Plastic balls delayed?

Hey - if you read in the dark too much, you could go blind! Ban this sick filth!

I agree, not relevant to the sport. I haven't heard of any player suffering from celluloid burns. But books are a poor comeback from you - a pile of books burning makes a nice cosy bonfire of the vanities. A similarly sized pile of celluloid balls produces a towering inferno, once ignitied.

This is only a point about perception, not reality. Celluloid is highly flammable, in a dramatic way, when compared with most other sporting goods. It just doesn't compare well. Say, sprinters had flammable, yet slightly more comfortable shoes. Sure, under normal circumstances, no one's feet will explode. But it must seem a bit odd to the layman - why run in exploding trainers, when there are far more inert alternatives?

You know, I've just read all that nonsense back. That must be my worst analogy ever. If I wasn't already lying down, I'd have to go for a lie down.

Anyway, point is - dramatic exploding balls vs inert plastic balls. A health and safety win, for people who care more about health and safety than the real world.

Celluloid is classified by the US DOT as a "Flammable Solid" Not explosive but will burn slowly

I've flown all over the world with my paddle and a tube or two of 3-star white Nittakus in my carried-on...never once was stopped from flying.  To call them "explosive" or even highly restricted is a big stretch.

Whoa, whoa. I was NOT being literal with my "exploding balls" reference.

However, I assume you've all seen a bulk load of balls go up in a nice pyrotechnic flume? More, or less dramatic than a similar pile of paper?

More, or fewer shipping restrictions on celluloid, compared to paper?

Celluloid is more, or less flammable, than the new poly balls?

I'm not even saying that this is the reason for the ball change. I do think it helps the profile of the sport in the round. A fringe benefit of the change. The comment was originally aimed at the odd posts regarding nitrogen.

Is this a flame war?   a wee pun

lighten up, you are flaming the situation and you will cause the topic to heat up and ignite a explosion of questions and spark some discusion,

Other than just for amusement, why are we having this conversation? Adham Sharara has already admitted that the main purpose for switch to plastic had nothing to do with the "dangers" of celluloid and that the real goal all along was to slow down the game. 

andro 40+*** (Plastic with seam)

Oh, he has admitted that, has he? He's said, specifically, that the celluloid issue now is nonsense, and it's all about slowing the game down? Link please. Because I don't think he's backtracked on celluloid, he just changes his reasons based on who he is talking to, or which way the wind is blowing.

Even if so, are we now believing him? It's not celluloid, the entire plan was to slow the game down? And not to collude with manufacturers? Or to profit from the patent issue? He's definitely telling the truth now, right?

I don't think anyone on this forum knows why the poly ball has arrived beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have nothing to do with celluloid. It might be an elvis-alien-abduction conspiracy.

The reason why I like talking about stuff like flammability is that it represents an improvement on the current arrangement. And I love the reaction from some when any pro of the poly ball is presented. I'm not saying that it's the reason for the move to poly - I'm just listing benefits of the move as I see them. But some don't want to think about benefits, they just want to wail and howl about everything surrounding it. I like to balance out the doom and gloom. The sport will continue. I think it will improve after this change. I'm not happy with the behaviour of the ittf, but that won't stop me enjoying the game in the future.

So, a less flammable ball is an improvement. Players might not notice that at the table, but in the wider world it helps manufacturing, distribution, competition in the marketplace, and profile.

There are downsides to the poly ball, I'm sure. But there are upsides too, and to deny them just shows a cynical agenda.

AndySmith wrote: Oh, he has admitted that, has he? He's said, specifically, that the celluloid issue now is nonsense, and it's all about slowing the game down? Link please. Because I don't think he's backtracked on celluloid, he just changes his reasons based on who he is talking to, or which way the wind is blowing. Even if so, are we now believing him? It's not celluloid, the entire plan was to slow the game down? And not to collude with manufacturers? Or to profit from the patent issue? He's definitely telling the truth now, right? I don't think anyone on this forum knows why the poly ball has arrived beyond a reasonable doubt. It might have nothing to do with celluloid. It might be an elvis-alien-abduction conspiracy. The reason why I like talking about stuff like flammability is that it represents an improvement on the current arrangement. And I love the reaction from some when any pro of the poly ball is presented. I'm not saying that it's the reason for the move to poly - I'm just listing benefits of the move as I see them. But some don't want to think about benefits, they just want to wail and howl about everything surrounding it. I like to balance out the doom and gloom. The sport will continue. I think it will improve after this change. I'm not happy with the behaviour of the ittf, but that won't stop me enjoying the game in the future. So, a less flammable ball is an improvement. Players might not notice that at the table, but in the wider world it helps manufacturing, distribution, competition in the marketplace, and profile. There are downsides to the poly ball, I'm sure. But there are upsides too, and to deny them just shows a cynical agenda.

