A couple of years ago, when I first explored Kawasaki’s Razer series with the 1916 model, it was indeed a distinctive product at the time. However, it fell short in specifications and lacked maturity in tuning, leading to issues in strength-based play where it seemed “insufficient.”
Subsequently, I tried an older model, the Razer 16, which had its own advantages, causing me to wonder if Kawasaki’s recent products had become too modular and formulaic. Then, the Razer 1916 was updated. This time, there was no choice paralysis—only one model was available.
Specifications: 4UG5, unstrung, weight in play 89.26g, balance point 300mm, shaft length 220mm, medium hardness, thin-wing box-shaped small frame, 76-hole string bed, full groove, warranty for 30 pounds, string tension 25-27 lbs Steel Armor 9.
Kawasaki’s product appearance can be trusted without reservation. To be honest, the new color adopts the same pattern as the previous model, with almost no new design effort, but the frame stickers are very colorful. The purple, red, and blue parts of the frame look quite vibrant, leading me to think, “Since it’s just a new color, using the same pattern is fine.” The distinctiveness of all three 1916 models is quite good. This is not a minor detail; after all, the original 1916, which I found less useful in its cyan color, actually sold better because it looked good.
The weight of the new color is very noticeable. Even though it is also a 4U model, it delivers a heavier feel, providing more power. To keep the shaft’s deformation within a controllable range despite the increased swing weight, its hardness was also adjusted accordingly. However, it’s worth noting that the small frame’s sensitivity to increased swing weight and hardness makes it more challenging to handle. Precise control over timing and power is required to hit accurately, raising the adaptation difficulty to a new level.
I also find it easy to feel the new color’s shortcomings in stroke and passive shot handling. This is relative; when the game’s tempo picks up, the increased swing weight makes the racket’s stroke longer, leading to a feeling of inflexibility. At the same time, the small frame’s precision requirements clash directly with the need for quick judgment on incoming shots. Issues with accuracy and power often occur in high-level play at mid-court, reminding me not to speed up recklessly. However, thanks to the steadier feel, I have more confidence in net play, and simple net returns can often achieve proactive results due to higher shot quality.
In smashing, the new color is also the heaviest. Particularly in powerful jumps that utilize core strength, the new color 1916’s explosiveness is impressive, with potential to drive the ball directly into the floor. The racket’s offensive feel is somewhat reminiscent of my unexpected delight with the Razer 16, but with the added advantage of being lightweight. This results in less burden during continuous downward shots and more comfortable follow-ups, effectively converting on-court momentum into points.
The new color of the 1916 does not have a sense of upgrade, but after re-tuning, it has become a product with a clearer function and more refined design. It has its own unique role to play.
Recently, Kawasaki has put significant promotional resources into pushing a lightweight offensive racket. Packaged in a gift box and featuring design elements from “The Investiture of the Gods,” this racket combines high-quality materials with a friendly feel, creating a small yet potent offensive tool. Before this, I hadn’t seen any Kawasaki product with such a clear offensive inclination in the same specification range. After trying out the last two rackets, I think Kawasaki has a knack for this mid-range ultra-light racket category.
Specifications: 5UG6, with a base, weight in play 88.19g, balance point 301mm, shaft length 220mm, medium hardness, box-shaped frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 35 pounds, string tension 26-28 lbs BS900.
The matte finish, bold red and blue contrasting design, and decorations featuring lotus flowers and fire wheels all align with traditional mythological themes. Although Kawasaki excels in paint and artistic design, the visual impact of the Nezha 35 is quite heavy due to its color scheme. If you create a PPT page with a blue background and red text, or vice versa, you’ll understand why the Nezha 35’s design might feel overwhelming. The gift box packaging is attractive, but it only includes a standard racket cover and grip tape.
The balance point of the racket is relatively restrained compared to other 5U rackets. Even though it exceeds 300mm without being bottom-heavy, its main feature remains its “lightness.” However, the swing weight is somewhat elevated. The Nezha 35’s driving feel is quite noticeable due to its long shaft connection. The racket can use its shaft’s deformation to generate power, and the rebound of this deformation is also excellent. Coupled with the box-shaped frame’s stability, it can ensure directional accuracy in long-line shots, with good control for baseline high balls.
The shaft hardness is moderate, and the Nezha’s power feel is good, not burdensome for me. The ultra-light racket requires higher precision in short bursts of power, and I enjoy the feedback from concentrated power shots.
Since the launch of the popular small hammer from Blue Factory, “hammer-like” ultra-light rackets have become a trend. To stand out among many competitors, elasticity is key. The 40T-grade material used in the Nezha 35 ensures that it can produce a certain level of power even without high swing weight. Admittedly, its own mass is not enough to create a substantial threat in the mid-to-back court, even with ample power generation opportunities. However, its quick release, good elasticity, short pre-swing, and absence of stiffness make it advantageous for handling active shots. It excels in sudden intercepts and aggressive net play, increasing the tempo of the game and putting pressure on opponents, which is the scenario Nezha desires.
At the same time, the racket’s surface performance is not overly aggressive but retains a certain ball-holding feel. This benefits receiving, scrapping, and flicking shots, with higher tolerance for control in net shots, making users more confident on court and achieving a positive mental feedback. Although the Nezha does not match the stability of 3U or 4U offensive rackets, its flexibility and delicate operation make it a worthwhile choice.
I would describe its defensive performance as “resolute.” It is flexible in handling shots at the net, angles, and defensive play, though it lacks a bit of appropriate shock absorption. When trying to defend against a weak opponent’s down smash and hoping to block with a net shot, it can be prone to popping up a bit.
The Nezha also performs excellently in handling passive shots, with sufficient shaft elasticity and a forgiving racket face. Its low difficulty in driving and swing weight make it easy to generate power, ensuring better placement of the ball.
