Topic: Spliceless Bat (Read 16378 times)

SAF Bats · « **on:** January 05, 2010, 09:30:37 PM »

Just had a minor revelation

The Newbery C6 handle!!!!!

Yep illegal if bought now but you are still able to use it if you own one

[could be changed to conform with new MCC laws]

Was this the First Spliceless Bat? Going to add 1st 2 piece spliceless bat!!! as back in the day they where all one piece

Tom · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:31:37 PM »

The only completely spliceless bat I've seen.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:34:28 PM »

So the other, you know who bat, is not unique! "With a unique spliceless blade"

Tom · « **Reply #3 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:37:13 PM »

Unique on the market and which complies with MCC Law 6.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #4 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:40:21 PM »

:-)

SAF Bats · « **Reply #5 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:41:35 PM »

Going to add 1st 2 piece spliceless bat!!! as back in the day they where all one piece... Will reset poll now

niceonechoppy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2010, 09:57:21 PM »

And yet the C6 hasnt had all the media hype that the Mongoose tech has, admittedly because the Mongoose shape is its USP.

steelcouch · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2010, 10:48:17 PM »

The guy who owns/runs mongoose has a double barrelled surname and comes from a marketing background.

I really doubt if "other" companies promoting similar technology would have been ratified by the MCC and be allowed to be honest, but this is of course only conjecture

Dont get me wrong i think inovation is interesting and important to keep things fresh, but i have to say i am surprised that an organisation like the MCC allowed the mongoose technology when they have in the past been so protective to maintain traditional methods and wonder if an non english manufacturer approached them if they would have had a similar result?

Anyways, good luck to them

Tom · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2010, 10:55:46 PM »

Article here on bat innovation and the laws: http://engineeringsport.co.uk/2009/10/27/cricket-bat-innovation-smothered-by-law-6/#more-151

The main worry was the handles could bring added performance hence restrictions on them, with the Mongoose though the performance comes from MMi (mass moment inertia)

Talisman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2010, 11:09:12 PM »

I believe that the MCC allowed the Mongoose as it does not transgress the reasons it banned the carbon handles for, they created the potential to hit the ball further and as cricket grounds are a set size and cannot be extended as golf holes have been with the increase in power available to the player they had to act.

The C6+ was the handle itself and the act of joining it to the blade produced the only spliceless bat made, the Mongoose is a completely standard splice like every other bat on the market. It's claimed uniqueness is that the shoulders are shaved away so the grip can hide the join and also the splice is higher on the Uzi style bat to allow it to be hidden too. You could still use the Newbery method of joining a handle to a bat with a cane handle rather than the traditional method if you wanted to create a spliceless bat rather than a hidden spice.

You sure cannot compete with Mongoose on the marketing front, the best I've seen in the market place.

I hate to say this but there is someone currently making a bat with serious hitting power that I have to admit may work also based on the Newbery principle of a elongated handle and truncated blade, *****, seen his proposal and waiting for delivery of one next week, could be very interesting...

SAF Bats · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2010, 08:53:04 AM »

Quote from: Tom on January 05, 2010, 10:55:46 PM

Article here on bat innovation and the laws: http://engineeringsport.co.uk/2009/10/27/cricket-bat-innovation-smothered-by-law-6/#more-151

The main worry was the handles could bring added performance hence restrictions on them, with the Mongoose though the performance comes from MMi (mass movement inertia)

That David Curtis chap has really got the wrong end of the stick so to speak about Cricket bats and some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious. I've tried having a discussion with him but recieved no further emails. The article doesn't explain the benefits of a spliceless handle but I dont think you posted it because of that. The article is a gripe about the new laws and what is good enough for the goose should be good for the gander and if we are going to get more innovation in cricket, he just plan wrong, you can still innovate.

I agree that Mass Moment of Inertia is the main reason/benefit but like I've said to yourself and to that David Curtis chap it can still be done on a normal bat [Not sure I've heard of Mass Movement Inertia].

