Print Page | Close Window

Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: General
Forum Name: ITTF President answers you
Forum Description: This forum is for ITTF President to answer your questions.
Moderator: JimT
Assistant Moderators: mmerkel

URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67751
Printed Date: 12/14/2019 at 6:25am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.
Posted By: igorponger
Subject: Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.
Date Posted: 08/01/2014 at 4:19pm
MESSAGE of 'THANK YOU'...

According to many people responses, the Plastic Balls do favour elder folk over the youngsters, for being easier to handle, some slower and less spinny.

Thank you ever so much, Mr. Sharara.
We have now got table tennis game more controllable with the plastic.

QUOD ERAT FACIENDUM.

Yours sincerely

Igor NOVICK
a rational blocker



Replies:
Posted By: 100niTenis
Date Posted: 08/01/2014 at 4:28pm
Hahahahaha ...

-------------
Blade, Rubbers, Shoes, Socks ...


Posted By: DreiZ
Date Posted: 08/01/2014 at 4:29pm
I don't think Sharara reads the forums... He's an "elder folk".
Maybe leave a voicemail or email his assistant.

-------------
Samsonov Force Pro BE FL 82g | H3 Neo 2.15 + FTL | Aurus Select 2.1

For Sale: Hadraw VK FL 82g, Rapid Carbon Light AN 72g... PM ME!


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 08/01/2014 at 4:59pm
Igorponger seeks artist to draw his cartoon strip...

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 190
FH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 B
BH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: bbkon
Date Posted: 08/02/2014 at 1:39am
Originally posted by DreiZ DreiZ wrote:

I don't think Sharara reads the forums... He's an "elder folk".
Maybe leave a voicemail or email his assistant.

he must have a typewriter to make new rules, i love how people makes slurs about him


Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 1:06pm
http://ittf.com/press_releases/PR/PR1.asp?id=10" rel="nofollow - http://ittf.com/press_releases/PR/PR1.asp?id=10

IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION

-- No "dead line" for the balls of celluloid is still determined.
The Cell to be a free choice for general use worldwide unless the Rule 2.3 THE BALL is revised someday.
There is no promulgated attempt to change the rule as yet.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 1:26pm
From that press release, I noticed the following.  "The ITTF has kept the levels of specification for the approval of plastic balls as close as possible to the specifications of celluloid balls. Some wider tolerances have been allowed for an 18-months period to ensure best quality. This will ensure that the plastic balls used in competitions will feel similar to celluloid balls, reducing disruptions to the players."

This is obviously not true.  It that was true, they would not have pressured manufacturers to make them larger.  (A lot of the other statements in that press release have been debated to death and seem also to be lies but we already have lots of threads on those). 

The current Chinese seamed poly balls such as DHS clearly play differently, as pretty much everyone notes.  This  includes Igor, who occasionally claims that plastic balls are better for manly muscle men with superior athletic skills, and then says they are better for old people who are afraid of spin and speed, and is sometimes just incoherent.

As for the three classes of people mentioned in the press release (people who like the idea, people who hate the idea, and people who go with the flow), I can see that there must be a group of people who like more expensive balls of poor quality.   Mostly people who stand to make money on the deal.


Posted By: slevin
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

This  includes Igor, who occasionally claims that plastic balls are better for manly muscle men with superior athletic skills, and then says they are better for old people who are afraid of spin and speed, and is sometimes just incoherent.

Did you say 'sometimes'? I admire your listening skills...
LOL


-------------
Trade feedback:
http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50787" rel="nofollow - http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50787


Posted By: the_theologian
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 1:54pm
Igor is a Googlebot guys.... probably an intern assignment

-------------
Hayabusa Zi ST/FH:H3-50med/BH:GoldArc5-42.5-2.0


Posted By: assiduous
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 2:44pm
I don't agree with most of his stuff but still like him. I have some respect for all unorthodox thinkers.

-------------
puppy412 : Sorry man, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I know that more training will make me better, I don't need to come here to figure that out


Posted By: the_theologian
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 2:54pm
Originally posted by assiduous assiduous wrote:

I don't agree with most of his stuff but still like him. I have some respect for all unorthodox thinkers.


Cheers, I feel the same.

-------------
Hayabusa Zi ST/FH:H3-50med/BH:GoldArc5-42.5-2.0


Posted By: skip3119
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by the_theologian the_theologian wrote:

Originally posted by assiduous assiduous wrote:

I don't agree with most of his stuff but still like him. I have some respect for all unorthodox thinkers.


Cheers, I feel the same.
===========================

He is a die-hard ponger, quite a character.


-------------
skip3119


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 5:27pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

MESSAGE of 'THANK YOU'...

According to many people responses, the Plastic Balls do favour elder folk over the youngsters, for being easier to handle, some slower and less spinny.

Thank you ever so much, Mr. Sharara.
We have now got table tennis game more controllable with the plastic.

QUOD ERAT FACIENDUM.

