User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you prefer Isometric or Oval?

Voters
1444. You may not vote on this poll
  • Isometric

    1,070 74.10%
  • Oval

    374 25.90%
Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast
Results 358 to 374 of 559
  1. #358
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am trying to bring your back in your arguments where everything started.
    1) You made an over general statement that ISO frames have bigger string bed than Oval thus bigger sweetspot in post #255, #257 and #313. You even made same claim and restrict it to modern, not Jr. racquet. I am giving you example here and asking you to correct your statement again.
    2) You keep claim that Oval frames are more stream line than ISO. I am asking you to restrict down the conditions in post #312. Now you are finally agree that what I asked you to do?
    3) I am asking you to check it out so I don't have to take pictures. I think you can verify it yourself. I can post all the picture I want, buy a verification by yourself is the best proof.
    4) I am trying very hard to explain to you that given every factors are the same between ISO and Oval frame except the head shape, there is no difference in air resistance between Oval and ISO frame.
    5) You keep claiming the ISO is just a Oval with extended shoulder. Therefor ISO has bigger string bed. I am telling you that is not always the case. You ask to restrickt down to 1 factor, ISO vs Oval shape. That means same string bad area also. Which you are not following your own rule.

    I am asking you to stop inventing your own logic to justify your statement.

  2. #359
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    I am trying to bring your back in your arguments where everything started.
    1) You made an over general statement that ISO frames have bigger string bed than Oval thus bigger sweetspot in post #255, #257 and #313. You even made same claim and restrict it to modern, not Jr. racquet. I am giving you example here and asking you to correct your statement again.
    2) You keep claim that Oval frames are more stream line than ISO. I am asking you to restrict down the conditions in post #312. Now you are finally agree that what I asked you to do?
    3) I am asking you to check it out so I don't have to take pictures. I think you can verify it yourself. I can post all the picture I want, buy a verification by yourself is the best proof.
    4) I am trying very hard to explain to you that given every factors are the same between ISO and Oval frame except the head shape, there is no difference in air resistance between Oval and ISO frame.
    5) You keep claiming the ISO is just a Oval with extended shoulder. Therefor ISO has bigger string bed. I am telling you that is not always the case. You ask to restrickt down to 1 factor, ISO vs Oval shape. That means same string bad area also. Which you are not following your own rule.

    I am asking you to stop inventing your own logic to justify your statement.
    I don't think we are on the same level. I stand by on what I have posted. You disagree obviously, so be it. Yes, I am saying again that AOTBE, an oval has a smaller stringbed or area than an iso; that an iso has more power but is more ponderous than an oval. BTW, I use these principles to advise OEMs and racquet manufacturers, the former were grateful although the latter obviously were not entirely greenhorns.

  3. #360
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BTW, Yonex Japan has confirmed that the racquet head of Yonex Cab series are smaller than Yonex Armortec series and they (cab series) also have a smaller stringed area. The reason given by Yonex was because the Armortec series use an isometric square head shape.
    You may wish to check this out with Yonex Japan yourself.

  4. #361
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,658
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    BTW, Yonex Japan has confirmed that the racquet head of Yonex Cab series are smaller than Yonex Armortec series and they (cab series) also have a smaller stringed area. The reason given by Yonex was because the Armortec series use an isometric square head shape.
    You may wish to check this out with Yonex Japan yourself.
    You should use the Isometric series instead of using Armortec series if you want to measure the frame area of Iso rackets.

  5. #362
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    I am trying to bring your back in your arguments where everything started.
    1) You made an over general statement that ISO frames have bigger string bed than Oval thus bigger sweetspot in post #255, #257 and #313. You even made same claim and restrict it to modern, not Jr. racquet. I am giving you example here and asking you to correct your statement again.
    2) You keep claim that Oval frames are more stream line than ISO. I am asking you to restrict down the conditions in post #312. Now you are finally agree that what I asked you to do?
    3) I am asking you to check it out so I don't have to take pictures. I think you can verify it yourself. I can post all the picture I want, buy a verification by yourself is the best proof.
    4) I am trying very hard to explain to you that given every factors are the same between ISO and Oval frame except the head shape, there is no difference in air resistance between Oval and ISO frame.
    5) You keep claiming the ISO is just a Oval with extended shoulder. Therefor ISO has bigger string bed. I am telling you that is not always the case. You ask to restrickt down to 1 factor, ISO vs Oval shape. That means same string bad area also. Which you are not following your own rule.

    I am asking you to stop inventing your own logic to justify your statement.
    i haven't followed all of the posts here but it seem taneepak is generalizing about iso vs oval base on the ideal dimension specificed in the bwf rule book. Since most users don't choose or compare rackets with ideal dimensions, one must deal with a real world comparison, which in this case, your statement are valid.

