PDA

View Full Version : Yonex RDS 001 2008 Mid Playtest (My personal review)


2nd_Serve
06-08-2008, 12:19 PM
Well, I've been using the K90 since it first came out. And it's a great racket, I love it. But just out of curiousity, I wanted to try out the Yonex's most precise racket. The first thing I noticed was the weird head shape. It was very square. When I compared it to my K90, (put it on top of eachother), the headsize seems a bit smaller than 90. Part of the headsize was cut off in the corners. But it was a bit longer up and down. These characteristics were very subtle, and I could barely catch them. Anyways, They had that same type of paint, not that glossy kind but that sort of ... graphity kind? They are both very good looking rackets. Also, because of the weird headsize, the string pattern seemed a little denser than it really is. Also, since the beam is a little thicker, I thought i would frame a lot, but I didn't at all.

Now, my playing level is 5.0. I am a junior player, and I was rated by my coach. I hit the sweetspot 9/10, and almost never "shank" the ball. Now...Onto the way it played.

So, as a warm-up, of course, I started at the service line. Volley to volley. The racket was VERY, VERY, VERY, crisp. This racket punched the ball back deep. Very deep, and yet, it was touchy enough to give the best drop volley, and touch shots. I loved coming up to the net with this racket. Whenever I did, I could punch the ball into the corners past my opponent very efficiently. Also, every once in a while, I would just tap it over and it would be the perfect drop volley.

Now, when I moved back to the baseline, I hit the ball back deep, without effort. This racket IMO, was VERY control oriented. What I put into it was what I got. If you have a slow swing, you won't like this racket too much. Long, fast, agressive swings give good depth, power, control, and spin if you want it. This racket, is a SPIN MACHINE. Even though the string pattern looks pretty dense, it's still made tons of spin. The racket gripped the ball very well, and once you were done with your swing, the ball few off the racket with more spin than Nadal. (Maybe not that much.)

This racket was very stable. When I blocked the ball back, the racket felt like it didn't shake at all. All I have to say for stability. Now, for service returns, this racket didn't shine too bright. It was pretty hard to block the ball back, because it was hard to match up the ball with the sweetspot. As you all know, for a mid, if you miss the sweepspot, then you probably already lost the point. Since we're talking about service returns, lets go on to serves. This racket also didn't shine to bright on serves. Even though I could place it ANYWHERE I wanted in the service box, I couldn't get enough juice on it. Like I said before, what you put into it, is what you get out of it. I couldn't swing hard enough to get that usual speed on my serves. Unlike the K90, which is a rocket launcher on serves. But you know, it was quite easy to "put into it" because it was quite manuverable. I don't know why my serves were lacking power so badly though ...:-|

Anyways, the last topic, CONTROL. This racket had PINTPOINT control. I'm not kidding when I say this. People just say that to describe how good the control is, but this racket, could read minds. You just swing the ball, tell it to go to the deuce side corner, it'll just catch the lines, and go right past your opponents. Also, if you want to pull your opponenets out wide, just swing at the side lines, it'll be just inside. This racket's control is unmatched. (Except maybe by my K90:)).

So, as you could tell, I really liked this racket. The power was good because of its manuverability, I could put the ball on a stringsaver because of its control. This racket was also very comfortable because of its lack of shaking - from it's stability. There's just no way you could go wrong with this racket.

Now, when I compare it to my K90, I would say the K90 is better. I'm not just saying that because it's the racket I use currently. I'm saying it because the K90 is in my opinion, a lot more manuverable (because yo ucould just whip it through), stable as superman, you could put so much spin it would cut through wood, and control is just as good as the RDS 1. The K90 is pretty much the RDS but slightly better in every category. The RDS mid is a good move if you want to move on to mids, but not yet ready for the K90. Why? Because the K90 is a big demanding. It's sweetspot is smaller than the ball.

Summary - Yonex RDS is a good racket for mid users. K90 IMO is sort of better. Yonex is good for someone just moving into mids. K90 is for someone who's got the hang of mids. Yonex RDS is good in every category. So is the K90.

Strawberry
06-08-2008, 12:52 PM
Try the RQiS series. It might be a little closer to your K90.

mahut21
06-08-2008, 12:54 PM
So if i thought that the k90 was a bit too demanding then you think that the yonex would be a good choice. How does it hold up against big hitters and does it not get tiring to swing sometimes with the k90. Also thanks for the review.

