Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - ABS Plastic Balls
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Home Forum Home > Equipment > Equipment

ABS Plastic Balls

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
AcudaDave View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/02/2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 1675
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AcudaDave Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: ABS Plastic Balls
    Posted: 01/08/2018 at 2:36pm
Sorry if I missed it in the other thread, but is there a new wave of 40+ balls coming out with ABS plastic? I've read that the ABS balls have spin that is closer to the celluloid. Which balls are out now with the ABS?

Thanks
BBC NINE
Joola Rhyzm Tech Max
Victas 102 1.8 mm or Spectol Red 1.8
Keep coming so close to breaking 2200!
Back to Top
cole_ely View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/16/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cole_ely Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/08/2018 at 8:15pm
There's one pretty current

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=81245&title=another-new-ball-synthetic-plastic
W6 fl with Illumina 1.8

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2282
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/09/2018 at 3:00am
Actually, those skillful chemists are able to create many different compositions of ABS plastic.   So far, there is no ABS to emulate celluloid properly.

I once consulted a chemist on the subject, he suggested that ABS would play differently from celluloid due to the thicker shell on the ABS balls now in use.
We still hopefull for a better ABS.

Edited by igorponger - 01/09/2018 at 3:06am
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/09/2018 at 11:47am
Everyone needs to bear in mind that (1) we don't have ABS balls in the original 40, as opposed to 40+ size, and (2) we don't have any 40+ celluloid balls.  The fact is that no 40+ ball is going to be like what we remember with celluloid because the increased diameter and weight are dominant effects.  No change in material will overcome that, it effects how the ball spins, and how the spin effects bounce and trajectory of the ball.  Current balls are 0.7-1 mm larger in diameter than celluloid and average around 0.07 grams heavier.  Those are big differences.  It is highly likely that a 40+ celluloid ball would feel like any of the other good polyballs we use now.

ABS balls are without question better than cellulose acetate (the material used in earlier generation seamed 40+ balls) because the balls arrive and stay rounder and bounce the right height.  Cellulose acetate yielded balls that were not round, were fragile, and that bounced very low and erratically.  They are also not cheap.  The DHS D40+ balls, which are ABS, are round and very durable.  They weigh more than Nittaku Premium which pretty much entirely explains the differences in how they play.

It is true that there are many versions of ABS polymers and maybe by tweaking the formula manufacturers can get something they like better but we will probably not notice a whole lot.

But the sad fact is, 40+ balls will never be like the celluloid balls of 2013.  Anybody hoping for this will be disappointed.

And, it must be emphasized, this was almost certainly what  ITTF wanted all along.  It is a feature not a bug.  It is true that celluloid was a dangerous material and IMHO it is good for factory workers in China to not have to deal with it anymore, but there was no "impending worldwide ban on celluloid production" as Sharara claimed; and even if there was, there was no reason they needed to suddenly tighten up the way they regulated ball size after decades of not doing it.  This was a way to sneak in another increase in ball size and the resulting effects on the game are as predicted.  A cynical person would say that all the conversation about material has distracted people from the real change, which has been another increase in ball size.  I have gotten used to it by now but I have been playing exclusively with plastic balls now for the last 3.5 years.
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/09/2018 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:



I once consulted a chemist on the subject, he suggested that ABS would play differently from celluloid due to the thicker shell on the ABS balls now in use.
We still hopefull for a better ABS.


In the Nittaku patent for their ABS balls, they stated that they tried different wall thicknesses to arrive at a design that came closest to playing and sounding like a cell ball. So it is possible to make small changes in the ABS formula to vary density.

As stated by baal, the 40+ balls are different weight and diameter than the cell balls, so certainly even a 40+ cell ball will play different.

With reasonable assumptions, if you do some high school level physics and compare a cell ball to a heavier/bigger 40+ cell ball of identical material, the 40+ cell ball will spin about 4% less.
Back to Top
rsilvers View Drop Down
Beginner
Beginner


Joined: 01/10/2018
Location: MA/USA
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rsilvers Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/10/2018 at 2:48pm
Are the Nittaku J-Top "practice" 40+ made in Japan seamed balls ABS or polystyrene?


