MMaze vs Viscaria

My 2 cents to the discussion as a material & wood specialist.

1. BTY M.Maze was designed with an outer ply in Limba. It's a fact that Limba is not as hard as Koto. A lot of players say the dwell time is longer and that it is more designed for looping. Let's assume it.

1 bis. TBS/Viscaria/ALC have Koto which is not considered by wood specialist as a hard wood (<> walnut, ebony, acacia...).

2. Excluding the outer ply the other wood plies are similar. Is there a slight difference in thickness ? Maybe... It can have an impact on the feeling only if this happens for outer ply (over the carbon fiber).

3. I would like to focus on the fact that when you say THE TBS is better/harder... than THE MM, it can not simply reflect the truth. Why ? Because wood is a living material (like you & me). You have "more" chances to have a difference between two MM or two TBS than between a given TBS and a MM.
The wood of the same species differs in terms of hardness, density... depending of the country, the conditions of growth (weather, humidity, sun factor...), the conditions of transport etc... 

I guess that BTY is the manufacturer with the higher criteria of quality but it is simply impossible to guarantee the properties of a wood.

So you'd better say: my TBS feels harder than the MM I tried.

Do not hesitate to correct me.
I gave this explanation in french on tennisdetable.fr but it is not so simple to write it in english.

Yep.

straits85 wrote: My 2 cents to the discussion as a material & wood specialist. 1. BTY M.Maze was designed with an outer ply in Limba. It's a fact that Limba is not as hard as Koto. A lot of players say the dwell time is longer and that it is more designed for looping. Let's assume it.

Edited by J.P. Gatien - 08/14/2013 at 4:48am

I would like to draw your attention on the "facteur de qualité musicale" in the sheet, Q factor in english.
It's is a dimensionnless parameter that describes how under-damped an oscillator or resonator is or equivalently, characterizes a resonator's bandwidth relative to its center frequency.

The Q factor of the Fraké is much higher than the Koto.
Higher Q indicates a lower rate of energy loss relative to the stored energy of the resonator; the oscillations die out more slowly.

"Specifically, in wood blades the harder layer is on the outside, but with composite, there's an even harder layer just below"

Not always for wood blades (ex: a lot of blades have Limba in outer ply and an harder ply like Acajou, Koto under)...
Not true at all for composite blades (ex: Koto/ALC/Ayous/Kiri or Hinoki/ALC/Limba/Kiri or Hinoki/ALC/Ayous/Kiri).
Please refer to ttbdb database.

It's just a complicated alchemy...

jonyer1980 wrote: %100 agreed. Maze/viscaria/tbs/tb ac feel 80% similar each other

I think so too, but I also think the Maze is a bit of an outlier compared to Visc/TBS/TB-ALC, which are more similar to each other.  Actually sometimes two Viscarias may be more different from each other than one of them is to a TBS.  This has led to endless discussions about whether TBS or Viscaria is faster/softer/controllable and the correct answer is it depends on which one you get.  TB-ALC is consistently a little crisper than the others, it seems like they have treated the outer layer of wood and it is almost shinier.  Maybe JPG knows something about this?  If so, I would like to know.  The effect on how you play would be negligible once you got used to it. 

The Maze handle has a quite different shape, which to me makes more of a difference than the blade itself.  It really doesn't fit my grip very well, the edges are really noticeable.

All in all, I still prefer Viscaria to the others, but you can't make a bad choice to buy any of them -- but you should try one first.



Edited by Baal - 08/14/2013 at 10:10pm

Good points straits85.

If I can my add my view of difference between surface layers (M. Maze limba outer and Viscaria koto outer).

I think that the surface layer (wood type and their characteristics) is the most important thing that determines what could be called, "blade feeling" for the touch, especially for close to the table play and soft touches.

Different wood types have different characteristics, hence the feeling for each of them would be very different. So the same blade, even made by the same company, sometimes feel a little bit different (for expirienced player), so of course having different surface layer wood, would make the blade entirely different in feel. This outer layer of wood (surface layer) is 1st to come into contact with the ball through the wood that is directly attached to the rubber, which is directly in contact with your fingers on the handle. So of course, it will affect your feeling.

At that point I am only thinking at the surface layer wood types (the biggest determinant for all aspects of hand-feeling), and not the 2nd layer, or the inner core layer of wood. Inner core layer and composition of the blade itself (also thickness of layers) would involve the blade's stability, crispness and stiffnes and the power feeling when a powerful shot is executed. Each of this layers have their own unique characteristics and combination with other wood layers are bringing the best out of the blade, hence players that have certain stile can choose what suits them accordingly.

Back to the difference of the two mensioned blades. Surface layers of limba and koto is basically the only big difference as they are otherwise almost the same composition (second is ALC, third is limba and core is kiri). Here are some key characteristics of limba and koto, not to write long, detailed and elaborate description:

Limba:

Limba has quite long dwell time so it is great for players who prefers that spin is  generated with the rubbers sponge not as much as with the topsheet. Limba by itself has low speed due to long dwell time, which is probably (correct me if I am wrong) due to the loosely connected wood fibres of the wood type (which is also the reason why it sometimes splinters off). Limba is suitable for players who prefers to hold the ball longer on the racket and those who prefer to generate the power shots by himself. Some players for example: Jun Mizutani, Vladimir Samsanov, Petr Korbel.

