Topic: What if the idea of big bats is a myth? (Read 6279 times)

Buzz · « **on:** December 28, 2019, 05:22:11 PM »

Here are a range of my bats.

The only size difference in the bats are where they are heavier (the Genus is the heaviest, the red County the lightest which is 25+ years old).

SD · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2019, 06:34:01 PM »

I have never been clear what benefit there is to having a lower density and therefore bigger volume bat over a bat of the same weight of a higher density and therefore a smaller volume. I can appreciate that there may be an optimum density at which willow performs at its maximum rebound qualities but I can't see what benefit there is to a low density bat per se.

Manormanic · « **Reply #2 on:** December 28, 2019, 06:40:26 PM »

The only one I can perceive - and I have no science, only a couple of minutes thought - to support this is in its stability through the air.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #3 on:** December 28, 2019, 06:41:00 PM »

Quote from: Buzz on December 28, 2019, 05:22:11 PM

Here are a range of my bats.

The only size difference in the bats are where they are heavier (the Genus is the heaviest, the red County the lightest which is 25+ years old).

What are the weights of these bats?

Wazza08 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 28, 2019, 06:59:15 PM »

Quote from: SD on December 28, 2019, 06:34:01 PM

I have never been clear what benefit there is to having a lower density and therefore bigger volume bat over a bat of the same weight of a higher density and therefore a smaller volume. I can appreciate that there may be an optimum density at which willow performs at its maximum rebound qualities but I can't see what benefit there is to a low density bat per se.

Probably a lot easier to sell many more bats when low density as they seem to damage more easily so better for manufacturers, bit like a Dyson - if it lasts 20 years you don't make many sales and don't last as long, or you have to just keep getting new customers (well with CBF maybe i am totally wrong on this

as we change bats as often as our ......) !

Gurujames · « **Reply #5 on:** December 28, 2019, 07:04:57 PM »

It is a myth.
Same as �there is one bat out there that will make me a great player��. That said, I�m still searching for �that� bat.

Buzz · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 2019, 08:05:06 PM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on December 28, 2019, 06:41:00 PM

What are the weights of these bats?

The lightest is 2-8 the heaviest 2-11.
3oz is a lot of timber.

Psi · « **Reply #7 on:** December 28, 2019, 10:14:01 PM »

I've been speaking to an expert on the science of baseball bats recently. They seem to have done a lot more study about the science of baseball than cricket. He was really surprised that low density/big size was considered important for cricket bats and didn't have a ready explanation. If anyone's interested, the state of the art is a book called 'the science of baseball' by A. Terry Bahill. It goes through all the science of how ball/bat collisions work and gives equations for speed of ball on terms of bat weight, ball weight, coefficient of restitution (='pinginess') and the effect of spin on the ball at collision time. All of the results should apply pretty much unaltered for cricket bats, with suitable changes of weight /dimensions etc.

One thing that is neglected in the book is the effect of bat surface friction, and it occurred to me that this could be a significant factor when using a scuff sheet or not, as some scuff sheets are quite smooth and slippery to the ball.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2019, 10:48:36 PM »

Quote from: Buzz on December 28, 2019, 08:05:06 PM

The lightest is 2-8 the heaviest 2-11.
3oz is a lot of timber.

I once asked a bat "designer" about rebound/performance of a low-density bat and didn't get a definitive answer. A theory was floated on CBF about a larger surface area of low-density bats enabling a better rebound. I have tried some nice low-den-big-volume bats and they felt really nice in nets but in games, big hitters use 2-10+ bats. I don't know whether low-den-light-weight-big-volume bats are as effective as 2-10+ bats but on crappy grounds with slow outfield and high grass, where ball doesn't roll for poop, light weight bats are pretty useless.

adb club cricketer · « **Reply #9 on:** December 29, 2019, 05:45:19 AM »

Quote from: Psi on December 28, 2019, 10:14:01 PM

I've been speaking to an expert on the science of baseball bats recently. They seem to have done a lot more study about the science of baseball than cricket. He was really surprised that low density/big size was considered important for cricket bats and didn't have a ready explanation. If anyone's interested, the state of the art is a book called 'the science of baseball' by A. Terry Bahill. It goes through all the science of how ball/bat collisions work and gives equations for speed of ball on terms of bat weight, ball weight, coefficient of restitution (='pinginess') and the effect of spin on the ball at collision time. All of the results should apply pretty much unaltered for cricket bats, with suitable changes of weight /dimensions etc.

One thing that is neglected in the book is the effect of bat surface friction, and it occurred to me that this could be a significant factor when using a scuff sheet or not, as some scuff sheets are quite smooth and slippery to the ball.

