Different of Tibhar FX-P VS FX-S

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2020
63
4
83
Good day to all TTD member,

What is the spin, speed, hardness different of Tibhar FX-P VS FX-S rubber.
Thank you for all the kind reply.

Best regards,
 
says Grand Consultant to the Office of Goon Squad
says Grand Consultant to the Office of Goon Squad
Well-Known Member
Sep 2011
11,818
11,925
27,698
Read 27 reviews
Understand that these are both softer sponged modern rubbers. They both make very good spin, but operate differently.

FX-S has a more dynamic sponge and a thinner feeling topsheet. I suspect the pimple structure is also different. On lower impacts this rubber is bouncier. FX-S is at its best on fuller strokes, whether it is a spinny opening loop or a counter topspin. You can get a little faster pace out of FX-S with a weaker impact as the rubber has catapult, even on medium impacts.

FX-P is a more control oriented offensive rubber (you are getting what you put in and can expect the output in each gear but offensive potential is there) (fancy way to say lower impact direct hits feel like it goes where you put it), but if you have a really fast bat and a good firming, you can get a lot out of this rubber in terms of spin, decent pace and control at hard/fast impacts. Lower and medium impacts result in a more direct feeling ball than FX-S... but do not be fooled, this rubber can also spin it up with a fast bat on a slow, heavy opening topspin. FX-P i easier to receive serves, since it is less bouncy, but one can get used to FX-S. I had great touch on BH receive using this rubber vs Sergey Scoobie Doo's array of short serves. it is more about timing to the ball and close to the bounce loose grip impact than anything.

Both rubbers can counter topsin, obviously FX-S is more dynamic and can make more spin with a medium bat than FX-P, but if you use decent power and a firming at impact, you can REALLY make FX-P spin up and blast it. This rubber almost sounds illegal on this kind of shot.

Not everyone impacts like this, so not everyone would experience that.

Most players have a weak impact and are more easily awed by bouncy modern dynamic rubbers that the player gets something for almost nothing... that is why a lot of the U1500 USATT crowd has liked T05... you get 80% of its spin potential with not even a half-azz stroke... and that level of spin is better than most at 100% of potential spin given the best impact of that U1500 weak impact crowd. (Of course advanced players loved T05 for its feel and ability to counter with insane spin at 70-80 power levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peppa Pig
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Feb 2020
63
4
83
Understand that these are both softer sponged modern rubbers. They both make very good spin, but operate differently.

FX-S has a more dynamic sponge and a thinner feeling topsheet. I suspect the pimple structure is also different. On lower impacts this rubber is bouncier. FX-S is at its best on fuller strokes, whether it is a spinny opening loop or a counter topspin. You can get a little faster pace out of FX-S with a weaker impact as the rubber has catapult, even on medium impacts.

FX-P is a more control oriented offensive rubber (you are getting what you put in and can expect the output in each gear but offensive potential is there) (fancy way to say lower impact direct hits feel like it goes where you put it), but if you have a really fast bat and a good firming, you can get a lot out of this rubber in terms of spin, decent pace and control at hard/fast impacts. Lower and medium impacts result in a more direct feeling ball than FX-S... but do not be fooled, this rubber can also spin it up with a fast bat on a slow, heavy opening topspin. FX-P i easier to receive serves, since it is less bouncy, but one can get used to FX-S. I had great touch on BH receive using this rubber vs Sergey Scoobie Doo's array of short serves. it is more about timing to the ball and close to the bounce loose grip impact than anything.

Both rubbers can counter topsin, obviously FX-S is more dynamic and can make more spin with a medium bat than FX-P, but if you use decent power and a firming at impact, you can REALLY make FX-P spin up and blast it. This rubber almost sounds illegal on this kind of shot.

Not everyone impacts like this, so not everyone would experience that.

Most players have a weak impact and are more easily awed by bouncy modern dynamic rubbers that the player gets something for almost nothing... that is why a lot of the U1500 USATT crowd has liked T05... you get 80% of its spin potential with not even a half-azz stroke... and that level of spin is better than most at 100% of potential spin given the best impact of that U1500 weak impact crowd. (Of course advanced players loved T05 for its feel and ability to counter with insane spin at 70-80 power levels.

Thank you sir,

What sponge thickness is better for back hand side, 1.9 or 2.1 ?

Best regards,

 
says If you are thinking of posting a visitor's message here...
says If you are thinking of posting a visitor's message here...
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
15,556
16,770
52,091
Read 11 reviews
FX-S has a more dynamic sponge and a thinner feeling topsheet. I suspect the pimple structure is also different. On lower impacts this rubber is bouncier. FX-S is at its best on fuller strokes, whether it is a spinny opening loop or a counter topspin. You can get a little faster pace out of FX-S with a weaker impact as the rubber has catapult, even on medium impacts.

FX-P is a more control oriented offensive rubber (you are getting what you put in and can expect the output in each gear but offensive potential is there) (fancy way to say lower impact direct hits feel like it goes where you put it), but if you have a really fast bat and a good firming, you can get a lot out of this rubber in terms of spin, decent pace and control at hard/fast impacts. Lower and medium impacts result in a more direct feeling ball than FX-S... but do not be fooled, this rubber can also spin it up with a fast bat on a slow, heavy opening topspin. FX-P i easier to receive serves, since it is less bouncy, but one can get used to FX-S. I had great touch on BH receive using this rubber vs Sergey Scoobie Doo's array of short serves. it is more about timing to the ball and close to the bounce loose grip impact than anything.
Is this backwards, or am I not understanding what you wrote? FX-P more bounce, FX-S less reactive, less bounce, less alive on lower impact, more spin oriented, and it shines when you put the effort in.

 
says Grand Consultant to the Office of Goon Squad
says Grand Consultant to the Office of Goon Squad
Well-Known Member
Sep 2011
11,818
11,925
27,698
Read 27 reviews
Carl had just finished a 30 mile sprint to get back home from a freedom ride. He could activate the kickstand on the carbon fiber bike and re-read the last sentence of the first paragraph.

You can get a little faster pace out of FX-S with a weaker impact as the rubber has catapult, even on medium impacts.

He might need Sherlock Holmes' magnifying glass to see where I wrote FX-X is less bouncy.

FX-P is easier to receive serves, since it is less bouncy

Some cat won the Euro TT Championship using FX-P, so it cannot be entirely un-useful.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UpSideDownCarl
Top