## View Poll Results: do you prefer Isometric or Oval?

Voters
1464. You may not vote on this poll
• Isometric

1,089 74.39%
• Oval

375 25.61%

1. Originally Posted by silentheart
Hi Dunk1970,
I am not against your post or anything. I just want to make some point clear.
1) Taneepak is making over general statements and often time lead to too many exceptions that his statement contradict one to another. For example, ISO frame has larger face than Oval. Not necessary. Fischer oval racquets has larger face than MP99 which is an ISO. See http://www.badmintoncentral.com/vb/s...ad.php?t=32272
2) You pointed out yourself that given the circumference the same, the oval will have bigger area then ISO.
3) Regarding air resistance, it is the cross section that matter, not the shape of the frame. As I pointed out, you swing your racquet face the forward, stabing like fancing. unless some one jumped you and you try to defend yourself.

What he said may be right in some way. However, without giving specific condition, reason and fact, they are just his opinion, no proof to back it up.
In a racquet swing the face of the racquet is not static and not facing the net all the time. The swing starts off with the racquet face facing the side lines and the cross-section facing the net and then pronates to the racquet face facing the net and the frame's cross-section facing the sidelines at shuttle impact. This motion is affected by air resisitance from the size of the throat, mainly the "T" joint, the shape of the racquet (iso has more drag than oval), the frame's cross-section, the thickness of the strings, the cross-section thickness profile of the frame, etc.

2. Originally Posted by taneepak
In a racquet swing the face of the racquet is not static and not facing the net all the time. The swing starts off with the racquet face facing the side lines and the cross-section facing the net and then pronates to the racquet face facing the net and the frame's cross-section facing the sidelines at shuttle impact. This motion is affected by air resisitance from the size of the throat, mainly the "T" joint, the shape of the racquet (iso has more drag than oval), the frame's cross-section, the thickness of the strings, the cross-section thickness profile of the frame, etc.
Are you trying to explain to me that there is no difference is air resistance between ISO and Oval? I am sorry, I have not use a wind tunnel for any testing for the last 11 years. Can you explain to me, Given a MP99 and Cab30ms both has same length and box cross section. Both have same "T" joint design and almost same cross section thickness. We know MP99 is a ISO shape and Cab30ms is a Oval shape frame and we know that MP99 has slight bigger frame size. How can MP99 has bigger air drag than Cab30ms due to the shape of the frame, not because of the bigger frame size and more contact surface?
You have been making statements based on the wrong reasoning. Every time I try to isolate and clarify your reasoning, you just keep on adding more non sense arguments to fit your prior statement. Please understand that I am trying to help you clean up your argument here. You need to be clear on your assumptions and facts. Not just adding more and more assumptions as facts.

3. Isometric has better feeling............

4. Originally Posted by silentheart
Are you trying to explain to me that there is no difference is air resistance between ISO and Oval? I am sorry, I have not use a wind tunnel for any testing for the last 11 years. Can you explain to me, Given a MP99 and Cab30ms both has same length and box cross section. Both have same "T" joint design and almost same cross section thickness. We know MP99 is a ISO shape and Cab30ms is a Oval shape frame and we know that MP99 has slight bigger frame size. How can MP99 has bigger air drag than Cab30ms due to the shape of the frame, not because of the bigger frame size and more contact surface?
You have been making statements based on the wrong reasoning. Every time I try to isolate and clarify your reasoning, you just keep on adding more non sense arguments to fit your prior statement. Please understand that I am trying to help you clean up your argument here. You need to be clear on your assumptions and facts. Not just adding more and more assumptions as facts.
Look, we are talking about iso vs oval shapes of almost identical types, not one brand's huge oval vs another's smaller iso or an adult's racquet with a kid's racquet. AOTBE, an iso shape has a bigger stringbed/surface area and hence a higher drag than an oval. Of course a kid's iso is much smaller than a adult's oval-but we are comparing apples with apples not with oranges.
Iso came out for one specific reason and that is to give it a much bigger stringbed area, and hence increased power but at a price. AOTBE, a bigger stringbed area will give you more power but will be less maneuverable. AOTBE, is it technically possible to have an iso shape with a smaller stringbed area than an oval?
Now, AOTBE do you believe that oval is faster than iso?

