Joola Infinity Robot 2.0

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jan 2019
1,119
723
2,225
Read 2 reviews
Got an email from Joola last week that I was picked to test out the Infinity Robot 2.0. This is quite a nice surprise, since the 1.0 left so much to be desired. Hopefully they solved the biggest problem they have, which is the ball killing, I mean the ball recycling system. The other parts of it on the 1.0 felt ok, and I would give it an 8/10 if not for the horrible oversight.

I'll post updates here once I receive it and played with it.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2022
3,471
1,770
5,413
Got an email from Joola last week that I was picked to test out the Infinity Robot 2.0. This is quite a nice surprise, since the 1.0 left so much to be desired. Hopefully they solved the biggest problem they have, which is the ball killing, I mean the ball recycling system. The other parts of it on the 1.0 felt ok, and I would give it an 8/10 if not for the horrible oversight.

I'll post updates here once I receive it and played with it.
Very cool! But do you know why they picked you to test it?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jan 2019
1,119
723
2,225
Read 2 reviews
I had similar issues. The thing is.. I gave the robot to my coach for testing. He did shove a bunch of 3 star balls tibhar competition, and it is working really good apparently...
I tried Nittaku balls, and the Joola balls that comes with it, not much difference for me.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2019
1,854
852
3,212
Read 4 reviews
Nah, it's the design. The balls should not affect how the machine works. Just like the brand of the printing paper should not affect how a printer works, if it does then the printer is just a bad product.
Welp. I get you. But the same machine. Physically the same robot, that stuttered a lot of poo orange balls by Joola, moderately stuttered with Huieson do not stutter as much and keep tempo with Tibhar ***.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jan 2019
1,119
723
2,225
Read 2 reviews
Welp. I get you. But the same machine. Physically the same robot, that stuttered a lot of poo orange balls by Joola, moderately stuttered with Huieson do not stutter as much and keep tempo with Tibhar ***.
Proves there's a lot to be improved of the design.
 
says Check out my Podcast Talkin' Smash!
says Check out my Podcast Talkin' Smash!
TeamJOOLA
Oct 2010
2,674
1,419
4,298
Read 12 reviews
33
They picked the more active users from first rollout.
I chose them based on my interactions with people I found were using their robots a lot and were active in giving constructive feedback etc. My hope with this is that there will be enough reliable feedback to make sure that 2.0 is not 1.0 round 2. I’m much less involved in that project now but still very invested in trying to see it to a much better place than it was when I came on board with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeGaGa
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jan 2019
1,119
723
2,225
Read 2 reviews
so here's a quick and lazy review of this new robot.

Ball Feeder:
The robot doesn't destroy balls anymore. This is a big big plus over the 1.0 test unit I have. Over the past two weeks, I've used this robot more or less every other day for around 1 hour each, no balls were damaged during this process, and the balls are the same ones I used for the 1.0, so I'm really glad this is fixed.

However, the mechanism still lacks consistency. Meaning that if I set the robot to feed balls at a certain speed, the interval still changes from ball to ball, and varies by a lot.

Ball Collection Net
Another big improvement here, the collection net now includes a layer of curtain, which absorbs the energy of the ball quite well.

Table Clamp
The swappable rubber topper is quite a nice idea, but the ideal positioning isn't demonstrated in the manual, nor is it obvious. And this was also true for the 1.0 as well, I didn't mention this in my comments before because I thought this would be so obvious and an easy fix.

Any ways, the topper has different numbers specified on it, which corresponds to different table thickness in millimeters. However, while using the "correct" ones for my table, which is 25mm btw, the robot sags quite a bit in the rear. Meaning that if I stand to the side of it, the rear of the robot is noticeably lower then the front. In order to make it level, I need to use the 15mm topper instead. This by itself isn't such a big deal, but no where in the manual says whether this is to be expected, like is the robot supposed to be level after clamping on the table. This also plays a role in the calibration of ball placement, a few degrees of tilt will affect the placement by a lot depending on the speed of the ball.

App Controll
TBH, I don't know who's responsible of the app. But as a software developer myself I want to say it's not quite intuitive to use, and there are also a few things that doesn't make sense at all.

For example, the lighting control, why can't it remember its setting and I have to manually turn it off every single time I connect to the robot?

And the ball adjustment function, why does changing X axis make the robot head tilt side ways by about 30 degrees? I'm not adding side spin of any kind.

Speaking of side spin, who thought using ±45 is a good and clear way of demonstrating how much side spin a ball has?

I would say change the names of the adjustment menu, for example I think "placement" should say "sway" instead, and "sidespin" should say "tilt".

As for the calibration system, what a mess... First of all, I can't really tell whether the calibration did anything. Also, the different steps of the calibration process is just too complicated and not user friendly at all. All you need is feed a few balls, then ask the user does the ball need to go further left-right and/or front-back, then provide the user with two scroll bar of some kind to let the user change where the ball needs to go, then repeat the process. Since there are only two wheels on the robot, I don't see a reason to add a question to ask whether side spin needs to be adjusted in the calibration process.

Conclusion
B
for making an effort on fixing the most horrible ball feeder system, it's at least semi usable now. Compared to the 1.0, which used to destroy balls, is a big improvement. But why is it still so inconsistent? Or maybe the question should be, why reinvent the wheel? I've used about seven robots now, and I've seen quite a few different designs of the ball feeder, the best one is still the "rotating disk with a whole" or a variance of that. The scoop system of this Infinity Robot, or the helical spring used by "TenniRobo" all fails to some extent.

D for not really improving on the other aspects of the whole unit and the app.

F for recommendability, no I would not recommend this to anyone.

P.S. even though I’m still quite disappointed with the infinity robot, I still have hope. Joola is one of the biggest TT equipment manufacturers out there, and their efforts in the recent blades and rubbers are not unseen. There are loads of good reviews on the warrior blade and the new rubbers , which I’ve tried a few personally and I do like them a lot. Please Joola, just take the design of the ball feeder on Power Pong Omega, or the Omni Pong Bot, it’s a tried and true design. It’s never too late to make a change.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Jan 2019
1,119
723
2,225
Read 2 reviews
Please be sure to send your feedback to the team as was the intention of the focus group, your feedback does have significant implications for the project.
I sent a link of this post to [email protected], that’s still the support email I’m assuming?
 
Top