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 05 Jul 2020, 16:32


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 This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:18 
Offline
Count Darkula
Count Darkula
User avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:07
Posts: 17501
Location: Dark side of Australia!!
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 290 times
Blade: Bty Gergely T5000
FH: TSP Regalis Blue Max
BH: Tibhar Grass Dtecs
adham wrote:
Your idea has merit, it may need some minor adjustment. Actualy we had exactly that years ago, but the manufacturers pressed the ITTF a lot on making 1 list per year (instead of every 2 years), then 2 lists per year and making new racket coverings immediately valid as soon as they were on the list. So, this is fine when you add, but as you pointed out , it;s very bad when a rubber does not make the list. Sudden death ! So, we are looking into a fairer system for both cases (adding and removing) and your suggestion has a lot of merit and will be discussed internally. Thank you for the input.

Adham

Adham


I have no doubt there would need some adjusting on my raw idea to address issues I am not aware of. Knowing that such a policy change is in the wind, and even that I may have contributed to assisting with it is very satisfying! Thanks for the great reply Adham.

Reb.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! :twisted: Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.


Top
 Profile  
 


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

 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 17:57 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 16:33
Posts: 772
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Hi Adham, thanks for participating in this forum. There are two things i would request that you consider, and i'll post them separately for your convenience.

While i am in favor of the principle of removing toxic chemicals from the sport, in my opinion there is a widespread situation that must be taken care of as part of cleaning up the sport. The ITTF recommends airing out rubber for 72 hours prior to usage and testing to ensure that the the VOCs have escaped from the rubber. I verified this myself by using an enez to test a racket i had prepared without airing out the rubber; i left the plastic rubber protector on it up until the test was performed, and sure enough the racket tested positive, weeks after i had assembled the racket.

The problem i have here is not just the long lead time required to prepare a racket. In order to make a racket, i need to air out the rubber. Now, where am i going to air out the rubber? If i want the rubber to be VOC-free prior to use, i need to move all of the VOCs from the rubber into the air in my living room. Now the club and tournament facility are cleaner, but my home is contaminated. If i had a basement or garage i might leave it in there, but i live in an apartment, and i would prefer not to open the windows during the winter. In the past, my racket would remain sealed at home, and would only be in the open air during practice or competition, sparing my innocent cat or anyone who might be at my home.

I hope the ITTF will request or even demand that the manufacturers either stop using adhesives with VOCs during the assembly of sandwich rubber, or thoroughly air them out prior to packaging. Perhaps FIT would even make their own certification of rubber that's ready to use right out of the package.

_________________
Equipment: Matsushita PowerDefence, Spin Art 1.9 black, Xiying 979 ox red
Style: American | US Rating: barely 2000


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Nov 2008, 18:38 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 16:33
Posts: 772
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
I'm sure you're tired of hearing about pips, but there's something i haven't been able to figure out about the situation. I believe it's because i'm missing information, and i hope you can enlighten us.

At the 2006 meeting of the board of directors, the following resolution was proposed by the equipment committee and passed by a majority vote of the board of directors:

----
Technical Leaflet T4A
A requirement that for the racket coverings the rubber surface should be uniform and without coating shall be included in the Technical Leaflet.

----

Technical leaflet T4 was changed to have the following statement:

----
1.4.4. Friction
The minimum friction level is 25 mN. The rubber surface of the racket coverings should be uniform and without coating.

----


The "uniform and without coating" statement is consistent between both the BOD minutes and the technical leaflet. I have no problem whatsoever with that verbiage. Pips shouldn't be sticky on the left side and slick on the right side, and the players who used those rubbers generally weren't any good anyway. As written, the proposal makes perfect sense to me.

However the statement "The minimum friction level is 25 mN" seems to come out of nowhere. It is not in the BOD minutes, which indicates that the BOD did not pass a resolution mandating a minimum friction level. But then the statement about minimum friction suddenly appeared in technical leaflet T4, with no apparent direction from either the board of directors or the general assembly.

So there is something we're missing here. What is the source of the minimum friction requirement, if the ITTF did not vote on it?

It is not logically implicit that a minimum friction is required in order for a surface to be uniform and without coating; a surface can have uniformly low friction.

Furthermore, if an association were to prepare a proposal to remove the friction requirement, they would probably want to refer to the previous discussion and vote which led to the addition of the friction requirement. However, with no documentation about such a vote, there's nothing to refer to when presenting a case against it. From the available information it seems that the existence of a minimum friction level is the result of something on the level of a clerical error. What am i missing?

_________________
Equipment: Matsushita PowerDefence, Spin Art 1.9 black, Xiying 979 ox red
Style: American | US Rating: barely 2000


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 01:42 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
kagin wrote:
Hi Adham, thanks for participating in this forum. There are two things i would request that you consider, and i'll post them separately for your convenience.

