Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Bat Making => Topic started by: OllieWalker39 on August 14, 2019, 09:54:00 AM
-
Morning,
Been a while since I've posted / been on the forum, but true to form, back with a bat question...
What are the pros and cons of a concave back, and what are the pros and cons of a full profile?
I'm aware there is plenty of rumour regarding spreading of the middle vs. concentration of the middle, etc. etc. but interested in the actual science. I know concave will get a huge edge, but that is just smoke and mirrors really if you scoop out all of the bit you should play with...
Look forward to learning!
OW :D
-
Personally I think it is a question of that weight of bat you are using. I use bats around the 3lb mark so they come with big edges and a full profile at that weight. If you use a lighter bat and still want big edges then you need to lose weight from the back.
As a general view having used the old style bats with much thinner edges, the modern bat with big edges is much more forgiving in terms of being able to get power on shots that don't come out of the middle
-
Here's my personal experience with concaved and non concaved bats. I am a left handed batsman and my bottom hand is very dominant. I also prefer to drive the ball with a straight bat rather than go for flat batted shots. Now here's what i experienced when i used a bat with zero concaving and small edges, I found it difficult to control my shots and found that alot of times the bat would turn in my hands when i dont absolutely middle the ball. Offcourse this can be countered by having an oval handle instead of round. But i found that with a bat that had slight concaving, the bat wasnt turning in my hands as much even with a round handle. Hence i was able to have alot more control over placement of my shots. Offcourse this is purely my personal experience and not everyone may agree with this
-
I prefer to use and see no concaving, or very minimal.
Interesting -
https://www.cricketstoreonline.com/blog/chris-king-give-his-opinions-for-cricket-bats-/ (https://www.cricketstoreonline.com/blog/chris-king-give-his-opinions-for-cricket-bats-/)
-
Can't recall if I have used a full-shape bat , all bats I use have some concaving but (and there is always a "but") the concaving doesn't dip below the edge. So, the blade/cleft is shaved to have a high spine but then wood is removed but not below the edges.
If the weight is right, personally I am fine with either full or concaved profile.
-
So far guys it seems a full profile is best for someone who hits the middle 90-95% of the time. Of course, whilst I kid myself I can hit the middle all of the time I highly tight it... Hence why I'm thinking of an M&H Pro Elite MKII - god looking stick for not much money £275... Seems less than most customs now.
-
Interesting -
https://www.cricketstoreonline.com/blog/chris-king-give-his-opinions-for-cricket-bats-/ (https://www.cricketstoreonline.com/blog/chris-king-give-his-opinions-for-cricket-bats-/)
Oh dear, he's at it again... no doubt Chris King knows his batmaking, but he does not understand how arches work!
-
All else being equal, a domed/full bat will feel heavier than a concaved version (assuming same weight, profile etc). It’s a marginal difference but you can certainly notice it. Mild concaving seems to be optimum for me, but it’s very subjective.
-
I agree that they've come to a false conclusion in that video, saying that the curve (arches) adds rigidity, because the scoop performed well in a rotation test.
The laws of physics explain it far better, specifically Rotational inertia.
Take two bats of the same mass, one with huge edges and less mass in the centre (a scoop for example), and an older traditional bat with smaller edges and more mass in the spine.
The one with the mass on the edges has more rotational inertia, so with the same ball impact on the edge, it will resist spinning in the hands more than the bat with more mass in the centre. That's why the scoop performed the best in that test - it's a scientific fact.
Think of an ice skater starting a pirouette with their arms extended, and when they hold their arms close to their chest the exact same ammount of force now spins them at twice the RPM. I know it's not a perfect example of what goes on in a cricket bat, but it's a demonstration of how the exact same mass has differing rotational inertia when mass distribution changes and nothing else.
The science backs up Mfarank's experience, that a bat with a bigger edge and more concaving will rotate less in the hand IF you hit the ball on the edge, however the difference would be slight.
Of course, if that was totally desirable, we'd all be using flat planks.
The flipside of the question, is "does the lack of a high spine detract from the shots that come from the middle?". If the popularity of the scoop was any indication, the answer is probably no.
-
The science backs up Mfarank's experience, that a bat with a bigger edge and more concaving will rotate less in the hand IF you hit the ball on the edge, however the difference would be slight.
Of course, if that was totally desirable, we'd all be using flat planks.
The flipside of the question, is "does the lack of a high spine detract from the shots that come from the middle?". If the popularity of the scoop was any indication, the answer is probably no.
I think you're exactly right with this - the conclusions drawn in the video don't seem to make much sense logically.
Regarding "flat planks" - I suspect that that's where (at least historically) the rigidity argument comes into play. Certainly, by intuition a thin, flat plank would flex a lot upon hitting the ball, whereas a traditional bat with thin edges and a moderate spine (in a triangular, full profile) would flex much less.
Whether this argument still applies now, when even a flat plank would probably be 50mm thick, I'm not sure
-
Some interesting replies here! I did pop down to a local shop, and it really does seem manufacturer dependent, although most are producing concaved backs - be they large concaves or slight. I am very tempted (pictures if I do buy) by a Kook Ghost 4.0... £80 and yet has a beautiful grain and taps up well - bat seems large for feel, although will need to pop it on some scales. Slight concaved back, big edges, big spine, big lump of timber... I can't think of a reason it's such a low grade!
**Watch me buy it now and it just be a plank**
-
Too much concaving on the other hand is detrimental. It narrows down your sweetspot for the sake of adding some power to the edges. Thats not really where u want the power to come from. It comes with its own benefits like adding stability to the blade and getting lighter weights and better balance. If i were playing a t10 game and had biceps like Dwayne Johnson, i would take a lightweight heavily concaved bat with huge edges that i can swing like a baseball bat every ball
-
Understand that @Mfarank - I like to think I'm a decent player, so a good middle is worth having. Unfortunately my spare bat is also gone, so I'm needing to pick a stick up quickly! May have to pick an off the shelf stick this time :( :(
-
Understand that @Mfarank - I like to think I'm a decent player, so a good middle is worth having. Unfortunately my spare bat is also gone, so I'm needing to pick a stick up quickly! May have to pick an off the shelf stick this time :( :(
@OllieWalker39 what kind of batsman are you? Strokemaker or slogger? Bottom handed or top handed?
-
A bat with slight concaving and decent edges is a good compromise or as they say "best of both worlds" scenario. If you're looking for something off the shelf, you could look at bats like Kookaburra Ghost or Rampage, Gray Nics Shockwave or Supernova, GM Neon or Noir etc
-
I think you're exactly right with this - the conclusions drawn in the video don't seem to make much sense logically.
Regarding "flat planks" - I suspect that that's where (at least historically) the rigidity argument comes into play. Certainly, by intuition a thin, flat plank would flex a lot upon hitting the ball, whereas a traditional bat with thin edges and a moderate spine (in a triangular, full profile) would flex much less.
Whether this argument still applies now, when even a flat plank would probably be 50mm thick, I'm not sure
The flex in either of them will be pretty negligble, rotational inertia is far more significant here - Chompy's para explained it well.
To be honest nobody wants a bat with the life concaved out of it, and these days noone wants one with tiny edges either, so the comparison is slightly moot.
-
Opening Bat: Technically correct, but can play all around the wicket - best shots usually early on are an on-drive and noodling about, then get in a bit more and will expand to cuts and pulls with more expansive drives also. I find most off-the-shelf Ghosts to be a shade on the heavier side in all honesty! When playing well, I'll be fine with a concentrated middle, but we do play on some horrendous pitches which aren't conducive to stroke-play, so I will tee-off on those. No point prodding about if the pitch is going to get you at some point anyway!
GM handles aren't my favourite unfortunately, but if needs must I guess I could adapt to one. I find GN you pay a lot of money to get something that isn't always a great blade. I have looked at a Kahuna - seems to be a good compromise bat with a mid-middle to suit all round strokeplay. I can use a mid-middle even on lower bouncing pitches... sometimes being 5ft 9 has some huge advantages! :D
Looking on The Cricket Boutique and some of the TKs look incredible: I don't know how in a month of Sundays the G3 ones are rated as G3. Straight grain, minimal heartwood, and specs to weight seem to suggest they're not the heaviest of clefts before shaving! The G2 look barely different, perhaps the additional grain or so! (I had a Woodstuck before I finished that off this season, and that was very very good. I do believe Keeley and John worked together before going to form their own companies?)
-
Opening Bat: Technically correct, but can play all around the wicket - best shots usually early on are an on-drive and noodling about, then get in a bit more and will expand to cuts and pulls with more expansive drives also. I find most off-the-shelf Ghosts to be a shade on the heavier side in all honesty! When playing well, I'll be fine with a concentrated middle, but we do play on some horrendous pitches which aren't conducive to stroke-play, so I will tee-off on those. No point prodding about if the pitch is going to get you at some point anyway!
GM handles aren't my favourite unfortunately, but if needs must I guess I could adapt to one. I find GN you pay a lot of money to get something that isn't always a great blade. I have looked at a Kahuna - seems to be a good compromise bat with a mid-middle to suit all round strokeplay. I can use a mid-middle even on lower bouncing pitches... sometimes being 5ft 9 has some huge advantages! :D
Looking on The Cricket Boutique and some of the TKs look incredible: I don't know how in a month of Sundays the G3 ones are rated as G3. Straight grain, minimal heartwood, and specs to weight seem to suggest they're not the heaviest of clefts before shaving! The G2 look barely different, perhaps the additional grain or so! (I had a Woodstuck before I finished that off this season, and that was very very good. I do believe Keeley and John worked together before going to form their own companies?)
If you're into Keeley bats, check out Blank Bats as well. Their B4 shape is a favorite!
-
little bit of concaving will definately improve the pickup and balance.
-
If you're into Keeley bats, check out Blank Bats as well. Their B4 shape is a favorite!
I've just had a nightmare: 0, caught... trying to go over the top. Normal shot for me, even early on, and it just did not feel good off the bat... so definitely time for a replacement!
Looked at the B4 - shape looks lovely. Looks quite the all rounder. The big question: where are they based? Ideally I'm wanting to see what I'm getting, and even have a feel - whilst not as common in the custom / boutique brands, you can get "G1" bats that are dogs, and "G3" bats that are just guns. [I am expecting another one miles and miles down south (like Keeley)] (I'm a Harrogate man, so Northern as it gets really... :o)
Most certainly not bothered by brand name, although I am keen to avoid those off the shelf really: I feel these days the major brands care not what they sticker up, and just churn out sticks galore without the care and attention afforded by the smaller guys (in terms of market share) such as Keeley, Woodstock, etc.
@alee Agreed. I'm just wondering if there was an advantage to a more pronounced concave (from a physics perspective). But seemingly it is more aimed at spreading the sweetspot a bit, albeit a the cost of the actual middle. Food for thought!
-
I've just had a nightmare: 0, caught... trying to go over the top. Normal shot for me, even early on, and it just did not feel good off the bat... so definitely time for a replacement!
Looked at the B4 - shape looks lovely. Looks quite the all rounder. The big question: where are they based? Ideally I'm wanting to see what I'm getting, and even have a feel - whilst not as common in the custom / boutique brands, you can get "G1" bats that are dogs, and "G3" bats that are just guns. [I am expecting another one miles and miles down south (like Keeley)] (I'm a Harrogate man, so Northern as it gets really... :o)
Most certainly not bothered by brand name, although I am keen to avoid those off the shelf really: I feel these days the major brands care not what they sticker up, and just churn out sticks galore without the care and attention afforded by the smaller guys (in terms of market share) such as Keeley, Woodstock, etc.
@alee Agreed. I'm just wondering if there was an advantage to a more pronounced concave (from a physics perspective). But seemingly it is more aimed at spreading the sweetspot a bit, albeit a the cost of the actual middle. Food for thought!
BBs are TK made and are based in sussex i believe (not sure). You can have a look at their website and get in touch with Tai. He will hook you up with a gun. Alternatively you can visit Itsjustcricket in london and they will have a few handpicked ones in stock (albeit priced higher)
-
@OllieWalker39 up on Harrogate your best bet is Kippax, I've had 2 and they were guns 1 was made for Mark stoneman and the other just an off the shelf. I'd go and have a visit tbh
-
@LEACHY48 - I've had a Kippax and they are fantastic bats - Chris makes some real belters. I just hate the wavex handle! Couldn't get on with using it. So sold it on to a lad at the club who's scored a few 50s and the odd 100 with it... :(
@Mfarank Looking online IJC don't seem to have any in stock (1 T20 XL style, but £399.99 is a bit over what I'm wanting to pay, and the amount I use the toe after yorking myself...)! I get free or reduced rate (operator dependent) train travel, so if he's near a station...!
Aside from this, and hijacking the knowledge in this thread somewhat: who makes Bear Cricket bats?
-
Bear are Kippax made.
-
Bear are Kippax made.
I should have worked that out considering location and the fact the wood is sourced from a "Private Forest"... Silly me! :D
-
Speak to Tai directly from Blank bats. His number is there on the BB website