Additionally, the recent issue of Kawasaki’s product homogenization seems to have been significantly alleviated in the ultra-light racket category, which is the most prone to failure. For the recent Aurora 50S and Nezha 35, despite differences in shaft quality, both demonstrate differences in swing speed, feedback, and tuning focus, and both are good to use. This indicates a thorough understanding of the products.
Since my partner has hijacked the computer, I couldn’t access the original draft, so here’s a quick update.
This year, Kawasaki released a set of Space Coordinate System XYZ rackets. Having previously used the Razer Z, which is the highest-quality model among the three, I found that it had the best materials. However, I felt that the Z could have been stiffer, so I decided to try the remaining two models.
Let’s start with the Razer Y:
Specifications: 4U G5, unstrung weight 93.0g, balance point 295mm, 40T material shaft, length 215mm, medium stiffness, aerodynamic frame, 76-hole string bed, 3-9 o’clock grommets, 30lbs warranty, strung with 25-27lbs KT66F.
In terms of appearance, the Razer Y stands out among the many snake-themed rackets. Kawasaki opted for a deep blue color with extensive water decals on the frame. The snake scale patterns at the 4 and 8 o’clock positions and the design on the cone cap are reminiscent of last year’s Razer model. Compared to the elegant Razer Z, the Y has a more dimensional look, perhaps due to the choice of color tones.
Also, Kawasaki’s square racket cover is always impressive.
The balance point of the racket is not high, and the grip feel is standard, with no particularly noteworthy sensations. The new Razer models are, of course, fast. The 4U aerodynamic frame combined with a moderate head-heavy balance gives a sharp feel when swinging. If it had other specifications, it would likely be more suited to doubles play. However, the lightness of the racket raises concerns about its stability and solidity.
The large frame area provides a high tolerance but lacks power concentration. While the shaft’s elasticity is good, it has a bit of its own quirks. It responds better when some force is applied; otherwise, the feedback from the Razer Y feels lacking. The shaft’s deformation threshold is low, making it easy to swing, but the initial difficulty is not high.
As I continued using it, I began to notice some issues.
The Razer Y has good materials and can deliver considerable speed when hitting high clears. However, the lack of weight in the head further amplifies the frame’s torsional instability. The shot placement becomes scattered, with shots varying between under-hitting and hitting the sidelines. Is it due to my own feel or skill level? Maybe, but it reminds me of a certain model from a blue brand, where I felt uncertain with long shots.
Attempting to focus on shorter, downward shots revealed another flaw. I once tried an unusually heavy smash from the forehand area, but due to not finding the correct hitting point, it turned into a high clear and landed on the neighboring court’s sidelines.
However, the Razer Y does have power and good sound during smashes, and it can deliver high-speed shots with penetrating force, reminiscent of a certain model from Brand B. Yet, given my current level, achieving both power and precision with the Razer Y is challenging.
Despite these issues, the Razer Y performs well in defensive and passive situations, showing its friendly side. It also excels in flat drives and blocks, with good speed and continuity. If not for the cone cap’s balance point indicator, its agility might make you forget it’s a head-heavy racket.
Ultimately, I couldn’t pinpoint exactly what felt off. The interaction with the Razer Y felt lacking. While the racket is worth considering price-wise, it won’t be a model I would strongly recommend from Kawasaki this year.
Recently, I’ve been using a lot of Kawasaki rackets, and after trying several models, I’ve noticed a trend towards some homogenization. As one of the brands that can also take custom orders and has its own production line, Kawasaki’s advantage in manufacturing can lead to the same kind of “OEM” issues with product standardization.
However, it’s a good thing that the average quality of their rackets is consistently high. Even among the generally competent rackets, there are still standout products.
The Meteor is positioned similarly to the previous Aurora, so Kawasaki needed to showcase its strengths in appearance and paint quality. The Meteor features a pink-white color scheme with a semi-matte finish. The frame uses low-contrast pink and cyan for accent colors, making the racket look more delicate. This may be more appealing to some of the younger players.
The feel of the Meteor is very similar to the Aurora. The lower weight and slightly higher balance point ensure that the racket doesn’t feel too light when swung. Apart from the parameter differences due to quality control, the Meteor’s lower stiffness and moderate swing speed, combined with its length and consistency, make it quite similar to the Aurora. So, for those interested in these two rackets, choosing based on personal preference for appearance is a reasonable approach.
However, I feel that the warranty tension for these rackets seems unnecessary. I recall when the Big Hammer was first introduced, many beginners were seeking lighter rackets with higher tension, which were not essential for entry-level rackets and were quite misleading. Of course, I don’t doubt that Kawasaki’s rackets can handle high tension.
So, when using these types of rackets, it might be more reasonable to choose based on personal aesthetics rather than specific needs.
Specifications: Hurricane 088, 4U G5, unstrung weight 94.5g, balance point 297mm, shaft length 215mm, medium stiffness, box-shaped frame, 76-hole string bed, 3-9 o’clock grommets, warranty for 30lbs, strung with 26-28lbs BS710.
While the Meteor’s appearance is quite good, the Hurricane offers a strikingly unique look. The bright cyan and some purple-red stickers on the frame are not commonly used colors. The bright appearance over the white base coat makes the Hurricane visually vibrant. However, I don’t understand why the racket includes some gray carbon fiber-like patterns. Nevertheless, the larger area of water decals on the frame does provide a fuller visual impression.
The Hurricane’s head-heavy feel, swing speed, and sweet spot performance are similar to the previous models, but it has the highest shaft stiffness and provides a more authentic hitting experience.
Don’t underestimate this change, as it makes the Hurricane my favorite racket among those I’ve used.
In terms of flexibility and face performance, the Hurricane feels more solid during downward shots, reducing the feeling of wasted effort. Although for advanced players, the heavy smash effect still doesn’t match mainstream mid-range equipment, the enhanced downward feel and improved sound quality contribute to better shot consistency and confidence. Additionally, the racket’s weight provides a more stable and precise control over the ball.
