Dinkie's Badminton String Thickness Test

string is different. A small difference of +/-0.05mm can change playability significantly plus that these small changes can be affected by many outside variables like tension, temperature, and age of string. If yonex can't be assure of string diameter because of various reason, they should rate diametesr like in your examples of weight where yonex uses U's which they could use symbol D's. They could also use the more relaxed existing AWG rating system.

AWG
20 0.812 mm
21 0.723 mm
22 0.644 mm

 

but they are sure, and tension/temp/age/etc is nothing they can do about.
They are consistent in there string, but they use a different 'scale'.
(It's like ashaway qoutes it's prices in usd, and yonex in euro's. How's that for a comparison?)

 

Guys, both of you are right on the subject. Yes, YY should be embarrASSed for not giving the condition of measuring of string thickness. (yes you hear it from me) And yes, Dr Jerby is right also, YY want to produce consistent product.

Thanks for Mark doing all the work on measuring the string. Ans good pick on the Ashaway line for Neil.

 

back of my packet of BG65 it says
0.70mm / 22GA.

but then it also says 10m / 33feet
and we know we'd all complain if there was LESS than 10m / 33feet in the packet.

Maybe they think we'd all complain if it was LESS than 0.70mm thick

The marketing fulff says "This 0.70mm gauge is processed braided fiber which is strong for friction"
but then that's sales BS, and sounds badly translated at that.

 

If thinner string always play better than thicker string regardless of make, material, and whatever technology they put in strings. Then why doesn't every Pro use the thinnest string possible from their sponsors? Or do they?

Unless you're good enough to know the difference under a control test, why concern ourselves with it unless you want to sue Yonex.

What we should really discuss is how the colour of the string can influence your game play/mood. And if they should implement a wear indicator on the string like toothbrushes so we know when it is time to change strings...

 

hey dinkie, the first link is obselete now, can u provide new link or post a snap shot of the table?

 

I might be wrong about this, but I think ashaway changed it's thickness measurement for the zymax strings. Their 'new' 0.70 ZM70 is definately thicker than their 'old' 0.70 MP.
The ZM67 feels about as thin as MP.

And if I can be honest, if their ZM62 is really really 0.62mm, I just can't believe it could last a minute at 30lbs But I never tried it, so I can't know

 

Sorry to revive a somewhat 'old' thread but this is a very interesting and pertinent discussion. I'm not susprised by these findings as I've always suspected that certain strings are not quite the guage they are made out to be. For example, my current string of choice is the Zymax 70. However, looking at it with the naked eye I always felt it looked slightly thicker compared to my other string of choice, the BG65ti. I suppose, when we are dealing in such minute and precise measurements that it's hard to differentiate when solely using the naked eye. Similarly, I've used the Ashaway Micropower in the past, another 0.70mm string, and I found that noticebly thinner compared to both the BG65 and Zymax 70. I'm not a stringer (although I would love to learn) but maybe it has something to do with the stringing process. I know some stringers who pre-stretch their strings and others who don't bother.

 

Sorry to have opened a new thread on this topic. Attached are Zymax67 old silver and new red measured with a micrometer. So it should be confirmed that Ashaway's measurement is based on string that is tensioned rather than the other way round. BTW the micrometer used is Mitutoyo # 293-761-30.