Review: DHS NEO Provincial H3

Review by botak

botaktt: Review of differences in characteristics of Neo Hurricane 3, Provincial Version and Commercial Version.

By botak

About the Author
botak is a full time table tennis coach, who's able to play almost all playstyles and equipment effectively. From shakehand to penhold, reversed rubber to long pips, japanese, euro and chinese rubber, and understands the technical specifics for these racket coverings and playstyle. He has written many detailed commentaries of world class matches, tactical analysis and equipment descriptions with good response. He has also umpired in all major competitions, including international competitions held in Singapore, from 2008, observing the game at the highest quality from close range.

Abstract (in a nutshell)
According to DHS traditions, the Provincial Version of their rubbers has a significantly higher quality as compared to their Commercial Version, in terms of elasticity, stickiness, uniformity and reaction to speed glue. In this test, two brand new pieces of NeoH3, one of provincial version and one of commercial version, in order to compare the characteristics of these two versions for the NeoH3. Both rubbers were pasted on Yasaka Extra Offensive Penhold. The results showed that NeoH3P performed better in most aspects, with the exception of absolute power and quality. NeoH3P has been found to be much more forgiving, and easier to use for the average recreational player, and for players who have problem unleashing the capabilities of the OldH3. However, sufficiently skilled players might prefer the NeoH3C instead, as the power it can offer is much more significant. Additionally, players who were able to unleash the capabilities of OldH3 would find NeoH3 limiting in their play.

Introduction

The inconsistent quality control (QC) of china brand equipments have almost reached the state of notorious. Since as far back as 2003, when the first batch of Old Label Provincial Grade Hurricane 3 (OPH3) was leaked into the Singapore market, there has been a constant saying within the local TT circuit that when u find a good piece of H3, u can't find another that's exactly the same.

It is also exactly cause of this QC issue, that we have come across many "versions" of today's most successful and popular Hurricane 3 rubber (H3) by DHS. From the "national" version, "provincial" version (prov), "commercial" version (comm), even the "fake" version that tries to imitate the success of the tornado. What we can get hold of in the market, is only the comm version and some prov versions that was released by various province teams when they have excess stock. It is of course, intuitive that the National versions have the best quality among all, followed by prov version, followed by comm version.

Even within the same version, there has been varying levels of quality too. Within the prov versions, the moment one happen to get a piece in the lower quality spectrum, the quality can be so low, it could often be mistaken/interpreted as "fake" prov. So, instead of saying whether it's real or fake, of comm version or prov version, perhaps it's more logical to say, if this piece is of a higher quality, or towards the end of lower quality spectrum.

Simply beacuse, China, being such a big manufacturer of products, producing such a high volume of goods, cannot possibly ensure the same quality throughout the goods, even within the same classification of goods.

The lowest quality of prov version may just be a little bit better, compared to the highest quality of comm version, perhaps even insignificant to most layers. Although one thing for sure, the average quality across the prov and comm versions do have a significant difference, simply cause the prov versions are selected as higher quality product.

Comparing the differences of prov H3 (H3-P) and comm H3 (H3-C), some characteristics are frequently observed. The rubber is overall lighter, sponge being softer but more elastic, topsheet too has a more elastic feel to it and the spin generated often surpasses that of H3-C, probably because of more consistent characteristic of rubber-layer or due to higher levels of stickiness (often known as tacky-ness). Back in the old days when speed glueing is a norm, the prov rubbers offer better speed-glueing effect too.

Fast forward ahead of time, after the speed glue ban, DHS comes up with a brand new rubber known to us as Neo Hurricane3, with a brand new ITTF registration number and logo design on the rubber. It is said that NeoH3 has exactly the same topsheet as OldH3, however in a seperate test conducted, I am absolutely certain that this two rubbers plays differently, requiring different technical handling even though the effect of which is the same. It should be noted here that this NeoH3 and OldH3 should be regarded as different rubbers, as we further discuss some technical issue with NeoH3 below. For more information on differences between Neo-H3 and Old-H3, stay tuned for a coming detailed review.

And as expected by many fans, soon after the Neo-H3 gains its status among the various TT communities around the globe, the prov version of Neo-H3 has surfaced (Neo-H3-P). It is said to only come in thickness of 2.1mm and 2.15 so far, no 2.2mm, both in prov and nat versions of the rubber.

