The misconception of RF vs. R2F, and the competitive potential of LRF

Poll: Which of these would you consider to be more effective on a right-spin smash attack combination?

R2F works much better
19.64%
11
R2F is probably a bit better
16.07%
9
I don't know... they're both great!
39.29%
22
RF is proabably a bit better
12.50%
7
RF works much better
12.50%
7
Total: 100% 56 vote(s)
Hello world bladers! Joyful_3

This is a subject that I have been thinking about addressing for quite a while now. Most people believe that R2F has much more competitive value than RF as far as conventional attack types go (IE. Flash GB145, Wyvang H145, etc.), and that RF is only to be used as a substitute in the absence of a good R2F.

I believe that, contrary to popular opinion, there are quite a few benefits to using RF instead of R2F, including:
  • Controlability
  • Stamina
  • Higher smash (in some cases)

These attributes can give you some serious advantages over an attack type using R2F, including the ability to consistently out-spin them if you were actually to go attack vs. attack.

Beywiki Wrote:R²F can be utilized in any situation where RF would be used to increase overall speed and power.

R2F certainly has its advantages over RF in a competitive situation, such as:
  • Higher speed
  • Higher effect against opponents of the opposite-spin (mostly due to higher speed)

However, I would like to inquire of those of you who claim that R2F produces superior power to RF. Does R2F really produce more smash on contact than RF? Observe the following test results:

Quote:MF-H Flash Orion GB145R2F vs. Reviser Reviser BD145CS
Reviser launched first on all launches. Calm CS, prime R2F.
Orion: wins, 14/20 (All KO)
Reviser: wins, 6/20 (All OS)
MF-H Flash Orion GB145R2F win rate: 70%

MF-H Flash Orion GB145RF vs. Reviser Reviser BD145CS
Reviser launched first on all launches. Calm CS, prime R2F.
Orion: wins, 16/20 (All KO)
Reviser: wins, 4/20 (All OS)
MF-H Flash Orion GB145RF win rate: 80%

*NOTE* These tests were done a while ago... I don't have a prime RF/R2F at the moment to test with. :\

As far as I know (and I could've missed it, but from all the searching I did I seriously doubt it), this is the only formal comparison between RF and R2F ever recorded on this site. No one has actually tested it yet, and the subject is therefore completely undetermined.

While R2F's shape does indeed increase its speed, does it actually have notably higher traction than RF? RF has a very tame shape, but, due to that round shape, RF has a much wider surface area making contact with the stadium floor than R2F does. This increases friction/traction, and can reduce recoil and increase the solidity of a Beyblade's position, allowing more of the force produced on contact to be directed toward the opponent.

R2F, having sharp, hooked protrusions all around its circumference, really does not "roll" around the surface of the stadium nearly as efficiently or smoothly as RF. With the six sharp points of contact on R2F, you may as well be using a hexagonal shaped bottom, rather than a round one.

[Image: R2F+hexagonal+demo.png]

This, I believe, explains R2F's lack of stamina in comparison to RF pretty well.

To be honest, R2F has never worked as well as RF for me... obviously this will probably differ between bladers, due to various molds and/or densities of rubber on the bottom, but I really think the fact that R2F is flatly superior to RF for conventional attack is simply a misconception.



Now, as for LRF, I would like to address this bottom as a potential competitive part for use with right-spin attack types. Obviously, R2F is faster, and as such, nobody really uses LRF for right-spin attack... however, if LRF is making contact with the stadium floor on the smooth, round, outward curving sides of the protrusions,

[Image: LRF+round+sides.png]
*NOTE* image is R2F mirrored.


rather than the sharp, pointed, inward curving sides as it would in left-spin,

[Image: LRF+sharp+sides.png]
*NOTE* image is R2F mirrored.

