Do you prefer isometric or oval head rackets?

[kwun]

Well, at least Thomas Laybourne thinks an iso (wide-body) is better because it can take higher tension and it produces more power than an oval like the Gosen 3500. You can click the Thomas Laybourne Forum, look for "Equipment Question", and then stroll down to thread #10.

Thomas said:

I haven�t tried the 3500 but as far as i can remember it is a slim model, and i like the rackets to be widebody models. The have better power and can take more kg�s.

widebody does not equal ISO. they are completely different things.

widebody is like the Aerotus series where the frame is thicker than normal. that's why Thomas also referred to slim in the prior sentence. slim is the opposite of widebody.

[taneepak]

Thomas said:

widebody does not equal ISO. they are completely different things.

widebody is like the Aerotus series where the frame is thicker than normal. that's why Thomas also referred to slim in the prior sentence. slim is the opposite of widebody.

Well, what do you think Thomas Laybourne is using? Probably a larger frame (wide body) racquet than an oval. I don't think he was referring to the Aerotus.

[604badder]

......thinks an iso (wide-body) is better because it can take higher tension .....

Beyond Kwun's explanation of how wide body is different from ISO, I wanted to add that an ISO shape cannot take more tension than an oval head (once again, assuming equal material strength).

The racquet head shape that can take the highest tension is a perfect circle. This is because the geometry is self-reinforcing. The more you deviate from that shape, the more the frame needs to resist deformation using its inherent strength instead of the string pattern's support.

[taneepak]

A large frame (head) has a greater web or stringbed area, which gives you more power. Even some oval racquets try to mimic the larger area of iso racquets by having grooves on the inner side of the frame, a sort of pseudo iso, i.e. Gosen 5300 and 3500.
Today's larger frame size racquets have enabled more women to play more powerful shots. I am sure this also applies to badminton's closest relative, tennis.

[bluejeff]

A larger frame would provide more sweetspot area, but that's it, it has nothing to do with increasing power. And that's the main reason people generally play better with larger frame racket (or ISO shape rackets).

Hitting more "successfully" (within the sweetspot) is what this is all about

[604badder]

A large frame (head) has a greater web or stringbed area, which gives you more power. .....

That point is a fallacy actually. The larger web as you say, only increases the probability of contacting the area on the head that maximizes energy transfer. I can hit the sweet spot every time, but if my swing is slow inherently, the shot will be slow too.

The fact that the head is larger has no correlation to how hard I can hit it. That depends on my stroke.

The larger head just increase the likelihood that I'll hit a spot that transfers as much energy as possible.

[Pete LSD]

(1) The groove on the inner side of the frame is to increase the trampoline effect of the string bed.

(2) Boys and gals today have much better nurtients and modern training techniques. These two factors account for more powerful shots and faster court actions.

A large frame (head) has a greater web or stringbed area, which gives you more power. Even some oval racquets try to mimic the larger area of iso racquets by having grooves on the inner side of the frame, a sort of pseudo iso, i.e. Gosen 5300 and 3500.
Today's larger frame size racquets have enabled more women to play more powerful shots. I am sure this also applies to badminton's closest relative, tennis.

[taneepak]

Ask any racquet manufacturer about how to play around with a racquet's swingweight. It is weight, balance, head size, and length. To get the right mix is a lot more difficult than you think. I have just had 10 custom-made racquets made with my own specs on swingweight.

[cooler]

Ask any racquet manufacturer about how to play around with a racquet's swingweight. It is weight, balance, head size, and length. To get the right mix is a lot more difficult than you think. I have just had 10 custom-made racquets made with my own specs on swingweight.

you're deviating your point.
you said larger frame and/or oval frame increase swingweight and therefore more power. Pros do customization on existing sponsored rackets. Racket frame size is UNCHANGE. They only playing around with balancing and/or weight

[Neil Nicholls]

If you keep the weight, balance and length constant, it would be interesting to compare an oval 4U against an iso 4U of the same brand racquet.

