Topic: Bat size restrictions (Read 6583 times)

Buzz · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2018, 11:02:24 AM »

Quote from: JK Lewis on June 25, 2018, 11:01:03 AM

I think that as we can't make grounds bigger or players smaller, the game should be evened up by making the stumps taller and wider. There is big benefit to batsmen for every hit, so offer bowlers bigger benefit for every miss.

This is a terrible idea!! 😂😂😂😂😮😮😮😀

JK Lewis · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2018, 11:22:20 AM »

Quote from: Buzz on June 25, 2018, 11:02:24 AM

This is a terrible idea!! 😂😂😂😂😮😮😮😀

Ha ha that's me told! I thought it was quite an elegant solution! Back t'drawing board...

smilley792 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2018, 11:56:07 AM »

Get a better ball.

Get rid of the �leg side wide rule�. A wide is a wide, but if it just misses the pads it should be fine.

Get rid of the �2 head height� ballls an over thing. Bowler should be able to ball six Legal delivery�s anywhere.

And random one.

Bowlers should only have to say which side of wicket they are bowling, the hand they want to use is up to them, therefore if a bowler can bowl with both hands, it�s his advantage to throw in a left armer every now and again......

Kulli · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2018, 12:06:12 PM »

Quote from: Hoover on June 25, 2018, 10:02:08 AM

I don�t know how other makers derive there techniques but we use a lot of trial and error in our making. We actually call our sponsored players �lab rats � ! Not trying to be clever at all but we won�t share our IP on this.

Might be the same answer, but would you be prepared to share some of the stuff you have tried that hasn't worked?

sachin200 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:04:48 PM »

I think F=m.a applies for both bat and ball (Newton's third law of motion - bat exerts force on the ball and opposite is also true). The resulting forces are equal and opposite in nature. Since we are assuming that the ball is delivered at same acceleration and the weight of the ball doesn't change much against a heavy bat vs light bat, the heavier bat is going to hit it at max 5 to 10% longer at the same acceleration (same bat speed and same ball speed). For practical purposes, assume someone batting against a balling machine set at a particular speed, a heavier bat will only hit the ball 5 to 10% longer than a lighter bat in this scenario.

Quote from: edge on June 25, 2018, 09:07:02 AM

Disclaimer - prepare for pedantry... While F=ma is a not unhelpful way of thinking about it, the 'M' described in F=ma refers to the mass of the cricket ball, not the bat. Force is applied by the bat, resulting in the mass of the ball accelerating at a.

Balls, change the balls, they're crap. I have a couple of white Kookaburra turf balls and they're rock hard, no seam, quarter seam cracks open after hardly any use at all, (No Swearing Please) if I'd bowl with one. A ball with a seam would make a huge difference.

@Hoover, if you'd be prepared to share the differences in technique and results and why the change between pro and standard bats would.be a very interesting read!

Tom · « **Reply #20 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:24:23 PM »

But a simple equation such as F=ma ignores any collision efficiency that different shapes/materials/pressing of cricket bats can give.

I generally agree with Hoover, so whilst I believe the improvement in manufacturing has improved bat performance, I reckon that most of the improvement comes from more athletic cricketers who try to hit sixes more often.

edge · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:31:25 PM »

Quote from: Tom on June 25, 2018, 01:24:23 PM

But a simple equation such as F=ma ignores any collision efficiency that different shapes/materials/pressing of cricket bats can give.

Yes this is an extremely important and mostly ignored part of it! Also as mentioned before, f=ma is misunderstood/misused a lot in this context.

brokenbat · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:36:16 PM »

I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics

edge · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:37:42 PM »

Quote from: brokenbat on June 25, 2018, 01:36:16 PM

I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics

More pedantry - it does, but only by a tiny amount.

Tom · « **Reply #24 on:** June 25, 2018, 01:54:51 PM »

Quote from: brokenbat on June 25, 2018, 01:36:16 PM

I think the spirit of the original comment on this thread was: that the VOLUME of a bat does NOT determine how many runs are smashed. that statement is backed by science, but the ICC stupidly decided to ignore basic physics

What science supports that volume of the bat (which is determined by manufacturing techniques, wood density, willow moisture content, pressing methods) have zero impact on bat performance? If it has even the smallest impact on performance, then it is impacting the game and that may be for better or for worse.

We sit here all day arguing over which bat is better - we can't just say "bats have zero difference" when this whole forum has thousands of posts to us nitpicking over which bat should be bought next.

Number 11 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 11, 2018, 09:52:26 AM »

If you want to even up the balance to help the bowlers, use uncovered wickets.

prim0pyr0 · « **Reply #26 on:** July 11, 2018, 10:59:11 AM »

Bat volume increases rigidity of the bat, for same weight one with more volume will hit ball further. Likely why laminate bats perform well, also possibly why stright grains through the toe perform well. Carbon backed bats and aluminum bats could be similar in this regard

Buzz · « **Reply #27 on:** July 11, 2018, 11:21:18 AM »

This rigidity argument is interesting.
Could you explain a bit more how this works.
If a bat is denser the fibres are closer together, would that not make the bat more rigid?

edge · « **Reply #28 on:** July 11, 2018, 11:38:17 AM »

Quote from: Buzz on July 11, 2018, 11:21:18 AM

This rigidity argument is interesting.
Could you explain a bit more how this works.
If a bat is denser the fibres are closer together, would that not make the bat more rigid?

A shape with a thicker cross-sectional area in the axis of bending is stiffer. Imagine bending a ruler - if you put it flat and bend it up it bends very easily, if you try and bend it edgeways it's very difficult. Similarly, a deeper or thicker cricket bat (all else being equal) will be stiffer on impact with a cricket ball, which effectively means more energy going into the ball. One of many factors, but it is a factor.

Re. denser/fibres, I'm no expert on willow structure, will have a read! Highly doubt that would be the case though.

Gurujames · « **Reply #29 on:** July 11, 2018, 12:22:48 PM »

I might be wrong but I can�t imagine that this would have an effect. Surely the handle would have a far greater degree of flex than the blade. Even if you have a thick oval handle.
Saw in the science lab an equation about kinetic energy, something like KE= mass x 2 + speed squared. Meaning that the swing speed has a far larger effect than the mass of the bat. I only scraped though there physics GCSE so may Not have any relevance.

Author Topic: Bat size restrictions (Read 6583 times)

Buzz

Re: Bat size restrictions

JK Lewis

Re: Bat size restrictions

smilley792

Re: Bat size restrictions

Kulli

Re: Bat size restrictions

sachin200

Re: Bat size restrictions

Tom

Re: Bat size restrictions

edge

Re: Bat size restrictions

brokenbat

Re: Bat size restrictions

edge

Re: Bat size restrictions

Tom

Re: Bat size restrictions

Number 11

Re: Bat size restrictions

prim0pyr0

Re: Bat size restrictions

Buzz

Re: Bat size restrictions

edge

Re: Bat size restrictions

Gurujames

Re: Bat size restrictions