Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Equipment => Bats => Topic started by: jonny77 on August 30, 2022, 05:27:16 PM
-
As its pretty quiet on here at present, i thought I'd try to start a topic to hopefully get people engaged in discussion.
So, as the title suggests what are your thoughts on specs? Are they important? If so which ones? If so why? Are they a negative? Etc etc.
Interested as a batmaker to get people's thoughts, as it seems a lot of people now chase specs over anything else. So thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss....
-
After owning many bats new and old. For me I think it’s all in the pressing. Yes, if it has more volume then it helps but I do think bat speed is more important as well. All well and good if the bat maxes out the gauge but if you can’t swing it then it’s pointless. I’d rather something at 2’8 that’s pressed well so I can get some decent bat speed and time it.
-
Why does anyone need edges bigger than 37 mm , does it make the ball go further
How much more wood can you pack up higher to the bat and handle so make it pick up better with edges at 37mm as opposed to 40 mm ?
-
I like fuller bats but understand that some concaving is needed to get it down to lighter weights. Concaving got out of hand though around 2010.
Weight is important to me even with so many saying pick up is the most important thing.
-
Why does anyone need edges bigger than 37 mm , does it make the ball go further
How much more wood can you pack up higher to the bat and handle so make it pick up better with edges at 37mm as opposed to 40 mm ?
Think that's a good question. People seem to be under the impression it does, but I'm yet to hear or see anything which proves this. In fact, some research seems to suggest bigger bats don't equal bigger sweet spots or bigger hits.
-
For me it's all about quality of willow (doesn't necessarily mean grade) and the pressing.
Then add to that a well balanced bat, you should get a great pick up for it's weight.
-
I definitely think there's something to be said for a thick shoulder and toe for longevity. Big edges don't hurt but I'd rather see a nice full profile.
-
I definitely think there's something to be said for a thick shoulder and toe for longevity. Big edges don't hurt but I'd rather see a nice full profile.
Just to play devil's advocate, is a thick shoulder any use if the handles terrible? Or a 30mm toe any use if the willow is overly dry and therefore more prone to crack?
I see people measuring specs in various places and looking for certain measurements, but i often think is it futile without looking at the bigger picture. Just a thought.
-
As long as you don't have a ridiculously thin splice, toe or handle - they don't make a huge difference. That being said, if 2 bats come in at the same grade, weight, tapped up around the same - I'd go for the bigger one - purely psychological. (Assuming no storm damage or drying cracks etc)
In the end, a cricket bat is a tool which is made with a bunch of compromises and enhancements:
- Want a thicker handle? Better pick up/feel in stance, and more stiffness, but more dead weight and less feel when playing the ball
- Want a more imposing looking swell? Increased confidence, arguably increased power in the swell zone, but reduced toe and shoulders - meaning reduced durability
- Want a large swell, large shoulder and large toe? Sure, more dead weight, good durabi - oh, you want it 2.8 and busting the gauge? Narrowed, straw-like handle and overdried.
Things that really matter are quality of the materials used, the quality of the craftsmanship in the press, handling, shaping and balancing, and ultimately that you feel great with the bat in your hands at the crease. Size, like looks, is mostly vanity.
Sheesh, I went on a bit of a tangent - don't read below the line if you don't want to bore yourself to death... And yes, I am a little hypocritical in a way as I do have a fair few gauge busters - it's not an expectation of mine, but I am robbing some 2.6 users of their clefts...
==========================================================================================
Just my 2 cents after travelling around a bit and picking the brains of some batmakers:
A cricket bat can be split into the components which make it:
Handle
Binding
Glue
Cleft
For the handle, you'll have various factors like number of pieces, number and type inserts, etc etc. A stiffer handle will give you more power, but less feel, and a whippier handle will do the opposite to an extent. Key is to use a well made one which doesn't flex too much. And as a general rule of thumb, cork inserts = stiffer, rubber inserts = more flex/dampening. A high quality handle for me would be one with a bit of flex, but generally speaking solid, well glued together and well made with no gaps inside. (Appreciate it's near impossible to check for gaps inside a handle, but if the manufacturer is known to make good handles, you're generally in good hands.)
For the binding, something which you can wrap round the handle with a good amount of tension without snapping is pretty much what you need. Handles are glued together, so the binding will hold it together for longer. If you're the type to remove binding from your handles, make sure to at least wrap it tightly with some fibreglass tape or something!
For the glue, people used to use animal glue as it set super fast. From what I've read, it is susceptible to decay over time, but yet to hear someone say much about it with regards to it being an issue in cricket bats. With the number of older bats still around, with handles still intact, I'd say that it isn't an issue for bats. Wood glue is the most commonly used adhesive these days, and does the job.
Then for the cleft, many different batmakers say different things, but in general, what I've heard is:
- Bats with pressing cracks and storm damage tend to go like absolute clappers
- Grains don't really mean much
- Surface level blemishes don't do much - if anything, in the right spot can enhance a bat
- Low density means you can't quite get as much volume out of a cleft - it compresses a bit more, hence you will have a smaller cleft to work with overall. (Will still make a lighter bat for the volume) Low density also tends to break easier. (Less material/moisture in the blade)
- They need to be pressed, no matter what some people say about pros not getting bats pressed and purely prepped by knocking in.
Then you have the craftsmanship/knowledge applied. Here's where things get a bit funny, as every batmaker has a different experience with working with willow. I've had one maker tell me that the softer pressed bats went better after knocking, but didn't last, and hard pressed bats wouldn't get the ball off the square, but lasted a decade, and there was a happy medium in there. Others telling me that they would never press soft. Also had a maker tell me they concaved some bats in order to get a bit more whip/feel out of them, as they would feel too clunky otherwise.
In the end, any batmaker worth their salt should be able to press a bat well and should be using good quality materials. I guess it's up to the consumer to decide which batmaker's philosophy matches up to what they expect from a bat. I'm not gonna tell what people should or shouldn't expect, but don't be unrealistic - not every bat can be a gauge buster unless you want to use a heavier bat - in fact, the gauge has made things worse for some batmakers. If you look at bats pre-gauge, a concaved bat would have thick edges and a decent spine, and a convex would have a smaller edge and spine. Now some just expect the best of both worlds. Why are smaller and more custom batmakers expected to make bats that the bigger brands charge £600 for at half the price? And why do you deserve to get a cleft which would gain me a customer who uses 2.6 who would pay the same? (Again - I realise the hypocrisy)
-
This makes total sense
There’s little point having a 37 edge and more weight towards the handle whilst the handle is made of that soft white stuff inside
Just been looking at the Kent chap who’s 40 plus and his Keeley isn’t huge
Saying all this 99 percent of customers don’t seem to care .. this forum is made up of the 0.5 % or much less
-
Think that's a good question. People seem to be under the impression it does, but I'm yet to hear or see anything which proves this. In fact, some research seems to suggest bigger bats don't equal bigger sweet spots or bigger hits.
Some? Quite a lot I'd have thought?
-
As its pretty quiet on here at present, i thought I'd try to start a topic to hopefully get people engaged in discussion.
So, as the title suggests what are your thoughts on specs? Are they important? If so which ones? If so why? Are they a negative? Etc etc.
Interested as a batmaker to get people's thoughts, as it seems a lot of people now chase specs over anything else. So thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss....
You should have sought out Big Ginge while you were at the Test match. He has quite strong opinions on this.
-
* Basically he's thinks it's BS. ;)
-
Specs are only important if the batter feels it gives them more confidence as cricket is more a mental game than anything else.
