OOAK Table Tennis Forum
https://ooakforum.com/

ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
https://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=18031		 Page 26 of 26
Author:  apophis [ 23 Dec 2012, 21:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Lets be honest with this. If this is going to be meant to slow the game like the ditching of the 38mm ball they are kidding themselves. The only real way I can see the game to get slowed or for making it more for spectators is to limit sponge thickness to 1.0 - 1.3mm and place even more restrictions on rubbers like standardising to only a few different sheets. I don't think anyone wants that.

Also, if the decision was for making more environmentally friendly balls then why move to plastic? There are other new technology plastic replacements that are biodegradable and safe, but whether or not its ready for mass production of TT balls is another issue. But the possibility is there, though it would be expensive, so that's why it wont be a new technology bio-friendly material ball.

What I think is happening is that considering how flammable celluloid is, burning 2-3 times faster then paper, manufacturers/retailers are probably trying to save on some customs/shipping/insurance fees for shipping dangerous goods. As I'm pretty sure that its not safe for air transport even though I'm sure TT balls are shipped via air in some instances. So the ITTF are probably trying to make it sound less like a manufacturers decision to cut costs and more like they are making the change for 'safety' even though that wasn't an issue before. As everything is about shareholders and the price of stock, then the savings on customs/shipping/insurance fees could be the reason for the material change.
Author:  8DTRGinrayz [ 24 Dec 2012, 10:39 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
I've seen a couple of e-petitions - is it too late to sign?
Author:  Smartguy [ 24 Dec 2012, 14:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
apophis wrote:
What I think is happening is that considering how flammable celluloid is, burning 2-3 times faster then paper, manufacturers/retailers are probably trying to save on some customs/shipping/insurance fees for shipping dangerous goods. As I'm pretty sure that its not safe for air transport even though I'm sure TT balls are shipped via air in some instances.


Yeah, Sharara already tried that. Can you prove that what you are saying is correct?

Until now nobody has presented any evidence that celluloid is handled by insurances as a dangerous good.

There is no evidence that celluloid enjoys a special treatment by flight security. They might have problems with any balls, however, because they do not know exactly what material they are made of, maybe it is explosive and can be used for terror. This has nothing to do with celluloid. They have problems with tooth paste tubes as well for security reasons.

As for burning, this is the most ridiculous argument, because celluloid can not cause fire under usual circumstances, under 120C. How fast it burns if there is fire already does not really matter.
Author:  hookshot [ 24 Dec 2012, 16:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Burn a ping pong ball and pooff, it is gone in seconds with hardly any smoke. Burn the same amount of plastic. Lots of smoke and the flames last much longer with poisonous fumes.
Author:  apophis [ 24 Dec 2012, 18:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
In all fairness though its the manufacturers that will ultimately make the call based on their cost. If both balls are to be legal anyway as what has been said. So if that's the case why would the manufacturer change its production? The only real answer is profits for the manufacturer. It's what will drive change in the production material of the ball. Either in shipping or raw material costs, plastic must be cheaper then celluloid at this point. I'm not saying that I want the ba to change, far from it, i would like celluloid balls to stay indefinitely.
Author:  Lorre [ 24 Dec 2012, 21:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
8DTRGinrayz wrote:
I've seen a couple of e-petitions - is it too late to sign?


You want to sign this petition:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=19871

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keep ... nnisballs/
Author:  8DTRGinrayz [ 24 Dec 2012, 22:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Lorre wrote:
8DTRGinrayz wrote:
I've seen a couple of e-petitions - is it too late to sign?


You want to sign this petition:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=19871

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keep ... nnisballs/


Thanks Lorre :-)
Author:  wlhk [ 08 May 2013, 12:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Source:http://www.hkttf.com/viewthread.php?tid=59409&extra=&page=2
The author of this thread is able to totally prove Adam's comment and reasoning as fiction and lies

Celluloid is the combination of a relatively low nitrate level nitro cellulose and camphor. The camphor is what you smell when you break open a ball.

