Does Hl5 need to use the hurricane 3?

[Archosaurus]

Well of course, you can objectively generate more spin by hitting into the racket more. My spinniest brush loop can barely touch 130 rps, but my regular loops are consistently in the mid 130's and can touch the mid-140s. And yes, it's a threshold, a threshold where you begin to generate the optimal spin/speed ratio, not the end. So no, of course I wouldn't think that I'm out of juice, I just getting started. In fact, I made my statement AGAINST your assertion that the rubbers are bottoming out.

I think we fundamentally agree on the big picture stuff, but there may be some language differences going on. At the end of the day testing is queen and analysis is king, so just trust the numbers you're getting.

 

[ber]

usually booster says: effective for 1-2 months. Many people will follow and peel it off to reboost after that period. But I followed an ex CNT's tips and feels my rubbers still good for 3 months without reboosting

How about the booster itself? in the bottle one. Whats the expiry date on it

 

[longle]

How about the booster itself? in the bottle one. Whats the expiry date on it

it's all chemical,can last several years if stored properly.but once opened, they suggest to use it in 3-4 months

 

[dingyibvs]

usually booster says: effective for 1-2 months. Many people will follow and peel it off to reboost after that period. But I followed an ex CNT's tips and feels my rubbers still good for 3 months without reboosting

It lasts 1 month tops, doesn't seem to depend too much on whether you play with it or not. The more you loop into the racket the more you feel the difference. The blade affects your feel as well. I've found that I don't notice as much of a difference between boosted and off boost H3s on my FZD ALC or Viscaria compared to say the W968 or Q968. The rubber does stay softer after the booster effect wears off, and gets progressively softer after each reboost.

 

[sebi]

Thing is, you're not just maximizing spin. You want to have maximum quality, which is the combination of speed and spin.
Any speed in this equation that you can deliver with the blade, does not have to be delivered by the release of energy stored in the rubber. Instead that energy can be released to the ball in the form of spin.

With a non tacky rubber, you want a high amount of lateral (well more tangential in reality) preload at the highest point of compression, and have the ratio of exit speed to tension unload be optimal.

Your stroke, for maximum spin, should be optimised for maximum stretch of the topsheet, meaning a short, high peak of acceleration.

With a tacky rubber, in theory, the biggest difference is that the energy preload using tension of the topsheet is slightly less, and the element of rolling contact is more prominent.

Your stroke, for maximum spin, should be optimised for a prolonged, pressing contact.

Failing to bottom out a (mostly) European style rubber when the same person can reliable bottom out tacky rubbers sounds like they are using a more pressing type of contact rather than a high short peak.
The sensation of the ball leaving before they are done with the stroke supports that fact.

This is not true in my opinion. If you look at WCQ or FZD they have a very tangiatial technique as well.
The onyl differnece between Euro and Chinese style is the elbow.
Chinese if more out Euro is closer to the body.

 

[Archosaurus]

This is not true in my opinion. If you look at WCQ or FZD they have a very tangiatial technique as well.
The onyl differnece between Euro and Chinese style is the elbow.
Chinese if more out Euro is closer to the body.

The contact for a normal topspin shot is gonna be the same fundamentally on basically all inverted equipment that is working normally. I know the pimple geometry, pimple stiffness etc. will influence things like the throw angle and they may allow some types of shots to be more effective, or maybe easier, than others, but I'm talking at a very fundamental level.

People have all kinds of wild theories about how to spin the ball and what happens and so on but the ball only really responds to normal force at or offset from the CG and to moments about the CG caused by friction, and IMO those are extremely related to eachother. For any given shot you could draw the free body diagram if you really wanted to, it's not some kind of magic. I don't think elite shots would differ as much as people seem to think they would.

 

[Tyce]

This is not true in my opinion. If you look at WCQ or FZD they have a very tangiatial technique as well.
The onyl differnece between Euro and Chinese style is the elbow.
Chinese if more out Euro is closer to the body.

I have to agree to disagree here. I don't think I can convince you or @Archosaurus and vice versa.

 

[Archosaurus]

I have to agree to disagree here. I don't think I can convince you or @Archosaurus and vice versa.

I will say FZD has a fairly flat backhand, but it's just a spectrum. The contact's *basically* the same.

 

[Tyce]

I will say FZD has a fairly flat backhand, but it's just a spectrum. The contact's *basically* the same.

As much as all rubbers are basically the same elastomer, sure.

 

[sebi]

People use the same models of equipment that pros do for arbitrary reasons, not because of any kind of special synergy. It has more to do with your individual abilities and gameplay goals.

HL5 and W968 has dramatically changed to be entirely different blades about 2 times now, potentially 3. It's not possible for all of them to "pair well".

I think I know of the change to a differnet carbon but what was the second and third change

 

[Archosaurus]

I think I know of the change to a differnet carbon but what was the second and third change

The weaving pattern is different, the thicknesses are different, and the handle shape has changed. I don't know if those were all in one go or not.

