Print

[Calzehbhoy]

Wasn't that why they always say the bat is playing it's best just before the handle breaks?

[GDP1964]

Wasn't that why they always say the bat is playing it's best just before the handle breaks?

i fully agree with the quote above

[ogroupleader]

This is a very complicated debate...in general, a stiffer handle means less energy lost, so theoretically more power back into the ball...

..BUT, does anyone here play tennis? Even if you don't, just google "tennis racket string tension" and you'll see that tennis players who want more power opt for LESS tension in the strings, and players who want control, opt for MORE tension in the strings.

Here is a great article to read that explains the Tennis analogy: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456

A quote from the article: "Racket strings have more punch when they're strung loosely because the ball dwells on the string bed longer, creating a trampoline effect."

So clearly, there are a few nuances here that are hard to grasp.

The article is incorrect.  A tennis rkt is a completely different collision from a cricket bat.  Stiffness in tennis rkts does increase power. But we are talking about stiffness of the frame not stiffness of the stringbed. Stringbed interaction with the ball is a completely different system.
We have gained a much clearer understanding of rkt ball interaction in the last 10-15 years.  Previously many of the explanations for what was happening was based on anecdotal evidence alone.  We now understand that differences in stringbed stiffness affect ball speed by no more than 1%. Frame stiffness can affect ball speed by up to 30% ish. A softer stringbed creates a higher ball trajectory which means more depth in the court. This creates the illusion of more power or ball speed.
I am one of the guys that gets interviewed when a journalist is going to write an article like this.  In this case it is one of my colleagues stringing at the miami masters who had been interviewed. Unfortunately he has tried to dumb it down. The looser strings = more power approach is the dumbed down version. It's not correct.

[sachin200]

The article is incorrect.  A tennis rkt is a completely different collision from a cricket bat.  Stiffness in tennis rkts does increase power. But we are talking about stiffness of the frame not stiffness of the stringbed. Stringbed interaction with the ball is a completely different system.
We have gained a much clearer understanding of rkt ball interaction in the last 10-15 years.  Previously many of the explanations for what was happening was based on anecdotal evidence alone.  We now understand that differences in stringbed stiffness affect ball speed by no more than 1%. Frame stiffness can affect ball speed by up to 30% ish. A softer stringbed creates a higher ball trajectory which means more depth in the court. This creates the illusion of more power or ball speed.
I am one of the guys that gets interviewed when a journalist is going to write an article like this.  In this case it is one of my colleagues stringing at the miami masters who had been interviewed. Unfortunately he has tried to dumb it down. The looser strings = more power approach is the dumbed down version. It's not correct.

Hi @ogroupleader,
What is th verdict then? My theory is that the contact time between the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter but just having a flexible handle creates an illusion for the batter that he has middled it even though it may have been a miss hit. On the other hand the stiffer handles don't matter (other than feel good factor) since there is no time for the vibration wave to travel back and forth to the point of impact to have a trampoline effect or have more power due to more  stiffness.

[ogroupleader]

Hi @ogroupleader,
What is th verdict then? My theory is that the contact time between the ball and bat is so small that it doesn't matter but just having a flexible handle creates an illusion for the batter that he has middled it even though it may have been a miss hit. On the other hand the stiffer handles don't matter (other than feel good factor) since there is no time for the vibration wave to travel back and forth to the point of impact to have a trampoline effect or have more power due to more  stiffness.

I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However,  the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.

What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex  backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.

The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames  are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?

[sachin200]

I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However,  the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.

What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex  backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.

The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames  are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?

@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html

[sachin200]

@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html

This also explains why some of the pros have hit sixes even though they had only one hand on the bat at the time of contact! Does anyone remember a guy named 'Sir Viv Richards' lol!

[ogroupleader]

@ogroupleader thanks for your reply. I think you are the right guy to discuss this with. Please read the point number '5. grip firmness' in the following article from the physics depart of university of Sydney. Basically they are saying that the rebound doesn't matter whether the bat is held firmly or just hinged (unrestrained). They say it is purely a function of bat and ball speed before th impact! If this is true then I guess handles (stiffer or flexible) shouldn't matter at all correct?