Yours sincerely

Igor NOVICK
a rational blocker

@ Igor:

So according to Newton's 2nd law of motion lift should be the same for both the 40C and 40+ ball if they are the same weight,  given that why do we see less lift with the new balls  even though applied force is equal? Is it due to the the hardness  of the  plastic ball having less elasticity?


Posted By: skip3119
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 5:54pm
Is there a video of Igorponger playing Ping Pong?

-------------
skip3119


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 6:04pm
Isn't it the other way?  That due to the gravitational field strength the acceleration on 40mm and 40+ are the same, but because of the extra weight the downward force on the latter is higher than that on the former.  On the other hand, the lift or more precisely drag on the 40+ should be higher due to the greater surface area.

-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: berkeleydoctor
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 6:06pm
i heard the durability is horrible

-------------
Defplay Senso V3 FL
FH: Something for looping
BH: OX Long pips


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 6:41pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Isn't it the other way?  That due to the gravitational field strength the acceleration on 40mm and 40+ are the same, but because of the extra weight the downward force on the latter is higher than that on the former.  On the other hand, the lift or more precisely drag on the 40+ should be higher due to the greater surface area.

 the seamless is the same weight as the 40C if one ball is heavier then the other Newton's 2nd law does not apply.  The 38MM and 40MM C ball per research had the same lift and they weighed the same.  The 40C ball turned out to have a greater mangus effect because it was slower then the 38MM ball and took longer to travel over the table allowing the mangus effect to take hold while the 38MM ball was faster and did not hit the table.
So basically the 40C and 40+ if they weigh the same should have the same lift and the 40+ would act very similar to the old 40C and have good topsin/sidespin/backspin but it would occur earlier due to air drag. Since it is losing velocity faster. 

This may be the reason the   http://www.flipkart.com/nittaku-3-star-ping-pong-ball-diameter-4-cm/p/itmdcjffswt9gusz?pid=BALDCJFFSWT9GUSZ&srno=b_1&ref=02460a46-38dd-4c0b-ae2e-ce072014daf2" rel="nofollow - Nittaku  Prem balls that are made with a new type of plastic material are getting a better response from players, they weigh the same , have similar lift and my guess have more  elasticity  then conventional plastic balls.   

This is a note from the researcher I emailed about the lift study and his response:  My question to David was whether this effect should be the same between the new 40+ and older 40C ball:  His reply below:

https://mit.academia.edu/DavidAlfonso" rel="nofollow - David Alfonso

August 4th 2014 at 10:21

This was surprising to me as well. As I played with the 38mm ball I found it more difficult to hit the other side of the table not yet realizing that the ball actually curves less. It is true that the 38mm ball has less wind resistance and can travel faster than the 40mm ball but for the same speed and spin, the 40mm ball will curve more. The magnus coefficient is greater. The explanation for this is that the 40mm ball has more surface area yet weighs the same as the 38mm ball.

I am unfamiliar with the 40+ ball. But I assume that if the weight of the ball remains the same, the trend will continue. The magnus coefficient will be greater and they will curve more for the same amount of speed and spin.

However, these results don’t show whether a larger ball will curve more during a match. It doesn’t show if the ball will be able to reach the speed or spin necessary to curve more than the smaller ones. In gameplay, it may be true that the 38mm ball curves (accelerates) more than the bigger balls in general because it travels at higher speed with more spin. I don’t know, though.

One thing to note, though, is that if the ball travels at a slower speed, there is more time for the ball to curve/accelerate before it hits the other side of the table. The 40mm ball may be curving/accelerating less than the 38mm ball during gameplay but the 40 mm ball will appear to curve more because there is more time for it to curve. In gameplay, I feel that this is what is important.

To summarize, yes the bigger the ball is, the slower it will be but the magnus effect is greater for the same amount of speed and spin. The 40mm ball can accelerate at the same rate as a 38mm ball that is faster and more spinny. On top of that, it will have more time to accelerate since it is traveling slower.

I hope this makes sense but please ask for any clarifications.




Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/06/2014 at 9:30pm
Newton's 2nd law applies even if the two balls are of the same weight.  The downward force on them would be the same this time around, though the magnus force and drag force ought to be different as the two values do not depend on weight but rather surface area.  The 40mm ball exhibits a greater magnus effect primarily because it has a greater surface area in contact with the air for the magnus force to work on.  While the larger ball remains longer in flight due to greater drag, the magnus force also gets reduced faster in the process as more spin increases the drag, but that may be offset by the greater moment of inertia.

I am not sure if the Nittaku Premium 40+ is the same weight, but from Baal's feedback it is certain to have a similar COR as current celluloid balls.

-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/07/2014 at 1:34am
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Newton's 2nd law applies even if the two balls are of the same weight.  The downward force on them would be the same this time around, though the magnus force and drag force ought to be different as the two values do not depend on weight but rather surface area.  The 40mm ball exhibits a greater magnus effect primarily because it has a greater surface area in contact with the air for the magnus force to work on.  While the larger ball remains longer in flight due to greater drag, the magnus force also gets reduced faster in the process as more spin increases the drag, but that may be offset by the greater moment of inertia.

