4 and 8 o’clock positions on the frame are more pronounced.
Among speed rackets, the Razer X feels relatively neutral, still with a slight head-heavy feel and the 4U specification. The shaft stiffness isn’t very high, and upon first using it, the shaft’s deformation and sweet spot area give a soft feel; the shots come out easily with good elasticity, but you need to control the power to avoid hitting long. However, for my specs, I would prefer a stiffer shaft; the initial feel is a bit too soft, lacking explosiveness.
That said, the elasticity still ensures good speed on shots, providing good pressure in high clears, although control over the force is essential. The overall torsional resistance isn’t outstanding but is adequate; controlling landing points on long shots requires more practice.
Compared to the Razer Y and Z, this racket allows me to feel the speed and agility more distinctly, though it has the highest balance point among the three. During flat exchanges and receiving smashes, it pushes my reaction abilities to the limit, with adrenaline surging during close encounters. However, the shaft isn’t stiff enough, and the recovery speed after a bend in the swing isn’t quick, making it prone to floating shots.
My biggest dissatisfaction arises from its performance when a decisive attack is needed. The slightly higher balance point doesn’t hinder the downward pressure feel much, but it cannot compensate for the soft shaft, which limits the user’s explosive potential. While this type of racket still has advantages in maintaining continuous speed, the subjective experience of lacking a powerful finishing shot diminishes confidence during heavy smashes.
This is a fairly standard speed racket with a soft feel; its upper limit isn’t high, but it’s approachable enough, enhanced by its good paint quality and the thoughtfully designed racket cover. While I know it won’t accompany me in more rigorous competitions, the ease of use gives me a sense of comfort. Interestingly, after using all three models, it’s the X that provided a steady and manageable experience throughout.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki GT-I Reviews
The White Swan TU160 had already left a strong impression on me, and this similarly priced Little Cannon GT-I also performed quite well.
Appearance: The mech-style flamingo color scheme with a white and red base, accented by gold patterns, features a symmetrical design. The top and T-joint grommets are also red, which I personally think looks fantastic. For a price under 200, I always worry about paint quality, but after long-term use, I realized my concerns were unfounded. Aside from a small paint bubble near the T-joint, the rest is nearly perfect. The overall texture is comfortable and robust—truly both attractive and durable, plus it’s affordable enough not to feel bad about using it.
Parameters: 4U G5 spec, 76-hole box frame, 3-9 string grooves, unstrung weight with grip and tape at 94.0g, grip length 205mm, shaft length 215mm, balance point around 300mm, strung with VBS66N at 26 lbs.
Feel: The flamingo color scheme of the GT-I certainly matches its bold attributes. Unlike the highly recommended White Swan TU160, the GT-I emphasizes offensive capabilities and is less balanced. You can immediately feel that the GT-I has more weight, and in practice, it has a noticeable head-heavy feel, which brings a solid offensive experience. The shaft’s stiffness is moderate, but I personally feel it leans slightly softer; the response speed isn’t very quick, and the feel is softer and more elastic—somewhat like a weakened, user-friendly version of the Fire Call.
I previously described the TU160 as being well-rounded, adaptable, and exceptionally user-friendly, making it perfect for casual play. In contrast, the GT-I excels in shot direction and stability; whether it’s high clears, kills, or delicate net shots, it feels more solid, with consistent landing points and excellent torsional resistance. This is likely due to the brand’s commitment to quality materials, using a mature 30T setup and an internal T-joint. As for net play and flat shots, they perform adequately, reflecting the normal standards for this price range—not particularly impressive but definitely usable.
The GT-I is easy to pick up. For me, the only drawback is that I feel the shaft could be stiffer to emphasize its offensive attributes, especially for those who prefer fast-paced attacks; it may feel a bit slow for them. I understand that most brands in this price range tend to play it safe, but there’s also a need for unique offerings, and many beginner players are confident and willing to try rackets that aren’t just for novices.
Summary: Although this post is about the Kawasaki GT-I, I still find myself strongly recommending the TU160! Both rackets are excellent choices for beginners and intermediate players, offering great value. For under 200, with strings included, who could ask for more? Both make great backups, but if you ask me about the king in this price range, I’d still side with the TU160.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki Thunder F10 Reviews
Everything can be copied or borrowed. However, for brands with their own production lines, even if they are targeted by others, they can only have their appearance or fonts copied at most, since the craftsmanship, materials, and channels are still in their hands.
