How does a rubbers thickness effect it's play?

[Colonel_Unicorn]

I was just wondering exactly how thickness of rubbers effect there play style.

Thanks

 

[tt-cro]

I was just wondering exactly how thickness of rubbers effect there play style.

Thanks

Max rubbers(2.2 mm) are faster and have less control than 2.0 or 1.8 rubbers
On the other hand thinner rubbers are slower and more controllable than max rubbers
And also max rubbers are heavier than 2.0 or 1.8 rubbers

 

[Pnachtwey]

Under what conditions?

Max rubbers(2.2 mm) are faster

Where does the extra energy come from that makes 2.2mm faster?
Rubber does not generate energy on its own unless you burn it.

I bought a pile of HRS sponges from zeropong. I stacked the sponges and dropped a ball on it and noticed the bounce. The bounce was not higher bouncing of off sponge than on the bare desk top. I tried different thickness. All the sponges together was about 6 mm thick.

Patherfindpro made a video comparing two thickness of rubber. The thinner rubber was faster when returning balls from a robot but the human impression was that the thicker rubber was faster. That is because people are compensating for the thickness differences. It is true one can compress thicker sponge more with the same with more effort and the result will be a faster return but not with the same effort.

 

[mahomedy13]

i personally noticed that thicker sponge allows for a spinnier shot.the ball sinks deeper,the pimples grip it more,and when released,more spin.

 

[mahomedy13]

however,thicker sponges reduce your ball feel ever so slightly.

 

[tt-cro]

Under what conditions?


Where does the extra energy come from that makes 2.2mm faster?
Rubber does not generate energy on its own unless you burn it.

I bought a pile of HRS sponges from zeropong. I stacked the sponges and dropped a ball on it and noticed the bounce. The bounce was not higher bouncing of off sponge than on the bare desk top. I tried different thickness. All the sponges together was about 6 mm thick.

Patherfindpro made a video comparing two thickness of rubber. The thinner rubber was faster when returning balls from a robot but the human impression was that the thicker rubber was faster. That is because people are compensating for the thickness differences. It is true one can compress thicker sponge more with the same with more effort and the result will be a faster return but not with the same effort.

About that video,i read somewhere that rubbers in that video were completly unparalleled(if unparalleled is best word because eng isnt my mother tounge ).One of them was grippy and one was tacky so you cant compare results of that rubbers
But i didnt noticed that so i cant be 100% sure thats true

 

[Pnachtwey]

About that video,i read somewhere that rubbers in that video were completly unparalleled(if unparalleled is best word because eng isnt my mother tounge ).One of them was grippy and one was tacky so you cant compare results of that rubbers
But i didnt noticed that so i cant be 100% sure thats true

The two thicknesses of rubber were of the same brand and top sheet but the sponge was not the same. The thinner sponge was a little more harder. Pathfinderpro should have stopped as soon as he knew this instead of putting a lot of effort into this test. I would have supplied Rakza 7 rubbers if I knew that these test were being done. I had bought Rakza 7 Soft Max, Rakza7 Soft 1.8mm and Rakza 7 1.8mm just to do my own tests.

I am not as good as Pathfinderpro at making videos. So my evaluation will never be published but I can tell you this. My favorite was Rakza7 1.8mm on my FH.
At that time I was into SP and used 1.5mm 802 on my Bh for close to the table play. A few years later I have evolved and so has my taste in rubbers. I like harder rubbers on my FH and would feel very comfortable with 1.8mm Rakza 7 on my FH again. Right now I play with DHS neo rubbers on my FH but I feel they are thicker than they need to be.

 

[tt-cro]

The two thicknesses of rubber were of the same brand and top sheet but the sponge was not the same. The thinner sponge was a little more harder. Pathfinderpro should have stopped as soon as he knew this instead of putting a lot of effort into this test. I would have supplied Rakza 7 rubbers if I knew that these test were being done. I had bought Rakza 7 Soft Max, Rakza7 Soft 1.8mm and Rakza 7 1.8mm just to do my own tests.

