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 6 of 33 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... LastLast
Results 86 to 102 of 559
  1. #86
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote 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,"

  2. #87
    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 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.

  3. #88
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TW
    Posts
    3,949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  4. #89
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  5. #90
    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 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

  6. #91
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Cannock, UK
    Posts
    2,908
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #92
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TW
    Posts
    3,949
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote 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?

  8. #93
    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 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

  9. #94
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #95
    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
    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

  11. #96
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  12. #97
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC - Kirkland WA
    Posts
    654
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  13. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    MODS,

    What if I prefer both ISO and OVAL?

  14. #99
    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 Pete LSD
    MODS,

    What if I prefer both ISO and OVAL?
    then your glasses is the decider, is your glasses oval or iso?

  15. #100
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vietnam
    Posts
    102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  16. #101
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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

  17. #102
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    T.O.
    Posts
    2,096
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote 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.

Page 6 of 33 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 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
  •