However, among brands with their own production lines, copying each other is a pretty mean act. As an onlooker, I naturally enjoy the drama. Kawasaki’s new Thunder F10 is something else.
Parameters: 4UG5, with a base, total weight 95.1g, balance point 299mm, shaft length 213mm, medium-high stiffness, box frame, 76-hole string bed, 8-4 string groove, warranty up to 30 lbs, strung at 26-28 lbs BS710.
This appearance—with a matte black carbon base, ultra-thin shaft, and gold lettering at 4 and 8 o’clock—what more can I say? Just look at it; the paint quality is still pretty good. Aside from potential controversies over the appearance, I want to share a hearsay story. It seems that Kawasaki was the first to propose the “Thunder” series name, with the F8 as the series’ first installment, but the English name was “thunderbolt,” which is actually not the same. However, as everyone knows, Kawasaki’s brand appeal can’t compete with the big names, and the Chinese name for this series was taken by the red factory, which became quite popular. Isn’t there a bit of an NTR vibe here? The “you do the first of the month, I’ll do the fifteenth” storyline resembles a yellow-haired character invading someone else’s territory, doesn’t it?
Wow, the moment I got my hands on the F10, it ignited my desire to attack; I hadn’t even taken it out for a proper match yet. Kawasaki also has a new offensive model, the Spider-Man 8100 Pro, this season, but the F10’s head-heavy feel is certainly not inferior to the former. I believe its air swing weight is among the top in the 4U category, which is still within my adaptable range. On the day I tried it, I didn’t have time to adjust to the F10; I just went straight into a match with it.
To be honest, this isn’t a peculiar or unfriendly racket. Aside from a slightly high swing weight, its good power transfer, large sweet spot distribution, and above-average elasticity for its specs allow players with decent strength to effectively utilize it. The direct feedback during hits gives the F10 a satisfying feeling, making it a piece of equipment that motivates players to keep using it. Let’s not say things like “this racket looks unresponsive and unsuitable for flat shots”—it’s clearly not made for that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not excellent.
I still remember the feel of the Thunder 80, and the F10 is definitely not its follower; they feel different in play. The former is very balanced among offensive rackets, while the latter delivers the classic feel of a true offensive racket. The box frame’s inherent resistance to twisting gives the F10 excellent shot direction. Not only for downward strikes but also for pushes and high clears that require some control, the F10 can deliver the trajectory I envision, landing precisely where I want. With the head weight and shaft elasticity, the F10’s feedback feels quite “explosive”—powerful, speedy, and satisfying. This racket is clearly more aggressive than the Thunder 80.
The racket’s control during net play is also outstanding. I personally enjoy using slightly head-heavy rackets for net shots or lifts, as it stabilizes the feel. When I reach a high point in the backcourt, a normal swing can bring the shuttle to the opponent’s net with precision. Sometimes, during a hasty response to an opponent’s heavy smash, the proper unloading feel can turn the tide from defense to offense.
Regarding the F10’s offensive performance, I believe it’s the most “explosive” Kawasaki racket I’ve used this year—very intense. The ultra-thin shaft’s energy release is somewhat beyond my expectations. When I focus my energy, the F10 performs very solidly, with efficient power transmission. Even with its obvious head-heavy nature, which allows users with less strength to strike solid downward shots, reckless power can make the offensive effect truly intimidating. This intimidation stems from the combination of sound, speed, and feedback—an exceptional experience. It’s not one of those clunky rackets that sacrifices continuity for a powerful smash; the shaft’s quick recovery ensures that I can maintain consistent backcourt output during testing. Notably, despite its slightly higher stiffness, it still retains a certain resilience during heavy smashes.
On the other hand, the passive performance of this new racket really tests the player’s skills.
I initially speculated that it wouldn’t be suitable for fast-paced flat shots, and my actual experience confirmed this. During doubles rotation in the front court, I often had to step back half a step more than usual to avoid being caught by the opponent’s flat shots. Simply put, the Thunder F10 might show a sluggish side in switching grip positions and maintaining a fluid stroke. However, if we really had to rank it, the F10’s decisive shot delivery and quicker shaft recovery prevent it from being the bottom performer in fast exchanges, at least with the Spider-Man to back it up. Moreover, its segmented fish-mouth cone cap allows for some flexibility in thumb positioning during backhand grips.
