Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: SAF Bats on January 05, 2010, 09:30:37 PM
-
Just had a minor revelation
The Newbery C6 handle!!!!!
Yep illegal if bought now but you are still able to use it if you own one
[could be changed to conform with new MCC laws]
Was this the First Spliceless Bat? Going to add 1st 2 piece spliceless bat!!! as back in the day they where all one piece
(http://www.owzat-cricket.co.uk/acatalog/NE06BTC6TEC.jpg)
-
The only completely spliceless bat I've seen.
-
So the other, you know who bat, is not unique! "With a unique spliceless blade"
-
Unique on the market and which complies with MCC Law 6.
-
:-)
-
Going to add 1st 2 piece spliceless bat!!! as back in the day they where all one piece... Will reset poll now
-
And yet the C6 hasnt had all the media hype that the Mongoose tech has, admittedly because the Mongoose shape is its USP.
-
The guy who owns/runs mongoose has a double barrelled surname and comes from a marketing background.
I really doubt if "other" companies promoting similar technology would have been ratified by the MCC and be allowed to be honest, but this is of course only conjecture
Dont get me wrong i think inovation is interesting and important to keep things fresh, but i have to say i am surprised that an organisation like the MCC allowed the mongoose technology when they have in the past been so protective to maintain traditional methods and wonder if an non english manufacturer approached them if they would have had a similar result?
Anyways, good luck to them
-
Article here on bat innovation and the laws: http://engineeringsport.co.uk/2009/10/27/cricket-bat-innovation-smothered-by-law-6/#more-151
The main worry was the handles could bring added performance hence restrictions on them, with the Mongoose though the performance comes from MMi (mass moment inertia)
-
I believe that the MCC allowed the Mongoose as it does not transgress the reasons it banned the carbon handles for, they created the potential to hit the ball further and as cricket grounds are a set size and cannot be extended as golf holes have been with the increase in power available to the player they had to act.
The C6+ was the handle itself and the act of joining it to the blade produced the only spliceless bat made, the Mongoose is a completely standard splice like every other bat on the market. It's claimed uniqueness is that the shoulders are shaved away so the grip can hide the join and also the splice is higher on the Uzi style bat to allow it to be hidden too. You could still use the Newbery method of joining a handle to a bat with a cane handle rather than the traditional method if you wanted to create a spliceless bat rather than a hidden spice.
You sure cannot compete with Mongoose on the marketing front, the best I've seen in the market place.
I hate to say this but there is someone currently making a bat with serious hitting power that I have to admit may work also based on the Newbery principle of a elongated handle and truncated blade, *****, seen his proposal and waiting for delivery of one next week, could be very interesting...
-
Article here on bat innovation and the laws: [url]http://engineeringsport.co.uk/2009/10/27/cricket-bat-innovation-smothered-by-law-6/#more-151[/url]
The main worry was the handles could bring added performance hence restrictions on them, with the Mongoose though the performance comes from MMi (mass movement inertia)
That David Curtis chap has really got the wrong end of the stick so to speak about Cricket bats and some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious. I've tried having a discussion with him but recieved no further emails. The article doesn't explain the benefits of a spliceless handle but I dont think you posted it because of that. The article is a gripe about the new laws and what is good enough for the goose should be good for the gander and if we are going to get more innovation in cricket, he just plan wrong, you can still innovate.
I agree that Mass Moment of Inertia is the main reason/benefit but like I've said to yourself and to that David Curtis chap it can still be done on a normal bat [Not sure I've heard of Mass Movement Inertia].
Anyways I digress this a thread about spliceless bats. I was trying to find out, in recent times, if the C6 was the first spliceless bat
[I'll give you a big explanation in sec or in the Whippy and Stiff handle thread, which you've probably seen before, about handles]
You know what they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach "
By the way a Carbon handle can still be used in a Grade A bat
-
That David Curtis chap has really got the wrong end of the stick so to speak about Cricket bats and some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious. I've tried having a discussion with him but recieved no further emails. The article doesn't explain the benefits of a spliceless handle but I dont think you posted it because of that. The article is a gripe about the new laws and what is good enough for the goose should be good for the gander and if we are going to get more innovation in cricket, he just plan wrong, you can still innovate.
