Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

Do you prefer isometric or oval head rackets?

Discussion in 'Racket Recommendation / Comparison' started by ttktom, Sep 29, 2003.

?

do you prefer Isometric or Oval?

  1. Isometric

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. Oval

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. green.blood

    green.blood Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Feather basher
    Location:
    In the Attic
    ISO or Oval doesn't really matter for me... On my bad day there'll be mishits when using both and on my good day not a single mishit with my CAB 9.... :)

    If i have to choose it will be oval...
     
  2. fixingbones

    fixingbones Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Surgeon
    Location:
    UK
    I didn't realise there was a difference until very recently.

    I have always used oval in the past and now after 2 sets of isometric head raquets (latest 2X AT700s), I have gone back to standard length CArlton elite standard racquets. I don't really car about how big the sweet spot is, I have very few mishits anyway.

    I think that there are some misconceptions about the isometric head being better. For those who haven't tried oval head shape racquets, don't be so quick to judge. You are likley to improve power because of increased head speed (oval deifnitely more aerodynamic).

    Also remeber that loger length racquets reduce your swing speed and head stability and more likely to give you wrist injuries (moment arms and basic physics). People might say that 1.5 cm shat length makes little difference, but as most of us smash at the limit nearly every time, you can understand the increased resistance mgiht result in injury.

    Likely to be leaving Yonex forever this time, long live Carlton!! BTW, bargains on Airblade Elite at the moment on Ebay to be had, virtually identical racquet to the Fireblade version in tech specs.

    Anyone want to buy some AT700s (used for less than 6 weeks), drop me a line.
     
  3. weeyeh

    weeyeh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    fixing bones,

    Definitely agree with you that oval is not inferior to iso.

    I do not think that the oval shape helps in aerodynamics or that long length reduces swing speed.
     
  4. fixingbones

    fixingbones Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Surgeon
    Location:
    UK
    reduced swing speed obvious

    Isometric head has a slightly larger surface area and with increasing shaft lengths, swing speed definitely reduces, trust me. It is is simple physics. The difference may be slight, but squaring off the head to get iso shape increase surface area, unless the whole iso head is made smaller. By virtue of a larger head with increased shaft length, this has to happen. I can't see how anyone could not see that.

    I have picked up Fireblade elite ISO and standard oval side by side and the difference is noticeable. It may not be huge, but noticeable. It doesn't make you a better player and I am not recommending one head shape over another, just stating the facts.

    Considering how long this thread has been going, I don't expect my contribution to settle any dispute over which is better, just my opinon. I merely wanted to highlight the point that ISO head technology, which is fairly recent, is not necessarily best for everyone.
     
  5. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Sometime back on this thread I reported that Yonex Tokyo confirmed that Yonex's oval is smaller than their iso frame, AOTBE. It is also faster, AOTBE.
     
  6. weeyeh

    weeyeh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    Ok, you spooked me enough to actually go measure my Cab30 and my wife's Victor SW33C. The SW33C has an oversized frame and a significantly larger sweetspot than the Cab30...

    Factors contributing to additional air drag (you said bigger cross section):
    • Frame Circumference: SW33C 71cm, Cab30 70cm
    • Exposed String length: SW33C 811.8cm, Cab30 800.7cm
    The difference in factors contributing to air drag is around 1.5% for both. IOW, given the same frame wall width and same string, we are looking at a surface area difference of 1.5%. Airdrag is proportional to the surface area so you are looking at 1.5% higher air drag. Not that bad a tax for the significantly larger sweetspot, no?

    And the SW33C has a wider frame than the Cab30 so the comparison is already skewed against the iso frame. The SW33C's longest cross string spans 18.9cm vs the Cab30 at 18.5cm. If we retain the shape of the sides of the SW33C and just reduce the width by 0.4cm, you will be looking at a frame circumference of 70.2cm and a string length of 803.7cm (22 cross strings). The difference is now reduced to 0.4%.

    If air drag is so significant, the racket designer can use a smaller ISO face to achieve with the same sweetspot area as an oval. The ISO, given the same sweetspot area, will have significantly less airdrag than oval.
    ---------------
    Long racket is independent of ISO/Oval. My Cab30 is long and oval.

    I do not play my racket flat. I swing it and at some point, I pronate my wrist. The long racket gives the racket head more speed at the same angular velocity. IOW, assuming the balance point and weight is the same between the long and short racket, the long racket in fact achieves a higher racket head speed.

    Lets drop the theory and look at actual play.

    I also share this habit with many other players that we grip all the way to the butt of the racket when clearing or smashing. This effectively uses the racket at the longest length. Most singles players only grip at the butt -- see how LinDan wraps his racket.

    If your simple physics is correct, we should all be smashing while gripping at the cone. In fact, the most powerful racket will be those junior rackets.
     
