Do you prefer isometric or oval head rackets?

**jeffng** · 05-19-2008, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by jhirata

I realised a while ago that my toilet is ISO-shaped. Therefore it has a larger sweetspot which means it's easier to use compared to the oval-shaped toilet at my grandmother's house

. But the oval-shaped toilet has more 'bang' factor somehow, which isn't really good when I'm using it.. very disgusting.

Iso toilet bowl is not friendly, as it will mess the top part if ur aim is not accurate(if u knw wat i mean). But I personally like ISO racquet after a few try on both (Oval and Iso). More power, more control, and more speed!

**taneepak** · 05-20-2008, 07:03 AM

In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball.

An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.

**SilverDJ** · 05-20-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by taneepak

In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball.

An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.

an american-football ball is not shperical

**silentheart** · 05-20-2008, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by taneepak

In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical. Even a ball, be it a football, a baseball, a cricket ball, a rugby ball, a snooker ball tends towards spherical. Imagine what all these games will become if they use an iso shaped ball.

An oval shape racquet is more aero dynamic. Its weakness is that it has a much smaller stringbed area and is not very user-friendly for people who do not consistently hit the shuttle in the middle of the racquet.

When did rugby start using a spherical ball?

Star is spherical is because of gravataional force and due to plasma has liquid like property. Not becuase of aero dynamic.

I am very shocked that a Oval Cab30ms with a box shape frame is more aero dynamic than a ISO shaped AT900-t.

WOW, I don't think 3 year's of physics in univ class teach any of these theory...

**taneepak** · 05-20-2008, 07:54 PM

An oval shaped racquet is always more aerodynamic than an iso shaped one of similar x-section and thickness dimensions. AOTBE an iso racquet feels ponderous and its much larger stringbed area has significantly more air resistance. The problem is that there the industry is catering for the badminton masses and prefer iso because newcomers find it easier to play with iso. There is not much interest in new investment in new and innovative oval design molds.

**silentheart** · 05-21-2008, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

An oval shaped racquet is always more aerodynamic than an iso shaped one of similar x-section and thickness dimensions. AOTBE an iso racquet feels ponderous and its much larger stringbed area has significantly more air resistance. The problem is that there the industry is catering for the badminton masses and prefer iso because newcomers find it easier to play with iso. There is not much interest in new investment in new and innovative oval design molds.

Can you just say that ISO fram has bigger frame in general and that is the reason oval has less air resistant than iso frame? If a iso fram has same circumfrence as the oval frame, there is no difference in air resistance. Yonex claim ISO has bigger sweet spot. It never claim ISO has bigger frame.
I have no further comment on your racquet design.

**taneepak** · 05-21-2008, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by silentheart

Can you just say that ISO fram has bigger frame in general and that is the reason oval has less air resistant than iso frame? If a iso fram has same circumfrence as the oval frame, there is no difference in air resistance. Yonex claim ISO has bigger sweet spot. It never claim ISO has bigger frame.
I have no further comment on your racquet design.

Of course iso has a bigger stringbed area, because it is basically an oval with extended shoulders. This increases air resistance from two sources-a bigger stringbed with more strings in the way and the ponderous swing of the iso shape with its two extended shoulders. You might notice that some iso designs try to minimize this problem by reducing the size of the two extended shoulders. Some even look more like oval than iso. Notice that not all iso are of the same size and not as squarish on the shoulders?
BTW, the Yonex Swingpower was a very good racquet with very slim dimensions and excellent material. Its weakness was its huge iso shape and stringbed size, which somewhat stunted what would otherwise have been a very maneuverable and powerful racquet.

**CHOcobo** · 05-21-2008, 12:39 PM

isometric for me. i think it has a better sweet spot.

**taneepak** · 05-23-2008, 10:03 AM

Iso has its advantages as well as disadvantages. Iso is an easy racquet for beginners and players who have difficulty hitting the sweet spot or in the center of the racquet.
However, iso has some serious disadvantages. One is that it is more ponderous because of the less streamline shape with two extended shoulders. Another more serious one is a poorer center of gravity. With extended shoulders the center of gravity is now being thrown a bit off tangent. Players who place lead tapes at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on an iso racquet knows what I am talking about.
Try to look it from this angle: why is a bullet shape more towards an oval shape than an iso shape?

**silentheart** · 05-23-2008, 02:29 PM

You mean this one?
http://www.jojoxserie.net/pics/20120...et%20mista.jpg
or this one?
http://www.thebulletbarn.com/images/...upwithBall.jpg
How about this one?
http://www.ironbikeworx.com/zc/image...t44magnick.jpg

I feel this is not oval shape...
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...api_bullet.jpg

One last thing. You swing the racquet with face hitting the shuttle. You do not try to stab a shuttle and hope you can get it over the net.

**taneepak** · 05-23-2008, 07:41 PM

The racquet face must be multi-directional in a swing, otherwise it is wrong technique. That is how you get pronation and supination which eliminates restrictions to efficient stroke-making.
BTW here is a tip on how to test your own racquet for a good balance and center of gravity: place the middle of the shaft onto your left palm and then rotate the racquet with your right hand quickly. Try all your racquets, including iso, oval, and those with lead tape. What do you get?

