Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: sachin200 on December 10, 2016, 05:18:30 PM
-
Yesterday I saw another Pakistan made bat with ultra flexible handle in the nets. I sincerely believe that it is a very good innovation coming from Pakistani bat makers since late 2000s. I heard that a lot of professional batters are using it. Generally there is a thick (generally red or yellow colored) central rubber stripe providing that flex the handle.
I have played with such bat in the past and it cushions your hands from shocks that are the results of misshits. Basically, you get an illusion that you have middled everything. Watching carefully, latewly many Pakistani bat makers e.g. CA and MB are providing 4 or 5 rubber strips as against just three in the handles to increase flex. What are your view on this tactics? I know that some bat makers e.g. laver and wood have carbon inserts to make the handles stiffer (which is kind of against this).
I was reading a science article (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html)) and basically it says that the impact time of the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter whether it is rigid or flexible, so it it more for just the batsman's feel more than anything else!
Any comments views on this?
-
I can't see how a flexible handle can possibly help.
A stiffer handle will transfer the energy from your hands to the ball.
A flexible handle will absorb energy from the ball and your hands meaning you won't hit the ball as hard..
-
Wouldn't it feel wobbly? How does it help? Baseball bats are just solid and the ball goes for miles.
-
I have been led to believe flex handles led to less energy being lost on impact hence the better performance.
-
Wouldn't it feel wobbly? How does it help? Baseball bats are just solid and the ball goes for miles.
I think the ball goes far with the baseball bats because of their speeds not because of the stiffness. Because of lighter weight and lower air resistance, the baseball bats swing very fast. I guess if someone puts flex in baseball bats handle and similarly if the vibrations can't travel back and forth before the ball gets released from the bat surface upon impact, it won't really matter! In fact it would shield batters hands. I have heard Mark Waugh and Rober Pack talk about the flex or whip in the ha does being beneficial for cricket batting, but the reality is (according to the science) that it doesn't matter due to the very small impact time. It only boils down to - whether the batter likes less or more vibrations (less impact feel vs punchy feel) while batting.
-
I can't see how a flexible handle can possibly help.
A stiffer handle will transfer the energy from your hands to the ball.
A flexible handle will absorb energy from the ball and your hands meaning you won't hit the ball as hard..
But the science article that I have copied above says that there isn't enough time for it to absorb or transfer more energy if the bat is stiffer since the contact time is so little that the vibration wave doesn't have time to travel to the handle and back at all. It may be beneficial against the spin ballers if it affects at all!
-
B&S have played around with Handles for a long time both with the carbon fibre inserts to 3 rubbers each 5 mm thick .
Their Findings were the hitters of the cricket ball were by far the carbon fibre handle mould and the stroke players loved the whippy 5mm rubber handles one particular Pro would bend his handle to the exstent of almost breaking it he felt the more bend / whippy the better
-
It's been proven that the stiffer the handle the less energy is lost so more value for the shot think GN titanium etc.
-
This is a very complicated debate...in general, a stiffer handle means less energy lost, so theoretically more power back into the ball...
..BUT, does anyone here play tennis? Even if you don't, just google "tennis racket string tension" and you'll see that tennis players who want more power opt for LESS tension in the strings, and players who want control, opt for MORE tension in the strings.
Here is a great article to read that explains the Tennis analogy: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456)
A quote from the article: "Racket strings have more punch when they're strung loosely because the ball dwells on the string bed longer, creating a trampoline effect."
So clearly, there are a few nuances here that are hard to grasp.
-
I actually have used an Ihsan bat with a flex handle both in nets and middle practice. The ball was travelling miles! In the right hands, that bat would score a lot of runs. The benefit of a stiff(er) handle is that you have more control over shots. I can still hit fairly decently with a normal handle but a stiff handle gives me a lot more control over touch/controlled shots in the gap areas. Every ball was bouncing off like a rocket with the flex handle bat. I have only seen one or two though and this model bat was acquired atleast 3-4 years ago.
-
Badminton racquets advertise a flexible shaft to increase power from the whip. Dont know how that helps the debate but Badminton racquet producers agree with the poster.
