OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 19 Jul 2019, 23:40


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 07:21 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32342
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1904 times
Been thanked: 1227 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
In this 11 part video series, Preston Table Tennis Association conducted random sample testing of Joola's Super-P 40+ plastic ball and for comparison purposes, Joola's Super 40 celluid ball using the same guidelines the ITTF use, Technical Leaflet T3 - The Ball..
Although it's the Joola plastic ball being random sample tested, a lot of the observations about T3 and the results will apply equally to other plastic balls out there and T3 itself - it's not just a review of the Joola ball.

So are the parts so far:

Pt.1 Random Sample Testing: Plastic Ball vs Celluloid Ball - Introduction
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball?
- About us and our motives
- Selecting a random sample
- What we tested for
- How we tested
- Format of our videos



Pt.2 Plastic Ball Tested: ITTF Techical Leaflet T3, Quality, Packaging and Appearance
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball?
ITTF Technical Leaflet T3, Quality, Packaging and Appearance

1. ITTF Technical Leaflet T3 and what the ITTF test balls for
2. Temporary amendments to T3
3. Will any ball approved under the temporary specifications cease to be approved come 1st January 2016
4. How do you know if a ball has been tested under the original or temporary T3 specifications
5. How to tell the date a branded ball was approved by the ITTF
6. How to tell the date a ball was manufactured
7. How do you know when a ball has been improved
8. Possible quality control issues
9. Where are ITTF approved balls made
10. Who makes ITTF approved balls
11. How to identify an ITTF approved plastic ball
12. Differences in packaging
13. Our conclusions


Pt.3 Plastic Ball Tested: Seam / Surface of the Ball / Hardness
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.
1. Seam
- What the ITTF test for
- Our observations
2. Surface of the ball
- What the ITTF test for
- Our observations
- Spin Test
3. Hardness / Sound
- What the ITTF test for
- How our tests were done
- Our results
4. Conclusions



Pt.4 Plastic Ball Tested: Luminance and Colour
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.

Part 4:
1. What the ITTF test for
2. How our tests were done
3. Our results
- luminance / brightness
- whiteness
- the importance of the direction of light
- the importance of cameras
4. Conclusions


Pt.5 Plastic Ball Tested: Bounce and Conformity
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.

Part 5:
1. What the ITTF test for
2. How our tests were done
3. Our results
- consistency
- comparative bounce heights
4. Conclusions
- the need to adapt


Pt.6 Plastic Ball Tested: Veer (Roundness)
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.

Part 6:
1. What the ITTF test for
2. How our tests were done
3. Our results
4. Conclusions




Pt.7 Plastic Ball Tested: Size and Roundness
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.

Part 7:
1. What the ITTF test for
- size conformity and regularity
- sphericity conformity and regularity
2. How our tests were done
3. Our results
- size conformity and regularity
- sphericity conformity and regularity
4. Conclusions


Pt.8 Plastic Ball Tested: Weight Conformity and Regularity
How similar, or identical does the plastic table tennis ball play compared to the celluloid ball? Although we test Joola's Super P 40+ plastic ball using Technical Leaflet T3 as a guideline, our observations and conclusions apply equally to all two piece plastic balls.

Part 8:
1. What the ITTF test for
- weight conformity
- weight regularity
2. How our tests were done
3. Our results
- weight conformity
- weight regularity
4. Conclusions
3. Our results
4. Conclusions


Part 9: Player opinions after match play
1.How our tests were done
2. Our results
- Did th players notice a difference between the Joola plastic and celluloid balls
- Will you change your equipment because of the plastic ball
- Which ball did you prefer
- Which style do you think it suits
- Does it surprise you and are you happy with it
3. Conclusions




Part 10: The Placebo Effect
1. How our tests were done
2. Would the players notice I'd switched balls on them
3. Impressions of Dr Evil OX and Tibhar 1QXD
4. How would the players react when I told them I'd switched the balls are the warm up
5. Would the players change their equipment now they'd played with the plastic ball
6. Conclusions



Pt.11 Plastic Ball Tested: How may it affect you

Part 11: Possible changes you'll make to your technique
1. How our tests were done 01:15
2. Our results
- Speed 02:23
- Ball trajectory and bounce 03:56
- Backswing and follow through 06:32
3. Conclusions 10:07

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 


PostPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 08:51 
Offline
Kim Is My Shadow
Kim Is My Shadow
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008, 09:04
Posts: 2206
Location: Lancashire
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times
Blade: Nitakku Acustic Carbon
FH: Nitakku Fastarc G-1
BH: Butterfly Tenergy 64
haggisv wrote:
In this 11 part video series, Preston Table Tennis Association...