I am not sure if the Nittaku Premium 40+ is the same weight, but from Baal's feedback it is certain to have a similar COR as current celluloid balls.

I agree, that is what I said basically along with the guy from MIT also somebody on a thread showed  the Nittaku Premium on a scale next to a 40C they were the same weight.

   the bottom line is that the various 40+balls to date seem hard they probably made from a  low elastic plastic which may mean that no amount of extra force, new rubber or new blade design will make much difference in there performance.  What you see is what you get!

Lets hope Nittaku Premium 40+ becomes the standard including its new material.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 12:03am
I am not so sure about the http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67117&PID=810154&title=new-nittaku-40-plastic-ball#810154" rel="nofollow - weight being the same.






-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 1:34am

The 39MM and 40MM were both the same material weighed the same and had the same lift and the 40C had the better magnus effect at least in studio but I realized today that none of these 40+balls are heavy and there weight relative to each other is very small and any number of TT blades stroked mildly could generate enough force to create a strong magnus effect in any of these balls.  If these 40+ balls were C rather then plastic we would not be having this discussion even if they had minor weight differences.   The review by TT11 with the DHS ball today showed a  muted mangus effect  even though the player doing the video had a modern fast paddle and used a good strong loop stroke, so I am not looking at lift as an issue as to why the new 40+balls have a muted magnus effect its just not that hard to brush stroke or top spin drive any of these 40+ balls as the reality is they are very  light balls and the weight difference is minor relative to the power of modern day TT players.  We also know from the research done at MIT that the slower ball 40C due to its larger surface was slower but  generated a lively mangus effect because it had time for the effect to take hold as it  traveled across the table.  So the extra surface area doesn't look to be a good reason  that the new 40+have so little magnus effect. 
ITTF  created an exception for the seamed balls weight relative to the rule  based on the fact that they found the weight difference  minor I accept that and realize it has little significance relative to lift. 

That's why my focus is on the  hard plastic used to make these balls.

What say you?



 


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 12:45pm
The lift and drag of the 40+ ball, even if it is of the same material as 40mm ball, would likely be significant enough to call for attention, because both values grow quadratically as the radius increases.  The 38mm(38.1mm) to 40mm( http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67187&PID=811125&title=dhs-40-ball-pix-and-review#811125" rel="nofollow - 39.6mm ) was roughly a .75mm increase, compared to the 40+(40.3mm), we are seeing another .35mm jump.  That would be enough to cause a difference.

A possible reason the folks in the TT11 review find the magnus effect muted is because  the lift can never grow as strong as the drag.  And the more they grow, the greater they deviate.  So any increase in lift is nullified by the increase in drag and weight.

-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

The lift and drag of the 40+ ball, even if it is of the same material as 40mm ball, would likely be significant enough to call for attention, because both values grow quadratically as the radius increases.  The 38mm(38.1mm) to 40mm( http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67187&PID=811125&title=dhs-40-ball-pix-and-review#811125" rel="nofollow - 39.6mm ) was roughly a .75mm increase, compared to the 40+(40.3mm), we are seeing another .35mm jump.  That would be enough to cause a difference.

A possible reason the folks in the TT11 review find the magnus effect muted is because  the lift can never grow as strong as the drag.  And the more they grow, the greater they deviate.  So any increase in lift is nullified by the increase in drag and weight.

So what does that statement mean to players using the new balls: Can they ever achieve a magnus  effect the same or greater then the current 40C and if so how?


Posted By: JacekGM
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 10:30pm
Originally posted by assiduous assiduous wrote:

I don't agree with most of his stuff but still like him. I have some respect for all unorthodox thinkers.

Yeah, me too.... But how do we determine who is the orthodox thinker?


-------------
(1) Juic SBA (Fl, 85 g) with Bluefire JP3 (red max) on FH and 0.6 mm DR N Desperado on BH; (2) Yinhe T7 (Fl, 87 g) with Bluefire M3 (red 2.0) on FH and 0.6 mm 755 on BH.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/08/2014 at 11:39pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

The lift and drag of the 40+ ball, even if it is of the same material as 40mm ball, would likely be significant enough to call for attention, because both values grow quadratically as the radius increases.  The 38mm(38.1mm) to 40mm( http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67187&PID=811125&title=dhs-40-ball-pix-and-review#811125" rel="nofollow - 39.6mm ) was roughly a .75mm increase, compared to the 40+(40.3mm), we are seeing another .35mm jump.  That would be enough to cause a difference.

A possible reason the folks in the TT11 review find the magnus effect muted is because  the lift can never grow as strong as the drag.  And the more they grow, the greater they deviate.  So any increase in lift is nullified by the increase in drag and weight.

So what does that statement mean to players using the new balls: Can they ever achieve a magnus  effect the same or greater then the current 40C and if so how?

