This user has no status.
Tibhar Hybrid MK review
- Thread starter P1ngP0ng3r
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tibhar hybrid
says
[IMG]
I don't agree. For me, MK feels less spin sensitive and less catapult.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Yeah, when I read his post, I was thinking maybe I need to try G1 again, because that is definitely not how I remember it. I played G1 on all wood, I think I would break my shoulder playing MK on all wood, lol!
This user has no status.
yeah agreed. I was using MK on my forehand for about three sheets worth, I did like it quite a bit after all. Then ended up wanting something with a little more catapult on that side. Went to G1 for a while (max) and honestly they're so different. They're both more 'linear' style rubbers, but G1 has way more catapult, less grip, and a different trajectory. They're both stable rubbers, but they're still very different rubbers when compared directly on the same blade. I have MK on the backhand side too, so I can at least eliminate a bit of inaccuracy due to memory.
This user has no status.
Member
you can feel however you like about it and there might be different causes for this. Fact is that the japanese youtube channel anatomic edge has measured the Hybrid MK to be as low in catapult (in passive play) as the G-1. In terms of catapult support when doing active strokes it is hard to measure for me, but they are similar enough.
For what can be measured by setting up a robot and having it shoot at the perpendicular blade or setting up sidespin serves and see how far they bounce to the side after hitting the rubber there is no noteworthy difference between the two rubbers (given both are in max and on the same blade).
if i was to go by some other peoples logic that are not able to directly compare the rubbers, because they played the G-1 in the distant past then i could say "tenergy 05 fx" is very hard too loop with, because i remember me having trouble looping when i used it. If given proper context one would acknowledge that i was probably not having a proper technique back then and thus issues were not related to the rubber, but to the own skills in the past.
That is why i would not compare the skin sensitivity of a past rubber with what i currently use, because i got much better in reading and adjusting for spin, but that does not make my current rubber (which is the hybrid mk) better or worse in that category.
what i did was compare G-1 max on HL-5 to Hybrid MK max on HL-5. Currently i play it in 2.0mm on my forehand for 3 weeks now.
anecdotal evidence: when i hit a spinny serve of topspin loop and the opponent asked "wow, what a spin. What kind of rubber was that?" it was always the G-1. Did not yet receive these comments about the Hybrid MK.
I can switch between g-1 and hybrid mk seemlessly just be adjusting the angle on active strokes.
there is a excel table on dropbox somewhere with all the measurings of anatomic edge's videos, which is quite comprehensive. Check it out and you will see that in all readings they are very close together.
That does not stop you from being entitled to your feelings playing with a hyped up new rubber.
another anecdote: There is this review of the hybrid mk where the tester summarizes it as a great rubber and that he will definitely play it. 4 Weeks later he creates a list of top tibhar rubbers and the hybrid mk is not even in the top 5.
I think many people get carried away by marketing.
If some of you hybrid mk lovers have a robot, simply test it with a stationary/fixed blade and record it. You will see how little the difference is.
This user has no status.
Member
So you do compare MK in 2.0 to G-1 in max ?
less grip is debatable. MK has a more modern topsheet which is highly grippy but at the very same time pretty suspectible to great a moist film on it which will degrade spin generation. This is similar like the Ando C48 which also has such a topsheet that will fail you on certain conditions / high humidity.
Perhaps we have different definitions for catapult. What is your definition and how can you measure both (without human influence)?
Update:
this is the list i was refering to:
To quote a few measurements:
They measure the grip by the force the rubber is able to "drag" with the rubbers topsheet
the catapult is measured by dropping the ball from a fixed height onto the rubber, so it is passive catapult (like in the short game)
Hardness is measured in Shore A taking into account topsheet + sponge
G-1 (1.8mm) - Grip 1.80 kg - Catapult 22cm - Hardness 32,5°
G-1 (2.3mm/Max) - Grip 1.65 kg - Catapult 23.5cm - Hardness 30.5°
Tibhar Hybrid MK (2.0mm) - Grip 1.75 kg - Catapult 22.5cm - Hardness 30,5°
Tibhar MX-D (2.0mm) - Grip 1.72 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 29°
Tibhar MX-S (1.9mm) - Grip 1.60 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 31,5°
Andro C48 (2.0mm) - Grip 1.77 kg - Catapult 25cm - Hardness 29,5°
Tenergy 05 (1.9mm) - Grip 0.9 kg - Catapult 30cm - Hardness 33°
Rakza 7 - (2.0mm) - Grip 0.87 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 32.5°
We do see that there are some things that you would not expect (like the 1.8 G-1 feeling harder than the G-1 max, on the other side the thicker sponge could soften it)
Last edited:
This user has no status.