I am not as good as Pathfinderpro at making videos. So my evaluation will never be published but I can tell you this. My favorite was Rakza7 1.8mm on my FH.
At that time I was into SP and used 1.5mm 802 on my Bh for close to the table play. A few years later I have evolved and so has my taste in rubbers. I like harder rubbers on my FH and would feel very comfortable with 1.8mm Rakza 7 on my FH again. Right now I play with DHS neo rubbers on my FH but I feel they are thicker than they need to be.

I play with Skyline 3 neo too(2.2) and it feels great to me
Few times i played with my friends tenergy 1.9 and i really didnt like it but you are saying you like it
Maybe its all individual

 

[Der_Echte]

ONe has to consider the composition of the topsheet, the thickness of the topsheet, its elasticity, the hardness and dynamic properties of the sponge.

 

[Pnachtwey]

ONe has to consider the composition of the topsheet, the thickness of the topsheet, its elasticity, the hardness and dynamic properties of the sponge.

Yes but this isn't an easy way to evaluate those things separately.
I think it would be more interesting to talk about how thickness affects LPs, SP, MP and anti.

About the sponge thickness. 1.5mm seems to "bottom out" a lot when trying to re-loop a fast loop. When this happens the ball goes into the net because the normal force increases from bouncing off the compressed rubber and wood.

 

[TTFrenzy]

Under what conditions?


Where does the extra energy come from that makes 2.2mm faster?
Rubber does not generate energy on its own unless you burn it.

I bought a pile of HRS sponges from zeropong. I stacked the sponges and dropped a ball on it and noticed the bounce. The bounce was not higher bouncing of off sponge than on the bare desk top. I tried different thickness. All the sponges together was about 6 mm thick.

Patherfindpro made a video comparing two thickness of rubber. The thinner rubber was faster when returning balls from a robot but the human impression was that the thicker rubber was faster. That is because people are compensating for the thickness differences. It is true one can compress thicker sponge more with the same with more effort and the result will be a faster return but not with the same effort.

For the same amount of effort that compresses a sponge the thicker sponge is faster/spinnier. It is like a spring, if you compress a larger spring with the same modulus of elasticity and then compress with the same amount of force a smaller spring, the larger spring will release more energy

A simple bounce test cannot give you valid information about which rubber is faster, unless you can drop a ball from 5-10 meters height (just saying i havent tested it and i dont need to) for example with perfect accuracy in a 2 mm and then in a 1.8 mm rubber, then maybe you can see that the thicker rubber bounces more

For the same blade and rubber combo

If you need lets say 10 amount of force to compress a 2 mm sponge and then apply the exact same stroke with the exact same force to a 1.8 mm rubber the 2mm will be definitely faster

Now for the 1.8 mm sponge the ball will compress the wood layers more than the 2mm rubber (again same force applied) but it wont make much of a difference in the total speed.

If for example the 1.8mm sponge needs 8 amout of force to be fully compressed, then this force is not adequate enough for the 2mm sponge giving you the fault impression that both rubbers are "equal"

 

[Pnachtwey]

For the same amount of effort that compresses a sponge the thicker sponge is faster/spinnier. It is like a spring, if you compress a larger spring with the same modulus of elasticity and then compress with the same amount of force a smaller spring, the larger spring will release more energy

Terminology is important here. At first you mention effort, does that mean you do the same amount of work on each spring? Then you mention force. Work and force are not the same. Work is the integral of force over distance. Also remember the spring, rubber, has mass that must be accelerated.

A simple bounce test cannot give you valid information about which rubber is faster, unless you can drop a ball from 5-10 meters height (just saying i havent tested it and i dont need to) for example with perfect accuracy in a 2 mm and then in a 1.8 mm rubber, then maybe you can see that the thicker rubber bounces more

This is true, even dropping from 5-10 meters is not a good test because the ball will not be traveling that fast. The terminal velocity is only 8m/s. However this does test the COR at slow speeds.