In my view if your bat has 40mm edge, 30mm toe etc it won’t hit it further than a 25mm edge etc as that’s all down to how well it’s pressed and crafted.
Specs are purely to give people confidence.
-
All else being equal, a bigger bat will hit the ball further. That said, it's very unlikely you'll ever be choosing between two otherwise identical bats that are notably different in size, so it's a bit of a moot point anyway.
I think you can't blame people buying remotely too much for wanting to spec up their bat precisely, as it's their best way of trying to get what they want (or what they think they want). That said, someone who won't buy a bat because it's got 38mm edges not 40mm is being a bit daft.
-
All else being equal, a bigger bat will hit the ball further. That said, it's very unlikely you'll ever be choosing between two otherwise identical bats that are notably different in size, so it's a bit of a moot point anyway.
I think you can't blame people buying remotely too much for wanting to spec up their bat precisely, as it's their best way of trying to get what they want (or what they think they want). That said, someone who won't buy a bat because it's got 38mm edges not 40mm is being a bit daft.
A bigger bat than one which is smaller in volume but at the same weight. Or a bigger (as in heavier) bat?
I agree with your point on speccing a bat to some extent. But you get some ridiculous requests and it goes back to my point of will it really make a difference? People will specify 24mm toe, 40mm edge, 15mm shoulder, 67mm spine without any mention of pick up, profile, feel etc. Like just having these specs will give them an amazing bat.
I agree on the couple of mm. Kind of my thinking and the more this is normalised, for me the more we'll see narrowing, drying of willow, lightweight grips, lightweight/poor handles etc as people just chase specs. However, they often don't realise to get these specs some or all of the above come into play. Which as i mentioned, kind of makes the specs a little redundant to some extent imo. It's not everyone, but I do get a lot of it.
However, I'm guilty of feeding this to some extent i suppose. As I'll post pictures of bats with the gauge etc on socials. However, that's generally so i don't have to answer a raft of questions individually about edge size etc 😆
-
A bigger bat than one which is smaller in volume but at the same weight. Or a bigger (as in heavier) bat?
Bigger as in size - a deeper bat means more resistant to bending, ie stiffer = more energy into the ball.
I think people chase specs at least because they're not subjective, unlike pickup or even profile. Look at Aldred, who for a while effectively sold bats by pickup rather than scale weight - he had a fair few unhappy customers. Would they have been as unhappy if they'd got the scale weight they asked for but it picked up differently? Unlikely.
Anecdotally I think the trend of opinion with the average clubbie has moved away from wanting big light bats at all costs. In my view Kookaburra early 2010s drove the trend towards super concaved, very dry bats with tiny light handles and often narrow widths, which were very popular until everyone realised they were crap and broke a lot. These days when I chat to teammates/oppo everyone seems to just want a nice handle and a full profile, perhaps partly due to bat shapes converging to some extent.
-
A knocked in and seasoned bat makes all the difference, regardless of spec
-
Surely the thickness of edges matter. If it didnt, we would see atleast a few international cricketers using bats with small edges in test cricket atleast. Even the most traditional and orthodox of players use bats with big edges.
-
Surely the thickness of edges matter. If it didnt, we would see atleast a few international cricketers using bats with small edges in test cricket atleast. Even the most traditional and orthodox of players use bats with big edges.
Define big? Not all use 40mm edge bats tbh and in fairness, the bigger companies don't make small edge bats nowadays anyway, as they don't sell as well.
Also, players were hitting big sixes in the 60s and 70s with old style bats still. While also playing on probably worse decks, with bigger boundaries, after 8 pints the night before and with balls which weren't changed as often.
The game has changed, as have bats but I'm more inclined to think the players are stronger now and practice the short format stuff a lot more. So are more consistent in their hitting. I haven't seen much difference at league level tbh.
Would love to see a proper study undertaken on this to see some actual evidence one way or the other. I'd imagine it's almost impossible to quantify tho due to the amount of variables involved.
-
Surely the thickness of edges matter. If it didnt, we would see atleast a few international cricketers using bats with small edges in test cricket atleast. Even the most traditional and orthodox of players use bats with big edges.
I think it's more with how batmaking has changed over the last decade or 2, as well as batting in general. We've moved to flatter faces, more aggressive strokeplay, etc etc. Flatter faces with thinner edges don't really mix well, you'd get too much twist off-centre as there's not enough wood, while with a rounded face you wouldn't get as much twist as it was more deflective. We pack more wood in the hitting zone but reduce wood in the vulnerable areas and handles. Ends up creating more problems with splice/shoulder damage and edge damage. To top it off, we dry it out more. If you're a pro, and you get your bats for free, that's all fine. Not many batmakers will go out their way to make small edged bats as they don't really sell - people don't really like small edges.
Back when Vitas Cricket was around, they had this concaved to hell B&S in their net, as well as a beautiful Flare OLE which picked up like a feather. Both played in, and felt absolutely incredible in terms of response and usage. Both not high volume profiles, but well made bats and well run in.
I think Viv Richards, although admittedly a bit of a freak of a cricketer, shows that the size of edge doesn't really matter.
-
Define big? Not all use 40mm edge bats tbh and in fairness, the bigger companies don't make small edge bats nowadays anyway, as they don't sell as well.
Also, players were hitting big sixes in the 60s and 70s with old style bats still. While also playing on probably worse decks, with bigger boundaries, after 8 pints the night before and with balls which weren't changed as often.
The game has changed, as have bats but I'm more inclined to think the players are stronger now and practice the short format stuff a lot more. So are more consistent in their hitting. I haven't seen much difference at league level tbh.
Would love to see a proper study undertaken on this to see some actual evidence one way or the other. I'd imagine it's almost impossible to quantify tho due to the amount of variables involved.
I do agree regarding the bats of old being absolute belters despite being thin. I remember one match where the opposition had a guy who walked in with a bat that looked like a twig edgewise (in comparison to the bats today) and hit a couple of massive sixes. When I held the bat I realised that it was a 3 pounder! My point is, why do international players not use something like that today? Is it because the brands/companies need to advertise their goods and make the bigger bats to attract buyers? Why hasnt any main stream bat company not come up with the traditional design?
-
Hmmm purely a confidence and aesthetic thing for me.
Does my 42mm edge, 25mm toe and 20mm shoulder bat ping just as well as my 36mm edge, 21mm toe and 18mm shoulder bat? Yeah I think it does, or the difference in feel anyway is minimal either way. Do I always pick the bigger bat to walk out to the middle with? Yeah I do, it gives me a bit more in the mind and that's all I need.
I'm also a sucker for a nice even yet big shape. The GM Zona that came out years ago now makes me feel ill, along with what some people are doing now to get the big edge size, making them huge and just carving out from above the middle to the shoulder. A nice flowing line from shoulder to toe is my preference anyway. I wouldn't say I hunt specs, but I do hunt a "nice" (in my eyes) profile, as an example I got a small edged warner from B3 a while back (35mm edge, 70mm ish spine), initially bought on the wow factor of the specs but I actually didn't like the look of the profile so ended up shifting it on, in theory the higher middle would actually be my preference. lesson learned so last week when I was offered a 30mm shoulder, 35mm edge and big looking toe, but the spine was pretty much flat, again not my preference, so I passed. Would that have pleased the spec hunters or are they just very specific in what they want?
In your case Jonny, what's the option as a maker? I can imagine it is a bit frustrating as it's almost trying to teach people about wood properties during a sale? Or do you offer them alternatives? As in yes I can make your bat to those specs but a) it might take months for the right piece of wood to come through and educate or b) yeah I can do those but it'll have to weigh X or I can make it thinner etc?