To answer your question: I used MK max on forehand through three sheets, and then started testing G1 max going double black to compare them and ended up accidentally liking MK for my backhand so much that I then decided to purchase in 2.0 red to have a legal racket. I'm not going off of a years old impression on a different blade at a different skill level like you implied in the other comment, nor am I basing my impression off of different thicknesses. They were on the same blade at the same time and the differences that I felt through my errored human hands caused me to prefer one over the other for my forehand side.So you do compare MK in 2.0 to G-1 in max ?
less grip is debatable. MK has a more modern topsheet which is highly grippy but at the very same time pretty suspectible to great a moist film on it which will degrade spin generation. This is similar like the Ando C48 which also has such a topsheet that will fail you on certain conditions / high humidity.
Perhaps we have different definitions for catapult. What is your definition and how can you measure both (without human influence)?
Update:
this is the list i was refering to:
To quote a few measurements:
They measure the grip by the force the rubber is able to "drag" with the rubbers topsheet
the catapult is measured by dropping the ball from a fixed height onto the rubber, so it is passive catapult (like in the short game)
Hardness is measured in Shore A taking into account topsheet + sponge
G-1 (1.8mm) - Grip 1.80 kg - Catapult 22cm - Hardness 32,5°
G-1 (2.3mm/Max) - Grip 1.65 kg - Catapult 23.5cm - Hardness 30.5°
Tibhar Hybrid MK (2.0mm) - Grip 1.75 kg - Catapult 22.5cm - Hardness 30,5°
Tibhar MX-D (2.0mm) - Grip 1.72 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 29°
Tibhar MX-S (1.9mm) - Grip 1.60 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 31,5°
Andro C48 (2.0mm) - Grip 1.77 kg - Catapult 25cm - Hardness 29,5°
Tenergy 05 (1.9mm) - Grip 0.9 kg - Catapult 30cm - Hardness 33°
Rakza 7 - (2.0mm) - Grip 0.87 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 32.5°
We do see that there are some things that you would not expect (like the 1.8 G-1 feeling harder than the G-1 max, on the other side the thicker sponge could soften it)
Thanks for posting this information though. For starters, the quoted data is pretty basic from what I can gather. I appreciate that it exists and that someone took the time, and I do think you can draw an idea of what these measurements may translate to for certain aspects of the game. I admittedly do not know anything about their testing methodology or procedures and what (if any) variables are accounted for in determining these measurements. But to me it doesn't really say that much about table tennis.
I mean hell, take the grip measurement alone. The difference between G-1 max and 1.8, two rubbers with the same exact topsheet, have a bigger difference in their respective Grip measurements when compared to each other than either one has compared to Hybrid MK. That implies to me that there are more factors involved than just the surface grip of the topsheet in how they performed that test, and so I don't find that it tells me as much as you feel it does. Yet you're going to imply that I have some faulty definition of these characteristics compared to your correct definition based on these measurements? I'm fully aware of human error and how flawed our interpretation can be but to pretend these super basic data points are all that matters when drawing equipment conclusions for rubber is just as flawed as me drawing all of my conclusions about equipment in a feeling based sport from my hand when using that equipment in said sport. Come on.
What are my definitions/how do I measure? How do you define the difference between the speed of a rubber and the catapult effect of a rubber? Are they the same? Are they different? What do they depend on? Dude table tennis is a sport where everything is based on feeling. So you measure catapult solely based on a single bounce test from a specific fixed height? What does that 1.5cm translate to at my average swing speed? You don't have an answer to that. None of this is contextually significant to table tennis. This data is great, but using it just to be contrarian misses the point imo.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Maybe you are right. Maybe if I spent some time testing G1 next to MK, maybe I will realize that my impact depth and swing speed have reach a point where neither rubber works for me anymore and they are more similar than different. I have my doubts about this, I felt G1 and C1 were both more spin reactive and power producing than MK. But my feeling could have changed for sure, I have been using 53+ degree sponge for a bit now and maybe G1 will not work for me either. A part of me has doubts, especially because I think the G1 plays more dynamically but I will wait until I have tested both again (which may never happen) before saying anything more on the subject. Right now. I broadly agree with beeray and his evaluation of the issue.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Hybrid MK pro is coming. Same top sheet and harder (purple) sponge iirc
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
This I will definitely give a shot. Maybe my current issues with MK are sponge hardness related but I struggled to get more power out of it when I went for more power.
This user has no status.
did you ever end up giving this a try NL? curious to hear your thoughts if so. I ended up trying it briefly.
