Is solidified LARC pips (Yinhe Young) crap ?

[wehem]

I bought the cured version of saviga 77 monster and then suddenly came across this forum. Yinhe Young with 1.4/1.6 aspect ratio will be much better?

[Olena]

If the rubber has an ITTF logo and is listed on the latest LARC , I am not sure how the umpire can tell for either Saviga 77 or Yinhe Young

[pong slicer]

Also keep in mind that you are not required to submit your racket for eaxmination by the umpire or you opponent in most lower level tournaments.
This is because the is no chemical inspection for boosters at lower levels.
But since boosting and spein gluing are health issues, chemical inspection has a musch much higher priority
Do if chmecical inspection is not performed n all events for 100% of the rackets than visual examination of the racket cannot be performaed because it is discriminatory & abusive.

[James Z]

The high aspect ratio version of Yinhe Young does not come in treated (solidified version).
So you are comparing apples & oranges.

The 2.1 mm length version of Yinhe Young has an Aspect Ratio of 2.1/ 1.5 = 1.4
It is very difficult for me to predict the behavior of treated version of this 2.1 version because I do not recommend treated pips . I consider them unethical & also ITTF unapproved due to rule 2.4.7 just like boosted & spein glued rubbers However treated pips are not illegal (potentially criminal) under common law like boosted or spein glued rubbers.

But I assume the untreated 2.1 mm version (AR=1.4) is better than other social pips on LARC which only have an AR=1.1.)
But don't ask me how this rubber got approved.

Anyway as a former chopper I am more interested in the untreated High Aspect Ratio version of this rubber (AR =1.67 with length of 2.5 mm and width of 1.5 mm) because of the possibility of capability of generating very high back spin in addition to spin reversal against loops.

Though I hardly play anymore even as an exercise player due to serious back issues, I ordered the high AP version of this rubber just to test.
I should be able to post my results in a month. (It takes 2 to 4 weeks for rubber to get to USA).
But this test data may not be of any use to players who are close to the table blockers (like the OP seems to be) who want to use treated pips. The rubber I ordered is a non treatd version.
As a (former) chopper , I am hoping non treated version would be more flexible to generate more back spin. I am not looking for deception or disruption like a close to the table blocker would

I also hope the pip tops are rough like Feint Long and not smooth as in a frictionless rubber

BTW if the pip length is indeed 2.5 & AR =1.6, this is similar to the actual long pips rubbers that were banned in 1983

All long pips were banned circa 1983 when ITTF set the maximum allowed pip length at 2.0 mm in 1983

But ITTF continues to call the useless social pips on ITTF LARC with pip length less than 2.0 mm as "long" . This behavior by ITTF is highly unethical and extremely deceptive, designed the fool the most ignorant fools of the table tennis world, the choppers.

[MurakW]

You may also want to take a look at the following topic below (Click on link)

Is the High Aspect Ratio Yinhe Young really ITTF approved

[James Z]

This is a very interesting question.
Because to start with, neither one is ITTF approved.
Treated pips are not approved per Rula 2.4.7 (though not illegal under common law, like boosted rubbers are)
Rubbers with Aspect Ratio more than 1.1 were banned as of 1999 & actual "long" pips which are longer than 2.00 mm were banned around 1983
But I am not going to judge you one either of your choices.
That said , you are comparing apples & IBMs (early days of PCs geek talk) when you compare treated pips and High Aspect Ratio actual long pips

Because the primary purpose of pip treatment in to increase disruption. This applies mostly to close to the table block style players.
Contrary to popular and pervasive myth, treated pips do NOT increase spin reversal. Neither do they generate any back spin.
An (untreated) rubber like Grass Dtec does give some spin reversal but it is NOT due to its being relatively frictionless (compared to say Feint Long 2 or 3) . But it is due to pips being more flexible than Fent Long 2 or 3 and also the material being soft.
So for example , if you treat (& solidify) Grass Dtec it will give less spin reversal because pips flex will bend less if solidified. But it will probably will be more disruptive.
Now we have two Yinhe Young rubbers . The treated Lower Aspect Ratio (1.4) rubber & untreated Lower Aspect Ratio (1.4) rubbers.
If you compare these two Ying Young versions against each other , the untreated version will probably have more spin reversal (& possibly some back spin generation) but lesser disruption. The treated version will have more disruption because it is treated but less spin reversal (because the pips have been hardened and flex les).
But now if you compare treated Saviga 77 to treated Yinhe Young with (AR of 1.4) they both will be about the same except that the Yinhe Young will give slightly more spin reversal because it has a higher Aspect Ratio.
The untreated version of Yinhe Young with higher Aspect Ratio of 1.6 is available only in untreated version. Since it is untreated it will have the highest spin reversal of any of other above rubbers. I do not know how much spin generation it will have because I do not know how flexible they are or what the material is or how smooth or rough the pips tops are etc.
In general , any rubber with higher aspect ratio or less frictioned are meant for away from the table choppers and not for at the table blockers
And conversely, any rubber with lower aspect ratio or more frictioned are meant for at the table blockers & not away from the table choppers.
Of course any untreated rubber will have less disruption compared to the treated rubber of exact same type.
I know this may sound confusing because we are comparing so many rubbers and version with very different pips design parameters.

Note :- at the 2024 aGM ITTF increased the the maximum allowed rubber thickness from 4.00 mm to 4.05 mm and increased the maximum allowed pips length from 2.00 mm to 2.05 mm (not 2.5 mm which was befo e1983) . I have discussed the politiclal & technical ramifications of this ruke change elsewhere on this & other forums