In this report, we will be discussing on the differences between com and prov versions of NeoH3. Since the classification of quality is similar to traditional classification, i.e. nationa/prov/comm versions, it is intuitive that the differences between NeoH3P and NeoH3C should be similar to the differences between OldH3P and OldH3C. Overall, we should expect a more superior quality and playing characteristics in the NeoH3P, as compared to NeoH3C.

Method

In this test of rubber characteristics and differences, forumer Eugene and I, botak had a 2-hour session at Sengkang Sports Complex. Multiballs are used in order to save time in between each rally, so as to maintain the continuity and keeping the feeling fresh in our minds at each rally.

Two seperate blades were used. Both were Yasaka Extra Offensive (YEO) C-pen version, courtesy of forumer Eugene, with a similar weight rating and hand feel. The NeoH3P was glued on a blade where the backhand rubber was Butterfly Bryce Speed 2.1mm, while the NeoH3C's blade had the backhand rubber as Butterfly Sriver Max. Both NeoH3 rubbers are freshly glued, cut, and used for the first time. In order to minimize the inferior playing characteristics of a brand new DHS rubber, botak has adopted his tried and tested method to minimize this effect on both rubbers.

The following practice items are adopted.
1) 正手对攻, simple FH rally.
2) 正手连续拉, FH continuous drive rally, the other blocks.
3) 正手对拉, FH counter-drive rally.
4) 反手推挡, BH push-block rally.
5) 搓球，摆短. push-chop rally, short.
6) 侧身拉高调, 连续拉冲. high-arc loop from backspin, followed by continuous high-power drives.
7) 发球强冲, serve followed by explosive FH drive.

These practice items are selected as these are they covers the majority of all technical requirements of the table tennis sport, from arc of outgoing shots, blocking control, over the table control, spin and explosive power. Service practice item however is not included in this testing.

It has been well recognized the backhand rubber in C-pen play affects the hand feel significantly of the overall setup, however for this experiment, we're only looking at the characteristics of the forehand rubber alone. Observations are carefully made for each practice item, and the characteristics due to the rubber differences are isolated and evaluated. Special considerations and adjustments are also taken into account if the characteristic in question is dependent on the overall setup.

Results and Discussion

Upon holding the package, the density of the rubber is immediately observed. It feels much lighter as compared to a comm piece of NeoH3. This could be attributed to the slightly thinner sponge, however as the prov has only 2 corners cut off, total surface area is actually larger for NeoH3P than NeoH3C. Furtherfore, what was being noticed is the density of the rubber itself, and not the overall weight. After pasting it, it felt even more evident.

Finger pressing of the NeoH3P sponge had a much softer, and elastic feel to it. The topsheet also felt more elastic, as the rubber and sponge deformed back into it's original shape quicker when being pressed.

Upon pasting the rubbers on the blade, the density felt even more evident. The overall C.G of the NeoH3P setup felt balanced, close to the center-ply of the blade, while the NeoH3C setup had it's CG towards the FH side of the blade. Such setup like the NeoH3C would result in a FH-biased blade which adds to the power on the FH side, while allowing better grip and control on the BH side. This is confirmed by preliminary tests on the FH swing where the NeoH3C setup felt more powerful, due to it's C.G. placement. This is taken into account when assessing the power characteristics of the NeoH3 rubbers.

Practice Item 1)
For the NeoH3P, the ball sank deeper in, but yet able to rebound out more comfortably. On the other hand, the NeoH3C requires a deeper hit into the sponge for the ball to sink in. This is definitely due to the sponge hardness difference. However it should be noted that it's independent on the hardness rating, but more due to the elastic feel of the sponge. This is shown more clearly in the rebound effect difference between the two. The NeoH3C rebounds less, meaning less energy is being returned to the ball, due to the elasticity difference.

This means that the NeoH3P is a more user friendly rubber to use, requiring less effort but yet maximizing the output onto the ball. However, if in the hands of a player who often have strong swings but unable to manage his strength efficiently, the stiffer NeoH3C would be a more forgiving rubber to use, as the excessive force is effectively dissipated, resulting in a higher consistency.

Practice Item 2)
The NeoH3P had a significantly longer dwell time in the sponge as compared to NeoH3C. For a slower driving swing, this rubbers allow better control and grip, drives will feel more manageable. On the other hand, the ball leaves the NeoH3C earlier at a shorter time. This actually means that it's more suited for a faster driving swing, as the long dwell time, even with higher elasticity, of the NeoH3P cannot bring out the ball quickly enough to satisfy the faster swing.

