Mastermind wrote: NextLevel wrote: all you post about is stuff criticizing ITTF decisions. This is werid, but you are increasingly sounding like a North Korean police guy.

Edited by NextLevel - 08/23/2014 at 9:56pm

NextLevel wrote: By the way, please remove the emoticon - I never used it.

Edited by Mastermind - 08/24/2014 at 9:35am

The one time I played with a Nittaku Japan 40+ it felt pretty much like the XSF, and it may not be so easy to ignore them.  Hopefully their price will come down somewhat. 

ITTF approved the XSF ball, though, so I wonder if it is the patent issue or just DHS having long standing sponsorship agreements.

100% agreed Baal

LUCKYLOOP wrote: I have seen in an area of high humidity the XSF speed reduction is very noticeable.

That's another really good point...we don't know how these balls are affected by humidiy, and if they change a lot, it may be one of the reasons of the wide variety of different experiences..

Well, we did break one today.  Hard smash, it hit high on the cement wall behind us, and it was a catastrophic break of the ball.  My guess is that when these balls break, you not have any doubt about it.  (it didn't explode into flying fragments.  Nobody's eye was put out.)   

Baal wrote: [QUOTE=Ray]Baal, As for high humidity, I am playing with these balls in Houston TX, a city that was built on a swamp on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  Same humidity as New Orleans, Miami, etc.  They are fine here.  I don't know how they would be if you used them Tucson or Las Vegas. As for the wide variety of experiences, among the various reviews, I actually haven't read anything bad about how these particular balls play, probably because they haven't been used all that much yet.  But they are noticeably slower.  In very high humidity climates, you can occasionally expect any ball to sometimes slide a bit along the table.

High humidity ...... an ac acts as a dehumidifier to some degree, it depends on the room used, temperature, ac usage, foundation, walls, etc. I would assume most places to play in Houston have ac.

The XSF I tried break quite easily.  The 1st one breaks after about 10 mins, and during a rally, and when it breaks you know right away, and had to stop.  The 2nd one did not even last as long, had an edge ball on a hard loop, and broke the ball.  The 3rd one lasted the whole hour, but we were very gentle with it as it's the last we have.

Yes, I am pretty sure that the event that cause my XSF ball to break would not have broken a celluloid ball.  This is a concern.

NextLevel wrote: mhnh007 wrote: The XSF I tried break quite easily.  The 1st one breaks after about 10 mins, and during a rally, and when it breaks you know right away, and had to stop.  The 2nd one did not even last as long, had an edge ball on a hard loop, and broke the ball.  The 3rd one lasted the whole hour, but we were very gentle with it as it's the last we have. These were all ITTF approved, yes?   I am beginning to think that celluose diacetate is just not up to the job.

XSF aren't Cellulose Diacetate - to my knowledge it's impossible to mold seamless balls with this material - it's something different.

As for a previous question - indeed the red labled (non approved) XSF are different from the black labled (ittf approved) ones. Even to the naked eye the material (or maybe the wall thickness/or both) is different, less translucent for example - sound is different as well (the black labled ones much "less strange").

Durability is hard to say - I've played with a few for an incredibly long time, it seemed to be unbreakable - one example just cracked impressively (many cracks, but no parts flying around :-) ) after just a few minutes. They seem to be a bit sensitive to sharp edge impacts. If cut in parts the material seems not that brittle that it could seriously hurt anything/anybody  - to me it seems even less brittle than celluloid. Cracking might be a combination of sharp edge impact and fatigue....

I happen to like the seamed DHS balls more - the loss in forward speed is equal with a lower bounce (to me that's somehow more natural than higher bounce with less forward motion).

I guess this is a very personal thing and, Baal, I also guess your impression could be very different in combination with a different type of opponent?
A higher bounce/slower forward motion usually is a n easy killer for short pips hitters for example - or anybody who's good at flicks.

Best regards!

