New Butterfly rubber "Dignics 05" 2019

NDH · Apr 23, 2019

yoass said:
Yes, it's yours. You persist in relating production cost to market value. There is no such relation.

In your example, some materials are scarcer/more precious than others. But given that there's actually no relation between the functioning of a clock and the fact that it's made from unobtanium by blind wizards while hopping on one leg, that's immaterial.

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself clearly enough, so apologies if it isn’t coming through.

Im talking about raw material value. Not market value.

The raw material value of an expensive watch is more than the raw material value of a cheap Chinese watch, despite them functioning the same (in general).

Thats not me making it up, it’s just a fact.

The fact that that there is a big second hand market for expensive watches, where millions of other people see value in what you have, is also relevant - It means your purchase will retain value over the course of its life.

yoass · Apr 23, 2019

NDH said:
Im talking about raw material value. Not market value.

I know you are, and it still doesn't matter. Because the production cost really does not affect the market value.

If you think about recuperating cost, well, your gold watch will get you just a bit more of your money back, certainly. That's still not very relevant; if you melt that Patek Philippe €50K watch, you'll probably end up with a quarter of an ounce of gold. About €300. A negligable fraction.

The second-hand market is still a market, with unchanged dynamics, and still no relation between production cost (craftsmanship, materials, logistics, ...) and value. Any product on any market has the fool's worth, basically, and in the end the fool's worth is all. New stuff, and second-hand no less so.

BestCompilations · Apr 23, 2019

Great discussion, but ...If you want to see Matches of Japan’s top players in an angle which is 1000 times better than this, check my channel and subscribe for more [emoji3590][emoji1303]
https://youtu.be/P5JVw8DCv4E

brokenball · Apr 24, 2019

G_ZHANG said:
(Assuming same stroke) The height of the highest point of the arc, D05 is 22% higher than T05.

Total energy (speed + spin) D05 is 3.4% more than T05

This doesn't make sense. To hit the ball 22% higher would require 22% more energy. The potential energy is P.E.=mgh
where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the height.

It is sad when TT companies take advantage of the ignorance of their customers.
There is little truth in advertising.

langel · Apr 24, 2019

brokenball said:
This doesn't make sense. To hit the ball 22% higher would require 22% more energy. The potential energy is P.E.=mgh
where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the height.

It is sad when TT companies take advantage of the ignorance of their customers.
There is little truth in advertising.

The absolute speed depends on other characteristics of the rubber, not of its throw. ▲t between time of contact and time of landing, usually meant for "speed", depends on the arc. So if we have equal initial speed, a ball with a higher arc will land later.
BUT if the rubber provides higher absolute speed and we aim and produce the same hight of arc, as with a slower and lower throw rubber, than we'll get a higher speed. And, following the scenario and what we need to execute it, presumably we'll get more spin too.

So "This doesn't make sense" would be true only if we compare two rubbers with equal speed, one is producing a higher arc and we use it to play with the higher arc.

brokenball · Apr 24, 2019

langel said:
So "This doesn't make sense" would be true only if we compare two rubbers with equal speed, one is producing a higher arc and we use it to play with the higher arc.

I agree but if the D05 has has only 3% more energy but 22% more height the numbers still don't add up.
I will wait to debate this more when there is an English translation so I know the actual facts. I can't translate text that is in pictures using Google translate.

DukeGaGa · Apr 25, 2019

Think you guys are forgetting about the spin, speed is only one part of the equation, the spin on the ball will affect the arc dramatically. And with spin, it not all linear such that 1% more energy gets 1% more arc height, or curve distance. That is aerodynamics and I don't think it's an easy calculation of just speed and energy. Then only thing we can do is observe the result, make a robot swinging arm that moves consistently, then hit the ball say 1000 times with each rubber, and you should probably use the same side of the same blade, and try to keep the glue amount the same (so weighing before and after gluing is required). Then you can compare the results and say if the marketing is just lying or not.

langel · Apr 25, 2019

DukeGaGa said:
Think you guys are forgetting about the spin, speed is only one part of the equation, the spin on the ball will affect the arc dramatically. And with spin, it not all linear such that 1% more energy gets 1% more arc height, or curve distance. That is aerodynamics and I don't think it's an easy calculation of just speed and energy. Then only thing we can do is observe the result, make a robot swinging arm that moves consistently, then hit the ball say 1000 times with each rubber, and you should probably use the same side of the same blade, and try to keep the glue amount the same (so weighing before and after gluing is required). Then you can compare the results and say if the marketing is just lying or not.

No, I don't forget the spin and it is written in my post.
About the aerodynamics, topspin ans speed - I've explained it well, but in other threads.
For the abstract of the discussed problem this fator has weeker impact than the other basics, but of course its important too.

Dr Evil · Apr 25, 2019

brokenball said:
I agree but if the D05 has has only 3% more energy but 22% more height the numbers still don't add up.