Probably not.  The ball may be light, but there's more than meets the eye.  The problem does not lie with the weight, or the mass to be precise.  It has to do with the moment of inertia and http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62442&PID=749296&title=dwelltime#749296" rel="nofollow - how to overcome that .


-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: bbkon
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 4:45am
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

The lift and drag of the 40+ ball, even if it is of the same material as 40mm ball, would likely be significant enough to call for attention, because both values grow quadratically as the radius increases.  The 38mm(38.1mm) to 40mm( http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67187&PID=811125&title=dhs-40-ball-pix-and-review#811125" rel="nofollow - 39.6mm ) was roughly a .75mm increase, compared to the 40+(40.3mm), we are seeing another .35mm jump.  That would be enough to cause a difference.

A possible reason the folks in the TT11 review find the magnus effect muted is because  the lift can never grow as strong as the drag.  And the more they grow, the greater they deviate.  So any increase in lift is nullified by the increase in drag and weight.

So what does that statement mean to players using the new balls: Can they ever achieve a magnus  effect the same or greater then the current 40C and if so how?

Probably not.  The ball may be light, but there's more than meets the eye.  The problem does not lie with the weight, or the mass to be precise.  It has to do with the moment of inertia and http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62442&PID=749296&title=dwelltime#749296" rel="nofollow - how to overcome that .

the problem is that ITTF wants a slow ball and companies try to make a heavier ball that will last if not people wont buy it but a heavier ball would be faster, thats why lighter balls seem to wobble at flight


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 7:07am
I think the weird ball flight is because too many are not round, at least in the boxes I have bought. 


Posted By: vanjr
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 7:19am
With a scale with a precision of at least + or - 1 gram you really can't say anything about the weight. Need an accurate and reliable scale that weighs to at least 0.1 and probably 0.01 gram.


Posted By: pingpongpaddy
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 7:22am
When they break you saw them in half and check out the inside. If that is not smooth it would explain weird flight

-------------
inactive dotec carbokev
darker speed 90
hinoki shake hands:
FH flarestorm MAX
bh Flarestorm 1.7


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 7:33am
Originally posted by vanjr vanjr wrote:

With a scale with a precision of at least + or - 1 gram you really can't say anything about the weight. Need an accurate and reliable scale that weighs to at least 0.1 and probably 0.01 gram.
Which I have.  I used an analytical balance in my laboratory that weighs accurately to milligrams.  The Joola 40+ balls interestingly enough were not significantly heavier than some DHS celluloid balls I had.  The difference was about 2% (although small sample of five 40+ balls). Odd thing was that the same balls that I weighed felt heavier when I played with them, so that really surprised me.  The Joola 40+ balls are harder (you can tell that by just pressing on them), and you have to swing harder to get them to have the same pace, so maybe that is why they felt heavier.  Or maybe placebo effect of some kind.  Maybe I felt what I expected to feel.  But even after I knew they were not heavier, they still felt heavier.  Weird.  Also, I think the hardness may account for what I perceive as lower bounce.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 1:34pm
Originally posted by pingpongpaddy pingpongpaddy wrote:

When they break you saw them in half and check out the inside. If that is not smooth it would explain weird flight

JTTA has commissioned a study on the effects of internal flow on the trajectory of 40mm table tennis ball.  The findings show the inside flow accounts for at most 2% on the angular momentum of the ball, which is significantly lower than the effects of external force induced by the external flow.  I doubt it would be much different for the 40+.


-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 4:40pm
Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).


Posted By: the_theologian
Date Posted: 08/09/2014 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).



These words will likely trigger an auto response from Igor-googlebot

-------------
Hayabusa Zi ST/FH:H3-50med/BH:GoldArc5-42.5-2.0


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 08/10/2014 at 8:59am
I got a lot of XuShaofa 1 star balls and a couple of approved 3 star balls from TTNPP.com.  I also purchased some DFish 3 star balls.  Until the German site releases its ball, I am pretty much done with plastic call purchases (I might buy the new Nittaku Ball from Paddle Palace but I already have an iruiru order).


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 190
FH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 B
BH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Imago
Date Posted: 08/10/2014 at 9:51am
Originally posted by JacekGM JacekGM wrote:

Originally posted by assiduous assiduous wrote:

I don't agree with most of his stuff but still like him. I have some respect for all unorthodox thinkers.


Yeah, me too.... But how do we determine who is the orthodox thinker?


A general prerequisite would be the ability to think.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/10/2014 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by Imago Imago wrote:


A general prerequisite would be the ability to think.


Sure if you can define that. 


Posted By: clannewton
Date Posted: 08/10/2014 at 3:18pm
A friend of mine who stays in contact with Stellan Bengstan, related that they had experimented with this poly ball back in the 70's and not only did it not work out, due to the weight and the surface of the ball, it was wearing out the rubber sheets at a substansially faster rate as well as the table tops. I can imagine the equipment companies have got to be drooling at that prospect.

