Topic: Spliceless Bat (Read 16372 times)

Jamieh · « **Reply #30 on:** January 06, 2010, 08:40:46 PM »

Ha Ha, when you say it like that talisman it is so obvious isn't it! When you pull it back to the basics, yes i'ts just a normal bat with the shoulders removed! The spilce is exactly the same as a normal (or is it?).

Tom · « **Reply #31 on:** January 06, 2010, 08:42:02 PM »

Yep it's the same except a little bit shorter.

So simple I'm suprised no-one else has launched it previously.

Talisman · « **Reply #32 on:** January 06, 2010, 08:45:05 PM »

How many saints do you know who dine on Kebabs? he is a little devil in disguise.....

There is no need to hide the splice in bats, unless the hired help publishes a paper showing it does, where has he gone, was he hourly paid?, put some money in his meter. You can't have spent it all already.

peplow · « **Reply #33 on:** January 06, 2010, 09:17:08 PM »

so they aren't all amazing as cracked up to be design wise? Like the meaty profile a smaller balde gives though. Any problems with the splices yet tom?? like getting hit and damage?? Breaking??

Tom · « **Reply #34 on:** January 06, 2010, 09:23:14 PM »

Nah no issues yet.

At the end of the day it's a new design of bat, no-one else has put their splice in the handle/taken the shoulders off/hidden the splice like we have. Of course it's not 100% radical sticking to the rules of cricket and made in a traditional manner but it is a new different looking design.

Some people love it, many others hate it.

peplow · « **Reply #35 on:** January 06, 2010, 09:35:25 PM »

and the smaller blade makes it a better profile imo. I love the cor3 profile!

So does the cor3 have any advantage over a normal bat?

SAF Bats · « **Reply #36 on:** January 07, 2010, 11:44:33 AM »

Hi

Quote from: frankspop on January 06, 2010, 04:07:59 PM

Just a few points to make about this post by Norbair on my blog piece at http://bit.ly/4RZEDO

1. I have yet to receive any emails from Norbair (SAF) on the above blog, or a previous blog on my own site http://www.allaboutcricketbats.blogspot.com/, which he had some views on via twitter. What's good for the goose…?

2. If you would like to elaborate on "some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious" then please do. I'd like to know which points this refers to. My blog article on Law 6 (as all others) is a point of view, not inaccurate, and open for discussion, as it should be.

3. As a bat maker you have expert knowledge. As someone who is involved in bat related research, occasionally for some big names, I have expert knowledge. The jibe 'those who can do, those who can't teach' is disrespectful, and na�ve of the facts. There is plenty of room for informed opinions in a field and healthy for all not to agree.

David Curtis

Hi David

May be my mistake here then I thought you where going to email me after you asked me what my address was. My apologies regarding the "the those that do comment" I guess it was bit under hand and a spur of the moment thing.

I've only read a few articles and maybe dubious is not the right word, as you're right it is a point of view and I could always discuss on your blog. Wind damage willow springs to mind - so apologies again.

In fact it looks like I engaged my mouth about your views and opinions before my brain

Thanks

Andy

SAF Bats · « **Reply #37 on:** January 07, 2010, 11:51:42 AM »

Ps how did a spliceless bat thread end up like this!!!!

Oh well made for an exciting forum for a while and I got called an expert :-) woohoo

frankspop · « **Reply #38 on:** January 07, 2010, 01:47:38 PM »

Quote from: Talisman on January 06, 2010, 06:21:36 PM

I would take issue myself with the "Finale" on your article, the phraseology (However, in the right hands at the right time this bat can give a significant advantage to the batsmen.) confuses me. Is this your theory or someone else's, every bat sold has some sort of vague claim to hit the ball further than others do to a numbers of contestable reasons. How do you arrive as yours? Is their a negative pay off to balance the positive you find?

Talisman, thanks for the welcome. I'll try to chip in as and when I can to this forum. It's a good one.

In response to your question on my 'Finale' in the blog - the statement is really based on the paper by Imperial College researchers for Mongoose, which is available on their website. While I agree that the phrase is a little ambiguous and should have been clearer, the hidden intent was a one-phrase summary of the conclusions of that report. Anthony Bull is a respected research academic and his study confirms what I would say is intuitive for those with some basic knowledge of physics and biomechanics.

As many have attested to on this forum, some will like this style of bat, some will not. Some will feel a performance gain, some won't. A negative pay-off for some, positive for others. It's simply a matter of the vast biomechanical differences between one cricketer and the next, compounded by differences in pschye. I'm not sure I agree that every bat maker makes (even vague) claims that their bats hit the ball further than other makes. Given the large variation in user, any performance claim is only valid for a percentage of players, not all, and this is never articulated because no-one has the time or money to to the research to get the data.

I've seen enough written and spoken in praise of the Mongoose, other makes as well I'm sure, that this style of bat will produce bigger hits for equivalent energy expended in the right hands. What the Mongoose guys have done is take an old idea, refine it, be bold and get investment, commission research, market it well, and build a brand. It's not easy to do, it takes some balls, and I think they deserve some credit for that.

Talisman · « **Reply #39 on:** January 07, 2010, 02:34:50 PM »

I have before and will again totally agree that credit, a lot of credit is due to Mongoose for taking an old idea that no one else wanted to use and with superb marketing make it a widely known brand. It takes very big balls to find the investment and spend it doing what they have so far. I'll admit they is no way I'd have spent that sort of money on their shapes and ideas so hats off.

I purely take exception at this marketing ignoring prior art. I also like to pour a little cold water on claims that ignore basic facts, the bat speed is quicker, yet the pick up will counter that due to the shape. I have found that the sweet spot to be smaller than any of my standard bats, I pushed this forward by making my own bats to the face size with various spine shapes and even though I could increase the size of the spot I could not match any of the standard bats. That is not to say that the design has no positives, it does. When you get a half volley the MMi3 is the best in the business, it really allows the maximum possible power to be applied. Also if you are able to open your arms and middle the ball with a full swing the power generated is very good, but not light years ahead of a standard shape. After an hour in the nets my 2.11 MMi3 made my 3lb match bat feel much lighter which showed me just how heavy the pick up is.

You have obviously done some research into bat innovation in order to publish your article so I would like to pick your brains on this;

What did you make of the shoulderless bats used in the 70's and 80's performance wise?
How would you rate the GN Scoop performance wise?
Does a stiffer handle generate more power?
Does the Mongoose MMi3 handle allow more flex even though the ears of the splice are set in the same position as a standard bat?

I have more but do not wish to flood you just yet.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #40 on:** January 07, 2010, 02:56:07 PM »

I shall now skulk away and sit in my hole, now we have an proper engineer on the forum as opposed to an ex one!

Talisman · « **Reply #41 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:03:10 PM »

Thanks for that Norb.... but please stay.

SillyShilly · « **Reply #42 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:03:26 PM »

In light of your new role, you shall now be known as gollum, he who skulks in the shadows and sits in dark holes (pubs).

Talisman · « **Reply #43 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:04:37 PM »

I hope you have not typed that whilst in the employ of the council......

SillyShilly · « **Reply #44 on:** January 07, 2010, 03:08:26 PM »

Who? Me? of course not, im not working at all - im listening to test match special and drinking tea.....much to the annoyance of everyone around me.......uncultured lot in the office.

Poll

Is this the first Spliceless bat - Poll

Author Topic: Spliceless Bat (Read 16372 times)

Jamieh

Re: Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

peplow

Re: Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

peplow

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

frankspop

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

SillyShilly

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

SillyShilly

Re: Spliceless Bat