As much as all rubbers are basically the same elastomer, sure.

They kind of are. It's why nobody's doing anything super wildly different to get similar results. It's more about the details and just statistical things like exactly how much speed or spin the ball ends up having.

 

[sebi]

The weaving pattern is different, the thicknesses are different, and the handle shape has changed. I don't know if those were all in one go or not.


They kind of are. It's why nobody's doing anything super wildly different to get similar results. It's more about the details and just statistical things like exactly how much speed or spin the ball ends up having.

Ok thank you.


I think for quality the different types of rubber are not making a big difference.
In the spin sight thread people report on having the same spin with different rubbers.
It's probably just personal feel if you like or dont like the feel in your hands but spin is the same.
Speed might be different.

 

[Archosaurus]

I think for quality the different types of rubber are not making a big difference.
In the spin sight thread people report on having the same spin with different rubbers.
It's probably just personal feel if you like or dont like the feel in your hands but spin is the same.
Speed might be different.

There's a practical limit to how much grip you can realistically expect out of a rubber. It's based mainly on the material itself and the hysteresis of the topsheet and sponge. Maybe you can go a bit more spinny at the cost of extreme wear, but not a lot of modern rubbers are doing that. Of course the pimples are also a thing you can probably at least optimize for slightly more effective friction in some kind of shots.

The blade affects it a bit too, but it's not like car tires where the carcass of the tire and the wheel it's mounted to has a super huge effect on the effective friction of the tread. Tabletennis rubbers are a much more simple affair it seems.

I find that I can get more or less the same serve, loop and chop spin on just about any half-decent rubber that's new. They do vary quite a bit in performance once they get older, though. Some retain the performance better than others. Hurricane 3 is still quite spinny after sitting 3+ years, but Focus 3 is terrible. I would expect softer compounds to wear more rapidly mechanically.

 

[Tyce]

You can simplify it, but players see and feel different reactions from different rubbers. At macro scale, sure, any rubber stuck to a solid base reacts roughly the same. But in practice, they don't.
It's easy to dismiss things like pimple geometry, and say that a large pore sponge with the same average density as a softer, but finer pored sponge reacts the same. But they don't. Most players will be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

Heck if all table tennis rubbers were basically the same, this forum would be out of business.

 

[sebi]

You can simplify it, but players see and feel different reactions from different rubbers. At macro scale, sure, any rubber stuck to a solid base reacts roughly the same. But in practice, they don't.
It's easy to dismiss things like pimple geometry, and say that a large pore sponge with the same average density as a softer, but finer pored sponge reacts the same. But they don't. Most players will be able to tell them apart in a blind test.

Heck if all table tennis rubbers were basically the same, this forum would be out of business.

Feel is 100% different, but they outcome is mostly the same.

 

[Tyce]

Feel is 100% different, but they outcome is mostly the same.

Is it though? We have arc, depth, and even the pure elasticity dictates different response.
Maybe it's not that noticeable when both players are close to the table, but those balls fly differently.

A higher arc for the same depth is a longer path, so more time for spin to wear off by air resistance.
100rps at 20km/h hits differently than 100rps at 40km/h.

There's so many factors at play here. I don't believe it is possible to put it all in theory without making a 50 page analysis... Of one single shot.
Simplification is a decent tool to explain some things, but it has limited use to explain the game in total.

 

[Archosaurus]

One of the common mistakes beginning simulation engineers make is overcomplicating everything. You really don't need a 50 page white paper just to represent a table tennis stroke. You could probably do it all in one column if you make an empirical method.

"Simulate the atoms", basically.

 

[Tyce]

One of the common mistakes beginning simulation engineers make is overcomplicating everything. You really don't need a 50 page white paper just to represent a table tennis stroke. You could probably do it all in one column if you make an empirical method.

"Simulate the atoms", basically.

Tell that to Formula 1 . Or any professional table tennis player who switches rubber depending on the circumstances. Why would Darko Jorgic be constantly switching rubber? Why did Timo Boll go back to D05 after pretty much personally developing D09c? Not because the outcome is the same even if the feeling is different.

The real problem overcomplicating a simulation is the capacity needed to run that simulation. More often than not, simple simulations give dumbed down answers. They don't answer detailed questions if the details aren't part of the sim.

Spinsight measures spin and speed, but it does that at one single point. It doesn't account for trajectory, it doesn't compare current data to the values right after contact. If you work with it, you have to be aware of what you are measuring, as well as the available precision. +-5% sounds great but it can be 10 rotations difference around the 100rps mark.

Spinsight also doesn't say if the rubber is being used to the maximum of its capacity. Or even how much experience the testing player has with said rubbers.