It's a ping pong forum, not a public safety meeting.  The pros and cons of plastic balls should be related to playing, not flammability.

As for "less flammable": that's a judgement that will vary by individual. 

1) Celluloid balls will burn faster, almost explosive in factory or shipping containers, where there is dust in the air.
2) Plastic balls burn slower but are harder to put out and put a lot of carbon into the air.  These kinds of fires are more dangerous to the lungs and environment and are harder to clean up afterwards.
3) Celluloid is made from plants, plastic is made from oil.  Rather than worry about flammability, I would prefer to use celluloid because it's more environmentally friendly (relatively speaking).
4) The world is full of stuff that is manufactured, shipped, and stored (even in our homes) that is corrosive, flammable, poisonous, explosive, and dangerous in a dozen other ways.  People know this and live with it all the time.  Most people would have no concern over the flammability of celluloid table tennis balls.

I have no opinion on the change to plastic balls because I haven't played with them yet.  However, I'm quite upset with Sharara for originally lying about his motivation for the change to plastic. Especially since there was no evidence to support his claim that the world is moving away from celluloid and all factories would eventually be shut down. And, no, I'm not going to look up the links for these statements.  Either you've already been keeping up with the prior discussions or you need to educate yourself.  I have better things to do.

skip3119 wrote: No Butterfly Brand approved, so far. ======================= ITTF approved plastic balls. With seam: andro 40+*** (Plastic with seam)  DHS 40+*** (plastic with seam)  Donic 40+*** (Plastic with seam)  Double Fish 40+*** (plastic with seam)  Giant Dragon 40+*** (Plastic with seam)  Nittaku Premium 40+*** (plastic with seam)  Nittaku SHA 40+*** (Plastic with seam)  Stiga Optimum 40+*** (Plastic with seam)  ================================= Seamless: Palio*** (plastic seamless)  Xushaofa*** (plastic seamless)

I have to wonder how many of these different balls are really the same balls imprinted to a specific name? Does anyone have plans to collect all these balls and test them out?

Somebody should give their ball 5 stars... why stop at 3?

benfb - I wrote a reply, but it was huuuuuge, and it begins to look more and more off topic based on the title of this thread. It continues a discussion from previous pages though - so I don't think I'm intentionally derailing. This thread has been off topic for a while now, IMO.

So I'm starting up a new thread on pros/cons of the poly ball. I'll post on there, thus immediately making my rambling on topic.

We all got a giggle out of his "We got a solution to the celluloid problem done just in time" line.

AndySmith Regardless, facts are facts. Are the new balls less flammable than the old? Is that relevant in a situation where the IOC are deciding on how clean and safe a sport is? Do you trust the IOC to arrive at a non-sensationalist decision? I suppose you'd be OK playing with grenades for balls. After all, if the pin stays in, it's totally safe, right? (I should colour that last bit, shouldn't I?)[/QUOTE wrote: Maybe you should just stop posting nonsense.  Making exaggerated comparisons like this is just silly. BTW, our rackets must be made from 85% wood - which is flammable.  The whole flammability point about balls is mostly nonsense.  It only has real world practical implications for people that must ship large numbers of balls.  And that's because the shipping rule/regulations are simply no

Maybe you should just stop posting nonsense.  Making exaggerated comparisons like this is just silly.

BTW, our rackets must be made from 85% wood - which is flammable.  The whole flammability point about balls is mostly nonsense.  It only has real world practical implications for people that must ship large numbers of balls.  And that's because the shipping rule/regulations are simply not up to date regarding the nature of the celluloid used in table tennis balls.  And the net result is simply that it costs a bit more to ship them - which clearly isn't a big deal considering how low cost bulk training balls are.