Print

[Beachcricket]

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

Perhaps the scuff sheet taking them over the limit?

I'm sure Chris and GN acknowledge this as a theory only since it's very difficult to account for the natural variation in timber. Designing a solid study accommodating these variables that isn't open to criticism is almost impossible. The subjectivity and beauty of bat making.

[Bambooman]

Perhaps the scuff sheet taking them over the limit.

I would be surprised if any of the bats used had scuff sheets on for the purposes of the test. Also the 1902 model would unlikely have one surely?
Another case for the bat police:)

[Beachcricket]

I would be surprised if any of the bats used had scuff sheets on for the purposes of the test. Also the 1902 model would unlikely have one surely?
Another case for the bat police:)

Perhaps some generous rounding up on the measurements then.

[edge]

I'm sure Chris and GN acknowledge this as a theory only since it's very difficult to account for the natural variation in timber. Designing a solid study accommodating these variables that isn't open to criticism is almost impossible. The subjectivity and beauty of bat making.

Wouldn't be too hard to make a comparison between the rigidity of different bat shapes only however, which I think would be more interesting from a scientific point of view. Conclusions from something like that could then be applied by a skilled batmaker in the more subjective craft of bat making.

[Mattsky]

Returning to the idea of concaving providing structural rigidity - this may well be true (or not) but thinking about it, isn't the primary function of an arch to disperse the weight of a load? Specifically, down through its support columns. Is this what we mean by structural rigidity? So does the concave-shaped arch spread the impact of a ball across the face to help offset twisting? Seems a bit of a stretch.

[Stuey]

Returning to the idea of concaving providing structural rigidity - this may well be true (or not) but thinking about it, isn't the primary function of an arch to disperse the weight of a load? Specifically, down through its support columns. Is this what we mean by structural rigidity? So does the concave-shaped arch spread the impact of a ball across the face to help offset twisting? Seems a bit of a stretch.

I dont buy this either, I understand an arch forming rigidity and strength under load, its why you should always lift with an arched back, but prevent twisting sounds like a selling gimmick. Wouldn't it need some form of anchorage at the bottom of the bat to support both ends. Just my layman thinking, but i would think an arched bridge would still twist if not anchored at both ends.

[VKS]

Great to see the video has been well received and shown the positive aspects of concaved bats.

We will be looking to create more videos like this and hopefully shed some more light on the art of bat making and do away with many myths.

[GarrettJ]

best bat i've ever had or ever used was concaved a lot and had a 20mm edge.

[VKS]

best bat i've ever had or ever used was concaved a lot and had a 20mm edge.

Same here. I currently use a 2.6 SS Ton Gladiator that has an extreme amount of concaving and goes like an absolute dream.

What matters is to use a bat that feels right and forget all the obsession with using rulers and measuring edges and spine height.

[Stuey]

I'm a firm believer that its the skill of the batmaker not a specific template that makes a good bat. Chris eluded to this in the video.

[VKS]

I'm a firm believer that its the skill of the batmaker not a specific template that makes a good bat. Chris eluded to this in the video.

You are absolutely correct and another thing Chris mentioned when I was talking to him, was that a good maker will have the skills to make a bat feel lighter than its dead weight.

[procricket]

Just had a look at your videos mate got to say i like your style no crap and informative and using your experiance which lets be fair is quite extensive to give the customer proper feedback not just the sales pitch.

I'm looking forward to coming down to London soon i will deffinatly come in and bite your ear off.

[Beachcricket]

Wouldn't be too hard to make a comparison between the rigidity of different bat shapes only however, which I think would be more interesting from a scientific point of view. Conclusions from something like that could then be applied by a skilled batmaker in the more subjective craft of bat making.

You could, but you couldn't be sure that the Increase/Decrease in rigidity was as a result of the change in shape or due to natural variation in the Timber/Handle. Repeat measures would I suspect only muddy the water further and provide significant variation in rigidity between bats of the same shape. I think you hit the nail on the head with subjectivity, acknowledging that exists is the best route to objectivity.

[VKS]

Just had a look at your videos mate got to say i like your style no crap and informative and using your experiance which lets be fair is quite extensive to give the customer proper feedback not just the sales pitch.

I'm looking forward to coming down to London soon i will deffinatly come in and bite your ear off.

Thanks for your kind words .  Cricket and bats especially are a passion.
Yes would be good to meet you too.

[Bambooman]

You could, but you couldn't be sure that the Increase/Decrease in rigidity was as a result of the change in shape or due to natural variation in the Timber/Handle. Repeat measures would I suspect only muddy the water further and provide significant variation in rigidity between bats of the same shape. I think you hit the nail on the head with subjectivity, acknowledging that exists is the best route to objectivity.

The most logical way to eliminate the variation of willow stiffness would be to produce the bat shapes in an homogenous material. that way you can directly correlate spacial dimensions to stiffness. That can then be modelled in the computer.