While I’ve been adjusting my feel, using several low-end rackets with similar types and feels has led to some boredom due to homogenization. Reflecting on my experience with the Aurora, Kawasaki’s entry-level products this time are comparable in quality but have fewer fine-tuned adjustments. Except for the Hurricane, the other three models are not very different from each other, providing a reason for indecisive players to choose easily. However, the stock of these four rackets isn’t large, and similar products will likely appear in the future. If you need them now, you can enjoy a good price, but missing out might still offer another chance.
A prolonged front line isn’t necessarily a good thing. Last year, Kawasaki’s Razer 1916 came in two versions with distinct performance orientations, catering to different preferences. This year, inspired by that, they released three new models, but none of them have quite met my expectations, indicating that the fast-moving product strategy may be a bit too aggressive.
Until yesterday, when I tested the Razer X, I finally found a racket that felt more harmonious to use.
Specifications: 4U G5, unstrung weight 95.3g, balance point 293mm, 6.8mm shaft, 46T material, handle length 215mm, medium stiffness, aerodynamic frame, 76-hole string bed, 3-9 o’clock grommets, warranty for 30lbs, strung with 25-27lbs KT66F.
The design language of this year’s three Razer models is the same, with only the color tones differing. The X model shares the same level as the Y, and the deep base color combined with the bright purple-red seems to hint at its aggressive nature. Due to the color difference, the snake scale stickers at the 4 and 8 o’clock positions on the frame are more noticeable.
Among speed rackets, the Razer X feels quite neutral, with a slight head-heavy feel combined with the 4U specification. The shaft stiffness isn’t high, and initially, it feels a bit like a “sugar-water” racket due to the shaft deformation and the large sweet spot. The initial feel is easy and elastic, but one needs to adjust the power to avoid hitting long. The current specifications could use a bit more stiffness; it has a bit of a “power loss” feel initially and lacks some explosiveness.
Nevertheless, the elasticity ensures a good speed of shot, providing effective pressure in flat clears, though the power still needs to be controlled. The overall torsional resistance is not outstanding but acceptable, and control over long shots requires further refinement.
Compared to the Razer Y and Z, the X allows me to experience speed and agility more easily, though it is the one with the highest balance point among the three. In flat drives and receiving smashes, this racket can push my reaction limits, creating an adrenaline rush during intense exchanges. However, the shaft’s lack of stiffness leads to slower recovery after bending, causing occasional instability during play.
My biggest dissatisfaction with it is its performance during decisive attacks. The slightly higher balance point provides good downward pressure but cannot compensate for the soft shaft, which limits the racket’s ability to support more explosive power. Although this type of racket still has advantages in speed and continuity, the lack of a winning shot capability impacts confidence during powerful smashes.
Overall, this racket is a fairly standard speed-oriented “sugar-water” racket with a modest upper limit. Its strengths lie in its accessibility, paint quality, and the thoughtful design of the racket cover. While I know it may not accompany me in more rigorous competitions, its ease of use provides a comforting experience. Out of the three models, the X has left a steady and controllable impression throughout my usage.
Finally, I can relax for a while. My recent tasks have been eating, drinking, and having fun, getting plenty of rest, and of course, playing badminton! And sharing my experiences too~ Apologies for the delay with the Kawasaki GT-I review. That said, the White Swan TU160 already left a strong impression on me, and this similarly priced little powerhouse, the GT-I, is also impressive.
Appearance: The GT-I features a mech-style flamingo color scheme, with a white and red base complemented by some gilded patterns. The symmetrical design and the red top and T-head grommets enhance its appeal. For a price under 200, I always worry about paint quality, but after extended use, I found my concerns unfounded. Except for a minor paint bubble near the T-head, the rest of the racket is almost perfect. The texture is comfortable and durable; it looks good and is tough enough not to be a burden.
Specifications: 4U G5, 76-hole box frame, 3-9 o’clock grommets, unstrung weight + grip tape: 94.0g, handle length: 205mm, shaft length: 215mm, balance point: approximately 300mm, strung with VBS66N at 26lbs.
Playing Feel: The flamingo-colored GT-I truly embodies its bold nature. Unlike the White Swan TU160, which I previously highly recommended, the GT-I has a stronger attacking property and isn’t as balanced. Right from the start, you can feel that the GT-I has more weight, giving it a noticeable head-heavy feel, which translates into a great attacking experience. The shaft hardness is moderate but feels slightly soft, with slower response speed and a softer, bouncier feel, somewhat like a toned-down, easier-to-handle Fire Call.
I previously mentioned that the TU160 is versatile and easy to use, particularly well-suited for casual play and rotation in a variety of games. In contrast, the GT-I excels in directionality and shot stability, making it more solid for high clears, kills, slices, and even heavy smashes from the back court. Its accuracy is impressive, and its torsional resistance is excellent, thanks to the brand’s consistent use of materials, including a 30T solution and internal T-head. Its net play and flat drive performance are average for this price range—neither particularly standout but sufficient.
The GT-I is not too difficult to handle. For me, the only drawback is that the shaft could be a bit stiffer to emphasize its attacking properties. Especially for those who prefer a speed-focused attacking style, it might feel slightly slow. I understand that many brands in this price range opt for a conservative style, but there’s also a market for “oddities,” and many entry-level players are eager to try “non-beginner” rackets with confidence.
Summary: Although this review is about the Kawasaki GT-I, it seems to end up recommending the TU160! Both rackets are excellent choices for entry-level or intermediate players and offer great value. At under 200 with strings included, both are worth having as backups. However, if you ask me to choose the best in the 200 price range, I would still stand by the TU160.
After experiencing a barrage of high-end new products from Bonny, I finally got a chance to catch my breath and try out other brands.
I’m not sure when it started, but there seems to be a trend among manufacturers to adjust and replicate specific models. While the workmanship is assured, the strong presence of OEM factories and the simple combinations have gradually become dull.
To be direct, Kawasaki’s new product this time is a youth version of the JS12.