While i am in favor of the principle of removing toxic chemicals from the sport, in my opinion there is a widespread situation that must be taken care of as part of cleaning up the sport. The ITTF recommends airing out rubber for 72 hours prior to usage and testing to ensure that the the VOCs have escaped from the rubber. I verified this myself by using an enez to test a racket i had prepared without airing out the rubber; i left the plastic rubber protector on it up until the test was performed, and sure enough the racket tested positive, weeks after i had assembled the racket.

The problem i have here is not just the long lead time required to prepare a racket. In order to make a racket, i need to air out the rubber. Now, where am i going to air out the rubber? If i want the rubber to be VOC-free prior to use, i need to move all of the VOCs from the rubber into the air in my living room. Now the club and tournament facility are cleaner, but my home is contaminated. If i had a basement or garage i might leave it in there, but i live in an apartment, and i would prefer not to open the windows during the winter. In the past, my racket would remain sealed at home, and would only be in the open air during practice or competition, sparing my innocent cat or anyone who might be at my home.

I hope the ITTF will request or even demand that the manufacturers either stop using adhesives with VOCs during the assembly of sandwich rubber, or thoroughly air them out prior to packaging. Perhaps FIT would even make their own certification of rubber that's ready to use right out of the package.


I am not a chemist, but perhaps the error you made is to leave the plastic shield on the rubber as that blocks the pores and traps the VOC into the rubber. Actually the manufacturers are asked to air the rubbers before packing, they are supposed to do it, but sometimes at the factory they do not do it. Our Equipment Committee made exactly 200 tests with 72 hours of airing, 100% of the rubbers passed the enex test. In fact even 48 hours should be enough if you have good ventilation (air movement). So, to answer your question about your apartment. Of course you are right. I would suggest to that you remove the packaging, remove the plastic shieled and then air the rubber in an area where you do have ventilation, or place it under an exhaust fan in the bathroom if you have one. You could also choose a room in which you but the rubber near a window and air them, then reheat that room.

Adham

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 08:18 
Offline
VaMP-ire Killer

Joined: 24 Aug 2007, 00:05
Posts: 757
Location: Somerset, UK
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Hi adham, i have a breif question. why have the doubles been taken out of majour events like the olympics? I can understandthat the team event is more interesting (plus as many of us play leagues we are use to this type of format). But to me doubles on its own is a great way to get people into table tennis as not only do have more people playing at one time, but doubles is gauranteed to bring fun between the 4. Plus doubles is fun and interesting to watch as you can have rallies you dont get in a singles match. I feel that doubles should still be a vital part of table tennis on its own and if possible should be included in larger events like olympics

_________________
aka Craig

Set Up: Butterfly Balsa Carbo X5 Stiga Calibra LT Sound and Butterfly Tenergy 05FX


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 10:04 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
kagin wrote:
I'm sure you're tired of hearing about pips, but there's something i haven't been able to figure out about the situation. I believe it's because i'm missing information, and i hope you can enlighten us.

At the 2006 meeting of the board of directors, the following resolution was proposed by the equipment committee and passed by a majority vote of the board of directors:

----
Technical Leaflet T4A
A requirement that for the racket coverings the rubber surface should be uniform and without coating shall be included in the Technical Leaflet.

----

Technical leaflet T4 was changed to have the following statement:

----
1.4.4. Friction
The minimum friction level is 25 mN. The rubber surface of the racket coverings should be uniform and without coating.

----


The "uniform and without coating" statement is consistent between both the BOD minutes and the technical leaflet. I have no problem whatsoever with that verbiage. Pips shouldn't be sticky on the left side and slick on the right side, and the players who used those rubbers generally weren't any good anyway. As written, the proposal makes perfect sense to me.

However the statement "The minimum friction level is 25 mN" seems to come out of nowhere. It is not in the BOD minutes, which indicates that the BOD did not pass a resolution mandating a minimum friction level. But then the statement about minimum friction suddenly appeared in technical leaflet T4, with no apparent direction from either the board of directors or the general assembly.

So there is something we're missing here. What is the source of the minimum friction requirement, if the ITTF did not vote on it?

It is not logically implicit that a minimum friction is required in order for a surface to be uniform and without coating; a surface can have uniformly low friction.

Furthermore, if an association were to prepare a proposal to remove the friction requirement, they would probably want to refer to the previous discussion and vote which led to the addition of the friction requirement. However, with no documentation about such a vote, there's nothing to refer to when presenting a case against it. From the available information it seems that the existence of a minimum friction level is the result of something on the level of a clerical error. What am i missing?


