Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: SAF Bats on June 03, 2009, 01:45:17 AM
-
A quick question....
Do you think Technology is actually making cricket bats perform better?
-
Technology? I wouldn't say so, as the best bats are handmade. Style of bats and technique has evolved, which has helped improvement
-
I meant all this engineering testing that has gone on and the terms that are being used for marketing of bats are based on techie terms
-
No not really, i have this 5 year old millichamp with tiny edges and no bow and it is much better than every big profiled bat... just feels more solid.
-
Ditto - i had a similar experience with an old millichamp aswell. As for technology and bats - i think that the two can co-exist but are not necessary to produce the best bats - i think that the willow itself is the most important part, if the willow is poor then a magnificent carbon handle or strategically placed scoop is not going to make the bat any better.
I think the use of technology jargon is in all sports nowadays - the use of professional language denotes that the item being sold is in someway superior as a result of it's link to science, engineering etc - but at the other end of the scale you have many batmakers using more traditonal methods to sell their items - i think that in cricket their is a real mix between technology and traditionalism and i can see it continuing this way.
I like the use of technology in cricket - not a fan of carbon handles - but anything to spice up the way the game is played or apprached is not a bad thing. I think that i am less likely, when buying a cricket bat (considering the standard i play) - to make a decision based on perimter weighting or carbon handles etc, i will always go on pick-up and feel - i think that their is a little bit of traditionalism in most people when it comes to buying a bat.
-
Ok I understand where you are coming from but it you had a poor bit of willow and lets look at in this sense. It is a lower grade piece of willow as per "JS Wright".... Then if you could press it differently and shape differently based on testing it, then the technology aspect would be beneficial. however if those tests were complex it would take up time and money so the offset is price... If you could do some simple tests then I'd say it helps out a lot
-
you make a good point and i agree with what your saying -do you have in mind any 'simple tests' that would allow this? This sounds like a specialist type of testing that most large companies might be opposed to at first, just as it adds more stages to the process which like you say is surely going to incur certain costs - but on the other end it may get the best usage out of each cleft and be better in the long run. I like the idea that every bit of willow should be treated differently according to the tests rather than basing alot of the criteria on cosmetics.
The only issue with this is that it may allow some unscrupulous companies to buy even poorer willow and dress it up - mutton/lamb scenario according to their own version of these performance 'tests'
Please tell me if i have got the wrong end of the stick!
-
Yep there are some simple tests you could do on the cleft that requires a laptop and spreadsheet for the maths.... should take about 10-15mins per cleft through the whole of the manufacturing process... i.e from raw cleft to ready for the shops
It should level out the willow to certain extent so you can provide a consistent product that performs. It may also mean that the willow is ready to play when it leaves the workshop.....
-
sounds good to me and a perfect example of technology aiding cricket. Is this something you are investing your time into at the moment for your bats? You say that willow may be ready to play when leaving the workshop, do you mean that these tests will be able to determine the bats required pressing depending on it's density etc rather than relying on a one press fits all situation that occurs for a lot of bats (but not all)
-
SillyShilly great reply by the way...
sounds good to me and a perfect example of technology aiding cricket. Is this something you are investing your time into at the moment for your bats?
Yep I am and already invested the time... I need to get myself a press and varying handles to complete it fully though but I can get by to a certain extent with the various clefts I recieve as they are all different...
You say that willow may be ready to play when leaving the workshop, do you mean that these tests will be able to determine the bats required pressing depending on it's density etc rather than relying on a one press fits all situation that occurs for a lot of bats (but not all)
Yep pressed to suit the willow and then prepared to play based on performance, durablity, a happy medium etc
-
I will be interested to see how you get on with this process, it sounds like time well invested and something the larger companies should be looking at aswell - get a patent! Good luck with getting a press, i cant imagine their the type of things that you see just lying around.
-
Got press designs sorted for 2 types of press just need to find the time to get them sorted... I'm willing to sell on my ideas for a price or someone employ me as a consultant for 6 months ;)
-
If you ever get bored go to: http://gb.espacenet.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?Template=gb/en/quick.hts&Action=FormGen (http://gb.espacenet.com/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?Template=gb/en/quick.hts&Action=FormGen) and search Cricket Bats. So many people have tried to make changes and adaptations yet we still come back to a willow blade with cane handle.
-
I think there is room for new innovations, but sadly so many like the Mongoose are gimmicks that are treated as innovations. The real improvements are going to be the pressing and knocking of a bat. Apart from my own unique design for a bat of course!!!
-
Agree with Talisman it isn't bat design I'm thinking of but it does help.... looked at loads of patents
-
Noting the recent changes in the Law regarding bats, I wonder what 'technology' has really done. I ordered a new hand made bat recently and watched it made from the bare wood. I told the batmaker, a very good one, that I wanted it 2lb 6 or 7 and really cared about nothing else as I trusted him with the balance. When I tend to hit big it is straight and generally the boundaries are longest there.
The use of very dry wood produces a big looking bat with a limited life span. If you can afford it then they are fine. Really you still have to be able to time the ball with your ability rather than rely on the bat to do everything.
I recently used a bat made in 1963 and it was as sweet as anything made today although it looked completely different.
-
This is what norb has been adressing through the use of relevant pressing and technology - the lighter drier celfts may be suitably treated to last longer in this new technique. However, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying - i could have Sachin's bat but this doesnt mean i can bat aswell as him just because the bat is the best of the best - ultimately it is the way in which we use the equipment that will define how good it can and will be. Though having that extra ounce or two in the middle through correct pressing, shaping, handles etc can often mean the difference between and 4 and 6 or even a 6 or out.
I would be extremely interested to see how long that old bat would last - i am rather skeptical of your statement purely because i myslef have used some very old bats and they have been horrendous and very planky - though this could be a bad carpenter blaming his tools.....
-
This is a very interesting topic.
I believe there is no correct or wrong answer to the question raised in the initial post. There are, as you can imagine, several points for and against either argument. For example, it is obvious that technology can help improve quality control, measurement and control aspects of cricket bat making. However, it is universally agreed that the best bats are hand-made. Then, why is there room for machines and new technology in the world of bat making? Probably because most people try to find a balance between cost and the podshaver's skill.
Theoretically, a machine is more precise than a human (mostly) and new technology will probably make the bat-making process more efficient, cheaper and quicker. However, machines arent and never will be as intuitive as the best pod-shavers. This is key in my opinion. Like my fellow poster said, having Tendulkar's bat in one's hands will not make them as good as Tendulkar at the crease. That's not to say that Tendulkar uses the best bats. After all, his bat might not be good for say...a Matthew Hayden or a Luke Wright.
The best bats I believe are made by pod-shavers that can match bats to individual players perfectly. Technology will never be able to help that step of the process.
The bottom line, imo, is that technology can definitely help in the manufacturing side of things for mass-produced bats....maybe even hand-made bats (by providing better tools etc), but will these 'improvements' help produce more perfectly matched bats for people like you and me and the pros, or improve the playability of the bats? I dont think so. However, there would definitely be people who think otherwise and I'd love to hear their views!
The best part about the world of cricket bats is that, after a certain point, its all very subjective in nature.
-
Interesting post....#
You said the following, why?
"but will these 'improvements' help produce more perfectly matched bats for people like you and me and the pros, or improve the playability of the bats? I dont think so. "
-
Due to the subjective nature that I was referring to at the end of my post.
Beyond a certain point, it would impossible for humans to discern which is the better bat. For example, say my ideal characteristics for a bat are:
2lbs 10oz, SH, traditional profile etc.
If two bats were made (one the old-fashioned way and one implementing new technology) with the characteristics I listed, un-stickered, similar grip, I would be shocked if I could consistently tell which one was which with more than 30-40% accuracy.
It basically means that on paper, perhaps, you could prove that using technology produces a better bat. However, proving it out in the middle is a whole different story.
-
When you say implementing new techonology you are not talking about CNC a-la GM's machine but more about what I said, is that right?
-
Yes, thats right.
However, please understand that Im not saying bats produced using CNC machines are better bats overall. Mass production just has certain inherent advantages such as lower costs and making the product available to more people quicker.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual. Would I pay more, or insist, on a bat that has gone through the tests you speak of? Not really. I've never tried one of your bats but if your bat-making skills are anywhere close to some of the podshavers on here, then I'd be more than happy with your bats with or without the tests and/or other new implementations of technology.
That being said, when I bought my first walkman, I never thought Id need another portable music player. Now I have a better, smaller music player with more capacity and it also acts as my phone, camera, address book and GPS.
But as you know, cricket has always been and will always be (I hope) a bit more charming and conservative than the world of mobile communications. :-)