Still not seeing it man. Where did yyfben use 2 definitions of H shape? What he said I agree with - it’s the vertical component that defines the H shape.
By your definition, the Genesis is not an H. By extension, that makes the G5 (Genesis’ dad) not an H either. These are yo-yos that were considered epitomes of H-ness that would hereafter be turned away at the door of the H-club. It’s weird.
H is complicated. It doesn’t have a precise definition, though I think it should, and that precise definition should primarily be about inverse organic from the response well. Basically I’m in the iYoYo camp here, and I think that reflects the modern definition of H and the actual play differences vs. the other shapes.
(You can in fact have both “rim bump H” and “inverted organic angle from response well” H in one yo-yo!)
I still don’t see how the envy meets your inverse organic definition. I mean the yoyo says H profile on it which as far as I know is the only yoyo to make a statement like that on the yoyo itself.
Straight line from response well to rim would be the most extreme possible H, yeah. But note that the rim itself doesn’t really matter, that rim could be curved, angular, serrated, polka dot, etc.
I’m not following. It still breaks your definition. I also think the rim matters. I think a vertical or near vertical ridge to the rim is a defining feature of the H.
More importantly can you tell me what a polka dot rim is. I might actually like that. I remember the roo-yo?? With the dimples all over.
It doesn’t, because depending on how you draw the line from the response well, the rim has to be a certain highly constrained shape to “connect the dots”. And that shape could be curved, or angular, or even stepped (W) as you prefer.
The thing forcing the constraint is the angle from the response well to the rim. If you “invert” an organic, that’s H.
That’s fair but it still defeats the inverse organic theory.
You could also make it 100mm+ wide and never have a steep rim.
Yes, you can also do “trumpet” shape or “bell” shape. It’s all about the angle from the response well to the rim.
I’ve drawn some alternative rims here, but we begin from the same starting point out of the response well, that inverse organic angle outward. Is the square rim one somehow more “H”-ey?
I guess I don’t know what inverse organic means. They all look pretty inverse organic to me. I will say I’m impressed with you debating skills.
To me it isn’t as much about the response well but more about the rim having a defined ridge.
Woahhhh what the heck is that o,0
Monkeyfinger design Lesula
Fine, it is a V with exceedingly mild H flavorings!
The best mental exercise is to imagine the opposite of an organic, because a V is identical in a mirror, but an organic… is not.
That yoyo looks…
I hate it. Just nooo.
The logic from the OD W vs H makes a lot of sense coming from the perspective of the trade offs in rim weight, catch zone size and stability, in a mono metal design. V maximises catch zone at the costs of rim weight. W essentially trade catch zone for rim weight, by placing weight through a square rim. H attempts to trade for even more rim weight at the costs of a shallower V in the catch zone, at the costs of stability? at least on paper, the sharper the angle of the V, the better it is a directing the string back to the gap, resulting in a more stable yoyo that tilts less when the string lands on the V portion but not dead at the bearing. H is probably uncommon because you are trading a lot of stability for very little decrease in central weight.
The trade offs from V to W & H is pretty much pointless with the introduction of bi metals IMO. With a dense enough ring right at the edge, you can pretty much achieve any desired rim weight and can still have whatever shaped profile you want. I still need to try out the edge beyond to prove myself wrong.
The organic inverse curve definition seems to mostly derived from the geometry of the H on the profile, and starts to make a lot of sense when you are thinking about bimetals. Right off the bat, a slight inversed curve serves the same purpose as a response cut to help with off axis play. The remainder of the profile is also opened up for tweaking other stuff, instead of just weight distribution, e.g. finger grinds, how string hits feels etc.
If I have to guess the “logic” of the organic H. As mentioned above the shaper the angle of the V the less tilt when string hits there. But the tilt also depends how off off plane. So a hit close to the bearing tilts less than a hit close to the edge if the profile is the same angle. So an organic H profile evens that out. It gives a steeper slope at the outer edge to balance the extra tilt from a more off plane hit. At least on paper this makes sense to me, although I can’t say personally this translates well at all. because this should mean organic H should feel more stable, but I have not tried an H more stable than draupnir or hummingbird. My “feel” for organic H is that it gives a more uniform string hit feel, I don’t have the math the explain this feel tho.
Edit: I do feel that it is worthwhile to disentangle these two definitions, to me they refers to different things (not just geometry, but how they actually play) and their relevance is different in context as well.
The Lesula looks amazing, what are you talking about 
Again, this new definition makes the G5 and Genesis not H. So it’s problematic. Those are historical/classical H.
It’s fine to call your definition something else. I dunno… Revisionist H. Inverse organic H. Non-classical H.
That’s is simply one of the most offensive looking yoyos I’ve ever seen. The shape is a crime and the colour is awful.
At least it didn’t get the usual full Monkeyfinger ano treatment that looks like a 4 year old who drank too much red cordial came up with the colour scheme.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my man. Don’t know how it plays though. Getting one next month so I’ll find out I guess.
I find the Horizon exceedingly spicy. Big honking rims that with light you up on a snagging bind. Oh and it’s for sure an H shape😱.