I agree the gauge coming in has made things a bit harder, it's given people a max to aim for in what they want because in life (the max is the best...)
-
I do agree regarding the bats of old being absolute belters despite being thin. I remember one match where the opposition had a guy who walked in with a bat that looked like a twig edgewise (in comparison to the bats today) and hit a couple of massive sixes. When I held the bat I realised that it was a 3 pounder! My point is, why do international players not use something like that today? Is it because the brands/companies need to advertise their goods and make the bigger bats to attract buyers? Why hasnt any main stream bat company not come up with the traditional design?
Trends change and batmakers are businesses, who ultimately need to sell bats. Although it's been said most clubbies don't really care, give them a choice between a 15mm edge and 38mm edge bat and I'd guess 99 percent would go with the latter, as it's just what we're now used to.
-
Hmmm purely a confidence and aesthetic thing for me.
Does my 42mm edge, 25mm toe and 20mm shoulder bat ping just as well as my 36mm edge, 21mm toe and 18mm shoulder bat? Yeah I think it does, or the difference in feel anyway is minimal either way. Do I always pick the bigger bat to walk out to the middle with? Yeah I do, it gives me a bit more in the mind and that's all I need.
I'm also a sucker for a nice even yet big shape. The GM Zona that came out years ago now makes me feel ill, along with what some people are doing now to get the big edge size, making them huge and just carving out from above the middle to the shoulder. A nice flowing line from shoulder to toe is my preference anyway. I wouldn't say I hunt specs, but I do hunt a "nice" (in my eyes) profile, as an example I got a small edged warner from B3 a while back (35mm edge, 70mm ish spine), initially bought on the wow factor of the specs but I actually didn't like the look of the profile so ended up shifting it on, in theory the higher middle would actually be my preference. lesson learned so last week when I was offered a 30mm shoulder, 35mm edge and big looking toe, but the spine was pretty much flat, again not my preference, so I passed. Would that have pleased the spec hunters or are they just very specific in what they want?
In your case Jonny, what's the option as a maker? I can imagine it is a bit frustrating as it's almost trying to teach people about wood properties during a sale? Or do you offer them alternatives? As in yes I can make your bat to those specs but a) it might take months for the right piece of wood to come through and educate or b) yeah I can do those but it'll have to weigh X or I can make it thinner etc?
I agree the gauge coming in has made things a bit harder, it's given people a max to aim for in what they want because in life (the max is the best...)
I will always try and give the customer what they want, but they're is only so much light willow. I won't compromise how (in my opinion) a bat feels by just hitting specs and compromising the balance or potential longevity, by narrowing, using overly skinny, cheap handles etc.
If i don't have a cleft which will make the customers requirements, i tell them what they could achieve or that they'll have to wait for the right cleft. If someone comes in and says i want a gauge filler with no concaving at 2lbs 8oz, my first question is 'Why do you feel that's important?'. It's generally answered with 'cos the ball will go further'. In my humble opinion it's not the case, but I always try to accommodate requests where possible. If i can't, I'll discuss with them what the options are and if they can compromise. Whilst guaranteeing them a great bat at the ends of the process regardless. 5mm more on the edge ain't turning anyone into Joss Buttler! 😂
Sometimes, you just have to accept you can't provide what they want and let them keep searching though. Which is fine too. The gauge is seen by many as the standard, rather than the max.
-
Has anything changed since the gauge was introduced? Are less runs being scored?
-
Has anything changed since the gauge was introduced? Are less runs being scored?
Smaller batmakers are getting more headaches. 😂
I swear pre-gauge, the only bats that were really big were those novel ones like the Warner, the 50+, etc. Most of the others were legal, and if not, were normally heavier than most would use.
Depends how you look at stats I guess. Here's a random one plucked out
Number of 400+ scores in ODI
2014 - 2016 - 8
2018 - 2022 - 3
And yes, you had the pandemic where no cricket was played.
But you had the period of 2005 - 2008, where 6 400+ scores were recorded. Bats weren't crazy big back then from what I remember.
-
It is staggering how most people don’t seem to care about width. Big edges if the bat is narrow are meaningless. For any given weight (which should be the most important spec), I would prioritize width, then spine height, and then edges.
-
I don't see how two bats that weigh 2.8 and pressed exactly the same, just one a low density cleft and another a higher density so smaller edges would have any difference in performance. I feel weight is the key factor and bat speed in how far a ball goes.
-
A few interesting articles here -
https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1292892/have-sweet-spots-on-bats-really-got-bigger (https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1292892/have-sweet-spots-on-bats-really-got-bigger)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/05/cricket-bat-size-debate-russell-jackson (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/05/cricket-bat-size-debate-russell-jackson)
-
I don't see how two bats that weigh 2.8 and pressed exactly the same, just one a low density cleft and another a higher density so smaller edges would have any difference in performance. I feel weight is the key factor and bat speed in how far a ball goes.
They won’t in my opinion and based on experience of making bats albeit over a fairly short period of time. My bat has 28mm edges 2lb 9oz as I used a cleft that was damaged on the back so I had to make the edge smaller but a lad used it (top run scorer in our league for two weeks whilst his was repaired and still sent it as far as his 36mm bat)
Pros back in the days or Ponting, KP, Strauss and cook that used bats in the early 2000s didn’t have 40mm bats as that wasn’t the trend and hit as hard and as far as todays players.
I can’t find any real life experience to back up the belief if it’s bigger it will hit further
-
"Nowadays, bats are big but they are light. And what we're up against is the belief that a big bat is more powerful than a bat of the same weight that's smaller, which it isn't. That's against the laws of physics"
Chris King, bat-maker at Gray-Nicolls
-
Chris King, great batmaker that he is, is also on record saying that concaving in the back of a bat works like an arched bridge. Batmakers talking about 'physics' doesn't tend to give great results.
I don't see how two bats that weigh 2.8 and pressed exactly the same, just one a low density cleft and another a higher density so smaller edges would have any difference in performance. I feel weight is the key factor and bat speed in how far a ball goes.
Grab a ruler, lay it flat over the edge of a table and try and bend it. Pretty easy right? Now turn it on its' edge and try bend it - much harder. In the same way a bigger bat is stiffer and will therefore transfer energy into the ball better. The effect will be small enough to be secondary to all the other factors that make a bat perform well though, including the batsman.
-
The effect will be small enough to be secondary to all the other factors that make a bat perform well though, including the batsman.
That's the big one isn't it, specs discussion aside, you can have the best bat in the world and it still be useless in the right hands :D
Specs wise, I'm a firm believer that the pressing is the overwhelming factor in how good a bat ends up being. Performance wise, with a mallet, I'm consistently seeing very little change from the lowest grades up to the highest, and certainly not enough of a difference that it would make any noticeable impact for us amateurs on a Saturday. I've had 400/500 odd bats come through the unit this year and out of them the bat I chose for myself is a G3, and the bats a few of the Warwickshire boys have had their hands on have all been G2/G3.
Press it properly and the specs are largely irrelevant, especially at a club level.
-
Chris King, great batmaker that he is, is also on record saying that concaving in the back of a bat works like an arched bridge.
Maybe it does? If so, it would be because of the distribution of weight, not size.
-
It is staggering how most people don’t seem to care about width. Big edges if the bat is narrow are meaningless. For any given weight (which should be the most important spec), I would prioritize width, then spine height, and then edges.
Because from the average user they would never notice, whereas it's very noticeable with a difference in edge size.