Sorry for taking a long time to answer, I wanted to check the Minutes first and I am spending a lot of time at the hospital. I did check the Minutes about the 25mN, you will find the decision in the Minutes of the Board of Directors of February 2008 in Gaungzhou, China, Item 11.2 as follows:
11.2 Limit of friction level
It was decided to request the Equipment Committee to study the friction of treated rubbers further. However, it was agreed that the friction level of racket coverings would be fixed at -25 mN

This decision was taken after about 2 years of research and experiments to find an acceptable minimum level of friction. At the meeting we received a detailed account and the recommendation made by the Equipment Committee and the reasons given. The decision was made unanimously. Then a draft technical leaflet was produced that was later approved by the EC.

I will try to answer your post in more detail tomorrow. I now have to go. Sorry.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Nov 2008, 23:25 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 21:06
Posts: 1213
Location: England
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Hi adham: Best wishes to your family and thank you for coming to the forum.

I'm afraid my issue is also with the frictionless ban. The suggestion from yourself earlier was that it was believed they are detrimental to the sport. I'd like to hear that case. I don't believe it's been preented satisfactorily, if at all. Frictionless was only one answer to sponge. It came about because of the spin and speed you can get with inverted which you didn't used to be able to get with orthodox pimples (the rubber before sponge). It also plays a lot more like orthodox pimples than sponge. I'm not suggsting we should go back to that stage just hoping to remind you of the history of rubbers.

Yes I think they are easier to use than grippy pips. I also think they are easy to play against. They are not an advantage, no top players used them when they were allowed. As a rubber it can allow a transition to grippy long pimples, particuarly for many players who struggle with time to learn to fully master a rubber as difficult as grippy pips.

Importantly this is not a ban of a new rubber. It is a retrospective ban. It acts on players who have adapted there game and style to the rubber. Some people will have spent 10 years playing with it and may know little else. Asking them to change is a big decision that should neither be taken lightly nor behind closed doors.

Had you never approved them in the 1st place, I may have supported or even approved of that decision. However you didn't. Laws should benefit players, both future and present and I consider this law to be vile because it does not (IMO) treat the present users of this rubber fairly.

Were it not for injury which has stopped me from playing other sports I would take your advice and find another sport. However, I don't believe I should have too. You can still repeal this law, the rubber doesn't stop people who have to play against it getting to the top and it doesn't help those using it get to the top. It justs helps people to play certain styles.

I feel this ban is unfair because it is retrospective. I think it should be repealed and a case to ban the rubber based on it been detremental to the sport made, if one can be made, taking into account its effect on present users.

_________________
Equipment Review Index
Joola Turbo: FH: Joola Peking (2mm) , BH: Joola Peking (2mm)
Another one bites the dust.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 00:25 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
Skull wrote:
Hi adham, i have a breif question. why have the doubles been taken out of majour events like the olympics? I can understandthat the team event is more interesting (plus as many of us play leagues we are use to this type of format). But to me doubles on its own is a great way to get people into table tennis as not only do have more people playing at one time, but doubles is gauranteed to bring fun between the 4. Plus doubles is fun and interesting to watch as you can have rallies you dont get in a singles match. I feel that doubles should still be a vital part of table tennis on its own and if possible should be included in larger events like olympics


The ITTF membership wished to have Teams at the Olympic Games since 1988. This was always rejected by the IOC as they do not want to increase the number of events overall. Finally, the IOC agreed to allow Team Events as long as the total number of events for TT remained the same. The ITTF Board and the ITTF AGM was asked if they would accept to have the Teams instead of the Doubles. Overwhelmingly this was agreed. However, the IOC urged the ITTF to maintain the doubles in some capacity in the Team Match format. The ITTF's Olympic Commission (special group that deals only with Olympic matters, 14 persons) struggled to find the best playing system and finally proposed a playing syate that includes a doubles match. So, in fact, even if the doubles as an event was replaced, we maintained a doubles match within the team-match playing system.

Adham

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 00:32 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
Hi adham: Best wishes to your family and thank you for coming to the forum.

I'm afraid my issue is also with the frictionless ban. The suggestion from yourself earlier was that it was believed they are detrimental to the sport. I'd like to hear that case. I don't believe it's been preented satisfactorily, if at all. Frictionless was only one answer to sponge. It came about because of the spin and speed you can get with inverted which you didn't used to be able to get with orthodox pimples (the rubber before sponge). It also plays a lot more like orthodox pimples than sponge. I'm not suggsting we should go back to that stage just hoping to remind you of the history of rubbers.

Yes I think they are easier to use than grippy pips. I also think they are easy to play against. They are not an advantage, no top players used them when they were allowed. As a rubber it can allow a transition to grippy long pimples, particuarly for many players who struggle with time to learn to fully master a rubber as difficult as grippy pips.

Importantly this is not a ban of a new rubber. It is a retrospective ban. It acts on players who have adapted there game and style to the rubber. Some people will have spent 10 years playing with it and may know little else. Asking them to change is a big decision that should neither be taken lightly nor behind closed doors.

