Print

Yes

No

[SAF Bats]

I'm staying but skulking... It will be good to get some other opinions especially as practical and theoretical stuff is often different.  Also Tim says, nope tried that it didn't work, quite a lot :-)

[SAF Bats]

Actually out of interest those that answered "no" what was the 1st spliceless bat?

[Talisman]

I think those might be on the books......

[frankspop]

Hi
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.

Thanks

Andy

Andy, apology and comments much appreciated, and no offence taken, just needed to set the record straight. Emotions and passions make us do strange things, not least on-line.
David

[Tom]

How do you mean it's a dead zone? As in it's not used or as in there's no performance from it?

[SAF Bats]

Not used and little performance

[frankspop]

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?

Talisman
Finally found sometime to look at your questions. 

What did you make of the shoulderless bats used in the 70's and 80's performance wise?
Only aware of the Newbery Excalibur and Slazenger WG from that period. Not played with them or looked at them in any detail.  The original Woodworm is a timid copy of the shoulderless bat, and they all are playing the same game - redistribution of redundant mass to increase middle, and therefore batted ball speed, or retain performance but have a lighter bat, although the latter is likely to lower the Centre of Mass and make pick-up worse.  As ever, it's a game of trade-offs for performance v balance.  The fact that the Excalibur and WG had a limited shelf-life makes me think that the heavier pick-up was not that popular.  Now though, with the trend for heavier bats and the T20s, shoulder-less merits may find more customers.  That said, in my opinion, they don't look great, and as we all know aesthetics counts in the batsman's fickle psyche.

How would you rate the GN Scoop performance wise?
Batted ball speed off the middle will be worse than a standard profile. This has been proved in research but also a basic understanding of impact mechanics will tell you that the unit mass at point of contact is the key factor. If you have less mass in the middle because of the scoop, ergo less performance.  However, pick-up should be lighter, and this may favour some batsmen - certainly worked for Brian Lara.

Does a stiffer handle generate more power?
Simple answer is yes. Momentum transfer is conserved because energy is not lost in deforming (bending) the handle. Also, a stiffer bat (very stiff handle) could raise the third vibration mode out of the excitation spectrum, and therefore reduce the induced vibration energy.  However, research has shown that the stiffness required to achieve this is not feasible in cricket bats governed by Law 6, and would probably feel terrible and judged 'unplayable'. Anyhow, as you know, stiff handles are not to everyone's taste because of the 'harder' feel, and higher ball speed is not a guarantee of more runs.

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?
Without having one to hand, and not having tested, this answer is a personal view supported by the results of the research done for Mongoose by Anthony Bull at Imperial College.  The answer should be no, the flex in the handle should be the same.  Willow has higher flexural stiffness than cane.  If the splice is dimensionally in the same position as a standard bat, then the handle will deform in the same place i.e. in the bottom third of the cane section. The Bull paper seems to support this.

David

[SAF Bats]

Benefits of the scoop and off centre shots?

"Does a stiffer handle generate more power?" not sure many people will understand "the third vibration mode" ;-)

[frankspop]

Benefits of the scoop and off centre shots?

"Does a stiffer handle generate more power?" not sure many people will understand "the third vibration mode" ;-)

The scoop concept was patented by GN and coined the term 'perimeter weighting'.  The idea was to create a larger effective sweet spot to improve performance for off-centre shots.  For the single large central scoop of the GN Super/100 (I think, check models), the removal of mass from centre to the edges also increased the polar moment of inertia (resistance to torsion) of the section, which means the bat would twist less in the hand from hits towards the edges.  The single large scoop faded away in favour of smaller scoops, mostly taken off-centre, which retained an apex and thus big mass on the centre line.  The inevitable compromise.  There is no experimental research that I know of that tries to quantify the benefits.  Some have created 3D models and played around with profiles to demonstrate differences through vibration energy analysis.  Although there are limitations to the models due to assumptions on material characteristics, the basic intuitive benefits/drawbacks of scoops are shown in relation to the effect on stiffness.  Interesting historical aside: Slazenger copied the GN scoop idea into their V8 in the mid-nineties, infringed GN's patent and had to make a settlement with royalties for them to continue selling it.

Apologies for using technical terms without some explanation. When a cricket bat is hit by a ball, there are natural vibration modes induced.  Within the excitation spectrum of the bat there are three modes, typically 130Hz, 400Hz, and 650Hz.  The excitation spectrum is related to the contact time of the impact, which is around 1millsecond, and this period equates to a frequency of 1000Hz (f=1/T). The location of the sweet spot can be considered the point where the induced vibration energy is minimised.  Research has postulated that if you could raise the third mode (650Hz) above 1000Hz, by making the bat stiffer, then it may be moved outside the excitation spectrum of the ball/bat impact.  That research (the Brooks paper covers it) though shows that such stiffness could not be achieved with wood.  Hope that makes more sense now.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

Very detailed repley there.....too many big words for my simple brain to digest and flashbacks to days of a hangover in a lecture of mechanics/mathematics and deformation points!

on a tangent is the stiff handle theory related to a carbon or steel shafted golf clubs...carbon bend more when swung at higher speed but steel are stiffer and gererate less bend?? So steel clubs should hit further than graphite/carbon shafted?