-
It would be a big call for a CBFer to suggest the laws of physics don't exist! It could be that low density willow does ping better; but the reason why would still be physics.
-
As its pretty quiet on here at present, i thought I'd try to start a topic to hopefully get people engaged in discussion.
So, as the title suggests what are your thoughts on specs? Are they important? If so which ones? If so why? Are they a negative? Etc etc.
Interested as a batmaker to get people's thoughts, as it seems a lot of people now chase specs over anything else. So thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss....
You have to be more specific. What do you mean by "specs"? A 3 lb bat in the hands of a person who can barely swing around a 2-6 bat would be silly.
-
Sorry, thought it was pretty obvious. I meant when people talk specs as in shoulder size, edge size, spine height, toe size etc etc. A fairly modern trend, weights have always been around and discussed obviously
-
^ Ok.
As its pretty quiet on here at present, i thought I'd try to start a topic to hopefully get people engaged in discussion.
So, as the title suggests what are your thoughts on specs? Are they important? If so which ones? If so why? Are they a negative? Etc etc.
Interested as a batmaker to get people's thoughts, as it seems a lot of people now chase specs over anything else. So thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss....
They are important if they are pertinent to the batsman. If you played a lot on bouncy pitches and faced lots of short deliveries, thick edges might seems like a good idea. On slow tracks, where yorkers are the name of the game, thicker toe? It is part psychology and part suitability (of the "specs") to someone's style of play.
My go-to match bat fell into my lap by chance. It was not perfect but had a ton of ping from the get-go. I used tricks with multiple grips to make the handle fit my hands and gripping style. It turned out to have a very funny balance point that suits my style of batting. If @marsbug was to do a shape /node percussion analysis, it would come out similar to a Newbery Blitz even though the shapes are completely different. Prior to this , I experimented with shapes, sizes, and weights without really understanding what worked for me. This is something bat owners (especially young ones) don't understand: it is through trial-and-errror that you find what works for you. A novice bat buyer simply doesn't have the technical understanding nor experience that a bat maker has and most of the time, bat makers can't be bothered to impart their knowledge to an inquisitive and aggressive new customer.
"Specs" (swing weight, node of percussion, etc.) would matter if they were standardized and explained to the customers. There is no such effort from the manufacturers. People wouldn't buy more than one bat if they knew exactly what worked for them and how to get it. Obfuscation and ignorance keeps customers coming back to buy seconds and thirds hence keeps commerce alive.
Pros rely on skill, strength, and experience to pick a bat shape/style and stick with it; they don't care about "specs" because their bats are tailor made. I suspect bat makers know exactly what they are doing for their pro but don't bother sharing all the technical details. No fuss, no muss. If a pro started talking about how a bat with certain specs elevated his game and his status from zero to hero, I think we'd get the bat buyers behind "specs". Until then, that knowledge would stay firmly with master bat makers like Laver et-al. Poor clubbies really don't stand a chance in these situations but they also don't need a finely tuned race car like an F1 driver.
My suggestion: trial-and-error. Keep borrowing friends' and acquaintances' bats until you find a shape and weight that is absolutely magical for you. :D
My 2 cents. ;)
-
I've had 400/500 odd bats come through the unit this year and out of them the bat I chose for myself is a G3, and the bats a few of the Warwickshire boys have had their hands on have all been G2/G3.
Simply because of ping alone or other factors? How are you gauging the quality of "pressing" in a brand new bat? Also, in my experience bouncing a ball on a horizontal bat in a shed/shop/bedroom doesn't translate into nets/match/play ping or performance - your physiology or swing might alter the location (on bat face) where you hit the ball versus bouncing on horizontal bat face.
-
^ Ok.
They are important if they are pertinent to the batsman. If you played a lot on bouncy pitches and faced lots of short deliveries, thick edges might seems like a good idea. On slow tracks, where yorkers are the name of the game, thicker toe? It is part psychology and part suitability (of the "specs") to someone's style of play.
My go-to match bat fell into my lap by chance. It was not perfect but had a ton of ping from the get-go. I used tricks with multiple grips to make the handle fit my hands and gripping style. It turned out to have a very funny balance point that suits my style of batting. If @marsbug was to do a shape /node percussion analysis, it would come out similar to a Newbery Blitz even though the shapes are completely different. Prior to this , I experimented with shapes, sizes, and weights without really understanding what worked for me. This is something bat owners (especially young ones) don't understand: it is through trial-and-errror that you find what works for you. A novice bat buyer simply doesn't have the technical understanding nor experience that a bat maker has and most of the time, bat makers can't be bothered to impart their knowledge to an inquisitive and aggressive new customer.
"Specs" (swing weight, node of percussion, etc.) would matter if they were standardized and explained to the customers. There is no such effort from the manufacturers. People wouldn't buy more than one bat if they knew exactly what worked for them and how to get it. Obfuscation and ignorance keeps customers coming back to buy seconds and thirds hence keeps commerce alive.
Pros rely on skill, strength, and experience to pick a bat shape/style and stick with it; they don't care about "specs" because their bats are tailor made. I suspect bat makers know exactly what they are doing for their pro but don't bother sharing all the technical details. No fuss, no muss. If a pro started talking about how a bat with certain specs elevated his game and his status from zero to hero, I think we'd get the bat buyers behind "specs". Until then, that knowledge would stay firmly with master bat makers like Laver et-al. Poor clubbies really don't stand a chance in these situations but they also don't need a finely tuned race car like an F1 driver.
My suggestion: trial-and-error. Keep borrowing friends' and acquaintances' bats until you find a shape and weight that is absolutely magical for you. :D
My 2 cents. ;)
My initial post was more intended as 'does a 40mm edge matter over a 35mm edge etc'. This is what i think most people would think of when someone asks 'What are the specs', rather than node of percussion or weight.
I was trying to ascertain if people felt it was important in terms of performance, longevity etc and why we'd seemingly become obsessed with edge size, spine height etc. I get it may give confidence or a more aggressive mindset, but benefits in actual performance?
You mentioned a thick toe may help when digging out yorkers, but does it actually? Did Yorkers not exist back in the days before thick toes? Or did we just accept toes blowed out if you hit a Yorker? Similarly, did batters struggle on hard bouncy pitches before big edges?
-
Simply because of ping alone or other factors? How are you gauging the quality of "pressing" in a brand new bat? Also, in my experience bouncing a ball on a horizontal bat in a shed/shop/bedroom doesn't translate into nets/match/play ping or performance - your physiology or swing might alter the location (on bat face) where you hit the ball versus bouncing on horizontal bat face.
Probably simply because they were cricket bats that felt good in the hands.
-
My initial post was more intended as 'does a 40mm edge matter over a 35mm edge etc'. This is what i think most people would think of when someone asks 'What are the specs', rather than node of percussion or weight.
"What is the node of percussion?" :)
-
Err, just to add different slant on it for the thread sake. 😬😬 (gulp)
I dont think specs make any difference. In my younger days I creamed it through the covers with my 2lb 6oz, 28mm edge toothpick as easy as I do today with my 35mm edge. The trouble is, if specs mattered, I cannot find 28mm edges and 2lb.3 - 2lb.6 bats anymore? But yet ‘bat speed’ matters more to many than ever before? So I dont really understand the modern bat logic. And why best performing butterfly bats are a fraction of the price of grade 1 but probably perform consistently better. In most sports the lighter and stronger the equipment the more expensive it gets but cricket doesn’t follow this trend much. Technically with all the bat technology around now you would think the 90s edges were kept as that was rocketing enough but the bat weight would be 1lb.8 or something ridiculously light by now for speed and manoeuvrability like a tennis racket. As not so cricket type cricket shots are evolving all the time. Reverse, backwards, upside down, ramp, flick, stand on your head, type shots!