-------------
Nittaku Violin FL-L
FH Donic Bluefire m-1 max
BH Donic Bluefire m-2 max
Cocoa Beach TTC, Florida


Posted By: Tassie52
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:53am
Originally posted by clannewton clannewton wrote:

A friend of mine who stays in contact with Stellan Bengstan, related that they had experimented with this poly ball back in the 70's
Obviously not true as the ball in the 70s was not 40+, nor was it likely to be made out of the same materials.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 6:12am
Actually the fact that the ITTF rule has specifically allowed for plastic balls for decades is not an accident..  Some of the older players may remember that Halex produced ITTF approved plastic balls in the 1970s.  They were, of course 38 mm, but they had a somewhat broken sound and had a lot of the same problems that people are reporting with the current seamed polyballs (fragility, hardness, weird play, somewhat different sound).  I don't know if they were made of cellulose acetate, but that would be the obvious choice if you were trying to use something other than cellulose nitrate.  There may have been other attempts at this I don't know about.  I very much doubt that the increase in size is the source of all of the discontent with the seamed Chinese poly balls (which also means some of the problems could get better).  I think some of it is the hardness of the ball surface.  Too hard or too soft can both be bad.  The word "this" in clannewton perhaps should have been "a".   


Posted By: Tassie52
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 6:32am
Oh for the days of Barna 3 Crown balls!  Made of plastic and indestructible.  I was a poor high school student and indestructible was pretty damned important!   Big smile


Posted By: LUCKYLOOP
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 6:45am

The Halex 3 stars 38 mm I remember in 70's were of high quality very hard, did not break easy. very fast and spinny. except the stiga rubber used then was not very tacky, not quite as tacky as Tenergy 05.

edit

The ones I used were celluloid and good balls.     

-------------
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 7:48am
They barely bounced, were brittle, and sounded broken, and nobody wanted to use them.


Posted By: clannewton
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by clannewton clannewton wrote:

A friend of mine who stays in contact with Stellan Bengstan, related that they had experimented with this poly ball back in the 70's
Obviously not true as the ball in the 70s was not 40+, nor was it likely to be made out of the same materials.
Baal made a good correction, as I should have written "a" instead of this, but the fact that these ball are even larger than the 38mm, even more mass and heavier, it seems to me the effects on the equipment(rubbers and tables) is going to have even more impact than than the "similiar material" balls from the 70's.  But I will be glad to let you use it on your equipment over a long term and please let us know what and if there is any impact on your equipment.  I don't know if there has been any long term testing to see if this is a real concern as it feels like this ball has been rushed into production and into the market.

-------------
Nittaku Violin FL-L
FH Donic Bluefire m-1 max
BH Donic Bluefire m-2 max
Cocoa Beach TTC, Florida


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:28pm
The real problem is that there is no real money in our sport. I find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that no reasonable substitutes for celluloid can be developed with all the genius out there - the question is likely resource-starved. Thankfully, the Japanese took the problem seriously. Let's hope the Germans are doing the same.

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 190
FH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 B
BH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Actually the fact that the ITTF rule has specifically allowed for plastic balls for decades is not an accident..  Some of the older players may remember that Halex produced ITTF approved plastic balls in the 1970s.  They were, of course 38 mm, but they had a somewhat broken sound and had a lot of the same problems that people are reporting with the current seamed polyballs (fragility, hardness, weird play, somewhat different sound).  I don't know if they were made of cellulose acetate, but that would be the obvious choice if you were trying to use something other than cellulose nitrate.  There may have been other attempts at this I don't know about.  I very much doubt that the increase in size is the source of all of the discontent with the seamed Chinese poly balls (which also means some of the problems could get better).  I think some of it is the hardness of the ball surface.  Too hard or too soft can both be bad.  The word "this" in clannewton perhaps should have been "a".   

According to https://www.google.com/patents/CN103819845A" rel="nofollow - one patent application , Dunlop used styrene acrylonitrile copolymer for their non-celluloid balls in the 80s.  I doubt it would be anything cellulose-based for Halex.


-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:48pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.

1. Under room temperature, celluloid possesses an exceedingly high hardness and young's modulus.  Table tennis balls made of celluloid can remain intact after an impact with the table at a speed over 150 km/h(~93mph) without any permanent deformation.

2. At 100°C(212°F), celluloid can stretch over 60% its original length, which makes it possible to use water as a heat medium for compression molding.

3. The ability to use solvent to join two domes a little over 10 seconds, and the strength of the joint is on par with that of the main unit.

There are hardly any other material available today that can satisfy these three prerequisites.  This is the sole reason celluloid has remained a staple for so long.


