Future Of Cricket Bats
Advertise on CBF
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Future Of Cricket Bats  (Read 10611 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Calzehbhoy

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1946
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2016, 01:47:33 PM »
Isn't the Zepp cricket analyser (in the picture above) due out this summer?
Logged

kenbriooo

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1341
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2016, 03:05:14 PM »
Hope it's waterproof given the summers we get here!
Logged
"We’ll get them in singles" - George Hirst

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2016, 03:09:01 PM »
Quote from: InternalTraining on April 16, 2016, 01:13:49 AM
Big bats.

45+ mm edges 60-65+ mm spine.

Just saw pics of Newbery Blitz. Seems like every bat maker has released a big bat model. Why would anyone want to use a skinny bat is beyond me.

We keep being told that the laws of physics dictate that the size of the bat make no difference in terms of power. And yet people keep ignoring this?
Logged

kenbriooo

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1341
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2016, 03:34:10 PM »
Surely we must be reaching the maximum sizes you can actually reach with a piece of willow in a weight that's use able?
Logged
"We’ll get them in singles" - George Hirst

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2016, 03:56:30 PM »
Quote from: kenbriooo on April 16, 2016, 03:34:10 PM
Surely we must be reaching the maximum sizes you can actually reach with a piece of willow in a weight that's use able?

And does it matter anyway? (See above.)
Logged

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2016, 04:00:49 PM »
Quote from: kenbriooo on April 16, 2016, 03:05:14 PM
Hope it's waterproof given the summers we get here!

Wasn't waterproof done years ago - Fearnley Polyflex etc.?


« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 07:09:08 PM by Bats_Entertainment »
Logged

Kez

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2016, 06:58:23 PM »
Quote from: Tom on April 16, 2016, 12:43:13 PM


Also the future


Tell me the Cricket app will work with the old sensor!
using the baseball app is good fun and competition between the boys but a cricket specific app would be the holy grail!
Logged
kesoncricket.com

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2016, 10:34:08 PM »
Quote from: Bats_Entertainment on April 16, 2016, 03:09:01 PM
We keep being told that the laws of physics dictate that the size of the bat make no difference in terms of power. And yet people keep ignoring this?
If you use only one specific law hypothesised hundreds of years ago, yes.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2016, 10:19:03 AM »
Quote from: edge on April 16, 2016, 10:34:08 PM
If you use only one specific law hypothesised hundreds of years ago, yes.

So, where's the new theory that has proved it wrong? And why don't Gray Nicolls or B3 (amongst others) believe it?

Logged

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2016, 10:33:56 AM »
Quote from: Bats_Entertainment on April 17, 2016, 10:19:03 AM
So, where's the new theory that has proved it wrong? And why don't Gray Nicolls or B3 (amongst others) believe it?
Nothing's proved it wrong, but there's more to it than f=ma. B3 are well aware of this ha. As for Chris King at Gray Nics, the bloke's clearly a good batmaker but he knows bugger all about mechanics! His justifying of concaving in an interview was at best misleading and if you were less generous downright ignorant.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2016, 11:19:36 AM »
Well, David Bacon used f=ma in his recent contribution to a piece in The Cricketer.

I bet Isaac Newton wasn't nearly as clever as some of the people on here. ;)
Logged

roco

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6991
  • Trade Count: (+16)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2016, 11:25:26 AM »
And none of this is sales talk to sell more bats hmmmmmmm
Logged
The first cricket box was used in 1874.  The first cricket helmet was introduced in 1974. So, it took 100 years for men to twig that their brains were also worth protecting.

edge

  • Moderator
  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4876
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2016, 11:35:30 AM »
Quote from: Bats_Entertainment on April 17, 2016, 11:19:36 AM
Well, David Bacon used f=ma in his recent contribution to a piece in The Cricketer.

I bet Isaac Newton wasn't nearly as clever as some of the people on here. ;)
You know what mate, save us the trouble of reading your nonsense and yourself the time of writing it - go buy yourself a 3lb stick for a tenner out the bargain bin at sports direct and be happy in your knowledge that it's a better bat than Joe Root/Dave Warner's because yours is 3lb and theirs are only 2.11 and 'the laws of physics' prove that yours is therefore better because it's heavier, and that's the only factor. Please go.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2016, 01:15:24 PM »
Quote from: roco on April 17, 2016, 11:25:26 AM
And none of this is sales talk to sell more bats hmmmmmmm

Surely the 'big bat' fashion sells bats?
Logged

Bats_Entertainment

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5054
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Future Of Cricket Bats
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2016, 01:22:22 PM »
Quote from: edge on April 17, 2016, 11:35:30 AM
You know what mate, save us the trouble of reading your nonsense and yourself the time of writing it - go buy yourself a 3lb stick for a tenner out the bargain bin at sports direct and be happy in your knowledge that it's a better bat than Joe Root/Dave Warner's because yours is 3lb and theirs are only 2.11 and 'the laws of physics' prove that yours is therefore better because it's heavier, and that's the only factor. Please go.

I think you are talking about quality of bat there, not volume?

I am not suggesting all bats of the same weight perform the same, am I?

If some presented an intelligent argument as to why low density willow pings better, I might listen. As yet they haven't. People are just jumping on a bandwagon.

Where is Dr Bacon?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 01:25:35 PM by Bats_Entertainment »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
 

Advertise on CBF