Advertise on CBF

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving  (Read 628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sitonit

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 966
  • Trade Count: (0)
Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« on: October 16, 2020, 06:44:55 PM »


So having looked at a few modern day international pro bats, we notice that most of them are basically designed with the concept of thick edges and spine height that barely passes through the Gauge. And then these  bats may have a various degree of concaving.

But on the other hand, we see some bats churned out by the whittlers with narrow edges, a high spine and no concaving.

The question is, if the second type was more effective or even equally effective as type 1, wouldn't an international pro use such a shape? Why there is hardly any international pro who uses a bat with narrow edges and no concaving? 
Logged

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2020, 06:46:33 PM »

Probably because the top international pros can get low density willow and have full profiles, high spine and big edges. But also I suspect because a lot of them are less fussy about what they're given to bat with as long as it pings.
Logged

SD

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 837
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2020, 11:42:23 AM »

I use bats around the 3lbs me to so, with modern bat regs get bats with big edges and no concaving but if I did have to pick then i would go for bigger edges with concaving.  Gives you a bigger margin for error by elongating the middle of the bat.  In an ideal world you would always find the middle of the bat, but that certainly isn't something that I am capable of
Logged

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2020, 12:58:54 PM »

I use bats around the 3lbs me to so, with modern bat regs get bats with big edges and no concaving but if I did have to pick then i would go for bigger edges with concaving.  Gives you a bigger margin for error by elongating the middle of the bat.  In an ideal world you would always find the middle of the bat, but that certainly isn't something that I am capable of

Do you mean widening the middle? I don't understand how concaving would give a longer middle.
Logged

RPC/Blueroom Cricket - Adie

  • Forum Sponsor
  • Forum Legend
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7020
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2020, 01:06:21 PM »

Do you mean widening the middle? I don't understand how concaving would give a longer middle.

It gives a Longer middle, not a wider one.
Logged

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2020, 01:13:37 PM »

It gives a Longer middle, not a wider one.

Can you explain how? Struggling to see how taking a shape and removing wood from the back lengthens the middle.
Logged

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2020, 01:54:15 PM »

My understanding was:

High spine - powerful middle
Elongated spine - longer middle
Big edges - more forgiving for off centre shots
Full profile - wider middle

The ideal bat would have all of these but it would be enormous so to compromise you pick what suits you best. Concaving is done to bring the weight down, either to make a bat a usable weight or to allow for the shape to be adjusted, eg take weight out of the back to allow for a higher spine or bigger edges.

Anything I'm missing there/have got totally wrong?
Logged

procricket

Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2020, 08:01:48 AM »

The above post bat the edge,  The edge was designed to sell heavier wood with heavier Concaving to trick the mind it was a big bat.

The coverage of a bat has always been key in bat's especially for us people who do not middle as many as we like.

Shapes like the tour and f18 are well even shapes all over giving good coverage now the "pro shape"  which is basically a well coverage full blade by and large

I'm not a scientific man but I do know when I designed a flat profile with B3 the zizi which was not to different to the tour that spine height and edge size is all in the mind.

Coverage a bat with similar spec from under the spiice to around 4 inch from the toe keeping the hitting areas consistant is key for a bat in my eye

Edge size and spine height tricks of the mind
Logged
"Doubt whoever but never doubt yourself"

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2020, 08:34:43 AM »

The above post bat the edge,  The edge was designed to sell heavier wood with heavier Concaving to trick the mind it was a big bat.

The coverage of a bat has always been key in bat's especially for us people who do not middle as many as we like.

Shapes like the tour and f18 are well even shapes all over giving good coverage now the "pro shape"  which is basically a well coverage full blade by and large

I'm not a scientific man but I do know when I designed a flat profile with B3 the zizi which was not to different to the tour that spine height and edge size is all in the mind.