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html

This guy has done a lot of work in the racquet industry. Most of his theories have been pretty good. I can only think of one that sounded like complete bs and was later shown to be wrong by subsequent research. So generally speaking he has a pretty good idea what is going on. If he says handle stiffness has no bearing on power it probably doesn't.

[Seniorplayer]

Ifs thats the case GN laver and a few others have got it wrong.

[sachin200]

Ifs thats the case GN laver and a few others have got it wrong.

Well, we were saying that it doesn't give you extra power but if it (less vibrations) makes you feel better at the crease,..........then.......
I guess, if you are a batter who would prefer less vibrations, then go for more flex!

[sachin200]

Or, as with all of academic work, the statement is true under certain circumstances with limitations and assumptions that the online article doesn't go in to which may or may not accurately relate to real world cricket bat dynamics... without knowing how  this statement was derived it is a little hard to read to much in to it IMO.

Interesting thought. I think the article specifies results at 100kph deliveries. Average speed for a fast or a medium fast bowler is going to be higher than 100kph but for a spin bowler bowling at 75kph, the contact time between the bat and the ball is going to be slightly more (unless you are hitting it out of the ground). I don't know how that dynamics is going to behave.

[dcullen8]

I guess, if you are a batter who would prefer less vibrations, then go for more flex!

Isn't this just everyone? Does anyone enjoy a load of vibration ( easy now fellas!)

[sachin200]

I have not studied cricket bat dynamics. However,  the assertion that a small contact time renders stiffness irrelevant seems contradictory.

What follows is a simplified explanation of collision between racquet and ball.
At impact 2 things happen.
1. The ball makes contact with the string bed and the strings deform backwards.
2. The impact load of the ball against the strings causes the frame to deform or flex  backwards. Note that the stiffness of the stringbed has no effect on the deformation of the frame. Frame deformation occurs concurrently and not subsequently to stringbed deformation. Also note if there is no stringbed deformation ie an extremely stiff stringbed (like a cricket bat) frame deformation will still occur.

The ball sits on the strings for 3-5 milliseconds.
The flex wave travelling down the racquet takes 7 milliseconds to travel from the head down to the shaft and back up to the head.
So this means that the frame does not recover its shape (or flex back) until after the ball has left the strings and already started its return journey.
So The energy that goes into flexing the rkt backwards is lost to the ball. It does not contribute to the balls rebound velocity.
The more the racquet flexes the more energy is not returned to the balls rebound. This is why stiffer racquet frames  are more powerful than flexible racquets. They lose less energy in the collision.
I think it would follow that a stiffer bat would also less energy in collision between bat and ball ESPECIALLY because impact time is short.
I could be wrong though. Who's schooled in bat science?

I agree with what you have said and that is the reason why I brought this one up on the forum!

[sachin200]

Isn't this just everyone? Does anyone enjoy a load of vibration ( easy now fellas!)

I was just trying to be polite to the companies who have carbon inserts in their handles. I guess, it ultimately boils down to what you like to feel in hands. I have heard Laver and Wood saying that a former NZ all rounder liked punchy feel of the stiff handle bats, so I guess not everyone is same. But in reality, I think carbon inserts allowing larger hits is technically not true!

[Sitonit]

This is a very complicated debate...in general, a stiffer handle means less energy lost, so theoretically more power back into the ball...

..BUT, does anyone here play tennis? Even if you don't, just google "tennis racket string tension" and you'll see that tennis players who want more power opt for LESS tension in the strings, and players who want control, opt for MORE tension in the strings.

Here is a great article to read that explains the Tennis analogy: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203370604577265832373170456

A quote from the article: "Racket strings have more punch when they're strung loosely because the ball dwells on the string bed longer, creating a trampoline effect."

So clearly, there are a few nuances here that are hard to grasp.

Seriously, this is laughable.
You should try batting with a tennis racket facing a hard leather ball.