User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you prefer Isometric or Oval?

Voters
1438. You may not vote on this poll
  • Isometric

    1,064 73.99%
  • Oval

    374 26.01%
Page 23 of 33 FirstFirst ... 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 375 to 391 of 559
  1. #375
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    532
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so conclusion is iso better or oval better??

  2. #376
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India & Australia
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Isometric.(This is from experience)

    the reason?
    well, giving a reply to a smash becomes more powerful with an Iso when the point of contact is near the tip. this prevents the opponent from finishing.

    although the difference is slight, switching from oval to iso was a task for me :P

  3. #377
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    532
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so Oval head is total a rubbish now?? =.=" just bought wilson nCode 9000 .. i think it's oval head racket...

  4. #378
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,511
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does it really matter what racquet your opponent use to beat you? You lose to the player, not the racquet.

  5. #379
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cappy75 View Post
    Does it really matter what racquet your opponent use to beat you? You lose to the player, not the racquet.
    Well said. On a more positive note, if I win, I would love to take more credit than my racket .

  6. #380
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the answers are based on two different questions.

    1. Is isometric head better than oval rackets?
    2. Do you prefer isometric or oval head rackets

    In the first case, I would say yes. Given the same specific racket and the only difference is the head shape, an isometric head can give you a greater sweet spot and a larger margin to play predictable/accurate. Off the sweet spot result in less power, and can result in a not expected flight. Please not that a iso frame will not give you more power because the string lengths in the sweet spots are the same. The number of strings that have the same length is just higher.

    The second answer for me is depending on the opponent. I prefer to play with an oval racket for normal use. I prefer isometric racket playing against good and better players to afford a larger error margin.
    Last edited by CarbonexFan; 10-03-2008 at 07:08 AM.

  7. #381
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Attic
    Posts
    153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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...

  8. #382
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  9. #383
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #384
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 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.

  11. #385
    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 fixingbones View Post
    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.
    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.

  12. #386
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fixingbones View Post
    Isometric head has a slightly larger surface area and with increasing shaft lengths, swing speed definitely reduces, trust me. It is is simple physics.
    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.

  13. #387
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  14. #388
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Wink 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....


    Quote Originally Posted by weeyeh View Post
    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.

  15. #389
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,658
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fixingbones View Post
    You have too much time on your hands plus, do you actually get out and play badminton?

    Your calculations are theoretical (#1 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 #2 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....
    #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.

  16. #390
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fixingbones View Post
    You have too much time on your hands plus, do you actually get out and play badminton?
    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.

    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 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?

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

    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....
    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.
    Last edited by weeyeh; 10-08-2008 at 09:05 PM.

  17. #391
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Head heavy very stiff Oval Head racket ???
    By pussiii999 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 17
    : 12-19-2008, 05:19 AM
  2. Square/Isometric or Oval/Traditional ?
    By eh7eh7 in forum Racket Recommendation / Comparison
    Replies: 1
    : 03-27-2006, 08:30 AM
  3. Oval head, isometric head and ovaliso head.
    By Extremesmash in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 5
    : 11-18-2004, 01:39 PM
  4. switching to oval from isometric head shape
    By Josh in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 4
    : 12-18-2001, 03:19 AM
  5. Isometric vs. Oval Head
    By Vy in forum Badminton Rackets / Equipment
    Replies: 14
    : 09-18-2001, 12:18 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
  •