Salix told me they had gone for a more flexible handle for 2016. For diferent reasons but still.
-
B&S have played around with Handles for a long time both with the carbon fibre inserts to 3 rubbers each 5 mm thick .
Their Findings were the hitters of the cricket ball were by far the carbon fibre handle mould and the stroke players loved the whippy 5mm rubber handles one particular Pro would bend his handle to the exstent of almost breaking it he felt the more bend / whippy the better
Hi @B&S UK,
Can you please share how deep are these inserts in the handles? Are they all the way till then end of the splice or just the upper half of the handle? Do such handles break easily? I am also seeing that lately CA has started putting 6 or 7 strips of rubber to create the same effect (instead of just one big central thick rubber insert like Ihsan bats).
-
Hi Sachin200 Upper half of the handle only I would like to get a few of those 7 rubber strip handles do you have a contact
-
Yesterday I saw another Pakistan made bat with ultra flexible handle in the nets. I sincerely believe that it is a very good innovation coming from Pakistani bat makers since late 2000s. I heard that a lot of professional batters are using it. Generally there is a thick (generally red or yellow colored) central rubber stripe providing that flex the handle.
I have played with such bat in the past and it cushions your hands from shocks that are the results of misshits. Basically, you get an illusion that you have middled everything. Watching carefully, latewly many Pakistani bat makers e.g. CA and MB are providing 4 or 5 rubber strips as against just three in the handles to increase flex. What are your view on this tactics? I know that some bat makers e.g. laver and wood have carbon inserts to make the handles stiffer (which is kind of against this).
I was reading a science article ([url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url] ([url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url])) and basically it says that the impact time of the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter whether it is rigid or flexible, so it it more for just the batsman's feel more than anything else!
Any comments views on this?
Does anyone have pictures of these ultra flexible handles? Unfortunately the bats that I observed them on aren't mine 😏
-
The GN Carbo bat has a piece of carbon fibre at the back of the handle at the top of the vee the bats stress point to stop the bat flexing on contact with the ball read somewhere you get forty percent more value for your shot than a a bat without this insert.
-
Wasn't that why they always say the bat is playing it's best just before the handle breaks?
-
Wasn't that why they always say the bat is playing it's best just before the handle breaks?
i fully agree with the quote above
-
This is a very complicated debate...in general, a stiffer handle means less energy lost, so theoretically more power back into the ball...
..BUT, does anyone here play tennis? Even if you don't, just google "tennis racket string tension" and you'll see that tennis players who want more power opt for LESS tension in the strings, and players who want control, opt for MORE tension in the strings.
Here is a great article to read that explains the Tennis analogy: [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456[/url] ([url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456[/url])
A quote from the article: "Racket strings have more punch when they're strung loosely because the ball dwells on the string bed longer, creating a trampoline effect."
So clearly, there are a few nuances here that are hard to grasp.
The article is incorrect. A tennis rkt is a completely different collision from a cricket bat. Stiffness in tennis rkts does increase power. But we are talking about stiffness of the frame not stiffness of the stringbed. Stringbed interaction with the ball is a completely different system.
We have gained a much clearer understanding of rkt ball interaction in the last 10-15 years. Previously many of the explanations for what was happening was based on anecdotal evidence alone. We now understand that differences in stringbed stiffness affect ball speed by no more than 1%. Frame stiffness can affect ball speed by up to 30% ish. A softer stringbed creates a higher ball trajectory which means more depth in the court. This creates the illusion of more power or ball speed.
I am one of the guys that gets interviewed when a journalist is going to write an article like this. In this case it is one of my colleagues stringing at the miami masters who had been interviewed. Unfortunately he has tried to dumb it down. The looser strings = more power approach is the dumbed down version. It's not correct.
-
The article is incorrect. A tennis rkt is a completely different collision from a cricket bat. Stiffness in tennis rkts does increase power. But we are talking about stiffness of the frame not stiffness of the stringbed. Stringbed interaction with the ball is a completely different system.