It’s clear that this 4.5-star offering is more suited for intermediate players; the F10 fits well in situations where an 88D can be used, highlighting a thoroughly enjoyable offensive experience. However, I do wonder about the timing of this high-quality new release, coming in direct competition with the Spider-Man, which seems a bit unwise.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Kawasaki Razer1916 Reviews
Many badminton friends believe that among the many second-tier brands, Kawasaki is truly the king. In terms of material sourcing and technical capabilities, it has historically been a strong competitor to the major three brands. One can see that low-end models may sell well, but they struggle to gain significant recognition among more advanced players. During the process of collecting and experiencing various equipment, it’s easy to notice many beginners using the Ninja or Blue Porcelain rackets for casual play, while experienced players sometimes opt for older Kawasaki models like the bottom cap or Master series to teach newcomers.
After Kawasaki’s revival trend, it’s indeed time for them to showcase high-quality new products.
Specifications:
- Red model: 84±1g, balance point 290±3mm, medium-hard shaft
- Blue model: 82g, balance point 293±3mm, medium shaft
- Red used: 88.9g, balance point 304mm
- White (towel grip): 90.1g, balance point 300mm
- 6.5mm shaft material: 46T+30T, dual slot box frame material: 30T+40T, 76-hole string bed, small frame, warranty for 30 pounds, some components outsourced to CBN, string tension 26-28lbs vbs66n.
Believe me, this is a product that delivers an endless visual delight right after unboxing.
The manufacturer provides matching colored square covers for the Razer, making them uniquely stylish. After experiencing the K-18, I’ve noticed that some manufacturers are more willing to focus on product details. For example, Kawasaki does a great job with the quality of the cover; the inner lining and design of the bag are aspects many manufacturers tend to overlook. While most players who prefer practical bags for games might find this upgrade somewhat unnecessary, the fact that the product is well-prepared for transportation enhances overall appreciation.
Upon unboxing, a second wave of visual excitement follows. Both rackets look great. Although they share a similar design language, the color differences and the snake scale patterns make each racket visually appealing. The matte finish and the themed decorations on the wings and head of the frame reflect their names well; the blue model features a black, white, gold, and blue spiral pattern, while the red model combines black, red, and gold. Subjectively, the blue model appears more elegant, while the red model exudes a sense of aggression, aligning with their performance characteristics.
With both the blue and red rackets, the difference is felt immediately when holding them and swinging them without strings. Both are lightweight within the 4U category, but the red model has a slightly noticeable head-heavy feel. Considering that the Razer 1916 uses the second-generation frame, combined with a slender shaft, I initially thought these would be great for singles play. However, the official parameters and actual feel surprised me. While the frame’s design to reduce wind resistance isn’t extreme, the smaller frame’s reduced wind area and rounded edge allow for surprisingly high swing speeds. Undoubtedly, both rackets are well-suited for the fast-paced nature of doubles play.
Based on experience, Kawasaki’s past rating system indicates that rackets rated 3.5 stars and above have a significant learning curve. The previous Razer 19 was already a 5-star racket, and this 1916 model also uses 5-star materials. Will this premium model become out of reach? Fortunately, during warm-up, both rackets quickly dispelled my concerns about my physical condition. Despite the small frame, the high swing speed and moderately adjusted shaft hardness significantly ease handling, making it easier to find good leverage during active shots. For intermediate players, the only adjustment needed is adapting their timing to the faster swing speed. For beginner players, the Razer doesn’t have a high power threshold and low tolerance, making it a great choice beyond the Pollen Infiniti 003/004/007 for experiencing small frame feel, with a lower learning curve compared to the Radiation 6 and significantly lower than the Breaker BZ. Using it feels oddly familiar—“Why am I so skilled with this small frame? How many times have I paired with it?”
As previously mentioned, agility is the answer that the Razer twins provide. Whether red or blue, their performance in the front court during doubles is impressive, offering sufficient flexibility. The responsiveness during flat exchanges may not be evident, but when mixed doubles players handle awkward shots from their opponents, the Razer truly shines. It’s not only agile; the moderately firm grip allows for fine-tuning and spontaneous power delivery. If one prepares well with the racket, players who master short bursts of power can deliver more threatening shots. Between the two, the blue model, being slightly heavier but with a lighter head, excels in swing speed and stability.
To establish an advantage, controlling the net is crucial, especially during serve and return. The Razer performs admirably, providing a sense of control during aggressive plays. The ability to apply pressure without resulting in high or far blocks is notable, especially in close-level matches where high placement can dominate. If one practices soft shots beforehand, it becomes even more effective. However, trying to use flick shots or to sidestep opponents at the net may feel a bit light; it still requires the user’s solid fundamentals to compensate for the loss of heft.