For the same blade and rubber combo

If you need lets say 10 amount of force to compress a 2 mm sponge and then apply the exact same stroke with the exact same force to a 1.8 mm rubber the 2mm will be definitely faster

Prove it assuming the impact speed is 10 m/s in both cases.
Again, terminology is important. A ball is accelerated by an impulse that is the integral of force over time.

Now for the 1.8 mm sponge the ball will compress the wood layers more than the 2mm rubber (again same force applied) but it wont make much of a difference in the total speed.

OK, assume the bladed doesn't flex and we are ONLY testing the rubbers.

If for example the 1.8mm sponge needs 8 amout of force to be fully compressed, then this force is not adequate enough for the 2mm sponge giving you the fault impression that both rubbers are "equal"

Assume the rubber/sponge thickness are 2mm and 1mm to keep the math simple

I am not home now. I am using internet explorer. IE doesn't work well on this forum

 

[TTFrenzy]

Yeap the term force was wrong. Lets "replace" it with "work" If a thicker rubber (larger spring) needs 10 Joules (just saying) to be fully compressed then the thinner rubber (smaller spring) will be compressed also, its just the law of Hooke actually. The difference is that the energy released when we let go of the spring is bigger

I dont have a camera and i cannot measure the work applied to prove it mathematially but I can prove it on gameplay. I can understand that thicker rubbers are faster because I just feel/see the ball bounce in a longer distance when i just place my paddle vs a robot machine or vs a player with a very consistent topspin

Its something that I have tested over 20 years experimenting with speed glue, boosters and comparing same thickness rubbers but softer/harder versions, trying to see what happens.

Do you actually believe that 2mm rubbers are not faster than 1.8 mm ones?

 

[Pnachtwey]

Ah, Google Chrome is so much better

Do you actually believe that 2mm rubbers are not faster than 1.8 mm ones?

Yes, given the same stroke or impact speed.
Without doing any math I can do a sanity or absurdity check. Would 3 mm rubbers be faster than 2mm? How about 4mm rubbers or 5mm rubbers? If I made the rubber/sponge very thick could it ever be so fast that it bounces back faster than the impact speed?

Would a 1mm rubber be half the speed of a 2mm rubber or just slower? If 1mm rubber is slow then where did all the energy go?

I have asked these questions before and NEVER got an answer.
In short, sponge absorbs energy, it doesn't produce it. More sponge the more energy it will absorb. The sponge also has mass that must be moved. Thicker sponges have more mass and the energy used moving the mass of the sponge is not returned to the ball.

As a player you know 2mm rubbers are faster than 1.8mm rubbbers because you can load them up with more potential energy by changing your stroke a bit but you are not calibrated to ensure you are using exactly same stroke for both the 2mm and 1.8mm rubbers.

 

[TTFrenzy]

Yes, given the same stroke or impact speed.
Without doing any math I can do a sanity or absurdity check. Would 3 mm rubbers be faster than 2mm? How about 4mm rubbers or 5mm rubbers? If I made the rubber/sponge very thick could it ever be so fast that it bounces back faster than the impact speed?

Would a 1mm rubber be half the speed of a 2mm rubber or just slower? If 1mm rubber is slow then where did all the energy go?


I have asked these questions before and NEVER got an answer.
In short, sponge absorbs energy, it doesn't produce it. More sponge the more energy it will absorb. The sponge also has mass that must be moved. Thicker sponges have more mass and the energy used moving the mass of the sponge is not returned to the ball.


As a player you know 2mm rubbers are faster than 1.8mm rubbbers because you can load them up with more potential energy by changing your stroke a bit but you are not calibrated to ensure you are using exactly same stroke for both the 2mm and 1.8mm rubbers.