Specifications: 4UG5, with a cap, total weight 92.0g in used condition, balance point 303mm, 6.8mm shaft, 40T material, length 215mm, moderate hardness, wind-breaking frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string groove, warranty for 30 pounds, string tension 25-27lbs with KT65 string.
This is a matte white snake, which seems to contrast with the snarling image on the cone cap. Does it hint at the racket’s fierce side? Regardless, the blue-gray stickers on the white base coat create a visually harmonious effect, and the snake head on the T-joint looks a bit playful and cute. Kawasaki’s art department shows top-notch skill, but I’m concerned about whether the stickers will withstand the impact of hitting the frame.
The racket has a high balance point, but the narrowed wind-breaking frame makes the Razer Z’s swing speed quite good. It’s worth mentioning that the wind-breaking treatment on the frame has a strong resemblance to Blue Factory’s Speed series, from the elliptical wind-breaking at the T-joint to the full wind-breaking at the head. This is one of the reasons I compare it to the JS12, as it balances stability and speed.
The sweet spot on the string bed is very large. Combined with the moderately hard shaft, it is not particularly difficult to handle when first using it. However, the large sweet spot also brings about the issue of a scattered sweet spot, which results in a lack of the satisfying feedback when hitting the ball right in the center. The feeling of hitting the ball may not be direct before getting used to the Razer Z, and it might not produce high ball speeds, affecting the control of high clear shots.
This is a racket that feels great when playing at the net. With its high swing speed and balance point, you can easily reach high points. The larger racket face and higher tolerance help in dealing with slightly higher incoming shots at the net. When opportunities are not ideal or when needing to switch from defense to attack against a drop shot, the larger face and higher tolerance can assist in making quality net shots. For players who enjoy manipulating the ball, various changing rhythms and pushes can be executed with the Razer Z’s lightweight build, increasing the threat of each shot.
In terms of flat drives, it is simply ideal. As long as your ideas and reactions keep up with the opponent’s rhythm, all kinds of line changes, crouch hits, and placements feel effortless.
However, the Razer Z still has inherent flaws in torsional stability. There is a lack of stability in controlling the drop points of long shots, leading to deviations in ball trajectory. This flaw is more noticeable in smashes, and since it is a 4U version, despite providing power, the racket seems a bit unstable, leading to some off-target shots and feeling a bit floaty both horizontally and vertically.
Nevertheless, since the racket is designed to be more forgiving, let it play to its strengths with a more continuous rhythm and quick-paced shots to score. In fact, I still prefer using the Razer Z for mixed doubles in the men’s position, as every smash feels more manageable, without the exhausting sensation, and it even makes the footwork feel lighter.
In 2023, Kawasaki released three new Razer models, continuing their focus on doubles rackets after last year’s 1916 launch. Although I mentioned that simple and incremental adjustments based on precedents might become tedious over time, this might only be a concern for equipment enthusiasts. In reality, most of the secondary and independent brand products I’ve encountered are worth their price in terms of completion.
So, unless a manufacturer suddenly decides not to offer ice cream, the competition among manufacturers for mid-range rackets will remain intense for a long time.
Kawasaki’s entry-level models are produced in large quantities, and new models are released every quarter. In addition to the official models, Kawasaki also handles a lot of custom rackets for retailers, showing that their production capacity is quite robust.
What’s intriguing is that Kawasaki not only meets the demand but also maintains high quality in this category. Whether for casual play or for competitive entry-level rackets, their extensive product line offers suitable options for consumers. Furthermore, I often find satisfactory experiences with their two- and three-star rackets from the old rating system. The materials used in these rackets are transparent and reflect the manufacturer’s tuning skills.
Parameters: Aurora 5UG5, with shrink film, total weight in play 88.94g, balance point 299mm, shaft length 213mm, relatively low stiffness, box-type frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 30 lbs, string tension 24 lbs durable string.
Kawasaki clearly puts effort into the visible parts of their rackets. Their style, even in low-end rackets, is to use good appearance design and paintwork. The Qinghua porcelain series is a good example of this. The Aurora, similar in its fresh and slightly feminine style to Qinghua porcelain, features glacier blue and deep green colors, evoking the cold polar night sky. The color blocks have a gradient transition, giving a natural look to the wings of the frame, and the use of stickers is restrained, giving it a simple European style. Although I associate Aurora with vibrant visual effects, the current Aurora is much more understated, but still aligns with my aesthetic.
The light specification combined with the soft setting is clearly aimed at beginners. The standard fluid box-type frame and 76-hole string bed provide high stability and error tolerance. In routine high clears, the racket shows excellent handling, allowing for easy shaft deformation and elasticity, sending the shuttlecock to the opponent’s baseline effortlessly. Not only is the handling easy, but the physical demands are also very low, and the current quality of the Aurora is already satisfactory. The racket’s elasticity is above average for its level and uses 30T material. A slightly firmer stiffness setting would be even better.
In faster-paced exchanges, the Aurora has its pros and cons. The advantage is its lightweight performance, making transitions between forehand and backhand and continuous frame adjustments quick. With a low threshold for generating power, it’s also effective in defensive play and retrieving shots. The downside is the racket’s sluggish character; although the swing is fast, the shuttlecock doesn’t come off directly, and the recovery speed of the shaft after deformation is slow, leading to instability after a few shots.
Among 5U entry-level rackets, the Aurora performs above average in close-net shots. It doesn’t feel too erratic and has a decent ball-holding feel due to the ample string bed area. It’s easy to achieve stable actions and consistent shot quality when performing drop shots and net shots. The shuttlecock has a clear holding sensation, making it possible to execute tight net shots with a cut action from the backcourt. This is one of the aspects I’m most satisfied with.
In simple terms, even for intermediate players, the Aurora can still deliver a good experience.
Parameters: GTI 4UG5, with shrink film, total weight in play 91.03g, balance point 297mm, shaft length 215mm, medium stiffness, box-type frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 30 lbs, string tension 25-27 lbs BS710.