Had you never approved them in the 1st place, I may have supported or even approved of that decision. However you didn't. Laws should benefit players, both future and present and I consider this law to be vile because it does not (IMO) treat the present users of this rubber fairly.

Were it not for injury which has stopped me from playing other sports I would take your advice and find another sport. However, I don't believe I should have too. You can still repeal this law, the rubber doesn't stop people who have to play against it getting to the top and it doesn't help those using it get to the top. It justs helps people to play certain styles.

I feel this ban is unfair because it is retrospective. I think it should be repealed and a case to ban the rubber based on it been detremental to the sport made, if one can be made, taking into account its effect on present users.


I am very sorry, normally I would answer you in detail. But I have already answered regarding this matter so many times. I know that you don't agree, but my answers cannot change. The decision was made by the ITTF openly and not behind closed doors, according to the correct process, and based on the proposals made by national associations. Please read all my explanations in this thread and in other Forums. I am sorry to brush you off like this but this is a bad time for me right now with very limited free time. I hope you understand.

Adham

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 07:04 
Offline
Darth Pips
Darth Pips
User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2007, 03:59
Posts: 4542
Location: Cudahy, WI, USA
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 89 times
Blade: Dr Neubauer Matador
FH: Tibhar Evolution MX-P 1.9
BH: DMS Scandal 1.2
I think that I saw a while ago that the USATT was looking for some tournaments to test out exactly what you're talking about, having one serve in each diagonal. I think that's a great idea.

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1667
Blade: Dr Neubauer Matador
FH Rubber: Tibhar Evolution MX-P 1.9
BH Rubber: DMS Scandal 1.2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 23:02 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 21:06
Posts: 1213
Location: England
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Hi Adham:
Do you either know yourself or know where I can find the ITTF's position on the Toni Hold New Antispin rubber that is marketed as 0x yet claims to have a thin sponge? I.e is it legal in its current state and if not would adding a sponge make it legal?
Thank you

_________________
Equipment Review Index
Joola Turbo: FH: Joola Peking (2mm) , BH: Joola Peking (2mm)
Another one bites the dust.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Nov 2008, 23:11 
Offline
Dark Knight
Dark Knight
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 12:34
Posts: 32617
Location: Adelaide, AU
Has thanked: 2020 times
Been thanked: 1323 times
Blade: Trinity Carbon
FH: Victas VS > 401
BH: Dr N Troublemaker OX
Is this the same one discussed in the thread here?
http://forum.oneofakindtrading.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=3338

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 00:45 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
Hi Adham:
Do you either know yourself or know where I can find the ITTF's position on the Toni Hold New Antispin rubber that is marketed as 0x yet claims to have a thin sponge? I.e is it legal in its current state and if not would adding a sponge make it legal?
Thank you


Go to the ITTF web-site (www.ittf.com), go to pull-down menu "Equipment", click on Racket Covering. You will have a database list called List 29 and on the right a PDF list called list 29B. If a racket covering is listed on list 29 it is authorized till 31 March 2009, if it appears on list 29B it is authorized till 30 June 2009.

The next list od authorized Racket Coverings will appear on 1 April 2009 called list No.30. If the racket covering is still on the list it will be valid till 31 December 2009, then list 30B will appear on 1 Octoberr 2009 and will be valid till 30 June 2010, etc.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 00:58 
Offline
Count Darkula
Count Darkula
User avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:07
Posts: 17501
Location: Dark side of Australia!!
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 290 times
Blade: Bty Gergely T5000
FH: TSP Regalis Blue Max
BH: Tibhar Grass Dtecs
I think the issue Adham is that Toni Hold is an inverted rubber that technically has not sponge, which in the definitions in the T4 leaflet makes it illegal. However, it is approved on list 29, probably because it comes with a fabric base which could be considered a sponge in some sense of the word (but its still not cellular rubber). I would think adding sponge to it would still be legal so long as it doesn't breach the 4mm limit would that be correct? Or would the fact that the fabric has been considered a sponge to approve the rubber mean it would be considered 2 layers of sponge, which is illegal?

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! :twisted: Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Nov 2008, 01:04 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 21:06
Posts: 1213
Location: England
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Thank you for you reply and time.
I am sorry if its seemed a silly question but we'd had some debate about whether the ITTF only authorised racket coverings and the exact nature of a sponge. Chinese whispers kind of thing.
Yes Haggis I like the rubber, i've got 5 sheets, it's good for blocking so i'd thought i'd ask the question in case it means i don't need to add sponge to it. Hi reb just cross threaded.

_________________
Equipment Review Index
Joola Turbo: FH: Joola Peking (2mm) , BH: Joola Peking (2mm)
Another one bites the dust.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 31  Next



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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