Hello all: I know there are plenty of threads comparing the power of iso and oval sweetspots and other technicalities, however, I have yet to see a thread that compares the overall size difference. As with all new gimmicks and frills that racquet companies produce each year, there is a lot of speculation/controversey as to their effectiveness. The effectiveness of titanium mesh, ultimum, muscle power, etc., have all been been hotly debated on this forum. Why not look closer at the effectiveness of an iso head? For all we know, the sweetspot looks bigger because of the Yonex illustration ad (you know the one with the arrows pointing outwards from the center of the frame). So we may be psychologically affected into thinking the sweetspot is significantly bigger than it really is. Has anyone done any quasi-scientific tests/research on how big the iso sweetspot is compared to the oval? (for instance, what percent of the racquet is considered the sweetspot in iso v. oval on average?; of course there will be differences between models and makers). Thanks, 38
does it really matter that much? I mean, we all know iso head is bigger sweet spot, oval head is smaller but more concentrated sweet spot. so..what else do you need to understand? does it MATTER?!
How about try answering the question first, youngan. In fact it does matter. Even psychological factors influenced by advertising and not inherent characteristics in the racquet itself can play a false role in that actual performance of a racquet. This forum is, after all, about the performance of equipment. Try again... 38
Well, I don't see why assault38 can't ask such a question. In his post, he did NOT say things like, "larger is better" or "smaller is the way to go". He just wants to see things from a scientific point of view. It's like, asking ppl what's your favorite color/food, etc. No one trying to figure out, which food/color is the "BEST of all kind". People just want to know how/what/why.
i have only playing sessions to back up my comments. i feel that i could play better with my oval racket than my isometric one. the "better" i am referring to are things like i could place shots more accurately, i could clear more powerfully, i could take smashes and return them more timely and accurately. my overall game performance is better with an oval racket than with the other.
I haven't really played with any ISO racket but when I picked up badminton again recently, I tried/bought ISO30VF/75MF & Cab8200/8600. I tried to see how much bigger the ISO heads really are but to my surprise, not much. The tip is a little wider, but just barely. Hard to imagine such small different would provide bigger spots practically. But one thing I am sure, even though both ISO75MF & Cab8200/8600 are 3U, my reaction is faster with the Cab due to lighter heads. I used to play with Widebody30 back then, a heavy headed racket, always struggle with net shots, no more with the Cabs.
The most significant difference is in your head. If you think you can play better with one type of racquet than the other, you will definitely play better with it than any other racquets. Wider sweet area or not, a good shot hit with any comparable racquet is a good shot.
Also consider that there is no proper definition: what exactly is "the sweet spot"? We all know that repulsion power is greatest roughly in the middle of the string bed, and least near the frame. The transition in between is of course gradual. Therefore, the "sweet spot" can be nothing but an invented sales concept. Company A can make the sweet spot in their racquet bigger than company B´s, simply by making up their own definition of "sweet spot". Having said that, scientific "proof" would of course be good. A comparison between oval and ISO is of still possible. But it's hard to see how it would be carried out. Bouncing shuttles off static racquets, and camera-recording their flight path? That might be doable, but there are too many varying factors (racquet stiffness, weight, stringing job, string quality, shuttle quality, humidity, draft etc) to make conclusions from such a test. A positive overkill and a possible waste of time IMHO. All you need to do is to bring an ISO and an oval racquet into court and subjectively experience the differences by yourself. The difference is there, but it's not that great, at least not so great that it would motivate a change of racquet. Both have pros and cons. I would say that the current domination of iso's over ovals is because Yonex saw it as a way to increase sales in the 90's.
I think even though the change of sweet spot size is tiny in a way, it might still help some players, especially entry level ones. A bit more chance to get a decent stroke could be a confidence booster for us, when we are new to the sport. Maybe that's why Yonex's entry level rackets (i.e. ISO 20s, etc) are all ISO?
All racquets, whether oval, iso or what ever shape there is, have sweetspots. There are 3 sweetspots. The aim is to move all the 3 sweetspots as high up as possible, but no racquet in the world can be made to move the sweetspots to the extreme top, due to reasons nobody knows why. All the 3 sweetspots' location are determined by a racquet's length, weight, balance, head size, and string tension. Sub factors also include shaft flex and length, T-joint or throat dimensions, and nature of the balance.