Back to Top
Tommy16 View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 01/13/2009
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tommy16 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/12/2018 at 4:15am
Not totally sure but they behave quite like Nittaku Premium so my ques is that they are ABS balls. They have the best price quality ratio (IMHO).
What is the point of playing safe shots when you can miss with style

My feedback: http://www.mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67171&KW=&PID=811763&title=tommy16-feedback#811763
Back to Top
Lightzy View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 09/18/2017
Location: T-A
Status: Offline
Points: 250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightzy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/12/2018 at 8:40am
Never mind


Edited by Lightzy - 01/12/2018 at 8:42am
DHS H301
FH Rubber: 729 Battle II
BH Rubber: Palio AK47 Yellow
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/12/2018 at 10:40am
Originally posted by Tommy16 Tommy16 wrote:

Not totally sure but they behave quite like Nittaku Premium so my ques is that they are ABS balls. They have the best price quality ratio (IMHO).


I agree with this.
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2282
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 5:03am
A new ball brand of 729 Plus 40+ is now present in the ITTF Ball List, last updated January 2018.   It is a product of Third Plastic generation born by the 729 manufacturer.   
It is good to see the major ball makers go on working for a better ABS composition, much closer to the regular celluloid material.
   We can expect a better spinny balls to be developed after a while.

      
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 5:23am
This assumes that reduced spin of 40+ balls is due to material rather than mainly their increased size and weight. Sadly no material can overcome the increased size of 40+. Believe in unicorns if you want to, but prepare to be disappointed.
Back to Top
Fabian1890 View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/15/2017
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fabian1890 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 6:17am
Well the decrease in spin is (that's how I feel) a lot more than 4% on many shots. So it must have to do with something else.

I don't know if you have read this super interesting study from Japan:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304273/

It explains why short underspin balls are nearly dead after a bounce, totally different to the old celluloid balls (not just a 4% decrease in spin)
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 10:25am
Remember, you are inferring the spin indirectly from the way it behaves in the air, on the table, and on the opponent's racket.  You are not seeing the ball spin directly.  And the effect of ball rpm on those phenonena is not going to scale linearly with the ball diameter and weight

Again, the material is not the main thing we are complaining about.  The excepotion is that cellulose acetate makes horrible balls that bounce too low, are never round and fracture constantly.  The other materials are probably ok. 

People would complain just as much about 40+ balls if they were made of celluloid.  Certainly it was a big change when we went from 38 to 40 mm and the material didn't change.
Back to Top
Fabian1890 View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/15/2017
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fabian1890 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 1:41pm
No, read the study. It has to do with the way ABS behaves, the shell is a lot thicker than celluloid.
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/01/2018 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by Fabian1890 Fabian1890 wrote:

Well the decrease in spin is (that's how I feel) a lot more than 4% on many shots. So it must have to do with something else.

I don't know if you have read this super interesting study from Japan:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5304273/

It explains why short underspin balls are nearly dead after a bounce, totally different to the old celluloid balls (not just a 4% decrease in spin)


From my post above:
"With reasonable assumptions, if you do some high school level physics and compare a cell ball to a heavier/bigger 40+ cell ball of identical material, the 40+ cell ball will spin about 4% less."

Unless you have a supply of 40+ CELL balls, you did not do a comparison of 39.5 cell balls to 40+ CELL balls of IDENTICAL MATERIAL.

In regards to the paper above:

The plastic balls they used were on average lighter than the cell balls.

The spin reduction on backspin serves was about 6% (47 rps to 44 rps)

The paper confirms what has been stated about the plastic balls from the start. The playing perceptions are the total experience of spin, speed in 2 directions, feel, etc. This is due to plastic having different coefficients of friction/restitution.

The plastic ball feels different, but when people say it spins x% less, it is an unsupported anecdote. I find plastic balls easier to block because they spin less AND HAVE DIFFERENT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPEEDS AND HAVE DIFFERENT COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION/RESTITUTION. All contribute to how the ball "feels".

Spin perception may also be different due to % reduction versus absolute numbers. In the paper, they serve a cell ball at 47 rps, round up to 50 rps = 3000 rpm. 6% reduction is 180 rpm. For a topspin shot, the paper uses, 170 rps, about 10,000 rpm. 6% reduction is 600 rpm.

Back to Top
benfb View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 10/10/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote benfb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/03/2018 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:



I once consulted a chemist on the subject, he suggested that ABS would play differently from celluloid due to the thicker shell on the ABS balls now in use.
We still hopefull for a better ABS.