I guess you guys aren’t ready for that just yet, but your kids are going to love it! 😂🤣
-
My initial post was more intended as 'does a 40mm edge matter over a 35mm edge etc'. This is what i think most people would think of when someone asks 'What are the specs', rather than node of percussion or weight.
People have probably learned to associate good performance with those measurements because there is nothing else they can measure. Can you really measure ping of a bat? Objectively?
I was trying to ascertain if people felt it was important in terms of performance, longevity etc and why we'd seemingly become obsessed with edge size, spine height etc. I get it may give confidence or a more aggressive mindset, but benefits in actual performance?
They are something to hang the idea of performance on; there is nothing else they can measure, nothing else to compare against other sticks in the shop/friends' kit bag. If there was better information out there, people would use that to measure performance. I think it is a desperate attempt to make sense of things. Placebo effect is a real thing.
You mentioned a thick toe may help when digging out yorkers, but does it actually? Did Yorkers not exist back in the days before thick toes? Or did we just accept toes blowed out if you hit a Yorker? Similarly, did batters struggle on hard bouncy pitches before big edges?
Anecdotally, sure. There is no study to prove one way or the other. This is the thing with cricket, it is all about feeling. :D
-
I think when we say 42-45 mm edge 67-70 mm spine, we are talking about the apex point on the bat not the entire length of the bat,
So if there is a bat with apex 42/68 and nothing at the toe and the shoulder will more likely be a non-durable and less forgiving.
But a bat with 37/61 apex and good amount of everywhere around will be more durable and forgiving.
As for Professionals they get bats per their preferences some like condensed middle-mostly top order batters and some like even spread of wood -Mostly the power hitters/finishers -but they mostly get big bats. I can only remember Quinton de kock who was using concaved bat when he was with GM, after moving to SS he too is using convex/fuller bat
And the trend of big bats came from International players not from clubbies- So I think there should be something with the big bats that professionals were liking them and ICC had to introduce the laws and we hear commentators all the time speaking about big/modern bats all the times, and why would a manufacturer make something that can not be replicated for the market and retail shops.
The big bat trend is similar to what Australian team started with moving middle of the bat up or down depending on the Condition (Higher middles for AUS and SA and lower middle for Sun-continent )and then other teams started following.
Now players do not carry as many condition specific bats as they used to.
-
Again, no real proof that bigger is better.....commentators say a lot of things! 😆 The Pro's I've spoken to about it say it's more a visual/confidence thing, rather than a performance benefit. Surely modern Pro's hit more sixes than us clubbies/players of old as they're better, more skilled, stonger and practice hitting all the time?
In terms of brands not making bats that can't be replicated, don't they do this? 'Players Editions', are very different to the usual ots bats. It's also why we now see narrowing, dryer willow, light handles and grips, thin toes/shoulders etc. So brands can make 'big bats' at light weights.
-
If you ever studied a little bit of physics:
F = m x a
Force = mass x acceleration
So you can either have a heavier bat or bring the bat through faster on the shot. Density isn't an issue, but having some mass in the hitting area is obvious.
I've had a chat with Jonny about this... and agree it's all psychological. Having a bat a particular size gives confidence and reassurance. Best bat I have had was a Charlie French and that wasn't massive.
Ultimately it's all mental and if it helps you then go for it! Do what makes you happy :)
-
Quoting f=ma without understanding what it means is a real pet hate of mine - you obviously didn't study a little bit of physics!
F = the force acting on an object
M = the object's mass
A = the object's acceleration, or change in speed over time.
Not helpful for assessing how hard a bat will hit a ball.
-
Quoting f=ma without understanding what it means is a real pet hate of mine - you obviously didn't study a little bit of physics!
F = the force acting on an object
M = the object's mass
A = the object's acceleration, or change in speed over time.
Not helpful for assessing how hard a bat will hit a ball.
Yes but it will give you a guide to the force acting on the ball :)
-
Yes but it will give you a guide to the force acting on the ball :)
It will, but the relevant mass in F=MA is of the ball, not the bat.
-
It will, but the relevant mass in F=MA is of the ball, not the bat.
Surely its the mass of the bat and the force being exerted on the ball?
-
Surely its the mass of the bat and the force being exerted on the ball?
No, this is entirely my point. The force applied to an object is equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. F, M and A all belong to the same object - either the bat or the ball, not a mix of the two.
-
No, this is entirely my point. The force applied to an object is equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. F, M and A all belong to the same object - either the bat or the ball, not a mix of the two.
Okay we are saying the same thing. I am assuming the ball is bowled the same and all its variables stay constant in each scenario.
I am looking at the bat and its force on the ball with only mass of the bat and or the acceleration of the bat being variants.
-
Okay we are saying the same thing. I am assuming the ball is bowled the same and all its variables stay constant in each scenario.
I am looking at the bat and its force on the ball with only mass of the bat and or the acceleration of the bat being variants.
We definitely aren't saying the same thing lol. How exactly are you using F=MA to calculate how the force applied to the ball varies with the mass or acceleration of the bat?
-
(https://clarkscience8.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/3/7/2637711/editor/fma-griffey.jpg?1487714449)
-
Again, that's not what F=MA means.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9XqDYjTj/fma-griffey.jpg)
-
Again, that's not what F=MA means.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9XqDYjTj/fma-griffey.jpg)
I give up.. feel free to post an explanation.
-
I concede :)
Hands up been a while but I get ya ;)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/fc/6d/5dfc6d8a097f25aaa5aea3b4ccc761c0.jpg)
-
Ha yeah that's more like it.
F (the force applied to the ball) = M (the mass of the ball) x A (the acceleration of the ball)
OR
F (the force applied to the bat) = M (the mass of the bat) x A (the acceleration of the bat)
If you want to calculate the exit speed of a ball hit by a bat of known mass and speed, you're going to need something more like this (simplified obviously):
Mball x Vball bowled + Mbat x Vbatswing = Mball x Vball exit + Mbat x Vbat after collision
-
So “size” makes about the same difference as “stickers”?
-
So “size” makes about the same difference as “stickers”?
No no if you have go faster stcikers just liek car paint jobs... the bat will be amazing!
lol Yes size shouldn't have an effect.
Just to throw a spanner in... what does the structure/density of the bat have on the springy-ness of the surface? ;)
-
Give Sam Fisher's thesis a read for just an idea of the physics involved in creating an improved cricket bat: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/188135795/Sam_Fisher_thesis.pdf
-
I struggle to see the ball without my specs so they’re pretty vital!
-
Ha yeah that's more like it.
F (the force applied to the ball) = M (the mass of the ball) x A (the acceleration of the ball)
OR
F (the force applied to the bat) = M (the mass of the bat) x A (the acceleration of the bat)
If you want to calculate the exit speed of a ball hit by a bat of known mass and speed, you're going to need something more like this (simplified obviously):
Mball x Vball bowled + Mbat x Vbatswing = Mball x Vball exit + Mbat x Vbat after collision
Why didn't you say? ;)
-
Give Sam Fisher's thesis a read for just an idea of the physics involved in creating an improved cricket bat: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/188135795/Sam_Fisher_thesis.pdf
That is some pretty heavy reading, and I'm one of the few who don't mind a bit of maths and physics!!