The GTI features a mecha style in its paintwork, inspired by VW’s famous small steel cannon. The bright red stickers on the frame at 2, 10, 5, and 7 o’clock create a combat atmosphere. The red stickers on the shaft make the racket look flashy, though this makes the model number less visible. Compared to the Aurora, the GTI’s visual appeal feels more ordinary to me.
The GTI’s feel is noticeably more substantial than the Aurora, with improved specifications and head weight distribution showing a certain heft. The medium stiffness of the shaft provides a more solid feel when hitting. The GTI is also easy to drive, but offers more power and is more suitable for male players. The feeling of sending the shuttlecock high and far into the opponent’s court is similar to many other entry-level rackets, which is straightforward and well-understood.
While the increased stiffness and swing weight don’t make the GTI more difficult in passive or defensive play, it remains light and easy to use. The feel in defensive drives is quite manageable, and in faster-paced rallies, the racket head responds better and maintains stability through multiple shots. The swing speed and agility are slightly reduced, but the impact is minimal. Powering through defensive shots or smashes remains effortless without the hindrance of excessive head heaviness or high stiffness. However, compared to the TU-160, noticeable differences can be felt.
In terms of small ball control, the GTI performs adequately, without outstanding or poor characteristics. The feel is primarily influenced by the racket’s weight distribution. Compared to the TU160, the GTI feels more solid. However, the GTI, like the Aurora, has noticeable power transmission issues, with a clear lack of force in powerful smashes. There is a feeling of insufficient explosiveness, and while the GTI may handle gentle downward shots better than the Aurora, its performance ceiling does not show significant differences. The additional power mainly comes from increased head momentum and the illusion of feedback from the stiffer shaft.
Both of these rackets are ones where users may reach their limits as their skill level increases, especially in offense. They suffer from insufficient downward force, with significant shaft deformation during heavy smashes and a lack of explosiveness. The responsiveness of the racket face is hesitant, and the rhythm in attacks is delayed.
For competitive play, they have quite a few shortcomings. However, trying out entry-level products occasionally can be beneficial after more serious competitive testing. These rackets are better suited for beginners or as gifts for new players, and they are indeed a reliable option.
This new product was provided by the retailer, but its naming is a bit of a leap. Kawasaki’s previous rackets have used object-plus-number naming conventions, where the object itself represented the current racket’s style. But 图160 (Tu 160) is a strategic bomber in the Soviet Union…
Later, I found out that they intended to name it after its nickname: White Swan…
In any case, this is my first time trying a Kawasaki racket of this level. Let’s see how it performs.
Specifications: 4UG5, with shrink film, total weight in play 92.9g, balance point 282mm, shaft length 215mm, 30T material, medium-soft stiffness, fluid box-type frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 28 lbs, string tension 24-26 lbs.
The racket comes in two colors, and the version I tested is the white one. My initial complaints might seem inexplicable, so let me explain: it neither achieves the elegance of a white swan nor the imposing power of a bomber, so why choose this name? The blue and white paint job does have a bit of a “Big Bear” feel, but the overall design elements are not rich. The paint lacks layering, and the appearance feels plain, fitting a mid-range or lower product. It shouldn’t be this way; Kawasaki has always been strong in appearance design, but this racket seems somewhat mediocre. It looks like the expectations were too high.
Personally, I think the gray-gold version looks better, but if it had spent the effort saved on paint on improving performance, I would fully support it.
Golden weight distribution: The unstrung racket is 4U, with a certain head heaviness, which is quite comfortable. Although the balance point changes significantly after adding grip, a slight head heaviness can still be felt, providing a good leverage effect without making the swing weight too high for beginners.
At the same time, the frame has no special technology; the box-type frame is a very mature choice, offering a large sweet spot and good torsional resistance. There’s nothing uncomfortable about it during the initial adaptation. 图160 is a racket that anyone can handle. In terms of high clears, the shaft’s deformation is easy to achieve, and it has good elasticity and a large sweet spot, making it easy to send the shuttlecock to the baseline. The target audience for this racket is clear: it is suitable for beginners, even those handling passive shots with relatively low pressure, and is also quite appropriate for intermediate players in relaxed practice sessions.
Recently, among low-end rackets, the only one giving me an upgrade in offensive experience was the Bonny Nebula, and this is another one. Judging a racket’s offensive effectiveness solely by its stiffness tuning is unreliable. With 图160, it’s clear that its relatively soft nature allows for easy driving, but it doesn’t prevent it from showing good explosiveness during heavy smashes, with high shuttlecock speed and quick release. Although the feeling of the shot is not very heavy due to its 4U specification, in fast-paced offensive and defensive exchanges, this entry-level racket combines continuity and initial speed advantages to achieve very high output. With some strategic shot placement, the 图160 can secure victories.
Remarkably, the shaft’s recovery speed is not inferior to other products at the same level, so in defensive drives, it’s less likely to experience issues like erratic flight or rattling. Even without showing cross-level or crossover performance, it’s capable of handling most situations encountered by amateur players.
In fact, this is the first time I’ve truly experienced Kawasaki’s technical prowess. The overall tuning is quite impressive, and it doesn’t feel like a racket that only uses 24T for the frame and 30T for the shaft. In my opinion, the racket reaches the level of mid-range “sugar water” rackets represented by the TK15. Considering that this representative is equipped with an M40J 6.8mm flash shaft, it feels like an underdog triumph. During the test, the 图160 did not reveal any low-end racket traits. Therefore, I repeatedly confirmed the current pricing and positioning of this racket with the recommending retailer, which was quite surprising.
As early as 2020, Kawasaki’s Spider-Man 9900II left me with a very poor impression as a flagship offensive racket at the time. It was heavy and stiff, far beyond my ability to handle, and I never had a pleasant moment using it.
