ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb

Let's never let this thread die.

pongfugrasshopper wrote: We agree that a treated rubber is no longer "as authorized".  And there's no doubt that the rubber is in constant change; I do not disagree.  Where we disagree is that I'm saying that a rubber, in addition to not having been treated by the consumer, is "as authorized" if it meets the minimum specs. defined by the ITTF.  Now if a manufacturer produces a rubber that has a coefficient of kinetic friction between rubber/ball that is exactly 0.5 (the minimum spec), if I were the consumer, I would be very upset with the manufacturer as one session will probably make it out of spec.  But that's an issue for the manufacturer to solve.  I would imagine the vast majority of rubbers fall well within spec.  When the rubber is submitted to racket control (long after it was authorized), what specifications do they use to determine legality? ... They use the specifications defined in the leaflets... the same specifications they used when the rubber was authorized.

Edited by Pushblocker - 07/25/2019 at 12:17pm

1dennistt wrote: If they are going down this path, what is to stop them from changing the rules every year?  Much like what they did with the tuner/boosters.  Tightening the rules until they get the desired results?  Then it becomes a issue of how much are we willing to pay for the equipment to certify and people to test things at local tournaments.  I think I see a business opportunity here, Racket Control Services for $$.  Everyone pays!   If this is going to be a thing, it needs to be applied to pips and smooth surfaces alike.  Don't try to address one side of the coin and not the other.  This doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I'd like it to be fair to all players, and not just target one minority of our membership.   Each rubber will have to have specifications for friction, Mark V, Hurricane, Tenergy, Super Anti, Feint Long II, all of them.  Oh and the test procedure must be specified for each rubber type.  Just mail out a booklet with the values, both max and min, or how much change is permissible from the standard value.

benfb wrote: mykonos96 wrote: How you would test the friction of a rubber in a humid venue? That's a really good, and somewhat funny, point.  The reason I stopped using Tenergy on the forehand was because it loses its grip so dramatically in humid conditions.  At that point, it's clearly not playing according to its approved characteristics.  Hey, does humid conditions count as treating a rubber?

Just leave it to ITTF to find another way to screw the Chinese players, if any is even affected at all...  ITTF should just shut down

benfb wrote: mykonos96 wrote: How you would test the friction of a rubber in a humid venue? That's a really good, and somewhat funny, point.  The reason I stopped using Tenergy on the forehand was because it loses its grip so dramatically in humid conditions.  At that point, it's clearly not playing according to its approved characteristics.  Hey, does humid conditions count as treating a rubber?

This is exactly why everyone should be skeptical when someone says it will be easy to do a test. Rubber approval testing is done in a controlled environment.

If someone were to come with an on site test at events, it would have to take temp/humidity, etc into account if you are going to DQ people from prize $$$ paying events. A DQ'd player would certainly have standing to challenge the scientific validity of the test.

It certainly would not be that plastic contraption posted at the beginning of this thread.

BTW, in recent ittf documents about testing for boosters, they stated they need more time to study this. The only machine found so far that might be able to detect boosters cost $100K, is not portable and only is intended for lab use. Even if you did move it, it needs to be calibrated after installation. So ittf is finding out it's not that easy to do real scientific tests. They have to do a lot of work to validate the science just like for voc testing.

Pushblocker wrote: It's like President Trump issuing an executive order to remove all undocumented immigrants. [...] Imagine the public outcry if he would do that. However, if the targeted group of such circumvention of the rules are long pips blockers, nobody seems to give a flying f.

I was referring to when they banned frictionless pips like Super Block. I didn't see the point nor do I see the point of testing friction during a tournament to see if they are worn past some limit . 

jpenmaster wrote: I was referring to when they banned frictionless pips like Super Block. I didn't see the point nor do I see the point of testing friction during a tournament to see if they are worn past some limit .

