Print

[trypewriter]

there's a bit of a hunts county about the DS

[uknsaunders]

there's a bit of a hunts county about the DS

little bit of Reflex in that toe.

[tim2000s]

Indeed it does have a duck bill...

Interestingly, even with a duck bill, the spine is substantially less than the Heritage.

[tim2000s]

Six weeks later, and the dense cleft bat has been substantially knocked in and tested against Bola balls and with real balls, and I have drawn my conclusions... More to follow!

[Beaup123]

looking forward to this

[smokem]

Spill the beans already!

[Jimmyg]

I've been up all night waiting !

[tim2000s]

Well, you've seen the pictures of the two bats. There is a noticeable difference in the volume of willow that each contains, although the masses are just 0.2oz apart.

But what of using them? In three parts:

Knocking in/tapping up with a mallet
Quite honestly, I couldn't feel a difference. Both have decent, long middles, both rebounded very nicely off the mallet. At this stage of the test, it's made next to no difference.

Use against a Bola
Again, both are good bats, both pressed slightly differently, but to me and the others who used them, no discernible difference when middling one, and very little difference in sweet spot coverage, only down towards the toe, where shape will make the difference.

Use against real cricket balls
This is the one that everyone really wants to know. How do the two bats compare against real cricket balls. This has been done in two ways. Hitting thrown balls and facing bowlers. In neither was I able to categorically state that one performed better than the other. There felt like no difference between the two. Both are decent grade willow, both are pressed well according to the characteristics of the cleft, and both hit cricket balls in a way that, if you're a good batsman, will score you runs.

Conclusion
Here's what you've all been waiting for.

The size of the bat doesn't matter!

While this may be very disappointing to many people, the basic physics of it are that, for properly pressed willow, a mass is moving in one direction, impacting a mass moving in the opposite direction. The change in force is related for the most part to the speed and the mass directly, followed by the characteristics of the material.

As the mass and bat speed play the greatest part, whether the willow is high or low density makes next to no difference, as the physical characteristics of willow are common. If it is pressed sub-optimally, I have no doubt that there will be an impact on performance, and likewise, a laminate is changing the physical characteristics of willow, so may change the performance. Density, though, really makes no physical difference to what you wield.

The only good reason I can give for people hitting better with larger bats is that they inspire confidence in a different way.

[Vitas Cricket]

Interesting findings, i had a Chase in for a refurb that was tiny but weigh 2'14. No noticeable difference when tapping up compared to a Biggest Kahuna at similar weight. My findings aren't as thorough as yours and the bats are not the same shape and i can't comment on the pressing, but interesting nonetheless.

I bet everyone still wants the bigger bat though

[uknsaunders]

Nice try Tim but nobody is falling for it 

I think the main issue here is the weight of the wood is the same, whether it be dense or lightweight. A 2'10 is a 2'10 whether it look huge or tiny and given the same batmaking process will perform the same.

[trypewriter]

I'd just like to say thanks for putting your hand in your pocket for this experiment Tim. 

[smokem]

Nice work Tim! This is something I've been curious about. But given the choice of two bats, I'd prob still pick the chunkier one. Like you said it's more a confidence thing.

[SkipperJ]

That's great data Tim. Like trypew, said thanks for opening up your pocket for this experiment.

i hate doing this, but i have to play devil's advocate for a moment. the laver has fewer grains (6) while the custom DS has around 10. Do you think the higher grain count might have made the bat face stiffer, thus making the transfer of momentum a bit more efficient?

on a related note, having tapped up a pro bat recently (made from a low density cleft), i have to agree with what many others have already indicated on this forum -  it is not the bat but the person wielding it that makes all the difference. the pro bat certainly looked big for the weight and picked up a treat, but it was really his bat speed and timing that consistently kept sending the ball a lot farther compared to the rest of us. the sobering truth is that we would be much better off spending our money on better practice / coaching / fitness rather than this quest for the holy grail of bats.

case closed? somehow i doubt that.  some addictions are hard to cure 

[smilley792]

the lavery looks to have a longer middle than the ds imo.


bats of same weight regardless off density may perform similar.
but with a lighter cleft you can move the wood around into areas to create larger longer middle. less concaving for a wider middle with larger edges.

id say if The experiment was  repeated with a larger edged modern shape bat. the heavy cleft would perform substantial different due to concaving needed to create a similar profile

[tim2000s]

I think you'd find that if you made a flat bat with no spine that weighed the same as a similarly pressed modern bat with huge edges, you'd find that actually, it makes no difference. Just like people who use the scoop find....

But then, as we know, it's  much less to do with the bat and much more to do with the player