Back to Forum
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 1,005 2,092
    L
    langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 2,092 1,005
    #1

    Best Table Tennis Table to go with the Nittaku 3* Premium ABS ball

    Well, it would be nice to read the PROCEEDINGS BOOK OF THE 16 th ITTF SPORTS SCIENCE CONGRESS first:

    Pages 130-137 on the matter.

    https://sasportssience.blob.core.win...rs%20FINAL.pdf

    So, what table would go the best with the Nittaku ball?




  2. IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 416 763
    I
    IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 763 416
    #2
    Hi Lange,

    I watched a vid of the ITTF material committee teams meeting when Claudia W and co were discussing rubbers and tables, they were very interested in standardising the characteristics of the playing surface.
    Looking at the final photo showing the difference in spin and bounce I’m not surprised!!! I bet there’s been more than a few complaints from players and countries about the differing table surface playing characteristics !!!
    Looks like they now have a good test to make a decision for the parameters (to which manufacturers) will have to ensure their table surfaces perform within.
    This is, as far as I’m concerned a good move.
    Regarding the balls, I think that the material used should be standardised as well, which again should result in balls having very similar characteristics.

    So I think it’s going to be more of a question of how the ITTF want and see the game evolving in the future. What’s going to be better (in their eyes) for sponsorship, audience satisfaction, viewing figures etc. OR what end result is likely to BRING IN THE MOST MONEY 💰!!!

    Hopefully they will listen to the players, I think most would rather have the higher friction surface??

    I think this would be a good question to ask the forum!!!

    But looking back at how things have gone, larger ball, with less spin it may go further in that direction less speed and spin.

    Who really knows what the ITTF are really aiming for??

    In answer to your initial question, a table with and higher friction surface!!!





    The Following 2 Users Like IB66's Post:

    langel and thomas.pong


  3. Baal is offline
    says Ba'al has spoken
     
    Master TTD Member 5,895 3,532
    B
    Baal is offline
    says Ba'al has spoken
     
    Master TTD Member 3,532 5,895

    User Info Menu


    Nov 2010
    3,532
    5,895
    15832
    Read 8 Reviews
    #3
    In my old club we used to have Tibhar 28 mm tables. They were great (until they got kind of messed up with age and heavy use and abuse). In trips to China I often experienced low end DHS tables. They have a very slick surface by comparison, almosr like glass. The ball seemed to slide more than it bounced. Right about the time I started to get used to it, it was time to come home. Its been quite a few years now since I've been there. I wonderbif they're still like that?

    The Following 2 Users Like Baal's Post:

    langel and thomas.pong


  4. langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 1,005 2,092
    L
    langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 2,092 1,005
    #4
    Quote Originally Posted by IB66
    Hi Lange,

    I watched a vid of the ITTF material committee teams meeting when Claudia W and co were discussing rubbers and tables, they were very interested in standardising the characteristics of the playing surface.
    Looking at the final photo showing the difference in spin and bounce I’m not surprised!!! I bet there’s been more than a few complaints from players and countries about the differing table surface playing characteristics !!!
    Looks like they now have a good test to make a decision for the parameters (to which manufacturers) will have to ensure their table surfaces perform within.
    This is, as far as I’m concerned a good move.
    Regarding the balls, I think that the material used should be standardised as well, which again should result in balls having very similar characteristics.

    So I think it’s going to be more of a question of how the ITTF want and see the game evolving in the future. What’s going to be better (in their eyes) for sponsorship, audience satisfaction, viewing figures etc. OR what end result is likely to BRING IN THE MOST MONEY 💰!!!

    Hopefully they will listen to the players, I think most would rather have the higher friction surface??

    I think this would be a good question to ask the forum!!!

    But looking back at how things have gone, larger ball, with less spin it may go further in that direction less speed and spin.

    Who really knows what the ITTF are really aiming for??

    In answer to your initial question, a table with and higher friction surface!!!

    Yes, thanks.
    When ITTF define a more strict standard for balls and tables my question will be irrelevant.
    In fact Im not looking for á specific answer about what exactly the table.
    It's more about a discussion on the matter.
    People in the forum often ask about balls and tables, but maybe the answers not always fit the rality.

    It would be really nice to read carefully the book.

    "There really is a big difference in frictional properties and the difference has become bigger due to introduction of plastic balls with unregulated material. With some plastic balls, we find 70% higher CoF which means directly 70% more loss of tangential momentum and spin during bounce."

    The celluloid ball has the lowest friction and that's why it's the most spiny.after bounce.
    It's the same with the tables - balls keep spin better on susfaces with less friction.

    Generally it's just the opposite to what most players think.

    Bounce vs spin, or something between.