-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:32pm
Also, the possibility of using cellulose acetate plastics has existed for 100 years.  For example, it was used to replace celluloid in movie films to reduce fire hazards of movie theaters, I believe by the 1930s.  I read somewhere that plastics made of cellulose acetate tend to degrade more over time than cellulose nitrate, and the film stock starts to smell like vinegar as it degrades, a serious problem for preservation of classic films.  So I am thinking that cellulose acetate would have been used a lot earlier if it made a decent ball.  After all, you might think that the companies making balls would want to reduce their risks.  Perhaps zeio knows more about this. 

I am hopeful that modern chemical engineers are able to solve the problem and tweak cellulose acetate in such a way as to produce something better and more like celluloid.  Like I have said, the Nittaku Japan polyball we checked (only one, though) bounced exactly the same as a Nittaku celluloid Japan 40 (at least in our crude test).  It was very round.  We will learn more in October.  Interestingly, a seamless XSF ball (again only one) actually bounced quite a bit higher than celluloid!  I wish I had played with that one more, and I just ordered some from TTNPP.  It is the only time I have ordered something from them.


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.

1. Under room temperature, celluloid possesses an exceedingly high hardness and young's modulus.  Table tennis balls made of celluloid can remain intact after an impact with the table at a speed over 150 km/h(~93mph) without any permanent deformation.

2. At 100°C(212°F), celluloid can stretch over 60% its original length, which makes it possible to use water as a heat medium for compression molding.

3. The ability to use solvent to join two domes a little over 10 seconds, and the strength of the joint is on par with that of the main unit.

There are hardly any other material available today that can satisfy these three prerequisites.  This is the sole reason celluloid has remained a staple for so long.
Not unusual for materials that have unique properties  included for classification purposes within the same general material.  Clay is similar to plastic in that it can be molded or made into a wide variety of shapes and uses but don't take a low fire clay and put it in a high fire kiln as it will explode.  One can mix various clay bodies to generate unique temp ranges and hardness and therefore create a clay body that is perfect for specific applications.  
No mystery about new TT balls muted  magnus effect relative to 40C they are a different material and do not behave the same like comparing a nerf ball to a baseball or other sphere shapes. Would not spend much money on new equipment trying to make the new ball play like Celluloid.

Golf went through a similar situation in that a smooth ball was introduced that had little or no mangus effect so it didn't slice or curve making it easier for players to keep the ball in the fairway.  The PGA and other  professional golf associations banned the ball from tournament play because it made the game too easy to play.  
                



Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:52pm
Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.

If the new ball was 40+ celluloid then it would still be  slower but the magnus effect would be stronger or the same as the current 40C per the MIT study I posted.  
The issue with the  new ball goes beyond just  larger ball its made of a different material and reacts differently then celluloid when striking  surface area's.  Throw in heavier, thicker walls , less round, durability etc only adds to deviation from the celluloid ball.  

  


Posted By: LUCKYLOOP
Date Posted: 08/11/2014 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.

If the new ball was 40+ celluloid then it would still be  slower but the magnus effect would be stronger or the same as the current 40C per the MIT study I posted.  
The issue with the  new ball goes beyond just  larger ball its made of a different material and reacts differently then celluloid when striking  surface area's.  Throw in heavier, thicker walls , less round, durability etc only adds to deviation from the celluloid ball.  

  


Hopefully, there is going to be a period of manufacturer quality control improvement.

This wouldn't be a problem except there was no tournament testing period to let the manufacturers perfect the new balls.

I think it would be better if they would put a little resin in the plastic so they would be more spinny and normal like the celluloid.

-------------
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/12/2014 at 12:50pm
Would like to see how each of the new plastic balls compare to celluloid in this test.  Celluloid seems to be an ideal material for TT balls if you want a lively ball after impact on a surface.  

 
Method 1
Table Tennis 
Ball
Marble


Cricket 
Ball
Tennis 
Ball
Golf
Ball
 
Velocity prior to impact (u) (m/s)
1.92
1.55
1.39
2.09
1.66
Velocity after impact (v) (m/s)
1.8
0.82
0.6
1.76
1.23
e
0.94
0.53
0.43
0.84
0.74

 
Method 1
Table Tennis 
Ball
Marble


Cricket 
Ball
Tennis 
Ball
Golf
Ball
 
H dropped (m)
0.22
0.16
0.13
0.27
0.16
H bounced (m)
0.18
0.05
0.03
0.18
0.1
Hb/Hd
0.82
0.31
0.23
0.67
0.63
e
0.90
0.56
0.48
0.82
0.79


Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 9:09pm
GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.


Posted By: Tassie52
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 9:54pm
According to the Q&A, the acceptable range for bounce is for a ball dropped from 305mm onto a standard block of steel to rebound between 260mm and 240mm. If we're used to celluloid bouncing at the top of that range (255-260mm) but the DHS poly is at the bottom (240-245mm) then the difference is going to be very noticeable. Perhaps we need another rule change! Reduce the acceptable range to 250-260mm and the differences would be far less problematic.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.


That is good to hear because things as they stand are not acceptable.

There is a clear misstatement of fact in that ITTF document by Dr. Kuneth.  He claims that there is now no difference in sound in celluloid and polyballs approved by ITTF.  That is clearly not true for the seamless balls, even the ITTF approved ones. 