**george@chongwei** · 05-30-2008, 02:06 PM

its always isometric head shape for me

**cooler** · 05-30-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by silentheart

You mean this one?
http://www.jojoxserie.net/pics/20120...et%20mista.jpg
or this one?
http://www.thebulletbarn.com/images/...upwithBall.jpg
How about this one?
http://www.ironbikeworx.com/zc/image...t44magnick.jpg

I feel this is not oval shape...
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...api_bullet.jpg

One last thing. You swing the racquet with face hitting the shuttle. You do not try to stab a shuttle and hope you can get it over the net.

LOLOLOL, i didn't understand taneepak's logic at all either.
maybe he meant oval racket is a better projectile than iso, like LD and taufik could have threw their rackets much FURTHER if they have used oval rackets instead of their AT700's ROFL

**Abhorsen** · 06-16-2008, 01:32 AM

Definintely Iso for me, after using an oval head shaped racket while being forced to play defensively I can recognise the value in the stronger off center hits the Isometric head shape can provide which makes defence alot easier.

**Dunk1970** · 08-06-2008, 11:48 AM

I know that taneepak gets a lot of grief on topics and I'm not commenting on those other threads, but his physics here is quite accurate. If you place a typical isometric racquet head next to an oval one, you'll see that the oval is usually the same height and width, but does not stretch out as far as an isometric head at the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock points. This makes the iso larger and therefore gives it a higher drag factor.

Note that the area of two different shapes is not the same just because they have the same circumference. eg the area of a square and circle is not the same if they share the same circumference.

The other factor here is that a circle is the strongest 2 dimensional shape that exists. This means that an isometric head will suffer more distortion upon impacting a shuttle than an oval racquet will, since an oval is close to a circle. The weak points in an isometric shape being at the vertices (corners). Consequently, isometric shapes will also take less strain when stringing.

These principles go waaaaay back. Take Ironbridge (the first iron bridge in the world) in Shropshire, England for example. Everything about it was based on pure curves and circles to ensure that the whole structure didn't collapse under its own weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Bridge

If you want pure stability and power, then a circle would be the best design. However, if you want to trade off a bit of power, frame strength and stability for extra length of sweetspot, then an oval gives you that. If you want to trade yet more frame strength, stability and power for a wider and longer sweetspot, then you can go with an isometric.

To the more advanced, the width of the sweetspot is less important, since you rarely hit off to the side of the sweetspot. The length of the sweetspot is more important, since while smashing, you are more prone to hitting high up on the strings in order to hit the shuttle early and downwards.

**Armortec2010** · 08-06-2008, 12:50 PM

Cool comment.

I have 1 oval and 4 isos, I don't quite feel the consequences of hitting off the sweetspot. When I miss hit, I hit the frame or miss the birdy.

I like both.

Originally Posted by Dunk1970

I know that taneepak gets a lot of grief on topics and I'm not commenting on those other threads, but his physics here is quite accurate. If you place a typical isometric racquet head next to an oval one, you'll see that the oval is usually the same height and width, but does not stretch out as far as an isometric head at the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock points. This makes the iso larger and therefore gives it a higher drag factor.

Note that the area of two different shapes is not the same just because they have the same circumference. eg the area of a square and circle is not the same if they share the same circumference.

The other factor here is that a circle is the strongest 2 dimensional shape that exists. This means that an isometric head will suffer more distortion upon impacting a shuttle than an oval racquet will, since an oval is close to a circle. The weak points in an isometric shape being at the vertices (corners). Consequently, isometric shapes will also take less strain when stringing.

These principles go waaaaay back. Take Ironbridge (the first iron bridge in the world) in Shropshire, England for example. Everything about it was based on pure curves and circles to ensure that the whole structure didn't collapse under its own weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Bridge

If you want pure stability and power, then a circle would be the best design. However, if you want to trade off a bit of power, frame strength and stability for extra length of sweetspot, then an oval gives you that. If you want to trade yet more frame strength, stability and power for a wider and longer sweetspot, then you can go with an isometric.

To the more advanced, the width of the sweetspot is less important, since you rarely hit off to the side of the sweetspot. The length of the sweetspot is more important, since while smashing, you are more prone to hitting high up on the strings in order to hit the shuttle early and downwards.

**silentheart** · 08-06-2008, 01:07 PM

Hi Dunk1970,
I am not against your post or anything. I just want to make some point clear.
1) Taneepak is making over general statements and often time lead to too many exceptions that his statement contradict one to another. For example, ISO frame has larger face than Oval. Not necessary. Fischer oval racquets has larger face than MP99 which is an ISO. See http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/s...ad.php?t=32272
2) You pointed out yourself that given the circumference the same, the oval will have bigger area then ISO.
3) Regarding air resistance, it is the cross section that matter, not the shape of the frame. As I pointed out, you swing your racquet face the forward, stabing like fancing. unless some one jumped you and you try to defend yourself.

What he said may be right in some way. However, without giving specific condition, reason and fact, they are just his opinion, no proof to back it up.