|
|
|
Difference Between 1.8 and 2.0??? |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
Carryboy 
Silver Member 
Joined: 05/12/2009 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 723 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Difference Between 1.8 and 2.0???Posted: 03/28/2011 at 1:27pm |
|
Just needed some advice and more than likely my fellow forum members here can help.
For a backhand rubber would there be a big difference between using a 1.8/1.9 as compared to a 2.0/2.1 in relation to first and foremost weight, control and to a lesser degree speed??? The reason I am asking is that I normally use black for backhand and for some reason black rubbers are usually heavier than it's red counterpart.
My backhand is a mixture of everything with mostly (60%) heavy pushes with a lot of backspin, the remaining percentage is loops, and spinny backhand drives.
I have been trying to ween myself off of the Desto F3 due to a certain amount of non linearity I have found with it along with other issues. But the weight is perfect.
Thanks
|
|
|
Spin Master Carbo Power (Stefan Elsner Custom)
Donic Acuda S1 Max Donic Acuda P1 Blue Max |
|
 |
|
| Sponsored Links | |
|
|
|
cole_ely
Premier Member 
Joined: 03/16/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6898 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 1:37pm |
|
There's not much difference in weight.
1.8 will push flatter with less touch required. It will also flat hit with more control. The only thing a thicker sponge will really give you is more topspin and then only IF your loop it big enough to sink the ball. I think most of us would be fine with 1.8. If you're pushing more than looping back there, I would def consider 1.8, esp if you're using something soft and springy like f3. Edited by cole_ely - 03/28/2011 at 1:37pm |
|
|
Wavestone St with Illumina 1.9r, defender1.7b
Please let me know if I can be of assistance. |
|
|
|
|
Carryboy
Silver Member
Joined: 05/12/2009 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 723 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 2:18pm |
|
Hi Cole, thanks for the input, as I had stated the F3 I am sort of trying to stop using. The two rubbers I am trying out now is is the Acuda S3 and Stiga Magna TS II which are soft but much firmer/harder in feel and not as springy as F3. I really like both. The TSII weight wise is not too bad but the S3 comes in at a whopping 44-45 grams and this is a 2.00 mm sheet. It tends to make the blade a bit unbalanced but it plays so good. I would say both rubbers on my backhand is a def step up compared to F3 especially when playing opponents at a higher level.
I def will try a 1.8 mm with both rubbers.
|
|
|
Spin Master Carbo Power (Stefan Elsner Custom)
Donic Acuda S1 Max Donic Acuda P1 Blue Max |
|
|
|
|
JimT
Premier Member
Joined: 10/26/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14602 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 4:25pm |
|
Weight diff would be about 2 g, I guess. Also 1.8 will bottom out a bit sooner on strong hits from afar
|
|
|
Single Ply Hinoki Club, Founding Member
Say "no!" to expensive table tennis equipment. Please... |
|
|
|
|
APW46
Assistant Moderator 
Joined: 02/02/2009 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3331 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 6:01pm |
|
The difference between T05 2.1 and T05 1.9 is massive. |
|
|
The Older I get, The better I was.
|
|
|
|
|
mayuki24
Super Member 
Joined: 10/27/2010 Location: Philippines Status: Offline Points: 455 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 6:41pm |
|
if you will use 1.8 or 2.0 not max the speed will reduce but it will benefit you to give a superb control plus you lost some weight to the rubber probably 2~5 grams not quite sure. 1.8 or 2.0 is good for backhand because it will give you a lot of control so you could easily have nice backhand shots but a bit slower than the max one, if you will choose max you will have a great speed but sacrificing a bit of control, if you prefer speed than control then choose max but if you prefer control over speed for your loops choose thinner one like 1.8 or 2.0 but i really recommend you 2.0 because 1.8 would lack a lot of power.
|
|
|
Nittaku Runlox (C-Pen)
FH: Andro Rasant Powergrip BH: Andro Rasant Grip |
|
|
|
|
johnny89atc
Gold Member 
Joined: 06/28/2008 Location: Greece Status: Offline Points: 1600 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 8:51pm |
Can you tell the difference between Tenergy 05 2.1mm and 1.9mm?