Coverage a bat with similar spec from under the spiice to around 4 inch from the toe keeping the hitting areas consistant is key for a bat in my eye

Edge size and spine height tricks of the mind

So would you recommend a full, balanced profile to the average clubbie batsman?
Logged

Sitonit

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 966
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2020, 01:07:07 PM »

The above post bat the edge,  The edge was designed to sell heavier wood with heavier Concaving to trick the mind it was a big bat.

The coverage of a bat has always been key in bat's especially for us people who do not middle as many as we like.

Shapes like the tour and f18 are well even shapes all over giving good coverage now the "pro shape"  which is basically a well coverage full blade by and large

I'm not a scientific man but I do know when I designed a flat profile with B3 the zizi which was not to different to the tour that spine height and edge size is all in the mind.

Coverage a bat with similar spec from under the spiice to around 4 inch from the toe keeping the hitting areas consistant is key for a bat in my eye

Edge size and spine height tricks of the mind

Yeah but then, pick a bat from late seventies and early eighties (before the big edges were introduced) and you will notice that they look like thin planks but many are quite heavy, like 2.12 range.

It seems as if heavy and dense wood was used more then, so how come big edges were introduced to trick the mind in an effort to sell heavy wood?
An old timer thin bat is already heavier then big edge bat with a lot more timber. Unless of course, the old timed thin bats were never air dried?
Logged

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2020, 01:27:04 PM »

Yeah but then, pick a bat from late seventies and early eighties (before the big edges were introduced) and you will notice that they look like thin planks but many are quite heavy, like 2.12 range.

It seems as if heavy and dense wood was used more then, so how come big edges were introduced to trick the mind in an effort to sell heavy wood?
An old timer thin bat is already heavier then big edge bat with a lot more timber. Unless of course, the old timed thin bats were never air dried?

I think it's generally accepted that bats now are dried more than they were historically?
Logged

InternalTraining

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4327
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2020, 03:49:00 PM »

The above post bat the edge,  The edge was designed to sell heavier wood with heavier Concaving to trick the mind it was a big bat.

The coverage of a bat has always been key in bat's especially for us people who do not middle as many as we like.

Shapes like the tour and f18 are well even shapes all over giving good coverage now the "pro shape"  which is basically a well coverage full blade by and large

I'm not a scientific man but I do know when I designed a flat profile with B3 the zizi which was not to different to the tour that spine height and edge size is all in the mind.

Coverage a bat with similar spec from under the spiice to around 4 inch from the toe keeping the hitting areas consistant is key for a bat in my eye

Edge size and spine height tricks of the mind

Very informative post, thanks!

Isn't F-18 a better balanced version of the Tendulkar profile?
Logged

DorsetDan

  • First XI Captain
  • ***
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 200
  • Trade Count: (+1)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2020, 04:00:02 PM »

^ that should get you a ban from a cricket bat geek forum 😂 nothing alike
Logged

procricket

  • International Superstar
  • *******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14242
  • Trade Count: (+32)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2020, 04:56:16 PM »

So would you recommend a full, balanced profile to the average clubbie batsman?

I would everytime say to a person coverage over size of a edge or spine for sure.

Old bat's used to hit the ball as far as big bat's people fitness and intent has changed as the game has.

I have used the b52 XL based on a Tendulkar it was 3lb yes I see your comparison to the f18 which is a small full bat or the ones I have seen are.

Spines a intresting one when is it wasted extra wood same with edge size

Guess power of the mind I don't like Concaving I have always found a fuller back equals more coverage which means poorly hit balls go better of it less torque as I think streaky used to say bit for me I found the zizi bat I designed with streaky as the ideal bat nice and light and not needed to be over light cleft.

When people wanted big bat's the trade needed a way to get big bat's with heavy clefts.



« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 05:05:03 PM by procricket »
Logged
"Doubt whoever but never doubt yourself"

Jimbo

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Thick Edges with Concaving vs Narrow edges with no concaving
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2020, 05:23:07 PM »

That's interesting. Only bat I've ever owned with really big edges was a Kippax and ended up selling it because I just couldn't get on with it. All the bats I've actually hung onto have edges 35mm or under and I don't think any are 60mm spines.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
 

Advertise on CBF