Review: Tuttle Beijing IV

yogi_bear wrote:

[/QUOTE]

+1000

What use is a bounce test of a random "cutting board"?     What about using 10 different cutting boards with various COR's/densities/compounds ?    Or how about this....use an actual paddle mounted with the average grip tension of a players hand at ball impact.....?  Wait....there are too many variables huh.... 

Some of us can tell instantly the differences of speed/loft/grip of rubbers no matter how well we can or can not adapt to different setups.  

Basically, you cant simulate performance of a rubber without an actual real world playing test.  Other data from "scientific tests"  with non-real testing mechanics are trivial to actual players feedback. There are so many elements to how a player hits the ball....angles, touch, grip pressure, and body mechanics.  So.....a bounce test off a "board"  only means the results are exact or relative to that same situation.....and I'm pretty sure 99.99% of people that buy rubbers do not use them for cutting board bounce tests......

As I understand the discussion, there is a question concerning the value of doing a rubber test eliminating all other variables (e.g. human factor, blade factor, etc.). 

richrf wrote: I think the key point here is that a test that shows a rubber will be faster than any other rubber in the test has limited predictive value until it is actually included in the complete system - e.g. a human test by the human that intends to use it.

an objective measurement that a rubber is faster than all others have limited predicitve value??? 

and since subjective opinion must be worse, then your suggestion is basically: try it for yourself? Well, that has zero usefulness in predicting. The whole point of these tests is to give knowledge to potential users before the actually use it. 

Or just read the ratings on TTDB when enough people have reviewed it concisely, which makes it easier-easter to evaluate.

kickass wrote: Rich215 wrote: My point is that his test is flawed as to useful results. But by using some extremely different object the rubbers are fixed to.....you will get results that tell you what the rubbers act like on something that is not similar to effects of use on a real blade in normal play.  Instead of controlling variables, you want to add more variables? I think you guys are missing the point of the test, which is comparative to other rubbers all other things being equal. It is not an absolute valuation, it is comaprative. And that is more useful than a subjective test any day.

[/QUOTE]

Actually using a much harder and stiffer board behind the rubbers ADDS..... a variable to the test and results.  IE the fact that you have progressed the bounce so much and different types of rubbers (tensors, tenergy, and non tensor rubbers) will or will not have various exaggerated progressive effects.  Thus, the differences in results between the rubbers could easily be very different than what they would if the object the rubber is fixed to something that more closely resembles a blade.

Maybe use a blade with 1 standard rubber on the opposite side for all various rubber tests on the hitting side.   This would take away variables that not realistic. 


So to say that it would be more useful to use something that is greatly different than a actual blade...is nonsense.  

But.....if you just want to compare rubber speeds in a totally unrealistic manor to actual game play....then your test would result with information that means little to actual response from normal use most likely.  That is my point.  

Sorry to add so much to the total derailment of the thread !       I shall end my point here. 

Rich215 wrote: Actually using a much harder and stiffer board behind the rubbers ADDS..... a variable to the test and results.

Actually no.  The cutting board is so hard and heavy compared to the rubber and ball that it will absorb and return a infinitely small amount of energy that can be ignored.   That is what you want of you want to test only the rubber.

You are annoying me.  It should be clear that different rubbers will work differently on different paddles.  So what paddle should I use to evaluate the rubbers?  Don't you see the problem?

IE the fact that you have progressed the bounce so much and different types of rubbers (tensors, tenergy, and non tensor rubbers) will or will not have various exaggerated progressive effects.

Can anybody translate this?

LGL_fan wrote: test different angles too. some rubbers are slow in flat hitting but loop pretty fast

Will do.   I can turn the cutting board so the balls hit it at about a 45 degree angle.

That won't be a problem.

I bought another TB4 for evaluation.   I don't want to remove the one I was given from my Firewall Plus.

dingyibvs wrote: Rich, you're not understanding the concept of modulization.  Each component needs to be isolated and studied by itself, eventually reducing each down to a system that has outputs that are predictable by inputs.  Blades are undoubtedly important to the overall performance, but that's an entirely separate topic. What you're saying essentially is that since people drive cars, it's impossible to study a car's performance in any area without a person operating it.  That's simply not true.  In fact, you can break a car down to its components, and the synergy between the components is indeed a science that can be predicted.  A table tennis setup is decidedly not as complicated as car components, and thus I hope you can accept that it can both be studied without human operators and as individual components without neglecting the synergistic effect of combining the components.

because table tennis is a sport that combines a lot of factors. hence the notion of getting the feel, control and usability from the person who is using it plus the speed and spin potential on the equipment. what we are tryin to point out is why separate the speed factor purely when in the real world and in gaming situation speed is not the only factor? sure you are measuring the speed of the rubber i do not question that but after you measure the speed then what? 

yogi_bear wrote: because table tennis is a sport that combines a lot of factors. hence the notion of getting the feel, control and usability from the person who is using it plus the speed and spin potential on the equipment. what we are tryin to point out is why separate the speed factor purely when in the real world and in gaming situation speed is not the only factor? sure you are measuring the speed of the rubber i do not question that but after you measure the speed then what?

Feels like Ive stumbled across a geek convention

Edited by riker71 - 03/14/2012 at 1:11am

Come on guys, nobody is disputing your science.  Yes, you picked marble slab because you want to isolate the characteristics of the rubber only.  That makes sense.

However, you've lost 99% of the TT forum audience.  COR is not part of most people's everyday language.  All the great testing you do will be lost in the confused faces of us mere mortals who simply wanna know "is this thing X% more spinny than T05 on a TBS?"

I will leave you with this quote, as I look forward to your test results...

Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people. -- William Butler Yeats

I don't think there's anything wrong with having what might be considered an overly academic discussion of table tennis. We're all free to participate in a thread or not participate.

However, I do think we're better off without childish tantrums (giant font with multiple exclamation points).

.. pretty silly and embarrassing for the forum

pushchop wrote: Come on guys, nobody is disputing your science.  Yes, you picked marble slab because you want to isolate the characteristics of the rubber only.  That makes sense. However, you've lost 99% of the TT forum audience.  COR is not part of most people's everyday language.  All the great testing you do will be lost in the confused faces of us mere mortals who simply wanna know "is this thing X% more spinny than T05 on a TBS?" I will leave you with this quote, as I look forward to your test results... Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people. -- William Butler Yeats

How about a separate thread on methods and results of objective measurement of TT equipment (the hows).  And another thread for discussion for understanding the purpose of objective measurement (the whys).  

yogi, I don't want to derail this thread much more, but I think you're missing the premise of our debate.  We're arguing over the PROCESS of rating rubbers, not the results.  A computer is very complicated object to build, but almost everyone knows how to use it.  Similarly, a rubber rating will be very difficult to come by, requiring a process that's way too difficult to understand by laymen like you, but the results will be simple.  For example, all you need to understand is something like "the TBS+TB4 is faster than OC+TB4 at slower speeds, but will have similar speed with less dwell at higher speeds".  Those of us who do understand physics/engineering will work with COR's and such to come to such conclusions.