Yonex rate their badminton strings in 5 categories, namely, repulsion power(RP), sound(S), shock absorption(SA), control(C) and durability(D). Based on what I could gather from various sources, this is how Yonex rate all their strings: 1. BG65 : RP=4, S=6, SA=5, C=6, D=8 2. BG65 Power : RP=7, S=7, SA=6, C=6, D=8 3. BG66 : RP=8, S=7, SA=6.5, C=7, D=5 4. BG85 : RP=8, S=8, SA=7, C=7, D=6 5. BG65Ti : RP=7, S=7, SA=7, C=6, D=7 6. BG68Ti : RP=9, S=8, SA=6.5, C=7, D=6 7. BG75Ti : RP=8, S=7, SA=5, C=6, D=8 8. BG88Ti : RP=7, S=7, SA=6, C=8, D=6 9. BG33 Tournament(200m) : RP=9, S=8, SA=6.5, C=7, D=6 10. Cyber Natural : RP=8, S=6, SA=8.5, C=10, D=6 Does it make any sense? I would think so. The BG33 tourney grade comes in only 200m roll and looks suspiciously like the BG68Ti. Although the above comparative ratings do somewhat square with my own experiences, I do not claim to have tried all of them.
i agree completely with BG65, BG66 and BG85. Again, dats de only 3 strings i've tried (including BG80) and decided to stick with BG66 ever since.
If you add up all the values, the strings would rank as such: 1. Cyber Natural : RP=8, S=6, SA=9, C=10, D=6 39 2. BG33 Tournament(200m) : RP=9, S=8, SA=7, C=7, D=6 37 3. BG68Ti : RP=9, S=8, SA=7, C=7, D=6 37 4. BG85 : RP=8, S=8, SA=7, C=7, D=6 36 5. BG65 Power : RP=7, S=7, SA=6, C=6, D=8 34 6. BG65Ti : RP=7, S=7, SA=7, C=6, D=7 34 7. BG75Ti : RP=8, S=7, SA=5, C=6, D=8 34 8. BG88Ti : RP=7, S=7, SA=6, C=8, D=6 34 9. BG66 : RP=8, S=7, SA=7, C=7, D=5 34 10. BG80 : RP=8, S=7, SA=6, C=6, D=6 33 11. BG70Pro : RP=7, S=6, SA=5, C=6, D=7 31 12. BG65 : RP=4, S=6, SA=5, C=6, D=8 29 Out of a perfect score of 50, the highest valued strings is Cyber Natural(CBG100) with a score of 39, and the lowest valued string is BG65 with 29. The surprise is BG33 Tournament with a string thickness of 0.78mm tied in second wit exact same values as BG68Ti. Does anyone have a review of BG33 or any info on where to find this string?
bg88ti have less points than bg33 and bg68ti. Like i have said in other post, factory ranking is only a guidance.
Adding all the numbers together to determine which is better is ok if you give equal weighting to each parameter. If you are interested only in performance, you would look at probably 3 parameters : repulsion power, shock-absorption, control. Some people give more weighting to control, which is why they prefer BG88Ti to BG68Ti, as the former has better control but less repulsive power. If you want a string to last "forever", then go for BG65, strung at no higher than 20 lbs.
Can someone add BG-7 to the list and its attributes? It was recommended by the shopkeeper the other day and I'm not too sure about how good it is. Ended up using back the BG85 as I am not quite sold by the capability of this new model.
Agree. Personally, I think the rating of "sound" should be weighted much less than the rest, as it has to do more with "mental" rather than actual performance. Even RP and SA are "relative" terms. Some ppl prefer higher RP, while the other group might think it will be too "bouncy". Therefore, adding all catagory up to determin the "ranking" is not accurate to reflect what is the overall best choice for each particular individual. Never have to metion the price for different string might greatly influence many players as well.
better check the data accuracy. I just cant see how bg33 has a repulsion power rating of 9 while bg66 is 8. I dont believe the bg33's RP, S, SA and C numbers either.
I agree. My sources have slight different data then the one listed above and it too is rated by Yonex. eg. RP for BG65 to be 6 not 4. Not sure why the two sources have different data and both rated by Yonex.
I think the scale of string is questionable. There is no way BG33 can be that high, so is BG65 can be that low. I personally don't care about the scale at all, but I do follow each string's characteristics when using them.
The numbers are all a load of bull. At best they are simply relative to each other based upon some unknown criteria. At worst they are meaningless. Let's take 'sound' for example. Are they simply talking about the (purely subjective) aesthetic qualities, or about the volume? If the latter, how are they measuring it? Constant swing speed? A-weighted sound pressure level at 1m ? Who knows? Anyway, I thought that it was the shuttle feathers' interaction with the air that made the characteristic cracking sound, not the strings. What about 'repulsion power'? You'd think that this one would be really easy to quantify - drop a ball bearing onto the (constant pressure) string bed from a constant height and measure how high it bounces. Again, who knows what they really mean?
TWO of you now?! aieeee! But seriously, it's refreshing (wait let me remove the similarity to "cool" and hence "cooler") ... it's very enlightening to have analytical minds and queries to push past the marketing schpiel. -dave
