Print

[Chad]

No.  As it was impossible to separate cleft from handle, I had to assume all handles had the same volume and weight, and that the majority of variation in density I was measuring could be attributed to the willow.  So not perfect, but still gave me a fair comparison of what I was looking for.

Interesting that the one with the lowest density was the first (and only) one to delaminate.  It did also get the most use, but even so I thought it had a very short lifespan.

Did you find it pinged particularly better than others? Could have also been a bit drier, which is a contributing factor to delamination.

[jonny77]

Think this is a good point and one I always wonder with 'low density' bats. I've seen a few through the workshop which are massive for the weight, but when I work on them you can tell they're very dry. Big difference between low density and just overdried. If a cleft is very light with 12% moisture then I'd say it's obviously low density. If it's light because its a much lower moisture content/percentage, then obviously not.

[Bats_Entertainment]

When big (for the weight) bats first became a thing, wasn't it actually celebrated that new drying-processes (kilns?) allowed this?

[Chompy9760]

Did you find it pinged particularly better than others? Could have also been a bit drier, which is a contributing factor to delamination.

Hard to say - I didn't think ping was much different to the others, although in my head I liked the bat because it had a big, full profile and was still only 2 lb 9. 

Without testing the moisture of any of them, I would be very surprised this one wasn't drier than the rest.  My (limited) experience agrees with a lot of what I've read, where Low density = Dryer = Shorter Lifespan, although without a method of accurately measuring moisture, I'm only guessing.  I'm sure someone like Jonny can feel a difference while shaping a bat, but I'm just putting two and two together when the bat failed

[edge]

When big (for the weight) bats first became a thing, wasn't it actually celebrated that new drying-processes (kilns?) allowed this?

Yes, but not because they make the bats drier, although they could be used to do that. Kiln drying lets a willow merchant or batmaker acheive an even level of moisture throughout the cleft, rather than air drying which tends to leave clefts drier at the edges and wetter in the middle.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if cricket adopted what large parts of baseball has for bats - if you want to make bats out of composite materials then go ahead, but they have to be limited to a certain performance level.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Yes, but not because they make the bats drier, although they could be used to do that. Kiln drying lets a willow merchant or batmaker acheive an even level of moisture throughout the cleft, rather than air drying which tends to leave clefts drier at the edges and wetter in the middle.

I wasn't in any way suggesting I thought dry bats were a good thing!

When did kiln-drying start and to what extent is it used now?

[InternalTraining]

I'm hardly a batmaker, but I did order 6 partmades to have a go.  I knew the weights of each one, but as they were all slightly different shapes and lengths (some were LB /SH) volume was difficult to calculate.
My solution was to fill a length of 150mm pvc pipe with water, put the bat in a garbage bag, submerge it to the same point on the handle, remove the bat, measure the depth of water displaced, calculate the volume displaced = volume of the partmade.

Weight / Volume = density.  The density of the 6 partmades varied quite a bit, and for me knowing that info helped me match the partmade with the shape it was best suited for.  I'm sure a real batmaker has a pretty good idea of this without measuring volume, but the geek in me needed it in scientific measurements.  Guess that means I'm a specs man  

edit - i'm probably not the person you were directing the question to, but just adding to the discussion!

That's really cool!

IIRC, one of the brands (here) was also applying that process to calculate density.

[InternalTraining]

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?

It's not just a mallet test. I was told that he has created a contraption for his tests but no more details were provided.  Regarding "standardised specs" and "bat sizing", I'd include measurement of performance/ping in specs even though it is non-existent today doesn't mean it won't exist in the future. Current standard of bat sizing is wrong.

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.

So, we are back to square one on performance of "low-density" clefts. I could never get a straight answer on why low-density clefts were better performers.

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.

Only one entity benefits when one kind of willow supposedly supersedes others which happens to be an England based business. It is their monopoly, isn't it? Serbian or Kashmir willow is not good enough for cricket bats? I find it hard to believe. Composite materials will remove lot of question marks and new cricketers will be able to focus on skill rather than bat, they should be considered for non-professional, recreational players.

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?!

All fair questions. I have written a bit about what I'd prefer as metrics. I will come back to this later.

[InternalTraining]

Think this is a good point and one I always wonder with 'low density' bats. I've seen a few through the workshop which are massive for the weight, but when I work on them you can tell they're very dry. Big difference between low density and just overdried. If a cleft is very light with 12% moisture then I'd say it's obviously low density. If it's light because its a much lower moisture content/percentage, then obviously not.

Yes. There are over dried clefts that weigh less than "other" clefts and some are just lighter. Moisture level was the "spec" that was mentioned.

[InternalTraining]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if cricket adopted what large parts of baseball has for bats - if you want to make bats out of composite materials then go ahead, but they have to be limited to a certain performance level.

Yes. I used to play softball with aluminum bats and nobody thought about bats' performance.

For recreational/weekend players, this would be a boon. Also, for younger players who are just starting out...more focus on skill...etc.

[jonny77]

It's not just a mallet test. I was told that he has created a contraption for his tests but no more details were provided.  Regarding "standardised specs" and "bat sizing", I'd include measurement of performance/ping in specs even though it is non-existent today doesn't mean it won't exist in the future. Current standard of bat sizing is wrong.
 

So, we are back to square one on performance of "low-density" clefts. I could never get a straight answer on why low-density clefts were better performers.
 Only one entity benefits when one kind of willow supposedly supersedes others which happens to be an England based business. It is their monopoly, isn't it? Serbian or Kashmir willow is not good enough for cricket bats? I find it hard to believe. Composite materials will remove lot of question marks and new cricketers will be able to focus on skill rather than bat, they should be considered for non-professional, recreational players.
 All fair questions. I have written a bit about what I'd prefer as metrics. I will come back to this later.

And how are you proposing the spec pf ping/performance is measured and by who? Just the batmaker rating them from 1 to 10? Won't be many 1s I'd guess

[jonny77]

Yes. There are over dried clefts that weigh less than "other" clefts and some are just lighter. Moisture level was the "spec" that was mentioned.

Sorry, you've lost me here

[InternalTraining]

^ I meant low-density clefts.

[jonny77]

^ I meant low-density clefts.

Sorry, still lost. When did you mean low-density clefts?

[Kulli]

Some weigh less, whereas others are lighter 🤔