New Equipment 2021

With all due respect, you have a lot of catching-up to do on many issues. When you say DHS does this, you gotta understand you're effectively making a blanket statement. Armstrong mentioned above is a counterexample. TSP is another one which supplied Haruna Fukuoka with custom-made Curl P-3 that outsiders couldn't get. Japanese bloggers question their own players and manufacturers as well.

Boosters/tuners are legal when applied at the factory level, according to Adham Sharara when the "VOC limit" was implemented 12 years ago, as opposed to "speed glue ban".

https://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?...96b61ec#p69793

Q (haggisv):
I'm sorry to keep questioning this, but I'm still unconvinced of the explanation...

1. Lets assume we have a VOC-free poison-free booster. The factory glues an ITTF approved topsheet onto a sponge. Now the factory uses a booster on the SPONGE ONLY. Now according to all evidence I've seen, the ONLY effect that the booster has on the TOPSHEET is that it stretches it, which according to you is legal when done in the factory (within ITTF set limits). Sponges are already made with the use of chemical, and are also glued to the topsheet using VOC-based chemical, so the booster is simply part of this factory process. The rubber is aired properly before sold to the public. Legal rubber or not?

2. Lets assume we have a VOC-free poison-free booster. The factory uses a booster on the sponge, BEFORE it's glued onto an ITTF approved topsheet. The rubber is aired properly before sold to the public. Legal rubber or not?

3. A distributor buys a cheap ITTF approved topsheet and a sponge, and applies either on the the methods (1. or 2.) above. This turns a cheap chinese topsheet and sponge combination into a rubber of similar performance to the top-end Tensor style rubber. The rubber is aired properly before sold to the public. Legal or not?

4. A player buys a cheap topsheet and sponge, and applies either on the the methods (1. or 2.) above. This turns his cheap chinese topsheet and sponge combination into a rubber of similar performance to the top-end Tensor style rubber. Legal or not?

...

A (Adham):
In order to answer your 4 scenarios, first I will explain clearly the rule:
- Any post-factory alteration of the equipment (in this case racket covering) is NOT legal. By post-factory, we mean at the distributor level, at the retail level, at the player level, at the reseller level, etc.
- VOC-containing glues are used at the factory level for several applications (gluing the rubber to the sponge, gluing the wood plies to make the racket, etc.). The factory must follow the rules of their government as it relates to VOCs (very strict in Japan, Canada, Germany,etc, but rather lax in China, India, Russia, etc.). In any case, the ITTF advices the factories to air and ventilate the equipment (rackets and racket coverings in this case) using special ventilated racks, which usually eliminate all VOCs (or almost all).
So now, you could answer your questions yourself:

1. Legal (at factory, no VOCs, no poison, properly aired, stretched within limits).
2. Legal (same as above, if I understood correctly)
3. Post factory, not legal
4. Post factory, not legal

The above is according to the current rules (if I understood the scenarios correctly).

Been 9 years since. Good times bickering with Mastermind over Sharara's plugging the loophole of rubber authorization for topsheet only.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum...id-them#549291
https://web.archive.org/web/20090201...ID_Forumn=100&

President Forum wrote:

Coming to an end I have two last questions. What do you think about the new trend that the companies “prepare” the rackets of their top players in the factories? Is this also forbidden? For me It is exactly the same delict as if an amateur player booster his rubbers. Is there a possibility to force the companies to stop this behavior in the future?


It depends how it is done. If the sponge is boosted at the factory level when it is being produced. Then after production iit is aired and free of VOCs, then it is OK. No problem according to our rules. However, if the booster is ADDED after production and after approval by ITTF, then it is also illegal. We have both cases of course. For the players they feel better because they can say that they themselves did not do anything wrong. We are talking to the manufacturers and trying to work together to control the situation.

deleted

Originally Posted by IB66

I think some of it is to do with the fact that people want equality with what they can purchase and use.

But can they use it? Ot just have it?

For example the top product from andro is R53, which is well above most serious amateur levels. Too hard, too difficult to activate. I really like the ads with Gauzy showing R53 "made for me" and R48 "made for you".
Most players are perfectly served with R48.
For the few who can really unleash the potential of R53, does it really matter that Gauzy´s rubbers are maybe even better? And "better" in what respect? Maybe even harder, like some other professionals demandend their Evolution rubbers at 50 or even 52.5 degrees when the commercial version stopped at 47,5? (Yes, they were also able to pick a different sponge which now sits under the 50 degree version, but what difference does it really make to the hobby player?)

If you could buy a rallye performance version of a car at 10 times the price, but only drive around town, would you?