Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Concaved Back vs Full Back  (Read 1895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

edge

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3996
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2019, 08:45:48 PM »

I think you're exactly right with this - the conclusions drawn in the video don't seem to make much sense logically.

Regarding "flat planks" - I suspect that that's where (at least historically) the rigidity argument comes into play. Certainly, by intuition a thin, flat plank would flex a lot upon hitting the ball, whereas a traditional bat with thin edges and a moderate spine (in a triangular, full profile) would flex much less.

Whether this argument still applies now, when even a flat plank would probably be 50mm thick, I'm not sure
The flex in either of them will be pretty negligble, rotational inertia is far more significant here - Chompy's para explained it well.

To be honest nobody wants a bat with the life concaved out of it, and these days noone wants one with tiny edges either, so the comparison is slightly moot.
Logged
HS: 156, BB: 7-20

OllieWalker39

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2019, 02:24:08 PM »

Opening Bat: Technically correct, but can play all around the wicket - best shots usually early on are an on-drive and noodling about, then get in a bit more and will expand to cuts and pulls with more expansive drives also. I find most off-the-shelf Ghosts to be a shade on the heavier side in all honesty! When playing well, I'll be fine with a concentrated middle, but we do play on some horrendous pitches which aren't conducive to stroke-play, so I will tee-off on those. No point prodding about if the pitch is going to get you at some point anyway!

GM handles aren't my favourite unfortunately, but if needs must I guess I could adapt to one. I find GN you pay a lot of money to get something that isn't always a great blade. I have looked at a Kahuna - seems to be a good compromise bat with a mid-middle to suit all round strokeplay. I can use a mid-middle even on lower bouncing pitches... sometimes being 5ft 9 has some huge advantages!  :D

Looking on The Cricket Boutique and some of the TKs look incredible: I don't know how in a month of Sundays the G3 ones are rated as G3. Straight grain, minimal heartwood, and specs to weight seem to suggest they're not the heaviest of clefts before shaving! The G2 look barely different, perhaps the additional grain or so! (I had a Woodstuck before I finished that off this season, and that was very very good. I do believe Keeley and John worked together before going to form their own companies?)
Logged

Mfarank

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2019, 02:56:22 PM »

Opening Bat: Technically correct, but can play all around the wicket - best shots usually early on are an on-drive and noodling about, then get in a bit more and will expand to cuts and pulls with more expansive drives also. I find most off-the-shelf Ghosts to be a shade on the heavier side in all honesty! When playing well, I'll be fine with a concentrated middle, but we do play on some horrendous pitches which aren't conducive to stroke-play, so I will tee-off on those. No point prodding about if the pitch is going to get you at some point anyway!

GM handles aren't my favourite unfortunately, but if needs must I guess I could adapt to one. I find GN you pay a lot of money to get something that isn't always a great blade. I have looked at a Kahuna - seems to be a good compromise bat with a mid-middle to suit all round strokeplay. I can use a mid-middle even on lower bouncing pitches... sometimes being 5ft 9 has some huge advantages!  :D

Looking on The Cricket Boutique and some of the TKs look incredible: I don't know how in a month of Sundays the G3 ones are rated as G3. Straight grain, minimal heartwood, and specs to weight seem to suggest they're not the heaviest of clefts before shaving! The G2 look barely different, perhaps the additional grain or so! (I had a Woodstuck before I finished that off this season, and that was very very good. I do believe Keeley and John worked together before going to form their own companies?)

If you're into Keeley bats, check out Blank Bats as well. Their B4 shape is a favorite!
Logged

alee

  • County 2nd XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2019, 05:55:34 AM »

little bit of concaving will definately improve the pickup and balance.
Logged

OllieWalker39

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2019, 08:31:52 PM »

If you're into Keeley bats, check out Blank Bats as well. Their B4 shape is a favorite!

I've just had a nightmare: 0, caught... trying to go over the top. Normal shot for me, even early on, and it just did not feel good off the bat... so definitely time for a replacement!
Looked at the B4 - shape looks lovely. Looks quite the all rounder. The big question: where are they based? Ideally I'm wanting to see what I'm getting, and even have a feel - whilst not as common in the custom / boutique brands, you can get "G1" bats that are dogs, and "G3" bats that are just guns. [I am expecting another one miles and miles down south (like Keeley)] (I'm a Harrogate man, so Northern as it gets really... :o)
Most certainly not bothered by brand name, although I am keen to avoid those off the shelf really: I feel these days the major brands care not what they sticker up, and just churn out sticks galore without the care and attention afforded by the smaller guys (in terms of market share) such as Keeley, Woodstock, etc.

@alee Agreed. I'm just wondering if there was an advantage to a more pronounced concave (from a physics perspective). But seemingly it is more aimed at spreading the sweetspot a bit, albeit a the cost of the actual middle. Food for thought!
Logged

Mfarank

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2019, 08:35:38 PM »

I've just had a nightmare: 0, caught... trying to go over the top. Normal shot for me, even early on, and it just did not feel good off the bat... so definitely time for a replacement!
Looked at the B4 - shape looks lovely. Looks quite the all rounder. The big question: where are they based? Ideally I'm wanting to see what I'm getting, and even have a feel - whilst not as common in the custom / boutique brands, you can get "G1" bats that are dogs, and "G3" bats that are just guns. [I am expecting another one miles and miles down south (like Keeley)] (I'm a Harrogate man, so Northern as it gets really... :o)
Most certainly not bothered by brand name, although I am keen to avoid those off the shelf really: I feel these days the major brands care not what they sticker up, and just churn out sticks galore without the care and attention afforded by the smaller guys (in terms of market share) such as Keeley, Woodstock, etc.

@alee Agreed. I'm just wondering if there was an advantage to a more pronounced concave (from a physics perspective). But seemingly it is more aimed at spreading the sweetspot a bit, albeit a the cost of the actual middle. Food for thought!
BBs are TK made and are based in sussex i believe (not sure). You can have a look at their website and get in touch with Tai. He will hook you up with a gun. Alternatively you can visit Itsjustcricket in london and they will have a few handpicked ones in stock (albeit priced higher)
Logged

LEACHY48

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1586
  • Trade Count: (+3)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2019, 09:39:44 PM »

@OllieWalker39 up on Harrogate your best bet is Kippax, I've had 2 and they were guns 1 was made for Mark stoneman and the other just an off the shelf. I'd go and have a visit tbh
Logged

OllieWalker39

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2019, 07:48:02 AM »

@LEACHY48  - I've had a Kippax and they are fantastic bats - Chris makes some real belters. I just hate the wavex handle! Couldn't get on with using it. So sold it on to a lad at the club who's scored a few 50s and the odd 100 with it...  :(

@Mfarank Looking online IJC don't seem to have any in stock (1 T20 XL style, but 399.99 is a bit over what I'm wanting to pay, and the amount I use the toe after yorking myself...)! I get free or reduced rate (operator dependent) train travel, so if he's near a station...!

Aside from this, and hijacking the knowledge in this thread somewhat: who makes Bear Cricket bats?
Logged

jonny77

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 675
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2019, 07:51:53 AM »

Bear are Kippax made.
Logged

OllieWalker39

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2019, 08:10:45 AM »

Bear are Kippax made.

I should have worked that out considering location and the fact the wood is sourced from a "Private Forest"... Silly me!  :D
Logged

Mfarank

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Concaved Back vs Full Back
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2019, 08:18:13 AM »

Speak to Tai directly from Blank bats. His number is there on the BB website
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Advertise on CBF