If a 66% yoyo is 66% for each dimension, then isn’t it much smaller than 66% of the original size?

So you’re telling me that 66% yo-yos is nothing but a scam

1 Like

Technically speaking, yeah. The real question is: does that reflect poorly on the company? Or is that enough for players to care about and not get their stuff?

My vote goes to “No”.

Yeah, sorry. I always confuse the last posted with the op avatars.

1 Like

I was not saying their product is imprecise, I was saying that their brand motto is mathematically inaccurate.
It doesn’t matter that much lol I was just pointing it out.


I’m not half the man I used to be…it’s more like 25% then.

Well so is McDonald’s Quarter Pounder but I still eat em! :man_shrugging:


Never said I wouldn’t buy one. It’s a pretty neat idea.

@Egon But if you didn’t know the math, could you still be a systems engineer?

1 Like

“If your good at something, never do it for free.”

I figured they started making the things half the size and where like, “These are too small, we need to go about 16% bigger.“ I think they’re awesome also, gonna cop at least one soon.


Wow why are there 48 replies in here? Maths y’all

people are confused by the definition of “size”

1 Like

That’s what she said…


Their design mission and philosophy is pretty flawed and even they know it. They don’t actually stick to it.

Maybe the other 66% yoyos are brilliant, buy I had a 66% Barracuda and really didn’t like it.

They went on I great detail on their website that the minimum completely functional yoyo is 38mm, but then their first release had a diameter of 37mm.

I’m not suggesting that they aren’t good yoyos though. They look like a lot of fun.


I mean the maths is simple. I don’t no whats all the debate is about.
Trust me. I leave comments on youtube. I’m pretty much is a genieus.




1 Like

I don’t think they said 66% by volume anywhere? They are not wrong, they are just not precise in their description. You can also describe something as 66% by 2 dimension. Depending on the context the percent figure that matters most may be 1D (like current case here) 2D (like when designing airplanes and calculating wind resistance, and referring to the 2D cross section area blocking the wind) or 3D (like selling containers).

Personally I think given the context, their 66% descrption is intuitive, but probably can be improved. No one talks about the volume of a yoyo as a relevant spec. When I first heard 66% I had two possible theory, either 66% by weight, or 66% by linear dimension. So I had to look and see which they are referring to. But I can see why they did what they did… 66% by linear dimension just doesn’t roll of the tongue that well.

Edit: didn’t mean for it to reply to Glen’s post… just general comment to the topic.

1 Like

I heard it was because 66% of the time, it works ALL the time. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Man this thread is a roller-coaster of emotion. Some salt, some trolls, some one-liners that came at just the right time (@yoyodoc). :black_heart: u guyz

yoyodoc can you Email me? Got a couple of questions. Slickj_07@yahoo.com. Thanks!

They’re pretty small. 66% feels smaller than I thought it would…



Exactly. People are trying to make this too complicated. Just compare the specs and you can see they are approximating that change in diameter and width. If there is a complaint, it is that they call it 66 percent when maybe they should call it 2/3’s. Why? 66 percent implies accuracy to a single percentage. That is not quite true. 2/3 gives a bit more “play” in the number.

1 Like

But couldn’t you just as easily argue that if they said 2/3 they must mean exactly 2/3?

Two thirds is just as an exact measurement as 66% is.

1 Like