OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Since the previous topic has been locked, I need to say that there is something wrong in Adham analysis. I know very well the Physics (I am a reasearcher) and what written is partially agaist the rules of the Physics.
I refer to the following sentence:

Quote
.....and the racket surface has to be uniform
Unquote

the surface in case of long pimples (in particular the ones with the top of the pimple not smooth) presents different friction between the top and the lateral surface. This is normal also for the form of the surface that is flat on the edge and that is a cilinder on the vertical side.
It is obvious that this rule must be applied only to the top and this is the reason why ITTF will loose the trial against TTMaster.

Quote
.....It was reported that LP were treated rendering the top of the pimple and the side of the pimple at two different friction levels. This is illegal according to rule 2.4.
Unquote

This is partially true but the real reason of the treatment is another and is due to the modification of the consistency and the shape of the pimples using microwave oven for example.
Therefore what was reported was uncomplete and not precise. I am sorry but these are facts not opinions.

Quote
... This was for the purpose of having a reference and a standard in order to be able to detect post-factory treatment, but more important to give to the manufacturers a clear standard to follow.
Unquote

Disagree; the introduction of friction limit has been useful only to cancel all the frictionless rubbers. Now more than before the rubbers are treated. The main treatment consists in making the pimple softer and it is not relevant to change of friction.

I close the discussion forever from my side: I agree with the rule of friction for pimple-out rubbers but I don't agree about the theory of different level of frictions on the top and on the lateral surface that is normal and is not due to some artificial treatment durign the manufacturing or post-treatment; this is even "more true" when the top of the pimple is rough and not smooth (and there are a huge number of pimple out rubbers built in this way).

If I will be Losanna Court, I will condamn ITTF to pay a huge penalty to discourage this type of attitude by ITTF in future. The behavior of ITTF has been in TT Master case extremely unfair offending the sportive spirit of a lot of table-tennis players.
When Somebody makes mistakes must be punished and this is the case.

Cordially and with not changed respect
Eng. Luca Pancani

I have to disagree with your evaluation of this. Common sense would dictate that the "racket surface" MUST be considered to be the "playing surface", or anything that can be used to strike the ball in a normal sense. Because pips flex and bend, the sides of the pips are used as part of the shot, and they must therefore be considered to be part of the playing surface and so should have uniform friction when compared to the pip tops. Doesn't matter if you're a researcher - the pip sides are used when striking the ball, so they're part of the rubber playing surface.

Therefore TTMaster will lose.



I think we have to say that treating ANY rubber to modify its playing characteristics such that it becomes illegal (by the letter of ITTF law) is WRONG and CHEATING. So, putting your pips in a microwave, treating the pip tops to remove friction, and anything else, is CHEATING. If a player is found to be using these techniques, they should be banned.

So, applying this logic would say that manufacturers can't be allowed to produce equipment which is illegal out of the packet. And even worse - market that product on the basis of its illegality. TTMaster and Neubauer both produced frictionless pips, which directly break an existing ITTF law, and marketed them on the basis of this "feature". It's obvious that the ITTF would then have to either alter the existing laws of the game, or tell the companies involved to stop. If I was in the ITTF's position, I wouldn't be wanting to change my laws because an equipment manufacturer decided to break them. That sets a precident that says to the world - "ignore the rules, make what you want, and we'll cave in and change the rules for you".

Now, you raise an interesting point about pips with high friction on the tops and lower friction on the sides. But you can't apply that argument to stop the frictionless testing. All you do with that approach is tell the ITTF that more rubbers should be banned.

Probably you didn't read well my post:

1) I didn't say that the side of pimple out rubbers are not part of the surface, I have said that it is physically impossible to have the same level of friction on the top and on the side and this is true mostly for all the pimple-out rubbers. Therefore to disqualify a rubber due to different level of friction on top and on lateral surface when this is due to the physical characteristics of the rubber is not possible. This is the meaning of my post

2) regarding the frictionless rubbers, these are not anymore permitted and the testing must continue but must be applied in the proper way that is both top and side surface must present a level of friction in line with the rule even if physically cannot be the same if the material is the same. Otherwise one of the two surface can be altered to make the friction the same for side and top but this process is very expensive and of difficult accuracy during the industrial manufacturing.

3) regarding the microwave oven it is an example of illegal manipulation. I never say that it is permitted.

Thanks however for your contribution
Regards
Luca

Ciao Luca,

Grazie mile per la tua risposta e benvenuto al forum (thanks for your answer and welcome to the forum).

Just let me say that I completely agree with you although I had never had your technical arguments. I'm going to post a link to this thread in "TT master" that you can find in the Long Pips section (please have a look at it if you have time, your scientific approach will be nice to hear for sure).

Thanks a lot

Q.-

_________________
Blade: Butterfly Legout
FH: YinHe Saturn 2.0 38º
BH: Meteor 8512 0.5 mm OFF

If the ITTF has such a clear case, they already would have won. TTMaster followed the guidelines provided to manufacturers and the ITTF's heavy-handed tactics have twice (Crossbow and Insider) caused irreparable damage to this small company's reputation and bank account.

Meanwhile the ITTF allows Palio CK531A to co-exist with a identical treated version on the market. And why haven't they banned the OX Toni Hold anti that has the ITTF logo and is sold by reputable dealers as "legal."

I think there's a good chance that TTMaster will collect some of that $5 million the ITTF has socked away. Time will tell.

The treated Palios (made by Palio) do have the ITTF stamp. They banned the "blue package" Palios but allowed the "yellow package" Palios to remain homologated. I think Palio might now be making legal "blue package" Palios, further complicating things.

On the OX Anti, the ITTF logo is being used, the rubber is on the approved list, they know it's being sold as OX. They do nothing.

I guess the point I'm making is they selectively decide which companies they will enforce their rules against. They investigate/ban Insider because of one complaint, so how can they tolerate the Palio issue? Bigger, more influential company perhaps? Why aren't they addressing these other irregularities with equal vigor? Why are those rubbers still on the approved list?

Notbob - I'm pretty sure that the "blue packet" version of CK531A is no longer frictionless or low friction.

I bought four sheets last year of the blue version, all from different suppliers and they all definitely came with friction. I think the frictionless versions were produced back in 2003/4 and haven't been produced since.

_________________
Blade: Ross Leidy custom blade
Forehand: Butterfly Tenergy 05-FX 1.7mm
Backhand: Dr Neubauer Gangster and Desperado 2 (testing both) OX

Butterfly Amicus Professional robot
-----
Ever tried, Ever failed? No Matter.
Try again, Fail Again, Fail Better!

I have been buying the blue and yellow packs of Palio for the last 3 years+ and the only difference is that the sheets with sponge come in the blue pack. I have never seen a treated sheet in this time.

_________________
Fred 28

I have a friend who uses this exact rubber. I have bought all of them for him - maybe 15-20 both with and without sponge. The yellow pack is the no sponge and the blue has sponge.
As most Chinese packs can be opened and re-sealed easily, I always have a look to check that the rubbers are fine before i give them to him.

_________________
Fred 28

I did play for about 1/2 a summer league season with pimples (755) about 3 years ago when I had a slightly dodgy elbow and wanted to give it a rest from constant looping and to play with a lighter bat for a while. I changed back when I lost a match though. I could play forehands, backhands and twiddle easily enough, but never got the impression at any stage that any of the shots I played with my pimples was better than the shot I would have played with my reverse (proper ) rubber.

There was someone at MYTT who thought I was using pimples on my backhand when I posted my first vid. Strange really, I am yet to play someone who I thought could put more spin on on either wing than me. I think it was something to do with the way I blocked.

_________________
Fred 28