5. Originally Posted by taneepak
Look, we are talking about iso vs oval shapes of almost identical types, not one brand's huge oval vs another's smaller iso or an adult's racquet with a kid's racquet. AOTBE, an iso shape has a bigger stringbed/surface area and hence a higher drag than an oval. Of course a kid's iso is much smaller than a adult's oval-but we are comparing apples with apples not with oranges.
Iso came out for one specific reason and that is to give it a much bigger stringbed area, and hence increased power but at a price. AOTBE, a bigger stringbed area will give you more power but will be less maneuverable. AOTBE, is it technically possible to have an iso shape with a smaller stringbed area than an oval?
Now, AOTBE do you believe that oval is faster than iso?
Given every spec the same except the head shape, "NO", they are the same. As I mention before, MP99 and Cab30ms face size only differ by a very small amount. Not the "BIG" difference you claim. Regarding your question of "is it technically possible to have an iso shape with a smaller stringbed area than an oval?" It is not only possible, it is also feasible, do able and there is no rule against that either. The purpose of ISO frame shape is to produce larger sweet spot given the same tension. The same objective can be achived by oval frame. you can have a longer frame and shorter shaft and still follow the rule of badminton 4.1 The racket shall be a frame not exceeding 680 mm in overall length and 230 mm in overall width consisting of the main parts described in Laws 4.1.1 to 4.1.5 as illustrated in Diagram C. Please read the rule.

6. Originally Posted by taneepak
In nature a spherical shape offers the least resistance and every planet and star is spherical.
Hmmm, i thot space contain more or less emptyness, there is no air resistance in space.

7. Originally Posted by cooler
Hmmm, i thot space contain more or less emptyness, there is no air resistance in space.
What do you call that.
A Good Call!!!

8. Originally Posted by Dunk1970
I know that taneepak gets a lot of grief on topics and I'm not commenting on those other threads, but his physics here is quite accurate. If you place a typical isometric racquet head next to an oval one, you'll see that the oval is usually the same height and width, but does not stretch out as far as an isometric head at the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock points. This makes the iso larger and therefore gives it a higher drag factor.

.
form factor and area are 2 different things.
I can have a tiny iso frame and is still lots less air drags and stronger than a cab30. Yonex can make a racket of any length,width and shapes as long as it is within BWF outer dimensional specs.

9. Look fellows, a racquet's swingweight is influenced by 4 main factors: weight, length, balance point, and size of racquet head. A plus in any of these 4 factors will increase its swingweight and hence more power. The debit side is that it is more ponderous and less maneuverability. An oval has a smaller head size than an iso, because an iso has an extended shoulders "added" to an oval.
Cross-section, cross-section profile, the "T' joint, and both the thickness and surface area of the throat area also affect racquet head speed and maneuverability. You can refer this-the undesirable effects on maneuverability of the "T" joint-to Yonex's patent application for their T joint filed many yaers ago.

10. Originally Posted by silentheart
Hi Dunk1970,
2) You pointed out yourself that given the circumference the same, the oval will have bigger area then ISO.
3) Regarding air resistance, it is the cross section that matter, not the shape of the frame. As I pointed out, you swing your racquet face the forward, stabing like fancing. unless some one jumped you and you try to defend yourself.
To clarify point 2, given that 90% of racquets have the same width and height of frame, the circumference of an iso is always going to be bigger than that of an oval of the same height and width. However, holding the different types against each other, you will see that with this 90% of racquets the oval frame never extends out at any point beyond where an iso frame does. Whereas the iso extends out further at the 11 and 1 o'clock positions.

ie It is very much the exception to see an iso with a smaller frame than an oval. I have been round many, many shops this past couple of months in search of my next racquet. I have not seen one iso with a frame smaller than my oval. Yes, it could be that my 10 year old oval Carlton Aerogear 800FX has a smaller head than other ovals, but this wasn't true of any of those I checked it against. Heh, yes, I took my racquet in for comparison purposes. Not specifically to check frame sizes for this debate I hasten to add, but to check the balance and feel of prospective new racquets against my trusty Carlton. Or should that be 'rusty' Carlton.

So, for all intents and purposes in this debate, if you buy an iso, you are very, very much more likely to have a bigger frame to wield than if you buy an oval.

This will slow your swing-speed slightly, weaken the frame slightly, but increase the size of your sweetspot and increase the momentum of the larger frame. ie there are trade-offs.

An alternative view of this debate is that all of the top end racquets sold by Yonex are isometric. So, if you want one of them, you have to go iso. I applaud Carlton for giving everyone the choice across much of their range.

11. Hi Dunk1970,
The frame size usually close. But not all frame are similar size in dimension. In fact, there are many different frame size for different design and purpose.

To Taneepak,
There must be a reason why I keep bring up Cab30ms vs MP99 frame size. Please go check it out yourself. If you wish me to post pictures and to prove you wrong, please let me know. Also please stop making over general statements and keep adding some BS reasons to make you sound like you are right.

12. Originally Posted by silentheart
Hi Dunk1970,
The frame size usually close. But not all frame are similar size in dimension. In fact, there are many different frame size for different design and purpose.

