Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

ITTF has sanctioned friction tests on pimpled rubb

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
1dennistt View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1dennistt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/08/2019 at 3:13pm
This is something I hope the ITTF doesn't pursue.  It will wind up being an unfair mess to officiate.  I understand at this point we don't really know what they are thinking about doing with regard to testing.

So, pongfugrasshopper, just what do you suggest we use to keep our rubber in compliance with the limits you mention?  Water, sweat, or are certain cleaners/conditioners going to be allowed?  You're opening a can or worms here.  Water and sweat don't really work for pips.  Would have to be some cleaners and brushes allowed.

Are you going to allow specific times you are allowed to clean your racket (like current towel breaks).  This will need to be the same for all rubber types to be fair. 

Are you going to allow different cleaners for pips, anti, inverted?  Some anti have a "cleaner" that keeps them in original (slick) condition.  You'll need rules for that and if it can be used on other types of rubber.

How long are you willing to delay a match while pips out rubbers dry after cleaning?  Because if inverted is allowed to be wiped/cleaned to maintain compliance, other types will need the same opportunity.

Are you going to test rackets before, after, or maybe even during the match (between games?)

Just how bad do you want this?


Xiom Hayabusa Z+, Victas V>15 Stiff (Black) Max, Spinlord Keiler (Red) 1.8 mm,
Wt. 167 gm total weight
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 1768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/08/2019 at 3:32pm
Use whatever you want to as long as the resulting friction is above the legal limit.  

Like I said I'm under no delusion that this will actually be implemented in the US.   I'm fine with whatever happens.
Back to Top
1dennistt View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1dennistt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/08/2019 at 4:11pm
I was just trying to point out some of the issues the ITTF is going to have to answer, and I have no desire to see this come about, it just is a big can of worms.  Cry

I don't see how they can come up with anything that is fair to all parties involved.  They have already outlawed frictionless pips and kept frictionless anti.  They have outlawed some pips for being too long and skinny and others for being too short.  We have sticky rubber that can pick up a ball when clean, that obviously isn't able to do so at the end of the match, so it changes during the match. 

If you don't think the tables are skewed in favor of inverted players here is some info I found online.  It gives you an idea of how much the ITTF has to deal with.  They will have to have a book to keep everything straight.

According to an info-graphic I saw there are 1622 rubbers available in the TT market now, from 122 different manufacturers. 

73% are smooth (1150 inverted, 48 anti) 

27% are pimple rubbers (221 short & medium, 170 long)

2% are banned for some reason usually not paying fees or out of compliance (about 33)

Xiom Hayabusa Z+, Victas V>15 Stiff (Black) Max, Spinlord Keiler (Red) 1.8 mm,
Wt. 167 gm total weight
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1953
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 12:05am
Quote You have to ask yourself, why did they even put a friction limit in the T4 Leaflet (the leaflet used for authorization of a rubber).  If it's no concern to them, then why should it even be mentioned?  It clearly is a concern.  Just like it is a concern not to have a high level of VOCs (although VOCs are a much larger concern), which is why there is a 3 ppm maximum limit in the very same document.
yes, the BoD WOULD LIKE that rubbers may not be below that limit, even when used but they don't have the power to require that. The BoD passes regulations for Manufacturers and not Rules. The AGM passes rules. It takes a RULE change to implement what they want. They try to circumvent due process as per the ITTF bylaws.

