Just say no to the new poly balls. Sign petition!!

IMO Our problem here is that Mastermind and J-bo are school-kids (i guess 10,11 years old) who dont have the knowledge or ability to discuss in an adult way.
And probably they are getting a childish thrill from being rude to adults in a way their teachers or parents would never allow.

pingpongpaddy wrote: IMO Our problem here is that Mastermind and J-bo are school-kids

Well, to me the problem here is that some people try to shift the focus from the "celluloid ban" lie and based on this lie BoD decision to lies, sorry, conjectures about celluloid balls getting burned when put on fire.

Very clever but still transparent.

pingpongpaddy wrote: I think stop is not the word. Rather that significant savings on fire insurance and therefore profits can be made by using a different material. In view of the size of the tt ball market these are big numbers which make the cost of investing in new technology easy to bear

The retail price of celluloid ping-pong balls ranges from about 20 cents each to ten times that at $2 each.  That suggests that the fire insurance and similar hazards costs per ball must be on the order of pennies per ball and at worst might represent 1-2% of the ball's cost.  Compare that to the cost of retooling and developing new manufacturing schemes. 

wturber wrote: pingpongpaddy wrote: I think stop is not the word. Rather that significant savings on fire insurance and therefore profits can be made by using a different material. In view of the size of the tt ball market these are big numbers which make the cost of investing in new technology easy to bear The retail price of celluloid ping-pong balls ranges from about 20 cents each to ten times that at $2 each.  That suggests that the fire insurance and similar hazards costs per ball must be on the order of pennies per ball and at worst might represent 1-2% of the ball's cost.  Compare that to the cost of retooling and developing new manufacturing schemes.

Whatever the percetage is, if you bear in mind the size of the tt ball market and its likely longevity, you are still talking about very big bucks, whereas the design and retooling costs are non repeating costs, so that it seems to be a winning proposition

wturber wrote: So some companies and authorities may over-estimate the real hazard.

Welcome into the trap, Wturber.

He has no facts. "May over-estimate" is as worth discussing as "the Earth may stop spinning".

It also occurs to me that plastics manufacturing has its own ongoing costs that might be higher than celluloid.  It depends on costs of raw materials and also waste disposal.  I could see how these might be considerably higher.  Also, the liquid reagents needed for polyball manufacture could be more flammable.  It's not obvious without knowing a great deal more than any of us seem to know about how manufacturers are making the new balls.    

AndySmith wrote: If you can't see why a flammable material is a higher risk in a fire than a non-flammable material then I suggest you spend less time on this forum and more time at school.

But why only consider fire risk?  A non-flammable material can be very high risk.  Vastly more children die in bucket drowning accidents in any give year than die from TT balls.  There is no impending ban on buckets though.

It is easy to focus on some small aspect of something and lose focus on the larger and more important picture.  It seems to me that the ITTF has tried (and apparently succeeded) in doing just that based on some of the posts that I see online.

pingpongpaddy wrote: Whatever the percetage is, if you bear in mind the size of the tt ball market and its likely longevity, you are still talking about very big bucks, whereas the design and retooling costs are non repeating costs, so that it seems to be a winning proposition

So no matter what the cost is, it's too much and retooling would be "win"?  Wow.  That's amazing logic.

Baal wrote: Jay, yesterday I pasted a link to a previous thread in which you weighed in on celluloid manufacturing.  Is it still your contention that TT ball manufacturers are not going to have problems obtaining cellulose or nitrocellulose?  With some cursory searching I found many manufacturers selling the stuff in 450 kg drums --Dow includes a 45 pg brochure on safe handling procedures -- and could find no mention of any impending ban on manufacturing.  I suspect, though that you know a great deal more about this than I do, given your background and the pretty minimal effort I put into it.

I'm not an expert.  I merely researched the issue.  I've found no evidence that manufacturers would have a problem obtaining either cellulose (extremely abundant) or nitrocellulose (manufactured by many companies) for a variety of products. 

pingpongpaddy wrote: wturber wrote: AndySmith wrote: If you can't see why a flammable material is a higher risk in a fire than a non-flammable material then I suggest you spend less time on this forum and more time at school. But why only consider fire risk?  A non-flammable material can be very high risk.  Vastly more children die in bucket drowning accidents in any give year than die from TT balls.  There is no impending ban on buckets though. It is easy to focus on some small aspect of something and lose focus on the larger and more important picture.  It seems to me that the ITTF has tried (and apparently succeeded) in doing just that based on some of the posts that I see online. Because flammability IS the risk associated with celluloid. drowning doesntt come into it!