To Taneepak,
There must be a reason why I keep bring up Cab30ms vs MP99 frame size. Please go check it out yourself. If you wish me to post pictures and to prove you wrong, please let me know. Also please stop making over general statements and keep adding some BS reasons to make you sound like you are right.
Silentheart, if you were a Yonex salesman you would have been told off by Yonex R & D re Isometric head size. FYI, Isometric is a Yonex "invention", in case you are not aware of it. This is what Yonex R & D says :

ISOMETRIC.
This Yonex development continues to "fire" players to victory. The Isometric Square Head Shape provides a 32% larger effective hitting area than a conventional racquet (oval). Unlike a conventional racquet with main and cross strings of varying length, the Isometric Square Head Shape equalizes the length of main and cross strings in the stringbed, enlarging the sweetspot for more consistent shot accuracy even on off-centre hits.
Yes, I am saying that iso has a bigger head than an oval. So does Yonex.

13. Originally Posted by taneepak
ISOMETRIC.
This Yonex development continues to "fire" players to victory. The Isometric Square Head Shape provides a 32% larger effective hitting area than a conventional racquet (oval). Unlike a conventional racquet with main and cross strings of varying length, the Isometric Square Head Shape equalizes the length of main and cross strings in the stringbed, enlarging the sweetspot for more consistent shot accuracy even on off-centre hits.
Yes, I am saying that iso has a bigger head than an oval. So does Yonex.
That is called sweet spot, not frame size/hear size. Get your term right.
We can have a conversation when you are not confused or when you are not trying to confuse people.

14. Originally Posted by silentheart
That is called sweet spot, not frame size/hear size. Get your term right.
Isometric's enlarged sweetspot is a direct result of an enlarged stringbed. As the head size gets smaller the sweetspot also gets smaller, relative to larger head sizes. In Yonex's Isometric invention, the enlarged sweetspot comes from an enlarged head size as a direct result of its "Square Head Shape" relative to its Cab series smaller oval head shape.
Are you saying Yonex makes no claim to its own Isometric design having a larger head size than its own Cab series? Of course Yonex iso shapes have a larger area than its oval shapes. Have you noticed the difference in the length of strings actually used to string an iso vs an oval? Are you saying an oval uses more strings than an iso?
As a matter of fact you can get racquet head size from racquet manufacturers, although most manufacturers don't publish them.

15. Yonex claim that given the racquet with same head size, the sweetspot is bigger for ISO because the center 6 (or 8 mains depend on the model) are about same length and center 18 crosses are closer in length than oval. Do I need to teach you how to do experiment andmeasure now?
Your strength assumption to head size only hold true if the distance between the strings is exactly the same for crosses between iso and oval. Also the same assumption has to hold for mains too. Then you have to make a assumption that the frame has same thickness or corss section. I can tell you, they are not the same. Even after that, you can only conclude the out side fram area, not the string bed size. Once again, please go to your friend's store and pick up a cab30ms and a mp99 for compairson, that is if you have any access.

16. Originally Posted by taneepak
Silentheart, if you were a Yonex salesman you would have been told off by Yonex R & D re Isometric head size. FYI, Isometric is a Yonex "invention", in case you are not aware of it. This is what Yonex R & D says :

ISOMETRIC.
This Yonex development continues to "fire" players to victory. The Isometric Square Head Shape provides a 32% larger effective hitting area than a conventional racquet (oval). Unlike a conventional racquet with main and cross strings of varying length, the Isometric Square Head Shape equalizes the length of main and cross strings in the stringbed, enlarging the sweetspot for more consistent shot accuracy even on off-centre hits.
Yes, I am saying that iso has a bigger head than an oval. So does Yonex.
If you place the oval frame over a iso frame the sizes aren't the different. 32% is the sweet spot increase size. I don't think a iso frame is 1/3 bigger than an oval frame.

17. Originally Posted by phandrew
If you place the oval frame over a iso frame the sizes aren't the different. 32% is the sweet spot increase size. I don't think a iso frame is 1/3 bigger than an oval frame.
The 32% larger sweetspot is more a marketing gimmick from Yonex. It can be smaller or larger than 32% (but it is always larger), depending on what you consider are the "equalized" lengths of the strings. In fact, Yonex is not very honest in measuring their isometric area, choosing an area that is rectangular rather than square. Isometric means equal, not one longer than another.
Isometric is an English word which means the dimensions are equalized. Yonex extends the oval shape at the shoulders, and as a result you get longer strings, both mains and crosses. But the extra lengths still do not equalized the sweetspot dimensions; instead it is a rectangular, and a rectangular is not of equalized dimensions and hence cannot be called isometric in the strict sense of the word. To get more of the mains and crosses longer the racquet must be bigger.
If you are a stringer you can probably string 11 cab 20 or Cab 21 instead of 10 AT700 from a 100m reel of say BG85.
When we talk about enlarging a sweetspot by having longer string lengths in a rectangular or even square pattern, the only way to do this is to extend the narrow shoulders of the classic Cab oval shape.
Yonex also produces racquets that are a half way house between their classic oval and iso. They do this by increasing the squareness of the frame. Even these are bigger than the classic oval.

Page 20 of 33 First ... 6 7 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 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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