This character often leaves opponents perplexed: “Wait, I was the one who initiated the attack…”
When it comes to offense, the red Razer performs exceptionally well despite its weight disadvantage. Instead of relying on sheer force, it focuses on making every shot threatening. The small frame allows for explosive, powerful feedback during concentrated hits, while the ultra-slim shaft, made of high-modulus carbon fiber, provides sufficient elasticity. The energy transfer is impressive, resulting in strong initial and final speeds and an appealing sound on impact. While the frame and T-head offer decent torsional stability, I still hope for a more robust feel during dynamic, varied attacks that can slice through defenses. The blue Razer’s lighter head and softer shaft haven’t yet unlocked its potential for heavy smashes, which is somewhat regrettable.
However, the adaptability of both models in defense is satisfactory. Even with a string tension close to my limit (26-28 pounds), handling continuous defensive positions and shots to the backhand and overhead areas is manageable. The power feels good, and the overall effort is low, highlighting the Razer’s thoughtful design. The enjoyment in both offense and defense creates a blissful experience.
In ensuring the string tension and physical readiness are consistent, I was fortunate to parallel test both new models. The Razer twins delivered commendable performance, particularly with their excellent finish and craftsmanship. They have a friendly learning curve and a unique feel, reflecting their high-end pricing. However, the lack of weight can sometimes lead to a less solid feel in feedback. After differentiating their performances, the blue and red models should have distinct places in the equipment lineup.
Of course, many players are concerned about pricing. I was recommended to purchase from a vendor currently offering impressive discounts, so it’s worth checking out. The official prices don’t really matter anymore.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Bonny CLASSIC CARBON Liang Jian Reviews
A friend once mentioned that Pollen holds over 40 patented frame designs, showcasing the company’s strong research and development background. This gives them a significant edge over many domestic brands. However, in terms of high-end products, the standout models currently are the J20 aerodynamic frame, the 1982 box frame, the 2013 eight-sided aerodynamic frame, and the Infiniti small frame. These successful models have survived the market’s competitive selection process and are widely recognized, but I’ve grown tired of them.
Recently, Pollen has introduced some other notable frame designs, but I felt a bit uneasy upon hearing the name of this new racket. Such a blatant approach seems like a red flag, and it shouldn’t be overlooked. However, according to relevant sources, this frame is indeed newly developed. Given the skepticism surrounding Pollen’s promotional tactics, I hope the brand takes care to avoid potential issues.
Parameters: 4UG5, with a base, total weight 90.91g, balance point 297mm, 6.5mm shaft, made from 46T material, 222mm in length, with medium to high stiffness. The aerodynamic frame has a 72-hole string bed, 9-3 point string grooves, warranty of 30 pounds, strung at 25-27 lbs with VBS66N.
Returning to this new product, the color scheme follows Pollen’s “classic” style, featuring a glossy black finish with high-gloss stickers, making the frame look very sleek. The red and blue stickers spiral around the wings in a double helix pattern, with a color-changing effect. I find this texture appealing, as it resonates with my background. The font with its changing effect reminds me of the FC red and white gaming console—does it evoke memories of the original Castlevania?
Honestly, the sensation while swinging the racket is quite familiar, with the whooshing sound during cuts through the air bringing back many memories.
During warm-ups, it showed a slight head-heavy feel, allowing for good leverage, and the 72-hole string bed provides a sufficiently large sweet spot, making it easy to adapt compared to other Pollen speed rackets. However, after hitting a few high clears, I noticed something—this new model has extremely high elasticity! This elasticity is clearly a result of Pollen’s latest integration of boron fiber in the ultra-thin shaft.
Indeed, as indicated in the promotional material, the racket features a small flat head design, which can explain the slight explosive feel when hitting the sweet spot. Given its intended role as an offensive racket, I feel the 4U weight might be a bit insufficient; I’d recommend a 3U version for those capable. Yet, even at 4U, the racket’s responsiveness due to its highly elastic shaft and frame provides a unique power. The quick and surprising shot response is commendable. I initially intended to challenge the recent trend of prioritizing elasticity in rackets, but after using this one, I found myself at a loss for words. It delivers a powerful and thrilling feedback for every focused shot, effectively addressing any doubts I had. However, if it were up to me, I would suggest shortening the shaft by 5mm without considering the difficulty of handling.