-
Just to throw a spanner in... what does the structure/density of the bat have on the springy-ness of the surface? ;)
Not that it particularly answers the question, but on page 95 of the above mentioned document, there are some interesting electron microscope pics of willow cellular structure of different parts of the bat. Very interesting to see the effect of pressing/knocking, and how much of the 'wood' is actually air!
-
If you want to calculate the exit speed of a ball hit by a bat of known mass and speed, you're going to need something more like this (simplified obviously):
Mball x Vball bowled + Mbat x Vbatswing = Mball x Vball exit + Mbat x Vbat after collision
I think that is correct.
Question: We saw a phase where low-density bats were popular. Does the volume of the bat play any role in this transference of energy (force?) from bat to ball? What happens to the vibration of the bat (nodes of percussion?) when a bat has a larger volume but lighter due to low-density cleft?
-
Give Sam Fisher's thesis a read for just an idea of the physics involved in creating an improved cricket bat: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/188135795/Sam_Fisher_thesis.pdf
From page 105:
All of the sections investigated during this chapter are interlinked, as the crushed cellular
structure is associated with an increase in density and the enhancement in the flexural stiffness
of the wooden samples. This is advantageous to the player as an increase in flexural stiffness is
associated with an increase in post impact ball velocity and thus an improvement in
performance. Finally, by crushing the cellular structure, the resistance to indentations and
splitting is improved as the density of the sample is increased. Therefore, the face of the bat
may last longer before showing signs of mechanical deterioration and a reduction in
performance.
-
Doesn’t that basically just say pressing a cleft is positive?
-
^ Pressing. Knocking. Playing in a bat.
-
Question: We saw a phase where low-density bats were popular. Does the volume of the bat play any role in this transference of energy (force?) from bat to ball? What happens to the vibration of the bat (nodes of percussion?) when a bat has a larger volume but lighter due to low-density cleft?
Larger volume gives a slightly stiffer bat, so slightly better transfer of energy into the ball. Minimal if any difference to vibrational nodes.
-
^ Ok. So, a low-density, larger (than normal volume) cleft is better for a lighter bat.
I wonder if bat makers have a formula to compare rebound from a low-density cleft/bat of X weight v/s normal-density cleft/bat of Y (> X) weight. Example: Low-density bat of 2lb-8oz ping/rebound = normal-density bat of 2lb-11oz.
-
Wonder no more, they don’t.
-
^ tut tut. Considering the sad state of affairs, it is not surprising.
-
Wonder no more, they don’t.
😂😂
^ Ok. So, a low-density, larger (than normal volume) cleft is better for a lighter bat.
I wonder if bat makers have a formula to compare rebound from a low-density cleft/bat of X weight v/s normal-density cleft/bat of Y (> X) weight. Example: Low-density bat of 2lb-8oz ping/rebound = normal-density bat of 2lb-11oz.
Doesn't quite work like that as it's a natural product, which has to be manufactured in a cost effective and time efficient manner. You can't possibly know the cell structure of a bat throughout the blade, you'll have some general findings that batmakers will have with certain grain structures, colours etc, but they won't hit the nail on the head all the time. It's an art and a science. Density is not a critical factor in a bats playability from what I've found. Critical in what shape and size a batmaker can make at a set weight
-
^ tut tut. Considering the sad state of affairs, it is not surprising.
The sad state of which affairs?
-
The sad state of which affairs?
Yeah I'll second that. Confused me for sure! 😂
-
Doesn't quite work like that as it's a natural product, which has to be manufactured in a cost effective and time efficient manner.
That's why some bat makers use CNC machines. Keeley uses a CNC machine. At least one other bat maker used a CNC machine with low-density clefts. I never heard them complaining about cost and efficiency issues.
You can't possibly know the cell structure of a bat throughout the blade, you'll have some general findings that batmakers will have with certain grain structures, colours etc, but they won't hit the nail on the head all the time. It's an art and a science. Density is not a critical factor in a bats playability from what I've found. Critical in what shape and size a batmaker can make at a set weight
So, low-density clefts were basically a marketing ploy? I have seen bats weighing 2lb-5oz to 2lb-10oz made from low-density clefts - they were lighter but looked bigger than normal bats that weight. A few hits in the nets and they felt better too.
-
That's why some bat makers use CNC machines. Keeley uses a CNC machine. At least one other bat maker used a CNC machine with low-density clefts. I never heard them complaining about cost and efficiency issues.
So, low-density clefts were basically a marketing ploy? I have seen bats weighing 2lb-5oz to 2lb-10oz made from low-density clefts - they were lighter but looked bigger than normal bats that weight. A few hits in the nets and they felt better too.
How do you know they were low density?
-
Can only guesstimate a cleft has to start at a certain low weight to be considered low density and finish at a low weight fully dressed ?
-
That's why some bat makers use CNC machines. Keeley uses a CNC machine. At least one other bat maker used a CNC machine with low-density clefts. I never heard them complaining about cost and efficiency issues.
What on earth are you involving CNC machines in the discussion for now? It's to save time, help with consistency and ensure that a batmaker can make on a larger scale. It costs them more in terms of money to purchase, run and upkeep, but the larger volume they can make justifies the costs. So yes, that kind of supports my argument in that it is cost effective/time efficient if you make and sell lots, as it saves you so much time / manpower.
^ Ok. So, a low-density, larger (than normal volume) cleft is better for a lighter bat.
I wonder if bat makers have a formula to compare rebound from a low-density cleft/bat of X weight v/s normal-density cleft/bat of Y (> X) weight. Example: Low-density bat of 2lb-8oz ping/rebound = normal-density bat of 2lb-11oz.
So they've gotta somehow come up with some sort of way to measure the response of a cricket bat - test this across a certain weight they manufacture at a set density, average that over say 100 bats, repeat for all their profiles, with different handle densities to consider as well.
The question is - do you want to pay more for your bats than they currently cost? Cause if someone were to do this, it would cost time and money for the equipment to measure this. How the rebound is calculated by machine or tapping up isn't an accurate representation of how it will play, as you've alluded to before yourself.
From what I've seen, a mallet test, a ball test, and they'll know if it's a good one, or if they need more prep/press.
So, low-density clefts were basically a marketing ploy? I have seen bats weighing 2lb-5oz to 2lb-10oz made from low-density clefts - they were lighter but looked bigger than normal bats that weight. A few hits in the nets and they felt better too.
And to a pretty large extent - yes. Willow trees haven't magically decided to grow lighter for your needs for a larger volume bat. It's the same material we've used for over a hundred years. We've been using low density clefts for bats in the past and not charged extra because of it. The new 'Players Profile' bats are marketed as these large volume bats at a lighter weight.
Do the materials cost any more than a standard top grade bat? No - perhaps even less in some cases as they don't necessarily have to look as pretty. Can they make more profit from it? Absolutely.
-
What on earth are you involving CNC machines in the discussion for now?
Because you brought up "cost effective and time efficient manner"...
It's to save time, help with consistency and ensure that a batmaker can make on a larger scale. It costs them more in terms of money to purchase, run and upkeep, but the larger volume they can make justifies the costs. So yes, that kind of supports my argument in that it is cost effective/time efficient if you make and sell lots, as it saves you so much time / manpower.
HAHAHAHAH. Right. Actually, that was my argument - you initially dismissed the comparison of "low-density" cleft usage on the ground of "cost effective and time efficient manner."
Glad to see you came around to my argument. :D
So they've gotta somehow come up with some sort of way to measure the response of a cricket bat - test this across a certain weight they manufacture at a set density, average that over say 100 bats, repeat for all their profiles, with different handle densities to consider as well.