  7. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    There are four main factors that affect a racquet's swingweight: overall length, balance, weight, and head size. When swingweight is increased you get more power but lose out in speed. Head size is not just confined to the surface area of the frame. It includes the frame's surface areas and dimensions in the swing direction of the racquet. In a typical stroke various parts of the racquet are in the direction of the swing-size and thickness of the T joint, x-section of frame, the face of the frame, the size/shape of grommets, thickness of the shaft, frame, and strings as well as string density used, etc. Because the frame is at the extremity of the arm/racquet "weapon" any additional weight at near the tip has a significant affect on its balance and hence swingweight.
     
  8. fixingbones

    fixingbones Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Surgeon
    Location:
    UK
    You really need to play more and stop measuring racquets!!!

    You have too much time on your hands plus, do you actually get out and play badminton?

    Your calculations are theoretical (smaller iso head size... I mean, when did you actually see an iso head that was actually smaller than an oval?????) and not at all in the real world and it seems to me that you are trying to PROVE that iso is better than oval..

    I am merely saying that there are advantages to both and it is really personal preference. You are taking it too personally. Plus, laws of physics do not change according to continent, at least the last time I checked....;)


     
  9. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    #1 Yes, MP99 and MP100 is actually smaller than Cab30ms. Go check it out yourself. Do not believe some one's post just because he said so without verification.

    #2 Agree, No one except a few narrow minded members here are trying to prove one type of racquet is better than the other. It is just user preference. What suits you better and win you points.

    There are so many factors to effect air drag. The frame shape is one of the very small factor that effect the air drag.

    If any one ask me to verify my statement on Cab30ms has bigger frame size/stringbed area than MP99, I will do so and that member better keep your mouth shot and not to give any excuse.
     
  10. weeyeh

    weeyeh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    Whether I play badminton at all or have too much time is irrelevant to this debate on airdrag. Like you said, it's simpe physics.

    I think you are a little forgetful here. That the difference in airdrag due to surface area is a significant factor is YOUR argument.

    I disagreed, you said it's simple physics. I provided the numbers for a standard oval frame (my Cab30) to an oversized ISO frame (my wife's SW33C) and projected the difference to be 1.5%. On even dimensions, the air drag difference would have been <0.4%. Now, I'm theoretical? :confused:

    If your argument stands, oval frames are in fact less efficient in terms of airdrag balanced on sweetspot size.

    In a previous post, I agreed with you that Oval is not inferior to ISO. Whether I take this personally is irrelevant. Last I checked, physics is based on actual measurement, not guessing. And no, it does not change across continents so whatever I said applies to your end of the world as well.

    Just to set the record straight, I have been playing oval most of my life and am still playing oval. My personal preference is oval. In fact, I am so satisfied with my current Cab30 that I have not been looking at rackets for the past year, nor do I have the itch to.

    If you want to argue that either is better, sure, but play fair. But do not expect bad/wrong information to be left unchecked. That's the beauty of a public forum.
     
    #390 weeyeh, Oct 8, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2008
  11. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    FYI MP99 has shorter dimensions in the frame length and frame width at their widest section than AT-700. Both are iso but have very different head size , with AT-700 much bigger. This is not the way to compare frame size area.
    The same with MS30 oval vs MP99. Doing such a comparison is based on an unfair or inaccurate yardstick. It is like comparing an oval frame with a frame dimension of 253mm frame length and 201mm frame width against a smaller iso frame of 246mm frame length and 198mm frame width. Of course the oval in this case will have a larger head size, but this is cheating and a dishonest way of comparing.
    FYI, a kid's iso racquet made to kid size is not only smaller than an adult's oval cab 20 in head size, it is many magnitudes smaller.
    As I have said earlier a racquet's dimensions as used when they are on the drawing board like frame length and frame width at the widest section set the overall gross head size first. The BWF specifies these two for the max. stringbed length and width.
     
  12. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    The following ar some tips which you may find helpful when choosing racquets.
    There are 4 major factors besides material quality that one should consider: balance, weight, head size, and overall length. Any increase will give more power but at the cost of speed. It is therefore up to you or the racquet designer to optimize these 4 factors.
    Take the AT-700 which has been well optimized for power and at the same time is not cumbersome. It has a much larger iso head size than the MP99, heavy balance, and a longer shaft for more power, but it does not go for the heavy 2U weight category to avoid slowing down the speed of the racquet. Also very long racquets that go up to the max. 680mm should never be 2U category because its long overall length has plenty of power which can do without any extra weight of 2U.
     
  13. weeyeh

    weeyeh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Singapore
    Why do I have a feeling I know who it is :D:D
     
  14. fixingbones

    fixingbones Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Surgeon
    Location:
    UK
    iso and oval frame sizes

    1) You have found one of a few examples where overall head size for iso is smaller than oval. USUALLY, it is the other way round.