Because you don't have all the numbers. Height only gives you potential energy. There's also kinetic energy so you also need linear and angular velocity. Height, speed and spin, with a change in height making the smallest difference because potential energy only scales linearly with height.

igorponger · Apr 30, 2019

BEWARE OF THE BOGUS PRODUCTS/

DIGNICS 05 available from Butterfly outlet in China
http://www.dku51.com/goods-3653.html
73 USD

http://www.dku51.com/goods-418.html
Tenergy 05
67 USD

Nasius · Apr 30, 2019

That's just brilliant! Especially, the last sentence!

tzifos · Apr 30, 2019

igorponger said:
BEWARE OF THE BOGUS PRODUCTS/

DIGNICS 05 available from Butterfly outlet in China
http://www.dku51.com/goods-3653.html
73 USD

http://www.dku51.com/goods-418.html
Tenergy 05
67 USD

Nasius said:
That's just brilliant! Especially, the last sentence!

Are these authentic? Do they ship to Europe?

Nasius · Apr 30, 2019

yoass said:
Obscene pricepoints create a particular value. This is often marketed as "exclusive", which is in fact a suprisingly frank description: the value of an item to you is determined by the fact that you can afford it while others cannot.

It's like this thing in which people eat gold-plated steak. That's not because gold plating enhances the flavor intrinsically. The placebo effect certainly will have its effect, but first and foremost it's the primates way of showing status in the colony. If you demonstrate you can piss away extravagant amounts, your status rises.

€80K watches, €30K bags etc. have the same purpose. In no sense is a €80K watch necessarily superior to a €10K one (or a €1K one, or a €200 one), so it serves another purposes. So does ordering food in expensive restaurants, and then not touching it. And so are many things.

Marketing shindigs are such. Product price has absolutely nothing to do with production cost or product quality. Pricing is established to match a demographic. If BTY (or another brand) would produce a €10K blade and €5K rubbers we'd see footage of Justin Bieber, Paris Hilton, or some or other Trump, Kardashian, bin Salman, Lisin or somesuch using it.

Gold plated steak tastes great, by the way. Even better with ground dinosaur fossil tea.

That's just brilliant! Especially, the last sentence!

UpSideDownCarl · Apr 30, 2019

Nasius said:
That's just brilliant! Especially, the last sentence!

I am curious how this happened that you used the same exact statement 2x. Is this that you just did not know how to edit and add the quote to the first one or delete the first one and then post the second one? Or is there some other reason?

yoass · Apr 30, 2019

UpSideDownCarl said:
I am curious how this happened that you used the same exact statement 2x. Is this that you just did not know how to edit and add the quote to the first one or delete the first one and then post the second one? Or is there some other reason?

Well, it wasn’t THAT brilliant. That can’t be it.

UpSideDownCarl · Apr 30, 2019

yoass said:
Well, it wasn’t THAT brilliant. That can’t be it.

Well, he is new to the forum and, in looking at his posts to see if we would approve him, his other posts make him look like a human to me. In other words, not a bot. So, I am thinking he just was not familiar with the available editing tools. But your post did make me laugh.

Nasius · Apr 30, 2019

UpSideDownCarl said:
Well, he is new to the forum and, in looking at his posts to see if we would approve him, his other posts make him look like a human to me. In other words, not a bot. So, I am thinking he just was not familiar with the available editing tools. But your post did make me laugh.

Yes, definitely human. Wasn't sure how to quote in my reply...anyway will learn eventually

UpSideDownCarl · May 1, 2019

Nasius said:
Yes, definitely human. Wasn't sure how to quote in my reply...anyway will learn eventually

Yep. You would be surprised by how frequently the bots fool most people. But there are some people who would see the double post and think you were a bot. At the bottom center of any post you made, there should be a thing that says: "Edit Post". If you make a post and decide you meant to quote something and didn't put it in, you can always cut the quote, hit edit and then paste the quote into your edited post.

You can also hit edit and chose delete to remove a post that is unwanted. Good to have you on TTDaily.

Creek · May 4, 2019

did someone of you ever experience, that this rubber changes between "totally grippy" to "totally non-grippy" by using the warm breath to clean it? for me it's so strange... i Always use my breath to clean my rubbers and never had that problem at all...
in its grippy state i like the rubber pretty much for both, FH and BH, but in its non-grippy state it's simply not playable

Tuppe · May 13, 2019

Okay, so I couldn't resist to buy a dignics 05 because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I tried it today on a Xiom vega Pro Blade. I'll try to answer some questions about it.

Is it a good rubber?

Yes, definitely. I used it on my backhand today and I am very pleased with the performance. It is more direct than Tenergy 05 and it has quite a lot of control for the passive game. It also has enough power to end the point with a powerful shot.

Is it worth the money?

No, probably not. I can do the same shots with a tibhar mx-p or Mx-s. Maybe there is a little more spin with Dignics 05 on some shots but it can't justify the price difference. I probably would play just as well with a Tibhar Mx-p or Mx-s on my backhand. My skill level is around 2100 USATT and using a Dignics 05 didn't change that.

That being said, I am going to keep playing with the Dignics 05 on my backhand. It's a great rubber and it would be a waste to let it deteroriate in my drawer.

New Butterfly rubber "Dignics 05" 2019

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Similar threads