In the Nittaku patent for their ABS balls, they stated that they tried different wall thicknesses to arrive at a design that came closest to playing and sounding like a cell ball. So it is possible to make small changes in the ABS formula to vary density.

As stated by baal, the 40+ balls are different weight and diameter than the cell balls, so certainly even a 40+ cell ball will play different.

With reasonable assumptions, if you do some high school level physics and compare a cell ball to a heavier/bigger 40+ cell ball of identical material, the 40+ cell ball will spin about 4% less.
How did you arrive at 4%? I did some rough thinking and I would expect a difference more on the order of 7%.

Moreover, that calculation is based on a reduction of spin from the same amount of energy applied.  I would argue that 40+ are less efficient in energy transfer than 40 balls, meaning an even greater reduction in spin.

Finally, the other changes in flight characteristics -- a greater deceleration in the flight path and a change in bounce behavior -- will change the extent to which spin can affect the play of the ball.  The result is a much greater reduction in the importance of spin.

I do agree that no 40+ ball is going to behave like the old celluloid 40 ball, no matter how you tweak the construction.
Back to Top
MTMT View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 01/19/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MTMT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/03/2018 at 6:37pm
Quick question - I've been away for so long.  

So can the celluloid 40 balls still be purchased indefinitely? Or are they no longer made by anyone all that is left on the market is old stock?  I'm just getting back in the game after perhaps about 10 years away. I think that I even have balls from 15 years ago that are smaller than the 40....

Thanks


Edited by MTMT - 02/03/2018 at 6:48pm
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 9:07am
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:



I once consulted a chemist on the subject, he suggested that ABS would play differently from celluloid due to the thicker shell on the ABS balls now in use.
We still hopefull for a better ABS.


In the Nittaku patent for their ABS balls, they stated that they tried different wall thicknesses to arrive at a design that came closest to playing and sounding like a cell ball. So it is possible to make small changes in the ABS formula to vary density.

As stated by baal, the 40+ balls are different weight and diameter than the cell balls, so certainly even a 40+ cell ball will play different.

With reasonable assumptions, if you do some high school level physics and compare a cell ball to a heavier/bigger 40+ cell ball of identical material, the 40+ cell ball will spin about 4% less.

How did you arrive at 4%? I did some rough thinking and I would expect a difference more on the order of 7%.

Moreover, that calculation is based on a reduction of spin from the same amount of energy applied.  I would argue that 40+ are less efficient in energy transfer than 40 balls, meaning an even greater reduction in spin.

Finally, the other changes in flight characteristics -- a greater deceleration in the flight path and a change in bounce behavior -- will change the extent to which spin can affect the play of the ball.  The result is a much greater reduction in the importance of spin.

I do agree that no 40+ ball is going to behave like the old celluloid 40 ball, no matter how you tweak the construction.


Exactly. Remember, in real play we perceive spin by what it does to the ball.

So given that, don't expect miracles. There aren't any to be had. This was the ITTF plan all along.

Given that this is our reality, pick balls that are round, durable, and that bounce the right height. ABS balls like D40+ and Nittaku Premium check those boxes. D40+ wins on price.

There may still be improvements coming. But no 40+ ball will ever play like a 40 ball.

Assume that good 40 mm balls will become scarce in not too distant future.

This started in 2014. It is now 2018.
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 9:22am
Dave, Nittaku Premium 40+ is closest to celluloid but is the most expensive. DHS D40+ are good. Theh are a bit heavier, though. Remember to get the ones with Ding Ning on the box, the ones with Ma Long are not ABS and are terrible.

Stiga sells a good ABS ball probably made by DHS. Most ABS balls are made by DH or Double Fish and rebranded. Butvrebrands may have more strict QC standards. It is still not clear. These days I play mainly with DH.
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by benfb benfb wrote:

Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:



I once consulted a chemist on the subject, he suggested that ABS would play differently from celluloid due to the thicker shell on the ABS balls now in use.
We still hopefull for a better ABS.


In the Nittaku patent for their ABS balls, they stated that they tried different wall thicknesses to arrive at a design that came closest to playing and sounding like a cell ball. So it is possible to make small changes in the ABS formula to vary density.

As stated by baal, the 40+ balls are different weight and diameter than the cell balls, so certainly even a 40+ cell ball will play different.

With reasonable assumptions, if you do some high school level physics and compare a cell ball to a heavier/bigger 40+ cell ball of identical material, the 40+ cell ball will spin about 4% less.

