My panda paws knew all strings were not created equal. So, thanks to SCChang for loaning me his Mitutoyo 500-672 digital caliper, I went to work... In a nutshell: Yonex and Gosen understate the thickness of its strings moderately to significantly. Ashaway is very accurate. I heard that both Yonex and Gosen measure string thickness while tensioned (don't know tension, length of pull nor how it's pulled) and I know for a fact Ashaway does not. My measurements were straight out of the package, untensioned. Here are the results in detail: Here's the caliper, it's so nice and oh so shiiiiiiney!
Disclaimer: I do not claim to be anything remotely close to a scientist. I did the best that I could so...
Wow.. im not impressed by Yonex' strings.. BG65 and NBG95 are somewhat way thicker than what it says on the package.. But from looking at my packs of NBG95, bg65 ( power ) and Micropower XL ( red x yellow ) strings, I can surely say that the nbg95 does look much thinner than the micropower xl and the bg65p. how confusing.. I'm impressed by Ashaway that their statements are accurate and the measurements are consistent too.
Agree, from visual inspection, some string look noticeably thicker but the eye might lie or be fooled whereas the digital caliper does not.
After comparing these strings with my small eyes.. it still looks as if that the micropower xl is thicker. But maybe it's an optical illusion.. the red criss-crossing lines might be making it look thicker.
Besides Mitutoyo, there is an American firm that makes very high-quality gauges for engineers and scientists but I forgot the name . . .
For the uber precise badders out there, don't get HOME DEPOT gauges and calipers. They are no worth the money.
now, the actual fun would be... how thick are yonex's string when strung at ~22lbs? elongation would set it... A very annoying experiment (having t hang 22lbs to a length of string every darn time...) but maybe it's all about the smallprint... ashway says: This string is 0.70mm thick yonex says: this string is 0.70mm thick (when strung to an unknown average tension the common players uses) It does explain a lot actually... (on why micropower doesn't last as long as bg65...) and why x1709 plays so darn well for a "thick string" compared to yonex's... (shocked by bg80 and bg85 though, though bg85 is a long time ago) Just flat-out guessing: ashaway strings also generally stretch a lot further than yonex's.. soo effectively every ashaway lovers plays with what yonex would call 0.66mm
That's some test you did Sir Dink. Lots of work gone into that one It's not surprising the Yonex strings are mostly too thick. The BG66 is just too... thick.
Maybe to have a level olaying field one should string Japanese strings at 15% higher tension than Ashaway.
sir dink, panda highness sir, you always come up with all these interesting experiments. keep up the excellent work. yonex should really pay attention to what they print on the packet. but at least the measurement are consistent, albeit far from the one printed. so at least that is good news right?
Jerby, I once started to, but it was incomplete and for some reason had to interrupt: http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49235
Thank you for your good work again Dinkie the Never Greater Panda. Yes, Yonex do measure the string thickness under low tension. Just to verify what I hear. Can you tension a left over BG65 about 2 feet long at about 10lb. That should give you the 0.70mm thickness Yones referring.
It is very difficult to measure accurately the diameter of badminton strings. Badminton strings are more elastic than hard surfaces like metal, glass, or other hard surfaces. A caliper's precision is to a certain extent limited by its resolution. A micometer would be more accurate with a resolution of 0.001mm, ten times that of the caliper. Even then the elastic surface of the strings and the positioning of the measuring device to the string require some expertise. However, although absolute precise figures from cailpers leave much to be desired, the relative thickness of Japanese strings versus Ashaway strings as measured with the caliper still holds true. A better way is to measure a string's diameter when strung on a racquet frame on a typical tension used-this is a dynamic indication of its thickness instead of static. But take care with the caliper, because one knick and your string goes kaput. It will be safer to use a micometer, and you also get more precise measurements. I suspect that measuring a string's diameter when it is strung and tensioned on a racquet will show the difference between Japanese and Ashaway strings to be minimal. This I suspect may be due to Japanese strings having only hundreds instead of thousands of filaments as used by Ashaway in its core.
Just two of each. Also, tonight I measured some strung rackets that had Yonex string on them. The results: they were very close to Yonex's claimed thickness so I'm very confident Yonex string thickness stated values are when tensioned.
yeah, i think i'd personally rather know what the thickness of the strings are after they've been strung on my racquet, rather than straight out of the pack. that's when the string matters the most anyway. so, the burning question now is, what are the measurements of the ashaway strings after they've been strung? and what are the differences in the thickness of the yonex strings if they've been strung on 24, 25, 26, etc up to 32lbs? looks like more work for the panda.
I think the measurement should be before stringing because its the only time it can really be accurate, otherwise on the packs it would have to have about 10 measurements, 1 for each tension.