You are assuming that the materials that would be used in making polyballs would not have fire risk.  Why?

pingpongpaddy wrote: Because flammability IS the risk associated with celluloid. drowning doesntt come into it!

It did when someone introduced the comparison to bottles of water.

The key with the flammability of TT balls is to deal with the real risk.  But few seem to do that.  Instead we have hyperbolic comparisons to dynamite.  The real risk is pretty obviously very low.  Lower than for water or even for eating.

Further, we are pretty darned good at dealing with fire risks - especially in industrial settings.  A huge amount of what we do and make involves real fire risks.



Edited by wturber - 12/31/2012 at 9:54pm

pingpongpaddy wrote: wturber wrote: pingpongpaddy wrote: Whatever the percetage is, if you bear in mind the size of the tt ball market and its likely longevity, you are still talking about very big bucks, whereas the design and retooling costs are non repeating costs, so that it seems to be a winning proposition So no matter what the cost is, it's too much and retooling would be "win"?  Wow.  That's amazing logic. I am disappointed in you mr Turber. My point is that over time, because TT is not going to go away anytime soon, profits will be very large. On the other hand the retooling costs will be insignificant when compared with those profits. If tt was a sport with no future it would be different and such investment would be viable. By the way do you have a personal axe to grind, in relation to TT retaining celluloid as its ball material?

Disappointed?  Why?  That's your logic.  No matter how small, the hazard cost is too great.  That's what you said. "Whatever the percentage is ..."

People don't invest large sums of capital in pursuit of such small gains.  That is almost surely why they didn't do this without the urging and "support" of the ITTF.

I have no axe to grind.  In fact, I like the idea of a seamless ball.  I just don't like the way that this agenda is being pushed with misinformation and strong evidence for the existence of unstated agendas.

If you don't know what the new process is, how can you say what the retooling costs might be?  Or what new hazards emerge?  And then there is the effect it may have on the sport itself.  In the end, maybe we will like the outcome.  All indications are, though, that they are back to the drawing board.

pingpongpaddy wrote: Hi Baal My stance is based on the idea that the poly ball material has been chosen with a view to reducing the tt balls 'Hazardous Material profile'(flammable or otherwise). If it turns out that it has a 'significant Hazardous Material Profile' I would be in line to condemn it, but so far I have not heard of such an issue. Do you have info you want to share?

My information is based only on the organic chemistry courses I took as an undergraduate, and based on that I know the factories will have to use all kinds of dangerous stuff -- solvents and other raw materials -- to make these new plastic balls.  They will also have many dangerous wastes to dispose.  This I know.  All of this is perfectly manageable of course, that's why there is a plastics industry.  But this is also true with current processes.  I am certainly not in the least bit concerned with the "flammability" of current balls.  Seriously. They do not spontaneously combust!!!!!!  I reserve judgement on how the new balls will play until we all get some, but there are many reports that they are giving up on the seamless design.  I am concerned that the new balls will be bigger.  I am concerned that they will cost much more.  They will be less porous, and will therefore move through the air a bit differently, and also react to the table differently.  So I wait and see, maybe we will like it eventually.

 It may be that new companies will move into the manufacture of balls, which could be a good thing, but remains to be seen.  In the end, though, I am struck by the fact that the justification given by ITTF does not seem to hold water.  Bear in mind that flammability was not one of them.  So I distrust their motives.   


Edited by Baal - 12/31/2012 at 2:36pm

wturber wrote: pingpongpaddy wrote:  My take on it is  that a culture that can produce moon rockets and formula 1 cars should be able to manage pvc tt balls. Perhaps i am more optimistic than some others in this thread. My take on it is that a culture that managed with celluloid TT balls for more than a century with almost no safety problems can probably manage to do so for another century or so- probably with an even better safety record.  But maybe I'm just too simple in my thinking compared to some others in this thread.

My feelings exactly.  So I ask, what would motivate a change?  I suggest two reasons: (1) you want to change the way the game is played, or (2) you can find a way to make money by railroading the change.