My expirience with some limba outer layered rackets is that thay are a bit non linear when you give more power to the shots. Also I find the throw of the ball coming off much higher with more power, or maybe it's the combination of different wood that gave me this feeling. It is very hard for me to play with limba surfaced blades, for the life of me, I could not get in good terms with any of them, just to notice some of them (Joola Fever, M. Maze, Stiga Clipper, Joola Viva, Korbels...)    

Koto:

Koto has short dwell time so it is great for players who prefers that spin is generated more with the rubbers topsheet than sponge. It has good speed for smashes due to short dwell time. Fibres are quite densely connected, hence it usually does not splinter off. It is

suitable for players who likes to "rebound" the ball back for the soft touches, doesn't like the ball to stay on the blade too long. It is good for close to the table attackers. Under that quite hard koto surface layer we do not see second layer as carbon only (carbon is always mixed with some other type of fiber: Arylate, Aramid, Kevlar, Zylon...). If second layer is pure carbon, than the blade has ussually hinoki surface.

For me blades with koto outer feel the best (I play with Timo Boll Spirit). I can block balls with koto outer much more consistently than with blades that has limba outer.  

All in all, when choosing the blade for yourself, looking at the surface layer wood would be one of the most important, if not the most important factor. This is to consider when you change your old blade for a new one. The best equipment choice for a player is a combination of how comfortable you are with this blade and if it is suitable for your kind of playstile. I have seen many, many players, who somehow chose a new blade just by popularity or looks and not knowing anything about it. So it's good to know something about wood types and fibers.

Hopefully adding these information will give Janekb somekind of insight in the differences between this two Butterfly blades.

Thanks to all of you.I have chance to play Viscaria and MMaze ,Viscaria has better feel and is not as bouncy in the short game,I think I like Viscaria better.I got acudas1 turbo on fh with Viscaria and seems like sponge is to hard difficult dig to the sponge to create good spin but acuda s1 on bh works great,I guess I will keep playing with it maybe sponge will soften up after some time.

straits85 wrote: "No, what I'm referring is that most composites have the significantly harder composite layer right under the softer wood top, except "soft carbon" design with either a thick top or carbon under two top wood layers." Not always (ex: Innerforce serie, Joola K serie or Rossi serie, Donic carbokev/Aratox/Carbotox, Nexy Spartacus, Adidas...) and soft carbon is refering to a type of carbon & not the position.

Soft carbon terminology is used to market blades with layer deeper under wood, and thus how I refer to them. Ovtcharov Soft Carbon, Yasaka Soft carbon, Galaxy W5, etc. If you believe it to be a different material, please explain the difference.

I am not 100% sure that the way a blade will play is really predictable. Manufacturers do a lot of tests and propose a lot of solutions (ex: BTY has the same blades with composite in 2nd or 3rd position). Generally speaking: Carbone under the 1st ply of wood => less flex, more speed & gain in weight AL (Vectran)/ZL/Kevlar under the 1st ply of wood => more damping ALC/ZLC/Carbokev under the 1st ply => more power with reduction of vibration and flex added compared to carbon (+ weight gain) But regarding the composite in 3rd position, I really doubts that the results are really predictable under 2 plies of (different) woods.

What specific properties of ALC/ZLC/Kevlar achieve the above descriptions? Self-validation is not the same thing.

Soft carbon, uniaxial carbon, wawed carbon... is the way the carbon is woven or laminated (sorry, this technical words are a bit difficult to me).
Carbon can come in different ways (please refer to: http://materiaux-composites.over-blog.com/article-la-fibre-de-carbone-trame-couture-et-embuvage-48875798.html)
It's in french but pictures are quite clear.

For information, Zylon recently lost the agreement of US National Institute of Justice ( NIJ) which approves its use in bulletproof vests, because research demonstrated that it lost its antiballistic capacities much more quickly than quite different material.

So take care to your ZL/ZLC blades ;=)

"whereas "carbon" in blades is set in resin" => not so sure. Inserts are carbon leaf assembled with glue (epoxy or not, depending of the manufacturer). You can use it when you try to build your own blade (some of these manufacturers are on the forum I think).

"the "hardness" comes from the bonding epoxy" => partially true only.

Too bad you can not read french and I am too lazy to translate:
http://materiaux-composites.over-blog.com/article-la-fibre-de-carbone-trame-couture-et-embuvage-48875798.html

Please see Par. 3 "Embuvage" to explain the role of the stratification.

In composite materials fibers bring the resistance while the matrix (resin) allows them to support the loads of compression. There are 3 types of fibers (fiber weaved or not) which will be soaked with resin: fiberglasses, carbon, aramide (Kevlar ®).

I've glanced over similar reading material in english. However I/we don't know how exactly butterfly make their composites.

It seems to me quite likely that "ALC" vs "carbon" vs "kevlar" make for better marketing material compared to 0.11mm vs 0.12mm vs resin X @ 20deg vs resin Y @ 50deg, even though construction details can easily vary FAR more than fabric itself.

It's possible they purposely constructed each to approximate their "general description", ie make the arylate blades' layer slightly thinner and therefore "softer".  In case of such coincidental marketing correlation, attributing property lists to results (ie causal) is at best accidentally correct.


Edited by AgentHEX - 08/19/2013 at 6:09am

Do you have any idea why zylon is so expensive?  Is it also more expensive in other applications?