Battle 1 and 2

WARRANTY

 1. If you get a sheet of rubber that de laminates like that it is a warranty issue. E mail us with your order ID.

Battle 1 has de lamination issues, even my latest shipment direct from the factory is 1 in 4 has an issue, too big to put it to market, the glue putting the pips to the rubber is crispy, I have seen this before with some other big pore sponges where the glue has an iffy bond with the sponge unless the timing is perfect.

Too bad as it is a nice rubber even if it does lack a dynamic feel. I would honestly hold off from ordering this anywhere until this is solved, I have an e mail into 729 as of today.


Edited by zeropong - 09/21/2015 at 8:05pm

Here is one more data point. 729 Aurora having the *exact* same issue. Obviously, 729 is dropping the ball on these rubbers: 

topspinschuss wrote: Here is one more data point. 729 Aurora having the *exact* same issue. Obviously, 729 is dropping the ball on these rubbers:  http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72979&PN=1#895417 How can such a huge company let such garbage even get into circulation? You don't ever seem to see that with DHS, even their cheapo commercial versions.

Actually you do see it with all rubbers, DHS included I just warrantied a sheet of NEO last week for a bubble, when I was dealing DONIC we had a batch of F3 and half of them came off the sponge like butter, all that said the issue with battle and newer type large pore china made rubbers is different, chemically the glue they use on all the other top sheets to sponge does not work well with the large pore brittle sponges, I have found they change over a short period of time into a brittle glue bond that can break much too easily, additionally you can see that many times when you manage to pull the top sheet from the sponge it takes a small amount of sponge just the bare surface like a dust, I strongly feel this is likely an unintended chemical reaction between the sponge composition and the adhesive used. Anyone who has had this issue can attest that you can feel the sponge on the glue side and it is crispy and brittle, the glue bond should never feel like that. Also due to the sponge reaction to the glue the timing of the top sheet to sponge is more critical, normally they just do a whole rack of sponge and a whole rack of tops heets, if they wait in the rack even a few seconds too long before bonding the reaction that the glue is having with the sponge will prevent a proper bond. I am not defending the defect however it is a new product (this sponge type) at least for 729. I have a new shipment today straight from the factory I will find time today to unbox and cut a few sheets in half on vid.

My thought is, if donic had a batch of f3 that was bad, they probably dumped it on someone that wanted to get into the market on the cheap.  In other words, BECAUSE of the problems they looked for someone to sell to that they could slash and burn.

zeropong wrote: I have a new shipment today straight from the factory I will find time today to unbox and cut a few sheets in half on vid.

topspinschuss wrote: Seems like Chinese companies do more "ganking" than others. I've never had issues with Euro/Jap rubbers as a consumer. It's really not smart to dump defective rubbers on the market and destroy one's own reputation (if there is a good one..otherwise they start with a bad reputation). It still says "729" on it after all.

not to derail, but because it was mentioned previously: Does anyone know what those numbered stickers are on sheets of 729 rubber? Or what the number means. 

aNo wrote: Any updates on Battle durability ?

Great to hear those QC issues being sorted out. I'm thinking about it to replace focus 3 snipe for more spin and a higher throw. Any thoughts?