Edited by Pushblocker - 08/09/2019 at 12:08am
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 1768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 1:00am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

Quote You have to ask yourself, why did they even put a friction limit in the T4 Leaflet (the leaflet used for authorization of a rubber).  If it's no concern to them, then why should it even be mentioned?  It clearly is a concern.  Just like it is a concern not to have a high level of VOCs (although VOCs are a much larger concern), which is why there is a 3 ppm maximum limit in the very same document.
yes, the BoD WOULD LIKE that rubbers may not be below that limit, even when used but they don't have the power to require that. The BoD passes regulations for Manufacturers and not Rules. The AGM passes rules. It takes a RULE change to implement what they want. They try to circumvent due process as per the ITTF bylaws.
Is the BoD not allowed to interpret the rules like what it says in the ITTF handbook?  Is the BoD not responsible for equipment regulations like what it says in the ITTF handbook?  I'm not hearing member nations complaining about BoD overreach at the AGM.  Shouldn't there be lots of complaints by the member nations if the BoD is trying to circumvent the rules as you say?
Back to Top
pongfugrasshopper View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/22/2015
Location: USA
Status: Online
Points: 1768
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pongfugrasshopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 1:09am
Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

I was just trying to point out some of the issues the ITTF is going to have to answer, and I have no desire to see this come about, it just is a big can of worms.  Cry

I don't see how they can come up with anything that is fair to all parties involved.  They have already outlawed frictionless pips and kept frictionless anti.  They have outlawed some pips for being too long and skinny and others for being too short.  We have sticky rubber that can pick up a ball when clean, that obviously isn't able to do so at the end of the match, so it changes during the match. 
I'm puzzled by this myself.  Why is one outlawed and not the other? If you're going to outlaw one, you should outlaw the other for the same reason.  BTW, if they've outlawed frictionless pips, then shouldn't they be allowed to test for it?

Just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against the use of pips.  My favorite player, Mima Ito, uses short pips on the bh.  In fact I have nothing against the push blocking style.  I think in one of the other threads I read that one of the forum members has a friend that plays a push blocking style at a high level with a legal rubber (I took this to mean cokf >= 0.50).  If he/she can do that using rubbers that meet the specs, all the power to him/her.  

Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

If you don't think the tables are skewed in favor of inverted players here is some info I found online.  It gives you an idea of how much the ITTF has to deal with.  They will have to have a book to keep everything straight.

According to an info-graphic I saw there are 1622 rubbers available in the TT market now, from 122 different manufacturers. 

73% are smooth (1150 inverted, 48 anti) 

27% are pimple rubbers (221 short & medium, 170 long)

2% are banned for some reason usually not paying fees or out of compliance (about 33)

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that there is a skew in favor of (edit: I took this to mean bias by the ITTF) inverted players based on those percentages.  There can be various reasons.  Most notably, players tend to gravitate towards smooth due to its higher ceiling.  I don't have any experience in the matter, but I'm told there's a higher learning curve for pips out vs. smooth.  Most juniors start out table tennis playing smooth.  And if memory serves me, I think Adham Shahara was actually a big fan of the defender style.


Edited by pongfugrasshopper - 08/09/2019 at 1:18am
Back to Top
1dennistt View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1dennistt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 1:29pm
Yeah the bias is just from the amount of players playing with inverted.  At one time the sport was dominated by pips players, and the inverted players were the new style.  They were the ones being looked down on.  Now the roles have reversed.  Maybe it's karma?

And I would encourage any new or developing player to start out with inverted, unless there is some overwhelming reason for them to begin with pips.  I think the basis of the game revolves around the spin of the inverted rubbers.

Testing is a bugaboo.  If done before a match, I think it can be managed easier.  Unless playing back to back matches, you would have a chance to clean the racket before the testing would occur, if you knew it was going to be tested.

