Plastic balls debacle (to all TDs out there)

Baal wrote: Jay, if you play a lot with XSF it only takes a couple of minutes to adjust to NP40+.  But you will find the Chinese seamed balls difficult.

Agreed.  I am using both balls to practice for Nationals, FWIW.

FWIW I also use both XSF and NP40+ more or equally (since I have some NP40+ might as well use them since they play fine).  Takes a couple of minutes to accommodate the switch.

Baal wrote: All these questions about engineering and materials are nice but they don't change much.

They do however provide insights otherwise difficult to figure. For example my post that I suspect nobody understood even though it's pretty straightforward:

> Also worth noting that using such a 1/2" table (and ~230mm bounce with cell ball, or maybe bit higher) is as much worse than the close to ~245mm DHS bounce on a 1" table as DHS is to cell. I'm guessing a 18mm table isn't far off from that 245mm with cell. Make of that what yall will.

This means that on mediocre table a cell ball can bounce _lower_ than a DHS plastic on a good table (perhaps up to similar amount that the DHS is lower than cell). Let that sink in for a min.

Now that it's clear what it means, let's start a campaign to ban anything but thick tables to alleviate the sport's suffering from low bounce.

AgentHEX wrote: [ They do however provide insights otherwise difficult to figure. For example my post that I suspect nobody understood even though it's pretty straightforward: > Also worth noting that using such a 1/2" table (and ~230mm bounce with cell ball, or maybe bit higher) is as much worse than the close to ~245mm DHS bounce on a 1" table as DHS is to cell. I'm guessing a 18mm table isn't far off from that 245mm with cell. Make of that what yall will. This means that on mediocre table a cell ball can bounce _lower_ than a DHS plastic on a good table (perhaps up to similar amount that the DHS is lower than cell). Let that sink in for a min. Now that it's clear what it means, let's start a campaign to ban anything but thick tables to alleviate the sport's suffering from low bounce.

AgentHEX wrote: wturber wrote: AgentHEX wrote: Stiffness is generally proportionate to density and cube of thickness, so (1.6 * x)^3 = 4*x^3 That seems really simplistic to me.  The glass is narrower and hence stiffer than a much wider table tennis top.  Additionally, the glass is denser and would have about the same mass per area as a 28mm MDF top. I don't know which part is too simplistic.

igorponger wrote: POOR BOY.     I know a retard, a boy fibblewitted. He would oftentimes set down into a prolonged speach about nothing, some snowfall of blank verbosity. Nobody would want hear this speach. Being aware of his mental deficiense people used to say with an open compassion "oh, poor boy, poor child inconscious".

WTF???!!!

fibblewit. 

The insult of the day. 

Or better yet -- an even easier solution and cheaper -- don't use the crappy ones when plastic balls are manufactured and sold that don't have these problems.

Baal wrote: Or better yet -- an even easier solution and cheaper -- don't use the crappy ones when plastic balls are manufactured and sold that don't have these problems.

Baal wrote: Or better yet -- an even easier solution and cheaper -- don't use the crappy ones when plastic balls are manufactured and sold that don't have these problems.

What's the address for complaining?

wturber wrote: Baal wrote: Or better yet -- an even easier solution and cheaper -- don't use the crappy ones when plastic balls are manufactured and sold that don't have these problems. I dunno.  I drop-tested one well used NP 40+ and it bounced clearly lower than the new NP 40+ balls.  I don't have a well used XSF yet.

Same with most celluloid balls. In any case, in tournaments we don't necessarily expect balls to last long enough to become well-used, but we don't want to have to change the ball mid-match.  In any case, I have been playing with XSF now for several months.  They don't have this problem.