new BBC blades

JimT wrote: arg0 wrote: Rule 2.04.02 says adhesive can be reinforced, it does not say anything about outer layers, so the rule alone is not sufficient. However, according to Technical Leaflet T4 Technical Leaflet T4, page 4, section A, 1.1 wrote: A very thin layer of lacquer is permitted on the blade, only for the purpose of anchoring wood fibers, thereby facilitating replacement of the covering. Anything more than this will be deemed to constitute a layer of plastic, and will not be permitted. This layer may be no more than 0.1 mm thick, and should not hide the wood from sight or touch. It is considered to be part of the blade, rather than part of the thickness of the covering. So the ITTF understands rule 2.04.02 as indirectly requiring the outer layers to be wood, although this is not explicitly written. I haven't read that before. That seems to imply that outer carbon layer is prohibited. However it can be taken as being applicable ONLY to the lacquer finish. Also this is not the law but its interpretation. I am not sure if T4 has to be considered absolute when an umpire is supposed to rule on whether Onyx is a legal blade or not. I think Charlie should consult umpire Pavol Kovac from Stump-the-Ump on USATT site. http://www.usatt.org/rules/stumpump/index.shtml

In any case, the Laws of Table Tennis (which were approved) state that "an adhesive layer within the blade may be reinforced with fibrous material such as carbon fibre, glass fibre or compressed paper, but shall not be thicker than 7.5% of the total thickness or 0.35mm, whichever is the smaller," [emphasis added].  The technical leaflet is simply making that point clear.  Within is not the same thing as on the surface.  Just to make sure, I checked the laws of table tennis in French to see if maybe ITTF was more clear in that language.  And voila:  "une couche de matière adhésive à l’intérieur de la palette peut être renforcée par une matière fibreuse telle que fibre de carbone".

This says that a layer of adhesive material in the interior of the racket can be reinforced by a fibrous material such as carbon fiber.  Again, interior is not the surface. 

There just doesn't seem to be any sustainable argument  that the Onyx blades are legal in the eyes of ITTF.   

Edited by Baal - 05/23/2012 at 1:38pm

I have no idea if it was actually voted on by general assembly or if it even has to be, but it had enough force of authority for Butterfly to discontinue a blade that some people liked (I thought it was truly awful) -- and for Butterfly Korea to refund customer's money.    

arg0 wrote: Baal, hope you didn't take the comment personally. I just intended to point at what is imo a shortcoming of the ITTF rules, taken in isolation, in that they indeed to not require the outer layers to be made of wood. Maybe you had noticed that I pointed to the same passage of technical leaflet T4 in my post above. However, as many players are likely not aware of the T4, doubt arises. Are these ITTF leaflets "legally" binding? If so, I am very surprised that umpires may not be aware of them. But then again I don't know the USATT. Maybe they have their own rules and are not bound by the ITTF. Or maybe they're just bound by the ITTF rules and not by the content of other material such as technical leaflets. Anyone can shed some light?

arg0

No, I certainly didn't take it personally, not at all.  The rules in the leaflet are binding from the ITTF point of view.  I completely agree that their writing is often opaque.  I also suspect that their leadership is corrupt, but that is another discussion.  I am not entirely surprised that some umpires would not know this, it would rarely arise.  I had to go look it up, and I did remember that Butterfly had to ditch their Kreanga Carbon blade for the same reason.

Baal,
hope you didn't take the comment personally. I just intended to point at what is imo a shortcoming of the ITTF rules, taken in isolation, in that they indeed to not require the outer layers to be made of wood. Maybe you had noticed that I pointed to the same passage of technical leaflet T4 in my post above. However, as many players are likely not aware of the T4, doubt arises.

Are these ITTF leaflets "legally" binding? If so, I am very surprised that umpires may not be aware of them. But then again I don't know the USATT. Maybe they have their own rules and are not bound by the ITTF. Or maybe they're just bound by the ITTF rules and not by the content of other material such as technical leaflets. Anyone can shed some light?

arg0 wrote: Baal, this is the whole point of discussion: as far as I could read, the rules alone do not explicitly prohibit non-wood outers.