If done after a match is completed I can see problems arising.  Just like when inverted gets dusty/dirty it need to be cleaned to restore its grip, the same is true for pips, but if rackets are confiscated right after a match the pips would need to be cleaned before testing, otherwise you'll get a lot of false results of too little friction (especially for rubbers that are near the limits to begin with).  Then it becomes who gets to clean it and with what (brush, spray, water).  Lots of details would have to be worked out. 
Xiom Hayabusa Z+, Victas V>15 Stiff (Black) Max, Spinlord Keiler (Red) 1.8 mm,
Wt. 167 gm total weight
Back to Top
nachalnik View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 09/05/2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 226
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nachalnik Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 3:59pm
I disagree! I started when I was 12 years old. For some reason, I gravitated right away to pips on the backhand as I really loved to chop from a distance. I stopped playing for about 20 years due to my love for karate but then I returned and I picked up where I left off. Unfortunately, by then I had a set of very bad knees so chopping from a distance wasn't an option. Pushblocking, however, was right up my alley. I firmly believe there are people who will naturally gravitate to this style of play and they will play this way with or without pips or anti. I had people who told me I had it too easy so I would simply switch the paddles with them and beat them 11-0. Conversations tend to stop after that...
Back to Top
1dennistt View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1dennistt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 4:10pm
Originally posted by nachalnik nachalnik wrote:

I disagree! I started when I was 12 years old. For some reason, I gravitated right away to pips on the backhand as I really loved to chop from a distance. I stopped playing for about 20 years due to my love for karate but then I returned and I picked up where I left off. Unfortunately, by then I had a set of very bad knees so chopping from a distance wasn't an option. Pushblocking, however, was right up my alley. I firmly believe there are people who will naturally gravitate to this style of play and they will play this way with or without pips or anti. I had people who told me I had it too easy so I would simply switch the paddles with them and beat them 11-0. Conversations tend to stop after that...


I'm glad it worked out for you, I'm still going to suggest most (but not all) people start with inverted, as I think it makes it easier for them to grasp the spin part of the game when both sides of the paddle perform similarly.  Of course that is just a starting point, and you can always find exceptional people who begin their journey with pips.  Clap

Also, I'm not a coach, more often than not just a hitting partner for other players.  So don't take what I think as important in the vast world of TT.  I began using long pips so our junior players would have someone to train against, I had been a short pips player on my backhand for years before that, but I started with inverted on both sides.  Mostly because that is what the coach suggested.
Xiom Hayabusa Z+, Victas V>15 Stiff (Black) Max, Spinlord Keiler (Red) 1.8 mm,
Wt. 167 gm total weight
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Online
Points: 2666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 5:54pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

...yes, the BoD WOULD LIKE that rubbers may not be below that limit, even when used but they don't have the power to require that.
Dear Sir, you seem to have got a wrong idea of the ITTF actual executive capacity.

Quote 3: Regulations for International Competitions
3.2.4 Racket Control
3.2.4.1 It is the responsibility of each player to ensure that racket coverings are
attached to their racket blade with adhesives that do not contain harmful
volatile solvents.
3.2.4.2 A racket control centre shall be established at all ITTF World Title, Olympic
and Paralympic competitions as well as at a select number of ITTF World
Tour and Junior Circuit competitions and may be established at Continental
and Regional competitions.
3.2.4.2.1 The racket control centre shall test rackets, according to the policy and
procedure established by the Executive Committee on recommendation of
the Equipment Committee and Umpires and Referees Committee, to
ensure that rackets abide by all ITTF regulations including, but not limited
to
, racket covering thickness, flatness and presence of harmful volatile
substances.

EC ITTF is now empowered by ITTF Constitution to establish any new testings on player's rackets so as to provide racket compliance with all ITTF technical requirements, including the pimples friction limits.   

Edited by igorponger - 08/09/2019 at 5:56pm
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1953
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Is the BoD not allowed to interpret the rules like what it says in the ITTF handbook?  Is the BoD not responsible for equipment regulations like what it says in the ITTF handbook?  I'm not hearing member nations complaining about BoD overreach at the AGM.  Shouldn't there be lots of complaints by the member nations if the BoD is trying to circumvent the rules as you say?
There is a difference between interpretation and making things up that are not there. 
It's like saying that the 2nd amendment is only meant for militia members which clearly, the constitution does not say. Luckily, when the supreme court ruled on it, they made it clear that it is an individual right. Maybe a court ruling is also needed in case so that the BoD stops making up stuff, circumventing due process.
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1953
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 9:46pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

...yes, the BoD WOULD LIKE that rubbers may not be below that limit, even when used but they don't have the power to require that.
Dear Sir, you seem to have got a wrong idea of the ITTF actual executive capacity.

