John you are carving out a very special niche for yourself in this space. Pickleball needs you! Keep up the great content, theres nobody else like you--and maybe consider consulting with these groups or the industry at large if there is demand? There are not many people who are as technical and studied in the space as you.
I wholeheartedly agree. Please form a podcaster over sight commitee . Will keep both governing bodies honest and making decisions for the good of the sport!
I'm hoping this helps streamline the PBCoR testing to a universal standard that is consistent throughout the whole industry. Thank you for doing this John!
As an outside observer with an engineering background and just the information captured, there's no way for me to reach a firm conclusion as to which methods (UPAA/PPL vs USAP/Element) have the best real world correlation and validity. But, for whatever reason, my gut feeling was that the UPAA/PPL methods had a more rigorous, analytical, and mathematical approach and basis than the USAP methods. Maybe that's just a function of how each was presented. In any case, there needs to be continued rapid evolution of testing and validation of results in order for all involved to have clear understanding of the boundaries and trust that the regulating bodies are producing fair and accurate results. Thanks for the informative look behind the scenes at this topic.
It sounded like the people presenting the UPAA were ones who were actually involved in carrying out and developing the tests, whereas the main dude presenting the USAP stuff was just an indirect manager who had prepared some specific talking points he wanted to use ahead of time.
No one at USAP is conducting research to validate assumptions surrounding the test. I do not believe USAP is intentionally doing these tests incorrectly they appear not to have the experience of expertise to do the job. John was so proud he weights the balls to eliminate error . However he lacked any study regarding the ball COR and how it changes over time . I'm sure he is a nice man and well intentioned but he has put results out into the market that are random at best because he skipped all the ball prep and has no idea what the dynamic properties bound over time are .
I predict these paddles will all need to be retested when the paddle companies begin sharing results . It looks like behind closed doors this is already happening
Shockingly the Joola and Gearbox guys are the ones that seem the most skeptical of the USAP testing. If it wasn't for their production of overly powerful paddles this probably wouldn't be nearly the controversy that it has become.
"What gets measured, gets managed" You just took "measure" of the two certification labs and the test methods they use. You can rest assured, they will "manage" improvements. Just like the labs doing the testing, your communication and clarity will ultimately improve the game. Thank you for your dedication to the community and the game! 👍👍
Nice job on this video. Really interesting comparing the two thought processes and differences. The explanation of deflection angle and how to maximize the variation was instructive
AWESOME!!!!!! Absolutely love the technical , the ball discussion in the beginning was fascinating . Boca Raton Labs has it going on. High confidence with them. Completely different level of professionalism and detail for testing from Boca Raton.
Hey John, Great content; I very much liked the recordings in the labs. Time will tell but personally I thought the PPA folks had a better handle on what they’re doing compared to USAP. For one, they seemed more detail oriented and more thoughtful about the “what-ifs” than the USAP folks. Anyway, great content and thank you!
PPL feels more researched and educated, where as UPA feels very - oooh cameras here's some marketing and smart sounding stuff. Granted the second part had a ton of media there, where the first was a few, mostly John. Definitely appreciate the "what do the other major sports organizations do for testing", that helps with legitimacy. Guess we'll see in the end.
Getting right to the tough question! Based on the labs alone (and not the USAP/UPA-A), the PPL seems to have a tighter teamwork mentality, with leading experts directly in sports equipment testing. And the Element staff seems a bit less integrated with each other, with direction coming more from aerospace experts. My impression is that PPL has the potential to be more agile and innovate/adjust quicker than Element/USAP. Because the PPL has only one objective: pickleball equipment testing. The Element lab is larger & more bureaucratic. But time will tell. I do hope that both labs continue doing this so that we get to our goal quicker: effective paddle testing
Why isn’t the paddle held firm instead of allowed to swing backwards when impacted by the ball? Wouldn’t heavier paddles create more resistance to the impact of the ball? Seems like this is a variable that should be controlled.
Was Ronbus not invited to this? If it's a "media day" but the Gearbox CEO is there, I feel like all the major companies should have been invited. Also, 1:07:28 that's the pot calling the kettle black. The Pro Power Elongated is getting banned/sunset in July, and I'm guessing the only reason the Integra shape passed was because it was a standard shape that seems to skew the PBCoR results.
It appears to me that USAP testing is not real world accurate. By using a solid core ball, it’s not how the real world ball would react with the paddle.
