Do you prefer isometric or oval head rackets?

**Neil Nicholls** · 03-10-2005, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by cooler

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).

No I didn't. You must have misread.

I specifically said
"To keep the static balance point the same,"

**cooler** · 03-10-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

No I didn't. You must have misread.

I specifically said
"To keep the static balance point the same,"

well, i don't want to go too deep into mechanics in this thread because i don't need to do that to defend what i, kwun and 605badder have said.

You (and taneepak) are saying

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

iso head shape has nothing to do with more head weight and more swingweight. Just because armortec/mp/Ti series are mostly head heavy rackets don't support the above deduction. Take a look at NS series, mp60/66, isometric heads, all head light rackets so far (ns7000 and ns8000). More frame circumference material DOES NOT mean more head weight.

**bluejeff** · 03-10-2005, 04:07 PM

Exactly!

ISO shape rackets don't always have more head weight than Oval rackets.
Think about ISO-Slim10 as an example, which has thin frame design. So, people really need to think about the material, the make, and the thickness of the frame instead of thinking ISO has more head weight than Oval.

NS7000 is another good example here. It features head light design, and I don't think I need to say more about it; It's a ISO racket.

Think 3D, not 2D

**Neil Nicholls** · 03-10-2005, 04:31 PM

Cooler, and now you too bluejeff, are still not getting what I'm saying

I wasn't agreeing with taneepak
I do not agree with taneepak, particularly about how much power a racquet has.
I was dis-agreeing with Kwun's way of dis-agreeing with taneepak about swingweight

(gee, that makes it a lot clearer

)

head-light, even, head-heavy are almost meaningless in swingweight terms.
4U AT800 OF is not head heavy
but,
4U AT800 OF is head heavy compared to MP88

is 4U AT800 OF head-heavy compared to 2U MP-100 ?
I dunno
Nobody has the numbers like
4U AT800 OF has swingweight 137
2U MP100 has swingweight 160

the best anybody does (so far) is swing the racquets a bit and say
hmmm, this one feels harder to swing than that one so it must be more head-heavy

Show me the numbers

**cooler** · 03-10-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

Cooler, and now you too bluejeff, are still not getting what I'm saying

I wasn't agreeing with taneepak
I do not agree with taneepak, particularly about how much power a racquet has.
I was dis-agreeing with Kwun's way of dis-agreeing with taneepak about swingweight

(gee, that makes it a lot clearer

)

head-light, even, head-heavy are almost meaningless in swingweight terms.
4U AT800 OF is not head heavy
but,
4U AT800 OF is head heavy compared to MP88

is 4U AT800 OF head-heavy compared to 2U MP-100 ?
I dunno
Nobody has the numbers like
4U AT800 OF has swingweight 137
2U MP100 has swingweight 160

the best anybody does (so far) is swing the racquets a bit and say
hmmm, this one feels harder to swing than that one so it must be more head-heavy

Show me the numbers

I'm already WAYYY ahead you ya

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...3&page=5&pp=10

**Neil Nicholls** · 03-10-2005, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by cooler

I'm already WAYYY ahead you ya

I know

now why aren't all those pros using the B-8100
With it's huge swingweight it must have lots of power

**bluejeff** · 03-10-2005, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Neil Nicholls

I know

now why aren't all those pros using the B-8100
With it's huge swingweight it must have lots of power

Do you think company will make money if they don't advertise their new products?

**cooler** · 03-10-2005, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by bluejeff

Do you think company will make money if they don't advertise their new products?

no no no, it should be:
Do you think company will make money if their new products don't break

**taneepak** · 03-10-2005, 09:10 PM

Even if an iso frame has the same weight as an oval, it is still more powerful, plus it will have a larger sweetspot, than an oval, AOTBE. This is due to its higher swingweight, in part derived from its longer 'length'. As you may know length is another swingweight factor. If you take a ruler and place it across the frame about 1" from the top of the racquet head, you will see less of the oval and more of the iso frame as well as string. Thus an iso does have a longer effective 'length' than an oval.

**cooler** · 03-10-2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by taneepak

Even if an iso frame has the same weight as an oval, it is still more powerful, plus it will have a larger sweetspot, than an oval, AOTBE. This is due to its higher swingweight, in part derived from its longer 'length'. As you may know length is another swingweight factor. If you take a ruler and place it across the frame about 1" from the top of the racquet head, you will see less of the oval and more of the iso frame as well as string. Thus an iso does have a longer effective 'length' than an oval.

to gauge the power of your racquet, you should use the ruler to measure certain 'body part'

hehe

I mean the racquet forearm

LOL

**Pete LSD** · 03-11-2005, 12:49 AM

ISO VS OVAL - which one produce more punch? Nah . . . We should concentrate on the dude who can muster the most explosive swing.

**604badder** · 03-11-2005, 12:57 AM

All this is discussion about moment arms is just deja vu. We were having this debate not that long ago.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/s...6&page=2&pp=40

**Pete LSD** · 03-11-2005, 11:28 AM

MODS,

What if I prefer both ISO and OVAL?

**cooler** · 03-11-2005, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Pete LSD

MODS,

What if I prefer both ISO and OVAL?

then your glasses is the decider, is your glasses oval or iso?

**tifam** · 03-17-2005, 06:59 AM

I'm an intermediate player who had a strong attachment to the ISO's head racket in a long time. I have tried the Yonex MP's (including MP50, MP80, MP90, MP100), the AT's ( including AT500, AT700, AT 800 OF) and the Ti's rackets of Ashaway. Since I owned a CAB 30 MS last month , I gradually changed my opinion about the oval head rackets. They are effective weapon on the course, especially for the players who choose the all-around way of playing in a moderate speed. Supplying acceptable power and confidental control , the oval head racket can set mind at rest in gaining the initiative in front of opponents.Of course, I have to lose time to familiarize with them.I don't regret by joining my CAB 30 MS everyday,in my training time.
On second thoughts,my wife-a beginer player- chose a Gosen Gavun Root 5000 (oval head) replacing the Yonex MP50 which she had used nearly a year.
However, there are our personal free choices.

**dogflu** · 03-17-2005, 10:14 AM

haha..of cos iso head! haha...bigger ss and better feel

ehehehehehe....wonder if yonex can make a racket head as big as a tennis racket head...so i'm able to catch some smash

**bigredlemon** · 04-13-2005, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by tifam

I'm an intermediate player who had a strong attachment to the ISO's head racket in a long time.... gradually changed my opinion about the oval head rackets...

Ovals are definetly not getting much love in the badminton world as of late. It seems like all the new stuff is iso only.