Hi everybody! Regarding to the diagrams on Babolat's website the sweet spot seems to have the shape of a triangle, but it's orientation is different between ISO and oval heads. Let's compare the Babolat Pulsar (ISO = PHS in Babolat terms) with the Babolat Synchro (oval = SHS in Babolat terms) to see, what this means. Maybe this also explains, why some people still prefer oval heads? ____________________ Greetings from Germany Chris
Gooten Tug Aymara, That is very good info you posted. I remember from a YY marketing ad long ago that ISO frames have sweet spot like trapezoid with wider base. YY might be different from Babolat. Also depend on the model, the iso frame shape also changes. If you put compare a ISO 75MF to a AT800, the ISO 75MF has wider top vs AT800.
Hi Silentheart! Yes, possible ... I'm not so familiar with all the different models and manufacturers ... I'm still a beginner and had a hard time to find out which racket suits me best ... I have slight problems with a tennis ellbow at the moment. But with my new Babolat Satelite Chrono the problem is nearly gone compared to the beginner racket, I used before. Back to topic I also would expect different sweet spots depending on the used strings and the tension. As far as I know, the harder the tension the smaller the sweet spot. But what about different strings ... the thinner the string the smaller the spot? And what about the string material? Are there impacts on the sweet spot too? PS: Good luck for your team at the FIFA World Cup. CU Chris
From my experience, in general, the thinner string gives you better feeling and may be a bigger sweet spot. The stiffer string like YY BG68ti has less feeling than BG80. However, I do not think the type of string will have too much effect on the sweet spot. I think you also know the softer string will help you on your tennis ellbow. I am cheering for Germany team.
Thanks for the explanations. Yes, I already discussed this with my badminton dealer, a korean guy, who plays badminton for decades. He sold me the Babolat Chrono with the option to get a new stringing with softer tension, if needed. But in a first test I was really astonished about the factory stringing ... about 9kg (20lbs) regarding to the specs ... it's great. Though the tension is about 2kg harder than on my old beginner racket, the trambolin effect is much better ... I love Babolat strings ... I tested several Yonex rackets and even a Babolat Nitro stringed with BG65, but as it seems, Yonex strings are not the right ones for me. Some people might think, I'm an idiot to get a high end racket as a beginner, but as it seems it was the right decision. The new racket has the same balance as the old one, but is 10 gramms lighter, has more power and causes nearly no pain at all, which is most important. The only downside is the smaller sweet spot, but as it seems, I will not need much time to get familiar to it. We will see, so far I'm very happy with it. But back to the sweet spot ... is it possible to measure the sweet spot ... it's shape and size? I already searched the forums, but didn't find any hints. If that would be possible, it might be very helpfull to get familiar with a new racket fast ... especially for newbies. Thanks ... as it seems, this will become a very thrilling world cup. It's very hard to tell this time, which teams have the best chances to win the cup. CU Chris
Hello all: I think Aymara's discovery about the babolat iso/oval comparison strikes an interesting point (no pun intended). While the depiction of the sweetspot in both the iso and oval Babolat models may be questioned as to its credibility, one thing that it is hinting is that the size of the iso sweetspot vs. the oval is not significant. The main difference seems to be the shape of the sweetspot area. In this case, the iso is more of an upside-down triangle (with the point facing down), while the oval is a normal triangle (with the point facing up). The way the triangle faces may be significant in terms of the overall power potential of the sweetspot. If you can recall, there was a thread that talked about how an oval model seems to have it's sweetspot concentrated and more powerful than an iso, albeit smaller, while the iso model sweetspot has a lower power potential, albeit larger. Since the consensus seems to be that making contact with the strings towards the top of the head is ideal for an effective shot, wouldn't it make sense that for the Babolat oval model there is more power potential if hit accurately (assuming the top point of the triangle also is the most concentrated part of the sweet spot)? Conversely, would it also make sense that the Babolat iso model would be easier to make contact with the sweetspot since it is more spreadout through the top portion of the racquet, but less powerful (once again assuming that the bottom point of the triangle has more concentrated power potential)? These are some interesting questions to be raised and discussed, especially if the Babolat iso/oval sweetspot depiction can be generalized to all iso/oval models. Of course, their ad may also just be another marketing ploy, but why not get the ball rolling (or should I say shuttle), so we can generate more discussion? Any thoughts? 38