It doesn’t need to be. They can set their guidelines based on their setup. If they know the real ball is slightly faster or slower off the face they can adjust their pass fail testing to get the desired outcome for how fast or slow they want the limit of paddles to be
@@devinwillis7787That's true only if the two balls correlate with one another. Like, if you knew that one was always 5% faster than the other in all scenarios, then you could use either one for the tests and then adjust the numbers afterwards. But the UPA-A team said that the two balls don't correlate. They said as speed increases, not only do the two balls show different measurements, but they change by different amounts at different points. That potentially means that a test with one ball can't predict performance with a different ball.
@ you don’t have to test to exact real world conditions. Let’s say the solid ball gets exponentially faster and the hole ball gets faster linearly. If they are reasonably close in performance at 60mph you can approximate the real world performance. You don’t actually need real world performance numbers to run a reasonable test. They tested a number of paddles and set a reasonable cut off mark that got rid of the outliers like the mod. It doesn’t matter if a real world ball tests at 0.5 or 0.35. If their test is consistent that’s all that really matters. you have to make a paddle that fits their specs to test under 0.44 in the defined conditions. It doesn’t matter if they did it with a tennis ball or a bowling ball as long as they can consistently produce the same numbers for the same paddle
@@rickiezzi7753 as long the ball is the constant, does not matter which ball for this test. When you add a ball with holes, you add other variables....
Outstanding as usual … great job. I’m guessing you now have MRI envy. ;) It’s always a good reminder there are real people working hard behind our ”internet comments/opinions”. I might need to do some editing. 🤐 I don’t come away thinking these tests really measure actual power and spin of shots on the court, particularly spin. That said, I have no idea what would be better other than your arm in your garage. 😉I don’t think the measurements have to be accurate as long as they were a consistent percentage from “actual” … still would work as a benchmark. USAP by definition would be a very stressful job … who would want to make decisions that could potentially end small startup paddle companies? You could have good faith from both USAP and a paddle company, but things could still happen with production and QC outsourced to foreign manufacturers.
So in summary: It’s hard to hit a moving target. The ever changing variables are the moving target. (First the ball, then the ‘H’ frame) …… As paddle life is reduced each paddle life span is tested with slightly changing criteria from USAP and UPA-A. Is this PASS certification one and done? Or do the same model paddles get re-tested periodically or is one test good for the life of a specific model? Hmmmm. Saga continues. - @johnkewpickleball extremely interesting and informative. Well done!
Nice edit John. Also - we (finally) have someone on the record stating that the deflection tests are essentially useless for Gen 3 paddles - because those tests artificially support the center of the paddle face. but hey let's keep doing them and pretending ADF is actually a good test in tournaments. EDGE-TO-EDGE, EDGE-TO-EDGE!!!!!! I got a few other notes but will add tomorrow.
USAP is using a non-punctured ball? The deformation of the ball is likely to be considerably different than a normal ball. Perhaps this is why they are using a higher PBCOR threshold than UPA-A.
What happens to paddle PBCoR as a function of temperature? What happens to ball PBCoR as a function of temperature? Paddle and ball lifetime CoR as a function of temperature? As you know, we may play outdoors up north when it is just 40F, or outdoors in Palm Spings where it is 95F court temperature. Should there be limits on CoR changes as a function of temperature?
Well done John....After watchin the interview I have a question and suggestion; question how long has pickleball been around and why do they appear to be still fiddling around with standards especially for PBCoR testing? Suggestion, I vote for USAP & UPA-A to outsource to John Kew to run the testing and setting standards for Pickleball going forward.
How are the quadrants on the ball determined? Did they say that hitting a different quadrant will give different results? I want to serve at max power, which quadrant would that be.
I’m a little confused around the 3:00 minute mark he talks about learning how to test the paddles then changing as they learn more. Wouldn’t they have the test criteria already set ?
