Print

[Kal]

Just seen this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKKGQf2Afg&list=UU2Elu5HROyIZ0JXs4h6TfLw&params=OAFIAVgF

Good to see one of the big bat manufacturers on video.

Thinking the bit around 2mins 30 might surprise a few people...

[procricket]

Great Video it is hard to get a massive bat with big edges under 2-10 plain and simple.

Brilliant video up my street that

[WalkingWicket37]

Great Video it is hard to get a massive bat with big edges under 2-10 plain and simple.

Brilliant video up my street that

You manage to get hold of your fair share of them Dave 

[Vitas Cricket]

Just seen this.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKKGQf2Afg&list=UU2Elu5HROyIZ0JXs4h6TfLw&params=OAFIAVgF

Good to see one of the big bat manufacturers on video.

Thinking the bit around 2mins 30 might surprise a few people...

In my opinion, the most important factor in the performance of a bat is the pressing. The quality of the piece of willow will also have an obvious impact. You can be a dab hand at pressing but a dud cleft will make a dud bat.

Removing wood from various areas of the back of the bat affects balance and pick up more than anything. In my opinion concaving has little impact on performance, if any.

If removing wood from the back of the bat made such a difference then the GN scoop would be the worst bat ever made.

I have owned concaved and non concaved bats, some of my favourites including the best performing bat I've ever owned have been concaved.

[procricket]

Also a easier way of selling heavier clefts whilst still looking big!!!

More volume of wood gives you more power.

[praguetaz]

Great video which has revived my faith in a little bit of concaving and most likely renewed my confidence in some lovely bats that I have. I'm not as lucky as some to have 2.8-9 bats but with the amount of time I'm likely to be at the wicket - 2.10-11 bats should be fine.

I realise that if I was a big hitter then a fuller profile is more ideal for clearing the boundary but not at the cost of being able to play a range of shots all around with timing. I really think for me focusing on timing is the best way to reach boundaries more consistently as well as a well pressed bat. If the concaving keeps rigidity in the willow to stop it twisting in the hands then that's good enough for me.

Thanks again Kal....

[wayward_hayward]

Fantastic video and a great insight into the view of a bat maker.

[Mattsky]

Good video, thanks for posting Kal. Food for thought. Hadn't occurred to me that the concaving acts as an archway to give structural rigidity to the blade. Got the Romans to thank for that. Thought it was all about weight reduction and big edges. However, still believe that if you can get it, you can't beat a full profile shape in a light density willow.

[procricket]

Good video, thanks for posting Kal. Food for thought. Hadn't occurred to me that the concaving acts as an archway to give structural rigidity to the blade. Got the Romans to thank for that. Thought it was all about weight reduction and big edges. However, still believe that if you can get it, you can't beat a full profile shape in a light density willow.

100 per cent mate

[Buzz]

good to see Chris King getting some publicity.

really interesting video, thanks for posting and thanks to VKS for recording the question and answer, certainly not the answer I was expecting.

[edge]

Interesting video, and agreed that concaving can still produce excellent bats. However, not buying the arch rigidity idea for even half of one second, that just isn't how arches work at all.

[Beachcricket]

I do agree that the shape can impact rigidity but not in the same way. I've asked to see the study and will be chasing this with Imperial College London.

However, the validity of this idea of "rigidity in twisting" is greatly dependent upon the method the Imperial College London used to test the twisting. If it's what I think, then I fear they've provided GN with useless data.

It's important when explanations like this are offered, especially with reference to scientific research, that the evidence is provided for scrutiny. Otherwise we get a "BIG BAT = POWERFUL BAT" myth being propagated.

I mean no offence to GN or Chris, I have nothing but respect for them.


EDIT: I would like to say, I enjoy it when bat makers come up with theories. It shows they're thinking and opens up debate on a craft I love.

[edge]

Here it is, twisting measurements are actually discussed with regards to moment of inertia rather than structural rigidity. Assuming they haven't performed any extra work that's not referenced in this report, there's no structural analysis of the bat at all, just energy absorption and MOI calculations. Slightly disappointing as it's good to hear from a batmaker in this way, but the GN chap appears to have been a little misleading when talking about this study.
http://www.lords.org/assets/Agenda-item-11.3-size-of-cricket-bats.pdf

[Kal]

Good video, thanks for posting Kal. Food for thought. Hadn't occurred to me that the concaving acts as an archway to give structural rigidity to the blade. Got the Romans to thank for that. Thought it was all about weight reduction and big edges. However, still believe that if you can get it, you can't beat a full profile shape in a light density willow.

Not a problem, glad I didn't waste people's time.

Having watched the video again a few points struck me.

Was interesting that Chris referred to the scoop as having the the most rigidity. I always wanted a scoop but i can't get my head around the fact there is a lot of wood missing from the strike zone....

Also like the fact that Chris implied that trends /fashions seem to dictate how bats are being made. Ie it's the fashion for a fuller non concaved bats now. What do people think will be the next trend/fashion?

Like the Luke wright example, i.e. wanting a big bat but had to accept a heavier bat. Would love to see the finished bat though. I imagine it would be a monster.

On another note good to see the Vks boys posting some interesting videos. More please...

[Bambooman]

Here it is, twisting measurements are actually discussed with regards to moment of inertia rather than structural rigidity. Assuming they haven't performed any extra work that's not referenced in this report, there's no structural analysis of the bat at all, just energy absorption and MOI calculations. Slightly disappointing as it's good to hear from a batmaker in this way, but the GN chap appears to have been a little misleading when talking about this study.
http://www.lords.org/assets/Agenda-item-11.3-size-of-cricket-bats.pdf

Interesting to note that only one of the bats in this study is actually legal in terms of width!