There are so many gaps, flaws and points missing about your theory, and it simply doesn't correspond with findings in reality, that there's really only one conclusion that can be made. And that's what I said at the start: it's too simplified.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a personal attack. You look at it from your own perspective and experience which is admirable and interesting (I wouldn't have gotten into a discussion otherwise).

 

[Archosaurus]

Tell that to Formula 1 . Or any professional table tennis player who switches rubber depending on the circumstances. Why would Darko Jorgic be constantly switching rubber? Why did Timo Boll go back to D05 after pretty much personally developing D09c? Not because the outcome is the same even if the feeling is different.

The real problem overcomplicating a simulation is the capacity needed to run that simulation. More often than not, simple simulations give dumbed down answers. They don't answer detailed questions if the details aren't part of the sim.

Spinsight measures spin and speed, but it does that at one single point. It doesn't account for trajectory, it doesn't compare current data to the values right after contact. If you work with it, you have to be aware of what you are measuring, as well as the available precision. +-5% sounds great but it can be 10 rotations difference around the 100rps mark.

Spinsight also doesn't say if the rubber is being used to the maximum of its capacity. Or even how much experience the testing player has with said rubbers.

There are so many gaps, flaws and points missing about your theory, and it simply doesn't correspond with findings in reality, that there's really only one conclusion that can be made. And that's what I said at the start: it's too simplified.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a personal attack. You look at it from your own perspective and experience which is admirable and interesting (I wouldn't have gotten into a discussion otherwise).

The most complicated part about F1 sims that actually works is the tire thermal modeling. Otherwise it's probably not what you think. It's also not needed to get to a representative result, they just do things in a complicated way because the modeling doubles as driver training and product development.

In a tabletennis sense, you'd only need to do something even remotely to that detail if you're a manufacturer and making real products. They also fail often when they overcomplicate it and rely on the sim too much, like when Williams(?) didn't do any empirical aero and just dumped a few hundred mil into CFD, to disasterous results.

Consumer PCs run mospo sims fine now, you can push thousands of Hz in realtime with a complicated (elasto)kinematic model and thermals for most components. At least for one car. That's not really the bottleneck. Supercomputers don't make it any better too, it's not really a task that benefits from/can be parallelized.

The problem with complicating sims is that you end up needing teams of engineers working on specific parts of the model which balloons dev costs and time often to unhelpful degrees. In a motorsport sense the only series you could really do that is something like GT3 where the car is ran for years and years, or F1 where you have unlimited money and decent talent. They still make huge errors due to insufficient human analysis abilities.

Spinsight isn't really a super serious telemetry tool, it's made to be cheap and easy for amateurs to use, relatively at least. You could do a lot with datalogging from the racket and ball itself and probably build a pretty good empirical sim fairly "easily" without going deep into the materials science stuff.

I do agree a single data point is not useful almost at all because often the trend is what you're looking at, although the trajectory of the ball is extremely easy to estimate based on a few parameters gathered from a single point.

EDIT: Forgot to reply: Pros change equipment because details matter to them. Even if the hitting action is basically the same and the results are similar, they're not similar enough and because ultimately it's a thing that has to do with human perception, small feel-related things will matter.

I know from personal experience that cars drive extremely differently just by changing the steering wheel material or shape, or the pedal shape, or the seating angles and so on; even if none of those have any effect on the actual empirical behavior. They're things you still need to optimize even if it's not something that's relevant for a numerical representation.

 

[sebi]

Tell that to Formula 1 . Or any professional table tennis player who switches rubber depending on the circumstances. Why would Darko Jorgic be constantly switching rubber? Why did Timo Boll go back to D05 after pretty much personally developing D09c? Not because the outcome is the same even if the feeling is different.

The real problem overcomplicating a simulation is the capacity needed to run that simulation. More often than not, simple simulations give dumbed down answers. They don't answer detailed questions if the details aren't part of the sim.

Spinsight measures spin and speed, but it does that at one single point. It doesn't account for trajectory, it doesn't compare current data to the values right after contact. If you work with it, you have to be aware of what you are measuring, as well as the available precision. +-5% sounds great but it can be 10 rotations difference around the 100rps mark.

Spinsight also doesn't say if the rubber is being used to the maximum of its capacity. Or even how much experience the testing player has with said rubbers.

There are so many gaps, flaws and points missing about your theory, and it simply doesn't correspond with findings in reality, that there's really only one conclusion that can be made. And that's what I said at the start: it's too simplified.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's not a personal attack. You look at it from your own perspective and experience which is admirable and interesting (I wouldn't have gotten into a discussion otherwise).

Not sure why darco does stuff, timo said it himselfe he got to old and slow for 09c,

As I said, speed might be different as is the feeling but spin is the same. + - 5% deviation is not important if you test multiply times. True you could write a 50 or even 100 page scientific paper about it, but for the purpose of does only DHS Hurricane 3 work for HL5, the simplification of my statement is enough.