Anyways I digress this a thread about spliceless bats. I was trying to find out, in recent times, if the C6 was the first spliceless bat

[I'll give you a big explanation in sec or in the Whippy and Stiff handle thread, which you've probably seen before, about handles]

You know what they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach "

By the way a Carbon handle can still be used in a Grade A bat

frankspop · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2010, 04:07:59 PM »

Quote from: Norbair on January 06, 2010, 08:53:04 AM

That David Curtis chap has really got the wrong end of the stick so to speak about Cricket bats and some of his comparisons and thoughts are dubious. I've tried having a discussion with him but recieved no further emails. The article doesn't explain the benefits of a spliceless handle but I dont think you posted it because of that. The article is a gripe about the new laws and what is good enough for the goose should be good for the gander and if we are going to get more innovation in cricket, he just plan wrong, you can still innovate.

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

Talisman · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2010, 06:21:36 PM »

Firstly welcome David, lets hope you will as an expert post in all areas of the forum.

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?

The Mongoose bat MMi3 which seems to be the flagship model is in design and manufacture an evolution of another bat launched for the T20 market. The other bat could also claim to a higher bat speed when swung down but does not as it takes longer to pick the bat up and overall the further you move the balance towards the toe the harder the bat is to play with.

I love bats, I have bought a MMi3 from Tom and have used it extensively and also made my own versions to improve its failings. I love researching shapes and have my own which in theory will propel the ball further than a like for like bat at the same weight and balance.

I think that the fact Norbair and myself are actively working on improving the cricket bat in our own ways and driving forward innovation while helping those who can actually lay claim to genuine innovation far in excess of the Mongoose means we are in good position to comment. Discourse is healthy and the whole reason behind the existence of this forum.

I'd love for you to share with us your research aims and findings.

Tom · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2010, 06:40:59 PM »

Mike,

Change the record for once and appreciate that a brand has launched and had relative success with the most radical looking bat for years and years. And that company wasn't Newbery, Talisman or SAF.

Perhaps you have improved it, perhaps you are working on improving the cricket bat but try putting it to market and making it into a success also.

We're also further improving bats and shapes. We're in very early stages on something at the moment which should save 4-5oz off the weight of a bat with no loss of power or durability.

Talisman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2010, 07:17:05 PM »

Tom,

You are on the back foot already and we all know that is not a great place to be with a MMi3 in your hands, it doesn't give you the defence that other bats offer.

I appreciate the brand has launched. Please quantify your success, unit sales maybe? It is the most radical bat I've seen but very close to the CJI Fatso LE in my opinion on your looks front.

But having been bored senseless by fully reading Mongoose's patent application I found a few flaws, and those would be simple for a cricketer to spot, let alone a patent lawyer. The Uzi was launched as the first elongated handle, truncated blade combination bat on the market and was pitched as a T20 bat. The application rightly credits Slazenger and Newbery as having shoulderless bats before anyone else. The Mongoose is a spliced bat the same as every other, hiding the splice does not make it spliceless. Also the definition issued as to what constitutes a patent will be a major problem in the cricket bat field, maybe why there are so few patents. I don't have a problem with anything in the Mongoose bat range, the ideas have been tried and not taken up by batmaker's so it was a brave move to go with it and coupled with an excellent marketing background Marcus has created superb brand awareness.

It's just a trivial annoyance that you guys have not seen to credit where credit is due, look forward to the next most radical bat ever.... when are you going to come down and see all my secrets in action?

Poll

Is this the first Spliceless bat - Poll

Author Topic: Spliceless Bat (Read 16378 times)

SAF Bats

Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

niceonechoppy

Re: Spliceless Bat

steelcouch

Re: Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

SAF Bats

Re: Spliceless Bat

frankspop

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat

Tom

Re: Spliceless Bat

Talisman

Re: Spliceless Bat