Also, he states that seamed balls are in the same range as bounce and roundness as current celluloid balls and overlap in size.  Maybe the companies spent weeks selecting their best 1% of plastic balls for testing by ITTF.  I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.  Roundness was also a much greater problem with plastic.  Maybe Double Fish is better.  I have not checked one of those.

And then there is the giant elephant in the room that ITTF does not address at all --- the Chinese seamed balls they have already approved have huge durability problems even at $2.00 each.

So one hopes they can fix this fiasco.

The good news is that there will be a new German ball maker named Weener.  Not the balls themselves necessarily, we have no clue yet what they will be.  The name.  Weener Balls. 

Yes.


Posted By: DreiZ
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.


That is good to hear because things as they stand are not acceptable.

There is a clear misstatement of fact in that ITTF document by Dr. Kuneth.  He claims that there is now no difference in sound in celluloid and polyballs approved by ITTF.  That is clearly not true for the seamless balls, even the ITTF approved ones. 

Also, he states that seamed balls are in the same range as bounce and roundness as current celluloid balls and overlap in size.  Maybe the companies spent weeks selecting their best 1% of plastic balls for testing by ITTF.  I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.  Roundness was also a much greater problem with plastic.  Maybe Double Fish is better.  I have not checked one of those.

And then there is the giant elephant in the room that ITTF does not address at all --- the Chinese seamed balls they have already approved have huge durability problems even at $2.00 each.

So one hopes they can fix this fiasco.

The good news is that there will be a new German ball maker named Weener.  Not the balls themselves necessarily, we have no clue yet what they will be.  The name.  Weener Balls. 

Yes.




I, for one, vote for Weener Balls.
Maybe instead of a fish it will have a cute little wiener dog on them... and 3 stars on the collar.
Yes!

-------------
Samsonov Force Pro BE FL 82g | H3 Neo 2.15 + FTL | Aurus Select 2.1

For Sale: Hadraw VK FL 82g, Rapid Carbon Light AN 72g... PM ME!


Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:


...... ....... Yes.


Dear Colleague,

Vexation eats the dog. you know, and easy mindset is the best healer.
Take things easy, pingpang is just a happy passtime, no case for going mad. Yes.


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.

that should have been done prior to release no major sport would release equipment critical to the sport without complete research and testing, instead the ITTF has release several versions claiming there all play alike, unbelievable!    Bounce test is out dated and not critical enough for this purpose, video technology and software is available to accurately measure COR it should be used and results posted.


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:44pm
the carnal sex-starved vampiress are taking the vexery mad dog for a walk; everybody hidess before the bitee.






-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: Tassie52
Date Posted: 08/14/2014 at 12:56am
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.
What height are you dropping them from?  What are you dropping them on to?

The standard that is used is just that: a standard.  305mm drop height - not 309 or 303.  And they are dropped on a standardised block of steel - I believe Dr Kuneth keeps it under his bed at night so vampire dogs can't mess with it.  The rebound height of the ball is only measured under these circumstances.

I hear what you're saying about the low bounce but that doesn't mean it's outside the standard.  The acceptable range is 20mm which is perfectly visible to the naked eye.  It's a huge range.  260mm rebound is 85.25% of the drop height.  240mm is only 78.7%.  That's a 6.55% difference, and allows a major variation in the bounce of approved balls.

There's nothing new in this.  It's just that the celluloid balls we all play with seem to be at the upper end of the range without any great variation between them.  If the poly balls are at the lower end of the range we will all notice a significant difference.

Solution?  ITTF tightens the range of allowable bounce, or... we only buy and use those poly balls which have an acceptable bounce.  (At present, that looks like only XuShaofa balls.  I wonder how Weener balls will bounce?)


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/14/2014 at 6:30am
True about the range.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/14/2014 at 6:33am
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

   
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:


...... ....... Yes.


Dear Colleague,

Vexation eats the dog. you know, and easy mindset is the best healer.
Take things easy, pingpang is just a happy passtime, no case for going mad. Yes.


Thank god for the weener balls. Yes.


Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 08/14/2014 at 11:32pm
HOW TO GET PLASTIC BALLS MORE SPINNY ?

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/909841669.Ph.r.html

It follows from the given research --a softer ball tends to produce greater spin and speed upon the on-racket impact.

The Plastic Balls, as now marketed worldwide, proved ALL to be made of exceedingly stiff material, hard to compress.. and obvious spin loss is now reported on all the ball brands, as compared to celluloid.

HOW TO IMPROVE.
-- Through using some softer plastic materials we could make up very well for the rotational deficiency of the current plastic samples..   Also, the ball speed rate is hopefully to grow up somewhat with introducing softer plastics.

Will manufacturers be motivated enough to search for a better (soft-and-ductile, ) material ?   Let's live and see...


