Print

[frosttravis]

lets say you've already pressed a cleft, which direction do you take next? leave lots of meat in the shoulders for a heavier weight at a lighter pickup? or scallop out the splice area and have more meat behind the ball at a slightly lighter weight? or redistributing some of that weight from the shoulder/splice area into where you hit the ball and some into the handle? thereby (theoretically at least) making a bat at the same weight but with a 10 oz handle that picks up slightly better, thoughts?

[WalkingWicket37]

Depends what you're after, think a company like B3 could produce any of the above or more options than you've listed, down to preference of the person using the bat.

[smilley792]

Firstly (and this my strange coming from me) i want a bat that lasts.
As my bat failures all come from the toe splitting from driving a ball that's more yorker. I'm gonna say. 
Wood in the toe to ensure it lasts.

Secondly.  I want wood where i hit the ball. I like to drive. And tend to hit the ball low on the bat.
So get the bulk off bat highest spine and edge point there.

Next up rest of the wood distributed to help pick up. But not too much. I like my bats to feel there weight.



Thing is. Every time i Attempt to envisage the above. It turns into something like a affinity spectre.  Which for some reason I don't particulary like the feel off? Doh.

[Chad]

I find that performance is a hard thing to gauge. Generally speaking, the more mass you have in the hitting zone, the further the ball will be hit. However, pick up and balance also come into play, so it's entirely dependent on the batsman's preference. No point in a guy who likes a 2.8 bat using a 3.2 bat, just because it 'performs' better. The batsman will perform better with a well made 2.8 bat, and it's the batsman's performance that scores the runs!

Personally, I quite like to have the wood well distributed, but I use more of a medium weight at 2.10-2.12. For someone using a 2.7, unless you have a really low density cleft, I would take some wood away from everywhere, but mostly from the toe and the splice area of the bat. You want the right pick up without sacrificing too much of the length and the power of the hitting area. All down to the preference of the player, which is why going custom made if there's no options that appeal to that player off the shelf is such a bonus, and admittedly, something I've found myself taking for granted since joining this forum...

[WalkingWicket37]

Also worth mentioning bat speed etc.

You have two bats identical in shape and dimension, one a low density cleft and one a high density cleft.
Assuming they both "perform" the same you'll hit the ball further with one than the other due to bat speed and whatnot.

Too many variables in this, if you asked 5 different people you'd probably get 5 different answers haha.

[procricket]

The golden ticket

A big bat that picks up well in light weight...

[lazza32]

I purchased the special #1 on the laver and wood site so I'll tell you about size vs weight vs pickup when I get it.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[crictech]

lets say you've already pressed a cleft, which direction do you take next? leave lots of meat in the shoulders for a heavier weight at a lighter pickup? or scallop out the splice area and have more meat behind the ball at a slightly lighter weight? or redistributing some of that weight from the shoulder/splice area into where you hit the ball and some into the handle? thereby (theoretically at least) making a bat at the same weight but with a 10 oz handle that picks up slightly better, thoughts?

The quick answer is put the most wood where it will do the most good. If the balance feels heavy then add some weight to the handle. We've been selling handle weights like hotcakes at the Crictech store or you could go the Kallis/Sangakkara route and wrap lead tape around the end.

[trypewriter]

I find that performance is a hard thing to gauge. Generally speaking, the more mass you have in the hitting zone, the further the ball will be hit. However, pick up and balance also come into play, so it's entirely dependent on the batsman's preference. No point in a guy who likes a 2.8 bat using a 3.2 bat, just because it 'performs' better. The batsman will perform better with a well made 2.8 bat, and it's the batsman's performance that scores the runs!

Personally, I quite like to have the wood well distributed, but I use more of a medium weight at 2.10-2.12. For someone using a 2.7, unless you have a really low density cleft, I would take some wood away from everywhere, but mostly from the toe and the splice area of the bat. You want the right pick up without sacrificing too much of the length and the power of the hitting area. All down to the preference of the player, which is why going custom made if there's no options that appeal to that player off the shelf is such a bonus, and admittedly, something I've found myself taking for granted since joining this forum...