haggisv wrote: benfb wrote: To quote one of my favorite movies: "I love your innocence. Never lose it." That's a little condescending, don't you think? benfb wrote: ITTF *never, ever* makes rules with amateurs in mind.  In  this case, the story behind the ban on frictionless pips is well known, and relates to Dr. Neubeur and some high-up person at ITTF.  I'll let someone else provide the details. When I say 'amateurs in mind', I mean that they were looking at the effect on amateurs, I wasn't implying it was done for their benefit. Yes I've read lots of things about what really went on, and the people influencing the decisions...hard to know who and what to believe, but it was yet another non-transparent decision by the ITTF.

hi all, good to see you as always, what evidence do we have that a big wigs grudge influences the legality of long pips' friction level? who does not like Dr. Naihbawar (that's how I hear his name often)? 

benfb wrote: liulin04 wrote: Just leave it to ITTF to find another way to screw the Chinese players, if any is even affected at all...  ITTF should just shut down Wait! How does this hurt the Chinese players? May impression that frictionless rubbers are far more common in Europe and Russia. I've never even heard of a Chinese pushblocker. Generally speaking, I always find it strange when people start claiming prejudice against Chinese players in some rule change or another.  In the first place, I have yet to see any rule impacting Chinese players more than their western counterparts.  And, in the second place, I doubt ITTF has any real interest in hurting Chinese play anyway.   I will grant that ITTF makes many strange and questionable decisions, but I don't think being paranoid about their intentions is helpful.  I'd be more worried about graft, such as the charges against Adam S, the previous president.

pongfugrasshopper wrote: I emailed the ITTF ([email protected]) to get further clarification on this subject.  Here is the email and response I got: Subject: Clarification on low friction pimples Hello,   I am a table tennis enthusiast and wanted clarification on the friction of a pimples out rubber.  In the T4 technical leaflet, it states:   8. Friction for pimples-out The coefficient of kinetic friction between the rubber and a table tennis ball must be at least 0.50. In the test laboratory, a normal force of 50mN is applied.   Also, I see that in the Equipment section under the heading "General Information", a notice reads:   Information for Umpires and Racket Control 4.7.2019: Racket Coverings: "Low friction pimples-out are not ITTF authorized".    My question is does this apply to pimples out rubbers that have lost friction due to usage, or is this only for factory authorization of a rubber?  Thank you very much. Response from ITTF: thanks for your mail and question about the pimple out rubbers.  In our experience an approved and not after treated pimple out rubber will not loose the friction due to usage under this level. So if you are using approved products and you take care about your racket (to put the racket into your racket cover) everything should be perfect.  Best regards I was somewhat surprised with the response that with regular usage, a pips-out rubber would not go below a cokf of 0.50.  But this does re-affirm for me that the ITTF expects the rubber not to go below that minimum spec. even *after* authorization, which aligns with "as authorized".  So for those that play pips out and take reasonably good care of your rubber you should not have to worry if they do decide to test for friction at a sanctioned tournament. You can email [email protected] if you have further questions.  It took a couple days for the response.  I was surprised and happy that I even got a response so kudos to the ITTF for that  .

Shows again that the ITTF is making things up. It can be scientifically proven that a rubber can drop below that level. Furthermore, there is no requirement to keep your rubber in a case. There is also "outdoor use" which is not prohibited as per the rules which will cause the rubber to wear faster. Not a single rule in place makes a racket illegal if it has been used for outdoor table tennis. It's not there. Any scientist familiar with the material used will confirm that rubber consistently uses friction and eventually ends up below the required threshold.

kyle90 wrote: ITTF sounding really stupid in their response. You don’t have to be a scientist to experience the phenomena of pips losing friction after even a few hours of play. This seems like a test that was made up to address a nonexistent problem.

pongfugrasshopper wrote: kyle90 wrote: ITTF sounding really stupid in their response. You don’t have to be a scientist to experience the phenomena of pips losing friction after even a few hours of play. This seems like a test that was made up to address a nonexistent problem.  It's not a question of whether or not it loses friction.  It's a question of does it fall below the minimum 0.50 cokf.

pongfugrasshopper wrote: kyle90 wrote: ITTF sounding really stupid in their response. You don’t have to be a scientist to experience the phenomena of pips losing friction after even a few hours of play. This seems like a test that was made up to address a nonexistent problem.  It's not a question of whether or not it loses friction.  It's a question of does it fall below the minimum 0.50 cokf.