In this case, spin cannot be compared directly as there's a far higher emphasis on the technique used instead. For a faster swing, or rubbing at the topsheet only, NeoH3C generates better. While for a slower swing, or rubbing slightly deeper in, NeoH3P performs better. This boils down to the player's preferred technical handling to know which rubber brings higher spin.

While blocking the FH drives, NeoH3P is able to slow the ball down with better control, but also able to bring the ball out faster at the player's control. Even for a flat block, i.e. just putting the racket there letting the ball rebound, the NeoH3P performed better with more stable rebound and return arc. Due to the longer dwell time and more elastic sponge, the control, consistency is much higher for NeoH3P in all aspect.

Practice Item 3)
Similar to item 2, the NeoH3P is more forgiving and consistent, easier to dwell into the rubber to generate the spin required. However, in terms of power output, the NeoH3C fairs better in this aspect for this test. This is because the NeoH3C requires a faster and deeper contact into the ball in order to be return the ball reliably, hence the power is higher in this test. However, the spin generated by NeoH3P is definitely higher, resulting in a more effective competitive game in this aspect. The ball may be slower before landing on the table, but the additional increase in speed due to the spin is much more effective, compared to absolute speed from the NeoH3C.

However, it is more likely that it's actually due to the FH-biased setup and thicker BH rubber that contributes to the power. To find out which rubber has a higher power if both rubbers were used on the same setup instead, further testing is required.

For any player who's sufficiently skilled to go into mid/far table counter-looping/driving, the consistency and spin characteristics will be far more important than power and speed. As a result, NeoH3P outperforms NeoH3C in this aspect. But for those who can't go into this aspect of the sport yet, this item is irrelevant for consideration. Although for the players who's higher skilled, they'd probably prefer NeoH3C due to the additional power it can offer.

Practice Item 4)
Both rubber fared similarly for this test. There's no notable difference as both tester, Eugene and I were push-blocking with each other, hence we're mostly depending on our own push-blocking force to return the ball. Arguably NeoH3P has more feel into it, hence suits the long push-block technique better. On the other hand, if the player's preference is the punching push-block, NeoH3C might be more effective. Overall, both rubbers fairs similarly.

If one tester were to use shakehand's backhand instead, i.e. with more spin than just push-blocking, we might detect a notable difference. Further testing is required for this.

Practice Item 5)
No immediate difference were detected. As this item requires more handling on the topsheet, hence the difference in sponge between the two didn't result in much of a difference. However, as the NeoH3P has a better consistency in topsheet stickiness, more uniform in the material, it can be said to have a slight edge over NeoH3C.

However, as the quality of the push-chops gets stronger, and as the pushes gets longer (from 摆短 to 劈长), the softer NeoH3P sponge actually started to affect the quality. The sponge seems to be too soft for this and tends to pop up higher than desired as the chops gets more aggressive. Despite this, the control and spin is still higher for NeoH3P.

Practice Item 6)
It should be noted first that the technique adopted is simply generating a loop upwards, without any forward driving force. Similar to Practice Item 2 and 3, due to the longer dwell time necessary for this technique, NeoH3P outperforms in most aspect. It offers much better grip when looping the underspin, offering much better control and safe arc over the net. It also won't go too high over the net as long as the technical handling is appropriate. The spin generated is also significantly better for the NeoH3P, given the same effort in looping.

However, under maximum force imparted, NeoH3C offers stronger spin when looping. Similar to Practice Item 2 and 3, the consistency would be affected significantly. Although, in the hands of a sufficiently skilled player, such control or consistency issue won't be a problem. Because of this, NeoH3C would possibly be preferred to players at a higher skill level.

Once again, it remains possible that the FH-biased setup could be a bigger reason for the difference in quality for high-power shots.

Practice Item 7)
This is one item which NeoH3P has failed in what NeoH3C can offer. Due to the softer sponge, despite it's elasticity, the NeoH3P cannot support the high power exerted by the player. It sank much faster than the NeoH3C, and there seems to be a limit in supporting the high power which the player can impart.

Spin and arc in the power drive is not as important for this aspect, as the NeoH3's technical requirement for power drives, is more of a flat drive rather than emphasizing on power rubbing (one of the key differences between NeoH3 and OldH3). This is why a harder and denser sponge would be benefit the player much more. This is of course, on the condition that the player is sufficiently skilled to bring out the limit of NeoH3P.

Once again, it remains possible that the FH-biased setup could be a bigger reason for the difference in quality for high-power shots. Only further testing can confirm this.

