OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Hi Torsten,

I'm breaking on average 2 plastic Joola Super P-40+ balls a practice session - average 2.5 hrs play/practice. There are Joola barriers behind one end of the table and a curtain at the other end so the balls aren't being hit against a hard wall - just the table. That is not good and far far worse than the durability I've experience with celluloid balls.

In our League video series I commented about the "flex or elasticity or ability to recover it's shape" of the plastic ball compared to the celluloid ball. The plastic ball was poorer at doing this. I also commented about the increase in weight ratio compared to the increase in surface area ratio for the plastic ball - namely the ITTF had increased the weight allowable by a smaller percentage than the percentage increase in the surface area which suggested that the ITTF might not have allowed a big enough increase in weight to account for the extra raw material needed to make a bigger 2 piece ball (yes I know the one piece balls are reported as lighter) - in other words, all other things being equal, the walls of the two piece plastic ball would be thinner and more fragile.

You yourself mentioned that one reason for the temporary increase in weight allowed in the T3 requirements for the plastic ball was due to concerns about the durability of the plastic balls. Can you please confirm:

1. What is the current status of testing on the two piece plastic balls for durability
2. Do the ITTF test for durability and if not why not - lot's of other products are tested for durability
3. Will the ITTF introduce tests for the ability of a ball to absorb an impact and regain it's shape after that impact
4. When can we expect the durability of the plastic balls to match that of the celluloid balls

I'm sure there are others on this forum who can provide the "scientific" terms for what I'm trying to refer to above.

Good questions!

A weight increase allowance, proportional to the size increase seems like a logical way to go.

_________________
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

MAGIC FORMULA.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_po ... iew#813771

A decent while ago, I happened to work as a consulting engeener in cooperation with Ukraina's pingpong ball maker named DESNA Enterprise alocated inside Shostka Chemical Plant in early 90s.
DESNA was then about to launch a novelty product of celluloid balls with a bigger diameter 42 and 44mm. They kindly told me to scientifically calculate how hefty the bigger balls might be.
The calculation I did for Desna, is easy to understand for everyone who is up in material engeenering. The guiding equation will do perfectly well when forming any balls of plastic.

GOOD LUCK.

As to 1 and 2: The ITTF is currently investigating a durability test with one of our technical consultant companies. The main open issues are budget and operational matters (e.g., how to combine best a destroying test with a set of non-destroying tests). Next discussions will be held during the annual Equipment Committee meeting at the World Championships in Suzhou.
As to 3: Not as far as I know.
As to 4: Communication of the manufacturers towards ITTF is talking about months, not years. And this exactly meets our expectations, because until January 1, 2016, it must mainly be done: Until now there is no request to extend the tolerance release beyond that date.

Torsten, can you give us a quick update on this now that 2016 is almost on us? Was anything significant decided at Suzhou?

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

Yes, the significant decision on this was NOT to extend the January 1, 2016 deadline. This decision has been kept since then. I have now already informed our labs that, from that date on, all balls submitted for approval will have to be tested against the original, i.e. re-tightened, specifications of the Technical Leaflet T3. The same holds for all balls bought by ITTF from retail for random testing, when carrying production dates later than the deadline.

This is for #4. For #1 and #2 it was decided to combine the development of a durability and a friction test, so that the technical design for both is meanwhile in preparation. A date of introduction is not yet decided, but of course the proceedings will be on the Equipment Committee's agenda in Kuala Lumpur.

Forgive my ignorance (& to save me reading 12 pages on this thread) - will the ball get lighter for 2016 ?
I've really only just started to enjoy playing TT again by sticking with the Nittaku Premium made in Japan poly. I hate to think what it's going to be like when the perceived weight of the ball gets messed with again.
I would imagine that the change from celluloid to poly has not done TT any favours. Numbers from last year are significantly down and the current ITTA tournaments are now looking at combining the junior and senior events on the same w/e. A lot of fellow competitors that were borderline on entering ITTA events are no longer competing since they have lost confidence in the game with the various poly balls namely the Butterfly & Joola. The G40 still not made an appearance as promised - by the time it gets released it will only be for a month ? before the original regs come into play. Also the XSF poly seems to have become the defacto standard for the Master (Vets) events. With the high bounce of that seamless ball making it lighter will make it unplayable for anyone who is not deemed to be an elite player.
I was secretly hoping that the temporary increased weight would be left in place. Poly ball and in particular the seamed Nittaku Premium is expensive enough as it is without putting further emphasis on the manufacturing process. Isn't that the reason why Butterfly gave up on making their own ball in China and brought it back to Europe to make the best ever G40 which they still can't get right to release it.