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 08/21/2014 at 10:23pm
I played with the ITTF approved Xushaofa ball all evening today, which I bought from TNPP (6 for $10).  It bounces slightly higher than a celluloid ball dropped from the same height onto a table, but not a big difference.  (This is dropping them onto a table, not a steel plate).    This result is markedly different from the Joola plastic balls which bounce lower than celluloid, and which differ from celluloid by a larger margin.  The XSF ball was much nicer to play with than the Joola 40+ or the Nittaku China 40+.  Still a bit slower and less spin than celluloid, and will still take some getting used to in free play, but I had a lot more fun playing with this one.  It doesn't feel heavy and it seemed like fewer strange timing errors.  I haven't played with it enough to conclude too much but my distinct impression at this point is that if this was the ball we all ended up using forever, I would be ok with it.  I had the same feeling with the Nittaku Japan 40+ a few weeks ago.  We had some really good rallies with this XSF ball today.  It doesn't seem to sink so much away from the table as the Joola 40+.  All in all, a lot closer to playing with celluloid or so it seemed tonight.

   


Posted By: slevin
Date Posted: 08/21/2014 at 10:32pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:


Will manufacturers be motivated enough to search for a better (soft-and-ductile, ) material ?   Let's live and see...

I thought you wanted to reduce the impact of spin, speed, strength, skill, ...


-------------
Trade feedback:
http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50787" rel="nofollow - http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50787


Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 08/26/2014 at 3:52pm
TESTIMONIES OF THE PLASTIC BALLS BY CANADA's ADVANCED PLAYERS. (all representatives for loooper's school.
Originally posted by Ping Pong Depot,   Canadian Sport Goods Trader Ping Pong Depot,   Canadian Sport Goods Trader wrote:

To provide you with more feedback on the new 40+ plastic ball, we asked several players from the Prestige table tennis club to try various brands and to give some comments on them.
We asked them to write their opinions on four specific subjects:
-General impression of the plastic balls
-Favorite brand of the ones they tested,
-Difference with celluloid balls, what type of changes to their equipment or technique will the new balls require.

In total, 17 players provided their feedback, among them former Canadian national team players such as Peng Guo, Yang Jiang, Ling Kun Yang, Bao Nguyen, Patrick Léveillé, Mitch Rothfleisch and many other elite players.
The list of balls that were tested :
   • Double Fish 40+ 3-star
   • Joola SuperP 3-star
   • Nittaku SHA 40+ 3-star
   • Xushaofa 40+ 3-star (seamless)
   • Xushaofa Sports 40+3-star
(seamless)
   • Xushaofa Sports Club
(seamless)

Not all players tested all the balls, and the tests were not blind tests, and players may have influenced each other, but we found their comments still very interesting.

The first common remark was that ther e was not as big a difference as they had heard or expected. Most of the players really enjoyed playing with the new plastic balls and felt better about their game. Players foundthe new plastic ball harder slower, less spinny and bouncier (higher and more vertical bounces). As a result, they were making less mistakes and feeling more confident about their game. It was also more fun for them to play because the new ball allowed them to play longer rallies. Both Mitch
Rothfleisch and Bao Nguyen, former top 5 players in Canada, wrote that it was more fun to play because the rallies were
longer. One player wrote : "Good job ITTF".

The players found that the one practice ball they tested, Xushaofa Sports Club (seamless), played surprisingly well, a lot closer to the 3 star balls than they expected. While none of the balls received any negative comments, and half the players couldn’t identify
a favourite, 6 players chose Xushaofa Sports, one chose Xushaofa and chose Nittaku. Ling Kun Yang, former top 5 player in Canada, wrote that the Xushaofa Sports ball was the most similar to celluloid balls, and his favourite.
Finally, there was also the question on whether or not adjustments were needed to cope with this new change. Again while there were no strong conclusions yet, comments from Prestige players mentioned the necessity for table tennis players to find ways to adjust their technique or equipment to make up for the reduction in speed, spin and power due to the characteristics of the plastic
ball. A couple of players thought there was longer « dwell » time
with the new balls.
There is more to come as we keep receiving new brands of the plastic ball. The seamless plastic Palio and the Andro
40+*** balls have just arrived.
The Donic and Cornilleau balls will arrive in about a week, and soon we’ll gather comments on all these brands.
Please share with us any comments you have on the brands you try.
Stay tuned!


Mr. Pierre-Luc Hinse
Ping-Pong Depot


Posted By: Stlig
Date Posted: 02/05/2015 at 11:36pm
these new plastic balls kill the rubbers much quicker than celluloid ones. Moreover, they are so easily broken. These new changes are nothing but the money. :(((


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 02/06/2015 at 1:04am
After starting this thread in August Igor has finally started a thread warning us all on the lack of roundness of seamed 40+ balls, which was obvious months ago. (It seems I mentioned ithat problem on this thread on Aug 9, but it was already old news by then). Better late than never Igor.

I will forgive you if you can send over some of those carnal sex starved vampiresses you once went on about.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net