Topic: Bat Shapes (Read 14402 times)

SillyShilly · « **Reply #30 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:21:33 PM »

if you get the chance, kerbdog@hotmail.com.
Thanks.

I wont claim to understand what you have written fully.....but i have tried to intepret the main points.

Would the two sweet spots, the nodal and comfort, be smaller on the mongoose as you cannot expect the ball to fly off the bat when you hit with the toe or the near the shoulder of the bat? The decreased lenght of the blade would surely mean that you have a smaller but more concentrated sweetspot with the chance of the sweetspots being closer together?

SillyShilly · « **Reply #31 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:25:49 PM »

Wouldnt have said that the bat was that unique - it's a brave shape from the bat maker as he leaves the edges small, but the reward is a bat that look huge and is pleasing on the eye. Had a chat with rob at m&h about it - he said it was one of the more difficult shapes to reprduce.

AlRidd · « **Reply #32 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:28:25 PM »

I would like to have a look at it as well mate. alridd@hotmail.co.uk

Cheers

SAF Bats · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:29:02 PM »

Quote from: frankspop on January 11, 2010, 02:02:23 PM

As in tennis, you can consider there being two sweet spots on a cricket bat. One is a performance, or nodal, sweet spot where the sum of the amplitudes of the three dominant vibration modes is a minimum i.e. absorption of impact energy is minimised. The second is a comfort sweet spot known as the Centre of Percussion, where the forces of rotation and translation cancel out (excluding rotations for off-centre hits). The COP is rarely in the same place as the nodal sweet spot, and usually slightly above. By this reasoning you will get the best batted ball speed from a shot that you will 'feel' a reaction in the hands, and a slightly reduced batted ball speed from a shot out of the COP, which most of call 'middling it'.

Heavy bats absorb less impact energy than light bats, and will likely have a larger nodal sweet spot, but mass distribution will effect size and position.

I have a paper which compares various profiles' performance against impact vibration modes, which I can email to those who are interested.

Talisman, I will respond to some of your questions shortly.

Hand loads and the centre of precussion of a cricket bat?

edit: Actually it could be "The influence of impact vibration nodes and frequencies on cicket bat performance"

frankspop · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:51:17 PM »

Quote from: SillyShilly on January 11, 2010, 02:21:33 PM

Would the two sweet spots, the nodal and comfort, be smaller on the mongoose as you cannot expect the ball to fly off the bat when you hit with the toe or the near the shoulder of the bat? The decreased length of the blade would surely mean that you have a smaller but more concentrated sweetspot with the chance of the sweetspots being closer together?

Without doing the tests to verify, I can only put up this quote from the Mongoose Paper written by researcher at Imperial College:
"The Mongoose bats have vibration frequencies that are similar to the Woodworm. This is likely due to the consistency of materials and manufacture methods employed; the bats were all manufactured by the same manufacturer. The vibration energies were equivalent between the two bat designs up to 26 cm from the toe and
demonstrated that they had equivalent �sweet spots�. When the ball strikes above this point, the traditional design has a lower vibrational energy than the Mongoose. This is clearly due to the longer blade."

Looking at the vibration energy graphs in that paper and comparing with the Brooks paper I have, and assuming you consider the tested Woodworm bat as relatively standard, the sweet spot is slightly bigger on the Mongoose. However, the top section of the Mongoose should not play as well as the equivalent position on a standard bat as the graphs show higher impact energy absorbed. This may be countered to a degree by the higher mass behind the ball in the Mongoose at this point. Not played or netted with one yet, so perhaps some feedback from those who have may corroborate or oppose this.

Talisman · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2010, 03:21:45 PM »

I have performed an unscientific study with nearly every bat I've tried which consists of netting with it for 2 hours so give it a fair chance, no use of other bats while netting to help get used to it, then swap back to match bat as a comparison. I also have balls hand fed to me to hit baseball style to find distance possible from the bat and then use it for catching practice which gives me a good chance to hit balls along the length of the blade and replicate the sort of power you get hand hammering with a wooden mallet.

Going back to the shape if the pick up and dead weight are ideal I have had first hand experience of this very problem. I had ordered 2 Lavers and they turned up 7 weeks late on the morning of the very last match of the year. I opened the box to find them sent loose in the box all the way from New Zealand and when I took them out I found the shape was nothing like the one ordered. I was in a rage at getting very late bats with big dents in the spine and not as ordered. Having a temper I vowed to take the Firefly with me and smash it to pieces at the game, very grown up....

The pick up and dead weigh were spot on and so when it was my turn to bat which came quickly as we had the top order knocked over I took it out without even bouncing a ball on it, let alone knocking it in. I hit a couple of big drives/slogs and noticed it had no feel to it but it really did go, I finished with 158no and the bat did not have a dent in it as unbeknown to me it had been knocked in by James. I then promised to be a bit more opened minded to shapes as it was not something I would have gone for but ended up loving.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #36 on:** January 11, 2010, 03:22:00 PM »

Quote from: frankspop on January 11, 2010, 02:51:17 PM

Looking at the vibration energy graphs in that paper and comparing with the Brooks paper I have, and assuming you consider the tested Woodworm bat as relatively standard, the sweet spot is slightly bigger on the Mongoose. However, the top section of the Mongoose should not play as well as the equivalent position on a standard bat as the graphs show higher impact energy absorbed. This may be countered to a degree by the higher mass behind the ball in the Mongoose at this point. Not played or netted with one yet, so perhaps some feedback from those who have may corroborate or oppose this.

