Because you brought up "cost effective and time efficient manner"...
HAHAHAHAH. Right. Actually, that was my argument - you initially dismissed the comparison of "low-density" cleft usage on the ground of "cost effective and time efficient manner."
Glad to see you came around to my argument. 
I think I was referring to the additional layer of testing. This would require someone to accurately repeat the testing using a machine of some sort. Log all entries of all bats made alongside the clefts 'density' (which isn't a uniform characteristic across the cleft at all - because it's a natural product which is non-uniform across then cleft which is subject to knots, honey fungus, different porosity across the cleft etc etc) then you'd somehow maybe be able to compare initial rebound? But how would this do anything other than add to the time and costs it takes to manufacture a cricket bat for a company?
My dismissal was based on having to spend money and effort to develop the technology/methodology, the additional time in the manufacturing process as you're introducing yet another step. To be honest, it probably wouldn't help to sell more bats - they'd have to charge more to invest in the testing, and we all know bats change over time, and at quite different rates.
This isn't the same as something that can be repeatably manufactured like table tennis rubbers, which can vary ever so slightly between batches, but all in all the characteristics will remain quite consistent due to it being a more uniform components due to some of it being synthetic.
Based on my discussions, what I understand is that Laver does have a grading process - clefts are subjected to some tests where rebound is measured and has some proprietary formula for cleft comparison. Your argument doesn't hold water since bats prices are already factoring those (existing such as Laver) processes.
Let's say that bat makers do as you propose, then I will happily pay a higher price if bat performance was guaranteed, bat had standardized specs, and I didn't have to buy 5 other bats because the bat I bought sucked or took too long to open up.
That's his process - has he mentioned the kind of machinery and formulas that he uses to deduce exactly what should perform at what standard? Or is it that he's actually an expert at this as he's done it for decades, and he tests with a mallet throughout the manufacturing process - and then will downgrade if the bat isn't good enough for a Reserve grade? You're asking for a set formula that will give you absolute results - if the above is what Jim does, then that's not it. And what are standardised specs? Weren't you talking about how bat sizing was all wrong?
So, low-density clefts were nothing but a marketing ploy and they don't add anything to a bat's performance. Thanks for acknowledging this. Many of us were duped by snake oil salesmen.
Fair comment. Nobody went broke fooling bat-performance-hungry club cricketers.
Bottom line: What you have written is really a bunch of excuses for lacking proper standards of performance for cricket bats! "Natural product". "You want to pay more".
Golfers used wooden clubs once. Nobody complains about "natural product" today. Same with tennis. Their equipment performs from day 1 and their usual challenge is finding more (weekend) time to use it. Poor clubbies futz around with their bats and the proposed solution: "buy another one"! C'mon.
It will take someone far far more intelligent and experienced in this field than either of us to say whether or not low density has got an effect on performance, and whether it can be quantified at all. All I can say is that I've had older styled traditional bats which aren't low density outperform more modern shaped 'lower density' bats. I should add that I would think having a very dense cleft may be detrimental, as I've been told that what gives the spring/performance is a hard solid layer on top of a spongey more porous layer.
Then on the flip side, the GM Players bats are normally a cut above their standard off the shelf - but you do find some standard off the shelf GMs which will be as good as you'll get as well. If you only buy GM, and this has been your experience, then you'd be under the impression that bigger bats do perform better.
The key is they used wooden clubs once - now they use composite materials. (Not a golfer, have no knowledge in this field) Tennis - they used wooden rackets with high tension string - they've changed too. The materials we use for cricket bats has been mostly the same. Alternatives have been tried, but none quite matched the characteristics that willow grown in England offers.
What ought to be the proper standards to test a cricket bat? What kind of metric would you like to see? As much as I loathe the ping videos where some bloke takes a rock hard ball and belts it against the ceiling while exclaiming 'wooow' for half he video - that's pretty much what is done by most to test rebound.
Besides, who the heck knows what a 2lb 11oz bat
should perform like?!
Author
Topic: A topic to polarise opinion.....'Specs' are they all that? (Read 10162 times)