This year, a familiar friend mentioned that Spider-Man is preparing a new model, which also uses top-grade materials. I saw the leaked photos, and the design seemed acceptable. However, after the initial testing, my friend couldn’t tolerate it—too stiff, and it needs to go back to the drawing board.
I previously had strong apprehensions, but recently I’ve started to adopt a more balanced mindset.
Specifications: 4UG5, with a base, total weight in play 95.0g, balance point 300mm, shaft length 215mm, high stiffness, Diamond Wind-breaking frame, 76-hole string bed, 8-4 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 30 lbs, string tension 25-27 lbs.
It looks good; indeed, it’s a classic Kawasaki. Compared to the previous two flagship Spider-Man models that used a black base with enhanced fluorescent orange/green accents, the 8100Pro is clearly more refined. The frame and shaft base use white base paint, while the frame head and T-joint are black, creating a layered effect. The design details of the paintwork are very rich and delicate, with stickers and colorful lines at the 4, 8, 10, and 2 o’clock positions, making the visual effect abundant and showcasing traditional advantages.
From the parameters of the cone cap, it seems this version of Spider-Man is much gentler, with neither the stiffness nor the head heaviness being the highest grade. After handling it, the 8100Pro indeed has a strong head-heavy feel, but in the 4U specification, it is not exaggerated in terms of swing weight, making it a typical offensive racket feel.
Previously, a fellow player posted about an imbalance in the weight distribution on the sides of the frame, but I haven’t noticed such issues with my equipment yet. However, if this is true, Kawasaki’s reputation for product quality control could be questioned.
To be honest, the 8100Pro is relatively easy to handle. Once accustomed to the current swing weight, the racket provides excellent power leverage, and the sweet spot is easy to control. The ball quality is quite good; it can consistently send the shuttlecock with a high arc between the two baselines in a leisurely manner, without needing to exert much control over power, thanks to its strong leverage. The shaft is still on the stiffer side, but when adding power or performing quick movements, you can feel the shaft’s deformation, and its effect on the shuttle speed is visibly noticeable. During rallies, it is easier to hit high, powerful shots that pressure the opponent, occasionally going over their head.
Additionally, despite its stiffness, it is not harsh on the hands.
Speaking of the Diamond Wind-breaking frame, I think of the Lightning Series and Super Nano Series. They claim to balance stability and swing speed, but they still tend to resemble box-shaped frames more. With this frame type, the high head-heavy feel naturally does not provide high swing speed for the 8100Pro. However, in terms of stability, the racket performs well in anti-torsion, as it uses 46T+80T grade carbon fiber materials in the frame, ensuring rigidity. The only concern is whether Kawasaki’s familiar formula for the Diamond Wind-breaking frame might lead to cracking.
Previously, the performance of such rackets in defense was a nightmare for me, but Spider-Man’s defensive feel is quite outstanding. Whether defending against smashes or making quick flicks near the net, it is stable and responsive. Although I would not actively push the pace to a defensive rhythm, I can at least escape when the opponent attacks. The same technique can also be used in doubles defense, where it can effectively counter and disrupt the opponent’s continuity. In slower, continuous counter-attacks, I am satisfied with the feel of the Spider-Man 8100Pro.
For players with good power who do not like to follow up, Spider-Man’s down-pressure capability is a strong weapon for an aggressive style. Indeed, the combination of head-heavy and a highly elastic shaft endows the 8100Pro with a deep reserve of offensive capability. With strong materials supporting it, as long as footwork and power execution are on point, it is not difficult to achieve the whip-like sensation of the racket, accompanied by a somewhat dull but loud echo. The shuttlecock’s impact is like an APFSDS projectile, powerfully shaking or even directly penetrating the opponent’s defense.
However, it must be noted that while the upper limit is high, the physical exertion required is also significantly noticeable. It is quite common to switch to a defensive state after a few smashes due to fatigue.
In a passive state or fluctuating ability, the Spider-Man’s performance struggles have not shown significant improvement. According to current feedback on this new product, there is a polarization trend, with even the same player experiencing different feelings at different times. This indicates that the Spider-Man 8100Pro might have a dividing line, significantly varying based on the user’s condition and preferences.
This is a product with very clear positioning and target audience. From using the 9900II three years ago to today’s 8100Pro, I personally feel that the difficulty of use has decreased. However, whether this is due to the increased driving feel of the racket or my own improved skills is hard to say.
I only recommend players who are fond of this type to give it a try. After all, this is currently Kawasaki’s top-level racket in terms of materials and craftsmanship, continuing the Spider-Man series style, and achieving a very high standard.
46T, 30T, C60 Fullerene—these are cutting-edge technological labels in the badminton racket world. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they appeared on a Kawasaki racket. But what if they were featured on a mid-range, box-framed singles racket known for its stability within Kawasaki’s lineup?
Perhaps it’s a preconceived notion, but in my understanding of the Kawasaki brand, most of their rackets are designed for doubles, with innovative and unique frame shapes that prioritize speed. On the other hand, singles rackets focused on stability and offense are something I’ve rarely heard of. The traditional, box-framed structure aimed at steady offensive play seems to predestine these rackets to an overall “mediocre” feel. However, Kawasaki has now introduced a racket named “Time Traveler” as part of a new series. I had recently tested the “Time Traveler” shoes from the same series, and both the shoes and the racket form a cohesive system. This time, I’ll be sharing my experience with the “Time Traveler” racket, which not only boasts a high aesthetic appeal but is also part of Kawasaki’s five-star Master Series. With cutting-edge technology combined with a retro box frame, does this pique your interest?
Appearance
The Kawasaki Time Traveler comes in three different color schemes: white-grey, dusk blue, and grey-green. Despite the different colors, the specs are consistent across all variants. The entire racket is designed with a strong matte finish, featuring a base of elegant, warm grey (or the other colors, which include a mystical purple and a refreshing mint green).
The lower part of the racket head is adorned with vibrant, dazzling laser stickers, adding flair to the otherwise simple box-framed structure. The mysterious colors combined with the reliable, stable feel of the racket create a balanced aesthetic.