    The Following 2 Users Like langel's Post:

    IB66 and thomas.pong


  5. IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 416 763
    I
    IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 763 416
    #5
    Hi Langel,

    It depends on what you want!!
    if you want the ball to react more on the bounce, ie for a topspin shot kick forward more, then a surface with higher friction is better (last photo, right-hand side)
    If you want less reaction from the ball at the bounce with the spin on the ball being carried through to your opponent, then a lower friction surface is better (last photo, left-hand side) I think I've got that correct from the last photo!!

    As you say it may end up being a trade off with the 'middle' ground being chosen by the ITTF

    It would also be interesting to see if there are any papers on the difference in spin levels produced by a stroke for the differing balls - plastic, celluloid, 38mm 40 and 40+ etc. They are hinting that the spin levels are pretty similar when the ball is initially struck, and that it's the differing materials used to manufacture the ball contacting with the table that results in loss of spin carried by the ball.

    So removing the bounce.
    If the rotational spin on a 38mm celluloid ball from a set topspin stroke was lets say 600 RPS, and for the same stroke a 40+ plastic ball was 600 RPS (I'm not saying this is actually the case, just an example), which ball is carrying more 'spin energy' ? and would have more 'reaction' when contacted directly with a rubber (before the ball bounces) ?
    Is there a correspondence between number of rotations & circumference of the ball ? when RPS are the same and circumference varies?

    The Following 3 Users Like IB66's Post:

    langel, latej and 1 other


  6. langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 1,005 2,092
    L
    langel is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 2,092 1,005
    #6
    Quote Originally Posted by IB66
    Hi Langel,

    It depends on what you want!!
    if you want the ball to react more on the bounce, ie for a topspin shot kick forward more, then a surface with higher friction is better (last photo, right-hand side)
    If you want less reaction from the ball at the bounce with the spin on the ball being carried through to your opponent, then a lower friction surface is better (last photo, left-hand side) I think I've got that correct from the last photo!!

    As you say it may end up being a trade off with the 'middle' ground being chosen by the ITTF

    It would also be interesting to see if there are any papers on the difference in spin levels produced by a stroke for the differing balls - plastic, celluloid, 38mm 40 and 40+ etc. They are hinting that the spin levels are pretty similar when the ball is initially struck, and that it's the differing materials used to manufacture the ball contacting with the table that results in loss of spin carried by the ball.

    So removing the bounce.
    If the rotational spin on a 38mm celluloid ball from a set topspin stroke was lets say 600 RPS, and for the same stroke a 40+ plastic ball was 600 RPS (I'm not saying this is actually the case, just an example), which ball is carrying more 'spin energy' ? and would have more 'reaction' when contacted directly with a rubber (before the ball bounces) ?
    Is there a correspondence between number of rotations & circumference of the ball ? when RPS are the same and circumference varies?

    Yes, there might be differences in any different occasion and scenario and ratios, where ratios are between many factors - CoF of the ball, CoF of the rubbers, CoF of the table surface, CoR of the ball, rubber, table, spin value, speed value, trajectory graphics /hight, length/, angles of contacts, etc., though in science the use of "etc" is forbidden, because it shows either lack of knowledge, or provides no information. But I'll use, because... not much Engs here.

    If we have a real picture of all the dynamics in the correlations between all these factors, it would be possible to define the Golden Mid.

    But I don't see it coming soon, so thw Parody Question of the topic might be adequate in near, or longer future too.

    God bless Ovtcharov and let the force be with him, as he is one of the most sensitive to the matter.

    And, hm, I'm neither a pro, nor a "come to show you" player, but I'm sensitive maybe even more than Ovtcharov.

    The Following 3 Users Like langel's Post:

    IB66, latej and 1 other


  7. yogi_bear is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 2,739 5,841
    yogi_bear's Avatar
    yogi_bear is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    Master TTD Member 5,841 2,739
    #7
    any ITTF approved 25mm and above table will do.

    The Following User Likes yogi_bear's Post:

    JHB

    ITTF Level 1 Coaching Course Conductor at your service!

  8. IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 416 763
    I
    IB66 is online now
    This user has no status.
     
    Senior TTD Member 763 416
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_bear
    any ITTF approved 25mm and above table will do.
    Yeah generally, but in the future it will be interesting to see if ITTF regulate the surface finishes. Many tables could be unsuitable for the higher level tournaments and league matches!!!

    The Following User Likes IB66's Post:

    thomas.pong


  9. Ginana22 is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    TTD Member 0 2
    G
    Ginana22 is offline
    This user has no status.
     
    TTD Member 2 0

    User Info Menu


    May 2021
    Great Britain
    2
    0
    0
    Read 0 Reviews
    #9

    Best Table Tennis Table to go with the Nittaku 3* Premium ABS ball


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Create a new Topic:
Title is required.