|
|
|
Blade: OSP Virtuoso-L RST 87gr
FH: Butterfly Tenergy 05 FX 2.1 BH: Butterfly Tenergy 05 1.9 |
|
|
|
|
icontek
Premier Member
This is FPS Doug Joined: 10/31/2006 Location: Maine, US Status: Offline Points: 5222 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/28/2011 at 11:54pm |
|
Carryboy -
What level of play are you using this for? At my level, I'm a former F3 user who gave the stupidly easy attacking properties of the rubber for the stability of 1.8mm mendo for the imrpovements (ease) of BH pushes and receive of serve. But then I went to S3 in 2.0mm (because ttnpp doesn't have 1.8mm and I'm cheap). S3 offers the best compromise between tensor and classic rubber, IMHO. I suspect 1.8mm S3 would be amazing as the sponge is quite heavy.
aside from marketizing, i don't know why people think increasing the sponge thickness has a big impact on speed. maybe it just depends on the rubber, but from my experience, thicker sponge, if you're looping, gives you more dwell and more potential spin, so maybe increased sponge helps with loopkills (you can spin more, so faster drives will still arc downward at the table)... I agree with cole on this, basically. |
|
|
|
|
pnachtwey
Platinum Member 
Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/29/2011 at 1:19am |
|
I could tell the difference between Mark V 1.5 and Mark V max but that is a big difference in rubber thickness. It is much easier to loop with Mark V max than with Mark V 1.5mm but now I don't think it would make much difference as my brush looping technique is better.
I ordered some 1.8 mm Aces High Speed. I have Aces Pro 2.15 mm but I wanted to try something thinner. I have 802-40 1.8mm SP. It is very easy to play with and more importantly attack with and it is plenty fast. I don't see the need for 2mm or 2.2mm. It is hard to attack with LP.
|
|
|
|
|
Carryboy
Silver Member
Joined: 05/12/2009 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 723 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03/29/2011 at 2:02pm |
|
I am kind of second guessing the 1.8 but I already did the order. Anyway I did it with an open mind that this rubber is for testing. We will see and I will repost in a couple of weeks.
Thanks
|
|
|
Spin Master Carbo Power (Stefan Elsner Custom)
Donic Acuda S1 Max Donic Acuda P1 Blue Max |
|
|
|
|
spin_attack
Beginner 
Joined: 10/28/2010 Location: India Status: Offline Points: 17 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 3:13pm |
Hey mayuki, I see ur using the Andro Rasnt PG and grip. Wat thickness are u using them in. Could describe ur style of play and how the rubbers behave. I plan a combination game of 3rd or 5th ball attack and I'm very keep on both these rubbers, but the problem is I've never played with a 1.9mm sheet before. Your reply would be much appreciated. Cheers. |
|
|
BTY PK, T05fx, T80fx
|
|
|
|
|
lineup32
Gold Member
Joined: 12/06/2012 Location: Calif Status: Offline Points: 1195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 3:21pm |
|
A segment from "introduction to table Tennis blade design regarding rubbers:
"Let’s go back to rubbers and focus on one particular. The sponge thickness determines how much spin can be applied with this rubber, a thin sponge can “store” less energy than a thick sponge. A thin sponge reaches its “energy storing” limit faster. Once this happens the impact energy is shattered over the blades faces and hopefully damped out by our non core plies and our carbon layer. You might think this is good for blocking or in general an indicator for a good “control”, whatever the word “control” may be here. Sadly, this is not the case. If you block a topspin ball with – let’s say a 1.8mm sponge – and it reaches it’s storing limit the “non storable” energy is lost. You may block the ball properly and you are happy because your 1.8mm sponge gives you so much control. Now you face a stronger player in the next game with a much stronger loop. At this point, you need the ability to reverse to incoming topspin into out coming topspin in order to still be able to land the ball on the opponents side. Without a suitable thick sponge, you can’t store enough energy to changes the balls spinning direction strong enough to drag the ball down with your block. Hence you should always get the max sponge thickness of your desired rubber if you don’t want to lose against stronger players every time you encounter them. I often wrote the phrase that nothing in life is free and this is still the case. A thicker sponger is heavier than a thinner one and you have to keep the total weight in mind when assembling rubbers and blades. Another sponge characteristic is the sponge hardness. In the previous table tennis chemistry article we used the trampoline example to illustrate the impact of different rubber hardness. Harder rubbers need more energy to be activated ( to be bouncy ) and can store more energy. On the contrary, softer rubbers are bouncy from the start but lack power on higher speeds." https://thoughtsontabletennis.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/introduction-to-table-tennis-blade-design/ |
|
|
|
|
ThePongProfessor
Forum Moderator 
Joined: 11/17/2014 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1528 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 4:27pm |
|
I think both philosophies are right. Thinner sponges DO provide better control in short play and slow/medium pace hits/blocks/loops. Thicker sponges DO provide greater absorption of incoming energy and DO provide greater control at top-end speeds/spins. It all boils down to your level (and that of your opponents). I would go for a fairly fast rubber in max in FH if your level >1400 as it is relatively easy to bottom out with thinner sponges. BH in a different story. I think most players <2200 (and certainly <2000) would benefit from ~1.9 in BH if they are playing with rubber having a hard sponge, simply because it requires a lot of (BH)-power to fully engage the sponge (it is still very compressable = adsorb a lot of energy). However, if your favorite BH rubber is soft, I would probably opt for max.
