New Poly ball review

Icontek,

I found a simpler test then making a video for this equilibrium idea  (" on flight a spinning ball the seam moves to the outeredge of the spinning plane due to centrifugal effect ).  Found it
from watching Henzell's video.

It,s basically the same test as Henzel does with the polyball for roundness ; making a ball spin on a smooth surface. I did this test maybe ten minutes ago with a doublehappiness ball after I saw the video.
The ball allready has a logomarking positioned on the seam.  With the logo kept on top (seam oriented vertical) from making it spin it shows clearly that the logo does spiral outward from the top towards the edge fairly quick. It then (now watching the ball sideways) stops and stays halfway. The logo keeps rotating horizontal from then until the spinning stops.

Testing this several times and also for other orientations to start with (logo at the bottom) it,s same idea all the time. Very likely this also happens in play.
Offcourse this means the seam orients correspondingly and the ball behaves as a round shaped spinning-top except that it doesn,t fall to a side when it stops spinning. Similarity with spinning tops is also that it tends to stay more at one position from when it has a stable spin (finding equilibrium).

So when Henzel does this test for roundness comparing these two balls it probably shows how the ball lacks a seam to stabalize and stay at one place. Henzel concludes it,s not round from this but more likely it behaves this way from being too round for weightdistribution.

Another ball I had was damaged allready so I cut this one open and it has a clear ridge inside (both dhs trainingsballs). Possibly three star celluloid balls allready are more point symmetrical for weightdistribution ?


Edited by mercuur - 06/01/2012 at 4:09am

GoldenDragoon wrote: I think before everyone gets carried away about the new ball there are two important things to remember... 1. As far as I am aware all the new balls floating around are samples. There are no mass produced balls yet which indicates that the ball is still being developed. Until we get mass produced versions you won't know excatly what the new ball will be like to play with. 2. Regardless of the diffeerences present in the new ball, table tennis will remain to be a game where one player faces another (or pair vs pair) and the better player on the day will win. This is no different to other factors that influence the game such as extreme temps, high humidity (makes looping very hard), lots of noise or other external factors. Both players have the same opportunities. To complain that the new ball has ruined your game is like a garage player being smashed by ma long and the saying (I would beat him if I trained more).

Well...............

If you take that attitude...then for the players that practiced and trained so hard to learn a certain aspect of the current game (that, to me, is a spin oriented game), you are taking a skill set away from them. You have someone who doesn't have that spin skill set and have equaled the playing field somewhat to those that did have that skill set. Meaning, you have just dis-advantaged those spin oriented players. Same opportunities? Not.

Sure... after a lot of time...then I can see the same opportunity argument.

Heck.. if you want same opportunities..... have one blade/rubber for all. Then equipment will never be the reason someone has an advantage over someone else.

Having a simple item, that DOESN'T NEED CHANGING, have the potential to change the entire way the game is currently played, is quite frankly....ludicrous.

Still awaiting a good explanation of the reason to change the ball.

What will changing the material do if the ball plays the exact same way? We have seen already that durability isn't any better, at least with the posted review. Of course, final ball is still a ways away.

I'm still waiting for the great reason on why to switch to plastic balls instead of keeping celluloid.

Maybe I missed it.


Edited by j-bo - 06/01/2012 at 1:58pm

BMonkey wrote: "Too round for weight distribution" This makes no sense.

I mean more even weightdistribution, no seam. The ball can,t find a stable spot and keeps moving somewhat restless on the table. The slightest unevenness on the tablesurface or it,s own shape it reacts more sensitive. Henzell just concludes a bit too rapidly from what he sees.
 

Edited by mercuur - 06/01/2012 at 7:55pm

GoldenDragoon,

I also believe in this time and age (and techonology), we should be able to see better balls coming over time progresses. Trial and Error.
But too bad, we are all guinea pigs.
BTW, will the new balls be more expensive?

Re-tyres. Why is TT rubbers/balls so expensive? is it really worth so much?

Follow the money.  Except we can't because ITTF is not transparent.

Lets keep this thread on the topic of the new poly balls, thanks guys. I think we've already got enough topics on the ITTF.

$3 each? That might be way too low. They had to make all NEW machines, not modify the old. New molds. Years of research and still not done. No profit yet. $5 or $6 each is not out of the question. They will set the price to pay for the money spent already.

Hookshot wrote: $3 each? That might be way too low. They had to make all NEW machines, not modify the old. New molds. Years of research and still not done. No profit yet. $5 or $6 each is not out of the question. They will set the price to pay for the money spent already.

Usually, when manufacturers or service providers switch technology it is because the newer tech can save them money while achieving the similar results to the old.

And I agree that the startup costs for the new balls will need to be recouped.

However, we still don't have information regarding material cost for cellulose vs plastic.
Nor do we have any information regarding other production cost savings from the new equipment.

With items like table tennis balls, saving just $0.10 on material and manufacturing costs per ball in production would yield millions of dollars in new profits annually.

Now if only the final balls are more durable and consistent than the 40mm celluloid balls... That's one of the big reasons I miss the 38mm balls. The Nittaku Premium 38's were worth their outrageous price in those days.

I like the picture explaining the fabrication process:

YES, reasons a plenty! How about a few million smackeroos worth of them?!!!

I've started a petition. Might not do a thing, but makes me feel at least I've tried. 10k signatures is the goal.

Keep the Celluloid Balls Petition

roar wrote: Am I the only one around here that thinks all this crying about something they haven't personally tried is dumb? I'm not in favor of making a pointless change, but I'm willing to actually try it like a reasonable person....

There are reviews on the ball. I think any reasonable person can draw their own conclusions without trying the ball.

My gripe is.... there isn't a reason to change anyway.

I'm certainly willing to wait and see, but am not optimistic.

roar wrote: Am I the only one around here that thinks all this crying about something they haven't personally tried is dumb? I'm not in favor of making a pointless change, but I'm willing to actually try it like a reasonable person....