then its surface area will be wider, due to the fact that it will be spinning on a somewhat rounded structure. Therefore, theoretically, LRF would serve as a sort of middle-ground performance between R2F and RF. The same would be true using R2F for left-spin attack, which we have already seen to be extremely effective (hence Wyvang Dragooon SA165R2F). It may also be useful to categories such as anti-attack, providing the beyblade with higher speed than RF while still maintaining the stamina to OS R2F-based attack types. I don't have any formal tests, but it's worked well for me so far, and I thought it would be a cool idea to try it out as a side note. Wink

Opinions? Smile
yeesss! theblackdragon I salute to you you really help me out with these articles Smile anyway I have LRF used to have RF and an R2F on the way Grin anyway this will defenintly help with all that confusion with RF LRF and R2F Grin and now I'm really glad I have LRF XD
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:28 PM)Lazer Wrote: yeesss! theblackdragon I salute to you you really help me out with these articles Smile anyway I have LRF used to have RF and an R2F on the way Grin anyway this will defenintly help with all that confusion with RF LRF and R2F Grin and now I'm really glad I have LRF XD
Same here theblackdragon. Also, I could do those tests for you if you want, as I am getting those very fresh parts listed in around 2 weeks.
I actually prefer LRF for attack now. I don't know if its just that my other RF and R2F are worn or I just get luckier with LRF, haha. I'm guessing its because of the way the spikes are pointed on the bottom. I usually use R2F for left spin attackers though if not i use RF. I don't like to use LRF for left spin.

Great thread theblackdragon, as always Smile.
Wow, that was a good read, nice thread theblackdragon!

I've always believed that R2F was much better than RF, but seeing it now, it has given me a whole new idea to the subject. More tests comparing them would be great, especially in different situations against different Beys.

Nice!
Lazer: Well, it's not that there's confusion... it's just that many people have the idea in their heads that R2F is flat-out better than RF when there really isn't any reason to believe it. Different parts may work better for different people, but IMO RF and LRF are definitely not inferior to R2F.
ok thanks @theblackdragon Smile oh and about those tests I could do some when my Galaxy Pegasis get's here in not sure how long it was shipped from taiwan and currently left the USPS facility in Kearny New Jersey oh and IMO LRF would have to be my favorite it's like a balance between RF and R2F Smile I think I'll use LRF instead of R2F for Flash although I'll do comparison tests between R2F and LRF on FLash but what do you want me to test it against?
Nice explanation. I noticed my LRF had more controlability (it is worn mr R2F is mint) and slightly more stamina.
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:36 PM)Lazer Wrote: ok thanks @theblackdragon Smile oh and about those tests I could do some when my Galaxy Pegasis get's here in not sure how long it was shipped from taiwan and currently left the USPS facility in Kearny New Jersey oh and IMO LRF would have to be my favorite it's like a balance between RF and R2F Smile I think I'll use LRF instead of R2F for Flash although I'll do comparison tests between R2F and LRF on FLash but what do you want me to test it against?

MF-H Flash Orion GB145LRF/R2F vs. whatever defense type you've got would be awesome! Joyful_3
I'm really curious is anyone else has had this experience as well... I just don't see a fine line in performance between the three.

EDIT: Remember guys, we don't want to get too deep into discussing LRF until we have some testing... everything I've done has been informal.

Anyone who can do some comparisons between RF and R2F please feel free to do so (like, now would be nice)! XD
ok so Reviser Killerken BD145CS/RDF vs MF-H Flash Orion GB145R2F and LRF? btw I don't have a MSF
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:37 PM)theblackdragon Wrote:
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:36 PM)Lazer Wrote: ok thanks @theblackdragon Smile oh and about those tests I could do some when my Galaxy Pegasis get's here in not sure how long it was shipped from taiwan and currently left the USPS facility in Kearny New Jersey oh and IMO LRF would have to be my favorite it's like a balance between RF and R2F Smile I think I'll use LRF instead of R2F for Flash although I'll do comparison tests between R2F and LRF on FLash but what do you want me to test it against?

MF-H Flash Orion GB145LRF/R2F vs. whatever defense type you've got would be awesome! Joyful_3
I'm really curious is anyone else has had this experience as well... I just don't see a fine line in performance between the three.

I'll do the tests as well, as that way we can see if the data is consistent enough to be true or not. I have a VariAries as well, shall I use that in the attack combo?
Nice TBD. Yeah I have all three. I like LRF more then R2F, RF. You just keep making great threads! I don't know how you do it lol.
That would be great... as long as it's the exact same test except with the tips switched. Smile
Personally, I always just used whichever I could get cheapest, but you do have some interesting points. In my opinion, I think a ever so slightly past prime RF is the best bet for tournaments, since you can still KO the same combos, just without the self KOs.
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:45 PM)ShinobuXD Wrote: Personally, I always just used whichever I could get cheapest, but you do have some interesting points. In my opinion, I think a ever so slightly past prime RF is the best bet for tournaments, since you can still KO the same combos, just without the self KOs.

Eeeeeexactly. I like it better mostly because its less risky. Much less chance of self-KO, and it's much easier to control when you're freaking out. Tongue_out
(Sep. 30, 2013  10:41 PM)theblackdragon Wrote: That would be great... as long as it's the exact same test except with the tips switched. Smile

Well yes, obviously. And I am getting new parts in 2 week, so should I use those, or my normal, used ones? Or shall I do both?
I've never thought of one of the two to be superior to the other, just that they have different uses, which you outline nicely in the OP.

Personally I'm with ShinobuXD in that I will buy the cheapest one, whatever that may be.

As for LRF, I owned but haven't used it much. Maybe if I have time I can do somes tests (would Balro be fine?).
Any tests with anything, as long as it compares the tips. Smile
I do not know about there not being test results ever anywhere on this site, but it has certainly been known for years that RF is easier to control and R²F is faster but has less stamina, so there is no better option, just slightly different effects. Was there really a "popular opinion" that R²F was better ?
Here's how I always saw it:

R2F, RF, and LRF should all be used interchangeably: there is no "better one". Sure R2F has a bit more speed than LRF and RF, but the performance increase/decrease solely based on the shape is small compared to the other inconsistencies that go along with the fast-wearing bottom.

Softness: I've mentioned this a couple times already, but it is way more important the kind of rubber it is rather than the shape. Some of the rubber tips are generally harder than others. The Hasbro Meteo L Drago Absorb LRF is very soft and is much better than the TT DX Set LRF.

Age: It'd be rather impossible for people to have a completely new bottoms every time they want to test something. That is why we have a "prime" stage (a stage of the best possible performance). Basically anything from new to slightly past prime is acceptable. Especially in conjunction with the kind of rubber, this can lead to a pretty big change in performance swapping between bottoms.

Launch: What is one reason attack is not dominating the Metagame right now? It is much more inconsistent and more partial to launch than any other type. That is exactly why we do 20 rounds of testing: because results can sometimes be flukes. I'm sure if someone did enough rounds of testing comparing the two bottoms they could come to a conclusion based on the particular molds of RF/R2F/LRF, but then again, there are many different degrees of rubber and someone else could just as easily come to a different conclusion.

Because each tip has its own set of good/bad rubber molds and there is a normal discrepancy between tests, I feel it is impossible to say which is better than the other. That is why there have not been many formal tests between the two. The inconsistencies in launch, softness, age makes it useless to basically waste 2 perfectly good rubber bottoms. (The amount of tests required to rule out the inconsistencies in attack would probably wear down the bottoms)
I've known about R2F vs RF and the tradeoffs for using either one, but LRF is something I've privately speculated about but never gotten around to testing. I figured it'd be as controllable and have good stamina like RF, but be a bit faster all due to the points facing the opposite way and being aerodynamix. I might get around to some testing this weekend.
Meow!: Exactly... I totally agree. I've just noticed a mentality among users lately that R2F is flat-out better in every way than RF for attack, and that RF is only used for a sub.

Quote:To be honest, R2F has never worked as well as RF for me... obviously this will probably differ between bladers, due to various molds and/or densities of rubber on the bottom, but I really think the fact that R2F is flatly superior to RF for conventional attack is simply a misconception.