....Along with feedback and help from two forum members here - haggsiv and Baal ;)

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 16:02 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32342
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 1904 times
Been thanked: 1227 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dornenglanz OX
Awesome videos Debater, these are your best ones yet. Very polished and professional! I look forwards to the next one! :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 16:27 
Offline
Modern Chiseler.
Modern Chiseler.
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 10893
Location: USA
Has thanked: 393 times
Been thanked: 472 times
Blade: Butterfly A. Grubba
FH: Gambler Reflectoid 1mm
BH: Dr. N Troublemaker
Good job Debater.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out.
| My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

No matter how good you are at something, there's always about a million people better than you.
Homer J. Simpson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2014, 21:10 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 23:45
Posts: 225
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 51 times
Blade: ITC Premier XF
FH: Tibhar Hybrid K1+
BH: Andro Rasanter V42
Wow - incredible stuff! This must have been a colossal effort. I feel Millie's pain! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 00:42 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User

Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 13:44
Posts: 2907
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 146 times
Not only did Debater put an unbelievable amount of time effort and thought into this, it provided information that applies in my experience pretty equally to ALL of the seamed Chinese balls, which are the ones that are currently being used in most competitions that have adopted plastic. This is the single best summary anywhere.

The only thing I would add is that seamless balls and Nittaku Japan Premium 40+ balls are different animals.

Notably, all of the XSF balls (seamless) I have received were made in XCAD and XDAD -- that is, March and April of 2014, which means they received their ITTF approval under the final 2016 ITTF guidelines, not the temporary guidelines voted in after they were made (in May), that allowed deviations from spect until January 2016. And that is probably why most of us like them better. In other words, when those balls received their approval, they did so under more stringent guidelines.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Nittaku Premium Japan 40+ would meet all of the 2016 specs right now and equally, that the Nittaku SHA 40+ would fail. How do I know this?

The Nittaku Japan Premium 40+ says JTTA approved on the box. (Edit added, so does the Nittaku SHA, so it may not be that significant for balls).

_________________
Butterfly Viscaria Black tag
2.2 mm Nexy Karis M on FH and BH


Last edited by Baal on 04 Nov 2014, 12:03, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 04:05 
Offline
Kim Is My Shadow
Kim Is My Shadow
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008, 09:04
Posts: 2206
Location: Lancashire
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times
Blade: Nitakku Acustic Carbon
FH: Nitakku Fastarc G-1
BH: Butterfly Tenergy 64
AndySmith wrote:
Wow - incredible stuff! This must have been a colossal effort. I feel Millie's pain! ;)

Millie has the power to make a Saint feel guilty!

Baal, the original source ball for the Joola Super 40+ was tested under the original specifications but from what I can gather whilst the original balls passed the "technical" specs there were concerns about durability and how they played. The orginal specs were based on a celluloid ball that players liked - those specs don't necessarily apply to the plastic ball ie just because a plastic ball meets the orginal spec is no guarantee in itself it's a better ball, or plays better, just that it meets the specs.

That's one of the conclusions I make at the end of this series, should we get hung up about specs and forcing balls of different materials to meet the same specifications. Surely the "plays similar or identical to..." part of T3 is what's important. I'd rather a plastic ball have different specifications and play identical to a celluloid ball than one that meets the specs and doesn't. At the moment it's a bit like the saying "wanting to have your cake and eat it".

That said, I agree about the JTTA approval. Does anyone know if they apply the old specifications or the ITTF's temporary amended ones? And do they consider player feedback in their approval process? When I asked Torsten Kueneth about this he said he couldn't comment on their testing.