2nd_Serve
06-08-2008, 02:33 PM
So if i thought that the k90 was a bit too demanding then you think that the yonex would be a good choice. How does it hold up against big hitters and does it not get tiring to swing sometimes with the k90. Also thanks for the review.

Although the K90 is a bit demanding, it isn't as demanding as everyone describes it as. I mean, once you get the hang of it, theres onthing better. But you really do need to be on your A game. The K90 really shines against big hitters, you just use a short swing, use the power your opponent is giving, and make them run. They'll lose in no one. I don't think the K90 is tiring at all, so the Yonex felt as light as a feather to me. But then again, I work out a lot. With the Yonex, I couldn't really tell how it does against big hitters because I only warmed up with it, and smacked it everyone once in a while with my hitting partner.

2nd_Serve
06-08-2008, 02:34 PM
Try the RQiS series. It might be a little closer to your K90.

Haha. I'm not really looking for a new racket. I was just having fun with another racket similar to my K90.

HeadPrestige
06-08-2008, 06:32 PM
If you actually thought that the k90 and rds 001 mid played similarly... i really do not konw what to say to you. The only similarity they have is that they are both balanced head light and are both 90 inch frames.

The flex in both rackets is completely different and flex for me is a very important factor when hitting with a racket. The rds flexes more at the throat while the k90 flexes more in the hoop (like the old 6.0s). Also... maneuverability better on the k90? are you joking? Static weight is heavier and it swings significantly heavier as well.

I do agree though that the rds 001 mid is a good compromise for someone who wants a mid, but with more forgiveness. The sweetspot is very large (due in my opinion to the isometric shape). The k90 is a very nice stick as well, but really is very different. I disagree that if you can handle the weight the k90 is a better racket. Neither racket is superior to the other-- it completely depends on user opinion.

fortunecookiesjc
06-08-2008, 06:39 PM
On the A game part i find whenever i feel lazy with my k90 it will absolutely kill me. Dont think too much with your shots about how to do it but just do it!. Really need to take your strokes with it and cant be lazy. I actually found it powerful if you hit the sweetspot everytime.

2nd_Serve
06-09-2008, 03:07 PM
If you actually thought that the k90 and rds 001 mid played similarly... i really do not konw what to say to you. The only similarity they have is that they are both balanced head light and are both 90 inch frames.

The flex in both rackets is completely different and flex for me is a very important factor when hitting with a racket. The rds flexes more at the throat while the k90 flexes more in the hoop (like the old 6.0s). Also... maneuverability better on the k90? are you joking? Static weight is heavier and it swings significantly heavier as well.

I do agree though that the rds 001 mid is a good compromise for someone who wants a mid, but with more forgiveness. The sweetspot is very large (due in my opinion to the isometric shape). The k90 is a very nice stick as well, but really is very different. I disagree that if you can handle the weight the k90 is a better racket. Neither racket is superior to the other-- it completely depends on user opinion.

I'm sorry, but stop talking like your opinion is everyone's opinion. I thought they were both very similar. So, the flex didn't feel any different to me at all. I just thought they were both crisp. And if you read carefully, I meant manuverability as in being able to whip the racket through the air. And again, I didn't say the K90 was necessarily a better racket. I said it was a better racket for and to me.

2nd_Serve
06-09-2008, 03:08 PM
And also, I said it was just my personal review and thoughts. Sorry I was so defensive, but I sort of don't like it when people jump at me just for voicing my thoughts.

spkyEngrish
06-09-2008, 10:16 PM
And also, I said it was just my personal review and thoughts. Sorry I was so defensive, but I sort of don't like it when people jump at me just for voicing my thoughts.

Unfortunately, people have every right to disagree with your personal thoughts on a public forum...:neutral:

In any case, thanks for the nice review. However, I currently prefer my RDS over my Ksix-one - the only caveat being that I own an asian K90. The AK, by virtue of being closer in weight to the RDS, is a different comparison (I've never hit with a US K90). However, they still feel a bit different during play:

AK90
-easier to wrist around on shots
-smaller sweet spot
-with same string, has more power when you find that small sweet spot

RDS001 mid
-very slightly heavier, bulkier and a tiny bit less maneuvarable
-larger sweet spot
-flexes differently, but I'm no expert on that matter. The head/hoop just seems stiffer at moment of contact?

Both are great racquets, and I'd honestly have a hard time recommending one over the other. I got the RDS001 and primarily use it now because it has most of the strengths of the Wilson and swings about the same, but has noticeably more forgiveness.