Thats an interesting point of view, since you also happen to be a physics fan (thats obvious hehe) . About the 1mm 2mm rubbers I dont think it would be half the speed because we dont know if the whole impact and spring phenomenon acts in a linear behaviour. And there is also the wood layer compression/decompression factor also

I am surely not calibrated on doing the exact same movement all the time, but when I place a steady paddle against a fast topspin of a robot I can feel in my hand that the ball bounces more and most of the times I can see that the length of my block is longer when using a 2mm rubber.

On the other hand, against the same hard/fast topspin if I put the same blade with 1.8 mm rubber on it, the length of my block is smaller but not significantly. I can also feel that the wooden layers are more "active" because given the same energy of a ball, the ball digs deeper into the blade with a 1.8 mm on it

 

[Baal]

I have no idea what the physics is but in actual practice it often comes to this (and I think this goes slightly against conventional wisdom). Advanced offensive oriented players actually will have a greater margin for error on their shots with thicker sponge, which is why the main reason they use it. It is fairly unusual to see any high level offensive player not use the thickest sponge available in the product they use. It's not because they need more power. Beginning and intermediate offensive players will probably not see this advantage and it may go the other way (meaning they might be fine or even better off with 1.8), but even they would not want to go too thin (1.5). Defenders are different and often use a quite thin sponge (1.0-1.5) on at least one side (what they do on the other side depends on how much the attack).

 

[TTFrenzy]

Well thicker sponge definitely gives more spin (when it is compressed to its maximum of course) and less control than a thinner one. I dont know about the pros but I saw a documentary about wang hao zhang jike ma lin etc and LGL said that before beijing olympics wang hao was in perfect form and he was anxious about it somehow. He talked to LGL and wu jingping saying "Im playing so perfect I cannot even believe it" or something like that.

LGL who is master in jedi mind tricks told him to change his rubber (doesnt calrify which one BH or FH) and play with a thinner sponge and he did! He told him to do so because he knew his mindset would change and he would be relieved. In the end equipment even in the highest level of play does not play a crucial role in performance as many people may think it does.

If wang hao can destroy suss for example with skyline and bryce and suss plays with tenergy, he can still destroy him with both of them using 50 $ equipment, but maybe the rallies will last much longer

 

[Pnachtwey]

I have no idea what the physics is but in actual practice it often comes to this (and I think this goes slightly against conventional wisdom). Advanced offensive oriented players actually will have a greater margin for error on their shots with thicker sponge, which is why the main reason they use it.

These high level players are fit enough to compensate for the inefficient thicker sponges,

It is fairly unusual to see any high level offensive player not use the thickest sponge available in the product they use.

No dispute there. They can put the extra effort into the strokes to get the desired results.

It's not because they need more power.

Players generate the power. The better players have more power and the ability to control it.

Beginning and intermediate offensive players will probably not see this advantage and it may go the other way (meaning they might be fine or even better off with 1.8), but even they would not want to go too thin (1.5). Defenders are different and often use a quite thin sponge (1.0-1.5) on at least one side (what they do on the other side depends on how much the attack).

Yes, one of my most successful paddles was Rakza 7 1.8mm FH and 802 1.5 mm BH on a Samsonov Alpha blade.
I called it my ball whacker. At the time I was mostly a hitter block but I could loop. I found that I could generate as much spin with Rakza 1.8mm as I could with Mark V max. What I really liked was the control. A pro would never chose this setup but it was right for me at the time.

 

[Pnachtwey]

Thats an interesting point of view....

Yes, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom but I have made a lot of money doing that.
If stated this point before. No one as refuted my claim but i have upset many that believe the opposite. The key is whether the rubber itself is "faster" or are the player and rubber faster.

I have a heavy cutting board, used for cutting meat and vegetables, that I can attach attach rubbers to test just the rubbers.

I am home now. I could do a simulation of a mass hitting a spring and then then the same mass and speed hitting a spring that is twice as long ( thick ). I know what the results will be.

However, I don't think that any of this matters. A looper will loop with T05 or sriver. A chopper will try to chop with 755 1mm or PR-1 1mm. Good players will adapt.