I am confused now about one thing.  Xushaofa appears to sell two grades of plastic 40+ seamless balls, both ITTF approved!  One is called Xushaofa Sports and the other is just called Xushaofa, and both come with a black label.  The sport version is slightly more expensive at pingpong depot ($2.00 more for 6 balls).  I am not sure what the difference is.  The ones I have tested so far seem to be the plain Xushaofa ball.

http://www.facebook.com/804287529622465/photos/pb.804287529622465.-2207520000.1409073790./816600945057790/?type=1&theater

Baal wrote: I am confused now about one thing.  Xushaofa appears to sell two grades of plastic 40+ seamless balls, both ITTF approved!  One is called Xushaofa Sports and the other is just called Xushaofa, and both come with a black label.  The sport version is slightly more expensive at pingpong depot ($2.00 more for 6 balls).  I am not sure what the difference is.  The ones I have tested so far seem to be the plain Xushaofa ball. http://www.facebook.com/804287529622465/photos/pb.804287529622465.-2207520000.1409073790./816600945057790/?type=1&theater

They are actually two different markets,sport=international. I have only tried the one on the right, the distributors are coming to market highly motivated to get their ball in play, hence the price difference, they were being introduced at an even lower intro-price earlier here in Canada by pongshop.ca and i have to say it is quite good, some younger ranked players were given some and they said there was no discerning difference betwenn them and the celluloids.

"



image source:ITTF Approved ball list.





Edited by thatguy - 08/26/2014 at 9:39pm

So are they the identical ball with a different label?

haggisv wrote: They must be different, or they would not have 2 seperate approvals.

Yes, the logo/label is different - hence they need a seperate approval.

But as reported, approval is a simplified process when the original manufacturer ball is already approved - new labled ones I guess is only paperwork thing....

Baal wrote: The thing I don't understand, though, is if it is just the label, why is one $2 more for a box of 6 than the other, and also, if one is for international market, why is a Canadian website able to sell both kinds?  I'm not trying to challenge what anyone has said, it just seems strange to me.  Maybe in the future most US and European vendors will only be able to sell the international version?  On the other hand, why would a company develop two different balls from a factory in China (not just the label) and get ITTF approval for both of them? ANYWAY, I like these ball a lot better than the seamed polyballs I have tried.

I am still a little confused on this.  Wish we can get some real technical truth on the 2 differently labeled balls as to their exact material make up (plastic formula). 

From the word back ppdepot got back from XSF about these 2 different labels....XSF and XSF Sports....


"Xushaofa Sports 3* Seamless balls vs. Xushaofa 3* Seamless balls
We have received many inquiries from players and coaches about the difference between the new 40+ plastic Xushaofa and Xushaofa Sports balls.
We forwarded the question directly to the manufacturer. Here's the answer that we got from the representative of the company, Ms. Xu:

There is really no significant difference as they are essentially the same product but with different stamps! Both brands are of 3-star quality and are seamless. However, since Xushaofa Sports balls were produced after Xushaofa ones, the former may be slightly better than the latter, which reflects the company’s ongoing effort to make its formula better.

Yang Jiang
Ping-Pong Depot"




So then to me... this statement at the end actually indicates they may very well have changed the plastic formulation and not just introduced a new logo for a different market.  And maybe a possibility of having a more perfectly round ball? (not sure about that though)

I also recall reading somewhere that there maybe a change in stiffness/softness to the ball with the latest ball (sports one) being softer to feel more like the celluloid balls.  It would be nice to see PPDepot do a compression test on the balls....haaaa   I know I'm dreaming there.

If anyone out there has both versions of these balls.....do a pinch test or let us know if you can feel any compression differences when hitting both. 



***  also i believe the XSF reply to PPD's question had a mistaken wording in it.  " the former may be slightly better than the latter,...  should read as  "the later may be slightly better than the former".


Edited by Rich215 - 10/06/2014 at 4:10pm