Advertise on CBF

Poll

Choose one option?

XP80
- 22 (25.9%)
50+
- 21 (24.7%)
Warner's
- 15 (17.6%)
Neither
- 11 (12.9%)
Be Snoop Dogg and invest in weed
- 16 (18.8%)

Total Members Voted: 83

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's  (Read 8639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marc28

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2016, 11:59:30 AM »

Didn't mean to shoot the post down
Obviously.
Just couldn't imagine batting with a bat that huge
Or could I
Logged

InternalTraining

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4792
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2016, 01:24:05 PM »

Shapes of 50+ and Warner look identical to me. XP bats look interesting as they don't have large edges and some concaving; with that shape you are conditioned to play with the middle of the bat and it is great for bouncy pitches. I'd opt for XP80.
Logged

TangoWhiskey

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1629
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Review that.
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2016, 02:43:03 PM »

I genuinely don't think the size of the bat matters. Speaking from a physics point of view, it just doesn't make any sense that two bats weighing the same but in different proportions would hit the ball any differently out the middle, save for the natural variances in the willow.
Logged

WalkingWicket37

  • International Superstar
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12983
  • Trade Count: (+26)
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #33 on: June 01, 2016, 03:14:55 PM »

I genuinely don't think the size of the bat matters. Speaking from a physics point of view, it just doesn't make any sense that two bats weighing the same but in different proportions would hit the ball any differently out the middle, save for the natural variances in the willow.

You could argue the bigger one wouldn't hit the ball as far if the bat came down at anything other than a dead straight angle, and the bigger dimensions would result in greater wind resistance.

We are off course talking minimal margins here, and that something that literally just popped into my head
Logged

ppccopener

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7790
  • Trade Count: (+6)
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2016, 03:23:58 PM »

You could argue the bigger one wouldn't hit the ball as far if the bat came down at anything other than a dead straight angle, and the bigger dimensions would result in greater wind resistance.

We are off course talking minimal margins here, and that something that literally just popped into my head

is it not force into the bat-and then into the ball?  a bat weighing 3lb used by a 10 stone bloke wont hit the ball off the square. a 3lb bat used by chris gayle will do.

is this not why most club players cannot hit the ball further with a heavier bat-presuming you are not overly very physically strong.

I'm hitting the ball harder and further with a bat weighing 2lb 9oz than any bat ive used at 2lb 11 or 12oz.

is that not it?

 :) :)
Logged

TangoWhiskey

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1629
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Review that.
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2016, 03:26:49 PM »

Volume isn't what make the ball fly into the distance, it's the force. Don't recall any formulae where "something */ volume = force", but then I only did A level physics so I'm no Einstein.
Logged

dilscoop

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: XP80 vs 50+ vs Warner's
« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2016, 04:11:47 PM »

Work = force x distance

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
 

Advertise on CBF