Monday, April 27, 2009

OOAK table tennis forum - Major Upgrade

As some of you know, I administrate the OOAK table tennis forum, as well as being an active member there. In the last few weeks I've spent a lot of time on the software, and have finally completed the upgrade of the forum software and graphics.

With the help of a friend (thanks Brab!) the new forum looks awesome, and thanks to the new software, it's rich in new features too! Now come the fun of discovering all the new features and learning how to use them...

If you're already a member there, make sure you update your bookmarks/favourites to the new URL (which is, since a few people have reported that the re-direct that is in place (from the old forum URL to the new one) is not working for them.

If you've not been to this forum before, why not come and check it out, and tell me what you think?

Monday, April 06, 2009

Testing 4 different long Pimple rubbers - Part 2

Next test, the Palio CK531A versus the Double Fish 1615

Again I glued both onto the FW+ blade. Bouncing the ball on the blade, the Palio was little more bouncy and faster, but not a great deal... perhaps 10%.
Blocking against topspin revealed pretty much the same, which give me confidence in the bounce test...

Ability to generate spin
The test was throwing the ball in the air, flicking the bat on contact, and catching the ball to see how fast it would spin. This may seem rather crude, but I repeated the test probably 50 times, until I was sure of the results. The 1615 could definitely generate a little more spin when you flick it hard.

Sensitivity to spin
I set the ball machine on heavy backspin and fairly high speed, and pushed the ball back. The angle of the ball coming off is a good indication of how much the ball grips, and you can actually feel it bite.
From the test the Palio does grip less, and it felt less sensitive to the backspin.

Reversal on blocks
I set the ball on topspin and blocked the ball back passively. I observed the ball bouncing slowly on the other side of the table to see how much backspin was on the ball.
On low impact the 1615 had clearly more reversal, as balls bounced back more and faster. At faster speeds this became less noticable, but I'm uncertain if I just could not see it, or of the difference was less.

Chopping away from the table
I set the ball machine on heavy topspin and I chopped away from the table.
The 1615 was easier the control and more effective for this. It had a little softer feel on the blade, and just offered a little more feel. It was easier to keep the ball lower, and also produced more reversal.

It was quite interesting that the 1615 seemed to produce more reversal when the ball was hit or blocked perpendicular to the path of the ball, but when the ball is brushed more, the Palio offered more reversal... This ties in with the fact that the 1615 grips more when you push a heavy backspin. No wonder opinions on reversal varies so much... it really does depend on the stroke...

I'd like to hear if you think my testing methods are effective, and if you come to the same conclusions as me, from the results... I think this might lead to a set of standardised test, allowing me to retest all my other pips, and catagorise them...

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Comparing 4 different long pimple rubbers

I'vejust received 4 long pimple rubbers and will do a comparison between them. The rubbers (all RED, OX) are:

1. Milky Way (Galaxy/Yin-He) Neptune
2. Double Fish 1615
3. Palio CK531A
4. Meteor 8512

First the bounce test

I drop the ball from about 25cm and see how high the ball bounces. I've taken a video of it, which I'll upload later. The results are as follows:

In order of height, starting at the highest rebound

1. Neptune / Palio - very close
2. 1615 - a little lower and slower
3. Meteor 8512 - a LOT lower and slower!

The Meteor was dead compared to all 3 of the other... I'm a little amazed how much slower this one is!

Next tests will be against the ball machine.

I propose to test

1. Reversal on soft blocks
2. Reversal on harder blocks
3. Sensitivity to spin
4. Ability to generate spin