Its swing speed is indeed fast, especially during the pulling phase, showcasing a sharp performance without feeling hindered by the head-heavy balance. The stiff shaft ensures rapid response and crisp shots, with no delay during consecutive swings, and the quick recovery of the shaft instills confidence against faster opponents.
This frame design is typically prone to torsional instability, especially with Pollen pairing it with a 6.5mm shaft, which even leading brands hesitate to implement on flagship speed rackets. However, Pollen has gone “all out” this time—maintaining high overall rigidity ensures sufficient stability, and the shot directionality and stability reach an impressive level. Just be careful not to swing it at anyone…
That said, the high stiffness of the frame makes delicate net play more challenging, requiring precise control of power and angle; otherwise, shots can easily go too high. While the “lifting” motion still effectively suppresses height, getting used to the feel for angled shots takes longer. The racket produces a strong rebound sensation for backcourt lifts; the “wrap” feeling is somewhat lacking, but the “cut” response is quick, resulting in higher quality for slices and redirects compared to straight lifts.
Having used many Pollen rackets, including the Smash series box frame, the God of War series aerodynamic frame, the Bow and Sword series trapezoidal frame, the Princess series 72-hole hybrid frame, the Extreme Phoenix series ultra-thin frame, and the Little Cannon series 88-hole thin-wing frame, I can say that the 72-hole small flat head diamond aerodynamic frame follows a similar approach, making its originality debatable.
However, from a performance perspective, “Liang Jian” stands solid. In terms of swing speed, this new product likely surpasses all other rackets of the same specifications and balance point, which is remarkable. It clearly demonstrates that it is not merely a product of imitation and assembly; producing such performance requires substantial effort.
Before encountering this product, I shared the same doubts as many players: why release a similarly capable frame when Pollen already has a mature aerodynamic design? I suppose this “Liang Jian” is meant to stand out amidst controversy. What astonishes me is that it may well perform better than any other “Liang Jian” I’ve used…
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Bonny J20-008 Reviews
When it comes to Pollen, one cannot overlook its core competitive product—the “Wu Que” series. The unique woven frame structure and the clear carbon fiber texture wrapped in distinctive resin showcase a strong industrial style, making it stand out.
Of course, in today’s diverse opinions, many players have become immune to the hard hitting feel of the Wu Que series, losing that initial freshness. However, it must be acknowledged that the Wu Que series has always been Pollen’s flagship product.
This time, I want to share my experience with the Pollen Wu Que J20-008, which attracted me deeply with its appearance. It retains the familiar woven design, but instead of the dull cement gray or the series’ signature bright silver, the 008 boldly uses a striking ice blue in an asymmetric form on the 4 and 10 o’clock positions of the frame.
The J20-008, weighing 4U and having a balance point of 300±5mm, features moderate shaft elasticity. The frame has a large head square design with 76 string holes.
With its sharp, streamlined aerodynamic frame structure and an overall weight of 4U, the 008 boasts a high balance point of 303mm (after applying the grip), yet maintains a fast swing speed.
As the frame transitions to the bottom, the rounded and stable fluid aerodynamic structure enhances its anti-torsion properties in the T-joint area, making it a reasonable choice.
In actual gameplay, the 008 makes it easy to hit high clear shots thanks to its forward balance point. Coupled with the direct and crisp mid-shaft feedback characteristic of the Wu Que series, the feeling is as if the shuttlecock is “hit and gone” without any lingering, but players familiar with the Wu Que series won’t be satisfied with just this straightforward feel, as it’s merely the basic performance of the series. Strung at 28lbs with VBS66N, the 008 delivers significantly enhanced sound upon impact, with a metallic resonance!
Powerful and dynamic. High stiffness is undoubtedly the 008’s most proud attribute. Whether it’s a fast flat block at the net or a push and release, the 008 offers excellent directionality and continuity.
When holding the racket level and targeting the net tape, I can distinctly feel the friction and vibration when the shuttle makes contact with the string bed during small movements like soft shots. The stable frame ensures the 008’s shot directionality is quite precise. Pairing it with a rougher string can enhance its frictional properties, adding more spin to net shots.
In mid-court exchanges, the light weight and swing weight of the 008 balance its dynamic shot-making capabilities, allowing for considerable variation. The overall cross-section of the frame shows excellent torsional stability. Although the shot-wrapping and hold time are brief, the speed and placement are crisp, akin to hitting metal.