Just a few points to make about this post by Norbair on my blog piece at http://bit.ly/4RZEDO
1. I have yet to receive any emails from Norbair (SAF) on the above blog, or a previous blog on my own site http://www.allaboutcricketbats.blogspot.com/, which he had some views on via twitter. What's good for the goose…?
2. If you would like to elaborate on "some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious" then please do. I'd like to know which points this refers to. My blog article on Law 6 (as all others) is a point of view, not inaccurate, and open for discussion, as it should be.
3. As a bat maker you have expert knowledge. As someone who is involved in bat related research, occasionally for some big names, I have expert knowledge. The jibe 'those who can do, those who can't teach' is disrespectful, and naïve of the facts. There is plenty of room for informed opinions in a field and healthy for all not to agree.
David Curtis
-
Firstly welcome David, lets hope you will as an expert post in all areas of the forum.
I would take issue myself with the "Finale" on your article, the phraseology (However, in the right hands at the right time this bat can give a significant advantage to the batsmen.) confuses me. Is this your theory or someone else's, every bat sold has some sort of vague claim to hit the ball further than others do to a numbers of contestable reasons. How do you arrive as yours? Is their a negative pay off to balance the positive you find?
The Mongoose bat MMi3 which seems to be the flagship model is in design and manufacture an evolution of another bat launched for the T20 market. The other bat could also claim to a higher bat speed when swung down but does not as it takes longer to pick the bat up and overall the further you move the balance towards the toe the harder the bat is to play with.
I love bats, I have bought a MMi3 from Tom and have used it extensively and also made my own versions to improve its failings. I love researching shapes and have my own which in theory will propel the ball further than a like for like bat at the same weight and balance.
I think that the fact Norbair and myself are actively working on improving the cricket bat in our own ways and driving forward innovation while helping those who can actually lay claim to genuine innovation far in excess of the Mongoose means we are in good position to comment. Discourse is healthy and the whole reason behind the existence of this forum.
I'd love for you to share with us your research aims and findings.
-
Mike,
Change the record for once and appreciate that a brand has launched and had relative success with the most radical looking bat for years and years. And that company wasn't Newbery, Talisman or SAF.
Perhaps you have improved it, perhaps you are working on improving the cricket bat but try putting it to market and making it into a success also.
We're also further improving bats and shapes. We're in very early stages on something at the moment which should save 4-5oz off the weight of a bat with no loss of power or durability.
-
Tom,
You are on the back foot already and we all know that is not a great place to be with a MMi3 in your hands, it doesn't give you the defence that other bats offer.
I appreciate the brand has launched. Please quantify your success, unit sales maybe? It is the most radical bat I've seen but very close to the CJI Fatso LE in my opinion on your looks front.
But having been bored senseless by fully reading Mongoose's patent application I found a few flaws, and those would be simple for a cricketer to spot, let alone a patent lawyer. The Uzi was launched as the first elongated handle, truncated blade combination bat on the market and was pitched as a T20 bat. The application rightly credits Slazenger and Newbery as having shoulderless bats before anyone else. The Mongoose is a spliced bat the same as every other, hiding the splice does not make it spliceless. Also the definition issued as to what constitutes a patent will be a major problem in the cricket bat field, maybe why there are so few patents. I don't have a problem with anything in the Mongoose bat range, the ideas have been tried and not taken up by batmaker's so it was a brave move to go with it and coupled with an excellent marketing background Marcus has created superb brand awareness.
It's just a trivial annoyance that you guys have not seen to credit where credit is due, look forward to the next most radical bat ever.... when are you going to come down and see all my secrets in action?
-
Thought id share a few points on this topic, I'm neither a bat maker or a retailer although I've some experience in both in recent times however no longer involved as such. Ive made this comment before and i will make it again, a lot of people make claims about products and what they have done etc and never provide any proof or details of it. If you have not released products on to the market successfully then i feel it would be better to do so before making claims.
People are quick to try and prove other people's products don't work or point to things like providing proof of testing performances and the criteria for this and the criteria for that. At the end of the day its the consumer who will decide if a product works or not and not the manufacturer ? if a product does not work them it wont be around for long so lets see how long these companies are around and their products and lets see the evidence of the others making bold statements about products and see how long they are around or if they ever materialise.