How did you arrive at 4%? I did some rough thinking and I would expect a difference more on the order of 7%.

Moreover, that calculation is based on a reduction of spin from the same amount of energy applied.  I would argue that 40+ are less efficient in energy transfer than 40 balls, meaning an even greater reduction in spin.

Finally, the other changes in flight characteristics -- a greater deceleration in the flight path and a change in bounce behavior -- will change the extent to which spin can affect the play of the ball.  The result is a much greater reduction in the importance of spin.

I do agree that no 40+ ball is going to behave like the old celluloid 40 ball, no matter how you tweak the construction.



Calculate rotational kinetic energy of a 39.5 cell ball. Mass, radius, and weight are known, pick a figure for rpm, solve for KE.

Ignore linear velocity and friction.

Make the CELL ball 40.5 and increase weight by 0.1g, take the KE figure from above and solve for rpm. The answer rounds up to 4%.

4% is consistent with the Japanese scientific paper which states an experimentally measured 6% drop in spin when comparing a 39.5 cell ball to a 40+ ABS ball. The paper also shows about a 4% drop in linear speed for drives and topspin shots.

Note that for linear and rotational KE, KE is proportional to the SQUARE of velocity.

A 4% decrease in linear velocity results in about an 8% decrease in KE.

A 6% drop in rotational KE results in about a 12% drop in KE.

Added together that is a 20% drop in total KE. This is what you actually feel when hitting the ball. People who feel the 20% reduction in KE are likely mistakenly judging it as a 20% reduction in spin. (An actual 20% reduction in spin would result in 36% less spin energy)



Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 12:45pm
You tend to de-emphasize the fact that the rpm and KE are not the only things that matter (although it is sort of implicit that you mention KE, which is a really important consideration).  What really matters in the sport is what the rpm and KE then do to the way the ball plays -- the way the ball interacts with air on its flight and resulting trajectory, the effect on the table, the effect on the opponent's blade.  All this on a wide range of very different shots, not just serves and short game.

All of those things contribute to our sense of what is happening in real play and they are all affected by ball diameter AND weight.  Remember, diameter and weight are both increased in 40+.

It doesn't lend itself to a very simple analysis, but there can be no doubt that a 40+ celluloid ball at 40.5 mm and 2.75 grams would still force players to make very substantial adaptations compared to what we had in 2012. 

And we are not going back. Materials probably have some affect, especially surface texture, but ball size and weight are huge factors.  Not to mention that in our sport either 4% or 6% are big effects.

(By the way, I like the fact that you mentioned KE, what people call "spin" based on what they see and feel when they play is not just the RPM)
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 312
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

You continue to miss the fact that the rpm and KE are not the only things that matter.  What really matters in the sport is what the rpm and KE then do to the way the ball plays -- the way the ball interacts with air on its flight and resulting change in trajectory, the effect on the table, the effect on the opponent's blade.  On a wide range of very different shots, not just serves and short game.

All of those things contribute to our sense of what is happening in real play and they are all affected by ball diameter AND weight.  Remember, diameter and weight are both increased in 40+.

It doesn't lend itself to a very simple analysis, but there can be no doubt that a 40+ celluloid ball at 40.5 mm and 2.75 grams would still force players to make very substantial adaptations compared to what we had in 2012. 

And we are not going back. Materials probably have some affect, especially surface texture, but ball size and weight are huge factors.  Not to mention that in our sport either 4% or 6% are big effects.





I never stated rpm and KE are the only things that matter.

I stated this in a previous post:

"The plastic ball feels different, but when people say it spins x% less, it is an unsupported anecdote. I find plastic balls easier to block because they spin less AND HAVE DIFFERENT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPEEDS AND HAVE DIFFERENT COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION/RESTITUTION. All contribute to how the ball "feels"."

Back to Top
cole_ely View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/16/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6067
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cole_ely Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/04/2018 at 11:55pm
Let's face it, they want to turn our sport into tennis, and the bigger balls are another step. Empirically I'd say they bite the table a lot more when new and that kills the spin on the bounce. Once thoroughly broken in they do better.

