OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Most pips players let alone the inverted loopers who whine about pips do not understand the basic design parameters of various pips & their resulting behavior.
Here is comparison of a short pips (388 B-1) & super (long) pips (Magic 77) with screen capture of pictures made at the same 459% magnification .
On 388 B-1, you can actually see the tiny pips on top of each pip. This is what makes the pips rough & make them frictionful pips
Compare this to the top of the Magic 77. It is relatively very smooth. This is what makes this rubber frictionless.
But the problem here is the designs are opposite of what they should be.
The 388 B-1 should be frictionless just like the Butterfly Resilon which was banned by the 2008 Frictionless Pips Ban.
And the Magic 77 should have the pip top like the 388 B-1 & the Feint Long because if you want a chopping rubber you want friction on top the pips not somewhat frictionless like Tibhar Grass Dtec. But most players do not understand this, They think the high spin reversal comes from pips being somewhat frictionless on top of the top of the pips. No . The decent spin reversal for Dtec comes from it being a relatively flexible pips design & not from it being as frictionless as it can be after the 2008 FLP ban. The pre 2008 frictionless pips are designed for deception by primarily making the pips top & sides very frictionless and also having a low pip density.
As you can see the inter pip distance (defined by ITTF as pip density) is smaller on the 388 B-1 but the inter pip distance must be higher if it needs more speed.
In contrast the Magic 77 should have pips closer for it to create more spin.
The other pip design parameters that define its overall behavior cannot be seen visually here . They are the pip flexibility & chemical material content of the pips (I am not talking about pips treating afterwards) .
The key traditional difference between short pips & long pips is that short pips are short and stiff while long pips are obviously longer but also flexible.
So when examining the pips of an opponent before a match, you want to look at three things
1. The top & side of the pips if they are rougher or smoother
2. The inter pip distance (pip density)
3. Pip flexibility (or stiffness)
Of course it is a combination of these 3 parameters that defines overall behavior. Of course there are many other design parameters that define behavior but they are generally less important. For example you cannot visually measure accurately the length or width of the pips (which defines Aspect Ratio, which is probably the most important pip design parameter) .
Read the two article below for more information
https://tacticaltabletennis.blogspot.com/p/pip-design-parameters-playing.html
https://tacticaltabletennis.blogspot.com/p/ar.html

Very nice information, SJan.

A counter-argument would be to point to the tires used in Formula 1 - the "dry" tires are slicks (no treads). This is to maximize the contact area with the pavement, which maximizes friction. By contrast, wet and intermediate tires have treads (i.e. grooves). This is to prevent aquaplaning, to remove water from the contact area. As a result, they have less friction and they don't use them in dry conditions as a result. So based on this, I'd argue that flat pips would have more friction than textured pips.

Iskandar

No let us talk about how pip friction measured by ITTF to ban the most frictionless pips ?
So under pip friction measurements, which would have highest friction & lowest friction ?
Feint Long or Dtec or any Pre 2008 banned pip ?
Which one would give the maximum spin creation ?
Are you saying that the banned frictionless pips will give more spin than Feint Long ? What is the REAL reason for the frictionless pips ban of 2008 ? It for sure is not because it was giving too much spin for choppers (or blockers for that matter)
So if you claim that the frictionless pips will give most deception as well most spin, why did all the top choppers used the banned Feint long & not the banned TSP P1 Curl or not banned Yasaka Phantom 007 ?

In the same vein, if you measured the friction of say GeoSpin Tacky, Hurricane , Tenergy, any old frictioned anti & new frictionless antis which would have maximum friction ?
Which would have lowest friction ? Which one would give the maximum spin creation ?

Then if you take the most frictionless in above two tests what is the commonality between the winner in above two tests as far as the top of the surface is concerned ?