-
Mike as your a regular customer at the place i go for bats at i sure you have seen last season a spliceless bat i nearly got it from him but £200 was a tad steep for me even though it was a gun
-
Am I? If it is who I think you are referring to I'm not, we fell out!!!!!
-
I would quantify success as being where we are now, which other brand had such brand awareness and was stocked in as many retailers as Mongoose has only 7 months down the line?
We haven't needed to credit the Newbery Uzi as the MMi3 is nothing like it in looks, shape or performance. The CoR3 though is very similar to the Uzi and we don't deny that or shy away from it. If anyone had launched a bat previously with 30% shorter blade I'm sure we'd have credited it also and the media would have also picked up on it with our very high profile launch.
-
Tom, purely out of curiousity, which retailers have stocked your bats - not trying to make any digs or inflammatory comments, but the only place i have seen one on sale is at the Lords cricket shop
-
product is only as good as its marketing, not just with cricket bats but in every industry.. Hero Honda and Britannia don't make bats but i'm sure there are tons of people who think they have the best bats. That could mean that the consumer isn't as educated but the average consumer doesn't have the time nor the money to research a company's claim about it's product.. most consumers take their word and move on..
can you tell me which laundry detergent cleans the best?? Most people would answer the latest and greatest commercial they have recently seen..
-
Owzat, Fordham, VKS, Morrant, V Sports
Plus about 50-60 other stores around the country.
-
You have learnt well young Tom, answering the question you would have preferred to have been asked rather than the one that was asked, not standing as an MP are you?
The basis of the patent is that the MMi3 is the first and only elongated handle plus truncated blade combination bat. I disagree, as you do in your above comment that the CoR3 is the same as the Uzi and the CoR3 is a version of the MMi3. If you go on your website and look at the patent applications then you can copy the application number and then paste it in google, this will then put you on the site where you can spend hours reading the repetitive text wherein lie the claims.
-
Neither of us have a clue about patents Mike so I'm not going to go too far into it, the patent isn't the major bit of the IP making up the MMi3 though. I believe the design registration is. If what you're saying about the patent is correct though it's strange that that has been said, as Newbery and even Hunts County have been doing shorter blades for years.
As for the question I was supposed to answer and haven't, which one was that? I see 2 question marks in your previous post which I'll answer now anyway.
The former was about quantifying success, now obviously you want me to publish sales which I'm not going to do.
The latter was about visiting your box of tricks, which I'm not going to do in the near future.
-
Am I wrong in thinking Mongoose and Hunts are partners? I certainly remember an article along thoe lines a while back?
-
So I'm confused are the bats spliceless or not?
Are they spliceless as claimed, or is the splice hidden as claimed?
Can someone give it to me in plain English?
-
The splice is in the handle, so there is no visible splice in the blade.
-
I think they say "spliceless blade" on the website which is fair enough as the splice is in the handle section of the bat.
-
It is a bog standard bat with the shoulders shaved off. The splice is the method of joining handle and blade. I felt most let down when I peeled back the grip....
Tom, I'm only messing with you, I hope you know that, you take the whole Mongoose thing too seriously, I don't.
-
It is a bog standard bat with the shoulders shaved off. The splice is the method of joining handle and blade. I felt most let down when I peeled back the grip....
Tom, I'm only messing with you, I hope you know that, you take the whole Mongoose thing too seriously, I don't.
Stop baiting the saintly Tom and go and warm up that instamatic that you claim takes pictures.
-
Ha Ha, when you say it like that talisman it is so obvious isn't it! When you pull it back to the basics, yes i'ts just a normal bat with the shoulders removed! The spilce is exactly the same as a normal (or is it?).
-
Yep it's the same except a little bit shorter.
So simple I'm suprised no-one else has launched it previously.
-
How many saints do you know who dine on Kebabs? he is a little devil in disguise.....
There is no need to hide the splice in bats, unless the hired help publishes a paper showing it does, where has he gone, was he hourly paid?, put some money in his meter. You can't have spent it all already.
-
so they aren't all amazing as cracked up to be design wise? Like the meaty profile a smaller balde gives though. Any problems with the splices yet tom?? like getting hit and damage?? Breaking??
-
Nah no issues yet.
At the end of the day it's a new design of bat, no-one else has put their splice in the handle/taken the shoulders off/hidden the splice like we have. Of course it's not 100% radical sticking to the rules of cricket and made in a traditional manner but it is a new different looking design.
Some people love it, many others hate it.
-
and the smaller blade makes it a better profile imo. I love the cor3 profile!
So does the cor3 have any advantage over a normal bat?
-
Hi
Just a few points to make about this post by Norbair on my blog piece at [url]http://bit.ly/4RZEDO[/url]
1. I have yet to receive any emails from Norbair (SAF) on the above blog, or a previous blog on my own site [url]http://www.allaboutcricketbats.blogspot.com/,[/url] which he had some views on via twitter. What's good for the goose…?
2. If you would like to elaborate on "some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious" then please do. I'd like to know which points this refers to. My blog article on Law 6 (as all others) is a point of view, not inaccurate, and open for discussion, as it should be.
3. As a bat maker you have expert knowledge. As someone who is involved in bat related research, occasionally for some big names, I have expert knowledge. The jibe 'those who can do, those who can't teach' is disrespectful, and naïve of the facts. There is plenty of room for informed opinions in a field and healthy for all not to agree.
David Curtis
Hi David
May be my mistake here then I thought you where going to email me after you asked me what my address was. My apologies regarding the "the those that do comment" I guess it was bit under hand and a spur of the moment thing.
I've only read a few articles and maybe dubious is not the right word, as you're right it is a point of view and I could always discuss on your blog. Wind damage willow springs to mind - so apologies again.
In fact it looks like I engaged my mouth about your views and opinions before my brain
Thanks
Andy
-
Ps how did a spliceless bat thread end up like this!!!!
Oh well made for an exciting forum for a while and I got called an expert :-) woohoo
-
I would take issue myself with the "Finale" on your article, the phraseology (However, in the right hands at the right time this bat can give a significant advantage to the batsmen.) confuses me. Is this your theory or someone else's, every bat sold has some sort of vague claim to hit the ball further than others do to a numbers of contestable reasons. How do you arrive as yours? Is their a negative pay off to balance the positive you find?
Talisman, thanks for the welcome. I'll try to chip in as and when I can to this forum. It's a good one.
In response to your question on my 'Finale' in the blog - the statement is really based on the paper by Imperial College researchers for Mongoose, which is available on their website. While I agree that the phrase is a little ambiguous and should have been clearer, the hidden intent was a one-phrase summary of the conclusions of that report. Anthony Bull is a respected research academic and his study confirms what I would say is intuitive for those with some basic knowledge of physics and biomechanics.
As many have attested to on this forum, some will like this style of bat, some will not. Some will feel a performance gain, some won't. A negative pay-off for some, positive for others. It's simply a matter of the vast biomechanical differences between one cricketer and the next, compounded by differences in pschye. I'm not sure I agree that every bat maker makes (even vague) claims that their bats hit the ball further than other makes. Given the large variation in user, any performance claim is only valid for a percentage of players, not all, and this is never articulated because no-one has the time or money to to the research to get the data.
I've seen enough written and spoken in praise of the Mongoose, other makes as well I'm sure, that this style of bat will produce bigger hits for equivalent energy expended in the right hands. What the Mongoose guys have done is take an old idea, refine it, be bold and get investment, commission research, market it well, and build a brand. It's not easy to do, it takes some balls, and I think they deserve some credit for that.
-
I have before and will again totally agree that credit, a lot of credit is due to Mongoose for taking an old idea that no one else wanted to use and with superb marketing make it a widely known brand. It takes very big balls to find the investment and spend it doing what they have so far. I'll admit they is no way I'd have spent that sort of money on their shapes and ideas so hats off.
I purely take exception at this marketing ignoring prior art. I also like to pour a little cold water on claims that ignore basic facts, the bat speed is quicker, yet the pick up will counter that due to the shape. I have found that the sweet spot to be smaller than any of my standard bats, I pushed this forward by making my own bats to the face size with various spine shapes and even though I could increase the size of the spot I could not match any of the standard bats. That is not to say that the design has no positives, it does. When you get a half volley the MMi3 is the best in the business, it really allows the maximum possible power to be applied. Also if you are able to open your arms and middle the ball with a full swing the power generated is very good, but not light years ahead of a standard shape. After an hour in the nets my 2.11 MMi3 made my 3lb match bat feel much lighter which showed me just how heavy the pick up is.
You have obviously done some research into bat innovation in order to publish your article so I would like to pick your brains on this;
What did you make of the shoulderless bats used in the 70's and 80's performance wise?
How would you rate the GN Scoop performance wise?
Does a stiffer handle generate more power?
Does the Mongoose MMi3 handle allow more flex even though the ears of the splice are set in the same position as a standard bat?
I have more but do not wish to flood you just yet.
-
I shall now skulk away and sit in my hole, now we have an proper engineer on the forum as opposed to an ex one!
-
Thanks for that Norb.... but please stay.
-
In light of your new role, you shall now be known as gollum, he who skulks in the shadows and sits in dark holes (pubs).
-
I hope you have not typed that whilst in the employ of the council......
-
Who? Me? of course not, im not working at all - im listening to test match special and drinking tea.....much to the annoyance of everyone around me.......uncultured lot in the office.
-
I'm staying but skulking... It will be good to get some other opinions especially as practical and theoretical stuff is often different. Also Tim says, nope tried that it didn't work, quite a lot :-)
-
Actually out of interest those that answered "no" what was the 1st spliceless bat?
-
I think those might be on the books......
-
Hi
Hi David
May be my mistake here then I thought you where going to email me after you asked me what my address was. My apologies regarding the "the those that do comment" I guess it was bit under hand and a spur of the moment thing.
Thanks
Andy
Andy, apology and comments much appreciated, and no offence taken, just needed to set the record straight. Emotions and passions make us do strange things, not least on-line.
David
-
How do you mean it's a dead zone? As in it's not used or as in there's no performance from it?
-
Not used and little performance
-
What did you make of the shoulderless bats used in the 70's and 80's performance wise?
How would you rate the GN Scoop performance wise?
Does a stiffer handle generate more power?
Does the Mongoose MMi3 handle allow more flex even though the ears of the splice are set in the same position as a standard bat?
Talisman
Finally found sometime to look at your questions.
What did you make of the shoulderless bats used in the 70's and 80's performance wise?
Only aware of the Newbery Excalibur and Slazenger WG from that period. Not played with them or looked at them in any detail. The original Woodworm is a timid copy of the shoulderless bat, and they all are playing the same game - redistribution of redundant mass to increase middle, and therefore batted ball speed, or retain performance but have a lighter bat, although the latter is likely to lower the Centre of Mass and make pick-up worse. As ever, it's a game of trade-offs for performance v balance. The fact that the Excalibur and WG had a limited shelf-life makes me think that the heavier pick-up was not that popular. Now though, with the trend for heavier bats and the T20s, shoulder-less merits may find more customers. That said, in my opinion, they don't look great, and as we all know aesthetics counts in the batsman's fickle psyche.
How would you rate the GN Scoop performance wise?
Batted ball speed off the middle will be worse than a standard profile. This has been proved in research but also a basic understanding of impact mechanics will tell you that the unit mass at point of contact is the key factor. If you have less mass in the middle because of the scoop, ergo less performance. However, pick-up should be lighter, and this may favour some batsmen - certainly worked for Brian Lara.
Does a stiffer handle generate more power?
Simple answer is yes. Momentum transfer is conserved because energy is not lost in deforming (bending) the handle. Also, a stiffer bat (very stiff handle) could raise the third vibration mode out of the excitation spectrum, and therefore reduce the induced vibration energy. However, research has shown that the stiffness required to achieve this is not feasible in cricket bats governed by Law 6, and would probably feel terrible and judged 'unplayable'. Anyhow, as you know, stiff handles are not to everyone's taste because of the 'harder' feel, and higher ball speed is not a guarantee of more runs.
Does the Mongoose MMi3 handle allow more flex even though the ears of the splice are set in the same position as a standard bat?
Without having one to hand, and not having tested, this answer is a personal view supported by the results of the research done for Mongoose by Anthony Bull at Imperial College. The answer should be no, the flex in the handle should be the same. Willow has higher flexural stiffness than cane. If the splice is dimensionally in the same position as a standard bat, then the handle will deform in the same place i.e. in the bottom third of the cane section. The Bull paper seems to support this.
David
-
Benefits of the scoop and off centre shots?
"Does a stiffer handle generate more power?" not sure many people will understand "the third vibration mode" ;-)
-
Benefits of the scoop and off centre shots?
"Does a stiffer handle generate more power?" not sure many people will understand "the third vibration mode" ;-)
The scoop concept was patented by GN and coined the term 'perimeter weighting'. The idea was to create a larger effective sweet spot to improve performance for off-centre shots. For the single large central scoop of the GN Super/100 (I think, check models), the removal of mass from centre to the edges also increased the polar moment of inertia (resistance to torsion) of the section, which means the bat would twist less in the hand from hits towards the edges. The single large scoop faded away in favour of smaller scoops, mostly taken off-centre, which retained an apex and thus big mass on the centre line. The inevitable compromise. There is no experimental research that I know of that tries to quantify the benefits. Some have created 3D models and played around with profiles to demonstrate differences through vibration energy analysis. Although there are limitations to the models due to assumptions on material characteristics, the basic intuitive benefits/drawbacks of scoops are shown in relation to the effect on stiffness. Interesting historical aside: Slazenger copied the GN scoop idea into their V8 in the mid-nineties, infringed GN's patent and had to make a settlement with royalties for them to continue selling it.
Apologies for using technical terms without some explanation. When a cricket bat is hit by a ball, there are natural vibration modes induced. Within the excitation spectrum of the bat there are three modes, typically 130Hz, 400Hz, and 650Hz. The excitation spectrum is related to the contact time of the impact, which is around 1millsecond, and this period equates to a frequency of 1000Hz (f=1/T). The location of the sweet spot can be considered the point where the induced vibration energy is minimised. Research has postulated that if you could raise the third mode (650Hz) above 1000Hz, by making the bat stiffer, then it may be moved outside the excitation spectrum of the ball/bat impact. That research (the Brooks paper covers it) though shows that such stiffness could not be achieved with wood. Hope that makes more sense now.
-
Very detailed repley there.....too many big words for my simple brain to digest and flashbacks to days of a hangover in a lecture of mechanics/mathematics and deformation points!
on a tangent is the stiff handle theory related to a carbon or steel shafted golf clubs...carbon bend more when swung at higher speed but steel are stiffer and gererate less bend?? So steel clubs should hit further than graphite/carbon shafted?
-
The scoop concept was patented by GN and coined the term 'perimeter weighting'. The idea was to create a larger effective sweet spot to improve performance for off-centre shots. For the single large central scoop of the GN Super/100 (I think, check models), the removal of mass from centre to the edges also increased the polar moment of inertia (resistance to torsion) of the section, which means the bat would twist less in the hand from hits towards the edges. The single large scoop faded away in favour of smaller scoops, mostly taken off-centre, which retained an apex and thus big mass on the centre line. The inevitable compromise. There is no experimental research that I know of that tries to quantify the benefits. Some have created 3D models and played around with profiles to demonstrate differences through vibration energy analysis. Although there are limitations to the models due to assumptions on material characteristics, the basic intuitive benefits/drawbacks of scoops are shown in relation to the effect on stiffness. Interesting historical aside: Slazenger copied the GN scoop idea into their V8 in the mid-nineties, infringed GN's patent and had to make a settlement with royalties for them to continue selling it.
I'm in general agreement as you probably guessed from the question about Off Centre shots...
When chatting to one of the old boys from GN they said another reason that they stopped doing the scoop was that they started to get lots of returns from bats spliting in the scooped area. They redesigned the scoop and hey presto the dyna-drive.
Ayrtek the article Frankspop is refering to is related to GRP in the handle and further assumptions based on composite materials
-
I love a detailed answer, Norb will explain it all to me over the coming weeks....
The shoulderless bats were in my experience an attempt to build the edge size up without adding extra weight, but also they were in the Clive Lloyd/Ian Botham era of 3lb+ bats being used by the Pro's and all the shapes from that era have died and are being reborn in the cycle of invention, Willostix have just released a copy with no nod to the originals.