I agree with a lot of this. Personally I went down the light route and found that with a 2-7 bat I could hardly get the ball off the square, in spite of theoretical increased bat speed. There was nothing wrong with the bat's performance, I let teammates have a go with it and they were absolutely mullering the ball (better batsmen than me it must be said). I took a chance and went up just 2oz to 2-9 with a bit of a bargain bat from here and the difference was marked. The pick up on both bats was pretty similar in my opinion, with, to me, the slightly heavier bat having a slight edge, though taken as a piece I'd say that both bats picked up like their weight.
Mentioning the minefield of 'pressing' the heavier bat was pressed harder according to Paul from IJC who is more of an expert in these things than I am.
It's worth saying though that the bats were very different in shape, the heavier bat having a shape somewhere between an Aldred Supreme and a Laver Ultra therefore quite a 'big bum'. The lighter bat was a Pod Performance which for its weight was big and had no concaving, so plenty of mass in the hitting area, but not quite as much as the heavier blade. So, was it the 2oz that made the difference or the more concentrated 'power' area? Following on, does that shape suit me more - as the evidence might suggest, or is it psychological?

[frosttravis]

well if force equals mass times acceleration, it stands to reason that a shape with lots of wood in the splice/shoulder area would actually make the bat more powerful, although it wont help that actual area of the bat, as thats just for hooks and leg glances, it could make the bat itself perform better, unless of course the weight of the handle contributes to the equation as well? 

[procricket]

For me the 1271 profile is the golden profile

Not big edged not big spined but a massive coverage.

Everybody talks about middles but us club players find it maybe 1 in every 10 I go for all round power everyday something the 1271 gives.

You need all round weight or me concaved bats to me have always been form bats because they narrow your middle plain and simple.

Bat weight in the right areas is important I like a neutral feel so more weight higher up.

But I have found another way to balance people overlook handle weight as they all are different I do not my handles I prefer heavier instead of dead weight I prefer balance and pick up.

Saying all this I have been taught the last year or so by a master of willow and handle technology inline with cricktech sheets I designed dw2 to achieve this but still find myself drawn to a modern big bummed beast the dw1 offers.

All about big bat in the right pick up with the wood in the right area giving the maximum coverage of performance how you work your out is up to you I did my experiment by using templates of a international t20 number 1 player and modifying and then modifying the 1271 accordingly.

With our new bat-map capabilities I plan on replicating some of the worlds great batsman and finding the ultimate profile for balance and feel.

   

[frosttravis]

well thats the rub, lets say you take the dw2 profile and you take three ounces out of the splice/shoulder area and you put roughly one and a half of those ounces behind the ball and you put roughly one and a half ounces into the handle. Weight, balance, bat speed all the same (not considering aerodynamics) Which do you go for? your either hitting the ball out of the sweetspot of a bat with a 65mm spine height as opposed to a 62mm spine height, or your hitting the ball out of the sweetspot of a 2"2 and a half bat rather than a 2"1 bat? (i subtracted the weights of the handle, as im not sure whether this contributes to the equation)

[procricket]

Then you would have something like the dw1 mate.

As i said would your prefer a extended power zone or a concentrated one???

Handles can vary in weight quite a bit.

Hey i would rather hit a ball with coverage over a defined smaller sweet spot mate.

But as a lover of lighter weights or more balanced weights i can use with balancing 2-11 to 2-6 mate.

[frosttravis]

lets assume the exact same amount of coverage for the sake of the debate (i wont consider the shoulder area as part of the coverage area of the bat as its mostly used for deflecting shots like hooks and leg glances off the pads)

[procricket]

lets assume the exact same amount of coverage for the sake of the debate (i wont consider the shoulder area as part of the coverage area of the bat as its mostly used for deflecting shots like hooks and leg glances off the pads)

OK maybe not performance issue but balance issue i do not like bottom heavy bats and find more weight up to like the shoulder and sometimes handle helps this.

If I'm going heavier and increasing my mass lover down increasing the potential power i need a equalizer of weight so i shift weight up and the odd ounce or two higher up will allow the bat to pick up better.

So more wood in the hitting area(currently my pinnacle is around 14 inch from the top of the splice) and the surrounding area to eliviate the poor bottom heavy pick up i shove a couple of ounce up the blade.

So if you want dead weight a tiny 2-6 ounce bat with weight down by the lower end can feel heavier well a well balanced bigger bat at 2-10 can pick up better and deliver more wood in the hitting area increasing perfomance.

Hence the 1271 maximum wood where it needs to be without compromising pick up and i have done a experiment with the wood taken out of the shoulder on a 1271 and placed it lower down pick up was horrible to be honest but it all personal preference would all thing be equal the ball go better from the bigger mass possibly but would i feel comfortable.

The biggest issue with players and performance of there bats is usually a mental thing.