I have practiced & tested various pips against quite a few 2000 to 2400+ players countless hours & have played against a lot of the highest rated USA players in sanctioned tournament situations as well, more than once. (I did not say I won as people alwasy twist my words)
So I can tell confidently why I chose Feint Long & not a frictionless long pips just as almost all the top pros & most higher level non pros.
If you keep all other design parameters the same, the frictioned pips will give more spin (I should rather say that the frictionless pips will give less spin) . But of course the overall behavioral difference between two brands is not based on just one design parameters. Another reason for this is that the dwell time is also higher with a friectioned pip. This has enormous significance when you consider the long pips bending and shooting the ball out like from a sling shot with a much higher stored energy & release.
But in some cases it could be just one parameters such as the case between say 388 D & 388D-1. 388D is more frictionless & more deceptive but 388D-1 is more fractioned & definitely gives more spin
And what you are saying may or may not be true for Formula 1 but from my tabletennis calculations & playing experience I have no doubt a frictioned pip gives more spin. Players confuse deception of the Dtec with more spin. Also as I pointed out pip friction is NOT the ONLY design parameter that controls spin creation or spin reversal as I have explained above.
Also if I block with a frictioned pip I would get lot more spin reversal than a frictionless pip. But a frictionless has other advantages in the blocking mode mostly due to the ball slipping off the pips (top) just the same way as how the ball slides of a frictionless anti lot more than super spinny rubber like GeoSpin Tacky. Players confuse this non linear behavior against different incoming speeds & spins with more spin reversal.

I used to be against deliberate product design to randomize ball flight but I no longer am . Why ? I have explained it clearly elsewhere as to why I now support both frictioned & frictionless for both anti & pips for all age groups & most especially children (and thankfully is actually happening in places like India & Taiwan & people are actually freaking out in German forums because of this

BTW I would also like to add an important clarification. I went back & took magnified photos of Tibhar Dtec & Feint Long 2 and Feint Long Classic & TSP Curl P1. (I do not have Feint Long 3) . Feint Long Classic & Feint Long 2 & Tibhar Dtec have the same friction with rough pips tops but Dtec's deception & also spin comes from its being a bit more flexible than FL 1 & 2. However in my earlier post I was referring to the high spin of Feint Long Classic due its having a higher Aspect Ratio. I believe FL2 & Detc arrived just about the same time & it is possible that Dtec has more spin & also more deception than FL 2 & may be this is possibly why FL 3 was released. So in this context calling Dtec is clearly a misnomer in the context of pre-2008 frictionless pips but I assume Tibhar wants to call Dtec as frictionless to sell more rubber by associating Dtec to banned rubbers (bad boy syndrome) because its frictionless behavior does not come from it having smooth pip top but more due to pip flexibility (possibility the pip's chemical material used for manufacturing). And of course Dtec could never have the spin of FL1 due to FL1 having higher aspect ratio.
I never bothered to test Dtec & Fl2 seriously because I know for sure their spin level is less than FL 1 because of the Aspect Ratio. Of course I am using Magic 77 now which has higher aspect ratio than any pip on ITTF LARC I get more spin despite it being quite frictionless. This is why it works well both in chopping mode (higher aspect ratio than ITTTF LARC pips) as well as in blocking mode (due to low friction) & these are of course two reasons that ITTF would hate players test this rubber & learn the truth about the spin theft by the ITTF. This is why I also posted few months ago asking from manufacturer of Magic 77 for a better version of Magic 77 with rougher pips to & * higher pip density. And I would like to see a Magic 77 with even more glassy pip top & lower pip density & a touch more flexibility for blockers (This would be Dtec on steroids) & rubbers like this would somewhat (if not completely) level the playing field against boosted loopers after 11 rule changes since 1983 to oppress defenders.
Of course TSP Curl P1 is somewhat more smoother than FL1 & 2 & Dtec and also more flexible & the lame scapegoat excuse for the 1998 AR change due to higher deception & also fraudulent claims that millions of players were microwaving the Curl & billions of children died as a result LOL