Agreed but is it not always the case with testing you can only assume the bat or bats you are comparing against are fairly consistent in there performance. It does however give you an insight into what you could potentially achieve but it effectively tells you this is better then this one in this test. Another bat pressed differently, slightly different willow etc etc may have been better.

I think, as you alluded to, that the mongoose is all about swing speed more then anything else and it just so happened that it had a slightly better sweet spot on the day.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2010, 03:34:10 PM »

Quote from: Talisman on January 11, 2010, 03:21:45 PM

I have performed an unscientific study with nearly every bat I've tried which consists of netting with it for 2 hours so give it a fair chance, no use of other bats while netting to help get used to it, then swap back to match bat as a comparison. I also have balls hand fed to me to hit baseball style to find distance possible from the bat and then use it for catching practice which gives me a good chance to hit balls along the length of the blade and replicate the sort of power you get hand hammering with a wooden mallet.

Going back to the shape if the pick up and dead weight are ideal I have had first hand experience of this very problem. I had ordered 2 Lavers and they turned up 7 weeks late on the morning of the very last match of the year. I opened the box to find them sent loose in the box all the way from New Zealand and when I took them out I found the shape was nothing like the one ordered. I was in a rage at getting very late bats with big dents in the spine and not as ordered. Having a temper I vowed to take the Firefly with me and smash it to pieces at the game, very grown up....

The pick up and dead weigh were spot on and so when it was my turn to bat which came quickly as we had the top order knocked over I took it out without even bouncing a ball on it, let alone knocking it in. I hit a couple of big drives/slogs and noticed it had no feel to it but it really did go, I finished with 158no and the bat did not have a dent in it as unbeknown to me it had been knocked in by James. I then promised to be a bit more opened minded to shapes as it was not something I would have gone for but ended up loving.

I think you hit that nail on the head with that post. A properly pressed and prepared bat will go no matter what shape it is. That said there are gains to be had elsewhere but the most significant thing I am beginning to realise is the willow, the preparation and the confidence of the player

frankspop · « **Reply #38 on:** January 11, 2010, 03:52:17 PM »

Quote from: Norbair on January 11, 2010, 02:29:02 PM

Hand loads and the centre of precussion of a cricket bat?

Norbair, assuming you are asking whether the hands/gloves affect the COP?

Current thinking on COP in relation to bat/ball sports is a slight can-of-worms, due to a paper by Hatze. However, there is a COP on the bat when impacted in a freely suspended set-up. When you add a human to the equation the location of the true fulcrum becomes tricky to pin down without the assistance of biomechanics lab with a motion capture system (something we may well be doing soon with some T20 bats to investigate kinematic differences against standard bats). Without knowing where your fulcrum is, you can't pin-point the true COP because it's about balancing the acting forces around a fulcrum.

Pro-tennis players always try to hit on the nodal sweet spot to get maximum performance and minimum discomfort from vibration, and are less bothered by translation/rotation movements from the impact as they are conditioned to control these. This should be same for cricket.

So, I suppose in conclusion, while COP is one type of sweet spot, it isn't part of the consideration in designing bats since it is heavily dependent on the person using it. The interest rightly focuses on the nodal sweet spot. That said, if you can find a bat whose nodal sweet spot is aligned to a COP, it should in theory 'feel' almost perfect. In reality you will also need the best willow and the best pressing.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #39 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:01:04 PM »

Nope I was thinking it might have been the article about the profiles you were talking about...

S Fisher, J Vogwell and M P Ansell - Hand loads and the centre of precussion of a cricket bat?

It is more to do with Scoops mind you and "The influence of impact vibration nodes and frequencies on cicket bat performance" does have a few more profiles in it

Quote

That said, if you can find a bat whose nodal sweet spot is aligned to a COP, it should in theory 'feel' almost perfect. In reality you will also need the best willow and the best pressing.

Always good to have the best willow and the best pressing :-) For a custom made bat - you can get a good idea on how to shape a bat from the players grip on the handle

SillyShilly · « **Reply #40 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:05:36 PM »

Doesnt this also highlight the importance of a good shaped handle - oval handles being linked to reducing rotation compared to round handles.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #41 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:08:02 PM »

Yes technically it will reduce twist and therefore energy loss

We've digressed a bit [well a lot] here though :-D

Also I think it is slightly unfair we talk about the mongoose more often then not

mdl_1979 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:09:37 PM »

This thread is hurting my tiny little mind. Me want cricket bat, hit ball far.

SAF Bats · « **Reply #43 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:11:38 PM »

Quote from: mdl_1979 on January 11, 2010, 04:09:37 PM

This thread is hurting my tiny little mind. Me want cricket bat, hit ball far.

Go to page 1 scroll down and choose a Profile :-)

mdl_1979 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:13:21 PM »

I think 1,3 and 6 appeal the most.

Author Topic: Bat Shapes (Read 14402 times)

SillyShilly

Re: Bat Shapes

SillyShilly

Re: Bat Shapes

AlRidd

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

frankspop

Re: Bat Shapes

Talisman

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

frankspop

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

SillyShilly

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

mdl_1979

Re: Bat Shapes

SAF Bats

Re: Bat Shapes

mdl_1979

Re: Bat Shapes