Aha! I thought. Carlton now make Ovals and Isos in 4U
Airblade Superlite and Powerblade Superlite

Looking in the Carlton catalog though, I see the Airblade Superlite is 81g but the Powerblade Superlight is 84g.
I guess the Powerblade is heavier because the frame is bigger

But on other models they do have the same weight between oval and iso
Airblade Elite 84g
Powerblade Elite 84g

Airblade Tour 86g
Powerblade Tour 86g

maybe the Powerblade Superlite weight is a misprint.

interestingly, of all the pros mentioned in the catalog that use the new racquets, all the men (Richard Vaughn, Nathan Robertson, Simon Archer) use ovals, and all the women use iso (Gail Emms)
And, fortunately for Carlton, they all use racquets from the different ranges
Elite
Tour
Superlite
Carbon TT

[Neil Nicholls]

there is a contradiction there.

the 4 factors:
size, balance, weight, length. if you want to do a fair comparison, you must keep 3 factors constant and vary one of them.

if you keep balance, weight, length constant, i don't see how the size of the frame can affect the swing weight.

I don't see that as a contradiction
If you keep balance, weight and length constant, what you do by changing the frame size is alter the weight distribution. You need more material to make an iso than an oval so there will be more weight in the head and less somewhere else. Therefore more head-heavy than the oval, therefore higher swingweight.

(The frame could, presumably, have been made from a less dense material and kept the weight distribution the same, but it depends on what things we are trying to keep equal.)

To keep the static balance point the same, some weight has to be moved towards the handle end (reducing the swingweight, but reducing it by less than it was increased by the extra weight in the frame)

[Neil Nicholls]

A large frame (head) has a greater web or stringbed area, which gives you more power.

maybe more people should use Yonex's MegaFrame racquets then. Even bigger than their normal Isometric frame.
Why do Yonex only market these at the lower end, on extra-flexible racquets?

In Yonex's words
"The Isometric and Isometric Mega-Frame series racquets have been developed by Yonex to deliver consistent shot power and accuracy, even on off-centre hits. The Mega-Frames's further enlarged 'sweet spot' gives you the ultimate control and power"

Well, there you are, ultimate control and power. Nothing will ever be better.
That's what ultimate means isn't it?

Would we get more power using a squash racquet or tennis racquet to play badminton?
Higher swingweight and larger stringbed area.

[Neil Nicholls]

Maybe this thread should be split, and a new thread entitled "Racquets and Power" started...

[cooler]

I don't see that as a contradiction
If you keep balance, weight and length constant, what you do by changing the frame size is alter the weight distribution. You need more material to make an iso than an oval so there will be more weight in the head and less somewhere else. Therefore more head-heavy than the oval, therefore higher swingweight.

(The frame could, presumably, have been made from a less dense material and kept the weight distribution the same, but it depends on what things we are trying to keep equal.)

To keep the static balance point the same, some weight has to be moved towards the handle end (reducing the swingweight, but reducing it by less than it was increased by the extra weight in the frame)

u had deceived yourself neil.
read kwun's post carefully, he said

Originally Posted by kwun
there is a contradiction there.

the 4 factors:
size, balance, weight, length. if you want to do a fair comparison, you must keep 3 factors constant and vary one of them.

if you keep balance, weight, length constant, i don't see how the size of the frame can affect the swing weight.

those are the stated terms and condition.

by your logic, you would be implying that 100 lb of lead is heavier than 100 lb of cork because they come in different packaging and lead has higher density.

[Neil Nicholls]

u had deceived yourself neil.

by your logic, you would be implying that 100 lb of lead is heavier than 100 lb of cork because they come in different packaging and lead has higher density.

I don't think so.
I thought I was saying that the same weight, distributed differently, can have a different swingweight.

[604badder]

I don't think so.
I thought I was saying that the same weight, distributed differently, can have a different swingweight.

Right, but the dependent variable should be head area, so all the others should be independent, including the distribution.

[cooler]

I don't think so.
I thought I was saying that the same weight, distributed differently, can have a different swingweight.

U forgot that the parameter 'balance' was also specified.

kwun was just playing it safe by listing more parameters than needed. Balance or moment of inertia is already defined by weight, shape, dimension (x,y,z).