C-8 and C-801

[Matviil]

I was look at these rubbers
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/22518324 ... escription
It goes to USA site for some reason

I thought C-8 was useless with Aspect Ratio of 2.4 divided by 2.1 mm = 1.14
See pictures . C-801 have Aspect Ratio of 3.0 mm divided by 2.2 mm which gives 1.36
I might as well just used any useless ITTF LARC rubber

Concerning C-801 I ma confused because I heard there two types
Old mushroom or octopus design & new purely cylinder only design.

I try old but it very harder control.

Do you know which store they sell only cylinder ?

[Ludie4]

For the 40+ plastic ball only era after the 14 rule and regulation changes
Ideal aspect ratio would be 1.5
Ideal pip length would be 3.0 mm
This gives a pip diameter of 2.0 mm

Pips tops and sides should be rough for choppers
Pip density would be higher for choppers than blockers
Exact value is hard to say without experimentation but should be similar to prior to 2004 pip density reduction regulation

Pips tops and sides should begallsy smooth for blockers like prior to 2008 Frictionless pips ban
Pip density would be lower for blockers than choppers

Lower pip density gives more speed and less spin (for blockers)
Globe Mo Wang 3 with longer than 2.5 mm or so pips with low pip density is freaky fast

Higher pip density gives more spin and less speed (for choppers)
I believe Liu Guoliang used high pip density wide (stiff) pips on forehand before it got promptly banned but it actually effects choppers more due to reduced (back) spin , though he used it for more top spin ( I know it sounds weird but true... I assume he wanted it to as spinny as possible for a wide (stiff) pips............though he did twiddle and also loop with the spinny inverted which he used mostly on his RPG backhand)

[wehem]

I thought C-8 was useless with Aspect Ratio of 2.4 divided by 2.1 mm = 1.14

This is not true. We live in a physical world, not some crazy world that is subject only to parameters like aspect ratio. Since the pimples are larger, the contact area is still higher than that of larc pimples, the pimples of the C8 are simply not slim enough to amplify the spin even more, but this rubber is still superior to larc pimples and is not useless.

[Ludie4]

I thought C-8 was useless with Aspect Ratio of 2.4 divided by 2.1 mm = 1.14

This is not true. We live in a physical world, not some crazy world that is subject only to parameters like aspect ratio. Since the pimples are larger, the contact area is still higher than that of larc pimples, the pimples of the C8 are simply not slim enough to amplify the spin even more, but this rubber is still superior to larc pimples and is not useless.

You contradict yourselves.
If the pimples are not slim enough to amplify the spin, what else is it good for as a long pip ?
It definitely is useless for a blocker or chop-blocker due to lack back spin.
Anyone can use slim pips but it does not mean it is as good as a long pip with longer length and higher Aspect Ratio
Sorry I strongly disagree.
Also why on earth would I use this C-8 when I have C-801 as a blocker.
You could say it is good as an all around rubber but since the pip diameter is larger it is not as good as the longest slimmer pips such as P1v Curl or Feint Long 2 or 3 or even Tibhar Grass Dtec , all with an Aspect Ratio of 1.1 (Almost same as Reach C-8)
Slimmer pips are a must in addition to longer length.

Larger diameter pips may be good for just aggressive blocking if that is your style. If I want that I will use Mo Avalox or Globe Mo Wang 3 both are actual long pips with high aspect ratio.
They both have a vertical alignment and quite fast and designed to be blocking rubbers

[merlin el mago]

Have you tried the rubbers?

[Ludie4]

Have you tried the rubbers?

I try C-801 old . Was hard for me to control. I did not try C-8 because AR is too low
I like Mo Avalox OX as I mostly block.

[merlin el mago]

C-8 is easy to play vs C-801, C-8 chops better than C-801.