We have gained a much clearer understanding of rkt ball interaction in the last 10-15 years. Previously many of the explanations for what was happening was based on anecdotal evidence alone. We now understand that differences in stringbed stiffness affect ball speed by no more than 1%. Frame stiffness can affect ball speed by up to 30% ish. A softer stringbed creates a higher ball trajectory which means more depth in the court. This creates the illusion of more power or ball speed.
I am one of the guys that gets interviewed when a journalist is going to write an article like this. In this case it is one of my colleagues stringing at the miami masters who had been interviewed. Unfortunately he has tried to dumb it down. The looser strings = more power approach is the dumbed down version. It's not correct.
Hi @ogroupleader,
What is th verdict then? My theory is that the contact time between the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter but just having a flexible handle creates an illusion for the batter that he has middled it even though it may have been a miss hit. On the other hand the stiffer handles don't matter (other than feel good factor) since there is no time for the vibration wave to travel back and forth to the point of impact to have a trampoline effect or have more power due to more stiffness.
-
Hi @ogroupleader,
What is th verdict then? My theory is that the contact time between the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter but just having a flexible handle creates an illusion for the batter that he has middled it even though it may have been a miss hit. On the other hand the stiffer handles don't matter (other than feel good factor) since there is no time for the vibration wave to travel back and forth to the point of impact to have a trampoline effect or have more power due to more stiffness.
I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However, the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.
What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.
The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?
-
I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However, the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.
What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.
The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?
@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html)
-
@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?
[url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url] ([url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url])
This also explains why some of the pros have hit sixes even though they had only one hand on the bat at the time of contact! Does anyone remember a guy named 'Sir Viv Richards' lol!
-
@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?
[url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url] ([url]http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html[/url])
This guy has done a lot of work in the racquet industry. Most of his theories have been pretty good. I can only think of one that sounded like complete bs and was later shown to be wrong by subsequent research. So generally speaking he has a pretty good idea what is going on. If he says handle stiffness has no bearing on power it probably doesn't.
-
Ifs thats the case GN laver and a few others have got it wrong.
-
Ifs thats the case GN laver and a few others have got it wrong.
Well, we were saying that it doesn't give you extra power but if it (less vibrations) makes you feel better at the crease,..........then.......
I guess, if you are a batter who would prefer less vibrations, then go for more flex!
-
Or, as with all of academic work, the statement is true under certain circumstances with limitations and assumptions that the online article doesn't go in to which may or may not accurately relate to real world cricket bat dynamics... without knowing how this statement was derived it is a little hard to read to much in to it IMO.
Interesting thought. I think the article specifies results at 100kph deliveries. Average speed for a fast or a medium fast bowler is going to be higher than 100kph but for a spin bowler bowling at 75kph, the contact time between the bat and the ball is going to be slightly more (unless you are hitting it out of the ground). I don't know how that dynamics is going to behave.
-
I guess, if you are a batter who would prefer less vibrations, then go for more flex!
Isn't this just everyone? Does anyone enjoy a load of vibration ( easy now fellas!)
-
I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However, the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.
What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.
The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?
I agree with what you have said and that is the reason why I brought this one up on the forum!
-
Isn't this just everyone? Does anyone enjoy a load of vibration ( easy now fellas!)
I was just trying to be polite to the companies who have carbon inserts in their handles. I guess, it ultimately boils down to what you like to feel in hands. I have heard Laver and Wood saying that a former NZ all rounder liked punchy feel of the stiff handle bats, so I guess not everyone is same. But in reality, I think carbon inserts allowing larger hits is technically not true!
-
This is a very complicated debate...in general, a stiffer handle means less energy lost, so theoretically more power back into the ball...
..BUT, does anyone here play tennis? Even if you don't, just google "tennis racket string tension" and you'll see that tennis players who want more power opt for LESS tension in the strings, and players who want control, opt for MORE tension in the strings.
Here is a great article to read that explains the Tennis analogy: [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456[/url] ([url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456[/url])
A quote from the article: "Racket strings have more punch when they're strung loosely because the ball dwells on the string bed longer, creating a trampoline effect."
So clearly, there are a few nuances here that are hard to grasp.
Seriously, this is laughable.
You should try batting with a tennis racket facing a hard leather ball.
-
Although stiff handle makes sense from a transfer of energy point of view but here is Robert Pack standing on the bat to make the handle whippy. It could be that a flexible handle causes less vibrations and hence more transfer of energy to the ball?
At around 7:50 in the video below
https://youtu.be/P7LoEBEydm8?t=7m32s (https://youtu.be/P7LoEBEydm8?t=7m32s)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7LoEBEydm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7LoEBEydm8)
7:50 mark.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7LoEBEydm8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7LoEBEydm8)
7:50 mark.
Fixed the link in my post. Thanks.
-
I have a small theory of my own (no scientific research done on it). If I take a small towel or a handkerchief and hit it with a whip I generate more power, than if I hit normally at around same speed. To generate the whip we again need some power or some way (like whippy handle) to generate extra power. There may be many variables which could affect my above theory but that's just my way of looking at and simplifying the approach.
-
Do you hit a cricket ball like you use a whip? That would be an odd way to bat.
-
You mean you don't??? Get in the nets Buzz!
-
Although stiff handle makes sense from a transfer of energy point of view but here is Robert Pack standing on the bat to make the handle whippy. It could be that a flexible handle causes less vibrations and hence more transfer of energy to the ball?
At around 7:50 in the video below
https://youtu.be/P7LoEBEydm8?t=7m32s (https://youtu.be/P7LoEBEydm8?t=7m32s)
Although Rob Pack states the bat plays better with a little whip when the nserts are not tight in the handle he states the reason he stands on the handle or bends it in the vice iis to establish if the handle is going to break on impact with the ball
-
Do you hit a cricket ball like you use a whip? That would be an odd way to bat.
Dhoni surely does, & he send the ball a few distance for sure.
-
I think a lot of people equate lack of vibration in the handle to the ball pinging off better. An ultra-flexible handle reduces vibration even further, but whether the ball actually goes any further is up for debate.
-
I think a lot of people equate lack of vibration in the handle to the ball pinging off better. An ultra-flexible handle reduces vibration even further, but whether the ball actually goes any further is up for debate.
I think we have cleared that on this thread already that a flexible or stiffer handle doesn't send the ball any further due to very little contact time so they are irrelevant in sending the ball further. The only question is whether you like more vibrations (like to feel the ball on your bat) or less vibrations. Less vibrations create illusion of middling it even though it may be a miss hit.
-
I think we have cleared that on this thread already that a flexible or stiffer handle doesn't send the ball any further due to very little contact time so they are irrelevant in sending the ball further. The only question is whether you like more vibrations (like to feel the ball on your bat) or less vibrations. Less vibrations create illusion of middling it even though it may be a miss hit.
I don't think the first point has been cleared up at all.
-
I don't think the first point has been cleared up at all.
Well said buzz.
-
Thanks @DorsetDan that is a really good explanation.
-
Reasoning seems pretty sound to me Danno, I agree. Hard to comment in detail rather than principle on things like the contact time etc. without any data - although 0.001 seems short to me, would be interested to see some experimental evidence.
-
A "flexible" handle would have to store and return energy to add anything to a shot (think of the flex of golf/ badminton shafts) but I'm not convinced that the properties of the handle/ blade/ inserts mean a bat behaves this way as I'd be very surprised if after flexing the blade then springs back against the handle on contact in the desired way... certainly not if the contact time is as short as claimed. As someone else posted this would be contradictory.
The handkerchief whip analogy is way off because you'd have to accelerate the bat in to the ball and suddenly decelerate just before contact. "Whippy" players like McCullum ensure the bat is accelerating in to contact to get maximum bat velocity on impact.
The tennis analogy could possibly fit if you think of the blade-handle interface and stiffness provided by the profile as the "frame" and the willow properties as the "string bed". I'm not sure how well that fits in reality but overall , for me, my instinct is a flexible handle wastes energy as it is dissipating vibrations/ impact forces only.
Of course if something is ultra stiff then "performance" can decrease (no sniggering at the back). If you think of motorcycle chassis for example, a ultra stiff chassis is best in an ideal world but in the real world you need to build in flex to deal with road imperfections otherwise the handling becomes impossible. I think this is what the video refers to when saying "without a bow or rubber in the handle the bat wouldn't perform"
I also don't see how the article can start with describing vibration propagation and infer anything about the effect of grip tightness to shot outcome. Fire a ball at an upright bat with a hinge on the handle and it will not come back to you- the bat will pivot around the hinge and ball follow a more downward trajectory. This is a dynamics question, not a material properties question and the two are not the same thing.
I suspect the sentence you are hanging on to with this @sachin200 about vibration propogation has become mis translated while trying to dumb down the science.
At the end of the day the best bat is the ones you can score runs with. If someone is more comfortable with a floppy handle then the positive psychology it provides can outweigh the negative physics :)
makes a lot of sense.
-
Reasoning seems pretty sound to me Danno, I agree. Hard to comment in detail rather than principle on things like the contact time etc. without any data - although 0.001 seems short to me, would be interested to see some experimental evidence.
1 millisecond sounds about right. Dwell time for a tennis racquet is 3 to 5 milliseconds and you really feel the ball sitting on the strings.
-
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/handle-flex.html (http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/handle-flex.html)
Here's some research on Baseball bats
-
well easiest way to add some stiffness of an existing design to my non-engineering brain would be to rotate the handle 90 degrees...so the inserts are perpendicular to the shoulders instead of parallel,,,then shape the V into the cane handle and insert into the splice,,,which would create other issues like cane/rubber/cane/rubber/cane etc bonding to the willow in the splice instead cane and cane...worth the try on a old bat i guess... i would also think you would have a lot more broken handles...
-
...So... where do we all rush out to to try a super stiff handled bat? :) Laver or old GN? Did I also read Chase do/ did a carbon handle?
I have an idea I may get round to actually doing at some stage - remove the binding and replace it with a composite wrap round the handle. Should stiffen it up nicely!
-
My theory for what it's worth is that a flexi handle will make you feel like you middle more balls not necessarily hitting them harder where as stiffer handle you will feel off centre hits more but they will still travel. This just from experience with different bats, no scientific data I am afraid.
-
That would be both pretty easy to do and awesome :) I'd imagine a lot of the flex is in the blade-handle interface though???
I reckon the most flexy point is just above where the handle join finishes, so a couple of inches above the actual blade. Makes sense I think, and that's certainly where bat I've had with noticeably flexy handles have bent the most, anyway. Below that is pretty well supported by the bond with the splice. I'll have garage space available in a couple of months so it may happen - could be good results, could be left holding a handle after a few shots!
-
Does anyone know how the splice comes into place in all this? Is the flexibility of the handle almost irrelevant because unlike baseball, a cricket bat is two pieces (and so the handle joint actually moves ends up dissipating a lot of the force before it even reaches the handle)?
-
what an interesting debate. my 2p (with no scientific background whatsoever) flex in the handle wont matter a jot as the speed of the blade (and momentum thereof) would negate any energy transfer into the handle.
maybe playing defensively with a straight bat would drop the ball at your feet but an attacking shot would mean no effect...I stand to be corrected though, if some sporting university wants to blow their budget on a study.
-
what an interesting debate. my 2p (with no scientific background whatsoever) flex in the handle wont matter a jot as the speed of the blade (and momentum thereof) would negate any energy transfer into the handle.
maybe playing defensively with a straight bat would drop the ball at your feet but an attacking shot would mean no effect...I stand to be corrected though, if some sporting university wants to blow their budget on a study.
I agree...... against defensive shots or may be against spinners, a still handle may matter but against fast bowlers, the contact time is so small that it shouldn't matter!
-
Yes the carbon reinforcement is at the top of the splice at the back of the handle
-
In my opinion, Andre Russell (who is one of the biggest hitters around) uses extra flexible handle. This video was aired by spartan for different reason but watch it after 40 sec when he holds his bat and puts some pressure on it. It is clearly evident that his bat doesn't have stiff handle at all!
https://www.facebook.com/SpartanSportingGoods/videos/1396940083659043/ (https://www.facebook.com/SpartanSportingGoods/videos/1396940083659043/)
-
In my opinion, Andre Russell (who is one of the biggest hitters around) uses extra flexible handle. This video was aired by spartan for different reason but watch it after 40 sec when he holds his bat and puts some pressure on it. It is clearly evident that his bat doesn't have stiff handle at all!
https://www.facebook.com/SpartanSportingGoods/videos/1396940083659043/ (https://www.facebook.com/SpartanSportingGoods/videos/1396940083659043/)
Wow. You're right
-
WTF is he doing at 43 seconds?
That actually made me cringe when he did that :(
-
This may explain why Dre isn't scoring any runs at the moment...
That handle has snapped.
-
why was he whacking the BACK of one bat with the other bat?
-
No doubting that handle was flexible but that isn't to say someone can't be successful *in spite of* their equipment etc, not *because* of it. I think what @WalkingWicket37 highlighted too goes to show that not all pros know their onions
Or maybe people on here don't know quite as much as they think?
-
When your bat is at its peak, what is the flex in the handle like? Is it still stiff as it was when new?
-
Who was it that I seen standing on the handle to make it more flexible?
-
This thread has turned a little into @sachin200 and @skip1973 championing flexible handles and @DorsetDan and me preferring stuff ones (handles Fattus, handles)
@Blank Bats is the bat at its peak because bit is played in of the handle is loose?
As has been said already, a bat with a flex in the handle that feels better may not have as good performance as a bat that feels stiff....
But as has also been said you should use a bat that gives you confidence.
-
Or maybe people on here don't know quite as much as they think?
So if someone came into your shop, picked up two bats and started wacking the spine of one with the face of the other, what would you do?
-
How do rehandled bats feel, so a used and played in blade with a new handle. Be interested to hear feedback
-
In my opinion a bat with a "flexible" handle gives the impression of it feeling better.. not saying it is better but it gives the impression... and I wouldn't say "Ultra flexible"
-
How do rehandled bats feel, so a used and played in blade with a new handle. Be interested to hear feedback
Not as good.
Handles break when bat is at their peak and part of it is due to flex/loosening of the bat handle.
I think this discussion has gone around in circles. Here are my two cents:
- Some pros prefer flexible handles. My personal experience with flexible handles (atleast one :D ) is that it does make a difference and ball goes a long distance for a light bat. The problem I had was that I didn't feel I was getting true feedback from the handle for my shots which brings me to my second point...
- Some pros prefer stiff handles because they prefer true feedback of their shots.
-
When your bat is at its peak, what is the flex in the handle like? Is it still stiff as it was when new?
Well said @Blank Bats . Anyway, I am not trying to prove anyone wrong or right here. I am just putting up a scientific argument. I have seen people buying batting gloves with more impact protection or people using more grips since it improved the feel of the bat plus the balance of the bat. I myself once used a CA bat with flexible handle a few years ago and I loved it and then I came across that scientific article so started this thread. I thought people pay too little attention to the handles and no one goes beyond oval/semioval or round while describing them. If you think critically, it is probably the most important portion of the bat since you may hit different regions of the bat while playing different shots/surfaces whereas for each one of your shots the force has to be sent through the same handle also the instant feedback that a batter gets after playing is through the vibrations of the same handle! All in all, I think it matters a lot more than what we think!
Ultimately whatever feels nice and gives you confidence is the best bat for you!
-
In my opinion a bat with a "flexible" handle gives the impression of it feeling better.. not saying it is better but it gives the impression... and I wouldn't say "Ultra flexible"
I agree @Number4 my scientific acumen tells me that handle stiffness is irrelevant if the ball impact time is so little. So, go for what you like more. Ultra flexible handle is going to create illusion for you that you are middling more shots!
-
So if someone came into your shop, picked up two bats and started wacking the spine of one with the face of the other, what would you do?
We were talking handles weren't we?
-
One question I would ask about handle stiffness is with hockey sticks have changed from being 2 piece wooden sticks to carbon composite sticks.
What you lose in touch with wood you gain in massive power through the shot due to increased stiffness. Now no one uses a wooden stick.
Which I think is the point here.
-
Not as good.
Handles break when bat is at their peak and part of it is due to flex/loosening of the bat handle.
I think this discussion has gone around in circles. Here are my two cents:
- Some pros prefer flexible handles. My personal experience with flexible handles (atleast one :D ) is that it does make a difference and ball goes a long distance for a light bat. The problem I had was that I didn't feel I was getting true feedback from the handle for my shots which brings me to my second point...
- Some pros prefer stiff handles because they prefer true feedback of their shots.
My thoughts are most pro do not have a clue what makes a good handle or bat and do not care because there better than all of us..
Seriously we massively over think on the forum I like the theory and thought but Pro by and large of what I have come across do not really care as long as it feels ok in there hand and they like the pick up.
Odd one will get returned if they net with it and do not like it.
The players I have come across tend to pick and go..
-
We were talking handles weren't we?
I think we may have some crossed wires here. The below exchange is me pointing out he was hitting the spine of one bat with the face of another.
@DorsetDan then agreed with me that it possibly shows the pro's don't really know what they're looking for.
I then read your response as being "wacking the spine of one bat with the face of another is perfectly acceptable, I can't believe you don't know that trick"
WTF is he doing at 43 seconds?
That actually made me cringe when he did that :(
No doubting that handle was flexible but that isn't to say someone can't be successful *in spite of* their equipment etc, not *because* of it. I think what @WalkingWicket37 highlighted too goes to show that not all pros know their onions
Or maybe people on here don't know quite as much as they think?
-
One question I would ask about handle stiffness is with hockey sticks have changed from being 2 piece wooden sticks to carbon composite sticks.
What you lose in touch with wood you gain in massive power through the shot due to increased stiffness. Now no one uses a wooden stick.
Which I think is the point here.
Do we know how long is the contact time of the hockey ball and bat while taking a hockey shot? Also the ball has completely different rebound caharacteristics to a cricket ball.
-
Do we know how long is the contact time of the hockey ball and bat while taking a hockey shot? Also the ball has completely different rebound caharacteristics to a cricket ball.
Two very good questions.
Balls are plastic and harder than a cricket ball but the contact time I would guess is similar as you don't typically hit a hockey ball that is moving at 60 mph,+
Other than that I don't know the answer!
-
Do we know how long is the contact time of the hockey ball and bat while taking a hockey shot? Also the ball has completely different rebound caharacteristics to a cricket ball.
Did he actually just call it a hockey bat? :o
-
The difference with hockey is the need for the stick to perform so many tasks, you aren't creating a stick with all out hitting power due to the different strokes you can play (passing, arial passes, drags/flicks aswell as controlling the ball and minimising vibrations etc). The characteristics are very variable as is the "contact time" with each stroke.
-
Did he actually just call it a hockey bat? :o
Lol! I stand corrected - I mean hockey 'stick'.
-
Hockey bat is fine with me, also known as a wand.
People call cricket bats sticks all the time.
-
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=614481152629401&_rdr
Again, here is another video that many pros want flexible handles. I talked to a baseball sports research institute regarding bat handle stiffness etc and they agreed that it is irrelevant as there isn’t enough time for vibrations to travel entire length and back for the stiffness or the lack of it to affect the bat performance. Hence, again is more flex gives one a better feeling (if timing it well), it should be more preferred.
-
https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=614481152629401&_rdr
Again, here is another video that many pros want flexible handles. I talked to a baseball sports research institute regarding bat handle stiffness etc and they agreed that it is irrelevant as there isn’t enough time for vibrations to travel entire length and back for the stiffness or the lack of it to affect the bat performance. Hence, again is more flex gives one a better feeling (if timing it well), it should be more preferred.
Interesting.
Which Pakistani make and model did you see that had this flex handle thingy?
-
On this post I have seen comparison made between Tennis racquets, whip like things and many other thing.
I think It is just to do with the feel than the performance. Tennis racquets use lose string for power because it gives bit extra time for the ball regain its shape than tight strings.
Compare to whip or similar thing,they create sinusoidal which cricket bat cannot.