I think the XSF & Nittaku Premium 40+ both already comply with the regulations from January 1 2016.

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74

No ignorance at all. I don't know anyone who is still able to take each and every info from the news stream...

To answer it: Those balls which by now have temporarily exceeded the original 2.77g weight limit, yes they will have to get lighter - in order not to be heavier than the celluloid ball. Those balls which already comply, no, they will not be changed (at least ITTF does not require that).

As we talk: The Q&A presentation has received an update of some FAQs asked after the first release in July 2014. Core news are the status of random testing and the answer to the request to disclose some information on brand/manufacturer relations and material mixture (those who don't like the answer, please don't shoot the messenger... ).

BANG In all seriousness, thanks for the update though Torsten.

Interesting to note a lot of people are talking about the new Butterfly ball. It's worth remembering that Torsten's Q&A doesn't list Butterfly as a manufacturer which suggests Butterfly "buy in and rebrand" other manufacturers balls. In which case, unless Buttefly have bought all the batch of that particular ball, that there may be other sellers selling exactly the same ball as the Butterfly but with a different brand logo on.

I'm starting to lean to either:

1. Only buying plastic balls from companies that are listed as the makers of plastic balls or
2. Buying plastic balls which carry the JTTAA approved logo because as far as I'm aware, the JTTA never adopted the temporary measures introduced by the ITTF. This suggests JTTAA plastic balls meet the original standards which are being reintroduced from January 1st 2016 which, durabilty issues aside, is a good measure of quality.

Does anyone know if this is correct, have the JTTA adopted the "temporary" amendments to technical leaflet T3 that the ITTF have or are they testing balls based on the original T3 specification prior to the temporary amendments?

And, have the JTTA actually approved any plastic balls. I know the early Joola Super P 40+ plastic balls didn't carry the JTTAA approved logo.

Not yet. The new G40+ is the first Made in Germany plastic ball on the market (from Weener). That's not to say that there won't be rebrands in the future...

Thanks for the update and for being available to us.

The friction test is new, I have not heard it mentioned before. I have played with pretty much every type of plastic ball made, I have been using them exclusively for about 19 months. Today was my first session with the new G40+ ball from Butterfly. I think it is quite good, but the most noticeable thing about it compared to all other plastic balls I have tried is that the surface is quite smooth. It is especially obvious when you rub two of the balls together. I think it accounts in part for the way this ball plays (a little different from seamless or Nittaku Premium 40+, but certainly not bad).

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

So what percentage of the current balls in use currently will become illegal/banned on January 1? Is the case of seamless balls I just bought going to suddenly be illegal?

_________________



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

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

None. If a ball was passed and manufactured prior to 01-01-2016 it keeps it's legal status. That's the problem. There are going to be balls which meet the "temporary" requirements and balls which meet the "original and reinstated" requirements and which are both legal, all at the same time!

For someone who asked, I received some DHS balls that were made very recently, in October of 2015. They claim this is a new and improved material. They are lighter than they were back in June 2014, now around 2.76g, same as XSF and G40+, a little more than Nittaku Premium 40+. I am certain they will pass the weight test come January 2016 with no problem. They seemed pretty round.

I still hated playing with them. They were bloody awful because they still have a very low bounce, markedly lower than celluloid or seamless, Nittaku Premium or G40+ balls. I will not be able to say much about their durability because I disliked them so much I will not wear one out, mainly because of the very low bounce.

It is possible that these balls will pass a new ITTF static height test, but my guess is that it will be a close call and this ball will be a low end outlier compared to the others.

At this point, there are at least three different versions of plastic balls that have perfectly acceptable playing properties -- seamless, Nittaku Japan, and German-made Butterfly balls. Chinese seamed balls remain a big problem. Torsten, I beg you to increase the lower limit for that static bounce height test so we can get a little more homogeneity in ball playing properties.

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