Print

[tim2000s]

Having picked up a few older bats off ebay (V1200 and 800) and hit balls and mallets with them, I notice that the middles seem smaller and the ping a lot less than some of my newer bats. The Lekka and the V1200 are very similar weight wise but the Lekka is a much larger profile and just seems to ping better.

Is this really true, and are newer bats pressed and shaped differently or am I just hallucinating because I want the newer bats to be better?

[Kulli]

The very fact they're older will play a fair part I'd say.

[tim2000s]

I guess that's one for the batmakers... Does an old piece of willow lose its ping? The V1200 is supposed to have had little use (maybe 10 games) so I wouldn't expect it to have dulled particularly.

[Talisman]

It will as the sap will dry out and the fibres will decompress a little but also it may gain moisture that will alter the cell structure internally.

[Canners]

you hear alot of commentators going on about these new bats the players use, so im follow up to Tims's question...... are the more recent bats alot better than the ones say 20 years ago, and if so why?

[Uzi Sports]

Mike u are sounding like a Biology teacher. I thought this was a cricket forum.

Regards

Asad

[Talisman]

Mainly as the need for better bats has forced people to improve the making process in all areas. Willow is dried out more which gives a bigger bat.

Asad, knowledge is power!!! and your homework is due tomorrow.....

[Uzi Sports]

Sir Mike I finished my home work many years ago, you need to find some young students.
You are correct bat making process has changed over the years and they are getting better in quality.

Asad

[jonpinson]

I've always been a little sceptical about the 'modern bats are so much better...' line spoken by so many players and particularly ex player commentators. Lets take what Mike says as true, and assume bats are dried more to get a bigger volume per weight. Now this may be fine for pros for whom bats breaking more often isn't an issue, but is it such a good thing for us normal folk, to whom having to buy bats more regularly is a real problem.

When I get the time and inspiration (could have easily done it today, didn't get round to it) I will make a comparison thread. I have 2 bats of the same weight made by the same person a decade apart. The visual difference is remarkable. I will be attempting to determine as scientifically as possible if any given modern bat is indeed better than it's older counterpart.

There is only one truely 'traditional' bat that I know is still made today, and that is the Mjolnir. Thin edges (by today's standards) and a steep transition from edge to middle. I believe the biggest change in bats and batmaking is the perception of the public who will buy them. Of those of us who were playing ten years ago, can any of us remember being particularly bothered about having huge edges? I certainly can't. Concaving? Never seen, never heard of a decade ago.

Nowadays I reckon bat makers have moved from 'traditional' to 'modern' profiles because they know they are more likely to sell. Everyone wants big edges, everyone wants a bat that has had half a pound of wood scalloped out from the back. But do we really know why?

A bat with big edges for it's weight is attractive because it looks imposing. I suppose it looks 'better' than a traditional equivelent. This could well be due to the same reason we all want bats with clean faces and straight grains. If it looks bigger, or prettier, or generally better, we assume it will perform better. Lets face it, if any of us were offered two bats of identical performance, one pretty, one ugly, we would all choose the pretty one. Even knowing the performance to be the same, we would select for nothing more than looks. Bat makers realise this, which is why it is near impossible to find a non concaved small edged bat in any shop today.

I could rant for hours, and I will, but there is a taster for you.

[tim2000s]

An interesting rant/onservation Jon. I raised this question because of what I had observed and because the bat that I have had the best use of is not a modern shape, or rather was not as it is dead now.

I don't know how effective big edges are in a game other than giving a ball more chance of carrying to the slips! I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of concaving, and I think my Lekka is one of my better looking bats due to this.

[jonpinson]

An interesting rant/onservation Jon. I raised this question because of what I had observed and because the bat that I have had the best use of is not a modern shape, or rather was not as it is dead now.

I don't know how effective big edges are in a game other than giving a ball more chance of carrying to the slips! I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of concaving, and I think my Lekka is one of my better looking bats due to this.

Yeh I don't follow the logic of the big edges thing. I'm sure I read recently one maker saying big edges were good if you edge the ball alot. I don't know where to begin with whats wrong with that. I'd rather rely on timing and technique to ensure I middle the ball.

I will do the comparison soon, I am expecting it to yield interesting results.

[Tom]

The majority use what the pros are seen using, which is big edge bats with large bows. Concaving is a necessity for makers wanting the big edges at a light weight from an average cleft.

[niceonechoppy]

I swear someone on here has said that the Traditional bats have greater density/power per kg than their Big concaved counterparts....

[tim2000s]

Other than employing norbs to create a spectaclur experiment (and I think I already know his opinion - see his blog), can anyone think of a good empirical experiment to solve this?

[Talisman]

Place a bat in a container and fill with dry sand, then measure the volume of sand to top up the container and repeat with a second bat, once the respective volumes of the bats have been worked out weigh each one and then find the density of the willow. If both bats are equal in density then you can perform rebound tests on each to find the greater performance.