Quote 3: Regulations for International Competitions
3.2.4 Racket Control
3.2.4.1 It is the responsibility of each player to ensure that racket coverings are
attached to their racket blade with adhesives that do not contain harmful
volatile solvents.
3.2.4.2 A racket control centre shall be established at all ITTF World Title, Olympic
and Paralympic competitions as well as at a select number of ITTF World
Tour and Junior Circuit competitions and may be established at Continental
and Regional competitions.
3.2.4.2.1 The racket control centre shall test rackets, according to the policy and
procedure established by the Executive Committee on recommendation of
the Equipment Committee and Umpires and Referees Committee, to
ensure that rackets abide by all ITTF regulations including, but not limited
to
, racket covering thickness, flatness and presence of harmful volatile
substances.

EC ITTF is now empowered by ITTF Constitution to establish any new testings on player's rackets so as to provide racket compliance with all ITTF technical requirements, including the pimples friction limits.   
There is no issue if they are testing for parameters based on rules in place. Testing for fictional rules is not covered.

Edited by Pushblocker - 08/09/2019 at 9:48pm
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
mykonos96 View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/19/2018
Location: Southam
Status: Offline
Points: 853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mykonos96 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 10:19pm
Originally posted by pongfugrasshopper pongfugrasshopper wrote:

Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

I was just trying to point out some of the issues the ITTF is going to have to answer, and I have no desire to see this come about, it just is a big can of worms.  Cry

I don't see how they can come up with anything that is fair to all parties involved.  They have already outlawed frictionless pips and kept frictionless anti.  They have outlawed some pips for being too long and skinny and others for being too short.  We have sticky rubber that can pick up a ball when clean, that obviously isn't able to do so at the end of the match, so it changes during the match. 
I'm puzzled by this myself.  Why is one outlawed and not the other? If you're going to outlaw one, you should outlaw the other for the same reason.  BTW, if they've outlawed frictionless pips, then shouldn't they be allowed to test for it?

Just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against the use of pips.  My favorite player, Mima Ito, uses short pips on the bh.  In fact I have nothing against the push blocking style.  I think in one of the other threads I read that one of the forum members has a friend that plays a push blocking style at a high level with a legal rubber (I took this to mean cokf >= 0.50).  If he/she can do that using rubbers that meet the specs, all the power to him/her.  

Originally posted by 1dennistt 1dennistt wrote:

If you don't think the tables are skewed in favor of inverted players here is some info I found online.  It gives you an idea of how much the ITTF has to deal with.  They will have to have a book to keep everything straight.

According to an info-graphic I saw there are 1622 rubbers available in the TT market now, from 122 different manufacturers. 

73% are smooth (1150 inverted, 48 anti) 

27% are pimple rubbers (221 short & medium, 170 long)

2% are banned for some reason usually not paying fees or out of compliance (about 33)

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that there is a skew in favor of (edit: I took this to mean bias by the ITTF) inverted players based on those percentages.  There can be various reasons.  Most notably, players tend to gravitate towards smooth due to its higher ceiling.  I don't have any experience in the matter, but I'm told there's a higher learning curve for pips out vs. smooth.  Most juniors start out table tennis playing smooth.  And if memory serves me, I think Adham Shahara was actually a big fan of the defender style.

Adham was a chopper of the canadian team
Back to Top
1dennistt View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2010
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote 1dennistt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/09/2019 at 11:42pm
In a lot of places it is difficult to find good coaches for the pips out styles, while inverted coaches are abundant.  Without suficient coaches you won't see many people take up pips.  This wasn't the case in the past.  Modern defenders have to learn offensive and defensive games and be proficient at both, so you are correct that the learning curve for pips is longer, it takes a while to develop this type of player.  It all depends on what level you are looking to achieve and the style you are trying to develop.  I've seen people get started with long pips chopping and blocking, and initially they out pace their inverted pier players, but that comes to a stop at some point as the loopers develop.  That early success can be addictive for some people even if they would be better off with another style.

