Ashaway vs Yonex strings

**cooler** · 04-04-2008, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by DinkAlot

I thought so too but no, MP White is a bit thinner than MP Orange and Blue.

maybe as u had said, u r tensioning it higher now than before.....is that it?

**DinkAlot** · 04-04-2008, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

maybe as u had said, u r tensioning it higher now than before.....is that it?

No, I measured the strings untensioned. Check that post.

**cooler** · 04-04-2008, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by DinkAlot

No, I measured the strings untensioned. Check that post.

MP
blue 0.696 mm
orange 0.698 mm
white 0.688 mm

well, i didnt knew ~0.01 mm difference could be felt.
I guess one can

**DinkAlot** · 04-04-2008, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

MP
blue 0.696 mm
orange 0.698 mm
white 0.688 mm

well, i didnt knew ~0.01 mm difference could be felt.
I guess one can

If you had all three strings in your possession, you could see and feel a difference just by inspection. MP Orange and Blue are identical except color. MP White is thinner than both, it's noticeable.

**twobeer** · 04-04-2008, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by cooler

MP
blue 0.696 mm
orange 0.698 mm
white 0.688 mm

well, i didnt knew ~0.01 mm difference could be felt.
I guess one can

Do you see anything strange with that??.. .70 strings and .68 strings just differs 0.02 and its a huge differens between .65 and 0.7 strings just 0.05mm...

/Twobeer

**twobeer** · 04-04-2008, 08:10 AM

BTW.. I got some Ashaway Flex 68 (A80)..free of charge for promotion..Are those any good?? Not shure if I should bother to try them out..

/Twobeer

**jerby** · 04-04-2008, 08:11 AM

Am I the only one who feels embared when explainign to someone you like this string better than the other one because it's (a whopping) 0.01mm thinner...
It feels ridiculus....

That said, I tried MLXL for the first time this week... It's not even that bad...
It'll be nice when I play less (over the summer) to have something that's very durable, and plays like ~80% of what you really like...

**silentheart** · 04-04-2008, 09:09 AM

since i have string and feel both ashaway mp white and blue (thanks to sire dinkalot), i am pretty sure from tone test that ashaway mp blue is thicker. blue also feel thicker. white is little less durable.

**taneepak** · 04-04-2008, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by twobeer

Do you see anything strange with that??.. .70 strings and .68 strings just differs 0.02 and its a huge differens between .65 and 0.7 strings just 0.05mm...

/Twobeer

There is a 6% difference between 0.68mm and 0.70mm, and a 16% difference between 0.65mm and 0.70mm. It is the area of the x-section, not the diameter, difference that truly counts. You get the area by 22/7 x square of the radius.
Calipers are not reliable measuring devices for non-hard or rigid surfaces, like strings. Even the more precise micrometer finds it difficult to be very precise because the anvils are not 100% parallel, and the human hand will make it even worse unless you are experienced enough. The narrow calipers jaws are even more difficult to hold the string parallel.

**jerby** · 04-04-2008, 10:59 AM

If you're carefull enough only to compress the string as minimal as you can... (compression is inevitable ofcourse) the string will "automatically" line itself up to be parallel...

it's a string, it's flexible, when the jaws are "pressed"(gently offcourse

) together it's not that hard to have it parallel...

**cooler** · 04-04-2008, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by twobeer

Do you see anything strange with that??.. .70 strings and .68 strings just differs 0.02 and its a huge differens between .65 and 0.7 strings just 0.05mm...

/Twobeer

I kinda see ur point.
However, in this case, the difference was 0.008 to 0.01mm.

Difference between say bg65 and bg80 of 0.02 mm is noticable by me too but it could be mostly due to individual filament diameter and usage of vectran in the bg80. In the bg80, cross sectional area is different too, it's more oval while filaments in bg65 is circular.
Of course, difference of 0.05 mm is quite huge.

**taneepak** · 04-04-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by jerby

If you're carefull enough only to compress the string as minimal as you can... (compression is inevitable ofcourse) the string will "automatically" line itself up to be parallel...

it's a string, it's flexible, when the jaws are "pressed"(gently offcourse

) together it's not that hard to have it parallel...

If you buy a precision caliper or a micrometer you will see a certification that give's you the tolerance error of the devic's parallelism deviation of either the jaws or the anvils. For calipers you have the added problem of aligning the string to be at right angle to the jaws properly. Badminton strings are not completely round and are easily compressed to be meaningful measured with a caliper. Only technicians who use a micrometer can do an acceptable job.

**silentheart** · 04-04-2008, 11:04 PM

Anyone with access to a physic lab with laser caliper? If not, caliper used by Sir DinkALot is good enough for me.

**jerby** · 04-05-2008, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by taneepak

If you buy a precision caliper or a micrometer you will see a certification that give's you the tolerance error of the devic's parallelism deviation of either the jaws or the anvils. For calipers you have the added problem of aligning the string to be at right angle to the jaws properly. Badminton strings are not completely round and are easily compressed to be meaningful measured with a caliper. Only technicians who use a micrometer can do an acceptable job.

easily compressed: sure
certain tolerances: offcourse...

But you're saying those measurements DinkAlot did are unreliable?
That's....odd....

Not only is he consistently close in measuring (he did about 25 measurements per stringtype) he is also scarily close to the package-thickness ashaway states...to me, those two provide a pretty good benchmark..

Okay, so he measured ML is consistently 0.6988...
if that's 0.6992mm because he (apparantly veyr consistently) compressed the jaws... Fine with me

**taneepak** · 04-05-2008, 08:14 AM

Everyone would know that readings like 0.6689 mm from a caliper like the Mituyoyo 500-672 is just too good to be accurate. FYI, this caliper has a resolution of only 0.01mm and an accuracy of only 0.02mm. Measuring something like 0.6689 is punching beyond its weight. Strings are not perfectly round. Strings with finer filaments in the core will be rounder than strings with thicker filaments in the core. Streching them will make them rounder but still not a perfect circle.

**DinkAlot** · 04-05-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by taneepak

Everyone would know that readings like 0.6689 mm from a caliper like the Mituyoyo 500-672 is just too good to be accurate. FYI, this caliper has a resolution of only 0.01mm and an accuracy of only 0.02mm. Measuring something like 0.6689 is punching beyond its weight. Strings are not perfectly round. Strings with finer filaments in the core will be rounder than strings with thicker filaments in the core. Streching them will make them rounder but still not a perfect circle.

I updated the string thickness review. I added some more explanation. The actual thickness is the average of the five measurements rounded to the nearest 0.001.