The question is - do you want to pay more for your bats than they currently cost? Cause if someone were to do this, it would cost time and money for the equipment to measure this. How the rebound is calculated by machine or tapping up isn't an accurate representation of how it will play, as you've alluded to before yourself.
Based on my discussions, what I understand is that Laver does have a grading process - clefts are subjected to some tests where rebound is measured and has some proprietary formula for cleft comparison. Your argument doesn't hold water since bats prices are already factoring those (existing such as Laver) processes.
Let's say that bat makers do as you propose, then I will happily pay a higher price if bat performance was guaranteed, bat had standardized specs, and I didn't have to buy 5 other bats because the bat I bought sucked or took too long to open up.
And to a pretty large extent - yes.
So, low-density clefts were nothing but a marketing ploy and they don't add anything to a bat's performance. Thanks for acknowledging this. Many of us were duped by snake oil salesmen.
Do the materials cost any more than a standard top grade bat? No - perhaps even less in some cases as they don't necessarily have to look as pretty. Can they make more profit from it? Absolutely.
Fair comment. Nobody went broke fooling bat-performance-hungry club cricketers.
Bottom line: What you have written is really a bunch of excuses for lacking proper standards of performance for cricket bats! "Natural product". "You want to pay more".
Golfers used wooden clubs once. Nobody complains about "natural product" today. Same with tennis. Their equipment performs from day 1 and their usual challenge is finding more (weekend) time to use it. Poor clubbies futz around with their bats and the proposed solution: "buy another one"! C'mon.
-
Is there a full moon?
-
How do you know they were low density?
Any answer to this one?
In reply to the above. Batmakers are governed by very strict rules in what they can make bats from and how they can make them. Materials, size etc. Golf equipment is machined and engineered from various materials, none of which are natural. So far more scope for innovation and new products. However, they still don't gaurantee performance. I've played off 5, so a fairly decent standard and used a whole host of clubs I've not been happy with, not got on with or not had the increased yardage off the tee, or less putts per round etc as promised by the manufacturer. Is this their fault or mine? I certainly wasn't blaming them, as it was probably user error!
I'm sure if any customer felt they had received a plank from any reputable batmaker, then that batmaker would gladly work with the customer to offer a solution. So the option isn't just buy another imo.
-
How do you know they were low density?
I'm hardly a batmaker, but I did order 6 partmades to have a go. I knew the weights of each one, but as they were all slightly different shapes and lengths (some were LB /SH) volume was difficult to calculate.
My solution was to fill a length of 150mm pvc pipe with water, put the bat in a garbage bag, submerge it to the same point on the handle, remove the bat, measure the depth of water displaced, calculate the volume displaced = volume of the partmade.
Weight / Volume = density. The density of the 6 partmades varied quite a bit, and for me knowing that info helped me match the partmade with the shape it was best suited for. I'm sure a real batmaker has a pretty good idea of this without measuring volume, but the geek in me needed it in scientific measurements. Guess that means I'm a specs man :D
edit - i'm probably not the person you were directing the question to, but just adding to the discussion!
-
Did you take the weights of the handles into consideration?
-
No. As it was impossible to separate cleft from handle, I had to assume all handles had the same volume and weight, and that the majority of variation in density I was measuring could be attributed to the willow. So not perfect, but still gave me a fair comparison of what I was looking for.
Interesting that the one with the lowest density was the first (and only) one to delaminate. It did also get the most use, but even so I thought it had a very short lifespan.
-
Because you brought up "cost effective and time efficient manner"...
HAHAHAHAH. Right. Actually, that was my argument - you initially dismissed the comparison of "low-density" cleft usage on the ground of "cost effective and time efficient manner."
Glad to see you came around to my argument. :D
I think I was referring to the additional layer of testing. This would require someone to accurately repeat the testing using a machine of some sort. Log all entries of all bats made alongside the clefts 'density' (which isn't a uniform characteristic across the cleft at all - because it's a natural product which is non-uniform across then cleft which is subject to knots, honey fungus, different porosity across the cleft etc etc) then you'd somehow maybe be able to compare initial rebound? But how would this do anything other than add to the time and costs it takes to manufacture a cricket bat for a company?
My dismissal was based on having to spend money and effort to develop the technology/methodology, the additional time in the manufacturing process as you're introducing yet another step. To be honest, it probably wouldn't help to sell more bats - they'd have to charge more to invest in the testing, and we all know bats change over time, and at quite different rates.
This isn't the same as something that can be repeatably manufactured like table tennis rubbers, which can vary ever so slightly between batches, but all in all the characteristics will remain quite consistent due to it being a more uniform components due to some of it being synthetic.
Based on my discussions, what I understand is that Laver does have a grading process - clefts are subjected to some tests where rebound is measured and has some proprietary formula for cleft comparison. Your argument doesn't hold water since bats prices are already factoring those (existing such as Laver) processes.
Let's say that bat makers do as you propose, then I will happily pay a higher price if bat performance was guaranteed, bat had standardized specs, and I didn't have to buy 5 other bats because the bat I bought sucked or took too long to open up.
That's his process - has he mentioned the kind of machinery and formulas that he uses to deduce exactly what should perform at what standard? Or is it that he's actually an expert at this as he's done it for decades, and he tests with a mallet throughout the manufacturing process - and then will downgrade if the bat isn't good enough for a Reserve grade? You're asking for a set formula that will give you absolute results - if the above is what Jim does, then that's not it. And what are standardised specs? Weren't you talking about how bat sizing was all wrong?
So, low-density clefts were nothing but a marketing ploy and they don't add anything to a bat's performance. Thanks for acknowledging this. Many of us were duped by snake oil salesmen.
Fair comment. Nobody went broke fooling bat-performance-hungry club cricketers.
Bottom line: What you have written is really a bunch of excuses for lacking proper standards of performance for cricket bats! "Natural product". "You want to pay more".
Golfers used wooden clubs once. Nobody complains about "natural product" today. Same with tennis. Their equipment performs from day 1 and their usual challenge is finding more (weekend) time to use it. Poor clubbies futz around with their bats and the proposed solution: "buy another one"! C'mon.
It will take someone far far more intelligent and experienced in this field than either of us to say whether or not low density has got an effect on performance, and whether it can be quantified at all. All I can say is that I've had older styled traditional bats which aren't low density outperform more modern shaped 'lower density' bats. I should add that I would think having a very dense cleft may be detrimental, as I've been told that what gives the spring/performance is a hard solid layer on top of a spongey more porous layer.
Then on the flip side, the GM Players bats are normally a cut above their standard off the shelf - but you do find some standard off the shelf GMs which will be as good as you'll get as well. If you only buy GM, and this has been your experience, then you'd be under the impression that bigger bats do perform better.
The key is they used wooden clubs once - now they use composite materials. (Not a golfer, have no knowledge in this field) Tennis - they used wooden rackets with high tension string - they've changed too. The materials we use for cricket bats has been mostly the same. Alternatives have been tried, but none quite matched the characteristics that willow grown in England offers.
What ought to be the proper standards to test a cricket bat? What kind of metric would you like to see? As much as I loathe the ping videos where some bloke takes a rock hard ball and belts it against the ceiling while exclaiming 'wooow' for half he video - that's pretty much what is done by most to test rebound.
Besides, who the heck knows what a 2lb 11oz bat should perform like?!
-
No. As it was impossible to separate cleft from handle, I had to assume all handles had the same volume and weight, and that the majority of variation in density I was measuring could be attributed to the willow. So not perfect, but still gave me a fair comparison of what I was looking for.
Interesting that the one with the lowest density was the first (and only) one to delaminate. It did also get the most use, but even so I thought it had a very short lifespan.