Edited by cole_ely - 02/05/2018 at 9:08am
W6 fl with Illumina 1.8

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12836
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 9:34am
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

You continue to miss the fact that the rpm and KE are not the only things that matter.  What really matters in the sport is what the rpm and KE then do to the way the ball plays -- the way the ball interacts with air on its flight and resulting change in trajectory, the effect on the table, the effect on the opponent's blade.  On a wide range of very different shots, not just serves and short game.

All of those things contribute to our sense of what is happening in real play and they are all affected by ball diameter AND weight.  Remember, diameter and weight are both increased in 40+.

It doesn't lend itself to a very simple analysis, but there can be no doubt that a 40+ celluloid ball at 40.5 mm and 2.75 grams would still force players to make very substantial adaptations compared to what we had in 2012. 

And we are not going back. Materials probably have some affect, especially surface texture, but ball size and weight are huge factors.  Not to mention that in our sport either 4% or 6% are big effects.





I never stated rpm and KE are the only things that matter.

I stated this in a previous post:

"The plastic ball feels different, but when people say it spins x% less, it is an unsupported anecdote. I find plastic balls easier to block because they spin less AND HAVE DIFFERENT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SPEEDS AND HAVE DIFFERENT COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION/RESTITUTION. All contribute to how the ball "feels"."



I certainly agree with that.
Back to Top
Fulanodetal View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/28/2013
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fulanodetal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 10:10am
Im learning a lot by reading this.

I have no idea about fancy equations but 20% less spin sounds a tad too high if you go by feeling alone. 4% sounds too low.
If there's more documentation on the difference in spin from 40 cellulose vs 40+ ABS would be interesting to read.

Best we players can do, and pretty much the only thing we can do, is get used to it.

I'm glad to hear DHS 40+ are better (Ding Ning package). I still have a few new boxes of the Nittakku Premium balls. 
It's good to have some alternatives.

It may be true that spinny cell balls are a thing of the past, but  we have to realize that in the post cell Table Tennis world , if you produced higher levels of spin compared to your opponent, that will still be true since your opponent is also producing less spin. 

Someone said they find it easier to block ABS balls now. Well, rallies might be a tad longer, but I think all out attackers will still dominate (notice this player is blocking as opposed to attacking said balls). Perhaps the argument is "but it takes more effort to produce prior results"....well, then make more effort. It's a sport, not a leisure hobby.

FdT



Edited by Fulanodetal - 02/05/2018 at 10:11am
Back to Top
AndySmith View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/12/2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AndySmith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 10:30am
Originally posted by Fulanodetal Fulanodetal wrote:

It may be true that spinny cell balls are a thing of the past, but  we have to realize that in the post cell Table Tennis world , if you produced higher levels of spin compared to your opponent, that will still be true since your opponent is also producing less spin.

This misses the point being made by some players.  In the cell days, some players relied on spin more than others, and had built up strategy and entire play styles around that.  OTOH, some players already played a lower-spin game with a higher focus on hits and drives.  The former player type might feel nerfed by the 40+ ball, while the latter might find that their existing style and approach is barely affected, or even enhanced.

IMO, it's an oversimplification to say that the change affects everyone equally.  It's the same change, but it will have more impact on some than others.

Originally posted by Fulanodetal Fulanodetal wrote:

Perhaps the argument is "but it takes more effort to produce prior results"....well, then make more effort. It's a sport, not a leisure hobby.

Ultimately, this is the only answer.  Sure, I would like more understanding that "make more effort" is a demand that asks more of some players than others, but there is no easy solution.  It might need a change of style, or the dropping of your favorite shot, or getting a bit fitter, or whatever.
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
Back to Top
Fulanodetal View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/28/2013
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fulanodetal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 11:00am
Hi Andy, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I however would have to disagree a little bit.

"This misses the point being made by some players.  In the cell days, some players relied on spin more than others, and had built up strategy and entire play styles around that. "

Please count me in the camp of players who rely on spin more than, say overpowering your opponent. I did build my style around spinny shots. I find nowadays that I can still produce spinny shots and with relatively more spin than most of my opponents. I often get the comment "wow, that's really spinny!". So no I would not think I have missed any point since I am one of those players. I am still capable of producing serious amounts of spin, but thanks to my coach, my footwork has improved and my shot mechanics have improved where now I am able to put more power on my shots with more control as well.

"It's the same change, but it will have more impact on some than others."

Sure, I guess. Would you care to elaborate on this? I somewhat agree. My point was however, that the spin potential has been lowered, more or less equally for all players (depending on the plastic ball being used).