However, with benefits come trade-offs; the advantage in speed means sacrificing much of its absolute offensive capability. When executing heavy smashes with the 008, the feedback can be quite firm, requiring solid technique to effectively leverage its attacking potential. Therefore, I recommend players use the 008 to focus on quick continuity and rhythm during aggressive play.
The large head design of the 008 not only allows for quick offensive strikes but also performs well defensively, thanks to its rapid rebound speed and high margin for error. During defensive counterattacks, it delivers a sharp, forceful response, with the mid-shaft rebounding quickly and stably, maintaining good control over shot trajectories. However, its strong frame rigidity means that during fast-paced doubles play, hitting off the sweet spot will noticeably lower shot quality, illustrating the pros and cons of its stiffness in both offense and defense. Passive defensive responses require more patience to adapt.
—Recommendation Summary Pollen, known for its “cost-performance ratio,” has produced many excellent works within its core Wu Que series. However, it’s rare to see something as “novel” as the 008, which stands out for its distinctive appearance and feel. Its dynamic yet sturdy hitting attributes avoid the common pitfalls, and the moderate shaft elasticity provides a nice balance amidst the stiffness. However, its lack of a wrapping feel may not suit players who prefer finesse. I recommend this racket for singles players who favor speed and can also handle fast-paced doubles. It’s best paired with a rigid VBS-66N or an elastic VBS-63. The performance of the J20-008 will certainly not disappoint you.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Bonny STAR MAGIC Reviews
A friend said this is the most beautiful “Sky Realm” racket.
If we’re simply talking about aesthetics, it’s certainly reasonable to buy an attractive racket in the 200 range. However, since we’re at Zhongyu, it’s clear that a racket that looks good and performs well is even better, and there are plenty of pretty options in this price range.
In the previous two articles, I’ve already established the differences between the Star Shadow and Star Cloud. For the final model, Star Fantasy, I’m fortunate to be able to test it out during a phase of warming-up feel. This is the conclusion of the parallel testing series; thank you all for your support.
Specs: 4UG5, pre-strung with a total weight of 93.1g, balance point of 285mm, shaft length of 220mm, soft tuning, fluid box frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, fluid box frame, a tension guarantee of 26lbs, strung at 24-26lbs with VBS66N strings. From the flower pattern to gray-purple, and now to the bright blue, Bo Li finally knows how to create a paint job that captures trendy aesthetics. The bright blue of Star Fantasy easily reminds me of the Rapid 90F, but some friends have previously mentioned that the matte finish results in a less upscale appearance, which is a minor regret. The patterns on both sides of the frame have also changed to stars and planets, maintaining a fresh look that even has a slightly childish vibe—this is not a criticism; it’s just that for students, it might feel a bit juvenile, while for working professionals, it’s just right. I’ve gotten older, so it’s time for my gear to have a more mature look, and Star Fantasy fits the bill nicely.
Although the weights and balance points of the three rackets differ, if you don’t analyze them closely, they feel quite similar in terms of heft; they all lean toward balanced but aren’t overly light. The sensation of using leverage during various types of strikes is more pronounced and resembles that of the Star Shadow. Other than that, the swing weight and speed are quite similar, and when trying to discern the subtle differences among the three, I ultimately gave up. Since it’s hard to distinguish them deliberately, their differences in regular use probably won’t impact the ease of handling significantly, making the distinction somewhat limited.
In this context, it’s better to discuss the differences in racket tuning in a competitive setting. Regarding the feedback received from hitting, the pleasure I get from the Star Fantasy surpasses that of the Star Shadow. Although all three rackets use basic materials, the tactile experience differs significantly; the Star Shadow feels the most muted, while Star Fantasy is in the middle. From what I understand, the Star Shadow is priced slightly lower, and I can see the precision behind NVIDIA’s founder’s decisions.
When switching from Star Cloud to Star Fantasy, I noticed that the latter’s attacks aren’t as solid as the former’s. This is reflected in a slightly greater angle deviation in shots and lower output at the moment of contact. One could say that while using the Star Fantasy in multiple matches, it feels more unpredictable. In the same active downstroke situations, the Star Fantasy feels softer and lacks a bit of concentrated explosive power. This means that each downstroke with the Star Fantasy is easier for opponents to defend against, necessitating more shot continuity to score, even when you have the upper hand.
