Just say no to the new poly ball. Petition

This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Oct 2012
652
25
684
I saw it here.

http://www.privatebox.co.nz/int/guidelines.pdf

I'm not sure about how they deal with custom to clear their shipment through sea cargo. But the regulation should become tighter nowaday when they deal with something that is label as flammable or inflammable.


But sometimes the guys checking forget and let it through, that's how I got a stack of DHS 3-star balls.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Oct 2012
25
6
46
That listing is for things that you cannot mail using the regular PRIVATE MAIL services, meaning using your regular post office to mail or ship items.

I do know that air freight has put celluloid down as "hazardous material" but that doesn't mean you can't ship it by air, just more costly.

I haven't found where any country is banning celluloid, not that that means one doesn't, but I've yet to find any. Please share if you do.
 
Last edited:
says Spin and more spin.
says Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Dec 2010
16,193
17,765
54,984
Read 11 reviews
Take a ball that works okay, and chuck it for a ball that breaks easily, bounces high and is too slick to generate spin for a spinny loop; I am not sure what the problem is? :) :)

Comparison:

the current celluloid ball lasts longer and is more durable than the proposed new plastic balls.

You can generate a considerable amount more spin with the celluloid balls.

The new plastic ball will bounce well and more consistently but higher.

With the new plastic ball, chances are that defenders will not be able to generate enough spin to be effective. Loopers will not be able to generate enough spin to be effective. And the higher bounce of the ball is likely to make it more advantageous to flat hit everything. The era of the smashers is coming. We could just bring back hard bats. :)
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Oct 2012
25
6
46
This is a google translation from pingisfan website.

http://www.pingisfan.se/2012/11/

From what I can get from this. The new polyball will no longer be seamless, and what they have produced so far will be very much higher in price and the durability isn't so good. He wrote 30 seconds, which I think is a huge exaggeration. I'm assuming they tested the same pre-view ball as everyone else, which goes against what other reviews say as far as bounce/trajectory go.

Unless this is another preview ball that was produced with the 2 halves.

Anyone know more on this??


Dated Nov. 27, 2012:

[h=2]
New ball[/h] At the convention, so did Thomas Berner (Chairman Tranås and owner of Woodhouse) the opportunity to tell you a little about what is happening regarding the new ball.
The first decision ITTF decided was that the new ball will be in place from July 2013. The problem is that manufacturers (not labels but the three factories that produce three-star no balls) would not have time to get the finished product into commerce.
ITTF therefore decided to postpone the decision to the new ball, commonly known as plastic ball strangely enough when the current ball is also made of a plastic material, through July 2014. Another name for the ball seems to be polyboll beroend on the new material as the eat manufactured in. The material question is the great part of this when today's materials are in short supply and a relatively small product that is also classified as flammable, ITTF want to get rid of these " unclean "products from the sport.
However, it seems that this deadline will be difficult to achieve, and that the prices of the ball will be much higher than the existing three-star no balls. There are, as I said only two independent (third do Nittaku balls only) factories that can make approved three-star no balls and the two collaborate current prices. Cartel yes but it is difficult to do anything about China, if I understand it correctly.
To make it a little cheaper and you have returned to the idea of ​​making the ball into two pieces just like the present because you will not have to purchase new machinery for manufacturing. So deviated from the idea of ​​"casting" the ball in one piece.
I tested the ball for a couple of months ago but have not tested it thoroughly, which now Berner seems to have done. The ball is acting properly in bounce and trajectory and as we expect, quite OK then. The problem is the quality that is beneath contempt. sustainability is under Thomas only 30 seconds!
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
This user has been banned.
Nov 2010
367
135
502
I agree with the general sentiment about why change what isn't broken.
By now you guys should realize I am also an old engineer so I know what questions to ask
First the weight of the ball must be the same for starters. The second part is that the bounce must be the same.
See this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_restitution
Look at the part about table tennis. What is really lame about this specification is that it ONLY checks the bounce from one height instead of multiple heights. The new ball is not checked to make sure it bounces the same as the old ball from multiple heights.

If you think about it you know there are differences even between the current celluloid balls. A lot of the differences that your perceive aren't just imaginary. They are the differences between the way the balls bounce at different heights.

If the new seamless plastic balls bounce the same way as the celluloid balls from different heights and weigh the same then they are suitable replacements IF they last as long.

I think we need proof that the new seamless plastic balls bounce the same as the celluloid balls from many different heights.
 
Top