  6. #363
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phandrew View Post
    You should use the Isometric series instead of using Armortec series if you want to measure the frame area of Iso rackets.
    Armortec series, according to Yonex, employs an isometric square head shape. Other Yonex series, with the exception of the Carbonex series and another cheaper Cab series with an enlarged "squareness of the frame, also employ an isometric square head shape.
    To avoid twisting what I say, I suggest you check with your regional Yonex distributor re the relative head size or area of the cab racquets vs those with iso sq head shape if you are interested. Of course you can also check with Yonex HQ in Japan. This is better than hearing it from me.

  7. #364
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We can try the following experiment:
    Get a 1" wooden board and cut two holes through it. One hole is a 1" square hole, the other a 1" diameter round hole. Now pull out the two pegs, one square 1" square and the other one a round peg diameter 1".
    We have now two holes and two pegs. First try to put the round peg into the square hole. It goes in with no problem. Next insert the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't go in, just like what others say that you cannot put a square peg into a round hole!
    What happens if you "cheat", say by drilling another smaller 1/2" square hole, and then try to put the 1" round peg into this 1/2" square hole? It doesn't go in. How is it possible that a round peg is larger than the new square hole?
    I think this is the gist of the oval vs iso story.

  8. #365
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    We can try the following experiment:
    Get a 1" wooden board and cut two holes through it. One hole is a 1" square hole, the other a 1" diameter round hole. Now pull out the two pegs, one square 1" square and the other one a round peg diameter 1".
    We have now two holes and two pegs. First try to put the round peg into the square hole. It goes in with no problem. Next insert the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't go in, just like what others say that you cannot put a square peg into a round hole!
    What happens if you "cheat", say by drilling another smaller 1/2" square hole, and then try to put the 1" round peg into this 1/2" square hole? It doesn't go in. How is it possible that a round peg is larger than the new square hole?
    I think this is the gist of the oval vs iso story.
    Sorry for an omission of a word. It should be a 1" thick wooden board.

  9. #366
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    We can try the following experiment:
    Get a 1" wooden board and cut two holes through it. One hole is a 1" square hole, the other a 1" diameter round hole. Now pull out the two pegs, one square 1" square and the other one a round peg diameter 1".
    We have now two holes and two pegs. First try to put the round peg into the square hole. It goes in with no problem. Next insert the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't go in, just like what others say that you cannot put a square peg into a round hole!
    What happens if you "cheat", say by drilling another smaller 1/2" square hole, and then try to put the 1" round peg into this 1/2" square hole? It doesn't go in. How is it possible that a round peg is larger than the new square hole?
    I think this is the gist of the oval vs iso story.
    erhmm, square is not isometric, nor a circle is an oval.
    I have never been offered to do this IQ test before in my life, you must have felt excited to pass that test.

  10. #367
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post
    erhmm, square is not isometric, nor a circle is an oval.
    I have never been offered to do this IQ test before in my life, you must have felt excited to pass that test.
    That is the problem with you-not being able to see the forest for the trees.

  11. #368
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    We can try the following experiment:
    Get a 1" wooden board and cut two holes through it. One hole is a 1" square hole, the other a 1" diameter round hole. Now pull out the two pegs, one square 1" square and the other one a round peg diameter 1".
    We have now two holes and two pegs. First try to put the round peg into the square hole. It goes in with no problem. Next insert the square peg into the round hole. It doesn't go in, just like what others say that you cannot put a square peg into a round hole!
    What happens if you "cheat", say by drilling another smaller 1/2" square hole, and then try to put the 1" round peg into this 1/2" square hole? It doesn't go in. How is it possible that a round peg is larger than the new square hole?
    I think this is the gist of the oval vs iso story.
    1) Like Cooler sad, Oval is not a circle. Nor a square is ISO.
    2) No one disagree with you on given 2 objects, one with bigger surface area and one with smaller surface area, the one with bigger surface area will have more air resistance.
    What we have problem with is your claim that ISO frame always has bigger frame size. I am telling you that is not necessary true. Manufacture can make the racquet anyway they want as long as it fits the rule of badminton. I ask you to measure MP99 and Cab30ms because they are design and produced around the same time. Both have almost the same feature except frame shape. Both are top of line model. If you care to go out and compare the 2, you will see MP99 has smaller frame size than Cab30ms. Also, the cross section of the frame plays far bigger role the the frame size. To make a proper comparison of iso vs oval shape, you need to limit other factors such as frame size, frame cross section and other factors. That is what I have been trying to tell you and you finally agreed on few post back. However, you pull the crap on the hole and peg stuff, that really just show you have no idea on doing any anvance experiemnt and logical thinking. No wonder the racquet your design were off spec and people need to send it back to you for adjustment. This will be my last post on this subject.
    Sorry, I really don't know what too say when you run into a tree and you thought you saw the forest after you wake up.