Here is my take on the bias I mentioned, and I should have made my position clear earlier.  The bias is just the way our sport has developed in the current era, nothing sinister about it.  I know some people like to point to specific people as pushing for the exclusion of pips, but I think the same thing would have happened eventually, even if at a slower pace without those individuals.  The frictionless pips (in my opinion) accelerated things, by causing more ill will from inverted players than previous types of pips.  I know this isn't a popular opinion among pips players, so I'll probably be hanged, drawn and quartered here for it.  But that's what I feel has led us to the current situtation with friction testing on the horizon.
Xiom Hayabusa Z+, Victas V>15 Stiff (Black) Max, Spinlord Keiler (Red) 1.8 mm,
Wt. 167 gm total weight
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Online
Points: 2666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2019 at 7:11pm
July 1, 2008. Massive expurgation of low-friction pimples from ITTF LARC 29 did occur.
Over 40 rubber items with a ball skidding effect got excluded from competitive play, an irrevocable conviction by ITTF.

ITTF LARC 29, of 2008.



Edited by igorponger - 08/11/2019 at 7:15pm
Back to Top
purpletiesto View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/19/2017
Location: Perth
Status: Offline
Points: 191
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote purpletiesto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/17/2019 at 8:18am
I wonder what the bod agm abc def has to say about the new friction tests at the recent open. 
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Online
Points: 2666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/18/2019 at 5:38pm
Some more updates from ITTF



Seniore de Cavini , Italian Milano resident, he should win the tender. He is an ingenious engineer, much like Da Vinchi, Italian endowed by Heaven.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
Back to Top
qpskfec View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member


Joined: 07/28/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 400
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote qpskfec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/18/2019 at 8:04pm
Translation of the ITTF call for tender:

"Someone has a bug up their ass about testing for friction, but we don't have a clue about what that actually means.

We have no background in science, so we put out a request for proposal that has absolutely no technical requirements because we are so effing lazy that we can't even bother to do a basic google search to look at the many commercial friction testing devices that already exist that test to established industry standards.

Hopefully some suckers out there will do our jobs for us for free"
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1953
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/19/2019 at 1:45pm
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Translation of the ITTF call for tender:

"Someone has a bug up their ass about testing for friction, but we don't have a clue about what that actually means.

We have no background in science, so we put out a request for proposal that has absolutely no technical requirements because we are so effing lazy that we can't even bother to do a basic google search to look at the many commercial friction testing devices that already exist that test to established industry standards.

Hopefully some suckers out there will do our jobs for us for free"
They are looking for a test for a parameter that is nowhere to be found in the rules. Their claim that a rubber that is untreated won't drop below the friction limit on a new rubber if it's untreated is false and can be PROVEN false by any expert familiar with rubber mixes. Rubber constantly degrades and if something constantly degrades, there is no limit how low the friction may drop without treatment.
2010 Florida State Champion

Dr. Neubauer Firewall Plus Blade with DHS G666 1.5mm on forehand Giant Dragon Talon National Team OX on backhand
Back to Top
guillem View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 04/28/2005
Location: Spain
Status: Online
Points: 71
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote guillem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/20/2019 at 2:15am
Originally posted by qpskfec qpskfec wrote:

Translation of the ITTF call for tender:

"Someone has a bug up their ass about testing for friction, but we don't have a clue about what that actually means.

We have no background in science, so we put out a request for proposal that has absolutely no technical requirements because we are so effing lazy that we can't even bother to do a basic google search to look at the many commercial friction testing devices that already exist that test to established industry standards.

Hopefully some suckers out there will do our jobs for us for free"

I couldn't have written a better explanation!

ClapClapClap
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.129 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
About MyTableTennis.NET | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2019 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.