@@dveith00 he has said "I hate this ball time and time again in many interviews. We should listen to him because he tells us why" It is a hard roll molded ball whose dynamic properties . Speed and spin quickly change over time. Every time this ball collides at 60 mph with the paddle the ball experience a series of microfractures and its COR changes . With in the first 30 hits one must measure this and include a ball correction factor based on this data to reduce variability and get an accurate PBcor value for the paddle
Hey John, We are a small company going to sell some paddles here in Europe. For us the USAP/UPA-A certification is no big deal at the moment, but from a scientist perspective I have some questions. All the tests we heave seen are great for me as a company (to know how my paddle performs on the court), but I think they will not solve any problem we are facing with the „paddle cheating“ issue. To be sure all paddles provide the same firepower, the tests should measure that. I thought of a test, that maybe has nothing to do with a real world scenario but give a number as result that says this paddle is fine and this is not. For example: Why shouting with a Picklebalball like ball at the paddle? Use a heavier solid foam ball, that would not change over hundreds of shots. Also clamp the paddle (all edges), so that it will not move and shoot that ball 500 times at the paddle. Measuring the first 20 and the last 20 shoots and look what changed. Of course you have to do some researching with different paddles and translate the results to the real world (for example: how does a Ripple compares to a paddle we know has less power and so on). We would have enough data from talking to real world (amateur) players. They know wich paddle feels right and what is to powerful. If a paddle will make this test, I am as a player 100% sure my component is playing with a „fair“ paddle. [hope this makes sense, because I am not native in English 😉] I don’t think these PBCoR testing will change much. Also for me as a company I have the risk, that my paddle gets certified and after 6 months gets delisted again. How could my customers trust me? They spend a lot of money for a paddle and then it is going to be illegal? This is ridiculous. Kind regards
Several factors impacting their testing data, I would be curious to know. What is their calibration standard and periodicity for all sensors utilized at each testing fixture and at what barometric pressure which drastically impacts the final test data. These need to be specified in any approved testing procedure for data consistency.
Thank you for your time. I thought I was pretty interesting. But as with many many meetings I've been to, they basically said what they wanted you to hear. It was basically just BS.
It is important to remember what is being measured here PBcor measures the efficiency of the transfer of energy by the paddle in the collision between the paddle and the ball. 50pct of the data from the test depends on the dynamic stiffness and rebound properties of the ball . (COR) Ball! John USA P Head is very proud he can measure the mass of a ball but is completely oblivious to the requirement of measuring and creating a study of the Balls performance (bounce as measured in Ball Cor) Then he needs to know what to do with this data to come on with a Ball Correction factor . USAP missed this by a mile. I expect a lack of precision and accuracy of results. IMO PBcor under this SOP is best characterized as random .
It USAP does a fine system for companies that go over the legal limit after sale they should make the fine based on how many paddles were sold and how much they cost at sale. The fine would be a % of said sales rather than a flat fee cuz a flat fee will hurt a small Co way more than a large Co. A large Co might just pay the fine and sell a ton to make up for the fine. If the fine is say 30% of sales of said illegal paddles then it hits each Co just as hard.
Forgive me if I don’t believe what these companies say. USAP especially. They’ve costed players and manufacturers millions of dollars due to their pettiness.
Either I missed something, or using swinging clamp for PBCoR testing will incentify manufacturers that want to make power paddles to make them with lowest possible swing weight.
You’re exactly right. The test is flawed by design. Not only does there need to be resistance on the paddle’s ability to move, but ideally it should be swinging to meet the ball with a given amount of force. Otherwise, it doesn’t give a translatable relationship to the power happening on a Pickleball shot
@@woodsonsanders1112 if you recall, in the beginning of the Boca Raton testing every paddle was given a value based on its exact swing weight as they measured it, thats all taken into account . High confidence in Boca Raton .
@ the swing weight isn’t the only factor involved here. The type of material and the degree of rebound potential (springiness) it has, and how much force is required to engage the springiness, and whether that increases exponentially or linearly as the swing speed and resistance increases, are all variables that are completely unaccounted for with this design. I’m sure you’ve seen the latest reports that paddles that are widely known and accepted to be less powerful are testing with a higher PBcor value than paddles known to have more power. This fact alone should make it clear that this test does not indicate the power potential of a paddle, and if anything is more indicative of pop
Who cares if paddles are too powerful? In tennis, nobody wants to play with the most powerful racquets; they're reserved for beginners or seniors who can't generate their own power. You still need to keep the ball in, so there's an upper limit to power before it becomes a liability. Nobody is going to have an unfair advantage at high levels of play if they use a powerful paddle. USAP really needs to be more lenient with what they allow. The game is trending towards power not because of the paddles, but because players are discovering that they can win with powerful drives. There are plenty of pros hitting hard with control paddles.