However, the Star Fantasy seems to endure more. Even when playing rigorously for three or four games, using the “syrupy” Star Cloud would leave me physically drained, while switching to the slightly softer Star Fantasy allows me to keep going for three more games. If the Star Cloud has a killer move, the Star Fantasy has its own elusive step, making it better for drop shots. Other than that, there aren’t significant differences in controlling small balls or flat shots among the three rackets.
After trying all three, I do have my preferences based on their different performance characteristics. However, I believe these differences aren’t that important for beginners; it’s better for them to choose based on aesthetic appeal. For intermediate players, these rackets also make great recommendations for new players or as gifts; I’m sure they’ll be favored by female players.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Bonny FEATHER 280 Reviews
How to handle leftover rice? I usually fry it. On the surface, it’s just reheating cold leftovers from the day before, simply to fill the stomach. However, when you add fresh shrimp, crisp peas, prized ham, soaked dried scallops, and seasonal vegetables, it transforms into a gourmet meal.
The pinnacle of fried rice can attract everyone. And when it comes to this, the master of fried rice is none other than Capcom.
Yesterday, I learned something that surprised me: the first company to introduce ultra-light rackets (under 5U) to the market was Bonny. Having already played with three of their Light Feather rackets, the latest in the series, the 280, has recently been re-released. That’s right, it’s a re-release, which makes me want to test Bo Li’s “fried rice” skills.
Specs: 5UG5, pre-strung with a total weight of 88.0g, a balance point of 305mm, shaft length of 220mm, medium stiffness, box frame, 76-hole string bed, 8-4 o’clock string grooves, a tension guarantee of 26lbs, strung at 25-27lbs with KT65 strings. You might remember my complaints about the 260, but after trying the 280, they’ve been completely resolved.
The platinum black color scheme gives off a high-end Bo Li vibe, although it doesn’t break any aesthetic boundaries. The glossy paintwork is smooth, with gold foil stickers used for the lettering and some frame decorations, which are raised to the touch, making me wonder about their durability against wear.
I initially thought the frame would have the same aerodynamic design as previous models in the series, but it’s gone back to a box frame, which surprised me. Though the Light Feather series has always emphasized lightness and elasticity, this time Bo Li raised the balance point while discarding the aerodynamic frame, clearly indicating a holistic approach to balancing easy handling with stable shot output.
Although Bo Li excels at controlling the dry weight of its rackets, the Light Feather series does not use Ultra Carbon, so the finished product can have a ±3g weight variation, meaning you could end up with a rare 4U racket. In practice, the Light Feather’s swing feels similar to some balanced 4U rackets, and it shouldn’t create a high barrier to using the 280. The easy drive sensation remains consistent—effortless clears to the baseline are incredibly satisfying. Plus, with the frame design changes, shot stability and precision have improved. When I tested controlling the shot’s landing between the two baselines, there was still a bit of the 5U floatiness, but for a racket in this weight class, it performs quite well.
If you focus your power more precisely, it can also produce fast and flat drives, similar to the effect of using the K600, though the hitting feedback and shock absorption on the Light Feather are superior.
I believe the shaft of the 280 hasn’t changed much, being limited by the cost and performance expectations of this product line. There’s no need to further tweak the already highly elastic shaft that performs well in its current form. However, the raised balance point is noticeable when it comes to the smash experience. From Light Feather 68 to 153 to 260 and now to 280, the smashing power has gradually increased, along with the thrill and confidence of heavy smashes. In this version, I can even feel a bit of the head-heavy attack racket’s direct feedback when whipping the shuttle. Though the shot is not suddenly more explosive, the shuttle speed is faster, and the sound is notably louder. After enhancing the downstroke’s threat with various techniques, the 280’s intense attack consistency becomes a greater test for your opponent once you outlast their initial defenses.
The only issue is that in singles, you still need to create your own opportunities for rear-court smashes, and the 280’s shots are still a bit floaty in the net game, so it’s better suited to doubles, where its strengths can shine when you’re in control.
It’s not just about continuous offense; the 280 excels in defense too. When defending against smashes, with just a quick squeeze of the fingers, you can lift the shuttle to the rear court. You can repeatedly defend smashes without much effort. Even if your underarm is targeted, taking a half-step back on your dominant side can awkwardly return the shuttle close to the net. Your backhand and overhead defense are even stronger. Even if your opponent pushes you deep into the backcourt on the forehand side, a cross-court lift to the baseline is still possible. However, the 280’s flat drives could be crisper; I wonder if Bo Li plans to release a new version with a stiffer shaft?