    2) Air drag is most dependent on overall surface area more than anything else, then racquet edge tapering then other factors such as shaft length.... and other factors. A stronger person with a faster swing will be able to overcome each of these in negating the effect of air drag, but equally, they will have faster swing with smaller frame size and shaft length.

    3) I think that the argument one of the other posters has made about the way a racquet is held and pronating the wrist etc is immaterial because they would do the same with any racquet they played with. Anyway, it's the smash and backhand clear where swing speed is probably more important than in any other shot, where I think an oval head IMHO would nearly always win for any individual if they compared similar racquets and they were used to playing with them.

    As far as I am concerened, ISOs are not for me and even if I had a reasonable oval racquet, I would not use my AT700s any more. The reverse may be true for others and I would fully understand that. I really think the ISO users should try ovals before commenting though, as many of the posts suggest they haven't done so, though I understand you may have.

    BTW shotting mouths is something I am not familial with, could you explain>>>>;)


     
  15. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    Hi Weeyen,
    Yes, you are right and have a nice weekend!!!

    A member post in #313 on page 19.
    http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11868&page=19
    Claim that ISO always has bigger string bed area. I think in post #391 has just contradict his own statement and verified MP99 (an ISO frame shape) is indeed smaller than Cab30ms (Oval frame shape)
    Please be more specific on your assumptions and facts in the future.
     
  16. silentheart

    silentheart Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,366
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    USA
    Dear Fixingbones,
    1) My comment is not directed at you. So, If it sound that way, I am sorry for my tone.
    2) Yes, you are almost right on that. in an easy term, air drag is most depend on the overall surface area perpendicular to the direction of the swing. So in essence, the ISO vs Oval frame shape has no effect on the aero dynamic given the overall surface area perpendicular to the direction of the swing is the same. I am trying to point this out to another member, not you. Sorry for my tone again.
    3) Yes, you are right. As I posted before, to compare ISO vs Oval, you need to fix all the factors and make sure the only difference is the shape of the frame.
    4) Sorry, I don't know why I missed 2 keys to the right... Also, I miss spell a lot some time when I chat while at work... And yet again, the comment is not for you. Sorry...

    Ladies and gentlemen, have a nice Thursday, where ever you are.
     
  17. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Yes, I am restating again that an oval is smaller than an iso, AOTBE. As a matter of fact, it is commonly unnecessary to even mention AOTBE when we compare an oval vs an iso because it is generally understood.
    Re racquet speed, the shape of the frame does have an affect. The top of the frame is the farthest point from your racquet hand and has a pronounced effect from any extra weight and its shape at the top of the frame. You will notice that the frame shape at the top is always narrower/slimmer than the bottom. The bottom of the frame is always wider than the top. It cannot be otherwise else we will end up with a ponderous racquet. Making the top a square will be very ponderous compared with its current slimmer shape. Making it slimmer towards an oval shape is less ponderous. Making it an iso shape is somewhere in between. This is because of the sensitive location at the top of the frame.
     
  18. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    As a matter of fact there is a very simple test to find out racquet speed by a simple strip of lead tape.
    Get a strip of lead tape weighing 1.0g, overlay if necessary to reduce the strip to less than 1 inch length, and then cut into two thin strips. Apply the strips at the 12 o'clock on both inner sides of the frame.
    Test the playability of the racquet over a few games. Then proceed to the following.
    Take out the two strips of lead tape from the top of the frame and cut each into two halves. You now have 4 thin strips of lead tape with each strip weighing 0.25g. Apply two strips at the 2 o'clock and another two strips at the 10 o'clock. Now go for another test on the courts.
    You will find a discernable difference between the two tests. One is faster and more focused, the other relatively more ponderous and less focused. Same racquet, same string, same player, same shuttle, same court but with a minor change in placement of the same weight at different loactions.
     
  19. taneepak

    taneepak Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,527
    Likes Received:
    6
    Occupation:
    Designing and producing quality feather shuttlecoc
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    Iso shape racquets have better face stability, especially on off-center hits. The reason is because of the extended "shoulders" at the top, which means a higher twistweight. This is the same twistweight you get when you stick lead tape strips at the 2-3 o'clock and 10-9 o'clock sections of the racquet frame.

    AOTBE, the X-section of a frame has by far the greatest impact on racquet speed. This is because the X-section goes through the fastest part of a swing in the direction of the swing. The face of the frame becomes orthogonal to the swing only after full pronation or supination at time of impact, so its effect on speed is not as significant as the X-section.
    You may want to compare your ARC 10 with say an AT series racquet of the same weight and you will notice that the ARC 10 is faster, because of its slimmer X-section. Thicker X-section gives more power but is slower.
     
  20. jymbalaya

    jymbalaya Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    Isometric--------------------> 666
    oh no......... the doom is upon us!
    Somebody, Holy water! or better yet, vote for ISOMETRIC!
    have a nice day
     
    #400 jymbalaya, Oct 17, 2008
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2008

Share This Page