Note : All values are average values, and can be updated by further measurement.
| Quad/Triple Fiber | Outer | Inner | 3+2 ply | Center Fiber | 7-ply Wood | 5-ply Wood |
Butterfly / 3+2 ply
| Name | Avg.Wt (g) | Ep | Ec | Ec/Ep | Vp | Vl | Vl/Vp |
| Butterfly Amultart | 90.4 | 2.48 | 3.18 | 1.28 | 1.67 | 1.29 | 0.77 |
| Butterfly Gergely | 84.4 | 2.57 | 2.20 | 0.86 | 1.46 | 1.45 | 0.99 |
| Butterfly Gergely 21 | 90.7 | 3.04 | 2.97 | 0.98 | 1.63 | 1.47 | 0.90 |
| Butterfly Grubba Carbon | 79.4 | 1.31 | 1.24 | 0.95 | 1.15 | 1.32 | 1.15 |
| Butterfly Kreanga Carbon | 89.1 | 1.74 | 2.78 | 1.60 | 1.58 | 1.18 | 0.75 |
| Butterfly Primorac Carbon | 93.0 | 2.97 | 2.69 | 0.91 | 1.56 | 1.50 | 0.96 |
| Butterfly Schlager OFF+ | 97.1 | 3.80 | 3.90 | 1.03 | 1.80 | 1.56 | 0.87 |
| Butterfly Schlager Light | 84.3 | 2.12 | 2.21 | 1.04 | 1.46 | 1.35 | 0.92 |
| Butterfly SK Carbon | 80.6 | 1.74 | 1.75 | 1.01 | 1.33 | 1.33 | 1.00 |
| Butterfly Timo Boll CAF | 86.7 | 1.73 | 1.83 | 1.06 | 1.29 | 0.98 | 0.76 |
Joola / 3+2 ply
| Name | Avg.Wt (g) | Ep | Ec | Ec/Ep | Vp | Vl | Vl/Vp |
| Joola Aruna OFF+ | 90.7 | 2.09 | 4.11 | 1.97 | 1.86 | 0.92 | 0.49 |
| Joola Rosskopf Force | 91.7 | 2.15 | 3.61 | 1.68 | 1.77 | 0.96 | 0.54 |
KTS & / 3+2 ply
| Name | Avg.Wt (g) | Ep | Ec | Ec/Ep | Vp | Vl | Vl/Vp |
| KTS Hinoki MAXX | 85.7 | 2.15 | 2.66 | 1.24 | 1.57 | 1.16 | 0.74 |
| KTS Ngineered HC | 87.9 | 2.14 | 2.92 | 1.37 | 1.61 | 1.02 | 0.63 |
Nittaku / 3+2 ply
| Name | Avg.Wt (g) | Ep | Ec | Ec/Ep | Vp | Vl | Vl/Vp |
| Nittaku Rutis | 84.7 | 1.91 | 2.06 | 1.08 | 1.39 | 1.17 | 0.84 |
Xiom / 3+2 ply
| Name | Avg.Wt (g) | Ep | Ec | Ec/Ep | Vp | Vl | Vl/Vp |
| Xiom Axelo | 88.2 | 3.49 | 3.46 | 0.99 | 1.77 | 1.62 | 0.91 |
| Xiom Hayabusa HX Pro | 87.6 | 2.61 | 2.77 | 1.06 | 1.59 | 1.34 | 0.84 |
| Xiom Ignito | 79.9 | 2.23 | 2.51 | 1.12 | 1.61 | 1.49 | 0.93 |
| Xiom Strato | 87.7 | 2.86 | 3.15 | 1.10 | 1.69 | 1.49 | 0.88 |
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this website’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to TTGearLab with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
TTGearLab 
Something wrong with Xiom Ignato’s data. Maybe in Ep value is mistype?If I want similar in feeling but slower blade? What is your advise? I think about blades with similar composition but with less thickness.Here some of them:1) Neottec “Amagi Carbon”: 80 grams; 5.5 mm; Hinoki-Carbon-Kiri-Carbon-Hinoki.2) Yinhe “T-6”: 80 grams; 5.8 mm; Hinoki-Carbon-Kiri-Carbon-Hinoki.Maybe you have data for this models or can you predict something about them?19:55
LikeLike
The Ep of Ignito is right. The blades you mentioned are not comparable with Xiom Ignito. Xiom Ignito is much thicker and faster blade. (Thickness is around 6.3~6.5mm.)
LikeLike
IGNITO (avg. 80g) : Ep = 2.23, Ec = 2.51 (Ec/Ep = 1.12), Vp = 1.61, Vl = 1.49 (Vl/Vp = 0.93)
that from “Novus” article
2,51/2,33=1,08 not 1,13
from that I think that Ep = 2,23 for Ignito might be correct
LikeLike
Thank you! 2.33 was mistake in typing. 2.23 is correct.
LikeLike
My buddy used to use Ignito but now wants to try a similar feel but slower blade. Could you advise which one to offer him?
LikeLike
In fact, it is very difficult to find the one similar to Ignito but slower, because Ignito is a quite unique blade in current situation.
But, I think that Tibhar IV-L Light can be a solution in this case. It may feel different, but will be adapted soon.
LikeLike
Don’t you have numbers for Tibhar IV-L Light?
LikeLike
Following is the average data of IV-L Light and Smash.
(avg. 77g)
Ep = 1.14
Ec = 1.34 (Ec/Ep = 1.17)
Vp = 1.21
Vl = 1.09 (Vl/Vp = 0.90)
LikeLike
I think you you meant “IV-L Light Contact”? According to Tibhar catalogue IV-L Light Contact is lighter but faster than Smash. And both of them have 4-ply construction, is it correct? And what is your thoughts about Xiom “Allround S” as slower substitute of Xiom Ignito?
LikeLike
Sometimes table tennis makers write different indices to actually same products. It is sometimes due to deviation, and sometimes just for differentiating products. Smash is the low cost version of IV-L Light Contact, and for that reason the blade constructions of those two are 100% identical. But, probably the quailty of IV-L Light Contact is better. We can think that the quality is the only on factor that differentiate those two products. (And, in my opinion, the quality of Smash isn’t bad although it is cheap.)
Allround S is much thinner than Ignito. And, probably the playing style should be greatly adjusted if Ignito is replaced by Allround S.
LikeLike
Hello!
Can you predict which blade is faster, Xiom Ignito or Andro Treiber FI OFF or FO OFF/S?
I want to try a blade with Hinoki top ply but not extremely fast.
Maybe you can suggest another model?
LikeLike
There will not be much difference if the player just pulls the ball by the surface of rubber. But, if the hitting angle becomes flatter, Ignito will make faster ball. I don’t have data of two andro blades, but because of the kind of fiber, those two can’t be highly elastic. The speed is expected to be moderate, while Ignito is a fast blade without doubt.
LikeLike
Don`t you have a data for Nittaku Rutis Revo? Is it much faster compares to Nittaku Rutis?
LikeLike
Unfortunately I don’t have it.
LikeLike