Specifications
The Kawasaki Time Traveler I have in hand is a 4UG6 model. It’s worth noting that this Time Traveler racket is only available in 4U, with consistent specs across all three color schemes. The unstrung racket weighs 83g, with a balance point of 305mm. The shaft diameter is 6.8mm, and it is rated for a string tension of 28 lbs (with an official max tension of up to 35 lbs). After stringing and applying an overgrip, the racket weighs 94g, with the balance point shifting to 306mm.
The racket features a 76-hole string pattern with a medium-sized head and a box-shaped frame that’s geared towards concentrating power. The standout feature is the 2.0 Joint Reinforced T-Joint, which is visibly noticeable beneath the surface paint. Compared to the C60 fullerene, the 2.0 Joint Reinforced T-Joint is a technology you can literally see and feel. Additionally, the use of high modulus 30T + 46T carbon fiber combined with C60 fullerene in the frame reinforces the notion that Kawasaki spares no expense when it comes to carbon materials.
Fullerene Structure
The C60 structure, also known as buckyballs or fullerene, resembles a British-style football. It consists of 60 carbon atoms forming a stable molecule. British chemist Harold Kroto sketched out the molecular structure of C60, and fuller’s inspiration played a crucial role in this discovery. As a result, the molecule was named Buckminsterfullerene, after Buckminster Fuller, with “fullerene” as the shorthand.
Performance
When holding the Kawasaki Time Traveler, there’s a noticeable head-heavy feel. Although Kawasaki has made efforts to thin the inner walls of the frame, the swing speed is still slightly slower compared to wind-cutting frames with fluid dynamic structures.
During impact, the racket head delivers a stable, almost motionless feel, showcasing excellent torsion resistance. For someone like me, who mainly uses wind-cutting frames, this “ancient” feeling of stability is quite nostalgic.
Whether it’s a powerful smash or a light touch, the racket frame transmits a solid feel through the string bed during impact. Initially, I expected that the use of 46T high modulus carbon fiber combined with the external, rugged T-Joint design would result in an overpowering “muscle” feel, making it hard to control. However, the Kawasaki Time Traveler’s large, whipping smashes, combined with the 6.8mm shaft that bends near the handle (also made of 46T + 30T modulus carbon), delivered a surprisingly flexible and comfortable experience, making it easy to generate power, especially during long rallies.
When it comes to offense, the Time Traveler’s 306mm balance point is well-distributed, allowing for effective power transmission to the frame during smashes. The flexible shaft exhibits noticeable deformation during impact, which makes it easy to generate power. Combined with the stable box frame, this results in solid, steady, and forceful offensive shots. Each downward smash feels like driving a nail into the court, providing a very satisfying experience.
As a singles racket focused on controlled offense, the Time Traveler delivers smooth performance in maintaining rhythm during attacks. However, this also results in a relative lack of fluidity, particularly in fast-paced exchanges in the mid-court. The Time Traveler feels somewhat sluggish in this area, let alone in doubles, where quick offensive and defensive transitions are required.
Fortunately, Kawasaki seems to have anticipated this issue, as the shaft’s flex point is positioned near the handle, which provides excellent power absorption during defensive shots. The high stability of the frame also prevents the shuttle from being easily deflected or mishit during defense. When struggling with fast exchanges, switching to a push or lift is a good option, as the box frame’s stability ensures a high-quality return. The square-shaped large frame also provides significant forgiveness, making it suitable for defensive play.
As a singles racket, the overly stable frame structure of the Time Traveler also posed a challenge for me in slicing shots, an area I’m not particularly skilled at. The crisp feel upon contact makes it difficult to generate spin and control, with the ball speed lacking the rotation needed for effective slicing. However, it does lend itself well to more powerful smashes.
Conclusion
Overall, the Kawasaki Time Traveler is a rare gem among mid-range, traditionally offensive singles rackets. The 35 lbs string warranty allows you to fully experience the beauty of aggressive play. For its price point, the Time Traveler delivers exceptional offensive performance compared to similar rackets. If you are an intermediate player who struggles with consistency and stability but enjoys powerful offensive shots, the Kawasaki Time Traveler’s stable performance in attacks should not disappoint you.
Many players believe that among the numerous second-tier brands, Kawasaki is the true king, with materials sourcing and technical capabilities once rivaling those of the top three. Despite strong sales in the low-end market, it’s challenging for any brand to gain significant recognition among advanced players. Through collecting and testing various equipment, it’s not hard to notice that many beginners in badminton courts are using Kawasaki models like the Ninja or Blue and White Porcelain for casual games, while seasoned players occasionally bring out old Kawasaki models or the Master series to demonstrate their skills.
After Kawasaki’s wave of re-releases, it’s indeed time for them to showcase some high-quality new products.
Specifications: The red model weighs 84±1g with a balance point of 290±3mm and a medium-stiff shaft, slightly on the stiffer side. The blue model weighs 82g with a balance point of 293±3mm and a medium stiffness shaft. Both have had their grips removed, with the red one weighing 88.9g and having a balance point of 304mm, and the white one (with towel grip) weighing 90.1g and having a balance point of 300mm. The 6.5mm shaft is made of 46T+30T materials, while the frame, featuring a full-slot two-in-one boxed design, is made of 30T+40T materials with a 76-hole string bed and a small frame. The racket is guaranteed for 30 pounds of tension, with some components manufactured by CBN, and recommended string tension is 26-28 lbs with VBS66N strings.
Trust me, this is a product that will deliver visual surprises the moment you receive it.
The manufacturer has provided the Razer (雷蛇) series with corresponding colored square-shaped racket covers that are stylish and attractive. After experiencing the Spear 18, I often noticed that some manufacturers focus more on product details. For example, Kawasaki still makes high-quality racket covers, and the inner insulation layer of the square bag and the design of the racket cover itself are features that many manufacturers are unwilling to add. For players who no longer need the original racket cover/bag and prefer to use a more practical racket bag for matches, these enhancements might seem unnecessary. However, considering that the racket still needs to be shipped from the seller to the buyer, improving these aspects undoubtedly enhances the overall experience.