This user has no status.
Member
Unfortunately i have made the exact experience that you allude to. I always had the fastarc G-1 as my "go-to" rubber that i felt home with. When i then switched back to the G-1 after venturing into a few more hybrid and harder rubbers (MK hybrid > MK hybrid pro > Pk50 > Stiga DNA Hybrid M > Stiga DNA Hybrid H) i just could not get the blade angle right anymore and had trouble precisely differentiating between looping underspin (which always works), to looping blocked balls vs counter-looping. This was a very frustrating experience, because i thought the G-1 would always be the safe bet to go back to, but somehow it is not anymore.
I now do feel way more comfortable looping with the PK50 which is distinctively more chinese than the G-1, of course. I think the issue is that i got used to be able to really put my body into the loops which made the G-1 just shoot holes in the the gym wall overhitting or due to lack of tackiness shoot into the net, since i was not able to loop hard and still brush the ball up over the net using the stickiness.
It is sad but it is what it is.
I will stick to the PK50 for a month until i play a tournament in late january and then perhaps experiment with the other rubbers that i have in my queue (729 Dragon F, Nexy Etika, Nittaku Hammond Z2). The Dragon F i have already tried a bit but it was two different in the short game from the PK50 to just switch to it, but definitely something if someone wants to go even more "chinese" than PK50, with great short serves and less base speed/catapult.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I really don't wanna go @brokenball on these tests, but...So you do compare MK in 2.0 to G-1 in max ?
less grip is debatable. MK has a more modern topsheet which is highly grippy but at the very same time pretty suspectible to great a moist film on it which will degrade spin generation. This is similar like the Ando C48 which also has such a topsheet that will fail you on certain conditions / high humidity.
Perhaps we have different definitions for catapult. What is your definition and how can you measure both (without human influence)?
Update:
this is the list i was refering to:
To quote a few measurements:
They measure the grip by the force the rubber is able to "drag" with the rubbers topsheet
the catapult is measured by dropping the ball from a fixed height onto the rubber, so it is passive catapult (like in the short game)
Hardness is measured in Shore A taking into account topsheet + sponge
G-1 (1.8mm) - Grip 1.80 kg - Catapult 22cm - Hardness 32,5°
G-1 (2.3mm/Max) - Grip 1.65 kg - Catapult 23.5cm - Hardness 30.5°
Tibhar Hybrid MK (2.0mm) - Grip 1.75 kg - Catapult 22.5cm - Hardness 30,5°
Tibhar MX-D (2.0mm) - Grip 1.72 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 29°
Tibhar MX-S (1.9mm) - Grip 1.60 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 31,5°
Andro C48 (2.0mm) - Grip 1.77 kg - Catapult 25cm - Hardness 29,5°
Tenergy 05 (1.9mm) - Grip 0.9 kg - Catapult 30cm - Hardness 33°
Rakza 7 - (2.0mm) - Grip 0.87 kg - Catapult 27.5cm - Hardness 32.5°
We do see that there are some things that you would not expect (like the 1.8 G-1 feeling harder than the G-1 max, on the other side the thicker sponge could soften it)
Just a few things to note: they use a 500g??? metal cube for the grip tests. That is not a plastic ball mostly because it is not plastic and not a ball. I have seen rubbers made for plastic ball act like an ice skate ring with the old caoutchouc ball. How each rubber acts with metal??? I don't know but not a good test if we play with plastic balls and not metal cubes.
Their bounce test is conducted by dropping the ball from 50cm which is fine, but the rubber is held down with paper clips and the rubbers are not glued. I would be very cautious even if I glued to rubbers to pass judgment, but with paper clips... come on... The level of air pocket between the contraption and the rubber is random hence the bounce test might be flawed.
Softer rubbers should have more grip on this test since the 500g cube will compress the rubber more and have more of a ledge (lip?) that the cube needs to jump over. They measure the grip when the cube jumps so... Again use a plastic ball or something plastic with rounded corners.
From the same hardness the thicker sponge will be softer. @brokenball has been yapping about this for ages, it's boring by now but true.
The hardness test I don't like but I hate every manufacturer's in this regard. They absolutely should make a tip that is the same as a table tennis ball and then test. Using a pointed tip is nonrepresentative for table tennis.
Just in case someone wonders their 'tests' are all like this:
Don't get me wrong, this is useful if someone wants weight measurement, look at the products and cross-section views. The rest needs to be either ignored or taken with great caution.
This user has no status.