Yeah … it seems weird to me also. But … I was rarely hit by a tennis ball over decades of tennis, wiffle pretty much weekly. Also … think about the mini tennis warmup inside the serve lines. The entire pickleball court almost fits inside of that (that is so weird). A good opponent overhead with Mod 15 while you are in the transition zone will get your attention. I actually think the game will be more fun capping current power but add more trampoline/dwell/spin. Also … you would think we would evolve past a plastic ball. btw … I had the same thought about good tennis players never using power racquets/string setups. When you can hit your own power, control is everything at higher levels. At some point I guess pickleball and tennis comparisons aren’t analogous.
What a hoot! Both GearBox (Pro Power Elongated) and Joola' (Gen3, 3S, and Mod TA-15) ALL advertise that their paddles WILL GET HOTTER OVER TIME! I would've ducked for cover from the expected lightning bolt that should have exploded through the ceiling as Rafael Filipinni pretended to not have made those past claims. That the USAP did not IMMEDIATELY delist the PPE and MOD paddles is very very telling. The foam between the core and the edge foam acts as a trampoline which is expressly forbidden in USAP's rules and the graphics used by Joola are prima facia evidence of their violation of the rule. The USAP: is a joke and it is clear to me that they show favoritism at best and are on the take at worst. Did anyone see Dong from Ronbus at this USAP event (the answer is no - Dong himself states he wasn't even invited).
I am no scientist but the part where you asked why use balls with holes when you can control the experiment using balls without holes... and if I am recalling this correctly, his answer was... the balls that have holes provide results that are a little less accurate at times BECAUSE of the holes BUT it needs to be considered cause that's what is more realistic when playing the actual game... I guess my question is... if he is literally addressing that there IS randomness to it due to the holes... why wouldn't your experiment be done to control that variable? I found that a little confusing lol
It's kind of Crazy that everyone is talking about UPAA as a money grab. Please explain this to me. NTS would charge me $500 for a PBcor test USAP is charging $4500 /$6000 expedited . They have no investment . $4000000 profit no investment . Where is that money going for a test that is cut and paste and has random results !!!
Shelf life determination for product like pickleball paddles is not an easy task. It may very well take a long time in the lab to test it out. Unless people can come up and agree to use a well-designed test that does not take a long time but can be good enough to simulate the real conditions the paddles endure in the court.
A team of engineers with experience and expertise can create a lab test for ABI in a reasonable time. Having the equiptment in your lab isn't less then half the challenge . Knowing how to put together a useful study and interpret the results to create a test that will accurately and president measure beneficial break in is the challenge for USAP. No one on staff or at NTS does this professionally. This is beyond the competency and experience of Carl and John . They mean well they want to do this right but it is not a test for novices.
You make it sound they don’t have days to spare. Everything takes time. They’re a testing lab. I think they can take a couple days to do the job they’re supposed to do.
@@ubergoodair if you do not create a test that produces accurate results what is the pint to do the test? Dozens of paddle companies behind close doors and anonomously are saying their PBcor results do not make sense . We know why
Bottom line: We need JKEW-P Certification. (One stamp to rule them all!)
Props John, this is fantastic and what we needed.
3am video drop!! Love it! Hahaha. Who needs sleep anyway!?
Oh man, this one took forever to edit! Hours of raw video...
With your own PBCoR testing lab, it should be interesting when you release your results if paddle companies don't want these metrics out in the wild 😄
Great job John. Right now I have more confidence in the PPL lab.
John you are carving out a very special niche for yourself in this space. Pickleball needs you! Keep up the great content, theres nobody else like you--and maybe consider consulting with these groups or the industry at large if there is demand? There are not many people who are as technical and studied in the space as you.
I wholeheartedly agree. Please form a podcaster over sight commitee . Will keep both governing bodies honest and making decisions for the good of the sport!
I'm hoping this helps streamline the PBCoR testing to a universal standard that is consistent throughout the whole industry. Thank you for doing this John!
As an outside observer with an engineering background and just the information captured, there's no way for me to reach a firm conclusion as to which methods (UPAA/PPL vs USAP/Element) have the best real world correlation and validity. But, for whatever reason, my gut feeling was that the UPAA/PPL methods had a more rigorous, analytical, and mathematical approach and basis than the USAP methods. Maybe that's just a function of how each was presented. In any case, there needs to be continued rapid evolution of testing and validation of results in order for all involved to have clear understanding of the boundaries and trust that the regulating bodies are producing fair and accurate results. Thanks for the informative look behind the scenes at this topic.
It sounded like the people presenting the UPAA were ones who were actually involved in carrying out and developing the tests, whereas the main dude presenting the USAP stuff was just an indirect manager who had prepared some specific talking points he wanted to use ahead of time.
No one at USAP is conducting research to validate assumptions surrounding the test. I do not believe USAP is intentionally doing these tests incorrectly they appear not to have the experience of expertise to do the job. John was so proud he weights the balls to eliminate error . However he lacked any study regarding the ball COR and how it changes over time . I'm sure he is a nice man and well intentioned but he has put results out into the market that are random at best because he skipped all the ball prep and has no idea what the dynamic properties bound over time are .
I predict these paddles will all need to be retested when the paddle companies begin sharing results . It looks like behind closed doors this is already happening
Thanks for the excellent coverage John! Was a pleasure meeting you
Great to meet you, too, Jon! And kudos for your great summary article on the USAP media day
@ thanks man! Appreciate it
Great info.
Seems like PPL is way more on top of things, and more upfront and open, than USAP.
Shockingly the Joola and Gearbox guys are the ones that seem the most skeptical of the USAP testing. If it wasn't for their production of overly powerful paddles this probably wouldn't be nearly the controversy that it has become.
It’s because they know that their paddles will get hotter through time and eventually be delisted like the mod
The people’s champ! Thank you John!
"What gets measured, gets managed" You just took "measure" of the two certification labs and the test methods they use. You can rest assured, they will "manage" improvements. Just like the labs doing the testing, your communication and clarity will ultimately improve the game. Thank you for your dedication to the community and the game! 👍👍
Nice job on this video. Really interesting comparing the two thought processes and differences. The explanation of deflection angle and how to maximize the variation was instructive
AWESOME!!!!!! Absolutely love the technical , the ball discussion in the beginning was fascinating . Boca Raton Labs has it going on. High confidence with them. Completely different level of professionalism and detail for testing from Boca Raton.
Hey John,
Great content; I very much liked the recordings in the labs. Time will tell but personally I thought the PPA folks had a better handle on what they’re doing compared to USAP. For one, they seemed more detail oriented and more thoughtful about the “what-ifs” than the USAP folks. Anyway, great content and thank you!
This is so informative!
PPL feels more researched and educated, where as UPA feels very - oooh cameras here's some marketing and smart sounding stuff. Granted the second part had a ton of media there, where the first was a few, mostly John. Definitely appreciate the "what do the other major sports organizations do for testing", that helps with legitimacy. Guess we'll see in the end.
Bravo content!
PPL Lab seems way more professional and is using an iterative method. I bet they get way better, more consistent data.
This was a *great* video! Conclusion: everything is stochastic.
Funny that Joola is crying about testing paddles later on after it’s been used.
Lol @ the Joola guy calling it "inconsistent and unfair". Joola is the most inconsistent and unfair manufacturer out there.
If you had to pick which organization to move forward with today, based on your trips, which organization would you pick?
Getting right to the tough question! Based on the labs alone (and not the USAP/UPA-A), the PPL seems to have a tighter teamwork mentality, with leading experts directly in sports equipment testing. And the Element staff seems a bit less integrated with each other, with direction coming more from aerospace experts. My impression is that PPL has the potential to be more agile and innovate/adjust quicker than Element/USAP. Because the PPL has only one objective: pickleball equipment testing. The Element lab is larger & more bureaucratic.
But time will tell. I do hope that both labs continue doing this so that we get to our goal quicker: effective paddle testing
Why isn’t the paddle held firm instead of allowed to swing backwards when impacted by the ball? Wouldn’t heavier paddles create more resistance to the impact of the ball? Seems like this is a variable that should be controlled.
Was Ronbus not invited to this? If it's a "media day" but the Gearbox CEO is there, I feel like all the major companies should have been invited.
Also, 1:07:28 that's the pot calling the kettle black. The Pro Power Elongated is getting banned/sunset in July, and I'm guessing the only reason the Integra shape passed was because it was a standard shape that seems to skew the PBCoR results.
It appears to me that USAP testing is not real world accurate. By using a solid core ball, it’s not how the real world ball would react with the paddle.
It doesn’t need to be. They can set their guidelines based on their setup. If they know the real ball is slightly faster or slower off the face they can adjust their pass fail testing to get the desired outcome for how fast or slow they want the limit of paddles to be
As long the ball is the same
@@devinwillis7787That's true only if the two balls correlate with one another. Like, if you knew that one was always 5% faster than the other in all scenarios, then you could use either one for the tests and then adjust the numbers afterwards.
But the UPA-A team said that the two balls don't correlate. They said as speed increases, not only do the two balls show different measurements, but they change by different amounts at different points. That potentially means that a test with one ball can't predict performance with a different ball.
@ you don’t have to test to exact real world conditions. Let’s say the solid ball gets exponentially faster and the hole ball gets faster linearly. If they are reasonably close in performance at 60mph you can approximate the real world performance.
You don’t actually need real world performance numbers to run a reasonable test. They tested a number of paddles and set a reasonable cut off mark that got rid of the outliers like the mod. It doesn’t matter if a real world ball tests at 0.5 or 0.35. If their test is consistent that’s all that really matters. you have to make a paddle that fits their specs to test under 0.44 in the defined conditions. It doesn’t matter if they did it with a tennis ball or a bowling ball as long as they can consistently produce the same numbers for the same paddle
@@rickiezzi7753 as long the ball is the constant, does not matter which ball for this test. When you add a ball with holes, you add other variables....
Outstanding as usual … great job. I’m guessing you now have MRI envy. ;)
It’s always a good reminder there are real people working hard behind our ”internet comments/opinions”. I might need to do some editing. 🤐
I don’t come away thinking these tests really measure actual power and spin of shots on the court, particularly spin. That said, I have no idea what would be better other than your arm in your garage. 😉I don’t think the measurements have to be accurate as long as they were a consistent percentage from “actual” … still would work as a benchmark. USAP by definition would be a very stressful job … who would want to make decisions that could potentially end small startup paddle companies? You could have good faith from both USAP and a paddle company, but things could still happen with production and QC outsourced to foreign manufacturers.
I absolutely do have MRI envy, haha
So in summary: It’s hard to hit a moving target. The ever changing variables are the moving target. (First the ball, then the ‘H’ frame) …… As paddle life is reduced each paddle life span is tested with slightly changing criteria from USAP and UPA-A. Is this PASS certification one and done? Or do the same model paddles get re-tested periodically or is one test good for the life of a specific model? Hmmmm. Saga continues. - @johnkewpickleball extremely interesting and informative. Well done!
Nice edit John. Also - we (finally) have someone on the record stating that the deflection tests are essentially useless for Gen 3 paddles - because those tests artificially support the center of the paddle face. but hey let's keep doing them and pretending ADF is actually a good test in tournaments.
EDGE-TO-EDGE, EDGE-TO-EDGE!!!!!!
I got a few other notes but will add tomorrow.
USAP is using a non-punctured ball? The deformation of the ball is likely to be considerably different than a normal ball. Perhaps this is why they are using a higher PBCOR threshold than UPA-A.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me when literally all pickleball players are hitting their paddles at balls with many holes in them...
What happens to paddle PBCoR as a function of temperature? What happens to ball PBCoR as a function of temperature? Paddle and ball lifetime CoR as a function of temperature? As you know, we may play outdoors up north when it is just 40F, or outdoors in Palm Spings where it is 95F court temperature. Should there be limits on CoR changes as a function of temperature?
Well done John....After watchin the interview I have a question and suggestion; question how long has pickleball been around and why do they appear to be still fiddling around with standards especially for PBCoR testing? Suggestion, I vote for USAP & UPA-A to outsource to John Kew to run the testing and setting standards for Pickleball going forward.
Haha, I wouldn't want that job! Way too much stress. I'll stick to building my basement lab and reviewing paddles
How are the quadrants on the ball determined? Did they say that hitting a different quadrant will give different results? I want to serve at max power, which quadrant would that be.
I’m a little confused around the 3:00 minute mark he talks about learning how to test the paddles then changing as they learn more. Wouldn’t they have the test criteria already set ?
@ 23:55 John Anderson, Chief Engineer USA Pickleball: "I hate this ball"
Which ball was he holding?
@ 35:46 he says again: "I hate this ball"
@@dveith00 he has said "I hate this ball time and time again in many interviews. We should listen to him because he tells us why" It is a hard roll molded ball whose dynamic properties . Speed and spin quickly change over time. Every time this ball collides at 60 mph with the paddle the ball experience a series of microfractures and its COR changes . With in the first 30 hits one must measure this and include a ball correction factor based on this data to reduce variability and get an accurate PBcor value for the paddle
Hey John,
We are a small company going to sell some paddles here in Europe. For us the USAP/UPA-A certification is no big deal at the moment, but from a scientist perspective I have some questions.
All the tests we heave seen are great for me as a company (to know how my paddle performs on the court), but I think they will not solve any problem we are facing with the „paddle cheating“ issue.
To be sure all paddles provide the same firepower, the tests should measure that. I thought of a test, that maybe has nothing to do with a real world scenario but give a number as result that says this paddle is fine and this is not.
For example: Why shouting with a Picklebalball like ball at the paddle? Use a heavier solid foam ball, that would not change over hundreds of shots. Also clamp the paddle (all edges), so that it will not move and shoot that ball 500 times at the paddle. Measuring the first 20 and the last 20 shoots and look what changed. Of course you have to do some researching with different paddles and translate the results to the real world (for example: how does a Ripple compares to a paddle we know has less power and so on). We would have enough data from talking to real world (amateur) players. They know wich paddle feels right and what is to powerful. If a paddle will make this test, I am as a player 100% sure my component is playing with a „fair“ paddle.
[hope this makes sense, because I am not native in English 😉]
I don’t think these PBCoR testing will change much.
Also for me as a company I have the risk, that my paddle gets certified and after 6 months gets delisted again. How could my customers trust me? They spend a lot of money for a paddle and then it is going to be illegal? This is ridiculous.
Kind regards
Several factors impacting their testing data, I would be curious to know. What is their calibration standard and periodicity for all sensors utilized at each testing fixture and at what barometric pressure which drastically impacts the final test data. These need to be specified in any approved testing procedure for data consistency.
Do you have a full time job besides YT? If so, what do you do/background?
Thank you for your time. I thought I was pretty interesting. But as with many many meetings I've been to, they basically said what they wanted you to hear. It was basically just BS.
It is important to remember what is being measured here PBcor measures the efficiency of the transfer of energy by the paddle in the collision between the paddle and the ball. 50pct of the data from the test depends on the dynamic stiffness and rebound properties of the ball . (COR) Ball! John USA P Head is very proud he can measure the mass of a ball but is completely oblivious to the requirement of measuring and creating a study of the Balls performance (bounce as measured in Ball Cor) Then he needs to know what to do with this data to come on with a Ball Correction factor . USAP missed this by a mile. I expect a lack of precision and accuracy of results. IMO PBcor under this SOP is best characterized as random .
It USAP does a fine system for companies that go over the legal limit after sale they should make the fine based on how many paddles were sold and how much they cost at sale. The fine would be a % of said sales rather than a flat fee cuz a flat fee will hurt a small Co way more than a large Co. A large Co might just pay the fine and sell a ton to make up for the fine. If the fine is say 30% of sales of said illegal paddles then it hits each Co just as hard.
Forgive me if I don’t believe what these companies say. USAP especially. They’ve costed players and manufacturers millions of dollars due to their pettiness.
It feels like they are six months to a year behind what is actually happening in the market of paddles.
Either I missed something, or using swinging clamp for PBCoR testing will incentify manufacturers that want to make power paddles to make them with lowest possible swing weight.
You’re exactly right. The test is flawed by design. Not only does there need to be resistance on the paddle’s ability to move, but ideally it should be swinging to meet the ball with a given amount of force. Otherwise, it doesn’t give a translatable relationship to the power happening on a Pickleball shot
@@woodsonsanders1112 if you recall, in the beginning of the Boca Raton testing every paddle was given a value based on its exact swing weight as they measured it, thats all taken into account . High confidence in Boca Raton .
