tt gear lab site

[arashfarshadi]

I used to be really confused when trying to compare table tennis blades because every company has its own rating system—and sometimes they are even biased. However, I was amazed when I discovered the fantastic "TT Gear Lab" website about a year ago; they test blades scientifically, making it easy to compare them directly. I hope more table tennis players find and use the site so they never have to feel confused again and can easily compare and choose the right equipment. I also hope the site continues to grow and expand.

 

[cruzctrl]

I used to be really confused when trying to compare table tennis blades because every company has its own rating system—and sometimes they are even biased. However, I was amazed when I discovered the fantastic "TT Gear Lab" website about a year ago; they test blades scientifically, making it easy to compare them directly. I hope more table tennis players find and use the site so they never have to feel confused again and can easily compare and choose the right equipment. I also hope the site continues to grow and expand.

I LOVE their site. They will respond to questions too, which is helpful.

 

[arashfarshadi]

I LOVE their site. They will respond to questions too, which is helpful.

yes. wonderful 👍

 

[jk1980]

i do like his side as well, but over time i somehow get the feeling that the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.". It seems like he (i assume it is a he that does the tests) has the ability to measure 4 values only. With these values EP, EC, VP, VL he tries to describe every feature and behaviour of a blade which might look reasonable with his diagrams, but his descriptions which always point to his made up formulas to i.e. describe deep hold attributes of a blade which leads to a categorization of certain blades close to other blades which you would not deem similar if you tested both blades by hand. While the standard test to derive the single values/metrics are fine, what he makes out of it is whichful thinking and lacking in my opinion.

i don't have the equipment to test these things, but i am pretty sure if you had a very high (time) resolution camera you would see that two similar "hold" blades would result in very different "holding" patterns when a ball is struck.

I am glad that he does this work, but he could do so much more which would be way more useful. For instance he could take more measurements at different spots on the blade face (like a matrix of measure points) to find out how big the sweet spot of the blade actually is. This would describe how many points that are close to the middle of the blade show a very similar behaviour of the blade and where it would deviate much.
Another thing would be to try to measure low impact shots which should introduce variables that more closely categorize blades into AR/OFF/OFF+ on low inmpact.

 

[Marvinn8686]

It is clear the values provided are not enough to describe every aspect of blade behaviour. Still very useful and I have to admit few times I bought a second-hand blade based on the parameter values and I was quite happy with the result. For sure this website is a great effort to have some as-objective-as-possible data for various equipment. Also few times I left a comment or gave some feedback there and got useful answer from the site owner.

 

[mightymouse]

I always wonder how he measures the values of Ep, Ec, Vl and Vp....

Is it by bouncing the ball on bare blade? By frequency?

How to measure Ep and Ec differently?

Not to doubt his results, but very curious on how he measures them consistently across many blades (so that all of them can be compared objectively).

 

[SDC]

I always wonder how he measures the values of Ep, Ec, Vl and Vp....

Is it by bouncing the ball on bare blade? By frequency?

How to measure Ep and Ec differently?

Not to doubt his results, but very curious on how he measures them consistently across many blades (so that all of them can be compared objectively).

He measures the vibrations modes of the blade, namely the first (natural bending) and 6th (membrane, or out-of-plane deformation), then compares these values to a reference blade (all around classic). The two other values are a relation between these two modes themselves. The method has some value of course, but it is flawed in many levels, starting with the fact that they all relate to that first all around classic he measured first. If he had measured a different blade, then all data until now would be different. Then the fact that all blades have a significant variation in weight, and he's attributing a behavior to that model, based on the single blade he measured. You would need much more samples in order to establish a pattern. Of course I understand this is not plausible for just one guy to make, but I'm just pointing out the flaws in the method, and why you should take this info with a grain of salt.

 

[SDC]

He measures the vibrations modes of the blade, namely the first (natural bending) and 6th (membrane, or out-of-plane deformation), then compares these values to a reference blade (all around classic). The two other values are a relation between these two modes themselves. The method has some value of course, but it is flawed in many levels, starting with the fact that they all relate to that first all around classic he measured first. If he had measured a different blade, then all data until now would be different. Then the fact that all blades have a significant variation (in weight, thickness, feel...), and he's attributing a behavior to that model, based on the single blade he measured. You would need much more samples in order to establish a pattern. Of course I understand this is not plausible for just one guy to make, but I'm just pointing out the flaws in the method, and why you should take this info with a grain of salt.

 

[merlin el mago]

He measures the vibrations modes of the blade, namely the first (natural bending) and 6th (membrane, or out-of-plane deformation), then compares these values to a reference blade (all around classic). The two other values are a relation between these two modes themselves. The method has some value of course, but it is flawed in many levels, starting with the fact that they all relate to that first all around classic he measured first. If he had measured a different blade, then all data until now would be different. Then the fact that all blades have a significant variation in weight, and he's attributing a behavior to that model, based on the single blade he measured. You would need much more samples in order to establish a pattern. Of course I understand this is not plausible for just one guy to make, but I'm just pointing out the flaws in the method, and why you should take this info with a grain of salt.