Member
It is true that it does not reflect "gameplay", since we are having a weight with the touching surface being metal, but at least it is comparable. What should they do ? Use a ball whose properties may change over time ? There are a good amount of difference between different brands of balls already, so trying to measure it with a "real" ball is more difficult and more error prone. Of course due to the difference between metal and plastic we can not transfer the results one to one to gameplay, but with metal being more smooth than a plastic ball we can see a kind of "worst case" scenario of the grip. I would guess that a tabletennis ball of the same mass/weight like the metal cube with the same surface touching the rubber would give even "stronger" grip values/measurements. In the summary list there are a few examples of rubbers that seem to grip metal not that well, even though we know that they grip the ball very well.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt, since they do not only do one or two bounce tests. In your description you make it sound like they fixate the rubber with paper clips, which is not correct. The rubber is placed on a surface with a wooden frame on top, which then is fixated with those clips. This means the ought to be a somehow even pressure on border of the rubber. Yes, there can be air bubbles beneath the rubber, but if they do it the same way for each rubber and use several measurements and not only one, then it should be comparable enough.
Yes, that can definitely be true. On the other hand we should think about if that would really be the issue here and how much a 500g weight would sink in on a 55° sponge vs a 40° sponge. It might very well be that 500g is enough to indent the topsheet to the maximum already for hard sponges, which would make the test more comparable.
Nobody disputes that and that is why they offer the reading of the sponge thickness and the topsheet thickness, so you can compare these. If one can make out the probable changes in measurements by the measured sponge thickness differences is very debatable, but you can at least try to compare rubbers that have similar sponge and topsheet thicknesses.
I agree, but as long as we dont have anything like that it is just wishful thinking.
For me it all boils down to "do i trust somebody to estimate the properties of a rubber by jugling the ball with it and playing a game or two while basically creating hundreds or thousands of unique situations (on how they hit the ball and how fast it is incoming with different trajectories) or do i trust somebody that put a little thought into testing a rubber and might it the "most scientific" we have on offer.
For me it is clear that i trust repeatable tests way more than somebody playing a game and in worst case trying to compare that with past experiences with different rubbers (on different humidity locations, different blades, different physical shape).
As of yet, i have not found a big difference in my own testing of rubbers. I am yet to find a rubber that is measured to have less than 22cm bounce height that is not feeling very controlled on pushes and the short touch game.
The comparisons with glued rubbers did match the results of that table (in relation). Of course i do not exactly measure a ball bounce of 50cm but i can compare two rubbers on the same blade with the same height and for the rubbers like G-1, Hybrid MK, Hybrid MK Pro, PK50, Hurricane 3 Neo, NH3TB they all matched if compared to each other.
If i actually play a game with the rubber or do drills on the robot this can of course change drastically due to the different throws. A stroke that works for the PK50 to push short will create a sky high tower on the Hybrid MK. This is obviously out of the purview of the testing shown.
Like pointed out by Archosaurus, sponges will behave like progressive springs that do not behave the same on all levels of impact.
One experience i have had is recently was using the Victas V22 double extra and trying to push really short. The readings of anatomic edge table would not indicate that it is very bouncy (like the Vega X for instance), but still i simply failed to properly push short with this rubbers. Do i now detest the findings of the table or do i simply acknowledge that it was probably me having gotten too accustomed to the PK50 sieger which is an order of magnitude less catapulty hence my technique (and lack of soft hand) failing me?
I challenge anybody with a robot or other method of somehow reliably create same shots to show that the Hybrid MK is worlds more controlled in the short game than the G-1 (taking the human element out of the equation).
I am pretty sure you can't.
They are in the same ballpark in that low power incoming ball scenario, so i have to guess that the MK hybrids throw might favour the pushing technique of the people that claim that the MK is way more controlled. This may all be true and nobody will detest that. Fitting your technique better does not change the measurable properties of the rubber though.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
a 500gm cube would barely compress the rubber. 500 gm x 9.8 m/s^2 is a little less that 5 Newtons. The impact of a 10 m/s ball applies much more force but only for about 1 ms.
If I repeat something enough times somebody may listen.
I have the equipment to test the how linear a sponge is and how much force it takes to compress the sponge so far.
I can build a table. It is a stress vs strain test. I could do the same testing how much force it takes to deflect a paddle.
Here I am compressing a TT ball but I could do the same test on rubber.
The problem is that no one seemed to care so why bother?
If I repeat something enough times somebody may listen.
I have the equipment to test the how linear a sponge is and how much force it takes to compress the sponge so far.
I can build a table. It is a stress vs strain test. I could do the same testing how much force it takes to deflect a paddle.
Here I am compressing a TT ball but I could do the same test on rubber.
The problem is that no one seemed to care so why bother?
Similar threads