Did you find it pinged particularly better than others? Could have also been a bit drier, which is a contributing factor to delamination.
-
Think this is a good point and one I always wonder with 'low density' bats. I've seen a few through the workshop which are massive for the weight, but when I work on them you can tell they're very dry. Big difference between low density and just overdried. If a cleft is very light with 12% moisture then I'd say it's obviously low density. If it's light because its a much lower moisture content/percentage, then obviously not.
-
When big (for the weight) bats first became a thing, wasn't it actually celebrated that new drying-processes (kilns?) allowed this?
-
Did you find it pinged particularly better than others? Could have also been a bit drier, which is a contributing factor to delamination.
Hard to say - I didn't think ping was much different to the others, although in my head I liked the bat because it had a big, full profile and was still only 2 lb 9.
Without testing the moisture of any of them, I would be very surprised this one wasn't drier than the rest. My (limited) experience agrees with a lot of what I've read, where Low density = Dryer = Shorter Lifespan, although without a method of accurately measuring moisture, I'm only guessing. I'm sure someone like Jonny can feel a difference while shaping a bat, but I'm just putting two and two together when the bat failed
-
When big (for the weight) bats first became a thing, wasn't it actually celebrated that new drying-processes (kilns?) allowed this?
Yes, but not because they make the bats drier, although they could be used to do that. Kiln drying lets a willow merchant or batmaker acheive an even level of moisture throughout the cleft, rather than air drying which tends to leave clefts drier at the edges and wetter in the middle.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if cricket adopted what large parts of baseball has for bats - if you want to make bats out of composite materials then go ahead, but they have to be limited to a certain performance level.
-
Yes, but not because they make the bats drier, although they could be used to do that. Kiln drying lets a willow merchant or batmaker acheive an even level of moisture throughout the cleft, rather than air drying which tends to leave clefts drier at the edges and wetter in the middle.
I wasn't in any way suggesting I thought dry bats were a good thing!
When did kiln-drying start and to what extent is it used now?
-
I'm hardly a batmaker, but I did order 6 partmades to have a go. I knew the weights of each one, but as they were all slightly different shapes and lengths (some were LB /SH) volume was difficult to calculate.
My solution was to fill a length of 150mm pvc pipe with water, put the bat in a garbage bag, submerge it to the same point on the handle, remove the bat, measure the depth of water displaced, calculate the volume displaced = volume of the partmade.
Weight / Volume = density. The density of the 6 partmades varied quite a bit, and for me knowing that info helped me match the partmade with the shape it was best suited for. I'm sure a real batmaker has a pretty good idea of this without measuring volume, but the geek in me needed it in scientific measurements. Guess that means I'm a specs man :D
edit - i'm probably not the person you were directing the question to, but just adding to the discussion!
That's really cool!
IIRC, one of the brands (here) was also applying that process to calculate density.
-
That's his process - has he mentioned the kind of machinery and formulas that he uses to deduce exactly what should perform at what standard? Or is it that he's actually an expert at this as he's done it for decades, and he tests with a mallet throughout the manufacturing process - and then will downgrade if the bat isn't good enough for a Reserve grade? You're asking for a set formula that will give you absolute results - if the above is what Jim does, then that's not it. And what are standardised specs? Weren't you talking about how bat sizing was all wrong?
It's not just a mallet test. I was told that he has created a contraption for his tests but no more details were provided. Regarding "standardised specs" and "bat sizing", I'd include measurement of performance/ping in specs even though it is non-existent today doesn't mean it won't exist in the future. Current standard of bat sizing is wrong.
It will take someone far far more intelligent and experienced in this field than either of us to say whether or not low density has got an effect on performance, and whether it can be quantified at all. All I can say is that I've had older styled traditional bats which aren't low density outperform more modern shaped 'lower density' bats. I should add that I would think having a very dense cleft may be detrimental, as I've been told that what gives the spring/performance is a hard solid layer on top of a spongey more porous layer.
So, we are back to square one on performance of "low-density" clefts. I could never get a straight answer on why low-density clefts were better performers.
The materials we use for cricket bats has been mostly the same. Alternatives have been tried, but none quite matched the characteristics that willow grown in England offers.
Only one entity benefits when one kind of willow supposedly supersedes others which happens to be an England based business. It is their monopoly, isn't it? Serbian or Kashmir willow is not good enough for cricket bats? I find it hard to believe. Composite materials will remove lot of question marks and new cricketers will be able to focus on skill rather than bat, they should be considered for non-professional, recreational players.
What ought to be the proper standards to test a cricket bat? What kind of metric would you like to see? As much as I loathe the ping videos where some bloke takes a rock hard ball and belts it against the ceiling while exclaiming 'wooow' for half he video - that's pretty much what is done by most to test rebound.
Besides, who the heck knows what a 2lb 11oz bat should perform like?!
All fair questions. I have written a bit about what I'd prefer as metrics. I will come back to this later.
-
Think this is a good point and one I always wonder with 'low density' bats. I've seen a few through the workshop which are massive for the weight, but when I work on them you can tell they're very dry. Big difference between low density and just overdried. If a cleft is very light with 12% moisture then I'd say it's obviously low density. If it's light because its a much lower moisture content/percentage, then obviously not.
Yes. There are over dried clefts that weigh less than "other" clefts and some are just lighter. Moisture level was the "spec" that was mentioned.
-
It would be interesting to see what would happen if cricket adopted what large parts of baseball has for bats - if you want to make bats out of composite materials then go ahead, but they have to be limited to a certain performance level.
Yes. I used to play softball with aluminum bats and nobody thought about bats' performance.
For recreational/weekend players, this would be a boon. Also, for younger players who are just starting out...more focus on skill...etc.
-
It's not just a mallet test. I was told that he has created a contraption for his tests but no more details were provided. Regarding "standardised specs" and "bat sizing", I'd include measurement of performance/ping in specs even though it is non-existent today doesn't mean it won't exist in the future. Current standard of bat sizing is wrong.
So, we are back to square one on performance of "low-density" clefts. I could never get a straight answer on why low-density clefts were better performers.
Only one entity benefits when one kind of willow supposedly supersedes others which happens to be an England based business. It is their monopoly, isn't it? Serbian or Kashmir willow is not good enough for cricket bats? I find it hard to believe. Composite materials will remove lot of question marks and new cricketers will be able to focus on skill rather than bat, they should be considered for non-professional, recreational players.
All fair questions. I have written a bit about what I'd prefer as metrics. I will come back to this later.
And how are you proposing the spec pf ping/performance is measured and by who? Just the batmaker rating them from 1 to 10? Won't be many 1s I'd guess
-
Yes. There are over dried clefts that weigh less than "other" clefts and some are just lighter. Moisture level was the "spec" that was mentioned.
Sorry, you've lost me here
-
^ I meant low-density clefts.
-
^ I meant low-density clefts.
Sorry, still lost. When did you mean low-density clefts?
-
Some weigh less, whereas others are lighter 🤔
-
I'm not overly fussed and don't go looking for 40mm edges. As others have already said, for me it's all in the bit of willow and the press but sure if there is a choice of 2 bats at the same weight I'd go for the bigger edges like I suspect most of us would.
One of my favourite bats is a Harrow and has some of the smallest specs in my collection but it's just an awesome bit of wood and goes like a cannon!
-
Not overly fussed if I’m honest as I just asked for mid middle 2lb9 naked double blind long blade and as big as possible
I do ask for more of a rounded full back and will sacrifice edge size if I need to as I like looking down at a full back, no science just me