The Scoop was created along with just about every legendary GN bat by John Newbery and I'm told despite the shape providing less mass in the hitting area than any other shape actually works, I've had one made to test this. I have a theory on bat shape which allow mass in the hitting area, give a larger sweetspot through perimeter weighting and a light weight and pick up. The shape does not infringe any MCC law but does require a little testing to assess lifespan!!!
One of the biggest faults in marketing of bat speed is that it is a measure of downwards motion, we don't stand with a "Goochie" stance typically so a overall measure of pick up and bat speed to the impact needs to become an industry standard to counter this silly claims. If we all wanted bat speed alone we would use 4lb+ bats, we don't, we want to be able to get the bat into the desired position to play the shot.
-
Love the historical stuff on bats around who, what, when and why. They provide valuable pieces of the bat making jigsaw through time - something I want to collate over the next few years.
The Dyna Drive was a lovely bat.
Intrigued by the teaser Talisman on 'your theory'...is it an even shorter blade than Mongoose?! or rather curvy? Can anyone else read between the lines and 'guess what it is yet'?
Surely bat speed is also related to forward motion as well as downward motion? I find it interesting that big powerful men such as Viv Richards, Flintoff, Peterson (among many) play with light bats (I heard around 2lb 6oz). They hit the ball hard from generating very high bat speed - which is not so easy with the heavy bats. To me, heavy bats make no sense unless you are happy limiting your shot repertoire, reaction time, and happy running between the wickets carrying more weight making you tired quicker. I acknowledge the fact though that at club level and below the heavy bat has its place.
-
The Scoop was created along with just about every legendary GN bat by John Newbery
I know this is tantamount to sacrilege but a guy named Barry wheeler invented the scoop
Generating more swing speed is fine if your aim is whack it out the park all the time! We are not playing baseball here, are we going to start bunting a ball on fast deliveries?
Also to generate that swing speed we are impacting reaction time. Will we start having to reduce the back lift to compensate! More volume in the hitting area yep, distributing the weight to create a bat that is really only useful for one thing then my opinion nope.
PS Talismans' design is a viable solution no clues from me though
PPS Is that a forum 2lb 6oz as that would mean in real life it is probably around 2lb 9oz [tongue in cheek so dont call me an imbecile please]
-
I'll check up on the scoop, think someone else registered the design but having seen the prototypes not sure if there was any desire to own the patent in those days apart from the company.
My theory, soon to be a reality, bat is a standard handle and blade combo.
As for the pro's using light bats, I can see why as the ball tends to be coming faster at you and their reactions need to be quicker. A player in my team has a 2.7 and has repeatedly hit sixes over cover with it and he is the smallest player in the team. The increase in bat speed will make up for any loss of mass to a certain point, but Pro's now tend to be using 2.7 to 2.10 on average. Sachin has dropped from 3lb+ to 2.13 for a finished bat excluding grip so the heavier weight has not held him back too much.
-
Ok a bit of searching on the Scoop uncovered this! http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152300.html
"Then, in 1974, the long-established bat-makers, Gray-Nicolls, cautiously introduced a bat which they probably feared would offend many traditionalists. The bat, which could be called by no other name than the Scoop, drew its inspiration from the heel-and-toe-weighted golf putter invented by a South African, Dr Arthur Garner. An Englishman named Barry Wheeler, who had some knowledge of physics and was also the agent for an American golf-ball manufacturer, concluded that the perimeter-weighting principle could be applied equally well to cricket bats."
I think Barry may have been the ideas man!!!!
John Newbery and another have the dyna drive patent under there name http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4186923.pdf
but I can't find the Scoop though :-( John Newbery is still the best bat maker to have ever lived in my opinion
Yep, something I forgot whilst I was ranting about baseball the swing speed of a lighter bat.
-
The original scoop patent number is GB1391120, and was filed in 1972. The inventors are Barry Wheeler and Arthur Garner, and its main claim was maximum thickness at the edges. Garner and John Newbery then filed another patent in 1977 where the claim is 'back of blade with depressions...and maximum thickness in the region of the sweet spot', which we all know makes more sense.