[SAF Bats]

The scoop concept was patented by GN and coined the term 'perimeter weighting'.  The idea was to create a larger effective sweet spot to improve performance for off-centre shots.  For the single large central scoop of the GN Super/100 (I think, check models), the removal of mass from centre to the edges also increased the polar moment of inertia (resistance to torsion) of the section, which means the bat would twist less in the hand from hits towards the edges.  The single large scoop faded away in favour of smaller scoops, mostly taken off-centre, which retained an apex and thus big mass on the centre line.  The inevitable compromise.  There is no experimental research that I know of that tries to quantify the benefits.  Some have created 3D models and played around with profiles to demonstrate differences through vibration energy analysis.  Although there are limitations to the models due to assumptions on material characteristics, the basic intuitive benefits/drawbacks of scoops are shown in relation to the effect on stiffness.  Interesting historical aside: Slazenger copied the GN scoop idea into their V8 in the mid-nineties, infringed GN's patent and had to make a settlement with royalties for them to continue selling it.

I'm in general agreement as you probably guessed from the question about Off Centre shots...

When chatting to one of the old boys from GN they said another reason that they stopped doing the scoop was that they started to get lots of returns from bats spliting in the scooped area.  They redesigned the scoop and hey presto the dyna-drive.

Ayrtek the article Frankspop is refering to is related to GRP in the handle and further assumptions based on composite materials

[Talisman]

I love a detailed answer, Norb will explain it all to me over the coming weeks....

The shoulderless bats were in my experience an attempt to build the edge size up without adding extra weight, but also they were in the Clive Lloyd/Ian Botham era of 3lb+ bats being used by the Pro's and all the shapes from that era have died and are being reborn in the cycle of invention, Willostix have just released a copy with no nod to the originals.

The Scoop was created along with just about every legendary GN bat by John Newbery and I'm told despite the shape providing less mass in the hitting area than any other shape actually works, I've had one made to test this. I have a theory on bat shape which allow mass in the hitting area, give a larger sweetspot through perimeter weighting and a light weight and pick up. The shape does not infringe any MCC law but does require a little testing to assess lifespan!!!

One of the biggest faults in marketing of bat speed is that it is a measure of downwards motion, we don't stand with a "Goochie" stance typically so a overall measure of pick up and bat speed to the impact needs to become an industry standard to counter this silly claims. If we all wanted bat speed alone we would use 4lb+ bats, we don't, we want to be able to get the bat into the desired position to play the shot.

[frankspop]

Love the historical stuff on bats around who, what, when and why.  They provide valuable pieces of the bat making jigsaw through time - something I want to collate over the next few years.

The Dyna Drive was a lovely bat.

Intrigued by the teaser Talisman on 'your theory'...is it an even shorter blade than Mongoose?! or rather curvy? Can anyone else read between the lines and 'guess what it is yet'?

Surely bat speed is also related to forward motion as well as downward motion? I find it interesting that big powerful men such as Viv Richards, Flintoff, Peterson (among many) play with light bats (I heard around 2lb 6oz).  They hit the ball hard from generating very high bat speed - which is not so easy with the heavy bats.  To me, heavy bats make no sense unless you are happy limiting your shot repertoire, reaction time, and happy running between the wickets carrying more weight making you tired quicker.  I acknowledge the fact though that at club level and below the heavy bat has its place.

 

[SAF Bats]

The Scoop was created along with just about every legendary GN bat by John Newbery

I know this is tantamount to sacrilege but a guy named Barry wheeler invented the scoop

Generating more swing speed is fine if your aim is whack it out the park all the time! We are not playing baseball here, are we going to start bunting a ball on fast deliveries? 

Also to generate that swing speed we are impacting reaction time. Will we start having to reduce the back lift to compensate! More volume in the hitting area yep, distributing the weight to create a bat that is really only useful for one thing then my opinion nope.

PS Talismans' design is a viable solution no clues from me though

PPS Is that a forum 2lb 6oz as that would mean in real life it is probably around 2lb 9oz [tongue in cheek so dont call me an imbecile please]

[Talisman]

I'll check up on the scoop, think someone else registered the design but having seen the prototypes not sure if there was any desire to own the patent in those days apart from the company.

My theory, soon to be a reality, bat is a standard handle and blade combo.

As for the pro's using light bats, I can see why as the ball tends to be coming faster at you and their reactions need to be quicker. A player in my team has a 2.7 and has repeatedly hit sixes over cover with it and he is the smallest player in the team. The increase in bat speed will make up for any loss of mass to a certain point, but Pro's now tend to be using 2.7 to 2.10 on average. Sachin has dropped from 3lb+ to 2.13 for a finished bat excluding grip so the heavier weight has not held him back too much.