|
|
|
|
|
ghostzen
Silver Member
Joined: 08/15/2010 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 5:21pm |
|
I think its quite a personal thing. Use what works for you and feels good when you play. Also what gives to your game instead of taking from the balance overall. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule unless we are talking pro players and then there will be slight differences.
|
|
|
|
|
lineup32
Gold Member
Joined: 12/06/2012 Location: Calif Status: Offline Points: 1195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 7:25pm |
|
I don't think there is something called "control" in TT that is directly related to rubber thickness nor even that control as a static state exists in TT. Some on this thread have mentioned that a thinner rubber offers more control say a 1.8 vs 2.2 but it makes no sense since logically then the thinner rubbers would all offer more "control" over thicker rubbers. For instance a 1.4 vs 1.8 or 1.0 vs 2.0 the thinner rubber should offer the player greater control but in real time we all know that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
cole_ely
Premier Member
Joined: 03/16/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6898 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 7:28pm |
|
do you define control as the ability to keep the ball on the table, or the ability to make the ball do what you want it to do? tennis players usually refer to more spin as more control. I kind of tend to think the other way.
So you're going to tell me that a 2.2 euro rubber has the same control as a hardbat? Then you probably have a different definition of control, and your definition likely centers on topspin. and your'e likely a 2000 plus player.
|
|
|
Wavestone St with Illumina 1.9r, defender1.7b
Please let me know if I can be of assistance. |
|
|
|
|
lineup32
Gold Member
Joined: 12/06/2012 Location: Calif Status: Offline Points: 1195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 8:37pm |
|
I would go with the tennis player on this as the role of rubber/sponge in TT is to create spin so it makes sense that by using max thick rubber a player has the best alternative to manage spin. The issue is not hardbat vs modern rubber or stroke selection its whether thicker or thinner rubber provides so called "control". Rubbers less then 2.2 or max store less energy which does not make them more suitable for a so called "control" game then a 2.2 or max rubber in fact based on the article I quoted above it makes them less so. This is why I posted the article which was on another thread, its a bit of science rather then just personal experience or what others may have passed along.
|
|
|
|
|
berndt_mann
Gold Member
Joined: 02/02/2015 Location: Tucson, Arizona Status: Offline Points: 1719 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 9:10pm |
|
(cole ely) So you're going to tell me that a 2.2 euro rubber has the same control as a hardbat?
I'm not going to tell you that, Cole. I've played with Donic Supersonic 40 somewhere around 2.2 mm. and I've played with British Leyland (still do, when I'm up to it, now playing lefty), and while the Supersonic was a tad spinnier and maybe a wee bit faster, it did not have, shall we say, the aural subtlety and tactile feel that Leyland on a fine vintage style blade like the Bellamy Master Craftsman does. You can even topspin underspin with one of these puppies. In fact, you probably should, unless your favorite way of winning is to push until someone calls for the expedite rule, and then trot out your attack and hope that it works before your opponent's does.
|
|
|
bmann1942
Setup: Mark Bellamy Master Craftsman blade, British Leyland hard rubber |
|
|
|
|
igorponger
Premier Member
Joined: 07/29/2006 Location: Everywhere Status: Offline Points: 3252 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/26/2015 at 10:06pm |
|
YES, I`M LIVING IN PARADISE
Looking for a Paradise Feeling? Go and try your rubber with 1.8 thick sponge. I had taken this way far back in 1980`s very opposing to a popular notion that 2.0 should be "a cure for all", fortunately I took a fair road indeed, have been feeling all happy ever since. I do enjoy a total control in any playing situation, still enjoying enormous blasting power in every stroke. frankly, feeling sorry very much for those boys with 2.0 /max thicknesses, it is very, very much like riding a mad horse down to the Hell down. |
|
|
|
|
adishorul
Super Member
Joined: 08/19/2012 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05/27/2015 at 3:00am |
I am really happy for you, cause you find your best thickness rubber. But if you have a slow light blade like 79 grams nittaku violin, 1,8 mm will not help too much to lift/topspin choppers heavy backspin. Have a nice game. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |
Topic Options
APW46 wrote: