The REAL reason USAP banned the Ronbus Ripple & Chorus Fire | USAP Media Day Part 1

Just came back from USAP Media Day. In attendance were manufacturers including Gearbox, Adidas, JOOLA, Paddletek, and others, along with content creators Pickleball Studio, John Kew, Pickleball Effect, & Speak Pickleball. We learned some pretty interesting things about the USAP testing process, along with the reason the Ripple was delisted the day before it launched. Come join me on this journey!
🚀 PADDLE DISCOUNTS 🚀
MOST PADDLES ON THE WALL: spinwavepickle... Code "RAFA" for 10% off everything 🤑
🚀 WEIGHT SET-UP DISCOUNTS 🚀
FLICKWEIGHT: flickweight.com/ Code "RAFA" for 10% off everything 🤑
BODHI TUNGSTEN: tinyurl.com/bo... Applies code "RAFA" for 15% off everything 🤑
🚀 GRIP DISCOUNTS 🚀
BODHI GRIPS: tinyurl.com/bo... Applies code "RAFA" for 15% off everything 🤑
LUQI GRIPS: tinyurl.com/lu... Applies code "RAFA" for 10% off everything 🤑
🚀 EDGE TAPE DISCOUNTS 🚀
PKLD OUT: acrn.link/A3RH 15% off tape to protect edge guards 🤑
THANKS FOR WATCHING

[@pickleballtechdude]

There’s a couple comments addressing this so let me say: I misspoke when I said “deflection” test. This is, in fact, technically a CoR test, and the main point should be that it is not set up to test power! Also I forgot to label this but speaking in the footage is Rafael Filippini, CEO & Founder of Gearbox, and answering my questions is Carl Schmits, CTO of USA Pickleball!

[@nickbicanic6910]

It most definitely IS a power test. Let's backup with some history: ASSUMPTION: Everybody wants to test POWER + SPIN. Original/historical position: Proxy testing: It's hard to test power and spin directly so let's proxy it by pulling out certain parameters - namely Coefficient of Friction, Surface Roughness and Deflection - and consider those relevant indicators of POWER/SPIN. Additionally let's restrict certain materials (e.g. compressible, spring-like, trampoline etc etc) CURRENT state: Let's use air cannons to do direct performance testing - so we measure RPM induced by angled paddle surface (and we'll call that spin) and measure PBCoR of the bounce (and we'll call that power) I don't think anyone would argue that PBCoR is a hell of a lot closer to a power test than deflection. Theoretical FUTURE state: Clearly human beings don't hit the ball in the way that the PBCoR tests are bracing it - and some idealised version of this test could include a fast moving robot arm/wrist swinging twisting/pronating through the ball like an experienced player hitting a topspin drive. But even though that would be more "correct" the question is how much is enough? From a physics perspective - since the paddle weighs approximately 10 times more than a ball - a normal drive - paddle moving + ball moving - is NOT going to result in the same forces at contact as a stationary paddle being hit by a ball (even if the relative speeds are the same - because the momentum transfer is not the same) But the main point here - is that WHATEVER test one uses - there are at least 3 very very very important points. (A) CLARITY: EVERY ASPECT OF THE Test must be documented and clear. This includes any and all break-in processes. So that manufacturers can replicate this (B) QUALITY CONTROL: Lack of QC/repeatability/consistency in pickleball manufacturing is a known problem and has been for a while (see surface roughness variation and core-crushing for one) - this is largely to do with construction issues, shaving margins by rushing, supply-chain control etc. (C) FIELD TESTs vs LAB TESTs Since we know certain constructions degrade/break-in we either need to TEST THOROUGHLY FOR BREAK-IN before certifying - or we need to have robust/simple/repeatable tests like Edge-to-edge deflection. Ideally BOTH. If we do not do this - we are asking for confusion. Expecting a single certification lab test to solve QC issues is nonsense - but this is an issue that's not very well understood. Using surface roughness for example - since most people understand it better - can you imagine if companies said "yeah well our surface roughness is basically plus-minus 15-20%" which is likely the case. Nobody would ever certify anything. So instead we are left with patching holes in a lifeboat. Edge to edge deflection is our saviour here.

[@pickleballtechdude]

@nickbicanic6910 for sure I think calling PBCoR a power test is a stretch but it 1000% is better than a true deflection test and I see the value in calling that out. And you’re right in an ideal world we should have some type of power test but the challenge is replicating that in the field, which we agree is a major area where improvement is needed. I have no doubt USAP has the ability to assure us with data in the way you’ve discussed, but the killer is the lack of transparency of course. We should chat offline about edge-to-edge deflection I’m curious why you see that as a solution!

[@nickbicanic6910]

@@pickleballtechdude for sure. FWIW on the edge-to-edge deflection side - it's not just me - it's all the major companies I've talked to but also pretty much any company that has engineers that understand how paddles are made ;)

[@pickleballtechdude]

Absolutely! And I don’t doubt that at all, as I’m sure you’ve had this conversation a million times with USAP and other manufacturers. I’ll get your info from Troy ;)

[@nickbicanic6910]

@@pickleballtechdude just swap his name with nick and there's your email ;)

[@kylepickleball]

Elephant in the room is why wasn't Ronbus invited to this event if companies like Gearbox were there? USAP and UPA has made a mess of the paddle testing and approval process. Paddle companies should unite and form their own independent body for testing paddles.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Oh I’m going to get into this one - the answer is essentially a lot of companies didn’t know about the event until very close to the date so some couldn’t make it which is not on the company in any way

[@kylepickleball]

@@pickleballtechdude Ronbus has said they weren't invited

[@jnnx]

If paddle companies unite and form their own “body” for testing paddles, that would be a HUUUUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and wouldn’t really be “independent”, now would it?

[@alwaysplaythegame]

Isn't that exactly what happened with UPAA

[@larryl]

I am also very upset they didn’t let all manufacturers know about the event. This is valuable information that they are choosing to gate to a select few companies. It’s favoritism or sloppiness, regardless it’s just not acceptable.

[@mauriceb9996]

I'm not going to try and sift through all of this except one thing: Approval should be listed and communicated only on production paddles...PERIOD! Do not list approval on Beta, Alpha or any other pre production paddles. It just causes confusion!

[@hartfordwolfpack8678]

So in your opinion company ambassadors and pros should not be allowed to play with prototype paddles in tournaments even if they would be legal?

[@zachcarmichael699]

PPA pros constantly play with prototypes that aren't USAP-approved...

[@hartfordwolfpack8678]

​@ The PPA isn't governed by USAP. I believe that you need to have USAP approval to play with a paddle in USAP-sanctioned tournaments

[@wiseone2173]

I agree. None of these numbers that come about prior to the production models hitting the open market should be announced publicly. Especially when paddles are being sold prior to the actual release date(as happened with Ronbus).

[@nunyabidness3075]

@@hartfordwolfpack8678 In my opinion, they definitely should not. It’s not good for anyone involved. I’ve never seen anyone actually make a convincing argument on why this is a good thing (which only means I’ve not heard it). I don’t find the fact they do it now a reason to keep it that way unless there’s actually a good reason. What’s the “Chesterton’s Paddle” argument here? I’m very skewed by the great success that car racing used to have in selling cars. “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday” used to be a real thing for stock cars and homologation cars. So, for the manufacturers, I think they are better off with pros playing with stock paddles. Also, it seems to me that stock paddle rules makes on site testing that much easier. A paddle should have to conform to its stock limits, break in problems will then be a problem for the pros and the manufacturers and not the rest of us. If someone named John’s, Waters, or Bright shows up with paddlers that are much better than stock, they can start opening up new paddles and get to work.

[@jimwaldemarsen472]

No credibility and a lack of competence by USAP. Ronbus and Chorus aren't big brands like Joola and Selkirk where they can absorb a big financial hit. It's wrong that owners of other companies and content creators can pressure USAP to delist paddles.

[@pickleballtechdude]

The financial implications are definitely a big part of why I want to apply this pressure for USAP to improve. They’re have the minds to do it, but we gotta make it happen fast 💨

[@jnnx]

It’s pretty obvious the bigger players are pushing all new comers who aren’t well-healed OUT of the paddle market.

[@nickbicanic6910]

A couple of things here - since details matter: 1. At 2:12 you say that the test is setup as a deflection test. That is not the case. The PBCoR test is absolutely not a deflection test. 2. It is not unknown how they came up with 0.43 limit. True they haven't done a great job of communicating it - but basically they tested a bunch of paddles and drew a line at where they thought a sensible limit would be (which turned out to be below Joola Gen 3 and GBX PPE) and that was that. 3. It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand the difference between a USAP submission and a direct enagement of their testing lab. For example Carl says "Ronbus engaged labs directly to get results" - if that is the case - that is not a USAP submission. That is an accepted and fairly common R&D process where a manufacturer sends in paddles to be tested using the same test equipment and the same process (for a fee) - to be confident that their submission will pass. There is a standard fee chart for every single test a manufacturer might want to do. 4. It will be very easy for the truth to come out here (because someone has all the receipts) but from where many of us are sitting - it sounds like Ronbus got an earlier model of the Ripple approved - changed it for final production - misrepresented that this model was approved to the reviewers - and then got caught. (for more nuance on this point - see the next point ;)) 5. Last but not least - As you'll recall from the lengthy discussion at the USAP media day - USAP's current position on break-in is that they don't have a formal break-in test. I wouldn't be surprised if that changes VERY quickly - however for the purposes of the Ripple end January rejection there was no break-in testing prior to approvals. It's important to note that Ronbus would have needed to sign an attestation stating the paddle would not bust 0.43 during its expected service life. EVEN IF Ronbus had sent in the exact final release model for testing in mid January (which it seems they didn't) - USAP is still within its rights to yank the model if they notice that it cannot stay beyond the legal limit. So the biggest problem here (as Rafael acutely alludes to in the clip you showed) is the kind of USAP communication style used so far is clearly not working. In this case it was Dong/Ronbus but in the future it will be someone else. Between the reviewer/influencer ecosystem and the brands themselves - as long as there is confusion about how the testing and enforcement process works - these dramas will happen over and over again. But this is fixable and it's fixable FAST. One of the key phrases we're all gonna need to be repeating like a mantra is this - EDGE-TO-EDGE deflection. That's it. It'll fix a great many things. On location testing at tournaments for one. Catching broken in paddles without having to do a a full PBCoR test for another. It costs virtually nothing using existing equipment with no retraining.

[@49dubs]

This was very insightful. Thank you for the insight

[@pickleballtechdude]

I’m aligned with most of your conclusion! A lot of what you’re discussing is what I’ll be covering in the next parts & is 100% the reason I’m confident USAP will address the issues. What you’ve said about how the number was reached is exactly what I suspected but it wasn’t addressed during media day, so appreciate the insight there. Also you’re 100% right this is technically a CoR test not a deflection test, I used a colloquial descriptor for the test which is confusing, but really just wanted to confirm that this test does not directly measure power! Here are my concerns: 1. What you’ve said about Ronbus engaging labs vs submitting for testing is super helpful. My thought is that neither USAP nor Ronbus I could imagine having malicious intent, so part of what both of them has said has to be true and people will want to know which part. 2. That connects directly to this: USAP are aware there’s a transparency level they need to meet and that on-site testing is part of the answer. They’re also improving testing that I think will fix a lot of issues like you said. The main factor here is TIME. You’ll see based on later footage but there’s a few things that USAP & manufacturers don’t see eye-to-eye on in terms of guidelines, and *this* will be the reason something like this happens again. 3. What you’re saying about pulling a paddle is certainly within their right, but there’s no PRECEDENT. The rules state 18 months before a paddle can be pulled after certification. Point, blank, period. If we’re going to have immediate pulls, or anything shorter, that needs to be stated in the rules very plainly. A lot of people at USAP fully agree with that. In summation, baby steps! But I think USAP is going the right direction. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold them accountable for what has happened up until now!

[@Charlie-n9l]

To me it sounds like the same paddle for the same test was first given to NTS elements lab and passed . Then this paddle was given to USAP to conduct PBcor and it failed . Lets leave mal intent out of the equation. A plausible and likely explanation the same paddle would get first a passing result and then a failing result is USAP did not conduct the proper research to create a PB cor for pickleball. They simply cut and paste a test designed for baseball. Without making the proper adjustments the accuracy of the test will never be what paddle makers need it to be. One needs to see the technical documents and raw data of the test to determine if the correct research was done. To date USAP has only shared their standardized operating procedure

[@Hellohello-10]

Sounds to me USAP is a horrible organization

[@nickbicanic6910]

​@@Hellohello-10 Not at all. they're understaffed and under-budgeted (and have been for a while) but they've done a huge amount of work to keep things running smoothly as pickleball has grown. In my opinion - the tricky part has been the explosive growth over the last 2-3 years - this growth combined with being blindsided by another organisation that is attempting to put them out of business has led to a complicated situation which requires a completely different style and cadence of communication (with the brands, the reviewers and the broader community).

[@26realmc]

I'm glad this got delisted. Reviewers say this plays like a Mod if not more powerful especially after break in.

[@sbinsdca]

Even though you've never used it. I've used the mod, ppe and the ripple. The ripple is the least powerful of the three. It's got much better spin and control as well.

[@26realmc]

@ still banned

[@sbinsdca]

@@26realmc it's not banned. Many are playable until mid 2026. At least get your facts straight.

[@26realmc]

@ Ronbus recently had to submit more paddles for testing and they failed. It's currently not for sale due to that and possibly never will be. Ripple is playable till mid 2026? That's the only paddle I'm talking about. Get your facts straight.

[@dougramey9578]

Please do a full release of all info. I am extremely interested to see the actual PB core process. Not sure if you had access to that actually occurring that would be really interesting to see. Thank you for all you do.

[@josepaolojaime0305]

Damn. Its like joola gen 3 replay again. LOL. This sounds like a problem with the USAP rather than paddle companies.

[@pickleballtechdude]

In my personal opinion I think I would agree

[@86309]

Really good PTD. keep pointing the flashlight. USAP is out to lunch at the moment. Cant wait for the rest of the story.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Appreciate the love, I’m just trying to be a voice of reason for players!

[@villbuzeep2043]

With all these look-alike versions of the Ripple out there, USAP needs to just delist them all, and Ronbus should refund people their money. It's Ronbus' fault that they kept changing things without approval and didn't change the paddle graphics at all to differentiate.

[@jmogyoro]

Yup. It's 100% on Ronbus. Shame that USAP gets the blame. They protected the market from a hot paddle, which is what they are supposed to do.

[@bodyhelixpickleball]

Thanks, Rafa! Your podcasts are informative and much appreciated!

[@HOPP750]

Evolving PBCoR standards/testing is a sure fire way to make players collections obsolete every few years. Mark my words

[@seanwilson512]

Keep these coming. I'm definitely interested in more of that footage and your insights. Thank you!

[@pickleballtechdude]

Appreciate that, there’s a lot more to come!

[@ryanedward7508]

💯 hysterical. USA Pickleball is in over their head 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@downwinder3]

To say 2 paddles had "no difference" except for a 5 point increase in swingweight is nuts. 5 points is significant and implies some actual changes to the paddle construction/manufacturing/performance and would certainly bring "similarity" of the new paddle into question.

[@webstermiller7765]

I would like to ask the USAP to justify their ridiculous testing fee of $4,500 per paddle. The USGA, for a golf driver head, charges a paltry $100 for prelim testing and $200 for full production conformation testing. At the rates USAP charges, the process and communication needs to be perfect yet it's far from it.

[@FredAllenBurge]

It's a ridiculous cash grab

[@DINKDEPT]

Wow

[@stewiegriffin3627]

If that's true no wonder it's a circus to get a paddle to pass .. Anytime there is $ incentive you know games will be played .

[@pickleballtechdude]

I don’t think the charge is that outrageous; most companies will absolutely pay that. But you’re right the process & communication needs to be miles above what it is now and I hope what they understand is that companies would pay even MORE to make this happen if necessary.

[@Frank-ep7nb]

Pickleball companies should not be allowed to re-use graphics with different constructions. All prototypes should be clearly differentiated from other paddles with clear markings and/or model name differences.

[@woodywoodpecker3643]

Twice the paddles were “approved” and twice right before release they were delisted. It’s funny you dont see ronbus as a sponsor up on the walls at any tourneys. USAP is DIRTY here and it is rife for bribes or “sponsorships” to be taken to pass paddles, or for larger companies to try to stop smaller companies paddles from getting into the game. Also, what is to stop any company from sending in less powerful paddles for testing, getting approved, then producing hotter paddles?

[@FredAllenBurge]

That can absolutely happen. Same with surface grit.

[@PickleballRevolution]

One on the left was the Beta model, where you can see those ripple lines in it. Looks like the right one was the originally approved version. I knew this paddle was too good to be true and pass the tests!

[@earlmasangkay8573]

Yes i find reviewers have a major impact on paddles ex. Joola 3. When they say its hot, it gets delisted after..

[@sbinsdca]

The Ripple has never been sold by Ronbus to the general public and most are approved until mid 2026.

[@openskyphotography]

They should just make all pros play with the same exact paddle for one season, then a different paddle the next season, and so on. Would be intriguing to see who rises and who falls each year.

[@lazlo342]

Please post your entire video of the testing process. Please also tell paddle developers the testing equipment they are using so we can duplicate the testing process before wasting our money sending paddles to the USAP. Please also update us regarding the status of the Joola lawsuit.

[@pickleballtechdude]

I will definitely be posting the full footage and my next part will be an explanation of the process! I’ve asked JOOLA about the lawsuit status and USAP for that matter and they are both very tight-lipped about the situation since proceedings are ongoing.

[@lazlo342]

@@pickleballtechdude Great. Thanks for the update.

[@chums101]

I agree about the reviewers maybe having some influence on the decision, but also I can’t help but believe that since there’s so many production batches and they’ve lost so much money at this point that they said screw it let’s send a few of these that have the best chance of passing

[@taytay8732]

This sounds exactly like the gen 3 and mod TA

[@RustyRaven]

I heard the USAP rep say they approved the “prototype". Then the manufacturer sent another slightly modified one. Which was tested again and failed. I don’t see an issue.

[@jmogyoro]

ya. It wasn't that 'a paddle' was tested and passed and that same paddle was re-tested and failed. A paddle passed and then a different paddle failed at a later date. I don't see an issue either. Ronbus has an issue if they can't build a paddle and hold it to a critical specification and they will either figure that out or they won't. There is no issue with two different paddles producing different results and no reason to take that result and conclude that there is some deficiency in the testing methodology.

[@honsolodinks]

late night post I like it, yes to all the footage

[@pickleballtechdude]

Bet 😎

[@WinCan22]

Question.. So what is your take on the "production model" being approved? I currently have the "production model". It has no Pbcor Stamp, and it has no actual ripples in the face (alpha/beta). It is my understanding that this model is still currently fully approved for USAP play, is that correct?

[@pickleballtechdude]

From my understanding this is not correct just the beta versions. Confusing I know 😵‍💫

[@downwinder3]

If it has no PBCOR stamp, it is not the production model. Ronbus never released the production model and they say no production models are out there.

[@alwaysplaythegame]

Realistically USAP would've banned the earlier ripples but likely decided the bad look that would give wasn't worth it and instead banned everything after the alpha/beta paddles. Ronbus responded by saying everything in the wild is alpha/beta now.

[@WinCan22]

@ Mine is technically the "fixed" beta version. It has no ripples in the face and has no edge guard issue. it has the usap approved stamp, but no pbcor stamp. So I have no clue if it is legal or not lol

[@alwaysplaythegame]

​@@WinCan22 I'd consider it legal.

[@apers5do]

After the gen 3 drama, I just settled with the tko. Forget the latest and greatest drama. Work on your game not your paddles 😂😂

[@tylerbanh5015]

Paddle manufacturers hate this ONE SIMPLE TRICK!

[@jimnguyen7312]

I am using my son’s SpongeBob tennis racquet.

[@richwallick8671]

I appreciate your reporting and analysis. You're doing a great job explaining what can be complicated. One thing I'm curious about is how each iteration of a paddle doesn't have a unique identifier clearly marked. The idea that a prototype is not clearly identified as such says, to me, that the development and manufacturing process is haphazard. Development is iterative; if you don't mark each iteration, the end result is confusion.

[@jmogyoro]

yup. Any change has a part number and revision. Dong put out like four versions and gave them to youtubers. KZbinrs confused. This ones hot. The next one, not as much. Edge guard falls off on this one. Wait, I think they fixed it. Haphazard is the nice way to say it. Consumers confused. USAP confused. That's on Ronbus. He wanted to build up the hype. Compare to CRBN trufoam launch. No reviewer said anything until launch day. No retractions. Not multiple versions floating around, etc. Clean.

[@ShockSgt]

A question I would like to know the answer to is "How many R1 Paddles were occupying the shelves in the Rombus shipping warehouse awaiting the 1-31-2025 release".

[@FredAllenBurge]

Would be very interesting to know. I feel really bad for Ronbus right now.

[@pickleballtechdude]

I know… feel super bad about the situation :/

[@MJDGator]

I could have sworn Ronbus posted the USAP letter somewhere verifying the paddle passed.

[@BA-PBXC]

Which is also why he delayed the previous release... he was waiting on written certification.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Okay I thought I was going crazy so I didn’t mention it but I was thinking the same thing…

[@downwinder3]

Dong said USAP passed it but I don't think he released any letter. Regardless, USAP has made it clear they are going to test paddles on an ongoing basis. Not just new submissions. Paddles now get hotter with use and if paddles are in compliance at the beginning but out of compliance after break in, they need to be delisted. This is manufacturer manipulation of the testing process.

[@iamnestle]

how did gearbox ultimate paddle get approved????

[@pickleballtechdude]

It is possible to build hot paddles that pass these tests! Exactly how I’m not too sure but it has to do with the mechanics of the paddle

[@kimleith1378]

Big Pickle makes my brain hurt. You guys (reviewers) and all the manufacterors get Kudos for going through all this. Glad CRBN figured out how to get a paddle that works.

[@claycc79]

You have Gearbox complaining about Ronbus (real unbias). Ronbus said they had written approval and waited till that had written confirmation before going live. They screwed Ronbus like Joola...

[@pickleballtechdude]

We all talked about Ronbus… but tbf someone needs to come with the receipts otherwise the issue can’t be fixed :/

[@mr.mr.3301]

I’m about burnt out on the paddle drama. In addition I’m not certain their test is the best, seems it can be skirted around. Usap seems like they are creating moving target. The Fire is the strangest.

[@86309]

Shine the light on the BALONEY

[@pickleballtechdude]

🤣🤣🤣

[@thesherpadog09]

Common sense. Greedy paddle makers trying to find a back door. Explanation from USAP Carl spot on

[@FredAllenBurge]

What a joke USAP is turning out to be. I honestly don't see any reason for them to even exist. The safety argument is a red herring, there are no safety concerns with a paddle that is "too powerful". Safety comes by way of protective gear in every other sport, why not this one? If they want to slow down the sport who says they get to decide that first of all? Secondly that should and could be done much more easily by changing how the ball is made, not the paddle. My opinion is that this is a profit and power endeavor primarily.

[@pickleballtechdude]

I think the existence of USAP is actually super important but what’s most important is they nail down their processes the first time around. They’re a non-profit org with no detectable conflicts of interest so I think their hearts are in the right place - just hoping continued pressure from the community will bring about change faster…

[@ericrhinehalt1206]

They seem to be going against the market.

[@williamzz5]

Do a review of the fire paddles plzz

[@jason.goodman]

Release the full video!

[@takeonlife-sfs]

Excellent and informative

[@antoniosyrakis9329]

Problem is the guys working there are 80… get some young guys in there

[@antoniosyrakis9329]

Those dudes played back when there was only wood paddles around

[@Charlie-n9l]

This is the same crew that let Raquetball get out of control "Carl " Need we hear any more ?

[@Coach_A22]

This was my fear. People wanting to control something they know nothing about. Not to mention their English language writing skills. So bad.

[@MeepMeep88]

Lol welp... now it's gonna cost a crap ton more now that we have to cover the cost of the recall hahahah

[@youcanthandlethetruth999]

So basically Dong is full of shit? Sending prototypes that pass PBCor only to release production models that are overpowered. I'm so sick of hearing Ripple release dates only to be pulled back last minute. The Ripple better live up to it's hype or it's gonna backfire and bury Ronbus as a company

[@ValueRobot]

We would like to see EVERYTHING.

[@Charlie-n9l]

Absolutely....are there pixkleball Emmy awards? I am feeling it

[@GIO_RUBBLE]

yes post the full video thanks

[@jimnguyen7312]

Dejavu. Another Joola Gen 3 repeat. I’d like to know how USAP came up with the pbcor limitation number. Was it based on the number that came back from testing the Joola Mod Ta?

[@pickleballtechdude]

From what I understand it came from a sample of paddles that were tested. Wasn’t something that I was able to ask about but I was informed of this offline!

[@jimnguyen7312]

@@pickleballtechdude It''ll be interesting to find out how USAP came up with the PBcor limitation number to gauge all paddles? Perhaps USAP should consider two classes of paddle certifications: one for recreation play with a lower PBcor and one for higher-level competition or open play, with a higher PBcor. For instance, 4.0 DUPR and above competition can use higher PBcor paddles.

[@radtechy]

What kind of lead strips are those? They look similar to the Selkirk strips

[@pickleballtechdude]

They’re from Gherkin. They look bad ass!

[@celticwind4122]

All this drama over paddle approval is a bad look on the overall scene. Really wish they’d get their act together.

[@DanielS-pn3hy]

Gearbox games the test and get their paddles out and joola gen 3's intentionally put in oversized cores to gain power after it squishes. Ronbus has been working to comply without trying to game the test. Paddle drama sucks with all these people crying. Americans have and always will be obsessed with power. Lets just change one thing and let all the paddle guys innovate. BALL! Tweak the ball. Its the quickest way to stop the drama imho. If not, this sh*t show will stay with pickleball forever. It's getting old and turning me off from spending anymore money in this sport. Take it from a guy who is only two years in with over 40 paddles. I just love trying new tech. Still haven't found the ONE yet. Although the Oni was pretty close. Ripple is pretty close too. Oh well. Back to the pickleball Mafia sh*t show.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Had a LONG conversation offline about balls I 100% agree

[@we-will-see-sunday]

all i can say is thank god for cheap nomex core paddles!!! cheap, powerful and last forever

[@sol1280]

This really shouldn't be interesting enough to want to watch 2 hours of coverage. The fact that it is really sucks for the manufacturers. I hope they figure their ish out. I'll definitely be watching all of it! Thanks for posting.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Right?? I’ll put some chapter markers where I can 😉

[@gg80108]

Any paddle that makes me a winner I approve of.

[@Ternary5]

If the chorus goes, how is it possible that the paddletek bantams are still passing?

[@BA-PBXC]

$$$

[@therealad4342]

I’m so sick of this. I was able to get the release model from a connect member and then less than a week later it’s delisted so now I’ve got a paddle that can’t be used and never will be with no way of getting my money back. This is a disaster and is getting old.

[@kimleith1378]

Save the delisted for rec. I'm not giving up my GBX PPE.

[@silverdc5]

someone at the headquarter of USPA or these paddle company should be fired lmao, it always either the wrong paddle being sent out or received.😂

[@antoniosyrakis9329]

They needa put johnkew on salary and start asking him to run things

[@zachcarmichael699]

Shouldn't there be a test for power too? And how does one do that when currently you're allowed to have up to a half inch of lead tape all over the paddle? There's no weight limit to a paddle either. Perhaps for power, we need to eliminate added weight entirely and limit static weight. Yes, pop at the kitchen can cause injury, but couldn't an overpowered overhead swing too?

[@pickleballtechdude]

Some type of power test would definitely help but it’s currently not in the infrastructure for paddle sport testing so it could honestly take years for that to come :/

[@draingang4lif3]

8:53 the left one is obviously the beta you can see the physical "ripples"

[@pickleballtechdude]

Good catch 😉

[@Coach_A22]

So is it safe to say that if your paddle doesn’t have a “PBCoR.43” label on it, it is good for USAP tournaments? If that is true, please just say that, “Ripple R1.14 paddles with the PBCoR label on them are not USAP approved. Ripple R1.14 paddles without the PBCoR label on them are approved.” How hard is it to be clear?

[@pickleballtechdude]

Well pretty hard bc what you’ve stated isn’t necessarily true! There are 3 ripple versions potentially in circulation that do not have the stamp and only 1 is approved: the beta version.

[@Coach_A22]

@ not according to Ronbus’ (Lisa’s) statement on Reddit. It states that all paddles without PBCoR label should be considered approved, which includes the 1/10 release paddles sold to Connect members. Thus, if you are correct, then a statement saying only that Ripple, the one with observable ridges, is the only approved paddle. And, if true, that paddle failed pro testing when I gave it to the paddle testers at a pro APP tournament. The tester only had to see visible ridges to fail the paddle. On the other hand, a 1/10 release paddle without ridges, passed pro testing in APP Fort Lauderdale. The fact that you and I are having this conversation is why clarity is needed from USAPA.

[@brucesmith7473]

HELL YES show ma all da shi

[@pickleballtechdude]

Dang looks like I definitely will 👀

[@Syndrome88]

Bookmarks Pls omg

[@makinmywaydowntown4261]

Grow up Peter Pan

[@jmeib]

I hate the USAPA

[@J2ThaFree]

@pickleballTechdude, do you need to change the video title? I can't say about Chorus Fire but, the Ripples that are out in the wild have NOT been delisted, unapproved, or banned? Unless something changed very recently, that is a very misleading title.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Hi! I know this may be a bit confusing but according to USAP the ripples in the wild that are NOT the beta are currently not approved. I will be getting more clarification from Ronbus very soon and I will release an update, but the title is still accurate. Check Ronbus Instagram from 1/30 for more info!

[@J2ThaFree]

@@pickleballtechdude All ripples sold have been to connect members are all beta models. The production models are those with the PBCoR stamp and were not ever released. Just makes it seem very clickbaitey.. If you need more clarification from Ronbus, then state that up front. The opening statement in your vid leads the other way.

[@pickleballtechdude]

Well 2 things: 1) alpha & production models are also potentially in circulation, not just betas and 2) Ronbus intended to launch the “release” models which is what USAP pulled certification for, effectively delisting them and banning them from tourney play in the short term. Not sure how that is clickbait in any way haha

[@TournamentCrashers]

The title does make it sound like the Ripple in general is banned. Most ripples in circulation are beta versions which were sold to ronbus connect members. The production ripples with the stamp were never sold.

[@stevecrawford333]

Good, the ronbus is a joke just like the gearbox and joola mod

[@Jollysimp]

Learn how to ask questions lol. Your question was longer than the answer.

[@pickleballtechdude]

The answers were 4-5 min long… I cut them down for the vid. But yeah I’ll have you write my questions from now on! 🤪