Does Yonex really have tighter spec tolerances?

[PistolPete23]

Let's put the debate to rest. I made a Google spreadsheet to collect specs for Yonex and other brands as well. The idea is if we can collect enough specs for the same model, we would be able to calculate some simple statistics (mean, standard deviation) and determine once and for all whether Yonex's reputation of tighter spec tolerances is merited. Those who have used TW's matching service prior to purchase would be able to contribute several entries, one for each racquet measured by TW. I hope this could gain some traction here.

Racquet Specs Datasheet

Yonex Model,Year,Weight (g),Unstrung/Strung,Swingweight (kg cm^2),Balance (cm),RA

docs.google.com

 

[PistolPete23]

For those who contribute, there's no need to fill out values for each column, just whatever you can measure.

 

[Stefanm]

Specs entered for mine. Bought independently, not intentionally matched

 

[RF_PRO_STAFF]

Added a bunch of data that I've been collecting for myself over the last 3.5 years while holicing. I left out the ones that I don't have clean, unstrung specs for (harder to compare fairly).

 

[HeIsTreeing]

i really like this idea. its like vin tracking sites for limited production cars

 

[Trip]

A reminder for anyone who is adding data: we need stock, unpackaged, unstrung spec, and if you include swing weight, then highly preferable that it's a measured value by a calibrated machine, be it a Briffidi SW1, a Head 3-in-1, or otherwise. Should be fairly obvious, but it does bare repeating.

 

[PistolPete23]

A reminder for anyone who is adding data: we need stock, unpackaged, unstrung spec. Not stock with the plastic or placard still on, not "stock" but with the grip replaced. Fully bare-bones stock. It's not rocket science, but it does bare repeating.

Yes, good reminder! Also, everyone with the link has editing rights, so feel free to do you own analysis with the data.

 

[PistolPete23]

I will DL the data from time to time, so the spreadsheet can be restored, and people don't accidentally delete everything

 

[PMF]

The manager of my local pro shop says all racquet companies have large variations in their specs, but Yonex has been the least-worst over the years. I think they have slipped recently.

 

[naturalexponent]

The manager of my local pro shop says all racquet companies have large variations in their specs, but Yonex has been the least-worst over the years. I think they have slipped recently.

Agree that it anecdotally seems like it has slipped. Primarily with respect to SW. Almost seems like an intentional decision to go underspec on SW, as that seems to be the most prevalent issue.

 

[McLovin]

Agree that it anecdotally seems like it has slipped. Primarily with respect to SW. Almost seems like an intentional decision to go underspec on SW, as that seems to be the most prevalent issue.

Again…hard to go under spec on an unpublished spec. Don’t confuse what TW measures as a “spec”. Most manufacturers don’t publish a swingweight spec, so, by definition, they “within spec”.

 

[naturalexponent]

Again…hard to go under spec on an unpublished spec. Don’t confuse what TW measures as a “spec”. Most manufacturers don’t publish a swingweight spec, so, by definition, they “within spec”.

Likewise, don't confuse measured spec with target or published spec.

 

[McLovin]

Likewise, don't confuse measured spec with target or published spec.

Don’t worry, I won’t, given that there is no such thing as a “measured spec”. There is a measurement, and a specification, meaning a set of target weights/parameters you strive for, but a “measured spec” does not exist.

But, to my original point, if a manufacturer does not publish what their desired swing weight was, it is impossible for them to be over or under “spec”. You need something to compare to in order to be over or under it.

 

[naturalexponent]

Don’t worry, I won’t, given that there is no such thing as a “measured spec”. There is a measurement, and a specification, meaning a set of target weights/parameters you strive for, but a “measured spec” does not exist.

But, to my original point, if a manufacturer does not publish what their desired swing weight was, it is impossible for them to be over or under “spec”. You need something to compare to in order to be over or under it.

I'm sure you think "Webster's dictionary defines ___ as" is a good opening to a speech. In any case, you're missing the forest for the trees. You'd be delusional to think there is no engineered target spec in the design. The fact that they don't publish it is a business decision to allow more racquets to be considered acceptable for sale. Your original "point" is merely that specification means the intended prescriptive spec, and my point is that we, in normal human usage, typically refer to specs to refer to the measured weight, balance, etc. Feel free to use a different word so we can actually advance a discussion instead of quibbling over what a spec is.

 

[McLovin]

I'm sure you think "Webster's dictionary defines ___ as" is a good opening to a speech. In any case, you're missing the forest for the trees. You'd be delusional to think there is no engineered target spec in the design. The fact that they don't publish it is a business decision to allow more racquets to be considered acceptable for sale. Your original "point" is merely that specification means the intended prescriptive spec, and my point is that we, in normal human usage, typically refer to specs to refer to the measured weight, balance, etc. Feel free to use a different word so we can actually advance a discussion instead of quibbling over what a spec is.

Whether there is an internal target swingweight is irrelevant. If it’s not released publicly, you have no basis to say whether it is over or under. Please, tell me the target swingweight of a VCORE 98? Or an Ezone 100?

I was originally responding to this statement:

Almost seems like an intentional decision to go underspec on SW

So, please tell me what their target was that they are “under spec”?

 

[PistolPete23]

Calm down guys; I think there's just some misunderstanding. I myself didn't realize (until @McLovin brought it up) that SW shown on TW is not a published number provided by the manufacturer. So I guess neither is RA. @TW Staff can you confirm this? If it's not provided by the manufacturer, how do you guys measure SW and RA? Do you measure several racquets and take the average? How many?

If it is the average from a statistically significant sample size, then there should be an equal number of racquets that are over-spec and under-spec, assuming that the distribution of values is normal, i.e., Gaussian.