  12. #369
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    That is the problem with you-not being able to see the forest for the trees.
    yes, we don't see things eye to eye. You are still playing with blocks.

  13. #370
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    1) Like Cooler sad, Oval is not a circle. Nor a square is ISO.
    2) No one disagree with you on given 2 objects, one with bigger surface area and one with smaller surface area, the one with bigger surface area will have more air resistance.
    What we have problem with is your claim that ISO frame always has bigger frame size. I am telling you that is not necessary true. Manufacture can make the racquet anyway they want as long as it fits the rule of badminton. I ask you to measure MP99 and Cab30ms because they are design and produced around the same time. Both have almost the same feature except frame shape. Both are top of line model. If you care to go out and compare the 2, you will see MP99 has smaller frame size than Cab30ms. Also, the cross section of the frame plays far bigger role the the frame size. To make a proper comparison of iso vs oval shape, you need to limit other factors such as frame size, frame cross section and other factors. That is what I have been trying to tell you and you finally agreed on few post back. However, you pull the crap on the hole and peg stuff, that really just show you have no idea on doing any anvance experiemnt and logical thinking. No wonder the racquet your design were off spec and people need to send it back to you for adjustment. This will be my last post on this subject.
    Sorry, I really don't know what too say when you run into a tree and you thought you saw the forest after you wake up.
    Pls note that when I compare oval with iso, I do qualify it with AOTBE (All other things being equal). This is the only basis you can compare. Otherwise it is like getting that round 1" diameter peg and trying to insert it into that 1/2 inch square hole, instead of inserting it into that 1" square hole.

  14. #371
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Pls note that when I compare oval with iso, I do qualify it with AOTBE (All other things being equal). This is the only basis you can compare. Otherwise it is like getting that round 1" diameter peg and trying to insert it into that 1/2 inch square hole, instead of inserting it into that 1" square hole.
    tell us where to buy a square frame racket Taneepak....

  15. #372
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,661
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak View Post
    Pls note that when I compare oval with iso, I do qualify it with AOTBE (All other things being equal). This is the only basis you can compare. Otherwise it is like getting that round 1" diameter peg and trying to insert it into that 1/2 inch square hole, instead of inserting it into that 1" square hole.
    So, does AOTBE mean frame size the same too? If that is the case, what is your point?

  16. #373
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    So, does AOTBE mean frame size the same too? If that is the case, what is your point?
    Ok, let me start again. We are now talking about frame shape, an oval shape versus an isometric shape, and nothing else. With this in mind and AOTBE, an oval shape will have a smaller area than an isometric shape.
    Let me explain how we design racquet frames and then their profiles. First we take the overall length and the overall width of the frame, with regard to the inside points. Overall length and width means the longest path from point to point at its widest part.
    Let us say we design a racquet with an overall frame length (or some call it height) of say 240mm and an overall width of 190mm, at thier widest. With these 4 points we then decide whether we want an oval, an enlarged or slightly more "squarish" oval, an isometric with a square shape at the shoulders, sometimes with a slight variation in the extent of its squarness.
    We then decide on the costs which determine the materials to be used. Then we determine the frame's profile, materials, and costs. Wider profiles are cheaper to produce because cheaper materials can be used but yet will produce good power, albeit at the expense of being more ponderous. Also we play with swingweight factors to produce power, but as always they do not come without some disadvantages. Another factor to consider but is only appropriate for players with very fast hand speed is the portion of the frame from the frame waist location down into and including the throat and T joint. Better materials are necessary for this 'section' for that great whippy feel plus of course higher costs. But many players may not like this type of design because they say fatter profile frames give them more power.

  17. #374
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler View Post
    tell us where to buy a square frame racket Taneepak....
    Whilst the world is on standard time (1" hole), Cooler is lost in the nether world of 1/2 inch. You still cannot see the forest for the trees.

Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Head heavy very stiff Oval Head racket ???
    By pussiii999 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 17
    : 12-19-2008, 06:19 AM
  2. Square/Isometric or Oval/Traditional ?
    By eh7eh7 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 1
    : 03-27-2006, 09:30 AM
  3. Oval head, isometric head and ovaliso head.
    By Extremesmash in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 5
    : 11-18-2004, 02:39 PM
  4. switching to oval from isometric head shape
    By Josh in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 4
    : 12-18-2001, 04:19 AM
  5. Isometric vs. Oval Head
    By Vy in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 14
    : 09-18-2001, 01:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •