Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: 9 ball, Bobby B; 126 anonymousDiscussion: Adoption of modification in bat standard
| Posted | Discussion |
| Jan. 22, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | Adoption of modification in bat standard Under the new change adopted today will the Ultra 2 and Yellow Combat still be approved bats? |
| Jan. 22, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | It would be nice to have each senior bat listed and also if it passes the 1.21 test. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | Hit em until they say you cant. Or until we see the Miken logo disappear. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | I just purchased a new Yellow Combat to back up one that is starting to crack. The point is many players will be purchasing bats for the upcoming season. If any of the bats that we have been using the last few years will be banned as a result of this modification we need to know now. Just looking for some plain English instead of stats. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 salio2k Men's 60 547 posts | Not only will the U2 and MM Gear be approved, the new bats can be a touch hotter. That is what gathered from reading the modification. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 bullet Men's 55 146 posts | I aggree with Bob50,just some plain english.List the bats you can't use.Oh i'm sure UltraII and Combat Gear,will be OK to use,cause there is ALOT of money being made off of them. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | It is not the bats that changed it is the bat test. Same bats new test equipment. |
| Jan. 22, 2010 birdie Men's 70 802 posts | Trumpball, Now that was easy to understand. Thanks Harry |
| Jan. 22, 2010 angus73 Men's 65 100 posts | Trumpball; if I order a new Senior Gear bat will it have the new end cap ? |
| Jan. 23, 2010 Corky Men's 55 451 posts | Should we expect to see 47/525's instead of the 47/375's. (uh oh hope this doesn't get someone started) at most of the SSUSA events, and will SPA follow. We're buying new balls for BP and it would be nice to know. |
| Jan. 23, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I think it means something to how bats were/are tested and not the balls we'll be hitting with. Those standards, to me, aren't and will not change at least for this year. For seniors and others it will be 44x375 balls and 1.2O or 1.21 bats depending on the association. This is just my understanding, to date. There's others who understand this whole bat/ball riddle better, I'm sure or who could explain whatever the changes will mean to us. |
| Jan. 23, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | The bats are not changing, this just means that with the up grades to Dr Brandt's equipment and the use of .47 cor balls the current bats will test at 1.21. It does not mean we can make them better, all it means is that they now will test that high occording to his equipment. So the simple answer is the bat you are swinging now will test at 1.21 with the new test. |
| Jan. 23, 2010 jah#4 Men's 70 576 posts | I was told to look for the new Easton senior bat coming out and see the rating on it. Then some of the questions will be answered. I still can't believe as big as testing group as Dr. Brandt group nd all the testing they do they could not find any 44/375 balls to test with. Like Joe explained maybe the riddle will be clear Don Ward Southern Slam 55 Kaysons Grille 50 |
| Jan. 23, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | trumpball, Why would they use the 47\525 balls for this instead of the 44\375's for test purposes? Since they do not use them (47\525) any longer I do not see the point in it. If it is number manipulation to achieve a result, I can. On another note, I noticed the web site does not list your 52\275 balls or at least I couldn't find them. |
| Jan. 24, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | The memo at the end of the adoption modification seemed to possibly indicate that bats when broken in would still need to pass the new standard. Is this correct or not? We know most bats get hotter over time. Will this be part of the new requirement? If not there should be no real impact. If so, more questions arise. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | The reason that he is using high comp balls is they are much easier to make and keep in a tight tolerence. I 1 case (72 of balls)you may only find 3-4 balls that are within spec for the test. Then add in that after 20-30 impacts they may not be within specs. That makes testing balls to find some to test bats a real nightmare. He only uses 1 company for the balls and I am not sure he has even tested others to see if he could get better results. With all of this talk about softballs by the resident expert on here I am really surprised that he has written a thesis on this subject. As many of you more intelligent players you know that in low cor low comp balls there are many non-favorable properties. Ablility to control the compression is the biggest one, heat and humidity is another. About the only bats that would pass this test when fully broken in would be the new ASA bats. None of the seniors or USSSA bats would pass fully broken in. The test done using any cor ball and that is part of the formula, as a matter of fact the last calculation is divide by the cor. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | trumpball, My gut feeling is the 40 & 44 cor and the various comp balls available are really not as good (longevity, pop & temp) for use as the 47 or more cor's with say a 525 comp. Wondering if your second paragraph is your thoughts or the "thesis" author". That means it's a numbers game to keep the senior bats IN and to keep the manufacturers, distributors, sponsors happy. I think the 'thesis' is being wrote in stages and cypher text. Please send me link to the page(s) on 52\275 balls. thanks |
| Jan. 25, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | It's all a numbers game and they can be manipulated in many ways. Senior bats broken in exceed 1.30 on many occasions. Compression of .44/375 ball can vary as much as 100 lbs before the heat gets to them. That means 50 lbs up and down. So when we make balls they are always on the low side of the spec. We shoot for 345 lbs to allow error and still be in spec. Our consistency is far better than most of our competitors. Another thing is you can test the same bat on 2 different days and get 2 different readings. Not by that much but enough to pass or fail. so when you all complain about the bat/ball combo you should thank the associations for allowing you to play with equipment that no one else would. They don't and never will pass a true 1.20 test and none of them will pass the test as used in the game broken in. Try to put ak-rp-y in the search function. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | thanks for search idea. As for the 'test', in all likely hood, done indoors & no doubt in constant temps. for more unrealistically controlled given the extremes between players and conditions. But a baseline for its use I'll agree. I think they would still play but it would be awhile for the chatter to calm on that part. One other part to worry about is the illegalities that would increase, probably even more than they are presently and that is pretty much anywhere you want to look. I can remember an old grey "Outlaw" bat I believe it was called, with a 1.50 BPF I had. Think it was an Easton. Great bat... Thanks again. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | The old bats were the rebel by easton, the outlaw by tps and the lighthouse by worth. All of these bats were marked 1.30 but were no different than other approved models with different graphics. The ASA back then had no bpf rating so the bat companies knew by putting 1.30 on the bat they would increase sales. Remember the 1.30 meant the bat did not perform higher than 1.30. They never put how much less than that they performed. Even the old 1.20 single wall bats did not perform that well, they just couldn't perform over that. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Same bats different graphics seems to be the norm anyway. I got the maker wrong, memory thing and it was awhile back... I think the Powerhouse Ozone was a SW bat, I still have one in the wrapper. Didn't ant to use it cause I messed up a DeMarini Weapon the week I bought it. Sent you a note. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Maybe you were thinking of the Powerhoulse Team Players Model, ASA (American Sports Assoc) approved and bfp (instead of BPF)120. I was told it was more like bpf 1.40. I had one and it didn't hit like it was over 1.20. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Bruce, I remember when they did that. I was just referring to one of the two modes they had for the Ozone. I had a green and still have a red one. I don't remember if the green was any good and the red one is in a tube or box somewhere in storage. I doubt either are or were a 'players model'. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | It's not that they were players models, the name of the bat was "Players Model". Troy Brumalow owned Powerhouse. He and I sponsored a GT here in N. Atlanta back in 2002. Baer would remember it! |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | I remember a GT way back when that was mentioned on either Mohr or the fans site. But that is about all. I think they are good ideas but conflicting with tourney dates I seem to remember were and would be a problem for some, not to mention location. Got it in model name... Never saw one of them. We don't ger many bats made back east out here in CA, you have to know about them and search online or ebay for them. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | There is only so much you can do with aluminum. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | It was a Mohr Board GT. 10-4 on local bats never making it acorss the country. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Alum bats were good and hold a respected place in bat history. Many good one and some duds over the years. You should have had a good turn out within your area though for the GT. I'd like to see one in CA but problematic with fields, location, tourneys and you name it to screw it up. Might be nice to have a GT, INSTEAD of one or two of the T's around, even if one of on either side of the US. Maybe a lottery for players out of a hat for making up teams, (what you draw you get). The level is no concern. But perhaps only age within maybe more lenient guide lines. One way to meet others you might never get to. |
| Jan. 25, 2010 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | taits, Back in the day when I was a rebel,I use to load aluminum bats for most of the open league players here in Austin.At that time, I didn't think about it as cheating,just making a little money on the side.The old aluminum bats I loaded were the Bombat,TPS,Adirondack(spell check) and any bat that they brought to me.The way I loaded them really made a difference.All was well until one tournament I was batting and hit a rope to right field,as soon as I hit it,there was this loud pop,and there I was looking at all my end loaded stuff coming out of the bat.Watched the rest of the tournament from the stands,as I should had,learned a lesson. |
| Jan. 27, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | Dave, Can we get some official response as to the purpose of this adoption and what it is hoped to accomplish in terms of bat limits? Was it intended to provide a standard for testing a bat after use of just out of the wrapper? |
| Jan. 27, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Bob50, I think most or all info is in the red box at the top of the page. But I'd bet there is still some in the closet as well. |
| Jan. 27, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | taits, That's what I'm trying to find out. What is the agenda for this change? There may not be anything to be concerned about but I would just think it would be nice to hear that for sure. It was done for some purpose. |
| Jan. 27, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Bob50, I tried to email you but it was returned. E-me tait_ebay@yahoo.com |
| Jan. 29, 2010 MaverickAH 58 posts | Bob50, A very astute & valid question to ask! Taits, I think what Bob50 is asking is more along the lines of this: 1. What if the new instruments measured the U2 & Yellow Combat at 1.25Bpf? Would the new limit have been put at 1.25? What if they tested even higher? Would SSUSA have put the allowable limit at whatever to keep these bats legal? 2. Dr. Brandt has new, more accurate test equipment. So what? It really doesn’t amount to much unless he updates his process as well! His original test was designed to measure the performance of metal bats. Metal bats can be tested out of the wrapper as their performance will not increase significantly after their manufacture. Composites are a whole different animal. As they are hit, as they “break in”, their performance measurably increases. If Dr. Brandt is not incorporating this fact into his testing (as the ASA has done!), he is not getting accurate, real world results! The question that needs to be asked is, “Is the fact that composite bat performance increases with use being taken into account when testing is done?” |
| Jan. 29, 2010 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | MaverickAH, I did have concerns in this regard. I was assured in a private email with SSUSA that there is no plan to retest a bat after use. The standard was raised from 1.20 to 1.21 to allow 2 new bats out of the wrapper to be legal. The only assurance I wanted was that this was not a plan to somehow start banning bats that we all commonly use now. I received that insurance so I am satisfied and this should hopefully close this matter. |
| Jan. 30, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | MaverickAH, Bob is correct. May even allow a cushion (my words not theirs) for any other new bat that is coming out & not currently known about. I still have a reservation on it, maybe 2, but will await the next news paper to read what it will have to say about the matter. Should be an interesting article. I inquired about the new rules book for this year and I believe they shout be available some time in March. Good luck or skills to all that are going to the TOC, have a healthy & safe trip. |