@ the swing weight isn’t the only factor involved here. The type of material and the degree of rebound potential (springiness) it has, and how much force is required to engage the springiness, and whether that increases exponentially or linearly as the swing speed and resistance increases, are all variables that are completely unaccounted for with this design. I’m sure you’ve seen the latest reports that paddles that are widely known and accepted to be less powerful are testing with a higher PBcor value than paddles known to have more power. This fact alone should make it clear that this test does not indicate the power potential of a paddle, and if anything is more indicative of pop
Who cares if paddles are too powerful? In tennis, nobody wants to play with the most powerful racquets; they're reserved for beginners or seniors who can't generate their own power. You still need to keep the ball in, so there's an upper limit to power before it becomes a liability. Nobody is going to have an unfair advantage at high levels of play if they use a powerful paddle. USAP really needs to be more lenient with what they allow. The game is trending towards power not because of the paddles, but because players are discovering that they can win with powerful drives. There are plenty of pros hitting hard with control paddles.
Yeah … it seems weird to me also. But … I was rarely hit by a tennis ball over decades of tennis, wiffle pretty much weekly. Also … think about the mini tennis warmup inside the serve lines. The entire pickleball court almost fits inside of that (that is so weird). A good opponent overhead with Mod 15 while you are in the transition zone will get your attention. I actually think the game will be more fun capping current power but add more trampoline/dwell/spin. Also … you would think we would evolve past a plastic ball.
btw … I had the same thought about good tennis players never using power racquets/string setups. When you can hit your own power, control is everything at higher levels.
At some point I guess pickleball and tennis comparisons aren’t analogous.
ETA for adding COR to your database?
Probably a month out
What a hoot! Both GearBox (Pro Power Elongated) and Joola' (Gen3, 3S, and Mod TA-15) ALL advertise that their paddles WILL GET HOTTER OVER TIME! I would've ducked for cover from the expected lightning bolt that should have exploded through the ceiling as Rafael Filipinni pretended to not have made those past claims. That the USAP did not IMMEDIATELY delist the PPE and MOD paddles is very very telling. The foam between the core and the edge foam acts as a trampoline which is expressly forbidden in USAP's rules and the graphics used by Joola are prima facia evidence of their violation of the rule. The USAP: is a joke and it is clear to me that they show favoritism at best and are on the take at worst. Did anyone see Dong from Ronbus at this USAP event (the answer is no - Dong himself states he wasn't even invited).
I am no scientist but the part where you asked why use balls with holes when you can control the experiment using balls without holes... and if I am recalling this correctly, his answer was... the balls that have holes provide results that are a little less accurate at times BECAUSE of the holes BUT it needs to be considered cause that's what is more realistic when playing the actual game... I guess my question is... if he is literally addressing that there IS randomness to it due to the holes... why wouldn't your experiment be done to control that variable? I found that a little confusing lol
Probably differing priorities depending on what they are testing for. In this case consistency in velocity was highest priority.
It's kind of Crazy that everyone is talking about UPAA as a money grab. Please explain this to me. NTS would charge me $500 for a PBcor test USAP is charging $4500 /$6000 expedited . They have no investment . $4000000 profit no investment . Where is that money going for a test that is cut and paste and has random results !!!
Shelf life determination for product like pickleball paddles is not an easy task. It may very well take a long time in the lab to test it out. Unless people can come up and agree to use a well-designed test that does not take a long time but can be good enough to simulate the real conditions the paddles endure in the court.
A team of engineers with experience and expertise can create a lab test for ABI in a reasonable time. Having the equiptment in your lab isn't less then half the challenge . Knowing how to put together a useful study and interpret the results to create a test that will accurately and president measure beneficial break in is the challenge for USAP. No one on staff or at NTS does this professionally. This is beyond the competency and experience of Carl and John . They mean well they want to do this right but it is not a test for novices.
Nice BS testing!
More like ball testing than paddle testing?
No? They’re definitely testing the paddles, not the ball.
@ did any of the paddles get swung? Or were they sitting there and a ball was shot at them?
PPL seems very much not qualified for the undertaking. USAP all the way.
Thanks Carl
😂
😂
You can't test every variable, testing would take days with all the paddles....
You make it sound they don’t have days to spare. Everything takes time. They’re a testing lab. I think they can take a couple days to do the job they’re supposed to do.
@douglasmurdoch7247 100s of paddles are released monthly, from all around the world
@ and?
@@ubergoodair if you do not create a test that produces accurate results what is the pint to do the test? Dozens of paddle companies behind close doors and anonomously are saying their PBcor results do not make sense . We know why
PPA don't even know how many paddles, there should be a spreadsheet... Not too scientific....
The pickleball paddle testing industry is a direct result of the pickleball crybaby industry