Right, well exception was taken to calling out “plastic with metal rings” in a thread about “competitive plastic” yoyos, so the distinction is apparently a very important one. A standard name for these “hybrids” would appear necessary.
theres no hybrid option because the two main categories are “body material” and “rim.” the protostar would go under plastic body and aluminium rim.
On YYE there is only a hybrid tag instead of an option.
In the context of this topic, it’s about being “ahead of its time” and I wouldn’t say adding metal to plastic alone is enough to accomplish that:
So I dunno if it’s relevant here, maybe there should be a dedicated topic for the semantics discussion of “when is a plastic not a plastic”? I dunno. Feels off topic to me, personally.
I realize that; I’m just trying to get some clarification of terminology. You called the ProtoStar a plastic yoyo, when in fact it seems that it is a hybrid yoyo (or whatever single-word term you prefer in place of the needlessly verbose “plastic with metal rings”). Regardless of specific context, proper terminology is always prefered, at least by me.
It just feels a bit pedantic and off topic, at least for this topic about what yoyos were ahead of their time. If you want to create a dedicated topic for the semantics discussion, maybe that’d be best?
As far as this topic goes, I think there’s plenty of evidence that “just slap some metal on the plastic” does not make a yoyo ahead of its time, necessarily.
Two that come to mind:
The TiWalker. Eight or nine years later I still use it as a bench mark for how good a yoyo is.
NiNe DrAgOnS iS aHeAd Of It’S tImE!!
I don’t think there was a yoyo that was more ahead of its time than the Sleipnir. During a time when many didn’t really understand good yoyo design, the real importance of rim weight, low walls, and an angular design, the Sleipnir had all of that and more by using 7075 Aluminum. It was hailed as the best performing yoyo by many for nearly 5 years after its release and even to this day, the Sleipnirs design is seen as a guideline of how a great yoyo should be made.
The Draupnir and some yoyos prior to the Sleipnir were ahead of their time as well but I don’t think any yoyo held the status as the true premier benchmark as long as the Sleipnir did.
In terms of price though, I will agree that the Protostar is probably the tops or close to it. I don’t recall a yoyo that performed better for less than $35 until around 2014
Huh it is from 2009, eh? That’s legit, almost 10 years!
I also thought about the Sleipnir. But I think the Stargazer and the Stardust predate it and are so close in design. I would put the entire Stargazer/Sleipnir/Gleipnir series as WAY ahead of their time.
I keep very few Aluminum mono-metals because modern yo-yo’s are so much better. But Yoyorecreation and Yoyomonster mono-metals are the ones I still have in my bag.
When you say “modern yo-yo’s” do you mean bimetals?
Good question. I think the answer is both. Because bi-metal yo-yo’s have such good performance, modern mono-metals have a higher bar to clear and therefore,are arguably better. None I have played, however, out does the YYR lineup in terms of both feel and performance. They were the pinnacle for me. Some have equaled; but only Titanium is better.
It seems like the jury is still out on the superiority of bimetals, at least as compared with today’s latest competition-level monometal designs. Championships can be won with monometals, which puts the lie to the assertion that bimetals are the undisputed top dogs of the yoyo world.
I think for the rest of us (who aren’t competing in contests), a really good monometal can perform just as well as almost any bimetal out there. Especially for those just getting into unresponsive play and even for those of us working our way through the YYE intermediate and advanced trick ladder. I have a pretty decent collection of bimetals, and yet I still find myself throwing monometals most of the time.
If bimetals do have an edge, it’s small enough that competitors can choose to use monometals for price or sales reasons without impacting their results very much. It doesn’t mean bimetals aren’t better for competition - it just means there’s a limit to how much they help, and variance in competitor and performance are still much more important.
I’m 100% on the boat that bimetals are better and have a higher performance ceiling than monometals but I will agree with what Mark said. The difference especially nowadays is small enough that players can afford to use monometals over bimetals and that individual skill may override the slight increase in stability and performance, for the most part.
The question I have regarding such comparisons is, how do we even measure for “better performance” (or a higher performance ceiling)? Is there an objective method for doing that?
That’s a great question and I’m not sure there’s a good measurement other than rim-weighted-ness. You can get a really rim-weighted yoyo in mono-metal but it’s generally going to be heavier and have a higher diameter than an equivalently-rim-weighted bimetal.
If you compare these two yo-yos:
They have a very similar shape, but the meta is heavier by 2 grams, and is also larger in diameter by 1mm.