Cellulose fibers are used to make nitrocellulose. Typical fibers are cotton or wood pulp. Yes, the same fibers used to make newspaper, facial tissue and your underwear (cotton). Cellulose fibers surround us. Plants are about 30% cellulose fibers. Lots of things are made from cellulose fibers and they aren't being banned. In fact, some manufactures are promoting cellulose as a replacement for more dangerous or less environmentally friendly products such as asbestos and fiberglass. You can get cellulose insulation for your home and concrete that is reinforced with cellulose fibers.

Nitrocellulose is made worldwide and there is no impending ban or any indication that its manufacture will be reduced in any significant degree. Nitrocellulose is used for the making of inks, gunpowder and propellants, and nail polish and a few other things.

Here is but one company - in the U.K. that makes nitrocellulose.
http://www.nitrocellulose.com/index.html
Here's another company.
http://www.dow.com/dowwolff/en/c ... cellulose/index.htm

Nitrocellulose is typically shipped in containers where it is wetted with water or alcohol precisely because of its volatile nature. Wet things don't tend to put fibers in the air - not that it would matter much anyway. There are many kinds of protective gear that modern factory workers wear when there are airborne hazards anyway. Many things are hazardous. Modern man has, however, manages to successfully deal with many such things. We drive in cars with many gallons of very flammable fuel and live in electrified houses.

I contacted a Japanese company that supplies celluloid for table tennis ball manufacturers. They said that the notion that the hazards of celluloid being the same as for asbestos is imagined.

Celluloid production has diminished not because of hazards, but because for most applications, better (which might mean simply cheaper or might mean actually performs better) materials have been developed. That has been the case for some time. I find it hard to believe that table tennis manufacturers know less about how to run their businesses than does Adham Sharara. I doubt seriously that they needed him to tell them of any impending problem with the making of celluloid table tennis balls. They aren't idiots. They know they can't sell rubber, blades, tables and so forth if there are no balls to play with. Nonetheless, apparently it took Adham's prodding get them to once again try seriously to come up with a different ball.

I seriously hope that the new ball has as many advantages as it does disadvantages. Because frankly, if we are going to get railroaded into this change - as seems to be the case - I'd like for it not to be a disaster.

I find it hard to believe that celluloid manufacturing has been banned in any country. The reason is simple. Nitrocellulose is made all over the world, including in the U.K. and that's the dangerous/volatile component. Combining it with camphor doesn't make it more dangerous, it makes it less so. Celluloid manufacturing almost surely has become a niche activity because of the lack of demand. Is there any wonder that it is being made primarily in China, Korea, and Japan - three countries where table tennis is quite popular?

The ITTF put out a pure fiction when they said that there was a worldwide ban on celluloid. Even Adham must admit that was not true. Though even then he's saying that was an oversimplification. I'd like to point out that "fiction" does not equal "oversimplification."

One of their officials also put out the fiction that celluloid (or did he say nitro-cellulose?) production is 80% the same as nitro-glycerin. That's another fiction. Adham is associating cellulose fibers (I grew up next to cotton fields - egad!!) with asbestos. Seems like a lot of hype being associated to celluloid and very little substance, facts and reference being offered to support any of it. I, for one, am waiting for Adham to actually show some kind of reference to these bans, hazards and so forth. I suspect the wait will be very long.

In the meantime, I'll leave it to the various forum members to decide for themselves if the things Adham Sharara and the ITTF is saying on this topic seem credible. From what I've been able to find, it just doesn't add up.
Author:  apophis [ 08 May 2013, 12:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Personally I think that the worst thing about the ball change, is that its just another change that really has no appreciable outcome for the reasons that the change is meant to provide and all that it does is change the sport's rules one more time.
Author:  Red_lion [ 08 May 2013, 14:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
Agree. A lot has been changed in Table Tennis but did not elevated the status of the game to a higher level.
Author:  hookshot [ 08 May 2013, 14:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: ITTF: Celluloid balls to be banned on July 1, 2013
At first Adham just talked about the "coming ban" and the need for a different material. Then all of a sudden, he said the new balls would also change "size". His reason, the celluloid balls were not really 40mm. Well, the specs make sure the new balls are all BIGGER than 40mm. So much for logic. It was just smoke and mirrors to get a bigger ball. Otherwise, the specs would read, 40mm + or - Xmm. I can not believe anything Adham says anymore. If he is reelected, you can expect more of the same. :n:
Page 26 of 26 All times are UTC + 9:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/