Conclusion

As hypothesized before the test, the general differences between OldH3 prov and comm versions were also observed in the NeoH3. NeoH3P outperformed NeoH3C in most aspects. From spin, control, consistency, and elasticity, with the only exception being the maximum power the sponge can bring, and the support which the sponge can offer for the player's self-exerted explosive power.

This rubber can definitely bring the specialty of the Hurricane3, it's spin and distinct arc, into the hands of the beginner to intermediate players who used to have problem using the OldH3. With the prov version, the additional control and elasticity will be much more forgiving for such players.

However, it should be noted that for players above a certain skill, they might prefer the NeoH3C instead, due to the support and maximum quality it'd allow the player to exert. For issues of control or consistency, it shouldn't pose much problems as the higher level players should be able to adapt accordingly by themselves. Personally throughout the test, I prefer the NeoH3C much more to the NeoH3P.

To further add on, players who were able to unleash the capabilities of OldH3 would find NeoH3 limiting in their play. NeoH3 is just more forgiving for the players, but can't offer much options for the sufficiently skilled.

However, as professional players would definitely tune their rubbers additionally, it is possible that NeoH3P offers better tuning effect and even greater power when fully tuned, as compared to NeoH3C. Only proper tuning tests can answer this.

In this test, we're only using YEO as our blade. To further test the differences between this two rubbers, other tests would be required on other blades, for example shakehand, composite materials and pure wood, or other penhold blades.

Reserved space for reviews

Reserved space for review

cool

That pic only shows my very 1st batch of goods which I sold quite some time ago :)

Considering the number of provincial players in China and Hong Kong and the usage of rubbers per player... that number is really nothing... but what the players are willing to release to outsiders is very limited.

As for the review, credits should go to my reviewers! Thumbs up for them :)

As for the Q and A about DHS NEO Provincial, I hope I have not offended any one, especially the sellers and their buyers of some DHS products in this forum. And I feel that it is not entirely the fault of any seller to provide inaccurate information since their knowledge is from certain provincial players. Players are afterall users as well. They only play and there is no need for all the information since their source is definitely authentic. Anything they heard or feel about the DHS products may just be personal opinions. The ultimate source of verification has to be done with DHS. So please do not PM or ask me about the products which you got from other sellers. Please refer to the Q and A about DHS NEO Provincial instead. I would update the information in the Q and A upon getting new updates from DHS.

Thanks for viewing!

Coming soon...
- For more information on differences between Neo-H3 and Old-H3, stay tuned for a coming detailed review...
- Eugene's review

Imago wrote: onlyspecialmade wrote: Well, I guess it�s still worth it since those trips give me opportunities to bring back some NEO provincials :) How did you manage to get these rubbers? Have you robbed the local Post Office, hijacked the Chinese Fedex equivalent, or bribed three provincial coaches? Seriously, your theoretical and methodological foundations are impressive. I cannot wait to read the test results.

do u have stock now??

Thanks for the feedback from BMonkey

What does pre=glued mean?
Are they sticky? Or has a layer of glue been applied in the factory and then you re-apply a "fastening" layer?

Can you elaborate?

In the test by botak/Eugene:

Nittaku Finezip 100 is applied to both the sponge and the blade. Gluing for NEO rubbers is like gluing for any other normal rubbers.

Initially the commercial version setup only has the blade applied with glue. As that would affect the hand feel, we decided that re-gluing be done for that setup. So yes, the commercial setup has gone through re-gluing while the provincial setup has gone through only 1 time of gluing. This may contribute very slight difference in the test result but this gluing factor should not be the main contributing factor to the results.

As mentioned by botak, the overall commercial version setup of YEO with the 2 rubbers is forehand biased. The center of gravity (CG) is towards the head of the of the blade. Head heavy setups usually result in greatly power in mid and far table.

Unless we use different blades of exact quality and weight, with the same quality/hardness/weight/thickness/positioning of back side rubber together with the same thickness/hardness/positioning of forehand NEO H3, it is very difficult to compare. Also, since QC of DHS varies, quality inconsistency would result in test inacuracy. However, I believe we had already tried to make the test as accurate as possible. The writeup by botak has been unbiased based on his personal professional experience and I personally find it to be a very good guide.

Well, the comparison between the provincial and commercial is nothing new since many have already used both versions before. So the test results is somehow expected. What really excites me is the upcoming review to compare the old H3 and new NEO H3 and the trend DHS is heading to.

So stay tuned!

@onlyspecialmade, Can you tell me what's the difference between the black and red sheets of Neo rubbers?