RE later videos to come:

- Surface of the ball, seam, hardness
- Luminance and Colour
- Bounce and conformity
- Veer (roundness)
- Size conformity
- Weight - possibly a stumbling block
- Human feedback from playing with the balls in actual league matches
- Placebo testing - where players didn't know I'd switched balls on them
- Analysis of two players techniques and how that technique changed (consciously or subconsciously) between using the celluloid and plastic ball


Cheers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 04:48 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2009, 03:59
Posts: 42
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times
I was surprised by the claim that the players reps were ok with the relaxed T3 specs. Then it occurred to me that the players on such a body would likely be exclusively at the super-elite level. So it is unlikely that they would actually be affected by this relaxation. That is, at elite tournaments, even if there are myriads of lousy balls out there, surely only the very best balls would be used in THEIR matches.

And thus once again my main complaint with ITTF rules -- they are designed solely with elite play in mind, but then applied at the local level. Sure, the ITTF says that local associations are free to adjust ITTF rules in local events. But in practice, whenever anyone tries to adjust the rules for local/regional play, the local/regional umpires or rules committees fight it on the grounds that it is fundamentally wrong to defy ITTF rules. I encountered this often when serving on the USATT hardbat committee.

In this current case (relaxing specs for plastic balls), the upshot is that we mortals end up having to play with inferior balls, while our defacto player reps say everything is just fine.

_________________
www.hardbat.com
Reisman lives!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 06:26 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User

Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 13:44
Posts: 2907
Location: Houston
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 146 times
Debater wrote:

Baal, the original source ball for the Joola Super 40+ was tested under the original specifications but from what I can gather whilst the original balls passed the "technical" specs there were concerns about durability and how they played. The orginal specs were based on a celluloid ball that players liked - those specs don't necessarily apply to the plastic ball ie just because a plastic ball meets the orginal spec is no guarantee in itself it's a better ball, or plays better, just that it meets the specs.

That's one of the conclusions I make at the end of this series, should we get hung up about specs and forcing balls of different materials to meet the same specifications. Surely the "plays similar or identical to..." part of T3 is what's important. I'd rather a plastic ball have different specifications and play identical to a celluloid ball than one that meets the specs and doesn't. At the moment it's a bit like the saying "wanting to have your cake and eat it".


No question that what you say is true. Just becasue a ball meets specs doesn't mean it will play well. However, just speaking for myself, balls that meet two of the key Jan 16 specs (weight and bounce, seamless and Nittaku Japan) play better than the ones that don't (in my experience all Chinese seamed balls, including Nittaku SHA). And by that I mean they are an easier adjustment from celluloid and pretty much everybody I know likes them better across a very wide range of levels. Chief among these (in a good way) is the Nittaku Japan 40+ ball (which is JTTTA approved). Everybody so far likes them the best in my city, except that they are almost impossible to buy. XSF is next best (not perfect but not terrible), and then there is a gap, and then everything else, which I still find pretty bad.

One of the most interesting things in your video is the fact that almost all of the seamed balls seen in my city have a stamp of XFAD, or June 2014. That was probably the earliest they could sell them because it was only then that ITTF was willing to approve balls under relaxed specs-- or more bluntly to approve a substandard ball. By contrast, the XSF balls that I have are ITTF-approved with stamps of XCAD and XDAD, indicating they were made and approved using more rigorous specs (of March and April 2014). In other words, they meet the Jan 2016 specs already. I want to emphasize that those specs are not irrelevant to the way these things actually play since the only two balls that meet them actually play decently and the others don't (well in my opinion, anyway). As Debater points out, the spec are likely not the whole story either. That is why XSF is a good ball only in relation to other plastic balls but most people would probably prefer celluloid.

One last point. Some of what is going on with the playing properties of these balls is a feature, not a bug, as Sharara has admitted. In other words, if celluloid balls were made on average 0.3-0.4 mm larger, almost certainly we would see some of the same changes in trajectory and spin. But almost certainly they would bounce more or less normally. The reason ITTF insisted on the size is because they wanted that to happen. (Their claim is that they are just enforcing the existing rule, since most popular 40 mm balls were really around 39.8). For me at least, that larger size is not an issue at all. I wouldn't want it to go any larger, though.