You are right Sergio, but we need a reference to measure data....

 

[zeio]

Actually, a reference is not even needed if we're dealing with the natural frequency.

In case it's not obvious, what is presented by TTGearLab and represented by the 4 performance indices is essentially a proprietary algorithm, which is a black box to outsiders. Think of it like DeepSeek (open source) vs ChatGPT (proprietary).

 

[jonol]

In some of the articles it's apparent that multiple copies of a blade are tested and the values are averaged. It's a good way to get a reference for what 'range' of basic behaviour you might expect from purchasing particular blade.

The results seem fairly consistent across blades that have the same type of construction.

Most blades that have the typical 'Viscaria' construction all test very similarly. Same with the blades tested with similar construction to the Innerforce ALC, they all have fairly similar results.

The outliers tend to occur when the testing samples are particularly heavy or light, but as long as the weights are similar the results seem to be what you'd expect. Mizutani Jun ZLC and Super version are both tested with less than 1g difference in weight, and the results showed the Super version had a slightly faster base speed, slightly less dwell time and a bit more kick on hard shots.

Apart from the weight outliers, I think the data on the site is roughly consistent with my anecdotal experience as well. Having tried the Fastarc G1 on a number of different blades, it seems accurate enough.

 

[shaibu]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but ttgearlab does not actually specify exactly what and how they measure to come up with these four "performance indices" they have invented. Which means nobody else can reproduce their measurements on other blades. As long as this is the case, I see very little value in what they are doing.

 

[jonol]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but ttgearlab does not actually specify exactly what and how they measure to come up with these four "performance indices" they have invented. Which means nobody else can reproduce their measurements on other blades. As long as this is the case, I see very little value in what they are doing.

Performance indices : the way to evaluate blade by measurement

1. The reason why the evaluation by measurement is needed There are so many blades in the market, and it is always very difficult for us to select proper ones. We sometimes just select famous blade…

ttgearlab.com

What TTGearLab does? (updated on 3rd Jan. 2024)

TTGearLab provides total solution for the development of table tennis equipments – blades and rubbers (= coverings). According to the needs of table tennis companies, TTGearLab does everythin…

ttgearlab.com

The example of the comparison by performance indices

In this blog, for understanding a blade and comparing blades, four performance indices – two elasticity indices and two vibration indices – will be used. Ep : Elasticity Index (Primary)…

ttgearlab.com

The methodology is at least more standardised than what we get from blade manufacturers. Not only is it impossible to compare between manufacturers, the same brand often give contradictory ratings between different models on their product range.

If you were to go by Tibhar's speed ratings, you'd believe the Stratus Power Wood is as fast as the VS Unlimited for example.

 

[rbtitco]

EJ's -has anyone who has played all these blades hes tested NOT generally agree with the values hes stated?

 

[jonol]

EJ's -has anyone who has played all these blades hes tested NOT generally agree with the values hes stated?

For the different blades I have tried with the same rubbers the results seem pretty accurate, however the weight of the model is important to keep in mind.

Personal blades that I have used Fastarc G1 on forehand:

Stratus Power Wood (93g)
Harimoto ALC (90g)
Clipper Wood (6.5mm) (92g)

Other blades I've had short tests with Fastarc G1 (unsure of weight):

Mizutani Jun ZLC
Acoustic (5ply)
Viscaria
H301

I would say the testing on TTgearlab is roughly consistent with my experience. It's very hard to convert raw numbers to playing experience, and they don't tell us anything that you wouldn't otherwise be able to infer from the different construction materials and design choices - but that is far more difficult to understand unless you are already familiar with different woods, understanding difference between stiffness vs. hardness, flex vs. dwell, and knowing how different wood layers and their placement in the overall blade might affect its feel.

Even knowing all the above, you might still be surprised by the behaviour of a blade when you buy it.

 

[zeio]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but ttgearlab does not actually specify exactly what and how they measure to come up with these four "performance indices" they have invented. Which means nobody else can reproduce their measurements on other blades. As long as this is the case, I see very little value in what they are doing.

We have a general idea of what are being measured here, which are based on a simplified model through approximation. But that's where transparency ends, we have no clue how those 4 indices are calculated.

But let's put that aside. As SDC pointed out, the primary issue is using Allround Classic as the "neutral blade" based on which all data points are normalized for subsequent blades. Take for example the value of Ep (higher primary stiffness = higher rebound/speed), whether it's the newer or older Viscaria, the value is 2 times that of Allround Classic, but there's no way the rebound, which should be represented by COR, the true measure, is anywhere close to that, as various studies have shown.

In fact, the issue with assigning an Ep value of 0.0 to a neutral blade after the introduction of poly ball, where Allround Classic becomes slower (deflation), is acknowledged but not elaborated. That issue comes up because COR is a property of a collision between 2 objects, which in this case are the blade/racket and ball, with their own momenta (mass and velocity) that are exchanged (interdependent), whereas natural frequency is determined by the stiffness and mass of the object, where the blade/racket and ball have their own but are not exchanged (independent).