Kai-V: Well, yes, I would say so. I've been talking with members around the site, and from posts in the customization forum I clearly saw a mindset was present suggesting that R2F made RF eat dirt. XD

On a second note, from what I've seen, it's not just higher speed and less stamina, it's the fact that everyone (including whoever wrote the R2F section of Beywiki) misconceives the fact that R2F can produce far superior levels of smash, which has never been tested or proven. In fact, IMO, RF produces more smash most of the time (at least when I use it).

It's all opinionated when the bottoms are this close in performance, obviously, but as this testing shows, RF is definitely not second-rate IMO.

Wombat: That would be beyond awesome. Grin A comparison to either of the other bottoms (or both) would be great.
I think it's a bit over-generalizing to base off smash power directly to the bottoms used from 1 set of test comparison. When you refer to smash power, the primary cause of it is always the contact points (tangent points), which is provided by the Metal / Chrome Wheels, and in some rare cases, overhang of wide tracks. The other secondary variables are weight and speed. Again, weight does not really relate to bottoms, which leaves us with speed. Now this is where the bottoms come into consideration.

R2F does generate more speed than RF. By that reasoning alone, it should be enough to assume that provided the circumstances are identical, R2F will help generate more smash than RF. The thing is no 2 circumstances will ever be identical.

Personally, I prefer RF to R2F. When I use R2F, unconsciously, I always think of self KOs, hence, leading to the sub-par launch power. Vice versa, I'm much more comfortable with RF, and in turn, I get better results with it.

The thing with RF vs R2F has always been stamina vs speed, and that is a matter of preference. BUT out of those 2 variables, speed correlates to smash, so yes in that aspect, R2F will HELP generate more smash, but does that mean it's better for everyone? Not necessarily.
(Oct. 01, 2013  4:57 AM)Uwik Wrote: I think it's a bit over-generalizing to base off smash power directly to the bottoms used from 1 set of test comparison.

Agreed... that's why I asked for more tests. Wink However, I conducted the testing with bottoms as close in density and condition as I possibly could. They were both in the middle of their prime, and each was almost identically dense as the other. I think it serves as a very close representation of each tip's abilities... but yah, it's just one test. I kinda need more. XD

But, again, it's never actually been tested. I was attempting to point out the fact that there is no evidence to support the fact that R2F produces any more raw smash than RF under the same circumstances.

Quote: When you refer to smash power, the primary cause of it is always the contact points (tangent points), which is provided by the Metal / Chrome Wheels, and in some rare cases, overhang of wide tracks. The other secondary variables are weight and speed. Again, weight does not really relate to bottoms, which leaves us with speed. Now this is where the bottoms come into consideration.

Ah... but weight and speed are note the only variables. You've forgotten one... FRICTION/TRACTION. GF is like 3 times faster than RF, but Wyvang Wyvang GB145RF will produce much more smash than Wyvang Wyvang GB145GF ever could, because of RF's production of traction through friction.

Quote:R2F does generate more speed than RF. By that reasoning alone, it should be enough to assume that provided the circumstances are identical, R2F will help generate more smash than RF. The thing is no 2 circumstances will ever be identical.

Yes... 'tis true, IF we make the assumption that R2F and RF are producing the same ammount of friction (IE that they have the same measure of rubber surface are making contact with stadium floor).

Quote:The thing with RF vs R2F has always been stamina vs speed, and that is a matter of preference. BUT out of those 2 variables, speed correlates to smash, so yes in that aspect, R2F will HELP generate more smash, but does that mean it's better for everyone? Not necessarily.

FRICTION... speed correlates, but so does friction between the stadium floor.

That's my bit... but yah, more tests would be great. I was kinda going more for "This has never been proven" than "This is not true." Tongue_out
I personally don't like any rubber bottoms but I have that in my opinion rf is best because it may not have as much attack as r2f but it has more stamina