FdT
Back to Top
Fulanodetal View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/28/2013
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fulanodetal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 11:26am
Andy's comment brings a question though:


Has the ceiling of spin potential been lowered overall, or

is it that in order to produce as much spin as with the cell ball, one has to compensate through technique? Meaning, with more effort we should be able to produce as much spin as before, negating the lower ceiling of spin potential mentioned?

Do the experiments show that spin is globally lower no matter how much effort is put into it?

FdT
Back to Top
AndySmith View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/12/2008
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4193
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote AndySmith Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by Fulanodetal Fulanodetal wrote:

Hi Andy, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I however would have to disagree a little bit.

"This misses the point being made by some players.  In the cell days, some players relied on spin more than others, and had built up strategy and entire play styles around that. "

Please count me in the camp of players who rely on spin more than, say overpowering your opponent. I did build my style around spinny shots. I find nowadays that I can still produce spinny shots and with relatively more spin than most of my opponents. I often get the comment "wow, that's really spinny!". So no I would not think I have missed any point since I am one of those players. I am still capable of producing serious amounts of spin, but thanks to my coach, my footwork has improved and my shot mechanics have improved where now I am able to put more power on my shots with more control as well.

"It's the same change, but it will have more impact on some than others."

Sure, I guess. Would you care to elaborate on this? I somewhat agree. My point was however, that the spin potential has been lowered, more or less equally for all players (depending on the plastic ball being used).

FdT

The spin potential has indeed lowered equally, but players rely on extreme spin to greater or lesser degrees.   For the former, that could be an over-emphasis on one particular shot that worked well with cell, or building a game on spin reversal.  For the latter, it could be a player who predominantly flat hits.  Spin potential has different value to different players - some can absorb a sudden loss of spin into their games, some will struggle to adapt.

My pet peeve with this (and this isn't aimed at you, because you haven't done this) is people who take a "just get on with it, stop moaning, it's the same for everyone" approach to the world.  Very often, it isn't the same for everyone at all.  Changing a feature will immediately reveal who is best positioned to adapt to that change, often quite by nothing more than good fortune based on unrelated choices made years earlier.  I don't advocate moaning as a good response either of course, but I do feel it's important to recognise that the difficulty in adapting isn't equal for everyone and some players may need more support and understanding that others.
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
Back to Top
benfb View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 10/10/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote benfb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2018 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by AndySmith AndySmith wrote:

Originally posted by Fulanodetal Fulanodetal wrote:

Hi Andy, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I however would have to disagree a little bit.

"This misses the point being made by some players.  In the cell days, some players relied on spin more than others, and had built up strategy and entire play styles around that. "

Please count me in the camp of players who rely on spin more than, say overpowering your opponent. I did build my style around spinny shots. I find nowadays that I can still produce spinny shots and with relatively more spin than most of my opponents. I often get the comment "wow, that's really spinny!". So no I would not think I have missed any point since I am one of those players. I am still capable of producing serious amounts of spin, but thanks to my coach, my footwork has improved and my shot mechanics have improved where now I am able to put more power on my shots with more control as well.

"It's the same change, but it will have more impact on some than others."

Sure, I guess. Would you care to elaborate on this? I somewhat agree. My point was however, that the spin potential has been lowered, more or less equally for all players (depending on the plastic ball being used).

FdT

The spin potential has indeed lowered equally, but players rely on extreme spin to greater or lesser degrees.   For the former, that could be an over-emphasis on one particular shot that worked well with cell, or building a game on spin reversal.  For the latter, it could be a player who predominantly flat hits.  Spin potential has different value to different players - some can absorb a sudden loss of spin into their games, some will struggle to adapt.

My pet peeve with this (and this isn't aimed at you, because you haven't done this) is people who take a "just get on with it, stop moaning, it's the same for everyone" approach to the world.  Very often, it isn't the same for everyone at all.  Changing a feature will immediately reveal who is best positioned to adapt to that change, often quite by nothing more than good fortune based on unrelated choices made years earlier.  I don't advocate moaning as a good response either of course, but I do feel it's important to recognise that the difficulty in adapting isn't equal for everyone and some players may need more support and understanding that others.
+100
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Mark all posts as read :: Delete cookies set by this forum

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled on your web browser in order to use this forum


Copyright © 2003-2013 MyTableTennis.NET - All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer