Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: Buzz on December 28, 2019, 05:22:11 PM
-
Here are a range of my bats.
The only size difference in the bats are where they are heavier (the Genus is the heaviest, the red County the lightest which is 25+ years old).
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw1YBX4p/IMG-20191228-171315.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/fVbKdPB4)
(https://i.postimg.cc/tgDvg32Q/IMG-20191228-171317.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CZBsPf3m)
(https://i.postimg.cc/C11PnRQZ/IMG-20191228-171350.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/McCbhpxx)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6ZWVZ6L/IMG-20191228-171355.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4mswfycx)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1LHYbhK/IMG-20191228-171357-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/zV77VNwS)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMjns4gJ/IMG-20191228-171405.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DSYcPcMS)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbRV0JNj/IMG-20191228-171408.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/SY7rLFB4)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfL8SJy3/IMG-20191228-171456.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Z0rVzpCQ)
-
I have never been clear what benefit there is to having a lower density and therefore bigger volume bat over a bat of the same weight of a higher density and therefore a smaller volume. I can appreciate that there may be an optimum density at which willow performs at its maximum rebound qualities but I can't see what benefit there is to a low density bat per se.
-
The only one I can perceive - and I have no science, only a couple of minutes thought - to support this is in its stability through the air.
-
Here are a range of my bats.
The only size difference in the bats are where they are heavier (the Genus is the heaviest, the red County the lightest which is 25+ years old).
What are the weights of these bats?
-
I have never been clear what benefit there is to having a lower density and therefore bigger volume bat over a bat of the same weight of a higher density and therefore a smaller volume. I can appreciate that there may be an optimum density at which willow performs at its maximum rebound qualities but I can't see what benefit there is to a low density bat per se.
Probably a lot easier to sell many more bats when low density as they seem to damage more easily so better for manufacturers, bit like a Dyson - if it lasts 20 years you don't make many sales and don't last as long, or you have to just keep getting new customers (well with CBF maybe i am totally wrong on this ;) as we change bats as often as our ......) !
-
It is a myth.
Same as ‘there is one bat out there that will make me a great player’’. That said, I’m still searching for ‘that’ bat.
-
What are the weights of these bats?
The lightest is 2-8 the heaviest 2-11.
3oz is a lot of timber.
-
I've been speaking to an expert on the science of baseball bats recently. They seem to have done a lot more study about the science of baseball than cricket. He was really surprised that low density/big size was considered important for cricket bats and didn't have a ready explanation. If anyone's interested, the state of the art is a book called 'the science of baseball' by A. Terry Bahill. It goes through all the science of how ball/bat collisions work and gives equations for speed of ball on terms of bat weight, ball weight, coefficient of restitution (='pinginess') and the effect of spin on the ball at collision time. All of the results should apply pretty much unaltered for cricket bats, with suitable changes of weight /dimensions etc.
One thing that is neglected in the book is the effect of bat surface friction, and it occurred to me that this could be a significant factor when using a scuff sheet or not, as some scuff sheets are quite smooth and slippery to the ball.
-
The lightest is 2-8 the heaviest 2-11.
3oz is a lot of timber.
I once asked a bat "designer" about rebound/performance of a low-density bat and didn't get a definitive answer. A theory was floated on CBF about a larger surface area of low-density bats enabling a better rebound. I have tried some nice low-den-big-volume bats and they felt really nice in nets but in games, big hitters use 2-10+ bats. I don't know whether low-den-light-weight-big-volume bats are as effective as 2-10+ bats but on crappy grounds with slow outfield and high grass, where ball doesn't roll for poop, light weight bats are pretty useless.
-
I've been speaking to an expert on the science of baseball bats recently. They seem to have done a lot more study about the science of baseball than cricket. He was really surprised that low density/big size was considered important for cricket bats and didn't have a ready explanation. If anyone's interested, the state of the art is a book called 'the science of baseball' by A. Terry Bahill. It goes through all the science of how ball/bat collisions work and gives equations for speed of ball on terms of bat weight, ball weight, coefficient of restitution (='pinginess') and the effect of spin on the ball at collision time. All of the results should apply pretty much unaltered for cricket bats, with suitable changes of weight /dimensions etc.
One thing that is neglected in the book is the effect of bat surface friction, and it occurred to me that this could be a significant factor when using a scuff sheet or not, as some scuff sheets are quite smooth and slippery to the ball.
I dont think the F=ma kind of equations can accurately/fully apply to cricket bats (unlike in baseball) since there is the "response" specific to the bat based on the "pressing" that is not accounted for in any of the equations. Two cricket bats with same weight and thickness but different pressing will rebound the ball differently. This is not accounted by any of known physics equations I think .That is also what makes the cricket bats so mysterious and make people want to buy more and more in search of that elusive perfect bat :).
Maybe we should research to come up with an accurate equation to apply to cricket bats. I am guessing it will have some coefficient like TK/SK or SS anonymous batmaker coefficient etc to account for the response introduced into the bat by the pressing of the corresponding batmaker, some way to account for handle materials/flex etc. etc.
-
I dont think the F=ma kind of equations can accurately/fully apply to cricket bats (unlike in baseball) since there is the "response" specific to the bat based on the "pressing" that is not accounted for in any of the equations. Two cricket bats with same weight and thickness but different pressing will rebound the ball differently. This is not accounted by any of known physics equations I think .That is also what makes the cricket bats so mysterious and make people want to buy more and more in search of that elusive perfect bat :).
Maybe we should research to come up with an accurate equation to apply to cricket bats. I am guessing it will have some coefficient like TK/SK or SS anonymous batmaker coefficient etc to account for the response introduced into the bat by the pressing of the corresponding batmaker, some way to account for handle materials/flex etc. etc.
Plus the extra unknown of hitting the 'ball in the middle'. Miss the middle by 1 inch with a baseball bat and it's a flyball - miss by 1 inch in a cricket bat and the ball still goes for six. The F=ma equations are are a perfect base to add the other factors you mention, it could be measured and done with testing equipment, but it all gets complex and irrelevant as soon as a human starts swinging the bat.
There may be something about lower density bats though. I have a 12mm thick foam mat in my workshop, and if I drop a cricket ball on that it bounces much higher than one dropped on the floor alone. The extra rebound comes from small air bubbles in the foam that compress on impact and expand on rebound - that's why you see foam sheets on the front of 'catch bats'. Lower density willow would also have more air trapped inside it, and may have more rebound?? Maybe not - just a thought.
-
Great topic for sure
Personally think as far as rebound, that’s a lot down to pressing and that includes knocking in etc.
Another thing is the natural variation in timber clefts, even from the same tree etc
Furthest I’ve ever hit a ball consistently is with my old gn 5star, it’s still by far the most responsive bat I’ve used
I think the spine is about 45mm and the edges are 20mm at the most, when new it weighed 2.11 ish
Took me a long time to get used to it as I kept being caught at mid on/off with a gentle push
-
I've said it before, but f=ma is not the right equation.
As far as the maths is concerned baseball collisions and cricket collisions are essentially the same, just some variables change.
A thicker bat will perform slightly better than a similar thinner bat. This is because a thicker bat will be stiffer in bending and so less energy will be lost through deformation than with a thinner bat. The difference in performance will not be large.
-
I've said it before, but f=ma is not the right equation.
As far as the maths is concerned baseball collisions and cricket collisions are essentially the same, just some variables change.
A thicker bat will perform slightly better than a similar thinner bat. This is because a thicker bat will be stiffer in bending and so less energy will be lost through deformation than with a thinner bat. The difference in performance will not be large.
Would a lower density bat not flex more than a higher density bat though?
It does surprise me that, with the money now flowing into cricket, there hasn't been a significant level of research into achieving the maximum performance from bats. When you look at sports like motor racing and cycling that are constantly testing to make small advancements, there is something or a luddite approach to making cricket bats
-
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the coefficient of restitution (newtons laws) and there will be variability in the wood changing this (think of why golf clubs are now metal to reduce the variability and increase the trampoline effects. How much density changes this I do not know, but will certainly have an effect.
I think it is worth considering it close to a golf club where the forces generated are also partly due to speed (so heavier clubs vs lighter clubs changes the ability to deliver speed of impact and in turn the forces generated) so lighter bats generate more speed, heavier bats need less speed to generate the same force. Adding a better rebound effect will in effect make the efficiency much higher as less energy is lost but not sure on what proportion that would account for compared with the effects of weight and speed.
-
Two bats of similar weight
One is concaved and the other isn’t..
Both middles from low to High go give or take equally well.. however, the ‘low density’ bat enables me to have off middled shots still go miles.. the other bat however, if you don’t Middle it just clanks and doesn’t go.
No science involved.. quite simply the bigger bats allow for more error in ball striking. In the modern game of white ball that’s immensely important as slogging means you won’t Middle everything
-
^ So, basically more volume for same weight will perform better?
-
^ So, basically more volume for same weight will perform better?
Perform the same only with more wood off centre you essentially get more ‘value’ for hitting. I actually think smaller middles would make the game more interesting as it would highlight it more if youndont Middle it.. more wickets etc
-
Two bats of similar weight
One is concaved and the other isn’t..
Both middles from low to High go give or take equally well.. however, the ‘low density’ bat enables me to have off middled shots still go miles.. the other bat however, if you don’t Middle it just clanks and doesn’t go.
No science involved.. quite simply the bigger bats allow for more error in ball striking. In the modern game of white ball that’s immensely important as slogging means you won’t Middle everything
That reasoning only works if you are assuming that the two bats are made to different profiles with the low density bat distributing more weight to the edges and the high density bat distributing more weight to the centre. The question is whether a low density bat of the same profile would perform better
-
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the coefficient of restitution (newtons laws) and there will be variability in the wood changing this (think of why golf clubs are now metal to reduce the variability and increase the trampoline effects. How much density changes this I do not know, but will certainly have an effect.
I think it is worth considering it close to a golf club where the forces generated are also partly due to speed (so heavier clubs vs lighter clubs changes the ability to deliver speed of impact and in turn the forces generated) so lighter bats generate more speed, heavier bats need less speed to generate the same force. Adding a better rebound effect will in effect make the efficiency much higher as less energy is lost but not sure on what proportion that would account for compared with the effects of weight and speed.
This the interesting question to me: whether a heavier bat but slower bat swing or a lighter bat and faster swing generates more power
-
I dont think the F=ma kind of equations can accurately/fully apply to cricket bats (unlike in baseball) since there is the "response" specific to the bat based on the "pressing" that is not accounted for in any of the equations. Two cricket bats with same weight and thickness but different pressing will rebound the ball differently. This is not accounted by any of known physics equations I think .That is also what makes the cricket bats so mysterious and make people want to buy more and more in search of that elusive perfect bat :).
Maybe we should research to come up with an accurate equation to apply to cricket bats. I am guessing it will have some coefficient like TK/SK or SS anonymous batmaker coefficient etc to account for the response introduced into the bat by the pressing of the corresponding batmaker, some way to account for handle materials/flex etc. etc.
F=MA will always be the right equation to apply except at speeds close to the speed of light (only applies when Sir Ben is batting 😂😂) . Problem is, it's really complicated to apply it correctly to a system as complex as this. More importantly, total momentum = mv is conserved in a bat ball collision, and this can be used to make equations.
The physics equations do account for the pressing and response at different hitting points through the Coefficient of Restitution (CoR). The CoR is exactly the 'pinginess' of the materials, on a scale from 0 (ultimate dead plank! ) to 1 (most pingy). At the moment though I think this has to be measured by firing balls at different striking positions and measuring speed after the collision. Maybe materials scientists could suggest a formula for this based on density, pressing, age, etc. but I doubt it would be accurate.
-
That reasoning only works if you are assuming that the two bats are made to different profiles with the low density bat distributing more weight to the edges and the high density bat distributing more weight to the centre. The question is whether a low density bat of the same profile would perform better
It would never be the same as they would weight different weights
-
F=MA will always be the right equation to apply except at speeds close to the speed of light (only applies when Sir Ben is batting 😂😂) . Problem is, it's really complicated to apply it correctly to a system as complex as this. More importantly, total momentum = mv is conserved in a bat ball collision, and this can be used to make equations.
The physics equations do account for the pressing and response at different hitting points through the Coefficient of Restitution (CoR). The CoR is exactly the 'pinginess' of the materials, on a scale from 0 (ultimate dead plank! ) to 1 (most pingy). At the moment though I think this has to be measured by firing balls at different striking positions and measuring speed after the collision. Maybe materials scientists could suggest a formula for this based on density, pressing, age, etc. but I doubt it would be accurate.
If it was solely F=MA then a chunk of memory foam mattress vs a chunk of elastic would perform the same as you say, you are right with the fact that a standard measure of "ping" would make a lot of sense but is equally harder to control so therefore harder to sell as everyone would want the most "pingy" number displayed although equally it could stop "standard" pressing by volume driven companies. I do suspect though that we could end up with very pingy grade 4's and lower pinging 1's if we were not careful! Not all momentum is conserved (hence why hotspot works) but most is as you say.
Let's be honest - there are so many variables to take into account it is ultimately just personal choice (sweetspot size, location of strike, pinginess, pickup, weight, and also then looks and confidence ;) ) Never a perfect answer for this question!
-
Yes, totally agree that it is personal choice and very complex in the end. There won't be a formula that solves the whole problem.
But, don't agree about momentum. Total momentum is always conserved in a collision. Energy is also conserved, but some of it is used up in collision sound, bending /vibrating of the bat/deforming the ball, etc.
-
It would never be the same as they would weight different weights
The question is whether there is an advantage in having a lower density bat with a larger volume or a higher density bat of lower volume if each weighed the same. Obviously if you had to bats of the same volume then the higher density bat would have to weigh more
-
Interesting read.
-
Yes, totally agree that it is personal choice and very complex in the end. There won't be a formula that solves the whole problem.
But, don't agree about momentum. Total momentum is always conserved in a collision. Energy is also conserved, but some of it is used up in collision sound, bending /vibrating of the bat/deforming the ball, etc.
Momentum is only conserved in an isolated system from memory (so the effects of deforming of the ball, deforming the bat and the resistance etc are not included in an isolated system and assumes perfect elasticity). Those elements in effect all effect the outcome but i do agree it is more about energy loss as you say.
Density is only a benefit if it changes the trampoline effect (COR) as mass remains constant based on the question. So no effect of high vs low density in my (slightly scientific) view as all about mass.
With regards to the effect of swing speed vs mass I think there is limited difference with the numbers being quotes as around 1% benefit overall for heavier bats (heavier and slower swing speed), vs lighter and higher swing speed as you also have to swing your arms so effect of the extra weight is actually pretty negligible overall.
-
Momentum is only conserved in an isolated system from memory (so the effects of deforming of the ball, deforming the bat and the resistance etc are not included in an isolated system and assumes perfect elasticity). Those elements in effect all effect the outcome but i do agree it is more about energy loss as you say.
Density is only a benefit if it changes the trampoline effect (COR) as mass remains constant based on the question. So no effect of high vs low density in my (slightly scientific) view as all about mass.
With regards to the effect of swing speed vs mass I think there is limited difference with the numbers being quotes as around 1% benefit overall for heavier bats (heavier and slower swing speed), vs lighter and higher swing speed as you also have to swing your arms so effect of the extra weight is actually pretty negligible overall.
Also it may actually be moment of inertia that has even more effect than just mass alone as it is a rotating object in general for a bat, (i know swing weights are measured in golf but not in cricket) and they affect the ability to transfer the combination of weight and speed and are affected by the distribution of the weight rather than deadweight .
-
Yes, agree that rotational effects and mass distribution are important, and these can be included in the equations as well.
Momentum (both linear and rotational) can be considered conserved for the system that is the batter, bat and ball, since the earth's velocity hardly changes during the collision. And the approximation that is usually made is that the bat and ball forms a system for which momentum is conserved. It doesn't need an assumption about the collision being elastic as this is taken care of by energy loss and the CoR.
-
This the interesting question to me: whether a heavier bat but slower bat swing or a lighter bat and faster swing generates more power
If both bats are swung by the same Force for the same amount of time, they both end up with the exact same amount of potential energy.
The real question is how much of that potential energy is transferred into ball speed, and that will vary with every individual bat.
-
The recommendation for baseball bats is to go for fairly light weight with a low centre of mass. This would presumably correspond to a light weight cricket bat with a low middle. This enables you to swing it fast and leads to highest ball speed off the bat, according to the equations. If anyone is interested I will post the exact equations for ball speed in terms of the parameters of the bat...
-
Call me a science nerd, but I'm interested in the equations :)
-
First let’s define this “idea of big bats”. I think the idea is as follows:
1. Mishits go a little further
2. Hits right off the middle of the bat will travel the same distance as when a ball is middled from a “small bat” of same weight.
This is why when pros have moved to “bigger” bats they’ve stuck to their preferred weights (nobody has dropped down in weight, thinking the extra size will make up for reduction in weight).
So, no, it is not a myth. Mishits do go further, but “sweetspot ping” stays the same for the same weight.
-
I wouldn't mind trying one in a game - a behemoth of a bat weighing only 2-10/2-11. The ones I have weigh 2-12 and up so that's a non-starter.
I"d do it for science. If any one wants to get rid of their 2-10/2-11 monster because bat police won't let them use one in a game, I'd happily take it off your hands. :D
-
When I asked the original question, it was because I have been buying bats for 25 years and while the shapes have changed, the volume of wood on a 2-10 bat is basically the same.
Bats now have bigger edges, but are concaved rather than convex.
The likes of Barry Richards used a 2-3 or 2-4 bat. Of course they are going to be thinner.
But I don't believe the heavy bats Goochie and Botham used were, in terms of volume, any different to the bats today.
The point really is that bats are pressed better now.
Having said that, I don't believe there is any difference in performance from my first county bat to any bat I can get now.
I believe that the balls get hit further etc mainly because batsmen are much fitter and stronger, plus players practice better now and the boundaries are much smaller.
Moaning about bats is a red herring.
-
When I asked the original question, it was because I have been buying bats for 25 years and while the shapes have changed, the volume of wood on a 2-10 bat is basically the same.
Bats now have bigger edges, but are concaved rather than convex.
The likes of Barry Richards used a 2-3 or 2-4 bat. Of course they are going to be thinner.
But I don't believe the heavy bats Goochie and Botham used were, in terms of volume, any different to the bats today.
The point really is that bats are pressed better now.
Having said that, I don't believe there is any difference in performance from my first county bat to any bat I can get now.
I believe that the balls get hit further etc mainly because batsmen are much fitter and stronger, plus players practice better now and the boundaries are much smaller.
Moaning about bats is a red herring.
I agree
I think the stigma of not playing "proper" shots has evaporated too, When I first started playing in my teens I hoiked a six over cow corner and one of the senior men lambasted me in the changing room, saying it was slogging etc...
I'd say that has all but disappeared now and as such batsmen are evolving their "Slog" shots, couple that with fitness, better training and the more well pressed sticks, limited overs crickets, strike rate obsession and it's all culminated in what we have today.
-
To play devil's advocate, I think bats definitely are bigger in volume these days - kiln drying has definitely been a change from the old days. The difference isn't as big as many make out though because bats are also mostly heavier. Anecdotally, most clubbies seem to use around 2lb9 these days? Still light but 20+ years ago I'm sure it would have been lighter, maybe someone with more experience (ahem) could chime in.
-
I agree
I think the stigma of not playing "proper" shots has evaporated too, When I first started playing in my teens I hoiked a six over cow corner and one of the senior men lambasted me in the changing room, saying it was slogging etc...
I'd say that has all but disappeared now and as such batsmen are evolving their "Slog" shots, couple that with fitness, better training and the more well pressed sticks, limited overs crickets, strike rate obsession and it's all culminated in what we have today.