SFrazeur
06-09-2008, 10:46 PM
I'm sorry, but stop talking like your opinion is everyone's opinion. I thought they were both very similar. So, the flex didn't feel any different to me at all. I just thought they were both crisp. And if you read carefully, I meant manuverability as in being able to whip the racket through the air. And again, I didn't say the K90 was necessarily a better racket. I said it was a better racket for and to me.

Is it better to think "everyone" else is wrong?

Although the K90 is a bit demanding, it isn't as demanding as everyone describes it as. I mean, once you get the hang of it, theres onthing better. But you really do need to be on your A game. The K90 really shines against big hitters, you just use a short swing, use the power your opponent is giving, and make them run. They'll lose in no one. I don't think the K90 is tiring at all, so the Yonex felt as light as a feather to me. But then again, I work out a lot. With the Yonex, I couldn't really tell how it does against big hitters because I only warmed up with it, and smacked it everyone once in a while with my hitting partner.



Summary - Yonex RDS is a good racket for mid users. K90 IMO is sort of better. Yonex is good for someone just moving into mids. K90 is for someone who's got the hang of mids. Yonex RDS is good in every category. So is the K90.

I disagree that the RDS001 is a tweener mid, a starter mid. As Headprestige, impassioned as always, details there are just plainly different playing characteristics to the frames. Each has their own virtues and will fit different players better or worse. For me I prefer the RDS001 Mid. And as you wrote:

Yonex RDS is good in every category. So is the K90.

-SF

Sangria Munky
06-10-2008, 05:02 AM
Wow that is a very elaborated review 2nd_Serve provided us with...........

TonyB
06-10-2008, 12:20 PM
I agree that there are a lot of similarities between the 001 mid and the K90. I like them both, but prefer the 001 mid for my game.

The only comments that I have are:

1) The K90 swings heavier but faster, if that makes any sense. I'm not sure why, but it feels "easier" to swing the K90 for maybe an hour or so, then it starts to drag. The 001 mid seems to swing the same no matter how long I play.

2) The sweetspot on the K90 is smaller, but sweeter. The thing I always liked about the Yonex head shape is that the sweetspot expands, but gets "softer". That is, you get a more "uniform" feel across a larger portion of the stringbed. The K90's sweetspot is pretty hot by comparison.

3) The K90 imparts noticeably more spin than the 001 mid. I wish it weren't the case, but it is (because I prefer the 001 mid). When I play with the K90, the spin I get is incredible. And yes, I've got them strung with roughly the same equivalent tension and string.

4) Even though I have added 8 grams to my 001 mid, the K90 still feels more stable and solid. But it also feels more flexible and forgiving. It's a VERY nice feeling racquet. Very soft, but offers a huge amount of feedback and feel. The 001 mid is like hitting with a board by comparison.

But as I said, I prefer the 001 mid for my game. It seems to offer a bit more control than the K90. Again, it may be the way I strike the ball, but that's how it feels to me.

If you're in the market for a midsized racquet, you could certainly do worse than the 001 or K90. Both are top-notch frames.

HeadPrestige
06-10-2008, 02:52 PM
Is it better to think "everyone" else is wrong?





I disagree that the RDS001 is a tweener mid, a starter mid. As Headprestige, impassioned as always, details there are just plainly different playing characteristics to the frames. Each has their own virtues and will fit different players better or worse. For me I prefer the RDS001 Mid. And as you wrote:


-SF

This is the point I was trying to make (and i do not think i made it seem as if everyone agreed with me). They are both great sticks, but while they have some similar specs-- they play very differently. I just found the OP's post a little bit off, because he states... almost as if it was fact that the k90 was superior to the 001 mid. It really will come down to personal taste-- but neither racket is inherently better than the other.

netman
06-10-2008, 06:12 PM
Here is the take of a 4.0 player who on any given Sunday can be across the net from a 20 something one dimensional top spinner hitting bombs off of both wings or a 50 something slice and dicer carving up the court with angles, spins and lobs.

The RDS001 Mid provides pinpoint control. However it takes time to get it moving. So it works best against the slice and dice crowd. Its mass works well to block back hard hit shots, but they tend to fall short. The sweetspot is larger than a K90, but still smaller than any typical 98 head. Serves can be placed on a dime but as mentioned earlier, tend to lack power. Flex is just right and mimics the feel of old time graphite classics from the early 80's.

But to be honest, the RDS001 MP strung with a good co-poly is almost as precise as the Mid and offers additional forgiveness on those (occasional) mishits and reaction volleys. Plus it can hit big time serves. And spin is easier to come by than the Mid. Maybe thats why Nalbandian uses it.

-k-