Thinner rubber inherently less spinny than thicker rubbers?

[Draf]

A friend of mine switched from Fastarc G-1 2.0 to MX-P 1.75. He also changed his blade from a stiff all-round 5-ply to an offensive carbon blade. I noticed that his loops became faster but had less spin. Is the decrease in spin primarily due to the change in rubber or a consequence of the blade change?

 

[Julzig]

It can have many reasons. Hitting style and adaptation period are often a factor.
Also the added speed might let you perceive the spin to be less while it could be the same, numerically speeking. A ball with 130rps at, lets say, 10kph is harder to control and feels a whole lot spinnier than a ball with 130rps traveling at 50kph.

But generally speeking a thicker sponge and a flexible blade have more potential for spin.

Btw, how long has he been playing with this new setup and what is his rough playing level?

 

[Archosaurus]

In theory, a stiffer blade with a stiffer sponge and higher friction topsheet should be able to produce the most spin at some kind of impossible maximum speed swing at its specific maximum spin contact angle.

In reality, it depends highly on the exact performance curves of the blade and rubber, which change nonlinearly depending on impact speed, impact rotation, impact angle and so on.

So the answer to your question is yes, no, maybe.

Generally I would expect a grippier topsheet to produce more spin on good tangential contact.
Generally I would expect a thicker but softer sponge to produce more spin on good tangential contact.
Generally I would expect a harder blade and sponge to produce more speed on harder contacts.
Generally I would expect a stiffer blade and sponge to produce more speed on softer contacts.

Testing shows that this isn't always the case and stuff like how much the spin reverses on impact is very nonlinear depending on the sponge and topsheet thickness at different impact angles, which will influence the actual output shot a lot, especially at lower swing speed, like in pushes and blocks.

You should just test it yourself, changing one part at a time.

 

[Conehead]

It is not helpful to change two essential parameters simultaneously and then try to nail an observation down to only one parameter/change specifically.

 

[Draf]

It can have many reasons. Hitting style and adaptation period are often a factor.
Also the added speed might let you perceive the spin to be less while it could be the same, numerically speeking. A ball with 130rps at, lets say, 10kph is harder to control and feels a whole lot spinnier than a ball with 130rps traveling at 50kph.

But generally speeking a thicker sponge and a flexible blade have more potential for spin.

Btw, how long has he been playing with this new setup and what is his rough playing level?

He has been playing with it for 3+ months and I think he would be considered a beginner.
Middle aged man, played for a few years with little formal training, kind of a office champion.

 

[Colestt]

Thickness of sponge adds topspin to loops but not as much to serves and pushes where youre not sinking the ball anyway

 

[Archosaurus]

Thickness of sponge adds topspin to loops but not as much to serves and pushes where youre not sinking the ball anyway

I believe that lighter strokes utilize more hysteretic friction from the topsheet and are more dependent on pure coefficient of friction to generate good force at low loads, while heavier strokes utilize the sponge more just mechanically, to grab around the ball and launch it with a resultant spin.

That's probably why elite players can still make great spin with completely dead crappy rubber rackets if they make a very powerful swing, but something like serving or pushing is more limited by the materials.

 

[Tyce]

He has been playing with it for 3+ months and I think he would be considered a beginner.
Middle aged man, played for a few years with little formal training, kind of a office champion.

Just based on that, the problem is too fast equipment, not the thickness of the sponge. The ball leaves the bat before any meaningful spin can be applied

 

[zeio]

A friend of mine switched from Fastarc G-1 2.0 to MX-P 1.75. He also changed his blade from a stiff all-round 5-ply to an offensive carbon blade. I noticed that his loops became faster but had less spin. Is the decrease in spin primarily due to the change in rubber or a consequence of the blade change?

It's likely both and the blade probably has a bigger part on the perception.

From limited experimental data, thinner rubbers tend to produce less speed and spin but also a lower throw angle, which could lead to the perception of faster shots. OTOH, stiffer blades tend to produce more speed and less spin.

 

[Archosaurus]

It's likely both and the blade probably has a bigger part on the perception.

From limited experimental data, thinner rubbers tend to produce less speed and spin but also a lower throw angle, which could lead to the perception of faster shots. OTOH, stiffer blades tend to produce more speed and less spin.

Sponge thickness has a huge effect on the throw angle and spin reversal on blocks according to some old testing.

I'm not sure exactly how it works if the receiving bat also impacts power and speed onto the ball; probably more linear and comparable to thicker sponges; but there's definitely a huge measurable difference. The reaction when angling the bat is also very different between different sponge thicknesses; the thicker one can reverse spin entirely and feed back topspin, while a thin one might actually feed back light backspin (!) and so on.

The trends are probably all over the place and will depend on the characteristics of the sponge itself, so not all covering models will follow the same trends necessarily.

I agree with the practical assessment though.

 

[Colestt]

I believe that lighter strokes utilize more hysteretic friction from the topsheet and are more dependent on pure coefficient of friction to generate good force at low loads, while heavier strokes utilize the sponge more just mechanically, to grab around the ball and launch it with a resultant spin.

That's probably why elite players can still make great spin with completely dead crappy rubber rackets if they make a very powerful swing, but something like serving or pushing is more limited by the materials.

Yes, thinner sponges like tackier tops. I think thats what youre saying.

 

[Archosaurus]

Yes, thinner sponges like tackier tops. I think thats what youre saying.

I'm talking in absolute terms for any sheet, but yes, adhesion is just an extremely rapid increase in the CF at low loads, which will help effective force a lot at those low loads, although there's only so much it can do because the input load is so small.

 

[zeio]

Sponge thickness has a huge effect on the throw angle and spin reversal on blocks according to some old testing.

I'm not sure exactly how it works if the receiving bat also impacts power and speed onto the ball; probably more linear and comparable to thicker sponges; but there's definitely a huge measurable difference. The reaction when angling the bat is also very different between different sponge thicknesses; the thicker one can reverse spin entirely and feed back topspin, while a thin one might actually feed back light backspin (!) and so on.

The trends are probably all over the place and will depend on the characteristics of the sponge itself, so not all covering models will follow the same trends necessarily.

I agree with the practical assessment though.

Right. The biggest issue with the thickness and hardness of inverted rubbers is the threshold at which the behavior changes and the trend reverses. There is some truth to all the "phenomenons" EJs experience.

 

[Archosaurus]

Right. The biggest issue with the thickness and hardness of inverted rubbers is the threshold at which the behavior changes and the trend reverses. There is some truth to all the "phenomenons" EJs experience.

The slopes seem pretty different too, although to me it largely seems like lower spin and spin reversal potential = lower slope, and the trend changes become less meaningful as a result. It might be why beginners are suggested to not begin with a 2.2 sheet and instead with a slightly smaller one, because the slopes are much milder on even just a little bit thinner sheet.

Of course % wise a 1.8 is almost 20% thinner, so it's not exactly a small change, it's big enough to feel easily.

The thing I'm personally interested in is what slopes become higher. If the topsheet grip and sponge density stays the same but the sponge thickness is lower, it's almost guaranteed that the progressive slope is higher and reaches infinite~ rate sooner (I think this is what you can feel as "bottoming") and there's probably more load sensitivity because the hysteretic mass is lower, but the question is always how much. Maybe it's 1%, maybe it's 30%.