Upon unboxing, a second visual feast awaits. Both rackets are very attractive. Although their design language is similar, the differences in color and the use of snake scale patterns make each racket visually appealing in its own right. The matte finish, along with thematic decorations on the wings and head of the frame, perfectly complements the names of the rackets. The blue version uses a combination of black, white, gold, and blue spiral stripes, while the red version features a blend of black, red, and gold. Subjectively, the blue version appears more elegant, while the red version exudes a certain aggressiveness, which I believe aligns with their respective performance characteristics.
After removing the grips, the differences between the two rackets become apparent when holding and swinging them. Although both fall within the 4U weight range and are light and fast with low balance points, the red version has a slightly more noticeable head-heavy feel. Frankly, given that the Razer 1916 uses a frame from the “Second Brother” series and has a thin shaft, I naturally assumed that these rackets would excel in offensive singles play. However, the official specifications and actual handling surprised me. Although the frame design isn’t extreme in reducing wind resistance, the smaller head size and still-rounded frame edges make the Razer exceptionally quick to swing. Without a doubt, the characteristics of these rackets are well-suited for the fast-paced exchanges typical in doubles.
However, based on past experience, Kawasaki’s rackets rated above 3.5 stars often have a significant skill threshold. The original Razer 19 was already a 5-star racket, and the 1916 uses 5-star materials as well. So, will this high-end model also become a “lofty flower”? Fortunately, during the warm-up, both rackets quickly dispelled any concerns I had about my physical condition. Despite the small frame, the fast swing speed and well-adjusted shaft stiffness significantly lowered the difficulty of handling the racket. As long as your stroke technique is proper, you can easily find the feel for transferring power to the shuttle during active shots. For advanced players, the only adjustment needed might be to the timing of shots due to the fast swing speed. As for intermediate players, the Razer does not have a high power threshold or low tolerance that would exclude them. This racket can also be an excellent choice for those looking to experience the feel of a small frame, alongside the Bonny Infiniti 003/004/007, with a slightly lower skill requirement compared to the Radiant 6 and much lower than the Breakthrough BZ. As you use it, you might find yourself wondering, “Why am I so proficient with this? How many times have I actually used a small frame?”
As mentioned, the Razer twins deliver speed as their answer. Whether it’s the red or blue version, their performance in the front court during doubles is impressive, with sufficient agility. While the impact during flat exchanges in the front court may not be obvious, if you’re playing mixed doubles with the male player positioned slightly back, the Razer’s handling of push shots to the waist, underarm, or body will demonstrate its capabilities. It’s not just quick; the moderate but not excessive shuttle hold also provides the fine-tuning needed for adjusting your shots and allows for more decisive action in challenging situations. If your racket preparation is adequate, players who have mastered short bursts of power from their fingers and wrists can unlock even more aggressive and threatening shots. Between the two, the slightly heavier blue version with a lighter head has an edge in swing speed and stability.
Dominating the net is crucial, especially in serve-and-return battles, and the Razer performs well here. Whether it’s a quick drop or push in return of serve, the moderate shuttle hold offers a sense of control. This feeling was particularly pronounced in comparison to the Breakthrough TK100 that I recently tested. In closely matched encounters, if you’re determined to force your opponent to lift the shuttle, taking the high point and forcing a drop won’t result in awkward situations like hitting too high or too far. The effect is even better if you can practice small shots before the match. However, if you aim to deceive or outmaneuver your opponent’s front-court guard with a flick or push to the far corners, the Razer may feel a bit too light, and you’ll need more solid fundamentals to compensate for the lack of mass and achieve a solid feel.
This characteristic left my opponent a bit puzzled that day: “It’s me, I was first, I clearly made the first move… Whether it was a push to the waist, a quick drop, or a drive, but why is it turning out like this?”
When it comes to offense, the red Razer manages to perform admirably despite its weight disadvantage. Since it can’t deliver a heavy and powerful smash, it focuses on continuity while ensuring each shot poses a threat. To achieve this, the Razer’s small frame still provides its signature explosive, springy feedback when concentrated power is applied. The high-modulus carbon fiber in the ultra-thin shaft also offers ample elasticity, scoring 80% in power transmission. This allows each smash to exhibit excellent initial and terminal velocity, along with a satisfying sound effect. The shaft’s recovery speed after deformation is also good, ensuring smooth transitions between shots. However, while the frame and T-joint’s torsional resistance are decent, when attempting to execute varied attack angles to break through an opponent’s defense, I still wish for more stability in the feel of the shots for greater confidence. The blue Razer, with its lighter head and lower shaft stiffness, has yet to unlock its potential for powerful smashes, and its performance in downward pressure shots feels somewhat lacking, which is a bit disappointing.
That said, I was quite satisfied with how both rackets adapted to defense. Even with string tensions approaching the upper limit of what I can handle (26-28 lbs), dealing with continuous low-hand defenses and reacting to overhead/ backhand shots wasn’t particularly taxing. The power transmission felt good, with minimal strain during use, further showcasing the Razer’s accommodating nature. Handling both offensive and defensive situations was genuinely enjoyable, bringing me a double dose of joy, making the time spent with them feel like a dream.
Under consistent stringing and physical conditions, I had the rare opportunity to experience both new rackets in parallel. Both Razer models delivered a solid performance in terms of product quality, with excellent paintwork and craftsmanship. The rackets are user-friendly and offer distinctive playability, aligning well with their premium pricing. However, the lack of weight detracts from a more substantial feel in feedback. With differentiated performance adjustments, the blue and red versions should have distinct entries in your equipment log.
Of course, many players are concerned about pricing. I bought these on a friend’s recommendation, and the seller currently offers a convincing discount. It’s worth checking out. The official price tag is no longer relevant.
