Li Ning No.3

Discussion in 'Badminton String' started by swsh, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. swsh

    swsh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    599
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Earth
    There have been a few posts in No.1 thread about this string but not a lot. I just can’t find much if any real testing data on it. Since I’m a big fan of thin strings and their characteristics, I thought it’d be best to have a separate thread on it so I wouldn’t feel horrible about going off topic when posting about this in No.1 thread.

    I’ve received a couple a packets today and here’s the front & back of it if anyone is interested in the “claimed” specifications or data.

    7C32CCBA-95B5-4617-83EA-AA2BD19BBCC6.jpeg 92307A6C-3DCF-4312-BF6B-906016A214AA.jpeg

    I’ll post more data once my 66um dies and I put this on. Another BC’er will be using one of these packets but at 26 lbs so hopefully there will be data ranging from all sorts of tensions. But right off the bat, this is the thinnest string I have in my box at the moment. Thinner than ZyMax 62 first & second gen, No.1, BG66UM, Pro 66 & BG66 but I don’t have any aerosonic around me to compare right now though I don’t think it’s as thin as that from what I remember. It looks exactly like no.1 and it’s almost as if they just made a thinner No.1.

    Has anyone of you tried it and liked it?
     
    Abu Tanki likes this.
  2. shreyas666

    shreyas666 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    270
    Occupation:
    chief mis-information officer
    Location:
    not in outer space
    will ring in new year with this string
     
  3. Abu Tanki

    Abu Tanki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    47
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Just to check, isn't ZM62 0.62 mm and No 3 0.63?

    Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
     
  4. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    I tried it, it plays exactly like a thinner No. 1, imo.
     
  5. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, but the stated diameter from Ashaway for their strings is not correct.
     
  6. Abu Tanki

    Abu Tanki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    47
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Really? I hadn't heard this before. I'm guessing people have put together the actual thicknesses for Zymax strings somewhere?

    Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
     
  7. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, that's what I was talking about. And they noticed that the Zymax strings aren't as thin as stated.
     
  8. Abu Tanki

    Abu Tanki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    47
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    What are the actual thicknesses of ZM62 and ZM66?

    Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
     
  9. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    Can‘t remember. You will have to look it up, sorry.
     
  10. Abu Tanki

    Abu Tanki Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2015
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    47
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    No problem. I will as soon as I can. :)

    Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
     
  11. swsh

    swsh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    599
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Earth
    I might be wrong on this but I think Dink mentioned something along the lines of "they measure the thickness at 25lbs". Perhaps they've always done it like that and hence still follow it to this day.

    P.S I'm almost damn sure No.3 isn't .63 and no.1 isn't .65 as well.
    Sounds like the perfect string tbh. Can't wait but my 66um is destroying everything else in terms of performance on court so I probably won't cut it before it dies haha.
     
  12. baronspill

    baronspill Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    Barry, United Kingdom
    I find it a nightmare to string, twists so much and some of the coating (on the blue version) comes off as the string is pulled through grommets. It's a very flimsy string.

    Having said that, I restrung a friend's racquet with the pink version and he loves it.
     
  13. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, but if Ashaway measures at 25 lbs and the other companies don‘t, still means that the Zymax strings aren‘t as thin as proclaimed.
     
    ucantseeme likes this.
  14. swsh

    swsh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    599
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Earth
    From what I remember Yonex was ever so slightly above the claimed diameter as well but closest to it when compared to all the other manufacturers.

    Only good reason I can see other than not blatantly lying to us consumers is that all of them measure at a certain tension of their own. But because not all of them reveal it publicly, we end up with strings thicker or thinner than each other despite them all claiming to be .65mm (for example).
     
    #14 swsh, Dec 6, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
    Rob3rt likes this.
  15. BadBadmintonPlayer

    BadBadmintonPlayer Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2017
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    Denmark

    Zymax 62 is not thinner than BG66UM! Zymax 66 Fire Power is like Yonex BG65. I would say 0.69-0.7.


    I have try Li Ning No3 and for me its like no.1. No big differences. Besides, I'm number 1 and not number 3! My string is no.1!
     
    ucantseeme and Abu Tanki like this.
  16. Rob3rt

    Rob3rt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    7,122
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    Germany
    And I was always wondering why they felt so bad when testing them...
     
    swsh likes this.
  17. swsh

    swsh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    599
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Earth
    Honestly they do seem that way.

    I'm a sucker for great sounding rackets so I hope to get more of that from no.3 haha.
     
  18. Charlie-SWUK

    Charlie-SWUK Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    4,396
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Occupation:
    N90 sycophant
    Location:
    SW UK
    No.1 is close to a .65, when compared with BG80 it's notably thinner.
     
    swsh likes this.
  19. eiji

    eiji Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Singapore
    Tried No.3, went back to using No.1. More repulsion from no.3 but it plays similar to Aerosonic and doesnt do well for control and net shots.
     
  20. sholean

    sholean Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Singapore
    I would say the No3 is superior to the No1. Especially when strung above 30lbs I can distinguish the two strings. The No3 gives a more clear sound and also repulsion is better. Regarding net play the two strings are rather similar.
     

Share This Page