The key point is that with the 280, you can maintain a consistent pace throughout the entire evening without worrying about fatigue in the later stages of play. As Captain America would say, “I can do this all day.” This impressive endurance comes from its low weight, low swing weight, and energy-saving elasticity. It’s perfect for casual play but also equips the Light Feather with the ability to wear down opponents through endurance tactics. Against players of similar skill, continuous pressure and movement lead to a satisfying victory.
September 20, 2024
Badminton Racket Bonny Classic Carbon 2013P II Reviews
First, let me introduce myself. I’m an informal player who first got into badminton in 2013, during my first year of university. I’ve spent a lot of time on outdoor courts, but after pursuing my master’s and PhD, I don’t play as much, averaging around three times a week. My style leans towards speed and sudden attacks, and I’d rate myself around level 4, haha.
I’ve tried some independent brands and also played with the big three, thanks to having friends who let me test their rackets. I’m not too eager about buying high-end rackets (probably because of my budget, haha), but the collection of random rackets I own could already match the price of some high-end ones. When it comes to testing rackets, it might be that I haven’t found one that perfectly fits my style, or maybe I’m not an extreme enthusiast. I’ve often spent entire afternoons playing with friends and coaches using a gifted XM25 racket from a previous promotion. So, the following review is just my personal opinion—everyone has their own preferences, and I encourage open discussion.
Currently, my main rackets are the Third Court Black Panther K Supreme Edition and the Black Panther C Titanium Edition (I’ll review them later). I’ve always wanted to try some second-tier brands, like Kawasaki Lightning, Battle Wolf, Boli’s Demon Blade, and the 2013 and 1982 series, as well as the J20 series. But I admit, I’ve hesitated due to the mixed reviews about Boli’s marketing tactics. Who knows if they’re any good? After a long internal debate and being tempted by PDD’s discounts, I finally ordered the 2013P Second Generation Frost Blue. I got it for 305 yuan, including 66N strings, from a seller on a certain platform. Not sure if the seller remembers me!
Specs: I won’t go into too much detail about the 3-in-1 frame or octagonal edges—you can easily search for that. Considering the tension increase with 80-hole stringing, I asked the seller to string it at 25 lbs.
Appearance: At first, I liked the 2013L Second Generation Purple Gold version, but after showing it to my girlfriend, she felt that both the Frost Blue and Purple Gold were nice, but Frost Blue edged out slightly. From what I’ve read in some threads, I learned a bit about the differences between the P and L versions and ultimately chose the Frost Blue based on my playing style. When it arrived, I found it quite aesthetically pleasing, with a glossy finish that’s both luxurious and understated. It’s not as unattractive as some online forums claim—it just lacks any standout features, haha. I do think a cloud logo would look even better—it would be the ultimate finishing touch!
Feel: As a singles player, I haven’t used it for doubles. After a few high-intensity sessions, playing around sixteen or seventeen 21-point games, I’m not sure if I’ve improved or if it’s just a placebo effect, but my current record is 15 wins and 1 loss. I removed the original grip and added an overgrip, so it’s slightly heavier but still agile. As others have reviewed, this racket is stiff—very stiff from top to bottom, as one reviewer aptly put it, like a “brute.” The downward pressure is excellent, and the shuttle leaves the racket quickly, giving you an irresistible urge to smash whenever you’re under a clear. With proper power and footwork, it’s often possible to score with a single hit. Its precision is excellent—whether attacking or defending, it meets placement needs well, without any floating or imprecise shots. It also performs well in fast drives, making it suitable for players who favor continuous offensive play. Despite being a 3U racket, it’s surprisingly nimble, not inferior to the speed-focused series my friends use.
Cons: I was going to mention its weight and stiffness, as they can be quite taxing on stamina. Against tough opponents, during long rallies, it’s easy to become fatigued, and once your form suffers, the power of this heavy sword drops significantly. However, that’s not the racket’s fault—it’s mine!
Lastly, I want to touch on the topic of second-tier brands and independent brands often being associated with marketing “shills,” especially in the 300–500 yuan price range. There’s a lot of malicious competition and exaggerated claims, but instead of relying on hearsay, I think personal experience is more reliable, especially given the low cost of trying these rackets. At 300 yuan, including stringing, I believe the 2013P Second Generation is undoubtedly a solid and well-made product.
September 20, 2024