My point is that it seems not to be a controversial issue at all and not really worth discussing at length -- not if you actually read the relevant documents, not just rules, but more recent technical leaflets.  The ITTF Technical Leafet 4   was issued by ITTF for the following purpose, as stated in its introduction:  "This leaflet sets out the current Laws and Regulations, defines some of the terms used and lists some additional criteria for ITTF authorisation of racket coverings and thereafter entering the List of Authorised Racket Coverings (LARC)."

In other words, it's purpose is to clarify some points that may have not been entirely clear in the original wording laid out in The Laws of Table Tennis and the Regulations for International Competitions.  It is an amendment to these rules.  Technical Leaflet states "A very thin layer of lacquer is permitted on the blade, only for the purpose of anchoring wood fibers, thereby facilitating replacement of the racket covering. Anything more than this will be deemed to constitute a layer of plastic, and will not be permitted. This layer may be no more than 0.1 mm thick, and should not hide the wood from sight or touch.'  [emphasis added].

I don't know how thick the carbon layer is on the outside of Charlie's blade, but one thing that is obvious from the picture of the blade is that this external carbon layer hides the wood from sight.  And the wood has to be visible and its grain should be palpable.  Also, carbon is not lacquer.  Also, it seems clear that the purpose of this layer is not simply to protect the wood, but it gives it an unusual playing style, which was noted by people reviewing the blade.

Therefore, based on current ITTF official documents, these blades are illegal.  The fact that some referees in California may not have known about this technical leaflet does not make the blades legal.  There is no ambiguity in this.   

You can find this leaflet here:  http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/T4_Racket%20Coverings_BoD2011.pdf 


Edited by Baal - 05/22/2012 at 11:22pm

nathanso wrote: JimT wrote: I think Charlie should consult umpire Pavol Kovac from Stump-the-Ump on USATT site.http://www.usatt.org/rules/stumpump/index.shtml Pavol Kovac doesn't appear to have made an entry on that page in over six years. CW recently told me that the ONYX was shown on different occasions to five USATT umpires in the Los Angeles area and each said it was legal.

True - but when I posted a question there, he contacted me immediately the very next day - so his email works and he is watching the website.

Doesn't mean they know the rules, sadly.

iamwardicus wrote: What happened to the Carboflex Alpha? :-p

Yes, removed temporarily as the photos I had no longer matched the CFA's new outer skins which are no longer Birch. CW needs to get it (and one or two other new blades) re-shot at the photographer's studio.. hopefully soon.

What happened to the Carboflex Alpha? :-p

Rule 2.04.02 says adhesive can be reinforced, it does not say anything about outer layers, so the rule alone is not sufficient. However, according to Technical Leaflet T4

Technical Leaflet T4, page 4, section A, 1.1 wrote: A very thin layer of lacquer is permitted on the blade, only for the purpose of anchoring wood fibers, thereby facilitating replacement of the covering. Anything more than this will be deemed to constitute a layer of plastic, and will not be permitted. This layer may be no more than 0.1 mm thick, and should not hide the wood from sight or touch. It is considered to be part of the blade, rather than part of the thickness of the covering.

So the ITTF understands rule 2.04.02 as indirectly requiring the outer layers to be wood, although this is not explicitly written.


Edited by arg0 - 05/21/2012 at 5:41pm

http://www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/hb.asp?s_number=2 wrote: 2.04.02  At least 85% of the blade by thickness shall be of natural wood; an adhesive layer within the blade may be reinforced with fibrous material such as carbon fibre, glass fibre or compressed paper, but shall not be thicker than 7.5% of the total thickness or 0.35mm, whichever is the smaller.

For me the ittf rule no 2.04.02 clearly says, what i just wrote in my previous post.
 

Liquid Sky wrote: JimT wrote: Is that the first blade ever with carbon layer as an outer? Probably because carbon fibre is only legal within the blade to reinforce the glue layer!

JimT wrote: Onyx looks really sinister...  Is that the first blade ever with carbon layer as an outer? does the glue hold the rubbers well on such a surface?

arg0 wrote: BTW, the All Around was already there, he just changed the text.

The wood plys are completely different. The new AA is a much higher performance blade than the old African Cherry-based blade. If you can't see the Specs grid using IE8 or IE9, try Chrome or Firefox. I'm adjusting the website so it will work in the IE's as well.

Edited by nathanso - 05/20/2012 at 11:27pm