The stigma hasn’t evaporated at all. A slogger is still called a slogger.. the difference is the formats have all been moved to win lose so you need and produce more sloggers. There is no need anymore (or diminishing anyway) for traditional players as the game requires 250+ st least most games, if not 300+ now
-
Here's an example of my own - the first bat I picked out for myself when I was 15, and my current favourite. Both are close in weight (2lb11), and the old stick has perhaps a smidge more concaving. Loads of wood in both but the new one is definitely bigger.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C54ZC8b8/IMG-20191230-102416.jpg)
-
The stigma hasn’t evaporated at all. A slogger is still called a slogger.. the difference is the formats have all been moved to win lose so you need and produce more sloggers. There is no need anymore (or diminishing anyway) for traditional players as the game requires 250+ st least most games, if not 300+ now
It's changed at least a little, I've only ever played win/lose but still notice it even short term. 10 years ago I remember putting one over the top in the first over and getting a bollocking off the skipper, these days everyone loves it.
-
@edge does the older bat have a longer blade, are they the same width?
Even so, those bats allow for natural variations in willow moisture content.
-
@edge does the older bat have a longer blade, are they the same width?
Even so, those bats allow for natural variations in willow moisture content.
Longer blade but slightly narrower width, so about even on that regard. Do agree I can't account for natural variation with only two bats, but I think it's a good example - both are very big bats for their time but the size difference is still clear.
-
Lower density bats tend to perform considerably better compared to a higher density bat which has very similar grain structure, pressing and weight etc. The really low density ones have a very different feel to them as you almost never feel any jerk in the hands wherever the balls hits the blade.. No science to back it up, just my experience in the middle with a lot of different bats. You'd almost never see a professional(international) player's bat nowadays that's not low density.
Even international players' keeley bats are very low density having seen 3 or 4 in flesh - shop keeleys and the 'pro' keeleys that float around here from time to time are no match to actual international player keeley made bats in terms of size. GM player edition bats are also an example of how different a player bat is in terms of density compared to even their LE bats.
-
Call me a science nerd, but I'm interested in the equations :)
OK. Looks like you're the only other science nerd on here, but here goes : the answer is.....
42.
But seriously, The equation is :
v2a=v2b-(v2b-v1-w1d) (1+CoR)m1 I1/(m2 I1+m1 I1 +m2m1d^2)
Where all the variables are defined in https://photos.app.goo.gl/a6EkfBxtTEzvcSJK7
It allows for a rotating bat with moment of inertia I1, a ball with mass m2 and bat with mass m1.
It requires no F=MA, just conservation of momentum and energy (allowing some energy to be lost through the coefficient of restitution CoR)
It does seem to make intuitive sense. The main issue is perhaps that the whole thing depends on CoR (the 'pinginess'), and this is an unknown function of pressing, density, thickness, etc.
-
... For anyone seriously interested in this, I would recommend the Bahill book. It's not very carefully written, but seems correct and highly relevant to cricket as well as baseball
-
Not sure what the original point is? From the pictures posted, the specs on the bats look different, so they can't all have same spine, edge, toe, shoulder, blade and handle specs.
Anyway, for me the biggest change over the last few decades, has been the decrease in face camber and the availability of lighter adult sized bats. I put this down to drier timber and a fashion for larger headline specs.
-
We have all ignored the fact that in essence the increased demand of English willow has also required changes to the production techniques making the more dense willow (and more grainy slower growing willow) less available so ultimately willow/bat makers are of course going to try and get us to move to less dense willow that is more readily available. That i guess will also play a part in the changes we see.
-
Willow is a product of its environment. Not sure how you can 'manage' that in order to change the characteristics of the timber grown.
-
Willow is a product of its environment. Not sure how you can 'manage' that in order to change the characteristics of the timber grown.
Exactly why you can vary it, change planting location, nutrients present, amount of light, weather will all play a part just as much as farmers are better at managing crops to maximise yields. Trees are cut much sooner these days hence fewer/wider grains in general from what I understand from one of the willow makers I talked to about it a few months ago.
-
To a degree. But having lived around England's champagne region, the grape growers around here can try create ideal growing conditions but mother nature still has the final say. There have been a couple of years recently where my local grower would not process the grapes grown and instead sold them on, as they didn't want to tarnish their brand. Willow is not different being a natural product.