Tag: Bonny STAR MAGIC

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.

One player said this is the most beautiful of the Sky Series.

If we’re solely considering aesthetics, buying a visually appealing racket around the 200 price range isn’t a bad idea. But since we’re at Zhongyu, a racket that is both nice to look at and functional is even better, and this price range isn’t lacking in beautiful options.

In previous reviews, I’ve clarified the differences between the Starshadow and Starcloud. For the final model, Stardream, I had the opportunity to test it during a period of improved feel. This concludes my parallel review series. Thanks for the support!

Parameters: 4UG5, total weight 93.1g, balance point 285mm, shaft length 220mm, soft tuning, fluid box frame, 76-hole string bed, 9—3 point string grooves, warranty for 26 lbs, strung at 24—26 lbs with VBS66N string.

From the tassel color to gray-purple, and now the bright blue, Bonny has finally learned how to use popular aesthetics in their design. The bright blue of Stardream reminds me of the Speed90F, but some players have mentioned that the matte finish makes it less sophisticated, which is a small regret. The pattern on the sides of the frame has changed to stars and planets, maintaining a fresh look, but it might seem a bit childish—this isn’t a criticism but rather a note that it suits students and is just right for office workers. For me, with more experience, the Stardream’s design is appropriately understated.

Although the three rackets have different weights and balance points, they feel quite similar in hand, all being balanced but not overly light. The sensation of leveraging shots is more pronounced, similar to Starshadow. Apart from this, the moderate swing weight and higher swing speed are comparable across all three. When trying to discern the subtle differences, I eventually gave up. If it’s hard to differentiate between them deliberately, then their differences probably don’t significantly impact usability. The distinction is minimal.

In terms of shot feedback, Stardream gives me more pleasure than Starshadow. While basic materials are used in all three, Starshadow feels the most muddled, and Stardream is in the middle. As I understand, Starshadow is priced slightly lower, reminiscent of Nvidia’s precision.

Switching from Starcloud to Stardream, I found that the latter’s attack isn’t as solid as the former. The deviation in shot angles is slightly greater, and the momentary output is lower. When using Stardream, I felt it was harder to control during multiple competitive games. The softer feel during aggressive smashes means that Stardream’s smashes are more easily defended by opponents, requiring more shots to score in a fully aggressive situation.

However, Stardream seems more durable. Even after intense play for three or four games, Starcloud would have left me exhausted, while the softer Stardream could handle three more games even when fatigue sets in. If Starcloud has a killer feature, Stardream has its elusive charm, making it suitable for rallying and lifting shots.

In terms of small ball control and drives, all three rackets are similar.

After using all three rackets, I have my preferences based on their distinct performance features. For beginners, these differences might not be crucial; it’s better to choose based on aesthetics. For advanced players, these rackets are excellent choices for recommendations or gifts and will likely be favored by female players.