I dont think the F=ma kind of equations can accurately/fully apply to cricket bats (unlike in baseball) since there is the "response" specific to the bat based on the "pressing" that is not accounted for in any of the equations. Two cricket bats with same weight and thickness but different pressing will rebound the ball differently. This is not accounted by any of known physics equations I think .That is also what makes the cricket bats so mysterious and make people want to buy more and more in search of that elusive perfect bat

.

Maybe we should research to come up with an accurate equation to apply to cricket bats. I am guessing it will have some coefficient like TK/SK or SS anonymous batmaker coefficient etc to account for the response introduced into the bat by the pressing of the corresponding batmaker, some way to account for handle materials/flex etc. etc.

Chompy9760 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2019, 08:07:13 AM »

Quote from: adb club cricketer on December 29, 2019, 05:45:19 AM

I dont think the F=ma kind of equations can accurately/fully apply to cricket bats (unlike in baseball) since there is the "response" specific to the bat based on the "pressing" that is not accounted for in any of the equations. Two cricket bats with same weight and thickness but different pressing will rebound the ball differently. This is not accounted by any of known physics equations I think .That is also what makes the cricket bats so mysterious and make people want to buy more and more in search of that elusive perfect bat .

Maybe we should research to come up with an accurate equation to apply to cricket bats. I am guessing it will have some coefficient like TK/SK or SS anonymous batmaker coefficient etc to account for the response introduced into the bat by the pressing of the corresponding batmaker, some way to account for handle materials/flex etc. etc.

Plus the extra unknown of hitting the 'ball in the middle'. Miss the middle by 1 inch with a baseball bat and it's a flyball - miss by 1 inch in a cricket bat and the ball still goes for six. The F=ma equations are are a perfect base to add the other factors you mention, it could be measured and done with testing equipment, but it all gets complex and irrelevant as soon as a human starts swinging the bat.

There may be something about lower density bats though. I have a 12mm thick foam mat in my workshop, and if I drop a cricket ball on that it bounces much higher than one dropped on the floor alone. The extra rebound comes from small air bubbles in the foam that compress on impact and expand on rebound - that's why you see foam sheets on the front of 'catch bats'. Lower density willow would also have more air trapped inside it, and may have more rebound?? Maybe not - just a thought.

Northern monkey · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2019, 10:15:01 AM »

Great topic for sure

Personally think as far as rebound, that�s a lot down to pressing and that includes knocking in etc.
Another thing is the natural variation in timber clefts, even from the same tree etc

Furthest I�ve ever hit a ball consistently is with my old gn 5star, it�s still by far the most responsive bat I�ve used
I think the spine is about 45mm and the edges are 20mm at the most, when new it weighed 2.11 ish
Took me a long time to get used to it as I kept being caught at mid on/off with a gentle push

edge · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2019, 10:26:56 AM »

I've said it before, but f=ma is not the right equation.

As far as the maths is concerned baseball collisions and cricket collisions are essentially the same, just some variables change.

A thicker bat will perform slightly better than a similar thinner bat. This is because a thicker bat will be stiffer in bending and so less energy will be lost through deformation than with a thinner bat. The difference in performance will not be large.

SD · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2019, 03:27:15 PM »

Quote from: edge on December 29, 2019, 10:26:56 AM

I've said it before, but f=ma is not the right equation.

As far as the maths is concerned baseball collisions and cricket collisions are essentially the same, just some variables change.

A thicker bat will perform slightly better than a similar thinner bat. This is because a thicker bat will be stiffer in bending and so less energy will be lost through deformation than with a thinner bat. The difference in performance will not be large.

Would a lower density bat not flex more than a higher density bat though?

It does surprise me that, with the money now flowing into cricket, there hasn't been a significant level of research into achieving the maximum performance from bats. When you look at sports like motor racing and cycling that are constantly testing to make small advancements, there is something or a luddite approach to making cricket bats

Wazza08 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2019, 03:31:30 PM »

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the coefficient of restitution (newtons laws) and there will be variability in the wood changing this (think of why golf clubs are now metal to reduce the variability and increase the trampoline effects. How much density changes this I do not know, but will certainly have an effect.

I think it is worth considering it close to a golf club where the forces generated are also partly due to speed (so heavier clubs vs lighter clubs changes the ability to deliver speed of impact and in turn the forces generated) so lighter bats generate more speed, heavier bats need less speed to generate the same force. Adding a better rebound effect will in effect make the efficiency much higher as less energy is lost but not sure on what proportion that would account for compared with the effects of weight and speed.

Author Topic: What if the idea of big bats is a myth? (Read 6279 times)

Buzz

What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

SD

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Manormanic

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

InternalTraining

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Wazza08

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Gurujames

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Buzz

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Psi

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

InternalTraining

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

adb club cricketer

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Chompy9760

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Northern monkey

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

edge

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

SD

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?

Wazza08

Re: What if the idea of big bats is a myth?