View Poll Results: do you prefer Isometric or Oval?
- 1405. You may not vote on this poll
08-07-2008, 10:43 AM #324
08-07-2008, 11:12 AM #325
Are you trying to explain to me that there is no difference is air resistance between ISO and Oval? I am sorry, I have not use a wind tunnel for any testing for the last 11 years. Can you explain to me, Given a MP99 and Cab30ms both has same length and box cross section. Both have same "T" joint design and almost same cross section thickness. We know MP99 is a ISO shape and Cab30ms is a Oval shape frame and we know that MP99 has slight bigger frame size. How can MP99 has bigger air drag than Cab30ms due to the shape of the frame, not because of the bigger frame size and more contact surface?
You have been making statements based on the wrong reasoning. Every time I try to isolate and clarify your reasoning, you just keep on adding more non sense arguments to fit your prior statement. Please understand that I am trying to help you clean up your argument here. You need to be clear on your assumptions and facts. Not just adding more and more assumptions as facts.
08-07-2008, 11:17 AM #326
Isometric has better feeling............
08-07-2008, 11:47 AM #327
Iso came out for one specific reason and that is to give it a much bigger stringbed area, and hence increased power but at a price. AOTBE, a bigger stringbed area will give you more power but will be less maneuverable. AOTBE, is it technically possible to have an iso shape with a smaller stringbed area than an oval?
Now, AOTBE do you believe that oval is faster than iso?
08-07-2008, 12:39 PM #328
08-07-2008, 12:45 PM #329
08-07-2008, 12:48 PM #330
08-07-2008, 01:00 PM #331
08-07-2008, 10:45 PM #332
Look fellows, a racquet's swingweight is influenced by 4 main factors: weight, length, balance point, and size of racquet head. A plus in any of these 4 factors will increase its swingweight and hence more power. The debit side is that it is more ponderous and less maneuverability. An oval has a smaller head size than an iso, because an iso has an extended shoulders "added" to an oval.
Cross-section, cross-section profile, the "T' joint, and both the thickness and surface area of the throat area also affect racquet head speed and maneuverability. You can refer this-the undesirable effects on maneuverability of the "T" joint-to Yonex's patent application for their T joint filed many yaers ago.
08-09-2008, 08:00 PM #333
ie It is very much the exception to see an iso with a smaller frame than an oval. I have been round many, many shops this past couple of months in search of my next racquet. I have not seen one iso with a frame smaller than my oval. Yes, it could be that my 10 year old oval Carlton Aerogear 800FX has a smaller head than other ovals, but this wasn't true of any of those I checked it against. Heh, yes, I took my racquet in for comparison purposes. Not specifically to check frame sizes for this debate I hasten to add, but to check the balance and feel of prospective new racquets against my trusty Carlton. Or should that be 'rusty' Carlton.
So, for all intents and purposes in this debate, if you buy an iso, you are very, very much more likely to have a bigger frame to wield than if you buy an oval.
This will slow your swing-speed slightly, weaken the frame slightly, but increase the size of your sweetspot and increase the momentum of the larger frame. ie there are trade-offs.
An alternative view of this debate is that all of the top end racquets sold by Yonex are isometric. So, if you want one of them, you have to go iso. I applaud Carlton for giving everyone the choice across much of their range.
08-11-2008, 08:53 AM #334
The frame size usually close. But not all frame are similar size in dimension. In fact, there are many different frame size for different design and purpose.
There must be a reason why I keep bring up Cab30ms vs MP99 frame size. Please go check it out yourself. If you wish me to post pictures and to prove you wrong, please let me know. Also please stop making over general statements and keep adding some BS reasons to make you sound like you are right.
08-11-2008, 10:55 AM #335
This Yonex development continues to "fire" players to victory. The Isometric Square Head Shape provides a 32% larger effective hitting area than a conventional racquet (oval). Unlike a conventional racquet with main and cross strings of varying length, the Isometric Square Head Shape equalizes the length of main and cross strings in the stringbed, enlarging the sweetspot for more consistent shot accuracy even on off-centre hits.
Yes, I am saying that iso has a bigger head than an oval. So does Yonex.
08-11-2008, 11:07 AM #336
08-11-2008, 11:29 AM #337
Are you saying Yonex makes no claim to its own Isometric design having a larger head size than its own Cab series? Of course Yonex iso shapes have a larger area than its oval shapes. Have you noticed the difference in the length of strings actually used to string an iso vs an oval? Are you saying an oval uses more strings than an iso?
As a matter of fact you can get racquet head size from racquet manufacturers, although most manufacturers don't publish them.
08-11-2008, 11:47 AM #338
Yonex claim that given the racquet with same head size, the sweetspot is bigger for ISO because the center 6 (or 8 mains depend on the model) are about same length and center 18 crosses are closer in length than oval. Do I need to teach you how to do experiment andmeasure now?
Your strength assumption to head size only hold true if the distance between the strings is exactly the same for crosses between iso and oval. Also the same assumption has to hold for mains too. Then you have to make a assumption that the frame has same thickness or corss section. I can tell you, they are not the same. Even after that, you can only conclude the out side fram area, not the string bed size. Once again, please go to your friend's store and pick up a cab30ms and a mp99 for compairson, that is if you have any access.
Last edited by silentheart; 08-11-2008 at 11:52 AM.
08-11-2008, 04:36 PM #339
08-11-2008, 11:18 PM #340
Isometric is an English word which means the dimensions are equalized. Yonex extends the oval shape at the shoulders, and as a result you get longer strings, both mains and crosses. But the extra lengths still do not equalized the sweetspot dimensions; instead it is a rectangular, and a rectangular is not of equalized dimensions and hence cannot be called isometric in the strict sense of the word. To get more of the mains and crosses longer the racquet must be bigger.
If you are a stringer you can probably string 11 cab 20 or Cab 21 instead of 10 AT700 from a 100m reel of say BG85.
When we talk about enlarging a sweetspot by having longer string lengths in a rectangular or even square pattern, the only way to do this is to extend the narrow shoulders of the classic Cab oval shape.
Yonex also produces racquets that are a half way house between their classic oval and iso. They do this by increasing the squareness of the frame. Even these are bigger than the classic oval.
By pussiii999 in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 17: 12-19-2008, 05:19 AM
By eh7eh7 in forum Racket Recommendation / ComparisonReplies: 1: 03-27-2006, 08:30 AM
By Extremesmash in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 5: 11-18-2004, 01:39 PM
By Josh in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 4: 12-18-2001, 03:19 AM
By Vy in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 14: 09-18-2001, 12:18 PM