_________________
Butterfly Viscaria Black tag
2.2 mm Nexy Karis M on FH and BH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 08:08 
Offline
Kim Is My Shadow
Kim Is My Shadow
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008, 09:04
Posts: 2206
Location: Lancashire
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times
Blade: Nitakku Acustic Carbon
FH: Nitakku Fastarc G-1
BH: Butterfly Tenergy 64
scottgordon wrote:
I was surprised by the claim that the players reps were ok with the relaxed T3 specs. Then it occurred to me that the players on such a body would likely be exclusively at the super-elite level.


I think the players were on the Athletes Commision and I'm pretty sure Vladimir Samsonov was one of those players. To be fair, the original source balls passed the Tech 3 specs but it was the players feedback and their durability issues which lead to the temporary specs so those elite players have had a positive impact on improving the ball further. The ITTF could easily have said "the balls meet the specs that's good enough for us" but they didn't so I think they are serious about delivering on the "play similar or identical" aspect.

I'd also stress that these videos are not for or against the ITTF or plastic ball, we just wanted to see how they compared to each other and the T3 specs. The second video here was based on the logic of the marketing, testing theory and some concerns about what's gone on - especially around being able to make changes to a ball but not telling us when it's done. Based on the boxes of celluloid balls I bought they were over 14 months old when I bought them as new, but at least I knew they'd play the same as a box of newly produced celluloid balls. That's not the case with the plastic ones as they are still in the final stages of development.

Also of note, I learned a lot about balls and how they perform and how differnt properties have knock on effects on others. I have a lot healthier respect for the problems the ball manufacturers will have had making what seems in on the face of it a simple product. And without giving anything away, people will probably be surprised by the comments from the "human testers".

I was told back in July that the plastic balls were sold in "batches" and the first batch was bought up by certain companies who branded them as their own. Others waited / are waiting for the second batch delivery. If there was a way of identifying which batch a ball was you'd have a better chance of knowing how "good" it was. As it stands, the same source ball can be sold to many table tennis companies who rebrand it as their own - how much are we paying for label and how much for a quality ball? Possibly the best thing to do would be to buy balls from a company that makes them such as Nittaku. They are likely going to have first pick of the balls they sell as they make them as well. It also fits in with Baal's experiences and comments about the Nittaku ball.

However, the videos are not meant as propaganda for or against, they are simply intended to raise questions and provide data from which you can draw your own conclusions. By the end of them I'm pretty sure some people will acuse us of being puppets of the ITTF and others of being delusionary anti establishment. I can't change that. I can present what we found and let you make your own minds up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 09:08 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: 05 Sep 2009, 03:59
Posts: 42
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times
Awesome - thank you so much for your hard work. The first video was terrific and I learned a lot.

_________________
www.hardbat.com
Reisman lives!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2014, 09:46 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 13:20
Posts: 579
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 88 times
Although I play table tennis for recreation & fun, from an informative perspective and for the more committed 'it's just an awesome presentation'. :up:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2014, 03:31 
Offline
Kim Is My Shadow
Kim Is My Shadow
User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2008, 09:04
Posts: 2206
Location: Lancashire
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times
Blade: Nitakku Acustic Carbon
FH: Nitakku Fastarc G-1
BH: Butterfly Tenergy 64
Thank you.

Next video:

Pt.3 Plastic Ball Tested: Seam / Surface of the Ball / Hardness
1. Seam
- What the ITTF test for
- Our observations
2. Surface of the ball
- What the ITTF test for
- Our observations
- Spin Test
3. Hardness / Sound
- What the ITTF test for
- How our tests were done
- Our results
4. Conclusions



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2014, 08:33 
Offline
Super User

Joined: 11 Mar 2013, 21:12
Posts: 849
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 38 times
Just FYI, the "lack of rebound" is called plasticity whereas harder materials are generally more elastic, and you need to do a time->frequency domain transform to measure that pitch:

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26678&p=283292#p283292


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2014, 00:40 
Offline
Joo Too
Joo Too
User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2008, 18:31
Posts: 3765
Location: Dendermonde, Belgium
Has thanked: 976 times
Been thanked: 511 times
Blade: BTY Joo Se Hyuk ST
FH: Victas VS>401 2.0 R
BH: TSP Curl P1-R 1.5 B
Just marvelous! :up: I watched every part so far. Thx, Debater, haggisv, Baal and others for making such an informative video.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: v100ev and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2018 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




Don't forget to 'LIKE' our forum on Facebook if you enjoy the content: